Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doubt said:
Deepstate live map has for some time now shown a small area across the river from Antonivka having been liberated. It did not change much. The area expanded today on the map.

Not great terrain for a Ukrainian offense. I suspect they took that area to prep for a bridge if the Russians are forced to retreat because of a breakthrough.

As a location for an offensive by itself, it is not great. Low wet ground with the main road leading into a town. But it is worth watching.

If you look back some months, the bridge there was a target by Ukraine to cut off the Russians. It took awhile, but they did destroy the bridge. Now the Ukrainians control both sides of the bridge site.

https://deepstatemap.live/en#13/46.6556/32.6995
Click to expand...

Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation there and to add a bit more context, that area's been serving as bait and threat far more than anything else. Strategically, Russia cannot intelligently ignore it, because of the threat that it poses to their relatively poorly defended rear and supply lines. Ukraine's both not committed much and not been able to commit all that much, though, so the threat is limited. As bait, Russia's sent in a bunch of attackers to dislodge them, though, and the attackers have been pounded hard with artillery across the river, leading to very disproportionate Russian losses.

When it comes to area controlled, I've seen a number of different assessments following Ukrainian raids, with the link's being small in comparison.

It's unlikely that Ukraine currently has enough forces there to present serious threat to Oleshki, just to the south, either way, though that could possibly have changed in the last couple weeks. The more Russian forces are fixed in place there, though, the better for Ukraine's offense.

Speaking of the offense, as an onlooker, it's unpleasant that it seems frozen in place. So long as Gerasimov's strategy pretty much consists of assaulting entrenched Ukrainian positions to try to retake them and not relying on Surovikin's fortifications unless they're the front line, this strategy of controlling the pace of advance to attrite Russian forces at far less cost to Ukraine may well be smart, albeit not flashy.
 
The defensive lines don't seem to be being used as intended by the designer. Any attempt to take any land is just being met head on by the Russians with massive counter attacks being launced immediately.



The lines are meant to be used to cause attrition losses by the Russians to the Ukraine forces, with a mobile defense retreating to the next line of defence when necessary.
 
a_unique_person said:
The defensive lines don't seem to be being used as intended by the designer. Any attempt to take any land is just being met head on by the Russians with massive counter attacks being launced immediately.



The lines are meant to be used to cause attrition losses by the Russians to the Ukraine forces, with a mobile defense retreating to the next line of defence when necessary.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the Germans in WWII had the principle of making immediate counter attacks to take back land that had been lost. I don’t know if this is still the preferred tactics, but apart from that fact that it does not give the enemy time to dig in, it also means that you can regain the advantage of the original defences.

Of course, if it is obvious that the Ukrainians are well prepared to repel counter attacks, it does not make so much sense.
 
steenkh said:
As far as I know, the Germans in WWII had the principle of making immediate counter attacks to take back land that had been lost. I don’t know if this is still the preferred tactics, but apart from that fact that it does not give the enemy time to dig in, it also means that you can regain the advantage of the original defences.

Of course, if it is obvious that the Ukrainians are well prepared to repel counter attacks, it does not make so much sense.
Click to expand...

Basic to the British Army battle school, is that when you take a position the fight has just started.
 
I had wondered if the damage to the sub might be far enough forward to be outside the pressure hull, and if the sub might be repairable. But obviously not, and that looks like two separate hits. All they'll do with that junk is pick over it for spares, and if they soon need the dry dock for something else they won't have much free time to do even that.

Nice work. Though I imagine in every naval dockyard worldwide someone is looking at this and wincing and pondering their own defences.
 
Reports from pro Russian Telegram channels say there have been large explosions overnight around Cape Fiolent on the southern edge of Sevastopol. It's the sight of a large radar and communications facility on the coast.
Drone and missile strikes apparently.
 
One might ask what airdefence doing? But when it's airdefence getting a pasting the question has probably occurred to them already.
 
steenkh said:
As far as I know, the Germans in WWII had the principle of making immediate counter attacks to take back land that had been lost. I don’t know if this is still the preferred tactics, but apart from that fact that it does not give the enemy time to dig in, it also means that you can regain the advantage of the original defences.

Of course, if it is obvious that the Ukrainians are well prepared to repel counter attacks, it does not make so much sense.
Click to expand...

As far as I recall that was around the time that the nazis really started hemmoharaging troops and losing strategic positions at a rapid pace on the Eastern Front. Hitler's insisting on defending every position to the last man and counter-attacking every Soviet gain was bone headed.

But hey, the more the Russians draw from Hitler's military genius, the better.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
As far as I recall that was around the time that the nazis really started hemmoharaging troops and losing strategic positions at a rapid pace on the Eastern Front. Hitler's insisting on defending every position to the last man and counter-attacking every Soviet gain was bone headed.

But hey, the more the Russians draw from Hitler's military genius, the better.
Click to expand...
Immediate counterattack is sound doctrine.

It can be very difficult to tell ahead of time how much staying power the enemy has. Sometimes, your best bet is simply to keep on testing them until they break or you do. Ultimately, the only way to win a war is to hit the enemy's main strength with your main strength, and see who prevails. That's what Hitler ordered, and there's wisdom in that order. The orders failed not because they were stupid, but because the German army was already strategically exhausted. Falling back would have been even worse, since it would still degrade the German army, without even testing the Russian's strength.

You'll notice that Moscow is ignoring Hitler's "military genius", and doing all this very close to their own borders, not balls-deep in Western Europe with no exit strategy.

Not everything going on in Ukraine right now is properly understood as a replay of WW2.
 
a_unique_person said:
The defensive lines don't seem to be being used as intended by the designer. Any attempt to take any land is just being met head on by the Russians with massive counter attacks being launced immediately.



The lines are meant to be used to cause attrition losses by the Russians to the Ukraine forces, with a mobile defense retreating to the next line of defence when necessary.
Click to expand...

It's perhaps worth repeating that the defenses were designed by Surovikin for a defense in depth strategy that assumed that Ukraine would be able to breach one or two, but the defenses would be used to make Ukraine's offensive culminate much quicker, allowing Russia to counterattack and retake the areas. Surovikin didn't stay in charge, though. Gerasimov's overall strategy is far more focused on the front and preventing Ukraine from making any advances, period, which meant that the first line was fortified overwhelmingly more than those behind and the preparations for a breach in the front lines are relatively poor and there's significantly more emphasis on counterattacking to retake land and restore the front lines compared to riding out the storm and retaking when Ukraine's spent.

Ukraine very likely could have taken a fair bit more land and much more quickly, but their strategy has been far more about attrition and opportunity. Along similar lines, it looks like Russia's artillery losses were notably less for the last two days (after a far few days with an average well over 30 a day), but have still crossed 6,000 lost artillery. Russia MLRS, air-air, and special equipment (not specific, but that category includes equipment like trench diggers, I think) have been taking notably higher losses, too.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
It's perhaps worth repeating that the defenses were designed by Surovikin for a defense in depth strategy that assumed that Ukraine would be able to breach one or two, but the defenses would be used to make Ukraine's offensive culminate much quicker, allowing Russia to counterattack and retake the areas. Surovikin didn't stay in charge, though. Gerasimov's overall strategy is far more focused on the front and preventing Ukraine from making any advances, period, which meant that the first line was fortified overwhelmingly more than those behind and the preparations for a breach in the front lines are relatively poor and there's significantly more emphasis on counterattacking to retake land and restore the front lines compared to riding out the storm and retaking when Ukraine's spent.

Ukraine very likely could have taken a fair bit more land and much more quickly, but their strategy has been far more about attrition and opportunity. Along similar lines, it looks like Russia's artillery losses were notably less for the last two days (after a far few days with an average well over 30 a day), but have still crossed 6,000 lost artillery. Russia MLRS and special equipment (not specific, but that category includes equipment like trench diggers, I think) have been taking notably higher losses, too.
Click to expand...

Hopefully thats because Ukraine is running out of targets. Next up they need ATACMS to take out most of Russia's air defense systems, and then F-16's can operated with impunity. I don't think the Russia Army will survive the winter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom