How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Of course, our government is not amused and there are lots of critics. But OTOH, the way these guys discuss the matter is very pragmatic and down to earth. They discuss the political and technical ramifications and search for solutions (and find them). Kraft has summarized this very well, although the English subs are quite bad.

The things got hacked because one of the guys was in Singapore and probably didn't use a VPN.

Yes, entire thing seems plausible. But if Russians really did record it and make it publish, makes little sense; it weakens (if not directly refutes) entire argumentation by current chancellor which was beneficial for Russia. So perhaps somebody even in his own circles is digging under his decisions.

32 minutes ago, mosuri said:

Something brewing in Ingushetia?

Unfortunatelly, unlikely; business disputes with rifles, gang scores or even banal family feuds can occasionally spark similar behaviours there, including responce by local authorities.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This just shows how bad Russian training is.  The SOP for coming under fire like that should be to disperse in different directions and seek whatever cover is available, then somehow consolidate when it's less 'splody.

The notion that you can just ride out a situation like this is suicidal thanks to drones helping direct fire.  Missions can't be achieved with a dispersed unit, true enough, but there's more of chance than with a dead unit.

Steve

Pretty awful place to get hit, very little cover from ground fire and presence of drones means completely vulnerable to overhead attack and observation. 

I'm not convinced a top grade NATO squad could have done much more. Run across the road across from the vehicles? Sure, better chance v Brads - but Drones overhead. There was one guy rolled out right, kept down the entire time - until naded by a drone. 

I suspect they lost their leadership in the first few minutes and after that, well... 

The entire mission was a death ride. No squad could have come out of that in a functional state, then somehow cross 1km of open terrain. 

[MikeyD]

I get the impression Putin's standing order is to 'Attack' every day, no matter how futile or suicidal or pointless. The whole point is to be seen to be attacking. Every day, somewhere along the line there's an attack of some sort.

[Kraft]

1 minute ago, MikeyD said:

I get the impression Putin's standing order is to 'Attack' every day, no matter how futile or suicidal or pointless. The whole point is to be seen to be attacking. Every day, somewhere along the line there's an attack of some sort.

It is the most opportune moment before the speaker is bypassed and billions in aid arrive.

[poesel]

45 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yes, entire thing seems plausible. But if Russians really did record it and make it publish, makes little sense; it weakens (if not directly refutes) entire argumentation by current chancellor which was beneficial for Russia. So perhaps somebody even in his own circles is digging under his decisions.

AFAIK it was published in the TG channel of some Russian propagandist first. So it is definitely pushed from Russia.

There is also no doubt that it is beneficial for Russia. It makes look Scholz stupid no matter what he does. If he does not deliver Taurus, it's stupid because his arguments are wrong. If he does, he will look weak.

And no way, this comes from his own party. We have a few votes coming up in the east. The only party which does profit from this are the fascists.  Maybe Russia did it for them?

[Beleg85]

16 minutes ago, poesel said:

AFAIK it was published in the TG channel of some Russian propagandist first. So it is definitely pushed from Russia.

There is also no doubt that it is beneficial for Russia. It makes look Scholz stupid no matter what he does. If he does not deliver Taurus, it's stupid because his arguments are wrong. If he does, he will look weak.

And no way, this comes from his own party. We have a few votes coming up in the east. The only party which does profit from this are the fascists.  Maybe Russia did it for them?

Could be...but beyond making looking Scholz uneasy (which indeed can be valid target for muscovite services, given entire "mental chaos" framework they so love) it actually gives great ammo for domestic supporters of sending missles for Ukraine. It literally cuts his arguments, which weren't too strong anyway. So it is a little self-defeating and not very logical on their side to spread this clip. Entire issue has some resemblance to Nord-Stream 2 vibes when comes to "cui bono" line of reasoning...

Edited March 2 by Beleg85

[poesel]

2 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Could be...but beyond making looking Scholz uneasy (which indeed can be valid target for muscovite services, given entire "mental chaos" framework they so love) it actually gives great ammo for domestic supporters of sending missles for Ukraine. It literally cuts his arguments, which weren't too strong anyway. So it is a little self-defeating and not very logical on their side to spread this clip. Entire issue has some resemblance to Nord-Stream 2 vibes...

I'm afraid we are way past the argument stage wrt Scholz and Taurus...

There are also quite a few people in his party who still very much agree with him on that issue. Add to this that in East-Germany, the population is split on sending arms to Ukraine at all. I mentioned the three upcoming votes there? There is zero chance that anything will happen before these are through, and it won't get much better afterward. The last of these votes is September 22nd. And the next national vote is a year after that.

So nope, I ain't seeing that happening as much as I wish it.

[Kinophile]

Feodesia 

 

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Pretty awful place to get hit, very little cover from ground fire and presence of drones means completely vulnerable to overhead attack and observation. 

I'm not convinced a top grade NATO squad could have done much more. Run across the road across from the vehicles? Sure, better chance v Brads - but Drones overhead. There was one guy rolled out right, kept down the entire time - until naded by a drone. 

I suspect they lost their leadership in the first few minutes and after that, well... 

The entire mission was a death ride. No squad could have come out of that in a functional state, then somehow cross 1km of open terrain. 

What is interesting is what was missing (or at least I did not see any): mortars or artillery.  And they really did not need them.  I guess FPVs are basically flying mortars with cameras now.

Edited March 3 by The_Capt

[dan/california]

They picked a great place to stop...

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

What is interesting is what was missing (or at least I did not see any): mortars or artillery.  And they really did not need them.  I guess FPVs are basically flying mortars with cameras now.

On the Ukrainian side, they were not necessary. Bradley was shooting up the BTR first, then the soldiers hiding behind it. Even the bombing by the drone was superfluous - in a couple of minutes the Brad would have chewed up the Russians anyway

[Maciej Zwolinski]

5 hours ago, Kraft said:

Its about 1 km on foot over an empty field from Stepove to Berdychi, even without artillery that would barely work given FPV and a few MGs to hold them in place. Then another 1km before they can really touch defensive positions properly.

They could do it at night, but Bradleys there have thermal so even more disadvantage. According to the marks there, they tried to cross on foot too and received drones.

That assessment assumes that the Russian's one BTR was actually trying to assault Berdychi and needed to cross the entire length of the Sadowa street to Centralna street (BTW Polish names on the map are very helpful) to debus on top of Ukrainian positions.

I on the other hand assume that the single BTR was recce'ing (bcause it was single) and the Russians would actually do a better job at that infiltrating on foot e.g. along the trees  of Sadowa or even going just through the fields, getting some MGs to unmask as per your example, and calling artillery on their positions.

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

On the Ukrainian side, they were not necessary. Bradley was shooting up the BTR first, then the soldiers hiding behind it. Even the bombing by the drone was superfluous - in a couple of minutes the Brad would have chewed up the Russians anyway

No trained infantry in these situations are going to rely on a single weapon system.  Those BTRs were in a killzone.  Normally (and many of the UA soldiers on the defence would be western trained), one has redundant and mutually supporting systems covering a killzone.  Direct fire to stop, fix and suppress; indirect fires to finish them off.

In the video the Bradley is doing those first three and I suspect the FPVs were acting as ersatz mortars.

Edited March 3 by The_Capt

[danfrodo]

4 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I get the impression Putin's standing order is to 'Attack' every day, no matter how futile or suicidal or pointless. The whole point is to be seen to be attacking. Every day, somewhere along the line there's an attack of some sort.

And I keep asking myself "when/if it will ever matter" that putin is sending these schmucks to slaughter.  They are so clueless they make videos complaining of abuse -- who do they think will help them?  Who do they think cares?  Their wives/girlfriends seem more interested in the combat death payout.  I know is a LOTR-only forum, but I keep wondering if a platoon sized group will do Game of Thrones "kill the masters" and have it spread.  So far it seems they just don't care about the deaths until suddenly some officer shows up and says "you're next!" and off they go.

[fireship4]

9 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

A video and some images near Avdiivka.

Extremely disturbing for those who would like to avoid such things.

 

With regard to:

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

With great regret, I have permanently banned Zeleban from the Forum.

In case misapprehension caused his ban, I should say it's at least possible his post:

13 hours ago, Zeleban said:

Your words are similar to the words of a man who spent many hours at the corrupt Ukrainian border in the hope of delivering humanitarian aid to suffering Ukrainians, fighting thousands of corrupt Ukrainian officials who are doing their best to prevent him from carrying out his good mission. I see so much pain and suffering in your posts. I'm truly sorry for you

...was a sincere expression of regret on realising the other poster had tried to help Ukraine and had failed due to problems with corruption/bribery, and was not just an antagonistic internet warrior.  Much can get lost between translation and the lack of context.  It's right on the edge of plausibility but worth clarifying.

Edited March 3 by fireship4

[Offshoot]

Ukraine is claiming another couple of Russian aircraft down, bringing the total claimed to 15. This is obviously contentious without confirmation, but this news about no Russian aircraft in the east of Ukraine for 4 hours for the first time since the war started is interesting if true.

UK MoD saying that the Russian A-50 fleet is likely grounded pending investigation into what led to a second loss.

 

Edited March 3 by Offshoot

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Kinophile said:

I'm not convinced a top grade NATO squad could have done much more.

Putting aside the general stupidity and waste of the Russian tactics that lead to such disasters, I doubt even the best of the best NATO squads would have been cohesive in that situation.  However, I do expect that most squads would have ran instead of staying put and getting cut to pieces.  The jump cuts in the video indicate this wasn't over in a few seconds.

This just gets at the inherent difference in Soviet/Russian mindset.  NATO soldiers are given a lot of latitude to do what they think is best.  They are also told, and fully believe, that their value to their country is living to fight another day.  Russia, in the great Soviet tradition, does not.  Russians are not led to believe that their lives matter, rather doing what they are told matters.  This war has really put that on full display.  And as the quality of Russian soldiers has dropped from their prewar low standard, it's gotten worse.

This is not a Russia Sux™ statement as much as it is fact.  And like the Soviets in WW2, just because their soldiers are under trained and not treated like Humans doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.  The 30+ thousand dead Ukrainian soldiers that Zelensky recently admitted to can attest to that.

Steve

[Fenris]

I like to think that the CO of a NATO/Western unit wouldn't have put his men in that situation in the first place.  Still, with so many variables, things go sideways all the time.  The UKR SOF raid the other day that was wiped out on the beach is another example.  Training and experience can mitigate some of the risk but there is still some risk and sometimes fate is cruel.

[squatter]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

- Light dispersed forces are doing better than large heavy concentrations of mass.

- Light dispersed forces have had disproportionate effects on the battlefield from previous war.  This is likely due to C4ISR and weapons developments.

- Light dispersed forces have a much lower logistical footprint than heavy ones.

I agree with all of this.

 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

- Russian forces are very thin in places on these fronts based on simple math.  They have offset this through mine warfare and other forms of force multiplication.

Genuine question: is this true? Are RUS forces outnumbered/outgunned in Ukraine? Does Ukraine have superior reserves? Analysis of the Avdiivka battle suggests Ukraine is suffering shell hunger. And while UKR has a large head count in its armed forces, average age of their soldier is reported as 43. I don't read this as positive signs for UKR overall strength. 

 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

- We have no reports of massive fortresses or mine belts south of Kherson.

Yes, but if you think that doesn't mean RUS forces in the zone are well fortified, you are bat**** crazy. Do they teach you at Canadian staff college to "assume the enemy is inept and unprepared, and plan accordingly?"

 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

All of that adds up to an option space down south for a sustained light force effort that may yield operational effects.  You keep skipping past the fact that the UA has already demonstrated a proof of concept on this at Kryky.

 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:50 PM, Battlefront.com said:

And you have been continually dodging the central point that Ukraine has had a bridgehead on the left bank for months and Russia, despite massive effort, has failed to dislodge it.  Yet you insist that "it can't be done" and yet it is done now, already.

Have you both considered that what the single beleaguered toehold Ukraine has managed to cling onto at Krynky is actually evidence of how hard it is for them to cross this river in any significant force? The fact they have just this one marginal battered bridgehead (at the point of the river that's most suited with overwatching higher bank the friendly side, etc) and not several of them is exactly evidence against what you are proposing, not in favour? If Krynky is going well, where are the other bridgeheads?

Have you stepped back and considered whether it might be your cognitive bias that is turning Krynky into evidence of exactly what it is not? 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

However, when one arrives with an ulterior agenda that is when alarm bells go off.  By your own admission, you do not want a southern light option to be workable - it counters your central theme - "this war has gone on too long and should be ended". 

You are absolutely wrong on this point. Total word twisting. I mean get real: when did I ever "admit that I don't want a southern option to be workable?" You really ought to retract that crap. I don't want RUS to win this war. I revile Putin and his regime. My belief the war should be ended now comes from my analysis that neither side can meaningfully advance anymore, and that now we are into permanent static/attritional war. Not the other way round. 

Your cod psychological profiling and personal defamation/denigration of those who disagree with you is copium that allows you to write off their views as being invalid. 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

You have presented no evidence or even analysis...only assessment based on "what you think".  As I tell my students: "Rule # 4 - no one cares what you think.  They care what you can prove."  If you admire my posts, then you will note that I always try to ground my assessments on facts and evidence.  I tried again here and you have dismissed them.  I tried outlining force density on the ground..."whatever".  I tried to outline what light forces could do..."uh uh".  In short you are pitching a problem that does not want a solution.  Then go all alligator tears and huffy with indignity when you are called out.

You want respect for your analysis, well go do some research and come back with something that holds water.  Do an UA options analysis that stands up to scrutiny and we have a start point for discussion.  I have tried to present counter-factuals to your position but none are good enough because none will ever be good enough for someone whose position is pretty obviously unassailable.

"Rule # 4 - no one cares what you think.  They care what you can prove." This is not a debate in which anyone can 'prove' anything. We can just speculate. And when your 'evidence' includes links to George Washington crossing the Delaware, or D-Day, that is just laughable

My 'evidence' is the thousands of videos we've seen of how drones / modern ISR has utterly transformed the battlefield, and how precise munitions can be directed to any place on the battlefield in a short amount of time. How to move is to be seen, and to be seen is to be killed. And how one of the most easily seen movements is that across water on boats/pontoons whatever. Meaning that of all the military maneuvres/operations that is now lightyears more difficult and dangerous than it was before this war, open water crossings/bridgehead sustaining on rivers as large as the Dniepr is among the worst. 

That's my view. This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make, and one which has a good chance of being correct, as I'm sure many on here will agree. 

Yet you turn the debate into a series of personal denigrations/defamations - "you're a Russian stooge, you're a ****ing idiot, you're a bull****ter, you are illogical." Its a pattern. Have a look a yourself mate, take a moment to reflect. 

 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:50 PM, Battlefront.com said:

When Ukraine tried to use NATO style mechanized combined arms it got trounced.  It gained almost no ground and suffered some significant losses trying.  So what happened?  Ukraine largely switched to light forces again and despite VASTLY dense and well prepared lines, Ukraine gained ground.  Russia has to pour vast amounts of resources to hold the line.

Sorry - which ground that Ukraine gained with light forces this year are you referring to? 

On 3/1/2024 at 4:31 PM, The_Capt said:

So like the others who have come through on the same train you are on: why are you here?  To convince us all is lost and we should call out political leadership to sue for any peace we can get?  I mean the UA has no hope down at Kherson.  No hope at Zaporizhzhia. No hope in the Donbas. So what is the point of even doing military analysis and assessment, the outcome is clearly already decided?  What are you here to learn?

Is this a forum for only those who blindly believe in inevitable Ukrainian victory, no matter what their eyes tell them? (And again, please don't mistake a belief that Ukraine can no longer 'win' this war by recapturing its lost territory with a hope that Ukraine cannot win this war. Don't insult me with that one again please.) 

 

[poesel]

10 hours ago, danfrodo said:

And I keep asking myself "when/if it will ever matter" that putin is sending these schmucks to slaughter.  They are so clueless they make videos complaining of abuse -- who do they think will help them?  Who do they think cares?  Their wives/girlfriends seem more interested in the combat death payout. 

This answers some of your questions:

https://publications.bof.fi/handle/10024/53281

I included one graphic from the report, but there is more data.

TL;DR: a mobik dying in his 30s might earn more by his death than he would during the remainder of his lifetime, including pension.

 

Where do Russia’s mobilized soldiers come from? Evidence from bank deposits

Solanko, Laura (21.02.2024)

 

Forgot: I got this through this paywalled article:

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/russland-geld-fuer-tote-soldaten-wie-der-krieg-einen-makabren-vermoegensboom-ausloest-a-a35d1548-1e7c-4481-b798-0a5fae6dc3e4

Edited March 3 by poesel

[Holien]

37 minutes ago, squatter said:

Have you both considered that what the single beleaguered toehold Ukraine has managed to cling onto at Krynky is actually evidence of how hard it is for them to cross this river in any significant force?

Hmmm now you have finally admitted it is possible, your previous statement said absolutely impossible. 

No one is saying it's easy, but you said it is impossible yet Ukrainian forces are proving you wrong. So why were you wrong?

Let's see if and when Russia removes the bridgehead. If it was that easy Russia would have done so already. 

If it was that well fortified Ukrainian forces would have failed to establish a bridgehead. 

[Holien]

47 minutes ago, squatter said:

Is this a forum for only those who blindly believe in inevitable Ukrainian victory, no matter what their eyes tell them?

Hmmmm I think you need a new set of eyes...

What I see is Ukraine still fighting and doing immense damage to Russia be it loss of men, hardware or industrial machines.

As long as Ukraine has the will and resources to continue doing this Russia will never "win".

Just look at Afghanistan for an example where the will to continue fighting has out stayed the ability of those attempting to change the country. 

Why is that model not possible for Ukraine? 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, squatter said:

Genuine question: is this true? Are RUS forces outnumbered/outgunned in Ukraine? Does Ukraine have superior reserves? Analysis of the Avdiivka battle suggests Ukraine is suffering shell hunger. And while UKR has a large head count in its armed forces, average age of their soldier is reported as 43. I don't read this as positive signs for UKR overall strength. 

Oh good, you are back.  So I posted links to two estimates of RA force lay down south of Kherson.  From OS we have at least a decent idea that there is roughly a division down there.  I then did a force to space analysis that would show roughly 100 RA troops per km.  That is roughly 1/3 of the average troops density elsewhere and much less than RA offensive concentrations.  But, again, you simply ignore it.

I am not sure what a discussion in Kherson sector has to do with the larger strategic force comparison; however the argument was never that the “RUS are outnumbered and outgunned in Ukraine”, it was: the RA is thin at Kherson and Ukraine has on opportunity to exploit that.

4 hours ago, squatter said:

Yes, but if you think that doesn't mean RUS forces in the zone are well fortified, you are bat**** crazy. Do they teach you at Canadian staff college to "assume the enemy is inept and unprepared, and plan accordingly?"

Well at the CFC we also do not assume the enemy is “superior in every way so every option is too hard…so let’s just quit” either.  I have no doubt the RA has hard points along that obstacle but they do not have enough forces to create an effective “wall”, they have likely no depth and they definitely do not have air superiority.  I mean, seriously, how much more do you need?

4 hours ago, squatter said:

Have you both considered that what the single beleaguered toehold Ukraine has managed to cling onto at Krynky is actually evidence of how hard it is for them to cross this river in any significant force? The fact they have just this one marginal battered bridgehead (at the point of the river that's most suited with overwatching higher bank the friendly side, etc) and not several of them is exactly evidence against what you are proposing, not in favour? If Krynky is going well, where are the other bridgeheads?

Have you stepped back and considered whether it might be your cognitive bias that is turning Krynky into evidence of exactly what it is not? 

So first off “difficult” does not automatically translate into “impossible” - that is not a good military rule of thumb.  So how “beleaguered” is that force at Krynky?  How much has it cost the UA to hold that bridgehead.  How hard have been the RA c-attacks.  You basically “have seen pictures of tired Ukrainian Marines” and translate that into “impossible mission”.  So who is demonstrating bias here, in order to fit a foregone conclusion?  Krynky shows that a small light force one the other side of the Dnipro can be sustained and resist RA attempts to push them out.  It demonstrates that the RA do not have decisive force at Krynky and I suspect the bridgehead is acting as a patrolling base.  The fact that they have held on for months reinforces this deduction.

Now the real question is, can the UA do 6-10 Krynkys?  Upscaling is a completely different issue.  It depends on availability of trained troops, water crossing equipment, stores and intelligence.  It is a complete complex operation.  Is it guaranteed?  Absolutely not - war is not a menu with items you can simply return to the kitchen because you don’t like them - this will be a very hard and dangerous operation.  However, it is 1) possible and plausible and  2) likely one of the better operational offensive options on the table.  You appear to write off any offensive operation for your own reasons, however, here is one professional military analysts who is telling you that there is an option space here given the proper resources.  The risks are high, however, the payoff may be high enough to warrant the risk.  Further the other options are all pretty much worse unless the UA has solved for minefields in this war.

(This is your queue to get huffy again and argue with the kitchen btw)

4 hours ago, squatter said:

You are absolutely wrong on this point. Total word twisting. I mean get real: when did I ever "admit that I don't want a southern option to be workable?" You really ought to retract that crap. I don't want RUS to win this war. I revile Putin and his regime. My belief the war should be ended now comes from my analysis that neither side can meaningfully advance anymore, and that now we are into permanent static/attritional war. Not the other way round. 

Your cod psychological profiling and personal defamation/denigration of those who disagree with you is copium that allows you to write off their views as being invalid.

Your state position has been, and is (unless you wish to retract) - “Ukraine is out of options and as such we should be pursuing peace negotiations.”  If you can provide a single post where you do not reinforce this central premise then I think we can re-assess your position.  You have worked incredibly hard to remove the southern light operational option - to the point that Steve also called you out for ignoring evidence being presented in favour of your underlying position.  You have also dismissed any and all other options - again to reinforce your position.  You have side-stepped historical references as “out of date”, you have side-stepped force-space analysis and you have downplayed Ukrainian successes.  

Now, you are correct.  This could all be quite innocent and you do not have a conscious ulterior motive.  But now you might want to take a look at your own biases because you are definitely projecting a sub-conscious motive here.  You can get all huffy and demand to see the manager, but I still smell and suspect you of political motivations that align with other posters who have come through here who employ pretty much the exact same MO on the discussion of future Ukrainian military success - ignore or downplay any analysis or assessment that would give Ukraine any chance of success; over subscribe Russian capabilities and capacity: land back at “Ukraine is done…we must sue for peace”.

4 hours ago, squatter said:

My 'evidence' is the thousands of videos we've seen of how drones / modern ISR has utterly transformed the battlefield, and how precise munitions can be directed to any place on the battlefield in a short amount of time. How to move is to be seen, and to be seen is to be killed. And how one of the most easily seen movements is that across water on boats/pontoons whatever. Meaning that of all the military maneuvres/operations that is now lightyears more difficult and dangerous than it was before this war, open water crossings/bridgehead sustaining on rivers as large as the Dniepr is among the worst. 

That's my view. This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make, and one which has a good chance of being correct, as I'm sure many on here will agree. 

Yet you turn the debate into a series of personal denigrations/defamations - "you're a Russian stooge, you're a ****ing idiot, you're a bull****ter, you are illogical." It’s a pattern. Have a look a yourself mate, take a moment to reflect. 

No argument on the transformative impact ISR has had on the battlefield.  And no one is saying a water crossing operation is going to be easy.  Like minefields, it will require pre-conditions which include a level of c-ISR.  However, we have a proof of concept that it can be done, which is a helluva lot more than we have with respect to minefields and RA forces elsewhere.  That is one large obstacle to try and cover in detail - 85-100kms.  And the UA has freedom of movement along most of that obstacle (I.e. unlike a minefield they can cross at multiple locations).  So what?  Well if one can keep the logistical demand low, one could sustain light operations through over the water and air resupply (see: heavy drones)…you know, like in other times in history.

A light force water crossing is damned hard and comes with significant risk, no getting past that.  However, compared to other options it may be the best of the bunch.  And it may very well work…and by “work” I mean draw RA forces away from other sectors to deal with it, which may open up other opportunities.

As to “Russian stooge” and “f#cking idiot”…you realize you are the only one to make these statements in this debate?  I still suspect you of ulterior motives but of course that will need proof otherwise.  No, I suspect you are a guy who is entirely enamoured in your own opinion and is always pushing to be the smartest guy in the room.  Now which rooms?  In the end, I really do not care.

4 hours ago, squatter said:

Is this a forum for only those who blindly believe in inevitable Ukrainian victory, no matter what their eyes tell them? (And again, please don't mistake a belief that Ukraine can no longer 'win' this war by recapturing its lost territory with a hope that Ukraine cannot win this war. Don't insult me with that one again please.) 

Now who is throwing around “you are all f#cking idiots and Pro-Ukrainian bots”?  So if your purpose was to highlight how challenging future offensive operations will be for the UA…well, ok, got it. Contribution noted.  But it really appears you are working very hard to convince everyone that Ukraine has no offensive options left, and its defensive ones are nearly as hopeless…and therefore Ukraine should “sue for peace”.  

This will have been at least the 2nd, possible 3rd time someone has come out of the woodwork after Adiivka to push this perspective.  Your approach of 1) being entirely in love with your own opinion and 2) ignoring any and all evidence or counter analysis, and 3) becoming very offended when called out, matches those previous poster profiles.  Could all be innocent coincidence and you honestly believe this is the situation despite also hoping for a better outcome, but I remain suspicious.

Why?  Because like those other posters, you are not promoting actual discourse.  You are pushing a single position without room for anything else.  I am more than willing to admit a water crossing operation south of Kherson may very well fail, it is no guaranteed success.  I am also very willing to publicly admit that Ukraine is definitely facing some tough decisions this year.  I do not believe we are at the “beg Russia for peace” stage though and see still possible opportunities but windows may be closing.  You on the other hand dismiss any and all ideas that run counter to your position.  You are preaching, not discussing.  Could be just who you are, but you picked a really crappy time to come out and self-actualize.

Edited March 3 by The_Capt

[photon]

Question: what's the water-in-the-desert limited resource that would prevent the Ukrainian armed forces from establishing lots of small beachheads across from Kherson? I see a couple of candidates:

1. Units trained for light amphibious raid-disruption-corrosion operations.

2. Boats and drones to handle the logistics of more than one crossing.

3. Fires to support more than one crossing.

4. Suitable combinations of terrain and opposing force that render a crossing worth it.

5. Staff capacity to manage and support more than one crossing.

Do we have any sense which of those would be the hold up? It seems like lots of countries are giving Ukraine small boats.

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, photon said:

Question: what's the water-in-the-desert limited resource that would prevent the Ukrainian armed forces from establishing lots of small beachheads across from Kherson? I see a couple of candidates:

1. Units trained for light amphibious raid-disruption-corrosion operations.

2. Boats and drones to handle the logistics of more than one crossing.

3. Fires to support more than one crossing.

4. Suitable combinations of terrain and opposing force that render a crossing worth it.

5. Staff capacity to manage and support more than one crossing.

Do we have any sense which of those would be the hold up? It seems like lots of countries are giving Ukraine small boats.

Good question.  Light forces and SOF do not appear to be the limiting factor.  I would envision this to be sustained deep raiding, actual force levels would likely be quite modest.  And training and experience of these forces appears to be quite high in the UA.

Logistics is the big one.  One would need numerous logistical nodes on wheels on the home side to push resupply and pull back casualties.  Boats and trained crews are going to be an issue.  There will likely never be enough of them.  Air resupply using heavy drones is one offset option.  We have seen plenty of demonstrations but it is not known if the UA has enough of these to run a larger operation.

Terrain.  The good news is that is we are talking fast assault boats, these are pretty flexible on where they can land, which opens up a lot of options.  Getting heavier with pontoons would reduce those options as these are larger more complex systems.

Fires.  Unknown.  Drones, mortars and AGLs could  be carried with the crossing force.  Long range artillery is likely hamstrung by ammo shortages, much like it is elsewhere.  HIMARs and air might be an option but those are expensive and one would not to risk them too much.  I suspect FPVs might be the offset solution to be honest.  At 10-15 km ranges these could at least push RA guns back.  And once light forces manage to push further south, they would bring those FPVs with them.

Opposing forces.  Best we can see opposing forces are pretty light.  Russia has to mange a very long frontage as well.  It makes sense to go lighter on the far side of a major water obstacle to increase density elsewhere.  I suspect they have hard points at obvious crossing points but in other places are likely very thin.  More importantly, Russian forces in this area very likely lack any depth.  This makes light force infiltration and exploitation easier.  But the RA does have ISR and guns, so I would not propose this will be easy days.

Staff and support.  Once the planning is done, managing the operation will be complex but with less mass.  One thing that has not been brought up is far bank recon and clearances (eg mines), that is a big job pre-crossing and troops that do this are very specialized, likely SOF in Ukraine.  Staff capacity is whatever the UA assigns to the operation.  However, they are balancing a lot of demand right now.

Finally, as to “what can poor light troops do with their quads?”  Or, “what is the payoff?”  Well first thing they can do is bring their radios with them.  This extends high resolution real time intelligence out as far as these troops can see.  Then there are loitering munitions, FPV and ATGMs.  At the beginning of the war we got a pretty good look at just how much damage light forces working in depth could do with some of these new systems.  By extending their reach through infiltration in a weak Russian backfield, it will likely force a response from the RA as their own LOCs are threatened.  Best case the light forces can secure a bridgehead in depth and then other heavier amphib/crossing options open up.  But in reality I think we could expect the RA having to push forces to that sector to try and deal with the problem, which might take pressure off other fronts.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, even if half successful such an operation would shift the strategic narrative.  Ukraine would be demonstrating that it is no longer relegated to its back foot.  Like the strategic strikes we have been witnessing, such an operation would undecide Russian initiative…and this is not small.  We would see videos of a bunch of backfield stuff.  Russia would react, more stuff getting blown up.  In the end, it may not yield major tactical or operational effects, however, strategic effects could be significant.