Russian army under equipped?

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

Don't know where to post this:

Ukrainian documentary of the Battle of Debaltseve/Debaltsevo

[VladimirTarasov]

Nice footage and informative minus the bias

Edited March 1, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Battlefront.com]

Nice footage and informative minus the bias

I thought the reenactment footage was some of the best I've ever seen.  I've seen a lot of the actual footage already.  The two blended together nicely.

The factual information presented was mostly known to me already and I didn't see exaggerations or inventions.  The new information I saw was mostly on the political side of things and it gave me a better understanding of the details, even though the outcomes were pretty obvious to see even at the time.

The one thing that I thought was a little off the mark was the beginning where they outlined the plan once Debaltseve was taken.  I am sure that in August/September Russians wanted to push outward beyond Debaltseve, but it didn't happen and I doubt by February there was any plan for it.  Because every single attack by Russian or separatist forces has been preceded by a publicly stated unrealistic goal, the idea that they were going to make their own salient deeper into Ukraine was almost certainly made only for propaganda purposes (boost confidence of attackers) and psychological warfare (demoralize Ukrainians).  So the final battle, where major Russian military forces were brought in, was unlikely intended to do more than take Debaltseve and capture thousands of Ukrainian soldiers.  Even if they had not failed in their mission I don't think they would have moved beyond because it would leave them with exposed flanks and Russia did not want to keep its forces in Ukraine for a prolonged period.  Therefore, the documentary overstated this "plan" for reasons other than presenting a purely factual account.

I said it last year and I'll say it again... the Debaltseve battle was a strategic victory for Ukraine both politically and militarily.  The separatists suffered huge losses that they've never recovered from, Russia was drawn into the war in a major way (again) to bail them out, Russia showed it's word wasn't worth the paper it was printed on (again), Russia did not get the deal it wanted in Minsk, and Russia's actions after signing showed the West that there was no point to a future Minsk 3 if Minsk 2 didn't work out.  That's tied Russia's hands to this very day. 

From a military standpoint, any informed military opinion must conclude it was an astonishing success for Ukraine though of course not perfect (I would have had that minister executed for treason... but that's just me!).  Ukraine's success is even more incredible because just a few months earlier was Ilovaisk where just about everything that could have gone wrong did (including trusting Putin's guarantee of safety).  It is amazing to me, as a military historian, to see how quickly Ukraine learned from its mistakes and was able to successfully apply those lessons in both the military and political battlefields.  I expect Debaltseve to become a regular lesson for NATO officers for the next 20-30 years because there is no parallel to it in modern military history.

Steve

[Kinophile]

That's an unusual opinion -  I'm. Not denigrating it,  but it's certainly not the general consensus I've seen on the Web on various military/historical sites. 

I'm curious how it could be classified as a victory militarily...? 

Ukraine lost yet more territory. 

Ukraine lost badly need experienced troops  and their equipment. 

Russia simplified the front line, removing a dangerous salient. 

Russia captured Debaltsev (after levelling it,  but it was really about the road connections).

Debaltsev is an important route connector between Donbass and Luhansk. Capturing it made the separatist "state"  that bit more organized and viable. 

On the other side, Ukraine inflicted heavy casualties,  but I haven't seen any indications it was a Separtist Pyrrhic victory. 

Sure,  everyone was now aware just how untrustworthy Putin is,  but I'm pretty sure the majority of involved leaders already had an idea of that.  Debaltsev just made it undeniable. But Ukraine still didn't really get much from that.  The west became more committed to sanctions,  and has kept them on,  but that was already in motion. 

What military gains did Ukraine make? 

 

[sburke]

A comparable event in some ways would be the korsun pocket - though thoroughly savaged, the Germans did prevent the entire force from having to surrender, or Hube's pocket where the German force was able to breakout. The point is a victory isn't solely judged by territorial objectives but rather the political and military objectives of both sides. For UKR what was important was first to expose Russian involvement and secondly to get the forces out of the pocket.   For Russia the goal was to create a resounding defeat to demoralize UKR forces and set a better condition on the Minsk accords. 

Ukr met it's objrectives while Russia did not, ergo it is  Ukrainian victory.  That isn't just Steve's assessment. You can see Clark repeatedly arguing the same point. I think your assessment of what the west was willing to say and he held accountable to changed because of the tenacity of the UKR defense. They saw at last a situation where Ukraine was strong enough to make sanctions actually work. In other words, Ukraine was not going to just fold and collapse. That actually was a huge deal. Between that and the airport defense it became clear that Russia could not win on the cheap and the west reaction made it clear that a more committed effort by Russia was not an option.  Putin had just run out of runway and was now stuck with a conflict that would drain Russia more than it could hope to gain. Putin had overplayed his hand. Strategically yeah I'd say the battle was a major UKR win and the lack of a current strategy by Putin to get what he wants is the proof. 

As another example you could look at the Vietnam war.  The US never was able to manage the political versus military aspect. We could win the battles, but we couldn't win the war. Granted that conflict is a little more complicated, but there are similarities. The political forces Russia is reputedly supporting are a thoroughly criminal bunch of thugs not too much different than many of the south Vietnamese regimes.  They are totally dependent on continued Russian military commitment and they have no real international support. Ukraine meanwhile has full international recognition of it's sovereign rights and clearly understands this isn't a military conflict, but rather a political one and has kept that focus. Dbaltseve demonstrated the maturity and clarity of Ukraine's leadership. They knew what was at stake and what they needed to accomplish. They set achievable goals and despite the obstacles, they didn't panic. Putin meanwhile, simply failed. Dbaltseve was a hollow victory in that militarily ALL he got was the physical ground and in doing so he failed in all his political objectives. 

[Kinophile]

 Putin meanwhile, simply failed. Dbaltseve was a hollow victory in that militarily ALL he got was the physical ground and in doing so he failed in all his political objectives. 

Very good points,  albeit focusing on the stategic/diplomatic side.

Honestly, I've always viewed it as the UKR military leadership seriously ****ed up, giving the Russians a nice fat juicy target of kettled men, and failed to get them out in time,  or effectively counter attack. 

Putin identified Debaltsev as an objective,  and he got it. 

To play devil's advocate,  and satisfy my curiosity,  I'm still curious how that battle could be called a MILITARY win for UKR?

They lost a LOT of people and machines they needed,  and they retreated from regionally important crossroads. 

They were surrounded,  beaten to crap and retreated.

They left the battlefield to the enemy, were incapable of counter attacking to regain it and the enemy gained it's military objectives  -  remove the salient,  capture the crossroads, cut up the Ukrainians. 

In what way is that a military win for UKR?

For example,  Dunkirk wasn't a win,  despite the British attempts to gloss over it with the well executed naval evacuation. They were also surrounded, got beaten down and retreated across the channel. The lost,  and retreated. 

A somewhat successful evacuation does not count as a win. Winning counts as a win.

Retreating under fire us a retreat,  and not a win,  no matter how effective. Preserving your force to keep fighting is sensible,  proper and makes sound military sense.  Retreats are nothing to be ashamed if the purpose is to keep fighting. But if it's just a scramble to get out if a death trap then it's a rout.  And the final UKR breakout was,  by all eyewitness accounts, almost a massacre.

Sure they held on,  they fought goddamn hard. But they still lost. 

. It seems a little rose tinted to look at that battle and yet claim It as a win for UKR. 

I doubt many in Russia would consider it a defeat. Which pretty much makes it a win,  if your people feel it is so. 

The *unintended* , and subjective diplomatic benefits for UKR are not that great. A stalemate is just a stalemate. Nothing has been resolved and the UKR economy is still descending precipitously.

Ukraine has a breathing space, but I don't think Debaltsev would cause Putin to second guess fighting again. His Arty kicked the living **** out of those trapped men,  and it is still fully intact and now more experienced. 

Ukraine gained nothing militarily from that battle, and lost a lot. 

Edited March 1, 2016 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

I maybe need some hard facts.... 

Is there a fairly accurate breakdown of losses on both sides for that battle? 

[Haiduk]

Putin identified Debaltsev as an objective

No. Putin's plan was not to seize the city. This was just tool for big politic - encircling our troops in the pocket and pressing by it of Poroshenko on Minsk negotiations, in order Ukraine would agree to make concessions (Donbas status on Russia conditions, etc). Our troops could save own positions 15-17 Feb, despite on heavy shellings and assault. Putin's plans in Minsk failed, and we withdrew 2500-3000 troops from the bulge with minimal losses. Overall losses (KIA) in Debaltseve battle from our side is about 350 men. Losses of the emeny, as minimum 800 killed (about this writing separatists themeself). So, from tactical point of view, we lost the battle, from stratefy point of view - we won. 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Haiduk

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Pretty much.  In the Clausewitzian perspective of war as a continuation of politics,  it was a pretty bad defeat for Russia. 

All the Ukraine has to do is continue to exist and refuse to accept Russian invasion of its east.  Russia must force the Ukraine to accept that there's now some Russian fakestates carved out of it.  The big setbacks to Russia were:

1. The "rebels" they're supporting were pretty heavily mauled, and showed a general lack of efficiency.  If they fought well but sere mauled, okay still got something done, or were still intact, cool there's a plausible denial shield to hide behind, but as the case is any future operations will require increasingly obvious Russian intervention, which works strongly against Russian interests globally.

2. There was no decisive victory to crush the Ukrainian military.  It's still functional and operational and by some measures becoming more effective.  It's no longer as exposed either.  This effectively forces continued Russian investment in supporting the fakestates of Eastern Ukraine, or the Ukrainian military will simply walk in, shoot whoever they deem to be traitors before bringing the whole mess to a close.

3. Increased Russian efforts and bad faith negotiating has led to unpleasant global consequences.  The sanctions are not funtimes, and there's a lot more neutral powers leaning towards NATO.  There's also a lot more NATO build up and presence in Eastern Europe (current and planned).   For a conflict largely intended to secure a Russian sphere of influence, Donbass is a poor substitute for turning a lot of other countries strongly west, and moving the dreaded HATO swarms into Eastern Europe in increasing numbers.

So in a nutshell, Russia is committed enough that it must be in the Ukraine, but unable to be involved enough to bring the war to a successful conclusion, while the geopolitical goals that led the war being kicked off in the first place are frustrated, if not out and out defeated as even Belarus is distancing itself from Moscow.  

 

Edit: Or think of it like Dunkirk with higher consequences.  The Germans held the port, but utterly failed to accomplish a decisive victory of destroying the BEF, which ensured continued British resistance, which then put the Germans into an unfavorable position of having to contend with the Brits while trying to deal with the Soviets (which ended swimmingly obviously enough).  

Edited March 1, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Kinophile]

Actually  that note re Dunkirk as not decisive for the Germans is a good point.

So,  it was a local, tactical victory that failed to give any real gains, badly damaged the attacking infantry and failed to trap/capture a useful quantity of prisoners. 

My (non-military background) impression is that the Russians were tardy in properly sealing the neck.  Was this deliberate,  to give a golden bridge? Or just not doable in the face of UKR resistance? 

Edited March 1, 2016 by kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

That's an unusual opinion -  I'm. Not denigrating it,  but it's certainly not the general consensus I've seen on the Web on various military/historical sites. 

Much of the discussions I've seen are being held by people who, frankly, don't have much of an idea what they are talking about.  They either don't know military history very well or have a clue about what is going on in Ukraine or (often) both.

I'm curious how it could be classified as a victory militarily...? 

Ukraine lost yet more territory. 

Holding territory is often the absolute least important part of a military conflict.  This is why Combat Mission has different Objectives and leaves it to the designer to assign value to holding/taking terrain.  Since the war in Ukraine is a political one being carried out by "other means", individual pieces of territory do not mean much.  To illustrate my point, Ukraine hasn't lost territory in nearly a year and in fact just took back a couple of significant villages last month.  But is the war any closer to being over for Ukraine?  No.  Why?  Because it's not about who controls what village or town or even minor city.  Not specifically, anyway.

You also need to define what terrain is being talked about within the context of the battle.  There was key terrain that Ukraine needed to hold in order to be physically able to withdraw its forces.  The Russians poured an enormous amount of resources into "pinching off" the salient at the neck.  Russia failed to do this and that allowed Ukraine to withdraw its forces.  In a withdrawal operation these things matter.

But in the larger picture you have to understand that Debaltseve was not defendable.  It was an exposed position that, while of strategic significance, ultimately doesn't matter if they held or not.  I'll get into that further down.

 

Ukraine lost badly need experienced troops  and their equipment. 

War means losing people and equipment.  The question always is... "was it worth it?".  In this case the answer is, I think, yes.  Would it have been "worth it" if they lost all the forces inside the salient?  The answer would be no.  Which again shows how important the withdrawal was and why it is so meaningful that Ukraine pulled it off.  It was extremely risky.

Russia simplified the front line, removing a dangerous salient. 

This cuts both ways.  It greatly simplified the Ukrainian front as well and got them out of a dangerously exposed position.  By February 2015 Debaltseve's importance to Ukraine had diminished and it wasn't too important for Russia either (though more so than Ukraine).

Russia captured Debaltsev (after levelling it,  but it was really about the road connections).

Germany had almost all of Europe under its control, but it still lost the war.

Debaltsev is an important route connector between Donbass and Luhansk. Capturing it made the separatist "state"  that bit more organized and viable. 

The two entities do not work well together any better now than they did before.  Though for sure it simplified Russian resupply logistics, though since the war hasn't been hot since last February it doesn't really matter much either way.

On the other side, Ukraine inflicted heavy casualties,  but I haven't seen any indications it was a Separtist Pyrrhic victory. 

You need to look closer   The militias took massive casualties and, in some cases, basically ceased to exist.  Some of this was by design as Russia was accused, by the militias, of being deliberately sacrificed because they were difficult to control.  The losses are one of the reasons why there's been no significant offensive activity by the Russian/militia side since Debaltseve.  The one significant (though still small scale) offensive action since then wound up with the militias getting soundly defeated.

Sure,  everyone was now aware just how untrustworthy Putin is,  but I'm pretty sure the majority of involved leaders already had an idea of that.  Debaltsev just made it undeniable. But Ukraine still didn't really get much from that.  The west became more committed to sanctions,  and has kept them on,  but that was already in motion. 

What military gains did Ukraine make? 

As sburke pointed out, "gain" is not necessarily as easily defined as a piece of ground being taken or held.  Militarily Russia also got into trouble because it confirmed that the militias couldn't do squat against Ukrainian forces unless regular Russian line units were involved.  This second naked use of Russian forces in Debaltseve, combined with Putin showing he had absolutely no intention of living up to the Minsk 2 agreement he signed, confirmed to Western leaders the need to maintain sanctions, back Ukraine, and not allow Putin yet another false effort to make peace.

I think Poroshenko and some of the others in the video did a good job touching on how important Debaltseve was for Ukraine then and after.

Very good points,  albeit focusing on the stategic/diplomatic side.

Since that's the only thing that matters at the end of the day, the emphasis is sound.  War is politics by other means. 

Honestly, I've always viewed it as the UKR military leadership seriously ****ed up, giving the Russians a nice fat juicy target of kettled men, and failed to get them out in time,  or effectively counter attack. 

That is because you are looking at this too simplistically and buying into some bad information put out by the Russian side (which many Ukrainians willingly bought into).

Putin identified Debaltsev as an objective,  and he got it. 

This is incorrect.  Putin wanted 3000-8000 Ukrainian soldiers humiliated by surrendering to the militias.  He did not get that.  In fact, you should go back and read the crap that was written on this very forum as the battle ended.  The pro-Russians on this Forum (and some are not Russians) were making huge claims about Ukrainian losses because they could not believe that Ukraine effectively withdrew.  They were saying, quite confidently, that Russia had bagged thousands and in fact captured only a few hundred effective and wounded.

Russia wanted another Ilovaisk and Ukraine did not allow it to happen.

To play devil's advocate,  and satisfy my curiosity,  I'm still curious how that battle could be called a MILITARY win for UKR?

They lost a LOT of people and machines they needed,  and they retreated from regionally important crossroads. 

They were surrounded,  beaten to crap and retreated.

They left the battlefield to the enemy, were incapable of counter attacking to regain it and the enemy gained it's military objectives  -  remove the salient,  capture the crossroads, cut up the Ukrainians. 

In what way is that a military win for UKR?

Because you're not looking at it in full.  In short:

1.  Russia wanted the militias to win this battle with minimal direct Russian force involvement (artillery, intel, electronic warfare, command and control, etc. were Russian)

2.  Russia wanted to freeze the conflict on its terms.

3.  Russia did not want to suffer additional negative geopolitical fallout

4.  Russia wanted the Ukrainian military to be humiliated

5.  Russia wanted thousands of dead and captured Ukrainians to take the fight out of the remaining Ukrainian armed forces

6.  Russia wanted to simplify the frontline and allow for easier resupply and front management

Of all of these things Russia only got #6 which, as I've pointed out, meant Ukraine also had the benefit of a simplified front.

For example,  Dunkirk wasn't a win,  despite the British attempts to gloss over it with the well executed naval evacuation. They were also surrounded, got beaten down and retreated across the channel. The lost,  and retreated. 

A somewhat successful evacuation does not count as a win. Winning counts as a win.

And the successful withdrawal of those forces allowed Great Britain to challenge Rommel in the desert and to have an army that once again returned to France and go onto victory over Germany.  So yes, winning counts as a win and the British ultimately won.  The successful operation at Dunkirk helped achieve that and failure could have tipped the balance the other way.  Debaltseve was, in some sense, a similar situation for Ukraine.

Retreating under fire us a retreat,  and not a win,  no matter how effective. Preserving your force to keep fighting is sensible,  proper and makes sound military sense.  Retreats are nothing to be ashamed if the purpose is to keep fighting. But if it's just a scramble to get out if a death trap then it's a rout.  And the final UKR breakout was,  by all eyewitness accounts, almost a massacre.

This is factually incorrect on all points.  Not only in terms of the specific events in Debaltseve, but also the difference between a "retreat" and a "withdrawal operation".  Militarily they are different and you need to learn why the distinction is important.

Sure they held on,  they fought goddamn hard. But they still lost. 

. It seems a little rose tinted to look at that battle and yet claim It as a win for UKR. 

I doubt many in Russia would consider it a defeat. Which pretty much makes it a win,  if your people feel it is so. 

Combat Mission has "asymmetric victory conditions" which frustrated a lot of players when we first introduced them.  "I took all the territory and killed lots of the enemy... what do you mean I lost the battle?".  This is because that's often how things go in real war vs. simplified wargaming.

Of course it would have been better if Ukraine had held onto Debaltseve against even the largest use of Russian forces, but that's as unrealistic as it is silly.  Russia has the power to take a small chunk of land if it wants to.  The "victory" for Ukraine was making it necessary for Russian forces to get involved AND still denying Russia its objective to decimate the Ukrainian forces.

Ukraine has a breathing space, but I don't think Debaltsev would cause Putin to second guess fighting again.

On this point too you are very wrong.  Debaltseve is probably the #1 reason there has been no significant offensive action against Ukraine for the last year.  Putin understands that the Ukrainian armed forces are overall competent and capable, which means the militias don't have a chance of doing anything on their own except getting themselves into fights they can't win.  And if they do get into a fight then Russia will have to move in again to save them, which comes at further political cost to Russia OR they risk losing the Donbas (which has even bigger negatives for Russia).  Therefore, Russia has spent most of the last year cracking down on militia leaders who don't want to tow the Russian line.  This has included several high profile assassinations of militia leaders and the breaking up of "unreliable" militia units.

I maybe need some hard facts.... 

Without being snide, you need a bit more than that.  You seem to lack the "bigger picture" of this war specifically and how warfare intertwines with politics (and vice versa).

Is there a fairly accurate breakdown of losses on both sides for that battle? 

No, because Russia doesn't release information necessary for that.  It's impossible to piece together from open source information too, other than the militias suffered hundreds of casualties and Russia likely lost somewhere over 50 of its soldiers dead.  Ukraine puts its losses somewhere in the range of 1000 total, including about 120 captured and 187 killed.

No. Putin's plan was not to seize the city. This was just tool for big politic - encircling our troops in the pocket and pressing by it of Poroshenko on Minsk negotiations, in order Ukraine would agree to make concessions (Donbas status on Russia conditions, etc). Our troops could save own positions 15-17 Feb, despite on heavy shellings and assault. Putin's plans in Minsk failed, and we withdrew 2500-3000 troops from the bulge with minimal losses. Overall losses (KIA) in Debaltseve battle from our side is about 350 men. Losses of the emeny, as minimum 800 killed (about this writing separatists themeself). So, from tactical point of view, we lost the battle, from stratefy point of view - we won. 

This is about as good of a summary of losses as I've seen.  That and the total forces were about 8000 on the Ukrainian side and 15,000 on the Russian side.

Steve

Edited March 1, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[VladimirTarasov]

If I checked my facts, The Seperatists were successful in Debalsteve.... Ukrainians simply retreated, And there are many videos out there proving this. Debaltseve was in no way a success for Ukraine... And I'm not taking a bias, Ukraine had successes in that war as well. But most of the Ukrainian army is not motivated, Conscripted usually. Their equipment is getting better, Training standards on average are better (maybe not recently) Right sector units are very high motivated and trained, And they have proved their worth in the war. What failed the Ukrainian army the most was their HQ, They gave out wrong plans, And issued wrong orders. That was what failed them in the battle for Donetsk's airport.  

[Battlefront.com]

My (non-military background) impression is that the Russians were tardy in properly sealing the neck.  Was this deliberate,  to give a golden bridge? Or just not doable in the face of UKR resistance? 

It was a strategic failure on the Russian side.  If you go back and re-read the propaganda coming out of the Russian side before, during, and even after the battle it was clear Russia was aiming for pocketing thousands of Ukrainians (either dead or alive).

Look at Ilovaisk where Russia pretended to extend a "golden bridge" but instead had his artillery and mech infantry units slaughter Ukrainians along the agreed to retreat route.  In the Southern Cauldron the Russians allowed a significant amount of Ukrainians, cut off and without ammunition, to pass through Russia and back into Ukraine to both humiliate the Ukrainians and to pretend that Russia is a kind and caring neutral party.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

If I checked my facts, The Seperatists were successful in Debalsteve.... Ukrainians simply retreated, And there are many videos out there proving this. Debaltseve was in no way a success for Ukraine... And I'm not taking a bias, Ukraine had successes in that war as well. But most of the Ukrainian army is not motivated, Conscripted usually. Their equipment is getting better, Training standards on average are better (maybe not recently) Right sector units are very high motivated and trained, And they have proved their worth in the war. What failed the Ukrainian army the most was their HQ, They gave out wrong plans, And issued wrong orders. That was what failed them in the battle for Donetsk's airport.  

And you're a guy who repeatedly denies obvious and irrefutable evidence that Russian regular forces were involved in the battle as well as the war in general.  I'm sorry, but that doesn't help establish your observations as credible.  Neither does the mention of Right Sector, which is a statistically insignificant part of the war, now not even fielding independent units, but a never ending propaganda point put out by Russia.

My previous post details why you're wrong on the other counts as well.  Not to say that Ukraine's actions in Debaltseve were perfect (they were not) or that they don't have room for improvement (they do), but your characterization of the Ukrainian armed forces is factually incorrect.

Steve

Edited March 1, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[Haiduk]

But most of the Ukrainian army is not motivated, Conscripted usually. Their equipment is getting better, Training standards on average are better (maybe not recently) Right sector units are very high motivated and trained, And they have proved their worth in the war. What failed the Ukrainian army the most was their HQ, 

Motivation/experience significantly differs itself from brigade to brigade and even inside battalions. Most motivated and experienced of course airmobile units. Infantry of old brigades are not "conscripts" in CM sense, because most of mobilized soldiers has some experiense of service in Soviet or Ukrainian army. They are mostly "green-regular" level with differnt motivation, which significanly depends from commanders in the unit. More worth situation in most new-formed 5x- brigades.

Right Sector... Heh... 200+ man total in two "battalions" which indeed two large companies. High motivation, but their training level is "green". They are good in reckon missions and diversion, well in small group tactic, strong in defense, but combined arms tactic - this is not about them %)  

[Haiduk]

That and the total forces were about 8000 on the Ukrainian side and 15,000 on the Russian side.

Steve

No, you can divide this numbers per 1,5 as minimum  Of course, our General Staff made all that enemy tought that we really have on the bulge 8000 troops. But even all sector "C" hasn't this quantity of troops. Exactly this caused crisis of reserves after separtists cut the road near Logvynove. 

I thinhk, Debaltseve battle is off-top in this topic 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

Right Sector... Heh... 200+ man total in two "battalions" which indeed two large companies. High motivation, but their training level is "green". They are good in reckon missions and diversion, well in small group tactic, strong in defense, but combined arms tactic - this is not about them %)  

You foolish Ukrainian!  Don't believe US CIA propaganda!!  Right Sector has thousands of soldiers manning the frontline!  I know this because DPR and LPR sources constantly talk about how they are always battling Right Sector fascist forces!  If there were really on 200 Right Sector fighters then that would me the DPR and LPR organizations are all liars!  And we know that they are not, therefore there are 10s of thousands of Right Sector fascist soldiers.

No, you can divide this numbers per 1,5 as minimum  Of course, our General Staff made all that enemy tought that we really have on the bulge 8000 troops. But even all sector "C" hasn't this quantity of troops. Exactly this caused crisis of reserves after separtists cut the road near Logvynove. 

Yes, that is true.  The 8000 number included forces on the "shoulders" as well as the forces inside the salient.  A portion therefore did not directly participate in the battle other than to make sure the shoulders were not compromised.  So the total participating from the "neck up" is probably closer to what... 4000-6000?

I thinhk, Debaltseve battle is off-top in this topic 

Yes, but this thread long ago drifted from the original topic   As long as the discussion is interesting I think it should stay going.

Steve

Edited March 1, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[Haiduk]

Right Sector has thousands of soldiers manning the frontline!  I know this because DPR and LPR sources constantly talk about how they are always battling Right Sector fascist forces! 

Yes, that is true.  The 8000 number included forces on the "shoulders" as well as the forces inside the salient.  They did not directly participate in the battle other than to make sure the shoulders were not compromised.  So the total participating from the "neck up" is probably closer to what... 4000-6000?

Steve

No, RS forces now forgotten. New trend is "NATO merceneries" and "negros, dancing on BTRs" (yes, really, eyewitness said %) )

About forces. I just have watched again General Staff analysys report about this battle. In it they really pointed 13 000 of our troops in sector "C" during all campaign - but from this number Army was represented only with 8000 men. But directly inside the bulge were just 4700 troops of Army (with HQ, signal units, maintannence, artillery) and 500 from other force structures (National Guard, Special police battalions, police, SBU), 50 tanks, 40 artillery, 15 MLRS. Separatists forces declared as 7000 around the bulge (including very strong group in Horlivka - about 2000 men of 3rd DNR brigade) and 8 battalion-tactical groups of Russian army. Though in the battle paricipated just separate company tactical groups (mostly tanks), artillery and MLRS.

[VladimirTarasov]

Steve, Sure you're right!

Haiduk,

Your numbers sound solid, Right until the 8 battalion-tactical groups of the Russian army... I won't get into further detail until you can provide more information on it. 

[sburke]

@Kinophile from a purely military perspective - which is kind of hard to do for this battle, but still.... there is a comparable situation and a plug for CMFB no less!    St Vith - the defense by 7th armored and it's eventual withdrawal is a textbook study in the US military.  Yes the Germans took St Vith and the US had to retreat.  Yes men were lost etc, however the US military has always looked at this as an unmitigated victory.  It managed to totally disrupt the advance of the German Army and render it's further plans moot and then managed to withdrawal largely intact allowing the unit to be resupplied and recommitted to battle - On January 23rd 1945, the 7th Armored Division retook St Vith.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a952910.pdf

Retreating does not necessarily mean losing.

[sburke]

Steve, Sure you're right!

Haiduk,

Your numbers sound solid, Right until the 8 battalion-tactical groups of the Russian army... I won't get into further detail until you can provide more information on it. 

Before he bothers, would you even accept there was one Russian Battalion tactical group?  If not, it probably isn't worth his effort as you'd likely dismiss it anyway.

Edited March 1, 2016 by sburke

[Kinophile]

Very, very interesting gentleman. 

Thank you for the info and briefing. I'll push a question out as far as I need to properly understand why it is wrong/right in its initial premise, but I'm not precious about it. 

I now consider my initial understanding quite erroneous, especially in terms of the consequences for both sides. Further reading required! 

It's good also to know that despite the 8K number bandied around that the actual number in danger was about half that. Pulling almost 3K put despite the heavy Russian Arty is a pretty good result,  considering the situation. 

This battle could be a very interesting study when compared/contrasted with other such retreats from pockets, and the end results for the various sides. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think I see exactly where this train is going.

However just to chip in one last little bit:

1. This is an asymmetrical conflict.  It won't be decided by attrition, or even strictly speaking areas controlled.  It will be decided by which side quits Eastern Ukraine first, and the low level of bloodshed (at the macro level at least) and amount of pretty meaningless terrain (I'd contend most of the "strategic" locations are pretty far out of each other's grasps for now) makes a strictly military success outcome doubtful.

2. What is most likely is either the Ukraine cannot sustain itself in the face of Russian hostility and simply must accept Russian intentions or face dissolution as a functioning state (and even accepting Russian interests, might just be effectively dismembered anyway), or Russia can no longer afford the investment in Eastern Ukraine and leaves the Donbassian Patriots to the mercies of the Ukrainians.

I'd contend the first is unlikely because in effect this conflict for the Ukrainians is just short of a war of national survival.  And if it is not, then it is still perceived as such by the Ukrainian leadership.  It will take some dramatically successful offensives from the Russians (which is exactly what has not happened) or other external pressures for it to buckle down (economic issues are troubling...but the drift towards the west keeps it from being a total collapse issue for the time being given the resources offered).

The second is more likely simply because Russia currently has something like nine to ten number one priorities, and a shrinking economy to address them.  The difference being here is the Ukrainians have much more to lose by allowing Russian domination of its eastern poriton, than the Russians have to lose by Donbassian rebels lined up in front of ditches at the hands of Negro-Nazi-NATO funded murder teams.  Given that:

a. The best Ukrainian strategy is denying Russia a decisive military victory that could threaten the remainder of the Ukraine, while also denying Russia the justification for overt Russian military involvement in the Ukraine.  This plays best to the Ukrainian strengths (preventing full Russian investment, while still forcing the Russians to commit major resources to preventing a Ukrainian counter-attack), while avoiding Russian strengths (as until there's an unambiguous reason to invade, the Russians are only able to employ a modest amount of their strength).  

b. Russia is in a classic military dilemma.  It has effectively two bad choices.  It can either fully invest in the military situation and effectively invite NATO to park on its borders while driving plenty of its nominal client states right into the waiting arms of the EU/NATO (and negate it's entire war aims), or it can withdraw and accept defeat as again the Nazi hoards of Ukrainians feast on the babies of good Russian families.  This might also have major political repercussions thanks to the ultra-nationalist element.  The third option of maintaining the status quo is a false one, Russia cannot afford to prop up, let alone make the fakestates stand on their own, eventually it will be unable to support either unless it forces a Ukrainian recognition of the two, which frankly is very unlikely at best.

So if you're talking about "heavy casualties" or "major losses" or "Russian military prowess" I'd argue all of those are entirely irrelevant if they do not cause a Ukrainian capitulation of some kind.  And right now I feel and I get the impression I'm not alone in this, that Russian efforts are unlikely to create that capitulation. 

[sburke]

 

This battle could be a very interesting study when compared/contrasted with other such retreats from pockets, and the end results for the various sides. 

and possibly a great user created campaign at some point!

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, Sure you're right!

Well, it's obviously easier for you to say this (even if sarcastically) then it is to disprove reality.  So I do understand that you are not left with many options if you insist on holding to your beliefs.  Especially because if you admit that Russian forces were in the battle of Debaltseve you have to admit that the horrible quality Ukrainian forces managed to beat them tactically and strategically.

Haiduk,

Your numbers sound solid, Right until the 8 battalion-tactical groups of the Russian army... I won't get into further detail until you can provide more information on it. 

I like sburke's question... do you admit that there was even one?  How about one from the 6th Guards Tank Brigade?  Can you at least, finally, admit they were there?  That would at least be a start.

Steve