VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
43 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Why thank you Vlad! Also does anyone know how to clear a quote? I might have changed my mind on actually posting something back on the 14th, deleted it, and yet, the quote box remains without text within it.
While clicked on the quote box I press backspace and it clears the quote. XD BTW you're welcome.
-
46 minutes ago, BTR said:
@kinophile You seem to greatly overestimate the Ukrainian army. Have they solved their heavy equipment shortages? Lack of air force? Lack of standardization? Problems with alcohol consumption? Lack of modern and/or functional radio sets? What makes Ukrainian forces battle hardened as a whole? As it currently stands, LDNR/Urkanian forces are very heterogeneous in their fighting capacity, suffer similar problems and need to be examined on formation basis.
Quite true, you said it perfectly. They need to be examined on formation basis.
-
44 minutes ago, kinophile said:
Sure any fields can work, but it might be better to give a defined, specific objective, and a Ukrainian air base gives the triple advantages of proper, flat open spaces, specific immediately accessible targets and instant strategic denial of the airbase for UKR air assets (no one is going to land while a ground fight is going on).
If I understand correctly, you're suggesting opening two preliminary, regional feint assaults in the area and THEN attack Kharkiv? Or more spread apart attacks, eg north of the Donbass, then on the coast in order to spread the Ukrainian reserves thin?
I suggest westward drives from Donbass to break through Ukrainian defenses. Basically to push the Ukrainians back to new lines and deploy more reinforcements. While this happens use cruise missiles onto the Ukrainian bases where large amounts of assets are. There are already DPR and LPR armies that can be used to defend the already DPR and LPR territories. So I don't think the Russian Ground Forces will have to worry about DPR-LPR territory being held. So more troops can be used in offensive operations. I'd assume lads from GRU have are actively even now at the moment mapping Ukrainian defenses in the contact line. Over night artillery units can be moved in and used to take out front line defenses to effectively "surprise" the Ukrainians. during the same time SEAD operations can start and try to pick off Ukrainian AA systems that are posing a threat to air craft for the day operation that is to begin. The Ukrainians have a good air defense set up, it won't be easy. But it's better to start right away at taking out the air defenses. By day light, I'd use the DPR LPR to probe into lines where the regular Ground Forces will attack. If we can surprise the Ukrainians it will be way easier for us.
Assuming these goals are achieved, the Ukrainian command now has to deploy forces to make sure that a further break through does not happen. Now Russia can threaten other areas and attack through areas where they are vulnerable. No need to take Mariupol if Russia can deploy through the North-East and get to threaten Kiev faster.
-
2 minutes ago, kinophile said:
If I understand correctly, the 92nd is one of the more effective Ukrainian units - @Haiduk @BTR @Battlefront.com can maybe clarify/correct?
By naval landings, you mean along the southern coast? And by aerial you mean paradrops on Ukrainian airfields? The former possibly, in limited amounts (lets say max battalion, but in the right place it could have a disproportionate effect) and the latter, yes that could work. I doubt Ukrainian airfields are heavily defended, and a paradrop on a primary regional airbase could wreak havoc, if if eventually defeated.
You don't have to paradrop onto Ukrainian air fields. Any field can work, a airborne battalion dropped into Donetsk and Lugansk can be used in operations. I didn't clarify what I meant, if you open up with 2 main attacks the enemy will have no choice but to send their army to meet those threats. This is when an attack on Kharkiv can take place.
-
43 minutes ago, kinophile said:
@Sublime Iraq and Vietnam were not NATO wars. Never declared as such, never involved it. They were US led expeditionary wars, with some allied countries who also happened to be NATO members, with some cursory UN (pressured by the US) rubberstamping. This is basic history, not opinion. It's getting to the point of this, this and this.
Funnily, this thread started with me taking issue with WOTRs postulated quick fall of Mariupol, became a whack-a-mole game of my suggestions for how Russia could actually do it and has come full circle where I agree that Mariupol is too hard a nut and too strategically inconsequential to warrant significant Russia bloodshed.
I'm curious what people think of Russian target Kharkiv? What about Russian raids in force, almost thunder runs to demonstrate the weakness of the US, namely that it cannot be everywhere? Thus could destabilize the UKR government. I imagine local populace resistance would rapidly stiffen, but it could be a way for Russia to deflect/drain the UKR Donbass offensive of momentum.
Kharkiv indeed will be a target goal. It is so close to our borders. Although there is one issue, the 92nd mechanized brigade of Ukraine is stationed in Kharkhiv. in 2015 during the war they were moved to Donbass. Attacking from Lugansk and Donetsk as well as large scale naval and aerial landings might be used to draw out a lot of forces to face this issue. Missile strikes would hit Ukrainian garrisons in order to make brigades less effective. Then essentially a third front can open to take Kharkiv, which will basically put Ukraine in a very overwhelmed situation.
-
3 hours ago, BTR said:
20-60, why not 200 or 400? This is the original document sent to Khrushchev by then Prosecutor General of Soviet Union, Minister of Interior and Minister of Justice at the inception of De-Stalinization. This document details the total amount of repressed, including served death sentence, and sent to labor camps. Not trying to whitewash a tragedy, but some facts need to be straight. Our greatest national tragedies, the civil war, the red terror and the second world war cannot be attributed to Stalin. Inter-war famine also cannot be attributed to Stalin personally. Over here people recognize in equal portion what Stalin did wrong and what he did right, one cannot be separated from the other.
I was looking for that file good find. While killing even one soul is not right, it sure does show the anti-soviet propaganda even today.
-
23 hours ago, Sublime said:
Kino sorry but one I just dont think the Russians logistically can do it. Again you say the Ukr cant defend everywhere on the coast. True but -
Parts of the coast are pointless to invade
Parts completely unsuitable
And even if NATO did 'nothing' you net your ass the Ukr would get the benefit of US sat. And sigint the entire war let alone battle. This is very significant.
Second with almost all of NATO thats joined since the 90s being East of Germany longitudally I really think NATO would step in on full blown Russian invasion of all the Ukr if nothing but because the Eastern Europeans and Balts are practically foaming at the mouth about the Russians and rightfully so.
We find ourselves in terribly dangerous political times.
Vlad i like a lot of stuff you post but i fail to see how a war that really has given the average much in reality and the average ukrainian less and has killed and maimed thousands a "success". I guess it comes down to sides of the fence man I just feel that the Russian Federation has blatantly invaded Ukraine and its wrong. I think the US invasion of Iraq the second time was wrong as well, though and perhaps because Im American I feel it was much less cynical as far as aims and we were completely honest about what we did. With allies as well as Steve pointed out. Honestly though its silly to compare which war was worse. Wars are inherently dirty things and I agree completely with your hope the Ukr can find some sort of peace.
Now WW2. Millions dead. A terrible thing that if I could wish away I would but at least many of those dead died to rid the world of Hitle, Mussolini, and Tojo. Unfortunately IMO Stalin wasnt dealt with.
Stalin was the better of the three, but sadly since he enjoyed success rather than the other guys his opposing party members and foreign countries made him out to be the a greater devil than he was. Stalin made the Soviet Union the power it became. He made mistakes, and did crimes. But overall I approve of his policies even if they were a bit harsh. My Gramps also approves of Stalin, and considering he was in world war 2, I'll approve him if he does
I wouldn't compare second invasion of Iraq to the Russian deployment of a few combat battalions to effectively destroy Ukrainian spearheads, and help the situation for the DPR and LPR. Although I get what you mean.
-
Steve,
You make good points, and obviously what you claim is backed by stuff you have researched varying from mainly Ukrainian and US sources. But keep in mind, even if Russia has supported the uprising. The people in general now support it. Even in Russia, during the war we had a bunch of folks wanting the Russian armed forces to "protect" the Donbass people. And in a certain way, they are right if we look at it. The Pro-EU government installed is obviously anti-Russia. And the huge percent of Russians in the east honestly were tired of the economy. And the Crimean event inspired many people to rebel and go against the new government. We have to look at it this way as well putting all bias aside, The people of Eastern Ukraine didn't get a say in anything that happened in Kiev.
Russia has its own geopolitical goals, it is not only the Europeans and US who can have geopolitical goals. If Ukraine will be dragged away from us then we will fight for it. As for the rebels, shooting at civvie infrastructure. If that was true, there would be less support for the Rebels. I'm not saying all of the DPR and LPR armies are angels, all armies have soldiers who commit crime. Be it following an order, or just personal problems. I remember in the beginning of the conflict people didn't let the Ukrainian armored vehicles pass through to their objective. And the kind Ukrainian lads disarmed their selves and handed over their receivers on their weapons. Propaganda has rised so high in both Russia and Ukraine that we hate each other. When we should be a brotherly nation, geopolitics have distanced us and this is not right at all.
Don't get me wrong, if the Ukrainian army is facing resistance in Urban areas they have all rights to level out the threat to their army. Although this has to be done with more precise ways other then using heavy artillery on a very large target area. Which has led to large scale losses of civilians. Which photographers take pictures of the mangled up bodies, share it onto the internet, then Russians like me will automatically support propaganda given off from Russian media (which is not always propaganda mind you) I like NATO's ways of facing a insurgency, they win the media war right off the back.
About militia guys giving fear and brutality to the local populace, this is not true Steve. There have been instances where Cossacks have brutally dealt with criminals in a non-humanitarian way. Which I do not support. But on average the militiaman is a local, and he won't have hatred for his fellow people. Where as a young Ukrainian soldier, who is facing a fully "foreign" invasion, will show no mercy for the people who support these guys. Especially after hearing about how his comrades are being killed in great numbers. It is a sad situation in Ukraine, honestly the truth is some where in the middle. There are moments where I can see why Ukraine is kind of right, but other events lead me to supporting the DPR and LPR. I may visit Eastern Ukraine some time during August, I'll be sure to talk to army guys and people. And even if it isn't related to the game hopefully I can share good information.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Correct. Russia's strategy to take the bulk of Ukraine by fake uprisings failed. It failed to collapse the government. It failed to take over regions by Novorussian zealots (backed by Russian government, of course). It failed to defend those regions during the June/July Ukrainian offensive. It failed to significantly destroy the Ukrainian forces during the August/September counter offensive. It even failed to take back a lot of territory that it wanted (including Debaltseve). It failed to take the Donetsk Airport for a VERY long time. It failed to take Debatlseve without a major infusion of Russian Federation forces. It failed to destroy the Ukrainian forces who were at Debaltseve. It failed to create a viable proxy army to defend Donbas without direct Russian Federation support.
This is not to say that Russia can't cause harm, because it has and still is. But in terms of its war aims, it's not doing such a good job.
Steve
Without getting into politics(totally got into politics
), The DNR and LNR still existing is a major success in my opinion. The worst of the sanctions have been thrown on us (assuming that another wave of sanctions wont happen) Russia didn't have any ambitions on expanding the DNR and LNR.(besides launching offensives to take out Ukrainian army units) The rebellion started off between civils and once things were going bad Russia decided it would commit to helping the DNR and LNR stay alive. (Majorly due to the fact that a new government was installed overnight because of pro EU riots) if we look at this way, I'm not sure if it was intentional collateral damage or not but the UA attacks on urban areas with air strikes and artillery led to alot of support for the rebellion groups. Honestly I think this was the mistake UA made. Instead of facing this rebellion with full force, since they are "foreign invaders" they should have let them die out over a short period of time since the Ukrainians say that the people don't want the rebels.
What I'm trying to get at is that, no matter what the truth is, there is an actual support for the DNR and LNR among people. I personally would wish that the DNR and LNR can reunite with Ukraine, this time with their say in what happens in Ukrainian politics. All this blood shed was for nothing. My aunt who lives in eastern ukraine with her husband was affected by this war. And it may not count as much, but she supports the rebellion. The funny thing is I didn't support this uprising in the beginning, I thought it was pointless. Until videos emerged of SU-25s strafing roads. (was it intentional or not I don't know)
-
Steve, It was ignorant of me to say such things about the information regarding the Ukrainian crisis, the internet is open to everyone. You are totally right that the Russian army was in Ukraine, but regarding politics in Ukraine I will still have to disagree with you but without going deeply into Ukraine on this topic.
The link you shared(the incident with the taliban) is interesting, and surely has opened my eyes. Could be a raid, but if they were successful that would show weakness in the Russian defenses and would be exploited further. Kuweires air base comes to mind, where the SAA defended against huge offensives for 2 years. If ISIS can conduct a raid on the go onto a Russian operated base then that is not a good sign.
-
Steve, conducting a military raid on a military base behind government lines is not as easy as exploding some stuff in the cities (urban environment)
About Ukraine, Yes I did believe that there weren't active Russian formations in Ukraine until I did some research for my own. (albeit its not like how UA claims saying all of Novorussian armed forces is actual Russian army) And I'll admit you were right there. There were Russian formations deployed into Ukraine.
Rostov how ever, honestly I'd rather believe that it was an accident. Because if there were evidence that Ukrainian special forces did it, Russia would not be quiet about it.
-
Ah Steve, Stratfor is definitely more a better source. The T-90s haven't made it into Russian government owned media, but Russians have the internet and after a little bit of research and talking to some lads, It's obvious Russia has deployed troops into Ukraine when moments were critical. Infact we(majorly) support this move...
BTW That ammo explosion was caused by drunken Russian soldiers? Or was there another story to it? For example an artillery system exploding during an exercise which caused the ammunition dump to explode. Now stop twisting stuff on me, I didn't say Russian troops can't make mistakes. Every one is human. Although getting drunk on base and causing fuel dump explosion near helicopters during a "refuel" is totally out the window ESPECIALLY in a war environment.
ISIS driving a VBIED into a Russian military operated base? Without checkpoints putting about 500 rounds into just the engine block? I've heard this claim during march too. Take a look at the roads leading to the airbase, the internet shows alot. You will see how insane this sounds. Ontop of that take a look at the military map of Syria (who owns what piece of lands you know what I mean) look at the T-4 Air base and look at the nearest ISIS controlled areas. And then ontop of that please try to find out what units are deployed around the T-4 air base.
Now I'm betting all this is false, if it turns out you guys are right I'll say ****. But just analyzing it on my own, it makes no sense, how it would be possible.
-
51 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:
I'm not sure how Stratfor (debka of the west) was able to develop any type of authoritative analysis from this photo alone, so I assume they are either filling in the blanks themselves or have multiple sources. That being said, precision munitions and precision targeting equipment wouldn't be needed to achieve those types of effects. We've lost aircraft in Afghanistan on the ground in the same way as is being suggested happened here.
That effect could be achieved, but there are no evidence of other craters. Such accuracy is very doubtful. What weapons does ISIS have other then some mortars that would be used to achieve such successful accurate hits...(without being seen by counter-battery radars) And how close were they?
-
37 minutes ago, sburke said:
How exactly did you determine ISIS never got closer than 5-6km? They wear a special "I am ISIS shoot me" sign as they did recon on the base? Look how insecure NATO facilities are in Afghanistan and repeat to me with a straight face that Uber Russian ISIS sniffers know who is a sympathizer working on their airbase. I need a good chuckle today.
Now the argument that ISIS didn't claim it carries far more weight. If they did they'd be broadcasting it to the high heavens as a glorious victory for Islam. I am betting more on inept drunken supply guys accidentally setting off a fuel dump.
ISIS is not getting any accurate firing solutions into a corner of a helicopter base, without us Russians finding their approximate area. (Just the same as Americans I'm just tryna sound cool with the whole Russkii thing)
As for drunken soldiers blowing the fuel up, that's a no go. I would fear the consequences... Especially contractors they are pretty serious. Lads going to Syria are as professional as they get.
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
There's some rumblings that the Russian truthiness might be running the par for the course. I think Steve might be referring to this though:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36368346
Which is rather curious to say the least.Yep Russian COVER UPS!
I seen the "sattelite images" The neareast ISIS ever was to t-4 air base was 5-6 KM, all hits were "perfect" with no misses all hit the stationary targets pinpoint if this is suppose to be true. (it is totally not believe it or not stuff like this would find its way into the Russian public) Unless we have some NATO guys with some handy laser designators its just another rumor.(BTW NATO SOLDIERS DO NOT OPERATE WITH ISIS LOL)
http://www.dw.com/en/us-intelligence-company-confirms-attack-on-russian-military-equipment-in-syria/a-19280135 look at this, there is not one single miss. Nor any ground crew deployed to repair the area.
We have a FO guy on the forum he provided some good info about how FOs work. I do not think this would be possible without laser designators (which ISIS does not have let alone do they have the precision guided shells needed)
-
34 minutes ago, kinophile said:
?
Off my own topic, and I'm no military expert, not by a mile, but I can find no reference to major Russian losses. Max ten soldiers dead is the most.
So far there are 6 dead Russian servicemen from combat, and 2 from a helicopter crash (MI-28 crashed during maneuvers)
-
Same with RPG-7s, my anti tank teams should launch and "dis-appear" in 2 seconds.
-
3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
It'll be a tough run. Using unconventional fighters might be helpful in taking important nodes, or disrupting Ukrainian deployments. But single points of failure are harder to find in urban settings simply because as a city, they're large interlinked grids of avenues of approach. If Spetznaz takes Victory Square intersection, they can be bypassed down 7th October Road. As the attacker you really genuinely need to conduct a deliberate clearance block by block, with integrated plan to prevent the enemy from infiltrating your rear areas.
This when done effectively is rarely fast. You could do a "show" invasion and take over important landmarks, drive in RT to celebrate great victory over fascists, but that'll still leave large Ukrainian forces in control of the city, and YOU on the defensive to prevent your units from being Groznyed. Also as long as major forces continue to function within the city, it will continue to require containment and a sizable force in the city to do the actual clearance.
I'll concede it might succeed if the Ukrainians just have no fight in them, the Russians literally catch everyone with their pants around their ankles, and everything the Russian Military does goes flawlessly, but that's well and beyond a reasonable expectation to plan around, and is unlikely in any event given the current level of Ukrainian resolve and the sort of attention the region has on it for intelligence collection.Certainly you're right. Clearing the city of all resistance would be very tough. Although with air superiority on the Russian side in such a short notice, helicopters could be used to snipe armored vehicles. Now we're left with a bunch of dudes who are faced with the "fight or die" dugged in Grozny style. Would be a mess to clear if the men dug in a city like that were fanatical. Collateral damage would give me a head ache if I was the commander of that operation. instead of capturing the whole city I would surround it and capture key roads and keep the Ukrainian army in pockets, where they wont be able to effectively break out. You can expect the Ukrainian army in that city to lose most of their morale. But I'm sure professional units in the Ukrainian army would offer resistance.
-
I'd say around 5-7 days unmolested. Mariupol does not need to fall 100%, Surrounding the city and destroying important military targets are enough. I'd say a joint air force army and navy coordination as well as marine landings is enough to achieve a success in about 2-3 days. Of course this doesn't mean Russia will have cleared all resistance. It would render the Ukrainian army in Mariupol ineffective.
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:I came up with a week on the assumption that we did Libya's Air Defense network in a day and we anticipate North Koreas lasting three days*. Those are both archaic systems, yes, but very thorough and expansive.
There absolutely will be long range Russian strike attempts on Deeper NATO bases (although with NATO/USAF/USN disbursement these won't slow much) and runways can be repaired fast. We also have plenty of tankers and the like that can let us operate further back, and there's no good way for you guys to attack a Carrier Strike Group in the med. Plus, it's not like these strikes will be in a vacuum. The USN has a whole lot more experience launching Tomahawks than the Russians do Kalibr. And the US has a whole lot more assets they can commit than the Russians do. Backfires/Blackjacks/Bears focusing on the Black Sea are not focusing on the Baltics, and they don't exactly have a fast turn around rate.
So yeah, tell NATO to crack the Black Sea A2/AD network with a dedicated buildup and I'd say give us a week to degrade it enough to where we can start doing other things. That doesn't mean every single SAM will have been destroyed, but we will definitely have opened up options. The debate then is can Russia accomplish it's ground objectives in this week. With a significant buildup and lacking a heavy NATO ground force in place, you'd grab a lot of Ukrainian territory.
*This statement is the humble opinion of discussions among this LT and his JO peers and does not reflect any sort of official assessment from the US Navy.I'd say this is a fair point.
-
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:
Russia is going to run out of A2/AD assets long before NATO runs out of warplanes. The air power disparity has been beaten to death previously. That said, those assets (assuming a thorough bubble was in place at the start of the conflict) could deny the black Sea for up to a week in the best case scenario for Russia. It'd be up to them to make the most of that week.
It is not right to assume these things without NATO ever had to fight a near peer power. Sure if Russia does nothing about the bases servicing NATO aircraft it will end badly after 1-2 weeks of heavy SEAD operations overwhelming positions. But the Caspian fleet and black sea fleet as well as the RuAF can launch quite a few very long range missiles onto Injirlik Airbase in Turkey. As well as navy bases of the Turkish Navy. Which if successful for the most part can buy Russia even more time to complete operations. I'd be more worried about the NATO missions flying from Europe, Kaliningrad will probably be lost militarily but Russia might as well launch missiles at the nearest bases from there. It's all about inflicting heavy losses onto NATO forces and completing operations successfully in order to be able to negotiate on Russian terms. NATO obviously can slug it out way longer than Russia can. So the odds on a prolonged war are on NATO's side. I also forgot to mention Stealth Bombers that the US has that can operate from the U.K. which would certainly be able to cause damage to Russian air defenses as long as it isn't seen by radar systems made for Stealth type targets. And if the short range weapon systems aren't able to take out the incoming missiles.
-
Russian air defenses are layered, they have the long range systems (S-300s, S-400s,) Then they have BUKs as medium range, There is then the shorter range systems to support these larger systems. TORs can engage incoming missiles, Tunguskas can as well, Pantsirs also can. Then we have the Surface ships of the Black Sea with AA capabilities. There are also the submarines which are pretty close to Turkish shores which will make NATO have to do counter sub operations giving Russia time to do what it has too, And set up more defenses. Can NATO achieve break through in Russian AA umbrellas? Sure! Will it be quick? No.
-
2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Given the new Fallout DLC is out, I'm going to be doing shorter replies.
Re: Vlad
Things to keep in mind:
1. NATO does not expand in the sense of recruiting new members. It's not like they just showed up to the Ukraine and offered them a free t-shirt to join up or something. It might be worth wondering if your "brothers" as you once called the Ukrainians have a reason to feel insecure about their neighbors, and also why Eastern Europe might as a virtually monolithic block seek security from the west and turn their back on Russia.
2. Russia as pointed out cannot be in many places at once. If it goes to war in the Baltics, it's going to leave itself open elsewhere. If it leaves the Baltics to restore the various little fake republics its carved out of its neighbors it leaves the Baltics open to counter-attack. Etc, etc, etc.
3. NATO and her allies do however have enough forces to threaten Russia in every theater. It doesn't have to be a major presence, just enough to punish the Russian conscripts left as holding forces, and enable the Ukrainians and Georgians to extract their pound of flesh.
Re: Destroy and depart.
You shouldn't start wars you can't finish. There's nothing Russia can attain through a "quick" war in the Baltics that would not be undone in weeks, if not days from departure.Sure but this is only if we are talking about Russia goes crazy and sends more than 20,000 troops to attack and hold the Baltics. Where as it could just do a quick destroy Baltic military capabilities and humiliate NATO's "Article V." Of course Russia doesn't stand a chance if it deploys more than 30% of its ground forces to the Baltics and sends them there to hold it. Also, Conscripts are not bad soldiers. They can defend on Russian territories as good as the professional soldiers. I've worked with Conscripts alot. Russia is relying on her strategic assets to keep her borders safe. As I've stated, our airforce has the capabilities to send a bunch of cruise missiles 2,500 KMs away without even having to worry about being hit by NATO aircraft. (Check out the KH-55 missile variants.)
-
2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
That is a very good point. It does seem that all of these hypothetical scenarios assumes Russia would fight to the bitter end over the Baltics once they invaded but in many ways it would be more sensical to declare mission accomplished and leave. They could be in and out within a few weeks. The only reason I can think of to stay would be if Russian internal politics required it, e.g. to protect oppressed Russian minorities. But I do think that in the pantheon of crazy "Russia attacks!" scenarios the "Russia overruns the Baltic states then digs in to take on all comers" is the craziest and therefore the least probable.
That is exactly what I mean. It is stupid to hold down the Baltics.
-
11 minutes ago, kinophile said:
Sure.
But I'd suspect the Ukrainians are pretty watchful of Russian military activity. An intended drive along the coast would be pretty hard to hide.
Also, going by the Donetsk Airport and Debaltsev fights alone the Ukrainians are pretty capable of creating a Stalingrad/Grozny for the Russian advance to stumble over.
Any heavy delay like that would cluster up attacking units against the coast, providing insanely attractive targets for US naval missile and air strikes from the Mediterranean (IE Allowing the continental Air assests to stay focussed on the main fight).
Yeah they were effective at giving Stalingrad to DPR LPR units, who majorily aren't as equipped as the Russian forces. You can expect Russian cruise missile strikes to hit Ukrainian artillery positions. And let's not forget juicy targets is not a possibility in the black sea so close to Russian borders. It's our backyard and we have defensive systems that can allow Russia to be successful in the initial start of such a conflict.
War on the rocks - hypothetical NATO-RUS
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Excellent question