GAC06 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian centers look to be picking back up again.

It was previously stated by Ukrainian Intelligence last week that Russia had Deployed at least 8 Missile Carriers from Ports in the Black Sea, however its expected that Severe Weather had forced them back to Port over the weekend.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 28, 2023

---

The ship in the foreground is currently deployed to the bottom of the Black Sea

---

It must have identified itself as a submarine.

Spacety has always said it complies with international sanctions but was added to the blacklist by the US Treasury Department in January 2023

HEAD Aerospace Technology is another Chinese satellite company that has aided the Russian military

— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) March 1, 2023

Eliminatus said:

---

74OA said:

---

The missing piece is airpower. It is a key component of combined arms operations and particularly valuable for reaching into a defense in depth to disrupt it and interdict its supporting LOCs.

At the moment, however, air defenses are denying both sides the ability to effectively employ airpower in most of its traditional combat roles.

Within its range limits, HIMARS' responsiveness and accuracy do give Ukraine a facsimile of some aspects of airpower and it is more operationally impactful than are Russia's longer-ranged but intermittent and low-volume cruise missile/suicide drone strikes.

Most occupied territory is now within HIMARS range, so it will be interesting to see if it can substitute for airpower sufficiently to break open Russia's well-prepared defenses for a ground attack in the South.

---

Aye. Definitely not alone in thinking lack of air superiority is the number one failing of the Russians to date by a large margin. I think you are right in the role of HIMARS to some extent but I see it more as a strategic asset, going after supply dumps, command and control centers, troop barracks and repair shops, etc. Quick tactical long range assets still seems to fall to arty and maybe drones a bit. Which is not a real substitute for the Ukes I don't think.

Also question the numbers of HIMARS available. We don't make THAT many of them and the Russians are proving a very old theory of war. No matter how good your best weapon is, it usually is not enough to stop a determined enemy by itself. The Ukes have done great work with HIMARS to date but damn me if it doesn't look like whack a mole.

---

A breaching operation to get through those minefields should be at least a brigade level effort, with support from division and possibly corps level assets, and fixed wing air support if available.

The suppression needs to include counter-fire missions on as much enemy artillery as you can find that can range your breach site(s). HIMARS/MLRS is very good at this, assuming your intel/recon has found the targets. I don't know about how the Ukes have their units organized, but back in the pre-BCT days, each U.S. Army mech/armor division had a battalion of MLRS in their DIVARTY brigade. Note that you don't actually have to kill the enemy artillery - you just have to keep them from being able to set up and fire.

The obscuration needs to include jamming, shooting down, or otherwise neutralizing drones. Drones are OPs in the sky, and as long as they can see where you're trying to breach, you've got a problem. Even if you've neutralized the defender's artillery, knowing where you're at allows him to bring ground maneuver units in to kill your breachers. Actually, for at least some of those mine fields, drones might be the primary means of keeping eyes on the obstacle. Artillery (or mortar) smoke missions should then go in at multiple locations, not just the one where you're actually going to breach.

You're going to need a lot of artillery to make it work, especially in the absence of effective air support. That's why it's got to be, like I said, at least a brigade level operation, with heavy indirect fire and engineer support. That penny packet stuff just loses people and equipment to no purpose.

I was in a mech infantry battalion in Germany in the late 90s, and the biggest attack/breach missions we ever did at CMTC were battalion level (because that's all the sandbox there has space for). On one breach mission where my company had the primary breach, my company took something like 90% casualties. We lost 8 of 10 Brads, 3 of 4 dismount infantry squads, the entire attached tank platoon, most of the attached engineer platoon (I think they had 5 or 6 survivors), the CO, and the XO.

NTC at Ft Irwin has a bigger sandbox to play in, and they do brigade/BCT level rotations. I don't know if they still do breach missions like this, though.

Of course the Russian Foreign Ministry provides No Evidence of this so it is most likely just more claims to try and Destabilize the Region like they have been attempted to do for weeks now.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 1, 2023

JB!98 said:

---

BattleGrackle said:

---

Russia's skill at destroying Ukrainian anti-tank mines is impressive

Two more anti-tank mines were successfully destroyed by Russian troops in the Vuhledar front pic.twitter.com/Vz2XjkgOQ5

— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) February 28, 2023

---

Who is driving these APC's and tanks, Toonces?

---

That brings back memories, thanks for the laugh this morning!

I think they'd be happy about making minimal gains, as long as it continues to sap men and resources from Ukraine. I'm not convinced that the main objective of Russia is to grind Ukraine down so that they'll be easier to defend against if they ever try to attempt another counter-offensive, as opposed to gaining vast swaths of new territory.

Time is on Russia's side. The west already has a sizable contingent that thinks this war is a waste of lives and resources. Russia however is united, bolstered by a strong partner in China. The longer this drags out without a major Ukrainian victory, (Either kicking the Russians out of Donetsk oblast or cutting off the land bridge via Zaporizhzhia), the more likely the west will eventually sue for peace.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

74OA said:

---

The missing piece is airpower. It is a key component of combined arms operations and particularly valuable for reaching into a defense in depth to disrupt it and interdict its supporting LOCs.

At the moment, however, air defenses are denying both sides the ability to effectively employ airpower in most of its traditional combat roles.

Within its range limits, HIMARS' responsiveness and accuracy do give Ukraine a facsimile of some aspects of airpower and it is more operationally impactful than are Russia's longer-ranged but intermittent and low-volume cruise missile/suicide drone strikes.

Most occupied territory is now within HIMARS range, so it will be interesting to see if it can substitute for airpower sufficiently to break open Russia's well-prepared defenses for a ground attack in the South.

---

Aye. Definitely not alone in thinking lack of air superiority is the number one failing of the Russians to date by a large margin. I think you are right in the role of HIMARS to some extent but I see it more as a strategic asset, going after supply dumps, command and control centers, troop barracks and repair shops, etc. Quick tactical long range assets still seems to fall to arty and maybe drones a bit. Which is not a real substitute for the Ukes I don't think.

Also question the numbers of HIMARS available. We don't make THAT many of them and the Russians are proving a very old theory of war. No matter how good your best weapon is, it usually is not enough to stop a determined enemy by itself. The Ukes have done great work with HIMARS to date but damn me if it doesn't look like whack a mole.

---

A breaching operation to get through those minefields should be at least a brigade level effort, with support from division and possibly corps level assets, and fixed wing air support if available.

The suppression needs to include counter-fire missions on as much enemy artillery as you can find that can range your breach site(s). HIMARS/MLRS is very good at this, assuming your intel/recon has found the targets. I don't know about how the Ukes have their units organized, but back in the pre-BCT days, each U.S. Army mech/armor division had a battalion of MLRS in their DIVARTY brigade. Note that you don't actually have to kill the enemy artillery - you just have to keep them from being able to set up and fire.

The obscuration needs to include jamming, shooting down, or otherwise neutralizing drones. Drones are OPs in the sky, and as long as they can see where you're trying to breach, you've got a problem. Even if you've neutralized the defender's artillery, knowing where you're at allows him to bring ground maneuver units in to kill your breachers. Actually, for at least some of those mine fields, drones might be the primary means of keeping eyes on the obstacle. Artillery (or mortar) smoke missions should then go in at multiple locations, not just the one where you're actually going to breach.

You're going to need a lot of artillery to make it work, especially in the absence of effective air support. That's why it's got to be, like I said, at least a brigade level operation, with heavy indirect fire and engineer support. That penny packet stuff just loses people and equipment to no purpose.

I was in a mech infantry battalion in Germany in the late 90s, and the biggest attack/breach missions we ever did at CMTC were battalion level (because that's all the sandbox there has space for). On one breach mission where my company had the primary breach, my company took something like 90% casualties. We lost 8 of 10 Brads, 3 of 4 dismount infantry squads, the entire attached tank platoon, most of the attached engineer platoon (I think they had 5 or 6 survivors), the CO, and the XO.

NTC at Ft Irwin has a bigger sandbox to play in, and they do brigade/BCT level rotations. I don't know if they still do breach missions like this, though.

---

Sounds like the equivalent risk of a beach landing in WW2.

rgag12 said:

---

I think they'd be happy about making minimal gains, as long as it continues to sap men and resources from Ukraine. I'm not convinced that the main objective of Russia is to grind Ukraine down so that they'll be easier to defend against if they ever try to attempt another counter-offensive, as opposed to gaining vast swaths of new territory.

Time is on Russia's side. The west already has a sizable contingent that thinks this war is a waste of lives and resources. Russia however is united, bolstered by a strong partner in China. The longer this drags out without a major Ukrainian victory, (Either kicking the Russians out of Donetsk oblast or cutting off the land bridge via Zaporizhzhia), the more likely the west will eventually sue for peace.

---

and THAT is why I posited the potential course of action that the Ukes should conduct

is not to launch a frontal armor attack in the spring which will likely end in hundreds of dead Ukes and most of their armor wiped out-

but husband those 300 Main Battle Tanks to prevent any kind of Russian advances over the next full calendar year.

Re defense of Bakhmut, reinforcing it is the best of bad choices for UA at this point. Ground conditions would likely stall and waste any counter attack with their new armor which is probably not ready until ground firms up in May? Kramatorsk and then Slovyansk would be in line for next siege and only 40 km away. Forcing the Russians to slug it out for every house and every block in Bakhmut provides time and saves armor for chance of successful large counter offensive later in the year, But it's just going to be so horribly costly.

Dirt 05 said:

---

Re defense of Bakhmut, reinforcing it is the best of bad choices for UA at this point. Ground conditions would likely stall and waste any counter attack with their new armor which is probably not ready until ground firms up in May? Kramatorsk and then Slovyansk would be in line for next siege and only 40 km away. Forcing the Russians to slug it out for every house and every block in Bakhmut provides time and saves armor for chance of successful large counter offensive later in the year, But it's just going to be so horribly costly.

---

Keeping Russia's best forces ground up in Bakhmut is really hurting Russia. What experiences and equipped units will they have in another month or two for an offensive or even to defend one?

Hell, they've all but admitted they're running out of artillery, they're scared to fly air support, they don't have IFV for their new battalion SOP. A country with supposedly 10k tanks before a year ago can only field 3 on paper per battalion. We thought they were a paper tiger before this war. They're definitely one now.

Strategy wize I really disagree with the Ukes not using the newly equipped and trained combined arms units for an offensive. Ukraine will really be set up nicely to break the stalemate if they can keep feeding just enough troops to contain Russia in Bakhmut for another month or two. Wagner will essentially be gone. All the best Russian units will have been eliminated and only conscripts will be left to hold the line. It will be primed for a spearhead to make a push for the sea and split Crimea from the East.

rgag12 said:

---

I think they'd be happy about making minimal gains, as long as it continues to sap men and resources from Ukraine. I'm not convinced that the main objective of Russia is to grind Ukraine down so that they'll be easier to defend against if they ever try to attempt another counter-offensive, as opposed to gaining vast swaths of new territory.

Time is on Russia's side. The west already has a sizable contingent that thinks this war is a waste of lives and resources. Russia however is united, bolstered by a strong partner in China. The longer this drags out without a major Ukrainian victory, (Either kicking the Russians out of Donetsk oblast or cutting off the land bridge via Zaporizhzhia), the more likely the west will eventually sue for peace.

---

The Russians appear to be spending a lot more men and resources trying to take Bakhmut than Ukraine is in trying to defend it. U. S. Grant once told Lincoln, "I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer," but that statement didn't wear well as even Grant flinched when the casualties kept mounting. If the Russians truly are playing for time (probably their best move), then they probably don't need to be so wasteful with personnel in an attempt to gain ground. Holding what they have right now until the West gives up would be the smart approach if they simply decided to play for time.

twk said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think they'd be happy about making minimal gains, as long as it continues to sap men and resources from Ukraine. I'm not convinced that the main objective of Russia is to grind Ukraine down so that they'll be easier to defend against if they ever try to attempt another counter-offensive, as opposed to gaining vast swaths of new territory.

Time is on Russia's side. The west already has a sizable contingent that thinks this war is a waste of lives and resources. Russia however is united, bolstered by a strong partner in China. The longer this drags out without a major Ukrainian victory, (Either kicking the Russians out of Donetsk oblast or cutting off the land bridge via Zaporizhzhia), the more likely the west will eventually sue for peace.

---

The Russians appear to be spending a lot more men and resources trying to take Bakhmut than Ukraine is in trying to defend it. U. S. Grant once told Lincoln, "I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer," but that statement didn't wear well as even Grant flinched when the casualties kept mounting. If the Russians truly are playing for time (probably their best move), then they probably don't need to be so wasteful with personnel in an attempt to gain ground. Holding what they have right now until the West gives up would be the smart approach if they simply decided to play for time.

---

Agree. Offensives rarely buy time. They often lose time because you can get a lot more value out of good soldiers in a good defensive position than feeding them into the grinder on an offensive.

What is the golden standard? Offensive forces need 3/1 to attack? That's because of the expected losses. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia isn't losing 10/1 right now in Bakhmut.

twk said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think they'd be happy about making minimal gains, as long as it continues to sap men and resources from Ukraine. I'm not convinced that the main objective of Russia is to grind Ukraine down so that they'll be easier to defend against if they ever try to attempt another counter-offensive, as opposed to gaining vast swaths of new territory.

Time is on Russia's side. The west already has a sizable contingent that thinks this war is a waste of lives and resources. Russia however is united, bolstered by a strong partner in China. The longer this drags out without a major Ukrainian victory, (Either kicking the Russians out of Donetsk oblast or cutting off the land bridge via Zaporizhzhia), the more likely the west will eventually sue for peace.

---

The Russians appear to be spending a lot more men and resources trying to take Bakhmut than Ukraine is in trying to defend it. U. S. Grant once told Lincoln, "I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer," but that statement didn't wear well as even Grant flinched when the casualties kept mounting. If the Russians truly are playing for time (probably their best move), then they probably don't need to be so wasteful with personnel in an attempt to gain ground. Holding what they have right now until the West gives up would be the smart approach if they simply decided to play for time.

---

On paper Russia has men they can sacrifice in order to deplete a bigger proportion of Ukraine's manpower. I know there are reports flying around from both perspectives supporting the notion that one side is losing more than the other. I don't think we'll get a clear picture which side is right or if this was a good strategy for Russia until later in the year when battlefield results dictate what the outcome was in hindsight.

rgag12 said:

---

On paper Russia has men they can sacrifice in order to deplete a bigger proportion of Ukraine's manpower. I know there are reports flying around from both perspectives supporting the notion that one side is losing more than the other. I don't think we'll get a clear picture which side is right or if this was a good strategy for Russia until later in the year when battlefield results dictate what the outcome was in hindsight.

---

Agree. We'll probably never know the truth for decades.

All we have is what we are told from both sides. Russia is having to send wave after wave to fix and deplete each trench before the final assault team goes in. Then they are losing people as well.

It wouldn't make sense for Ukraine to hold so badly if they were giving up similar casualties.

Quote:

---

Explosions were reported in Polohy, occupied part of Zaporizhzhia region

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/1-march-explosions-were-reported-in-polohy-occupied-part

Quote:

---

Russia's Defense Ministry says 10 drones that tried to target occupied Crimea were shot down

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/1-march-russias-defense-ministry-says-10-drones-that-tried

Sanctions slowly but surely tightening their grip on Russia. War spending is up and state revenue to cover it is down.

RUBLE CRASH

More drones, probably. This is also on the way to Sevastopol.

Quote:

---

Reports of explosions in Bakhchysarai, occupied Crimea

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/1-march-reports-of-explosions-in-bakhchysarai-occupied-crimea

74OA said:

---

Sanctions slowly but surely tightening their grip on Russia. War spending is up and state revenue to cover it is down.

RUBLE CRASH

---

I think the Chinese requesting a lifting of sanctions on russia was confirmation they are having a serious effect regardless of how several articles and posters have been stating otherwise.

JFABNRGR said:

---

74OA said:

---

Sanctions slowly but surely tightening their grip on Russia. War spending is up and state revenue to cover it is down.

RUBLE CRASH

---

I think the Chinese requesting a lifting of sanctions on russia was confirmation they are having a serious effect regardless of how several articles and posters have been stating otherwise.

---

Is this in reference to China trying to broker a peace deal? Couldn't that request also be construed as one way to simply entice Russia to the table?

I'm skeptical how serious an effect sanctions are having mainly because historically they don't work long-term.

Overview of Bakhmut. The gap is now about 5,5km wide. pic.twitter.com/di47Yhih7H

— Def Mon (@DefMon3) March 1, 2023

If they aren't going to cut off the encirclement salients themselves to eliminate the threat, they need to conduct a staged withdrawal from their own salient in the town. Getting the defenders cut off is bad for morale.

Russian conscripts getting 5 days of training before being thrown to the front lines. Crazy, all you can do with that little training is being a bullet cushion

Ukraine sounds like they are thin on the eastern front, without many standing structures they need to withdraw until they get reinforced and then counter. Ideally some of the western tanks and armoured vehicles will be on the front.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If they aren't going to cut off the encirclement salients themselves to eliminate the threat, they need to conduct a staged withdrawal from their own salient in the town. Getting the defenders cut off is bad for morale.

---

Not always; the Alamo became a rallying cry as did the Azov brigade's heroic defense of the Mariupol steel works. They also each had strategic value in that they bought time for their respective armies to coalesce.

But based on some of the troop movements we've heard rumors of recently, I don't think they are being abandoned.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Overview of Bakhmut. The gap is now about 5,5km wide. pic.twitter.com/di47Yhih7H

— Def Mon (@DefMon3) March 1, 2023

---

So why are they fighting over this smaller town ? I would back off and bomb them from the skies ?

Oh they mad that the winter didn't help them as much as they wanted.

Russian MP Alexei Zhuravlyov is not happy

The winter is over and the "bastards in Europe didn’t freeze"

What’s more, Russia’s "very elastic" red lines keep on stretching as it experiences drone attacks pic.twitter.com/xiHWgEZBN3

— Francis Scarr (@francis_scarr) March 1, 2023

They are big mad, Cry harder Ivan

RIP, Danylo.

Our hero under heavy fire one on one with an APC 😳

Books should be written about these people, and they are just silently defending our country #Ukraine !!!! pic.twitter.com/rnXeoqn0J3

— Balls Of Steel & Super Cool Blood Ukrainian Heroes (@Heroiam_Slava) March 1, 2023

AgLA06 said:

---

twk said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think they'd be happy about making minimal gains, as long as it continues to sap men and resources from Ukraine. I'm not convinced that the main objective of Russia is to grind Ukraine down so that they'll be easier to defend against if they ever try to attempt another counter-offensive, as opposed to gaining vast swaths of new territory.

Time is on Russia's side. The west already has a sizable contingent that thinks this war is a waste of lives and resources. Russia however is united, bolstered by a strong partner in China. The longer this drags out without a major Ukrainian victory, (Either kicking the Russians out of Donetsk oblast or cutting off the land bridge via Zaporizhzhia), the more likely the west will eventually sue for peace.

---

The Russians appear to be spending a lot more men and resources trying to take Bakhmut than Ukraine is in trying to defend it. U. S. Grant once told Lincoln, "I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer," but that statement didn't wear well as even Grant flinched when the casualties kept mounting. If the Russians truly are playing for time (probably their best move), then they probably don't need to be so wasteful with personnel in an attempt to gain ground. Holding what they have right now until the West gives up would be the smart approach if they simply decided to play for time.

---

Agree. Offensives rarely buy time. They often lose time because you can get a lot more value out of good soldiers in a good defensive position than feeding them into the grinder on an offensive.

What is the golden standard? Offensive forces need 3/1 to attack? That's because of the expected losses. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia isn't losing 10/1 right now in Bakhmut.

---

"The object of defense is preservation; and since it is easier to hold ground than to take it, defense is easier than attack. "But defense has a passive purpose: preservation; and attack a positive one: conquest. . . . If defense is the stronger form of war, yet has a negative object, if follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compels, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object." - Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege.

The strategic problem that Ukraine faces is that they have almost no chance of achieving their stated war objective - the return to their pre-2014 borders - without offensive action. Barring an October 1917 level collapse in Moscow, the Russians aren't going to give that land back unless their are Ukrainian troops standing on it.

Ukraine's Combined Arms Warfare Edge