Ukraine Needs Longer Range Weapons

1,902 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by Tanker123
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.

Enclosed is a map to visualize Desert Storm.


map of desert storm - Search Images (bing.com)


Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ukraine, first and foremost, needs realistic goals. Do you think Ukraine has a good chance at retaking territories after seeing last year's performance? Even with America bankrolling them with HIMARS and other massive expansions of their resident capabilities?

Ukraine's only hope of existing as a nation into the future is the continued engagement and lavish gifting by the west. Retaking territory would require something we've not yet seen out of them - not just deeper strike weapons. They'd need the ability to break through an entrenched defense in depth and outmaneuver Russian forces.

That's a huge logistics lift dependent on outclassing Russia's relative speed.

Desert storm isn't really a corollary here in that it was was a well oiled Information age force against a smaller analog age force - so unless Ukraine can onboard a generational advancement in capabilities AND overcome the relative strength disparity… we're just funding the perpetuation of a meat grinder.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get Off My Lawn said:

Ukraine, first and foremost, needs realistic goals. Do you think Ukraine has a good chance at retaking territories after seeing last year's performance? Even with America bankrolling them with HIMARS and other massive expansions of their resident capabilities?

Ukraine's only hope of existing as a nation into the future is the continued engagement and lavish gifting by the west. Retaking territory would require something we've not yet seen out of them - not just deeper strike weapons. They'd need the ability to break through an entrenched defense in depth and outmaneuver Russian forces.

That's a huge logistics lift dependent on outclassing Russia's relative speed.

Desert storm isn't really a corollary here in that it was was a well oiled Information age force against a smaller analog age force - so unless Ukraine can onboard a generational advancement in capabilities AND overcome the relative strength disparity… we're just funding the perpetuation of a meat grinder.
I did not say Ukraine is Desert Storm. I used Desert Storm to show the impact of long-range weapons and ability to conduct deep attacks which Ukraine has a very limited capability of achieving. Without giving them more strategic weapons, the fight will be the close fight and that's what Russia wants because that is how it fights the war. Ukraine can't flank or hit the rear, thus it will be stuck in a linear fight and are relegated to the meat grinder, not by choice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dessert storm was a whole package deal. Technological superiority in every facet, superior training, combined arms experience, vastly superior preparation, a huge speed advantage, a huge resource disparity, and an incredibly developed plan.

Giving Ukraine a few ATACMS is not a silver bullet. Maybe it'd make folks feel like there was some hope or progress to see a couple bodies in Red Square or a few offices in the Kremlin smoking - but unless we hand them nukes I don't see long range fires moving the needle.

(And this is coming from a man who's employed most of the artillery assets that our Corps owns.)

Sorry. Ukraine is a meat grinder or a ceded territory. They had their shot last year - and they just don't have the stuff.
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And to clarify - you can use fires to remove important pieces from the board, but unless you capture the enemy's king, war boils down to supporting the grunts. If a 20yo with a rifle doesn't move forward: you're just breaking stuff from afar.

(and none of our extended range stuff is designed to move grunts forward - beyond 30mi it's pretty much just scalpels or nukes)
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, I don't know how I feel about Ukraine. Despite Russian incompetence early, and still, they're almost too big to fail. I think it benefits the West to keep this conflict going, because it's going to just bleed Russia, just like Afghanistan did. But I think Ukraine just can't keep going that long. They're hurting so hard for people right now, they're doing everything they can to get all the draft dodgers. At some point it's going to switch from a near stalemate to a more and more significant Russian advantage just because Russia has more people, more resources, and is able to weather the storm longer.

Would be great if we could prevent them from just claiming more and more land as a part of Russia, but at some point this conflict needs to end. And with most of the West having abandoned Ukraine, I think the writing is on the wall
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get Off My Lawn said:

Dessert storm was a whole package deal. Technological superiority in every facet, superior training, combined arms experience, vastly superior preparation, a huge speed advantage, a huge resource disparity, and an incredibly developed plan.

Giving Ukraine a few ATACMS is not a silver bullet. Maybe it'd make folks feel like there was some hope or progress to see a couple bodies in Red Square or a few offices in the Kremlin smoking - but unless we hand them nukes I don't see long range fires moving the needle.

(And this is coming from a man who's employed most of the artillery assets that our Corps owns.)

Sorry. Ukraine is a meat grinder or a ceded territory. They had their shot last year - and they just don't have the stuff.



How did you become a military genius? CNN, YouTube, or both? Your assessments are off.

Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course, Ukraine needs long range weapons and weapons systems. Without them Ukraine is relegated to fight a "meat grinder" war. Let's look at 3 US Military Principles of War:

- Offense: To win wars a military must go on the Offense.
- Maneuver: To support Offense a military must be able to Maneuver to set the conditions for tactical success.
- Mass: Mass forces and combat power at the critical place and time. To support Mass, a military must be able to Maneuver and go on the Offense.

If the US had to enter the war against Russia, V Corps forward in Poland will stand up at least two US Army Heavy Combat Divisions. The Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander will not fight a WWI type of warfare against the Russians like the Ukrainians. He will have bombers, fighters, helicopters, CAS, amor vehicles, drones, and long-range weapons at his disposal. These are the weapons and weapon systems needed to strike close and deep in order to facilitate Maneuver, Offense, and Massing operations against the Russians. I have no doubt the JTF will overwhelm the Russians relatively quickly.

The aforementioned assets are exactly what Ukraine needs but don't have. Therefore, they are relegated to fighting the close linear fight because they have no choice in the matter. Ukraine can't breach the Russian lines because it can't maneuver to flank the Russian military from the side or the rear.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?



Of course, Ukraine needs long range weapons and weapons systems. Without them Ukraine is relegated to fight a "meat grinder" war. Let's look at three US Military Principles of War:

- Offense - To win wars a military must go on the Offense.
- Maneuver - To support Offense a military must be able to Maneuver to set the conditions for tactical success.
- Mass - A military needs the capability of going on the Offense and Maneuver to Mass power at the critical place and time.

If the US had to enter the war against Russia, V Corps forward in Poland will stand up at least two US Heavy Army Combat Divisions. Last year thousands of US Army vehicles and pieces of equipment flooded various European Ports with onward movement to Poland to support V Corps Forward contingency mission. The Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander will not fight a WWI type of warfare against the Russians like the Ukrainians are. He will have bombers, fighters, helicopters, CAS, amor vehicles, drones, and long-range weapons at his disposal. These are the weapons and weapon systems needed to strike close and deep in order to facilitate Maneuver, Offense, and Mass. I have no doubt the JTF will overwhelm the Russians relatively quickly because the V Corps JTF will attack close and in depth.

The aforementioned assets are exactly what Ukraine needs but don't have. Therefore, they are relegated to fighting the close fight because they have no choice in the matter. They need longer range weapons and weapons systems to attack the Russian flanks and rear.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought we were giving Ukraine some Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs with extended range. 93-100 miles range with high probability of hits seems like a decent compromise.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UTExan said:

I thought we were giving Ukraine some Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs with extended range. 93-100 miles range with high probability of hits seems like a decent compromise.
We have given them the capability of using cluster bombs, but they need a full suite of weapons and weapons systems capable of attacking from long-range and maneuvering deep into the Russian area of operations.


Having the capability of hitting the enemy from afar is a requisite capability. However, battles are not decided by long distance fires or bombers. A military needs the capability to maneuver long distances in movement to contact to close on the enemy to destroy them. There is a big difference between attack by fire and attack by fire and maneuver. This is the opportunity to annihilate opposing forces and seize the terrain. In Desert Storm the Apaches, M1s, M2s, and A-10s maneuvered to the Iraqi Divisions to destroy them.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.