• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Continuation] The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
The simplest explanation is that it is stupidity. They ignored the lesson that Ukraine learnt about the difficulty of mobile, integrated attacks and went all in on the expectation that they could storm weak Ukrainian positions at Adviivka easily.

The reality is otherwise but they can't admit to their stupidity. To do so would indicate weakness.

The propaganda channels on YouTube were saying Russia was going all in with this attack and would crush Ukraine.

The situation for Ukraine there is precarious. The distance to cover isolate the Ukrainians is not far. There is only one road in for supplies once the weather worsens.
Click to expand...

An alternative view is that Russia is continuing to attack in Avdiivka because they are achieving their objectives albeit much more slowly and at a much, much higher cost in terms of men and materiel than any Western army would ever countenance.

As high as the cost it for Russia, it's a cost that they're apparently willing to bear - presumably because they have plenty of men and equipment. Those men may not be considered adequately trained by Western armies and the equipment is vastly substandard but it's sufficient for the "meat wave" tactics that they're adopting.

So what if they lose 100,000 men taking Avdiivka ? If Russia can withstand those kinds of losses then they may consider it worthwhile - especially if they're just waiting for a Trump victory and all that means in terms of (withdrawal of) US support.
 
a_unique_person said:
I don't think they planeed to lose 100,000 men. I don't know that those who died thought it was a minor detail.
Click to expand...

Whether or not they planned to lose 100,000 men, they certainly seem prepared to lose 100,000.

From the Russian perspective, those who have died are completely irrelevant.

a_unique_person said:
It sure looked like it was supposed to be a fast, precision attack that succeeded in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but Russia have shown again and again over the last 18+ months that they're completely incapable of doing this and instead have to resort to flattening their objective with artillery, throwing men forward in "meat waves" and wasting armour.

Regardless of how wasteful this approach is in terms of men and materiel, it's an approach Russia seem content to take and they (currently) have enough reserves of men and materiel to continue to waste them.
 
If they're prepared to keep squandering men then Russia will eventually pinch off the supply route into Avdiivka. It's looked for a couple of weeks as if they're willing to do that, and they keep inching closer.

Eventually, and probably very soon, Ukraine will have to pull everyone out of the town unless something dramatically changes the balance.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If they're prepared to keep squandering men then Russia will eventually pinch off the supply route into Avdiivka. It's looked for a couple of weeks as if they're willing to do that, and they keep inching closer.

Eventually, and probably very soon, Ukraine will have to pull everyone out of the town unless something dramatically changes the balance.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Russia are also making a huge effort a little to the North near Bakhmut. ISTM that Russia are confident of containing any Ukrainian advances near Kherson and are focusing their efforts on the Eastern Front where they think Ukrainian forces are vulnerable.
 
So, the majors are starting to report that Ukraine has crossed the Dnipro.


Give 'em hell!
 
Hopefully they have some pontoon bridges across the river and are moving heavy equipment... including Abrams across, haven't seen any of those in action yet.

OpSec on the Ukrainian side appears to be tight. Not seeing any videos. It also means its probably going well for them, or Russia would be showing footage.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Or it means nothing is really going on .. there have been sporadic reports of river crossing going on for weeks now.
Click to expand...

That's why I wait for the majors to report, rather than the socials. If it's AP, BBC, etc. then probably something is happening.
 
Jimbo07 said:
That's why I wait for the majors to report, rather than the socials. If it's AP, BBC, etc. then probably something is happening.
Click to expand...

Usually it means "something was happening a week ago, but it doesn't matter now". Usually there are irrefutable videos hours after reaching any new village. I don't see them.
 
To be honest, and as a disclaimer, I'm not a military strategist. I was conscripted to an AA unit that gets attached to a division (you, know the kind that tracks someone on an air search radar and puts several 35mm rounds through their skull and back of their seat, plus some missile stuff), and wasn't the best soldier even there. We had some basic infantry training, like all arms of the armed forces, but that was about it. More about how to save your ass if at some point you're on foot and charged, than grand military strategy, is all I'm saying.

But what the Russians are doing baffles me all around. Like, they're losing artillery systems like popcorn, but they're wasting them bombarding some civilian city (like Kherson on the anniversary of their liberation) even if it means driving them closer to the front line and losing them to counter-battery fire. Without intending to Goodwin the thread, it reminds me of WW2 and wasting resources on V1 and V2 "vengeance" weapons for propaganda value against Britain, instead of even trying to deal with the massive army tearing through Germany from both sides.

Or they're repeating standard stuff that is known and analysed that it didn't work in the early stages of WW1, and WHY it didn't work. Like open up with a massive artillery (and this time: rocket) barrage, it stops, then the infantry attacks. Like not even try to make it a combined arms thing. It was known from the first year of WW1 (plus, more modernly, just listen to the Chieftain talking about simultaneous attack vectors and why that matters) that yeah, heads down, and when it stops, it means poke your head up and shoot. Like, even in WW1 they invented stuff like crawling artillery fire and whatnot (which, ok, also didn't work:p), but the Russians don't even seem to be at that stage.

Like, what the hell is wrong with the Russian army?

Like, ok, I know that Shoigu is a clown in a military uniform, but supposedly Gerasimov is a career officer who published papers on military matters. Like, even he can't say, "no, that's stupid"?

Edit: and don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for Russia or anything. It's good news that they're incompetent. But there's only so many times you can watch a cat run, slide across the floor and hit a wall head first, before it stops being funny and you start wondering "OMG, is it brain-damaged?"
 
Last edited:
It could be that anyone with any sense is more concerned with their personal future than getting it right on the battlefield. Possibly a lot of malicious compliance.
 
Lots more reports on the river crossings coming in
Elements of three brigades have crossed in to bridgeheads established by the Marines and are pushing out to expand the fortified area under control.
 
HansMustermann said:
To be honest, and as a disclaimer, I'm not a military strategist. I was conscripted to an AA unit that gets attached to a division (you, know the kind that tracks someone on an air search radar and puts several 35mm rounds through their skull and back of their seat, plus some missile stuff), and wasn't the best soldier even there. We had some basic infantry training, like all arms of the armed forces, but that was about it. More about how to save your ass if at some point you're on foot and charged, than grand military strategy, is all I'm saying.

But what the Russians are doing baffles me all around. Like, they're losing artillery systems like popcorn, but they're wasting them bombarding some civilian city (like Kherson on the anniversary of their liberation) even if it means driving them closer to the front line and losing them to counter-battery fire. Without intending to Goodwin the thread, it reminds me of WW2 and wasting resources on V1 and V2 "vengeance" weapons for propaganda value against Britain, instead of even trying to deal with the massive army tearing through Germany from both sides.

Or they're repeating standard stuff that is known and analysed that it didn't work in the early stages of WW1, and WHY it didn't work. Like open up with a massive artillery (and this time: rocket) barrage, it stops, then the infantry attacks. Like not even try to make it a combined arms thing. It was known from the first year of WW1 (plus, more modernly, just listen to the Chieftain talking about simultaneous attack vectors and why that matters) that yeah, heads down, and when it stops, it means poke your head up and shoot. Like, even in WW1 they invented stuff like crawling artillery fire and whatnot (which, ok, also didn't work:p), but the Russians don't even seem to be at that stage.

Like, what the hell is wrong with the Russian army?

Like, ok, I know that Shoigu is a clown in a military uniform, but supposedly Gerasimov is a career officer who published papers on military matters. Like, even he can't say, "no, that's stupid"?

Edit: and don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for Russia or anything. It's good news that they're incompetent. But there's only so many times you can watch a cat run, slide across the floor and hit a wall head first, before it stops being funny and you start wondering "OMG, is it brain-damaged?"
Click to expand...

Its like they don't know how to win the war, and have decided they don't have the capability to win the war, so they're just going to flail around and try terrorism. Plus send their drug addicts, prisoners, and non-slav ethnics into meat wave attacks because the Russian people really don't care if they die.

And they can afford to keep doing this because the rest of the world keeps buying their fossil fuels.... like literally Denys Davidov was showing a chart yesterday and the surprising amount the EU and even OPEC still buys their natty gas and oil.

And they can keep doing this because the west doesn't really care and will eventually go OK if your willing to kill 10% of your population then whatever you win, and god forbid we ask our people to sacrifice anything, not even 10% higher energy costs.

Thats all I got really.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's kinda my point. In the west we (well, not me, but the guys who went to army college) studied everything from Sun Tzu to Syria, what worked, what didn't work, etc. Even guys like the Chieftain, ok, he's an officer, but not a general or anything, knows about simultaneous attack vectors and why that's important. You know, combined arms stuff. Even though he never actually commanded anything of a size that would actually involve combined arms.

So how come the supposed second army on Earth doesn't and just resorts to just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, and then throwing what doesn't again, just in case it sticks this time? You know, like my sorting laundry :p

And I mean, it's stuff that's common knowledge even if you're not an officer, but just had any interest in history. Like, there's a report as early as the Spanish Civil War that terror bombing doesn't actually make people want to capitulate, it just strengthens their resolve. I'd like to think that we in the West gave up on bombing civillians because we're all good and holy, but realistically, a large part was because it doesn't actually do much more than waste ammo anyway. Like, WTH, how do you get to be the top rank in Russia and not have even heard of that?
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, that's kinda my point. In the west we (well, not me, but the guys who went to army college) studied everything from Sun Tzu to Syria, what worked, what didn't work, etc. Even guys like the Chieftain, ok, he's an officer, but not a general or anything, knows about simultaneous attack vectors and why that's important. You know, combined arms stuff. Even though he never actually commanded anything of a size that would actually involve combined arms.

So how come the supposed second army on Earth doesn't and just resorts to just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, and then throwing what doesn't again, just in case it sticks this time? You know, like my sorting laundry :p

And I mean, it's stuff that's common knowledge even if you're not an officer, but just had any interest in history. Like, there's a report as early as the Spanish Civil War that terror bombing doesn't actually make people want to capitulate, it just strengthens their resolve. I'd like to think that we in the West gave up on bombing civillians because we're all good and holy, but realistically, a large part was because it doesn't actually do much more than waste ammo anyway. Like, WTH, how do you get to be the top rank in Russia and not have even heard of that?
Click to expand...
i think its very possible that due to false reporting/ punishment for not fulfilling orders. the people at the top are working on a completley different battle map than the reality on the ground
 
The Don said:
An alternative view is that Russia is continuing to attack in Avdiivka because they are achieving their objectives albeit much more slowly and at a much, much higher cost in terms of men and materiel than any Western army would ever countenance.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are achieving their objectives. I think they're leaning hard into the sunk cost fallacy, and throwing men and material they can't afford to lose at an objective they will never achieve.

Remember, their objectives aren't to capture Bakhmut, or Avdiivka. Their objectives are to subjugate Ukraine, prevent it from aligning with Western Europe, loot its resources, genocide its people, and command the Black Sea from a naval base in Crimea.

The subjugation will never happen now, no matter how much men and materiel they spend to capture Avdiivka. Ukraine's alignment with Western Europe is pretty much guaranteed. Genocide and looting can't happen without subjugation.

The one objective they'd actually achieved, a naval base in Crimea, is no longer achieved, and probably never will be again. This was not the plan. None of this was the plan. Throwing away men and materiel on Zeno's Advance is not the plan, it's just the only thing Moscow can think of to do, to postpone having to admit defeat and the failure of their objectives. At some point, they will either withdraw or collapse. At no point will they realize any of their objectives. They simply do not have the wherewithal anymore. They had the highest potential of reaching their objectives on D-Day. By the end of March, it was obvious they were going to have to settle for some consolation prize. Once Ukraine developed a naval strike capability, even their consolation prize - Sevastopol - was taken away from them.

Avdiivka is not the objective. Capturing Avdiivka won't un-screw the Russian army, no matter how many tanks and troops they sacrifice to accomplish it.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Surely they have sat imagery??
Click to expand...

Last I heard, the kind of sat imagery that gets updated about once every two weeks. Harder to say for what they can access due to what's posted on social media, though. The issue being noted is likely less the sat imagery, though, and more the pervasive culture of vranyo, along with the rest of the related hazards from encouraging less than truthful reporting.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, that's kinda my point. In the west we (well, not me, but the guys who went to army college) studied everything from Sun Tzu to Syria, what worked, what didn't work, etc. Even guys like the Chieftain, ok, he's an officer, but not a general or anything, knows about simultaneous attack vectors and why that's important. You know, combined arms stuff. Even though he never actually commanded anything of a size that would actually involve combined arms.

So how come the supposed second army on Earth doesn't and just resorts to just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, and then throwing what doesn't again, just in case it sticks this time? You know, like my sorting laundry :p

And I mean, it's stuff that's common knowledge even if you're not an officer, but just had any interest in history. Like, there's a report as early as the Spanish Civil War that terror bombing doesn't actually make people want to capitulate, it just strengthens their resolve. I'd like to think that we in the West gave up on bombing civillians because we're all good and holy, but realistically, a large part was because it doesn't actually do much more than waste ammo anyway. Like, WTH, how do you get to be the top rank in Russia and not have even heard of that?
Click to expand...
I'm not in the military, have never been in the military, and will never be in the military (although I did study military history and strategic studies at uni) and even I know about combined arms warfare and simultaneous attack vectors.
 
Reports that the Russian drone manufacturing is giving Russia an advantage over Ukraine. They are using the meatwave attacks, but they are also using new high tech drones. The Lancet and the new Scalpel are doing a lot of damage and are better than the Ukraine drones.
 
That superiority is somewhat debatable, I would say, when you put it into context.

For a start, while Ukraine does show off its homebrew quad-copter and octo-copter drones the most, they do have other drones too. For example, Switchblade.

Second, it's not the only tool in their arsenal for precision strikes. Russia needs drones for stuff that Ukraine solves with a precision artillery or HIMARS strike. E.g., they just blew up a Patsir-S1 AA system with an Excalibur strike.

Just because Russia has nothing similar as artillery. For example, their whole series of BM rocket launcher systems was built with the old Russian doctrine of just saturating an area with high explosives, so it doesn't really matter if you hit 1m away or 10m away or 100m away. I'm not even kidding. The BM-21 Grad, for example, literally has a +/- 100m probability error in range, and half that in horizontal dispersion. But even that's misleading, as most rockets will land within +/- 2*PE. So it will land SOMEWHERE in a 400x200m area centered on the target. (That's almost 20 acres for you imperials.) Yes, THAT big. But it wasn't supposed to matter, because you were supposed to just blanket an area with 40 rockets and call it good enough. (Or better yet, yeet all the rockets in a Grad battery.)

Hell, not only HIMARS and smart rounds like the Excalibur do better, but even with dumb standard rounds, regular Western artillery does better. As an example the dumbest round from a US M-109A6 Paladin can hit a 3x3 meter square from about 20 km.

So what I'm getting at is that when you put it into perspective, yeah, Russia may have more of the advanced drones, but they also have to act the part of accurate artillery, AND the role of top attack missiles like the Javelin and NLAW. Which still leaves Russia a bit short in total.
 
Last edited:
Seen a number of reliable reports that the bridgehead on the east bank has been pushed to 3km from the river.
 
The Don said:
An alternative view is that Russia is continuing to attack in Avdiivka because they are achieving their objectives albeit much more slowly and at a much, much higher cost in terms of men and materiel than any Western army would ever countenance.

As high as the cost it for Russia, it's a cost that they're apparently willing to bear - presumably because they have plenty of men and equipment. Those men may not be considered adequately trained by Western armies and the equipment is vastly substandard but it's sufficient for the "meat wave" tactics that they're adopting.

So what if they lose 100,000 men taking Avdiivka ? If Russia can withstand those kinds of losses then they may consider it worthwhile - especially if they're just waiting for a Trump victory and all that means in terms of (withdrawal of) US support.
Click to expand...

Having seen this post a few times now I've got to ask, what objective do you think Russia is achieving there exactly? What possible end goal could they have for the assault?
 
I assume their goal is to deliver some pre-election good news, about a successful step in their drive to eventually 'liberate' the whole of Donbas from the 'Nazis'.
 
a_unique_person said:
Denys Davidov reported a Lancet strike about 30km behind the front lines on a MIG that they thought was safe.
Click to expand...

Yes. One. But that's still kind of the problem with Russia. Its advanced drones are forced to do a lot of jobs that Ukraine has been doing just fine with other means. They don't just have to compete on number and technology with Ukraine's drones, but also with all the Excalibur rounds, GMLRS rounds, even Javelins. They need a LOT more to cover all those use-cases too.

And the competition isn't entirely on equal ground either, seeing how western supplied AA systems can intercept more of Russia's drones and cruise missiles and so on, while Russia's air defenses seem to struggle a lot more. You can see plenty of videos where a Russian AA system like that Pantsir-S1 wasn't even aware of the drone following it and punching its coordinates, or another AA system struggle for several minutes to get a lock on a drone, then shoot a missile or two by eye and miss.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Seen a number of reliable reports that the bridgehead on the east bank has been pushed to 3km from the river.
Click to expand...

Could this form a significant breakthrough* or is it more likely to be a distraction tactic to divert resources from other parts of the front-line / place to launch reconnaissance and / or commando style raids?

*ie is it a suitable position to then pour through significant infantry and armour to exploit the breach or is that always going to be problematic across the river?

Sorry, trying to work out whether they have effectively breached 'the line' in a way that's ultimately exploitable or whether it's 'just' a poke.
 
Last edited:
Exactly what they'll do with it and how it will play out, well, your guess is as good as mine. Twice as good if you're sober. But a bigger bridgehead tends to translate into how much equipment and troops you can move across, and thus how dangerous you are. See, widening D-day bridgeheads. It was no joke for the Germans. It tool a few months to finally break through, but they were more serious than a conservative talking about how the trans are grooming his (imaginary) children.
 
The area of Ukraine's bridgehead shown on e.g. the ISW's interactive map is entirely within the flood plain of the Dnipro. The distinction is obvious if you look at the aerial view on Google Maps. To get out of what's basically marshland and onto dry land they need to reach the road. That marsh is up to 2km wide. So if they really have got 3km then that's good news but I'll await confirmation they've captured something they can hold before I celebrate.
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
Could this form a significant breakthrough* or is it more likely to be a distraction tactic to divert resources from other parts of the front-line / place to launch reconnaissance and / or commando style raids?

*ie is it a suitable position to then pour through significant infantry and armour to exploit the breach or is that always going to be problematic across the river?

Sorry, trying to work out whether they have effectively breached 'the line' in a way that's ultimately exploitable or whether it's 'just' a poke.
Click to expand...

Short version - Yes, it could form a significant breakthrough.

Longer version - There's a lot going on along the river overall. In the area near Krynky, in particular, is a place where Ukraine has previously held exercises with creating a pontoon bridge crossing and there's a road on solid ground on each side, which would greatly increase the force that Ukraine can actually bring to bear. They would need to drive Russia out of a notable, but quite possibly doable amount of territory to shield the site from Russian artillery, though. That one site would be unlikely to be able to sustain sufficient logistics for a more major counter-offensive, but the added force available may allow Ukraine to expand and retake more and better locations for such that would allow for the logistics of a significant force.

There's a route forward to larger gains, but whether Ukraine can actually pull it off is still uncertain.
 
Last edited:
Classically you reenforce success. What starts as a diversion or reconnaissance can become the main centre of an attack.
 
HansMustermann said:
Yes. One. But that's still kind of the problem with Russia. Its advanced drones are forced to do a lot of jobs that Ukraine has been doing just fine with other means. They don't just have to compete on number and technology with Ukraine's drones, but also with all the Excalibur rounds, GMLRS rounds, even Javelins. They need a LOT more to cover all those use-cases too.



And the competition isn't entirely on equal ground either, seeing how western supplied AA systems can intercept more of Russia's drones and cruise missiles and so on, while Russia's air defenses seem to struggle a lot more. You can see plenty of videos where a Russian AA system like that Pantsir-S1 wasn't even aware of the drone following it and punching its coordinates, or another AA system struggle for several minutes to get a lock on a drone, then shoot a missile or two by eye and miss.
Click to expand...
They are producing Lancet on an industrial scale. Russia can't make fighter jets or tanks on a large scale, they can't keep up with demand for artillery shells and they are nearly out of attack helicopters.

They can make effective drones and plenty of them.
 
Even granted that, it's still thing A competing to fulfil the same roles as things A, B, C, D and E. It's like bragging that my construction company has 20 sledgehammers compared to my competitor's 10... except he also has 10 screw drivers, 10 pickaxes, 10 shovels, etc. I mean, I can also use my clear superiority in hammers to hammer in screws instead of his screwing them in, or break rocks, or whatever, but realistically it's a meaningless claim. He can do a lot more things than my company, regardless of that pointless propaganda metric :p
 
Last edited:
Seen several reports that a lot of the North Korean ammunition has severe problems.

Some are duds with faulty primers or propellant that either fails to ignite completely or just squibs, some have out of calibre cartridge cases or driving bands that jam in the breech or barrel causing a burst and some are letting gas blow by.
A lot of it seems to be 1950s vintage Russian stuff still on their stocks and just being returned.
There's also a problem with shells breaking up when fired, turns out North Korean pot metal doesn't make very good shell cases.

Anyway the whole thing is a mess.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Seen several reports that a lot of the North Korean ammunition has severe problems.

Some are duds with faulty primers or propellant that either fails to ignite completely or just squibs, some have out of calibre cartridge cases or driving bands that jam in the breech or barrel causing a burst and some are letting gas blow by.
A lot of it seems to be 1950s vintage Russian stuff still on their stocks and just being returned.
There's also a problem with shells breaking up when fired, turns out North Korean pot metal doesn't make very good shell cases.

Anyway the whole thing is a mess.
Click to expand...

The upside being, we now know North Korea is little more than a paper tiger as well.
 
Yes, generally, but a paper tiger with a lot of rockets and artillery. No real threat to anyone, but probably able to do a lot of damage to the South before they inevitably got crushed.

If that artillery doesn't function...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom