Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Kinophile

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,359

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kinophile

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    Quote

    Current situation at Russian refineries

     The Ukrainian Armed Forces are adjusting the volume of Russian oil refining.  The question of whether there will be a fuel shortage is no longer relevant.  The only question is when it will come.  There will be enough supplies for a month and a half

    I doubt the Ivans will sit still, but it's certainly a very good amount of damage. 

    5

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    There is some truth to the idea that militaries are an extension of the people who make them, however, one cannot become too focused on political ideology as the sole source of an overall school of doctrine.  History, resources, infrastructure, culture, environment and even things as simple as education and literacy all play important roles in how a military is generated and employed.  We can see vast differences in communist military approaches, for example.  North Vietnam had a very different approach than the Soviets, as did China and other non-Soviet communist states.  Western militaries also differed, not only internally but over time.  There is a vast difference in US military doctrine as it went from conscription to an all volunteer force.  Its conscription based force actually favoured mass until the 70s as did many other western nations.

    I think this risks dangerous oversimplification of the issue.  Ukraine is on a democracy spectrum, not a full fledge liberal democratic state yet.  Russia is also technically a democracy, but far more in the “locked in” autocratic/oligarch end.  Neither Ukraine or Russia are communist states (see their economic systems).  So boiling this all down to Russia = dictatorship = communism = Soviet system: Ukraine = democracy = western system, is a serious oversimplified lens through which to view the situation on just about every point of the algorithm.  

    The initial Russian invasion was constructed pretty much as we expected - BTGs under Brigade formations.  The nature of the assault was multi-axis manoeuvre designed to overwhelm an opponent.  The RA did not employ a Soviet style military approach here, they were much closer to western military philosophy and doctrine - fast moving warfare based on strategies of rapid annihilation through manoeuvre.  We did not see MRDs in an echeloned system designed to attack in multiple waves or the massive fires complex that are hallmarks of the Soviet system - in fact if Russia had gone with a Soviet style attack, with the numbers behind it, they may very well have won.  No the RA tried to employ what was basically a western style opening attack but it failed, nearly completely.  Now why it failed is interesting and two camps have sprung up.  The main one is that “Russia Sux” and cannot do western doctrine, despite trying to look like us, for various reasons - a BTG is nothing more than a type of Battle Group.  The other camp is of the mind the RA failed because conditions on the modern battlefield have changed.  The first camp has been the loudest but the evidence in support of the second is growing.

    The western school is far more than training and kit - it is a deeper military philosophy that generates strategy, which in turn generates campaigns…pretty much like the Soviet school but taking very different routes to get to a similar end-state.  Now as the war has progressed the RA quickly saw that their was little hope for them by holding onto the western doctrinal school, they appear have to fallen back on mass but even here in small bite sized chunks…why?  This is the Soviet style but descaled.  The immediate answer to this descaling was “Russia Sux..LOLZ” but this does not make sense.  Russia managed a 5-6 axis, high speed operation at the beginning of the war but cannot figure out a Battalion level attack two-years in?  The good news is that it appears the Soviet approach is also under constraints based on the environment as well.  High concentration is too dangerous so they too have to de-aggregate.

    As to the UA the idea you appear to be proposing is the “one more XYZ and they can win” idea.  It is that if we can only make the UA more like us, enough, that victory will somehow happen.  This does not match observations either.  Ukraine started this war fighting hybrid.  Mixes of conventional and unconventional defence along the entire length of the RAs overstretched operational system.  That was not western doctrine nor Soviet, it was something we have seen in COIN but upscaled and empowered.  The core C2 component of the Soviet style system is centralized control and task-command.  We saw neither of these from Ukraine in the opening days of the war.  They were far more western in that resistance in that regard.

    Last summer was a testament and watershed moment.  It is well documented that the UA had a lot of western equipment and tens of thousands of western trained troops. The UA tried Bn level mechanized breaches in the centre south that are straight out of the western manuals.  They clearly trained for them in Europe and operationalized them.  They also failed…dramatically.  So either the Ukrainians can’t do western (another narrative that sprung up) or there are weaknesses in the western technology based approach on these battlefields.  I argue the latter.  The single largest one is the over-dependence of the western system on air superiority.  Without that the entire western school starts to fail.  And in the modern UAS environment air superiority is impossible.  So it won’t matter how much western equipment and training we provide, our current doctrine looks like it will not work on this battlefield.  So what?  We need a new doctrine.

    It really doesn’t, in Ukraine and both sides have pulled back from the western style approach as they have been pulled into an attrition war. The western school vs Soviet school is less about politics and more about military strategies. Both were built for Annihilation strategies but the Soviet school has a far higher tolerance for attrition warfare.  Ukraine has kept the high technology approach but western style manoeuvre is simply undoable in this environment at any scale.  Or it may take a scale so high that it looks more Soviet than anything else.

    Your position sounds an awful lot like the militaries of WW1 - one more push and we are through. But now they just need more F16s.  The Russians have taken the same philosophy but are basing it on human capital and not kit.  I suspect both camps are incorrect.  The western school of rapid overwhelming manoeuvres may be dead due to nearly complete battlefield illumination and modern friction.  Dumb mass is definitely dead for essentially the same reasons.

    Neither side will adopt either the Western or Soviet approach in full because both of these schools are 80 years old and designed for a different time.  The Western school cannot deal with a modern attrition based war and the Soviet one cannot deal with the technological realities.  Neither schools can address the realities of denial and friction we are seeing.  So we are going to see the evolution of something else.  And our job over here in the safe sidelines is to try and stay out of Ukraine’s way while they figure it out…and take notes.

    In summary, both militaries started this war more western than Soviet.  It worked for the Ukrainians on defence but has failed them on offence.  The Russians started with a more western-style approach on offence but once it failed ran back into the loving arms of Soviet doctrine on defence.

    The Russian have tried a much smaller scaled down version of Soviet style on offence and it has provided limited gains at horrendous costs.  Ukraine has tried western style offensives, also at smaller scales, which have essentially done as well as the Soviet system, but with much lower casualties.  So here we are, neither school is really working on offence but can do defence.  Hence the growing belief that we are into something larger than either school - defensive primacy.

    So, solutions.  Well doubling down on either school is likely a dead end. We probably need a new school entirely.  One we have not seen yet.  This war, and the next one will be a race of adaptations.  We have yet to see where it will end.

    My position is that neither the Western or Soviet schools are working in this war, even though they have been attempted.  We should not even try to make the UA more like the US Army at this point.  Nor will expunging “Soviet legacy” fix the situation for Ukraine.  I suspect we have yet to see a new school of military art and thought emerge.  It is largely built on a foundation of artificial intelligence/forward processing that can create massed precision fires.  Both sides appear to be trying to figure out this problem, my money is that Ukraine is ahead in the game but not unassailable.

    Thank you for taking the time to answer. 

    I feel I need to solidify my thoughts a bit more before discussing further, as several of the positions you ascribe to what I'm thinking are actually not my positions.

    This is a failure of clarity on my side but there's also a easiness to lumping people into boxes of thought - but it's made easier by foggy articulation. 

    I shall ponder... 

     

     

     

    1

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Kinophile

    9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    I think you are mixing a lot of themes here to the detriment of objective analysis.  The Soviet system was designed to create as much mass as possible and project it at an opponent.  It may appear "cruel and uncaring" but in reality it was built on the brutal lessons of the Eastern Front and how a quick violent short war was far better than a drawn out one.

    We vie for the same aspiration of short wars, we simply lean on technology instead of human capital.  And frankly we have no real proof either system is truly superior.

    The Soviet system is a poorer fit for modern democracies; however, before we sit too high on that horse, lets not forget democracies fought in WW1 too, and were very able to throw human capital at a problem at great loss.

    The reality is that there is nothing inherently "wrong" or "evil" about the Soviet military system - talking political ideology out of the equation - so long as one asks that system to do what it was designed to do.  The exact same thing goes for the Western military system.  In this war, both sides have tried the western approach...and it did not work.  Now they are in a grinding war of attrition for which the western systems is also a very bad fit.

    Nor is there proof that democracies can't do attrition either.  We have proven that we are very capable at spending a lot of lives to win.  What I oppose is this reoccurring narrative that somehow all the problems all sides are having are "Soviet legacy" and any successes are somehow western modernization; this is simply not proven by what we have seen.

    Russia has fallen back onto a more Soviet-like approach to force generation and employment...and clearly it is working for them.  They are able to hold ground and even conduct tactical advances even with appalling losses.  The UA is moving much farther to the western doctrine, and frankly some of it is working for them too.  They are able to hold, strike deep and have very high precision.  

    The weaknesses of either system are also on display for all to see as well.  For the Soviet system it is rigidity and logistical weight, which is untenable on the modern battlefield.  For the Western system it is the serious lack of depth and capacity.

    I suspect that each side is evolving to some sort of hybrid, or at least trying to.  Either way, it does us little good to point at every problem and go "difficulty upscaling due to Soviet legacy"  which frankly does not even make sense based on what Soviet legacy really was.

    As to that last part I highlighted - well yes and no.  The Mongols created smart fast mass and took over half the planet, so not entire a new idea.  The Soviet system could generate modern mech and armor forces like no one else.  Their operational art was very advanced on how to employ that mass.  In many ways they really are a defining school of modern warfare, the counter-point to the western schools.  We have no actual war to try and decide which system was better to worse to be honest.  The Gulf War was the closest but it really was a poor analogue.  This war has shadows of the Soviet system but overlapped with other schools.

    To clarify, we are in agreement to some degree, where I'm not saying Western is superior, militarily (or technically even that Democracy is) but that the combination of a military system built on fundamentally different principles of construction and sustainment by an autocracy is a bad match to a democratic government.  I certainly agree that democracies can do long term, large scale attrition (hello, WW1+).

    I'm not convinced here:

    Quote

    That the soviets built the large scale mass system for a 'quick violent short war'.

    Is it not simpler to argue they built such a large, intense and in-depth military system because Russia is geographically huge, the Soviets had a lot of enemies and modern war is highly destructive? These points would also apply to NATO, but with democracies as the source political systems and cultures the patterns of their militaries angled in a different direction from the Soviets. 

    To further expand:

    With Ukraine firmly in the democracy camp retaining a legacy Soviet military system can only grate and grind against the political and civil structures. We've seen that friction occur many times on the Ukrainian side; sometime sthe modern mindset wins out, sometimes the Soviet. Where reform/reformatting has not happened the Ukrainian military appears weakest. By contrast where the Soviet system is weakest is where Ukraine has its greatest successes.

    This isn't simply Bashing the Soviet Legacy, its highlighting that when the Ukrainian military is allowed to operate in ways compatible with its current social construct is when its at it's most effective. Where it is hidebound by Soviet influence it fails far more often than succeeds. 

    As I've said before, the greatest favour  RUS did to Ukraine was destroying its Navy. Here we see the Soviet naval legacy literally wiped away, an almost clean slate, and what does Ukraine proceed to do? Retake Snake Island, sink the Moskva +15% of the BSF, destroy the BSF command HQ, re-open the grain corridor, etc. 

    Almost all through Western weapons and methodologies combined with Ukrainian initiative, technical ability and without the dead hand of Soviet material. It had to rethink its naval war from the waves up.

    By contrast, the Ukrainian Army is very much built from and composed of Soviet machines and methods. Where they get Western tech and training to the right degree they succeed far more than when they have plenty of Soviet gear. I;m not saying Soviet gear/tech fails (it patently doesn't) but that Western gear/tech/mindset provides far more opportunities and avenues for Ukraine to succeed.

    Quote

    In this war, both sides have tried the western approach...and it did not work.  

    I'm not clear how you come to this conclusion.

    Its well documented and also noted many times here that the UA has not been given the sufficient time and gear to fully transition into a Ukrainian/Western hybrid. Its currently a Ukrainian/Western/Soviet Frankenstein's monster. When its tried the 'true' Western approach in offensives it has not had enough training and not enough gear. When its combined the Western/Soviet its had decent success and when its gone the trad Soviet approach its had nothing but failures (almost all tactical). 

    When the UA is fully supplied with modern Western gear and training it has a compounding effect with Ukrainian innovation and determination. The Soviet systems of doing things get in the way of the UA being all it could be. The UA is constantly testing and adapting the Western approach, but tailored to the realities of the front.

    The Western approach works, just not in the classic, expected way of the West. If it didn't work the UA would rapidly abandon it. The Soviet way does not work for Ukraine, now, and especially not with the democratic society it is currently nailed onto.

    My contention is we will see this removal of the Soviet legacy accelerate under both Syrskyi's leadership intentions, the attrition of the war itself and the modern expectations/demands of the civilian populace. I don't view the Soviet legacy as blameable for everything, more that it hass held back Ukraine from achieving even more than it has.

    It certainly had its uses and can still deliver tangible effects, but those are no longer good enough, at large enough scale or as replicable as they need to be. They are certainly not as inventive and original as this war demands and by now are in deep & growing conflict with Ukrainian civil society's values and expectations.

    3
×
×
  • Create New...