Jump to content

Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS


H1nd

Recommended Posts

Sorry but i stop reading on this part.

Ukraine never existed as country before 1919 when Lenin decalare it. Thats is very hard question and i will discuss it only on my native coz i dont know english that good.

It was Stalin killing five or ten MILLION of them a decade or so later that convinced them Moscow might not have their best interest in mind.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 772
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sorry but i stop reading on this part.

Ukraine never existed as country before 1919 when Lenin decalare it. Thats is very hard question and i will discuss it only on my native coz i dont know english that good.

Oh good grief. Well go look at a map of Russia in 1725, or 1513 for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Stalin killing five or ten MILLION of them a decade or so later that convinced them Moscow might not have their best interest in mind.

 

He did it not only to ukrainians, but with the whole SU. Evryone where hungry. 

Oh good grief.

 

Do you speak russian or ukrainian?

When i tolk about russian history i usaly use russian sources of information writen on russian language.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an attempt to get us back in the spirit of the original posts, what do you, who can theorize these things better than I, suspect the rate of advance from forces in Crimea heading to Odessa would be? I haven't gone over the terrain in any great depth down there, given the worldwide pattern of denser populations along coasts, combined with an entire flank impassable, progress would be much slower in the face of opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an attempt to get us back in the spirit of the original posts, what do you, who can theorize these things better than I, suspect the rate of advance from forces in Crimea heading to Odessa would be? I haven't gone over the terrain in any great depth down there, given the worldwide pattern of denser populations along coasts, combined with an entire flank impassable, progress would be much slower in the face of opposition.

 

Thank you for trying to get us back on topic. If we were to theorized that type of scenario - I blieve that the first objective of Russian forces breaking out of Crimea would be to clear the Kherson area (which, btw has always been fairly pro-Russian outside of major cities) and then to unify with the Russian force coming from Eastern Ukraine through the Azov Sea coast. It would not make any operational sense to assault Odessa before then. No idea what their rate of advance would be. Ukranian army currently has a brigade-sized formation on the Kherson border, once it's overun (which is well within Russian capacity) it would just be a matter of how much guarilla/partisan resistance they encounter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just looks like their is a lot more defensible terrain between Crimea and Odessa than there is on the Northern route via the Kiev-Moscow highway. A big variable in the whole discussion is the extent to which the Ukrainians are willing to mine/rig/ semi professionally IED everything in the lead up to a Russian attack.  If they went all in it would slow things down a LOT.  Even a motivated force slows down after it runs over/into the third 500 lb bomb in road culvert. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been watching a number of videos from both sides now and the potential propaganda misuse is inevitable. 

 

The crux for me seems to be that both sides claim that the OTHER side is ATTACKING and failing, when they most likely are all dug in and just taking potshots  at each other.

 

The incessant claim of rebels storming and dying en masse I value little, as to me it seems most of the same characters pop up in the Motorola and Gily units, video after video, week after week.

 

It would make sense to me that any participating russian unit would engage outside the airport itself, as getting wounded and trapped there would be too much of a propaganda prize for the ukrainians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for trying to get us back on topic. If we were to theorized that type of scenario - I blieve that the first objective of Russian forces breaking out of Crimea would be to clear the Kherson area (which, btw has always been fairly pro-Russian outside of major cities) and then to unify with the Russian force coming from Eastern Ukraine through the Azov Sea coast. It would not make any operational sense to assault Odessa before then. No idea what their rate of advance would be. Ukranian army currently has a brigade-sized formation on the Kherson border, once it's overun (which is well within Russian capacity) it would just be a matter of how much guarilla/partisan resistance they encounter...

 

I would say the best bet for the Ukraine Army would be to pull back to the dniepr in Kherson area an focus on preventing anything reaching to Odessa. The Kherson area south of Dniepr is in my opinion unviable for defence, due to the unbroken, flat farmland and steppe terrain and the fact that RA can threaten the area from both south and east. IT would in my estimation be the easiest goal (the land brigde to crimea) to achieve for the RA. Should UA manage to stick to Zaporizhia they could use it as a base for counter attack in Kherson area. In order for the RA to take Odessa , they would neet to secure their flanks by taking both Zaporizhia and Dnepropetrovsk. All out offensive just along the coast line is an invitation for counter attacks that would slice the offensive in pieces. Taking Dnepropetrovsk would call for taking Poltava and Kharkiv, wich in turn would be easier to take whould there be a diversionary push towards Kiev from the north... So in a sense, even if the Russian goals would be limited to kherson, odessa area. Diversionary operations are required at the entire Eastern Ukraine to tie down rest of the UA and dismantle it's limited counter attack potential. That's roughly how I see it going from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just looks like their is a lot more defensible terrain between Crimea and Odessa than there is on the Northern route via the Kiev-Moscow highway. A big variable in the whole discussion is the extent to which the Ukrainians are willing to mine/rig/ semi professionally IED everything in the lead up to a Russian attack.  If they went all in it would slow things down a LOT.  Even a motivated force slows down after it runs over/into the third 500 lb bomb in road culvert. 

 

Underdog vs World power class enemy scenario calls for absolute total war on defenders part. That is the way I see it and the way we are tought in FDF. Defender mines, demolishes, and moves everything he can if he has any warning of a invasion. IED's are a very potent weapon in a modern war between a second class military against a more potent and modern army like RA. I would asume that UA has some pretty huge dumps of left over TNT, and old ammunition that could be used this way. And remember, this is not some taleban homemade barrel IED but rather there is no limit to the sadistic imagination of a combat engineer/sapper who is given near limitles amounts of cheap TNT and some time to work with it. You could literaly see entire villages go poof with daisy-chained boobytraps or have a wheat field go boom under the entire company that just happened to stop there before pushing to a nearby objective. Ok this is quite exaggerated but you get my point... The crucial factor here is the time and the level of political commitement. If the goverment approves total war and prepares accordingly then it is utter hell to invade a country like that if it has access to decent stockpiles of detonators, tnt, mines and the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux for me seems to be that both sides claim that the OTHER side is ATTACKING and failing, when they most likely are all dug in and just taking potshots  at each other.

 

 

I have been following this conflict for a while and consider myslef to be somewhat of an expert on it, but I have never heard anyone make this simple point so intuitively and nonchalantly. I completely agree and I am also stealing it from now on ;) Nicely put sir!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the best bet for the Ukraine Army would be to pull back to the dniepr in Kherson area an focus on preventing anything reaching to Odessa. The Kherson area south of Dniepr is in my opinion unviable for defence, due to the unbroken, flat farmland and steppe terrain and the fact that RA can threaten the area from both south and east. IT would in my estimation be the easiest goal (the land brigde to crimea) to achieve for the RA. Should UA manage to stick to Zaporizhia they could use it as a base for counter attack in Kherson area. In order for the RA to take Odessa , they would neet to secure their flanks by taking both Zaporizhia and Dnepropetrovsk. All out offensive just along the coast line is an invitation for counter attacks that would slice the offensive in pieces. Taking Dnepropetrovsk would call for taking Poltava and Kharkiv, wich in turn would be easier to take whould there be a diversionary push towards Kiev from the north... So in a sense, even if the Russian goals would be limited to kherson, odessa area. Diversionary operations are required at the entire Eastern Ukraine to tie down rest of the UA and dismantle it's limited counter attack potential. That's roughly how I see it going from there.

 

Excelent analysis sir. It is tought to discuss the potential Russian stratergy without knowing their full strategic objectives. Kharkov would be an easy picking and it would also significantly limit Ukranian military-industial production; so it is reasonable to assume that it would be one of the first objectives. I also see your point about the danger of extending Russian lines and leaving their flanks unsecured if they were to clear an Azov sea coast route all the way to Crimea... but we are also talking about Ukranian army as their opponnet here - a force that has shown next to zero operational planning and mobility so far. This is not something that would work against a decent opponent, but the Russians might just get away with advancing along the coastline and having a brigade or VDV regiment (along with decent air support) in reserve to counter any flanking attack... After all, what the Russians had pulled off in August of last year goes against any type of military doctrine or common sense; but it had worked out great for them given the level oposition that they were facing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The manual lists RA forces crossing the Dniepr in force between Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia, however from diagrams that force proceeds West and then NW to Kiev.  Meanwhile there does appear to be a separate assault out of Crimea through Kherson and Mykolaiv.  So this force appears to operate largely on its own, although there is a sizable air contingent in Crimea for CAS as well as air assault purposes.  Both cities represent the southernmost bridges to cross the Dniepr and Inhul rivers, respectively.  The Dniepr is several thousand feet wide for essentially 150 miles and lined with what looks like some pretty nasty swampland.  The Inhul isn't really any better, although the banks look better.

I think that UA Brigade dug into Kherson could pose a lot of problems for the RA, especially if DreDay is right in that the city is supportive of Ukraine (as opposed to the outlanding area).  With enough luck, the UA could drop a few bridges farther upriver, forcing the RA to confront Kherson.  I would air assault over the sea and use VDV to attempt to seize Mykolaiv behind Kherson.  Even then, the heavier forces out of Crimea would pretty much have to deal with the UA defenders in and around Kherson in order to press to Odessa.  East of the Inhul, there are small towns every 1-5 miles surrounded by farmland and gentle slopes here and there.  Artillery could hammer each of these towns (not great for hearts and minds, but still) which are the obvious defensive positions.  IEDs along the few East-West roads and highways could slow down forces considerably (What has the Russian experience with IEDs been lately? I remember watching Bomb Squad: Afghanistan of USN EOD in which it would take 4-6 hours to clear 1 mile of road, and this is a force that had been directly confronting IEDs for years).

It's 60 miles from Mykolaiv to Odessa.  There's one more sizable river that would need to be crossed.  I can't seem to find the name of it, but it is the border between the Odessa and Mykaloaiv'ska Oblasts.  In short, I don't think this would be a quick assault.

Edit: There are also landing craft in Crimea that could be used to bypass Kherson.  However, as the manual explicitly states NATO lands Marines in Odessa from the sea, this Russian amphibious force either only lands forces a short way along, does not sortie, or is destroyed before traveling the much shorter distance to Odessa.  If all 7 landing craft sortied, they could get about two battalions ashore.  However speaking from experience, like planes, not every ship would be prepared to get under way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that UA Brigade dug into Kherson could pose a lot of problems for the RA, especially if DreDay is right in that the city is supportive of Ukraine (as opposed to the outlanding area).  With enough luck, the UA could drop a few bridges farther upriver, forcing the RA to confront Kherson.  I would air assault over the sea and use VDV to attempt to seize Mykolaiv behind Kherson.  Even then, the heavier forces out of Crimea would pretty much have to deal with the UA defenders in and around Kherson in order to press to Odessa.  East of the Inhul, there are small towns every 1-5 miles surrounded by farmland and gentle slopes here and there.  Artillery could hammer each of these towns (not great for hearts and minds, but still) which are the obvious defensive positions.  IEDs along the few East-West roads and highways could slow down forces considerably (What has the Russian experience with IEDs been lately? I remember watching Bomb Squad: Afghanistan of USN EOD in which it would take 4-6 hours to clear 1 mile of road, and this is a force that had been directly confronting IEDs for years).

 

Another great post. I don't mean to either dismiss the Ukranian military nor to over-estimate Russian capacity; but a single brigade on a Kherson border with Crimea can literally be demolished in a couple of days of continuous artillery and air strikes by much stronger Russian forces. We have already seen that happen in East Ukraine with much weaker Russian force of several BTGs (with no Air Support btw) demolishing Ukranian battlegroups due superior firepower and C3 structure.

 

As for IEDs - Russians actually have a lot of experience deadling with them based on their experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya. They are still in a process of designing proper MRAVs (which are being tested right now and are expected to go into service within next couple of years), but they deploy jammers and proper combat engenier support on regular basis - so IEDs and mines could certainly cause some issues and slow the Russian advance rate to a certain extent - but it's nothing that they haven't seen and dealt with before).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another great post. I don't mean to either dismiss the Ukranian military nor to over-estimate Russian capacity; but a single brigade on a Kherson border with Crimea can literally be demolished in a couple of days of continuous artillery and air strikes by much stronger Russian forces. We have already seen that happen in East Ukraine with much weaker Russian force of several BTGs (with no Air Support btw) demolishing Ukranian battlegroups due superior firepower and C3 structure.

 

As for IEDs - Russians actually have a lot of experience deadling with them based on their experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya. They are still in a process of designing proper MRAVs (which are being tested right now and are expected to go into service within next couple of years), but they deploy jammers and proper combat engenier support on regular basis - so IEDs and mines could certainly cause some issues and slow the Russian advance rate to a certain extent - but it's nothing that they haven't seen and dealt with before).

Agree, the Kherson brigade is a speed bump.  However a couple days delay is enough for NATO reinforcements to land in Odessa, which they do according to manual canon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough TNT and no MRAV, or MRAP or whatever is not going to help, and a good old electric and/or mechanically triggered detonation works everytime. But I do concur that RA has plenty of means to get through any obstacle be it minefields, demolitions or IED's. Ever since the soviet times the engineers in Soviet/Russian military have known their trade very well as far as I can tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, the Kherson brigade is a speed bump.  However a couple days delay is enough for NATO reinforcements to land in Odessa, which they do according to manual canon.

 

That is something that we would have to agree to disagree on. I see no way in hell that we (US) would risk a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. We might send a s**t load of Javelins and Stingers over there; but any direct engagement between Russian and NATO forces leads to a nuclear conflict that no one wants or is willing to risk on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough TNT and no MRAV, or MRAP or whatever is not going to help, and a good old electric and/or mechanically triggered detonation works everytime. But I do concur that RA has plenty of means to get through any obstacle be it minefields, demolitions or IED's. Ever since the soviet times the engineers in Soviet/Russian military have known their trade very well as far as I can tell.

 

That might be the case, I am far from an expert on IEDs and associated countermesures; but I do know for a fact that the Russians were deploying those jammers on their APCs and IFVs way before our guys got to use them in Iraq and Afghanistan... so again - they are no scrubs when it comes to that kind of stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is something that we would have to agree to disagree on. I see no way in hell that we (US) would risk a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. We might send a s**t load of Javelins and Stingers over there; but any direct engagement between Russian and NATO forces leads to a nuclear conflict that no one wants or is willing to risk on...

I see no disagreement here.  I'm not trying to argue the real life politics here, simply analyzing the story as it's given in this game, which says that NATO does get involved and we do land Marines in Odessa to counter a Russian push out of Crimea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...