***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]

7,679,002 Views | 47971 Replies | Last: 56 min ago by chickencoupe16
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
After two years of war and a failed counteroffensive, it's perhaps not surprising that Zelensky wants a fresh set of eyes and new ideas at the top of his military. Good to see it was apparently done without acrimony.

ZALUZHNYI

Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's exactly what I remember.

He is also a Moscow trained general though and he is known to be far more willing to expend lives on objectives with more Soviet style traditional tactics. Which is interesting because I think combat losses and the sensitivity to them were a part of this overall decision. I remember his name not being spoken highly of by the rank and file. Going to be interesting because on the surface, it looks like a radical redirect of strategy could form and probably quickly.

The problem is that Ukraine needs an answer to something I am not sure any nation could address with what Ukraine has and doesn't have. How to stop Russian bulldozer attacks with limited resources and multiple constraints. Russia is pushing in Adiivka by literally blasting it into non existence. Like in latter half of Bakhmut. Something they learned in WW2. Why go room to room when you can literally blast the room away? It's completely untenable for defending. Russia is essentially blasting every square meter to bedrock and then advancing on the rubble and even then taking horrendous losses doing so that would have broken any western military by now. I'm not sure any defending commander could do anything with that. Pretty positive actually.

Change of commands do happen though in every war by every nation. To hem off the instant gratification of the pro Russian crowd. We did it in WW2 and didn't do it when we probably should have in Korea. Hindsight will dictate of course. As it always does.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Waffledynamics said:

ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
Time will tell, but after two years of war Syrsky's pros and cons should be an open book to Zelensky, so he definitely will own this decision.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

Waffledynamics said:

ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
Time will tell, but after two years of war Syrsky's pros and cons should be an open book to Zelensky, so he definitely will own this decision.
I think an important lesson from the summer offensive was that attacking into the teeth of the orc defensive lines was going to require a big sacrifice of men and equipment. The previous commander recoiled from that and abandoned the offensive pretty quickly, leaving the rest of the summer to be spent picking up tiny little slivers of mostly meaningless land in the south. In order to make a large scale breakthrough of the type Ukraine needs, they are going to have to accept that large scale losses will be necessary in the initial phase before they can get into a truly mobile battle.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sounds like Adviika may be a good place to test GLSDBs.

Combat footage from Adviika, tough to watch, war sucks. Ukes were hit while opening doors to dismount.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1am0ur4/combat_footage_near_avdiivka/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
AgLA06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txags92 said:

74OA said:

Waffledynamics said:

ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
Time will tell, but after two years of war Syrsky's pros and cons should be an open book to Zelensky, so he definitely will own this decision.
I think an important lesson from the summer offensive was that attacking into the teeth of the orc defensive lines was going to require a big sacrifice of men and equipment. The previous commander recoiled from that and abandoned the offensive pretty quickly, leaving the rest of the summer to be spent picking up tiny little slivers of mostly meaningless land in the south. In order to make a large scale breakthrough of the type Ukraine needs, they are going to have to accept that large scale losses will be necessary in the initial phase before they can get into a truly mobile battle.


I think you're both right and wrong. Quickly abandoning a failed offensive doomed last summers offensive, but ensured they have the potential for one in the future. Most of their western equipment appears to still be intact to be used in a future offensive that has a chance. If you're going to sustain heavy losses, it has to be worth it.

Western allies forcing the last offensive without air support allowed attack helicopters and bombers with glide bombs to neutralize it. I don't think it was a coincidence that the stance changed from adamantly denying western fighters, to F16s being approved directly afterward. Russian conscripts will break if a real offensive happens.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLA06 said:

txags92 said:

74OA said:

Waffledynamics said:

ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
Time will tell, but after two years of war Syrsky's pros and cons should be an open book to Zelensky, so he definitely will own this decision.
I think an important lesson from the summer offensive was that attacking into the teeth of the orc defensive lines was going to require a big sacrifice of men and equipment. The previous commander recoiled from that and abandoned the offensive pretty quickly, leaving the rest of the summer to be spent picking up tiny little slivers of mostly meaningless land in the south. In order to make a large scale breakthrough of the type Ukraine needs, they are going to have to accept that large scale losses will be necessary in the initial phase before they can get into a truly mobile battle.


I think you're both right and wrong. Quickly abandoning a failed offensive doomed last summers offensive, but ensured they have the potential for one in the future. Most of their western equipment apeara to still intact to be used in a future offensive that has a chance. If you're going to sustain heavy losses, it has to be worth it.

Western allies forcing the last offensive without air support allowed attack helicopters and bombers with glide bombs to neutralize it. I don't think it was a coincidence that the stance changed from adamantly denying western fighters, to F16s being approved directly afterward. Russian conscripts will break if a real offensive happens.
I wasn't saying they were wrong to stop. Just that the stopping due to heavy losses was criticized by some who thought the Ukrainians were unrealistic in expecting the orcs to turn and run as easily as they had previously with Kharkiv.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLA06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txags92 said:

AgLA06 said:

txags92 said:

74OA said:

Waffledynamics said:

ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
Time will tell, but after two years of war Syrsky's pros and cons should be an open book to Zelensky, so he definitely will own this decision.
I think an important lesson from the summer offensive was that attacking into the teeth of the orc defensive lines was going to require a big sacrifice of men and equipment. The previous commander recoiled from that and abandoned the offensive pretty quickly, leaving the rest of the summer to be spent picking up tiny little slivers of mostly meaningless land in the south. In order to make a large scale breakthrough of the type Ukraine needs, they are going to have to accept that large scale losses will be necessary in the initial phase before they can get into a truly mobile battle.


I think you're both right and wrong. Quickly abandoning a failed offensive doomed last summers offensive, but ensured they have the potential for one in the future. Most of their western equipment apeara to still intact to be used in a future offensive that has a chance. If you're going to sustain heavy losses, it has to be worth it.

Western allies forcing the last offensive without air support allowed attack helicopters and bombers with glide bombs to neutralize it. I don't think it was a coincidence that the stance changed from adamantly denying western fighters, to F16s being approved directly afterward. Russian conscripts will break if a real offensive happens.
I wasn't saying they were wrong to stop. Just that the stopping due to heavy losses was criticized by some who thought the Ukrainians were unrealistic in expecting the orcs to turn and run as easily as they had previously with Kharkiv.
It wasn't just criticized by some. It was widely reported and criticized by just about every western news organization and sources in western militaries. That's the part that made no sense to me.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That, and millions of mines. That made any assault extremely challenging and requires sustaining heavy initial losses until there is a breakthrough past the mines and an expansion into rear logistics areas faster than defenses can be repositioned.

Ukraine had to make that attack well before they were ready, or before Russia had deployed vast minefields in depth. They missed that window. Now any attack is going to require a costly breakthrough (or a naval landing)
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLA06 said:

txags92 said:

AgLA06 said:

txags92 said:

74OA said:

Waffledynamics said:

ttu_85 said:

Waffledynamics said:

Quote:

President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:

President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
As I understand, he led the Kyiv and Kharkiv counteroffensives, has been in charge of defending the Kupyansk direction, and was the one in charge of the stubborn hold of Bakhmut. He's also received criticism for some of his tactics, supposedly being more meat-wave friendly, but also he's got some successes to back him up.

Take his history as you will. I guess we'll see.
Time will tell, but after two years of war Syrsky's pros and cons should be an open book to Zelensky, so he definitely will own this decision.
I think an important lesson from the summer offensive was that attacking into the teeth of the orc defensive lines was going to require a big sacrifice of men and equipment. The previous commander recoiled from that and abandoned the offensive pretty quickly, leaving the rest of the summer to be spent picking up tiny little slivers of mostly meaningless land in the south. In order to make a large scale breakthrough of the type Ukraine needs, they are going to have to accept that large scale losses will be necessary in the initial phase before they can get into a truly mobile battle.


I think you're both right and wrong. Quickly abandoning a failed offensive doomed last summers offensive, but ensured they have the potential for one in the future. Most of their western equipment apeara to still intact to be used in a future offensive that has a chance. If you're going to sustain heavy losses, it has to be worth it.

Western allies forcing the last offensive without air support allowed attack helicopters and bombers with glide bombs to neutralize it. I don't think it was a coincidence that the stance changed from adamantly denying western fighters, to F16s being approved directly afterward. Russian conscripts will break if a real offensive happens.
I wasn't saying they were wrong to stop. Just that the stopping due to heavy losses was criticized by some who thought the Ukrainians were unrealistic in expecting the orcs to turn and run as easily as they had previously with Kharkiv.
It wasn't just criticized by some. It was widely reported and criticized by just about every western news organization and sources in western militaries. That's the part that made no sense to me.
I was referring to knowledgeable sources and don't include most western news organizations in that category.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MouthBQ98 said:

That, and millions of mines. That made any assault extremely challenging and requires sustaining heavy initial losses until there is a breakthrough past the mines and an expansion into rear logistics areas faster than defenses can be repositioned.

Ukraine had to make that attack well before they were ready, or before Russia had deployed vast minefields in depth. They missed that window. Now any attack is going to require a costly breakthrough (or a naval landing)
Yeah, the Ukrainians were waiting for things to be perfect instead of going with what they had when the timing and level of preparations on the other side were in their favor. Either one was going to cost them a heavy price to achieve the initial breakthrough, but now they are going to have to break through more lines of defenses that are well prepared than if they had made a breakthrough sooner.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lb3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MouthBQ98 said:

That, and millions of mines. That made any assault extremely challenging and requires sustaining heavy initial losses until there is a breakthrough past the mines and an expansion into rear logistics areas faster than defenses can be repositioned.

Ukraine had to make that attack well before they were ready, or before Russia had deployed vast minefields in depth. They missed that window. Now any attack is going to require a costly breakthrough (or a naval landing)
After the Ukes got HIMARS they were wrecking Russia's centralized forward supply depots and command posts daily which allowed the Kharkiv offensive to put the Russians on the run.

That was probably the time to deploy all the reserves, and even pull back most of the units along the rest of the front to keep the battlefield moving faster than Russia's antiquated command structure could respond.

Instead the Ukes consolidated their gains over the winter and waited for more western weapon systems to arrive for the spring offensive. That allowed Russia to time to dig their trenches, deploy their mine fields, decentralize their supply system, and plan out their air support. Russia is great when they have a static defense and can pre-coordinate artillery and air support.

If the war is ultimately lost, it was lost long before the failed summer offensive.
Ulysses90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lb3 said:

If the war is ultimately lost, it was long before the failed summer offensive.


Quote:

"Wars and battles are not lost by private soldiers. They win them, but they do not lose them. They are lost by commanders, staffs, and troop leaders and they are often lost long before they start."
~Capt Samuel B. Griffith USMC, 1937
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Scholz in DC to meet with Biden on arming Ukraine and other notes.

UPDATES
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The list of operational changes cited by Zelensky after appointing a new overall commander is so basic to managing forces in combat it begs the question if those essential tasks were not being done--or done poorly--by the previous military leadership?

CHANGES
Touchless
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JFABNRGR said:

Sounds like Adviika may be a good place to test GLSDBs.

Combat footage from Adviika, tough to watch, war sucks. Ukes were hit while opening doors to dismount.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1am0ur4/combat_footage_near_avdiivka/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
That video was removed for some reason, but someone in the comments said it's the same as this point in the video.

japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
74OA said:

The list of operational changes cited by Zelensky after appointing a new overall commander is so basic to managing forces in combat it begs the question if those essential tasks were not being done--or done poorly--by the previous military leadership?

CHANGES
Why would you assume competence with the Ukraine military?
AgLA06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You mean other than stopping the 2nd best military in the world cold without support at a 4 :1 disadvantage in troops and 12:1 disadvantage in army equipment, air force equipment, and no navy?
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

[Personal attacks are out of bounds -- Staff]
japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
AgLA06 said:

You mean other than stopping the 2nd best military in the world cold without support at a 4 :1 disadvantage in troops and 12:1 disadvantage in army equipment, air force equipment, and no navy?
RU is not the 2nd best military in the world. If it were, by definition, Ukraine could not have done what you describe.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Militaries in wars need the capability to maneuver, fight close, and fight far. Ukraine is relegated to the close fight, which is Russia's strength, although I must say they are generally poor at fighting battles. I am concerned about Ukraine's ability to continue fighting due to funding and perhaps Russia's ability to wear down the smaller Ukrainian military. I will use Desert Storm as an example of warfare and thought perhaps you might like to read a small piece of military history pertaining to that war. I myself like military history, although saying I am an amateur military historian is embellishing what I know.

The capability to fight deep is an important component of warfare. I will use Desert Storm for example. The US Air Force caused severe attrition to the logistics, combat power, and morale of the Iraqi Army Divisions in the desert. We took a lot of fight out of those units. The Iraqi divisions were postured with their combat power to the South, Southeast, and the East. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions which was their Center of Gravity or the "true strength" were situated North of the regular divisions.

The Western flank of the Iraqi Desert was unguarded because the Iraqis did not think the US Army could maneuver and traverse hundreds of miles of open desert with efficacy. Arab militaries often used pronounced wadis and roads to navigate. However, the US had handheld GPS units for accurate navigation. The US plussed up Infantry Divisions with M1 tanks. Several of the Infantry and Armor Divisions skirted the Western flank and maneuvered West to make contact with the Iraqi Divisions. Then the swept to the East to engage the enemy. The Iraqis were completely taken by surprise as many of their combat vehicles were in fighting positions oriented to the South and East. Fighting positions are large dug in holes not much wider than the vehicles. Therefore, shooting in a Westerly direction was impactable. The vehicles could only shoot in one direction. There fires were also masked by their vehicles in a line formation oriented from the East to West.

The US had 3,000 M1 tanks in the war. The optics and target acquisition of the M1 tanks were far superior to the Iraqi tanks. The tank crews used thermal imaging that helped acquire targets at night. Using thermal imaging at night illuminates enemy vehicles well because the vehicles have a different heat signature than the surroundings. We owned the night, had far greater range, and accuracy. Some of the Iraqi units became cognizant of the start of battles when their vehicles were being destroyed. They had no clue they were about to be attacked. Desert Storm was perfect for our new weapons systems. The flat terrain gave the US the opportunity to use the superior accuracy and ranges of the new weapons.

The vaunted Republican Guard had 5 divisions and were considered the Center of Gravity for the Iraqi military. Our M1 tanks and Bardleys attacked them with ferocity which the Iraqis could not match and retreated. So, let's look at the Iraqi perspective. All Iraqi Divisions were getting their butts kicked to include the Republican Guard Divisions. The US military was able to disrupt the Iraqi plans in the defense. The "true strength" of the Iraqi Army got their butts kicked. US Army Divisions were eventually postured on the flanks and rear of the Iraqis. It was complete chaos which was created because the US had the weapons and weapons systems to conduct the close and deep fights. Unfortunately, Ukraine lacks the general capability to conduct the deep strikes and hit strategic targets. They are generally relegated to the close fight which the Russian military is designed for.


GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tucker's interview brought out some fresh experts
Jetpilot86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
japantiger said:

AgLA06 said:

You mean other than stopping the 2nd best military in the world cold without support at a 4 :1 disadvantage in troops and 12:1 disadvantage in army equipment, air force equipment, and no navy?
RU is not the 2nd best military in the world. If it were, by definition, Ukraine could not have done what you describe.


Ah, but prior to two years ago they were assumed to be. So much so that we drug our feet helping Ukraine the first few weeks to see if they were going to survive. So they "shouldn't" have been able to survive, they did because they were better than advertised and Russia was not.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep, the great and powerful Putin had let his military fester and rot from the inside out.

You know, that thing we accuse democrats of doing here.
japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Jetpilot86 said:

japantiger said:

AgLA06 said:

You mean other than stopping the 2nd best military in the world cold without support at a 4 :1 disadvantage in troops and 12:1 disadvantage in army equipment, air force equipment, and no navy?
RU is not the 2nd best military in the world. If it were, by definition, Ukraine could not have done what you describe.


Ah, but prior to two years ago they were assumed to be. So much so that we drug our feet helping Ukraine the first few weeks to see if they were going to survive. So they "shouldn't" have been able to survive, they did because they were better than advertised and Russia was not.
I think we are in violent agreement. RU is not 10-feet tall and bullet proof. They were not in fact the 2nd best military in the world.

When I served I used to read all the reports on how formidable the Soviets were. Then the wall fell and we saw it was bull***** At some point we have to stop listening to the Intel "experts" that haven't been right about anything in 75 years, ever.
agent-maroon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

They were not in fact the 2nd best military in the world.
Not to go too far OT, but with the orcs getting exposed by Ukraine who would take their place as the #2? Or the top 5 rated in order. Just curious to see what F16 posters are thinking now.

My initial thought would be Israel. Not to sure about how well they could project their forces but I wouldn't want to tangle with them. Or of course China, assuming they don't suffer from the same issues as the rus.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
USAFAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Y'all take it to the "AP/Coaches Poll for Armies of the World" thread.

12thFan/Websider Since 2003
japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frontline situation becoming more difficult for Ukraine and other notes. Insufficient artillery ammo resupply is key.

UPDATES
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ukraine desperately needs more arty ammo. It's pathetic that this is taking so long for the US to get its act together and the EU to ramp up their own production.

The good news is that I've seen some reports of Uke pilots training on F16s. Hopefully those help once they're in the fight. Ukraine needs to be able to hit Russian logistics enough to slow offensives.
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txags92 said:

MouthBQ98 said:

That, and millions of mines. That made any assault extremely challenging and requires sustaining heavy initial losses until there is a breakthrough past the mines and an expansion into rear logistics areas faster than defenses can be repositioned.

Ukraine had to make that attack well before they were ready, or before Russia had deployed vast minefields in depth. They missed that window. Now any attack is going to require a costly breakthrough (or a naval landing)
Yeah, the Ukrainians were waiting for things to be perfect instead of going with what they had when the timing and level of preparations on the other side were in their favor. Either one was going to cost them a heavy price to achieve the initial breakthrough, but now they are going to have to break through more lines of defenses that are well prepared than if they had made a breakthrough sooner.


They failed to heed Gen. Patton's famous quote:

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Two damaged HIMARS arrive in US for repair or BDA or both.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/s/9bjfo8f2jU
First Page Last Page
Page 1261 of 1371
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.