How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So I wanted to check if this had already been posted or not, but I do find it interesting how the 'weak link' in this particular attack was the infantry failing to decisively attack the trenches as the vehicles do deliver them on target. (Though the vehicles not hanging around to support does not help either, I do wonder if these attacks might be more successful if the vehicle support was stronger. Where the hell are the BMPs?)

The fact the Russians threw two platoons into a trench like this and did not even bother to try and help them or even get them out of the bad situation in any real way speaks volumes to the horrific disregard for life they have. 

To me this video shows just how important drone cooperation with the infantry is for these trench fights. This sort of fight does go a long way to explain why Russia is taking such appalling losses overall though. 

We are seeing maybe a couple squads attacking a trench line long enough for a battalion position.  How are 8-15 guys are supposed to “decisive” in clearing a trench line that long.  This is another doomed attack from the get go.

The Russians do manage to get a couple APCs in  and debus but that is nowhere enough troops to do the job.  Next, those vehicles out in the open are spotted and being hit from all over the place.  Once in trench clearing, vehicles can provide limited support at best but in this case they are sitting ducks - and we can see this as a few get hit trying to exit.

Finally, the major issue is staring us in the face…we can watch the whole thing from a drone. Troops on the ground defending were very likely getting a direct feed and knew exactly how many Russian troops were there, and where they were. Defenders have a significant advantage with this.  Luckily for the Russians it looks like the UA did not have mortars or GLs or this thing would have ended before it started.  The fact that the RA squad managed to do anything is a small miracle.

There is no “decisive” here - that is the sort of thing Hollywood sells in the movies.  Trench clearing is brutal and slow.  Not having enough troops to start with and under the eyes of ISR the whole time just makes it impossible.

Now the next question - why could the RA only get a couple, squads to this trench line?  Lack of trying?  We know this is not true.  Lack of troops?  Or was it an inability to concentrate mass because it would draw in more interdiction?

Edited June 8 by The_Capt

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Or was it an inability to concentrate mass because it would draw in more interdiction?

Mass, especially not very bright Russian mass, is inherently slow to assemble. So it is not just that more mass is an MLRS or..., or... worthy target. The process of puling that mass together in a way it can be militarily useful gives all those higher echelon systems time to find the whole deal. And if we have learned anything in this war it is that found and dead are closely correlated.

 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Mass, especially not very bright Russian mass, is inherently slow to assemble. So it is not just that more mass is an MLRS or..., or... worthy target. The process of puling that mass together in a way it can be militarily useful gives all those higher echelon systems time to find the whole deal. And if we have learned anything in this war it is that found and dead are closely correlated.

 

Exactly. So let’s take that Ukrainian trench problem. That is a full scale battalion assault problem.  As per western doctrine we would assign a full battlegroup/TF to that job.  3x infantry Coys, Tanks, Engineers, close support.  That is roughly 50 F ech vehicles.  I do not think people appreciate how much real estate and road space that sort of force takes.  The there is the added logistics support behind it. We are talking about a force likely in and around 100 vehicles all up.

So in this environment 100 vehicles concentrating are going to get picked up maybe 20-30 kms out.  Nobody has vehicle parks closer than 100kms because they are prime targets for HIMARs.  So you pull 100 vehicles together to organize and mount this attack - that is a coupe major road moves.  Now the UA is supported by ISR from God.  AI support can pick out patterns. Space-based, strategic high flyers and operational stand off - all of this before the tac drones even kick in.  At best 100 vehicles are going to be spotted 10s of kms out and if you are really lucky won’t get hit by long range fires. But the UA knows you are coming and has plenty of time to swing resources to meet them.  

Once you cross the line of departure you can expect long range drones, loitering munitions, PGM artillery etc to hit you before you even get into DF range. You are a big force so the UA is going to muster a lot in your direction. Then you get within DF range and the tac FPVs and ATGMs kick in - hell, the UA might even send a sniper tank or two your way.

You have no surprise. Concentration has brought concentrated fires. Your logistical lines are vulnerable and being hit.  And the enemy can see you, down to the squad level the entire way,  air support is denied, except maybe for bomb lobbing from 50kms out. This is not that the Russians have somehow forgotten how to put a Bn into an attack. It is that to try and do so is suicidal.  So what do they do?  Penny packet, disperse and try smaller attacks on separate axis.  Of course then you simply do not have enough troops to do much even if you them through to an objective.  So what do you do?  Send in wave to try and exhaust the UA and take small bites.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

We are seeing maybe a couple squads attacking a trench line long enough for a battalion position.  How are 8-15 guys are supposed to “decisive” in clearing a trench line that long.  This is another doomed attack from the get go.

The Russians do manage to get a couple APCs in  and debus but that is nowhere enough troops to do the job.  Next, those vehicles out in the open are spotted and being hit from all over the place.  Once in trench clearing, vehicles can provide limited support at best but in this case they are sitting ducks - and we can see this as a few get hit trying to exit.

Finally, the major issue is staring us in the face…we can watch the whole thing from a drone. Troops on the ground defending were very likely getting a direct feed and knew exactly how many Russian troops were there, and where they were. Defenders have a significant advantage with this.  Luckily for the Russians it looks like the UA did not have mortars or GLs or this thing would have ended before it started.  The fact that the RA squad managed to do anything is a small miracle.

There is no “decisive” here - that is the sort of thing Hollywood sells in the movies.  Trench clearing is brutal and slow.  Not having enough troops to start with and under the eyes of ISR the whole time just makes it impossible.

Now the next question - why could the RA only get a couple, squads to this trench line?  Lack of trying?  We know this is not true.  Lack of troops?  Or was it an inability to concentrate mass because it would draw in more interdiction?

I learned this long ago in CM1 games.  You can set up an amazing fortification system with trenches all over the place, then you go to put your forces in it and find that there's way more to defend than you have to defend it with.  You find yourself with a dilemma where you wonder if having all those extra defenses (undefended) gives you more tactical flexibility during the battle or presents you opponent with opportunities to get themselves entrenched.  Because once the enemy gets into your trenches it's a totally different battle.

Steve

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/07/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-artillery.html

As Fighting Rages in Ukraine, a Struggle Is On for Artillery Supremacy

Ukrainian forces say U.S. shells are making a difference. Across the border, they say, Russia is trying to get its artillery nearer targets like the city of Kharkiv.

 

Good article. 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I learned this long ago in CM1 games.  You can set up an amazing fortification system with trenches all over the place, then you go to put your forces in it and find that there's way more to defend than you have to defend it with.  You find yourself with a dilemma where you wonder if having all those extra defenses (undefended) gives you more tactical flexibility during the battle or presents you opponent with opportunities to get themselves entrenched.  Because once the enemy gets into your trenches it's a totally different battle.

Steve

There was a great interview I listened too a year or more ago with a U.S. Soldier that had volunteered for Ukraine. He spoke about this at some length. He said the big advantage came from the the fact that i made it harder to target the defending troops, or at least it took a lot more artillery ammo. The most effective way to fight from these kind of positions was to do as much of the engagement as possible with indirect fires, and put off revealing the exact location of the front line defenders as long as possible. Ideally you could  completely wipe multiple probing attacks before you had to reveal the forward positions. Indeed being more proficient at this was one of the big differences between experienced and/or well trained troops, and units that had been put together in a hurry. 

It is probable that this has gotten harder to do as both sides have ever more drones up...

 

Edited June 8 by dan/california

[Sojourner]

Found a report on the Bradley - BTR close encounter. Apparently the BTR was spotted and the Bradley was sent out to intercept.

 

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-m2-bradley-destroys-russian-btr-82a-in-fierce-skirmish/

[FancyCat]

Macron continues his course of rhetoric maintaining Ukraine is "existential". Way he's talking below sounds like he got burned away too many times offering off-ramps to Putin and got fed up of it.

Quote

Macron has cracked the code. When asked by a Ukrainian journalist on 7 June what he thought of statements by the Kremlin / Russian propagandists that France is becoming a co-belligerent and that it would escalate, he said this:  "You said so yourself, the statements you report are made by propagandists. Propagandists do propaganda. From day one, Russia's method has been: intimidate to neutralise. To intimidate our public opinions, all of us, so that we don't help Ukraine.  If we had followed the Russian intimidations from day one, we would to this day have supplied no battle tanks, no cannons, no aircraft for those who've started to do so, no long-range missiles, and I'm not sure Ukraine would be in the situation it is today without that.

We have therefore been systematically correct not to give way to the intimidations of the propagandists. What matters to me is to be coherent in the strategy that is ours and within the framework we've given ourselves: help Ukraine to resist, because this war is existential for us, and never be the source of escalation.   I consider that all of the decisions made and the announcements made are strictly within that framework.   It is Russia that has intensified its war effort and its strikes. It is Russia that has systematically in these last few weeks attacked civilian infrastructure, which I remind everyone is a war crime. It is Russia that has now decided to strike from its territory these infrastructures and Ukrainian civilians. We cannot leave Ukraine without a reaction and without help.

And so I think that all this is a sign of nervousness and a pursuit of a strategy of intimidation which doesn't work towards Europeans and their allies."

 

 

Huh, Macron says he has several other NATO nations ready to return military trainers to Ukraine alongside France. Baltics? Finland? Poland? Maybe it's just me but this is a serious escalation potentially occurring. Fed up Macron indeed. How are we to square this with the fact Russia will be likely to target these legitimate military targets? Maybe it's just me but this strongly suggests Macron's rhetoric is paired with a warning to not escalate further and target Western Ukraine. There is also context on that Russia has been accused of varying undercover operations in France including sabotage that may be part of Macron's reasoning for pushing this.

Quote

Several Nato countries have agreed to send military instructors to Ukraine in “coalition” with France, President @EmmanuelMacron said tonight.  1/

“You asked me whether France is ready (to send instructors to Ukraine) alone. I can tell you that we are not alone. Several of our partners have already agreed to do this ,” Macron said at a joint press conference with President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Elysée Palace. 2/

Macron said he hoped to “finalise a coalition in the coming days” which would be ready to send military trainers to Ukraine “rapidly”. “This is a legitimate request by Ukraine” and is not an “escalation” of the war the|French President said. 3/

“It follows the guidelines we have set from the beginning. We are not at war with Russia but we are fully committed to supporting Ukraine.” 4/

Asked to comment on threats from Moscow to target any French military personnel sent to Ukraine, Macron said|: “Who are we to back down before Russian invocations and threats?” 5/

 

Edited June 8 by FancyCat

[FancyCat]

On 5/25/2024 at 2:56 PM, The_Capt said:

So your theory is that if Kyiv falls Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Sweden are going to do what?  Switch sides?  If we lose in Ukraine it is definitely a western defeat a la Vietnam (but no where near as personal) but we can live with it.  There hasn’t been a single signal out of any NATO nation that the alliance is in doubt if Ukraine falls.  In fact I suspect it will be quite the opposite, we will likely double down on the one mechanism that keeps Russia in check.  In fact the entire theory of an Eastern Europe schism in light of a Russian victory doesn’t make any sense but you keep rolling it out like Armageddon.  Further, you seem to imply that it is an outcome so bad that we should be willing to start playing fast and lose with the nuclear equation.  

As usual you are going off without a shred of proof behind your own opinion.  Show me one declaration from any of the states you mention that they are willing to start taking the risks you are advocating or that Ukraine is the central issue in their continued partnership.  FFS we are putting a Bde in Latvia, I am sure of Ukraine falls the first thing then Latvians are going to do is tell us to leave.

You are over inflating a Ukrainian loss to the point that WW3 makes perfect sense. This is not good analysis, it is hyperbolic propaganda.  Of course we do not want Ukraine to lose.  We have spent billions trying to stop that from happening.  But we also do not want an uncontrolled escalation…and my proof is self-evident by the lack of western air or land power direct involvement in this war.  Ukraine is simply not worth this whole thing expanding or escalating into a broader regional or global conflict - we already did that sort of thing in 1914 and do not need a repeat.

Tbh I did not reply to you cause I figured Macron was acting purely rhetorically, but with the recent news of him pushing for western troops in Ukraine, it seems more appropriate to review.

Macron has been signaling his heel turn for a while, headlines in March and April that the West should cross red lines when dealing with Putin.  WSJ article from April 3: https://archive.ph/EO8HC Now, WSJ on the French initiative of trainers in Ukraine: https://archive.ph/khcMe

From April 3 link, Macron presented his desire to move to strategic ambiguity first in February, ending with a public move to pledge military options including western troops would not be ruled out. He quickly got publicly isolated by Biden and Scholz in Feb. as noted in the article, but despite that he gained some support, with statements from Polish and Lithuania noting it could be possible. Article goes into further detail about him presenting the proposal in Feb and getting isolated among NATO nations and then walking on stage and declaring it should not be ruled out.

In terms of "if Kiyv falls" Macron is worried about the fracturing of NATO not via Central Europe/Eastern Europe folding to Russia, but a scenario where U.S support in the event of a NATO vs Russia scenario is no longer ironclad meaning a Russian calculus of succeeding in conflict with NATO goes up.

In that sense, if Ukraine falls, this is Macron's thinking not me mind u, the risk of broader regional or global conflict is already heightened between Europe vs Russia.

My entire point mind you was to point out that striking dual use targets was not immediately nearing nuclear war escalation, to which you declared that Ukraine was not that important vs potential nuclear war via escalation mismanagement and that NATO would prefer to let Kiyv fall than risk that outcome.

I then pointed out to you NATO is not united in that outlook you framed as "Ukraine is not important enough" and that suggesting NATO should be afraid of nuclear war enough to risk Ukraine falling, would instead risk the NATO alliance where allowing Ukraine to fall would cause fractures in the alliance and increase the potential of further conflict including nuclear.

The current Macron stance represents that possibility pretty clear. France, a nuclear power and NATO country is actively pushing to involve Western troops into Ukraine, is gathering a coalition of countries to make the same commitments and doing so despite sustained opposition by major NATO allies precisely seemingly to ensure Ukraine's fall is out of the question, risking further escalation via the involvement of Western troops in harms way, finding that preferable to alternatives where Ukraine does fall.

Quote

President Emmanuel Macron of France held confidential calls with President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in February to lay the groundwork for a Paris summit that he hoped would shake up the West’s strategy in the Ukraine war. Western allies—Macron told each leader, according to officials—should adopt a position of strategic ambiguity toward Russia that would leave all military options on the table.

Yet at the close of the event, Macron stunned allies by telling a news conference that no military options should be ruled out, even the deployment of troops from NATO countries.

For Macron, the Ukraine war has become an acid test of Europe’s ability to survive in a world where U.S. security guarantees are no longer airtight.  The French leader has long worried that European countries risk turning into mere vassals of superpowers like the U.S. and China if the continent doesn’t build out its military capabilities. Allies often derided that stance as Macron’s misguided attempt to channel Charles de Gaulle, the post-World War II leader with a legendary independent streak. Now, Macron is calling attention to what many European officials fret over in private: that decades of trans-Atlantic security ties are at risk of unraveling.

In recent weeks, Macron has begun using dark rhetoric to prepare the French public for the possibility of a more direct confrontation with Moscow, warning that if Ukraine falls then a host of Central and Eastern European countries would be next.

“What’s at play in Ukraine? A war that’s existential for Europe and for France,” Macron said during a primetime TV interview from the Élysée Palace. “Because if Russia were to win, the lives of the French would change. We will no longer have security in Europe.”

After absorbing an initial wave of criticism, Macron has begun to see support for his ideas bubble up in European countries that border Ukraine and Russia. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in early March said the idea of placing NATO forces in Ukraine is “not unthinkable.”   Kęstutis Budrys, senior national security adviser to the president of Lithuania, said in an interview that he supported Macron’s push to keep military options on the table.

 

[Carolus]

Strategic drone strikes against the Russian petrol industry continue.

Edit:

And an airfield in North Ossetia, near Georgia:

 

 

 

Edited June 8 by Carolus
Added airfield strike link

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Tbh I did not reply to you cause I figured Macron was acting purely rhetorically, but with the recent news of him pushing for western troops in Ukraine, it seems more appropriate to review.

Macron has been signaling his heel turn for a while, headlines in March and April that the West should cross red lines when dealing with Putin.  WSJ article from April 3: https://archive.ph/EO8HC Now, WSJ on the French initiative of trainers in Ukraine: https://archive.ph/khcMe

From April 3 link, Macron presented his desire to move to strategic ambiguity first in February, ending with a public move to pledge military options including western troops would not be ruled out. He quickly got publicly isolated by Biden and Scholz in Feb. as noted in the article, but despite that he gained some support, with statements from Polish and Lithuania noting it could be possible. Article goes into further detail about him presenting the proposal in Feb and getting isolated among NATO nations and then walking on stage and declaring it should not be ruled out.

In terms of "if Kiyv falls" Macron is worried about the fracturing of NATO not via Central Europe/Eastern Europe folding to Russia, but a scenario where U.S support in the event of a NATO vs Russia scenario is no longer ironclad meaning a Russian calculus of succeeding in conflict with NATO goes up.

In that sense, if Ukraine falls, this is Macron's thinking not me mind u, the risk of broader regional or global conflict is already heightened between Europe vs Russia.

My entire point mind you was to point out that striking dual use targets was not immediately nearing nuclear war escalation, to which you declared that Ukraine was not that important vs potential nuclear war via escalation mismanagement and that NATO would prefer to let Kiyv fall than risk that outcome.

I then pointed out to you NATO is not united in that outlook you framed as "Ukraine is not important enough" and that suggesting NATO should be afraid of nuclear war enough to risk Ukraine falling, would instead risk the NATO alliance where allowing Ukraine to fall would cause fractures in the alliance and increase the potential of further conflict including nuclear.

The current Macron stance represents that possibility pretty clear. France, a nuclear power and NATO country is actively pushing to involve Western troops into Ukraine, is gathering a coalition of countries to make the same commitments and doing so despite sustained opposition by major NATO allies precisely seemingly to ensure Ukraine's fall is out of the question, risking further escalation via the involvement of Western troops in harms way, finding that preferable to alternatives where Ukraine does fall.

 

So that is how you are translating Macron’s position?  That France is so invested in Ukraine that it is willing to risk nuclear war and direct French involvement in this war rather than let Ukraine fall?

Well first off that is simply not true. Macron, who btw in a liberal democracy does not represent all French people everywhere, is proposing we take another rung up an escalation ladder to shore up Ukraine and demonstrate resolve.  If he were so invested in Ukraine to the point that this war is indeed existential to France then we would likely be seeing French formations in Ukrainian already. 

This war definitely has an impact on European security.  In fact it is pretty clear that European security has already been destabilized by Russia violation of international order.  However, your argument is also sucking and blowing at the same time.  You argue that Russia winning in Ukraine is existential, but that threat will somehow fracture the alliances designed to counter that threat.  That is not how things work.  Russia success, which frankly is a pretty long shot, would drive nations together within NATO because of the increasing insecurity, not pull them apart.  We have seen this effect already with Sweden and Finland.

Further Macron is not right - you are immediately saying that he is because it supports your position (somewhat).  Nor are his motives pure.  Macron is playing the French power card for domestic consumption.  He is making a move to be seen as a leader within Europe in this perpetual echo of the 20th century.  He is using this war as an opportunity.  Again of France was truly “all in” then as a free nation, there would already be French troops in Ukraine in force.  Macron is posturing and signaling to effect.

The fact that you somehow translate this as “Hey France is ok with nuclear brinksmanship over Ukraine” really demonstrates where your thinking is at in this matter.  You are free to have and express your opinion but my position is that you are wrong.  Ukraine is very important.  The West still has escalation room and may use it.  But we are not going to risk a full on direct war with Russia over Ukraine without a concomitant direct attack by Russia on NATO.  We already did WW1 - where the world got pulled into a conflagration over a small power - in the nuclear age this is not an option.

Macron is free to posture and even escalate unilaterally.  But Ukraine does not pose an existential threat to either Europe or NATO, no matter what rhetoric is employed.  In fact the existential threat Macron refers to is a loss of security guarantees from the US, which is a whole other thing.  The threat is a global power vacuum if the US contracts due to domestic politics - the leading Republican candidate is a convicted criminal FFS. This entire thing is no longer even about Ukraine, it is about European security in a post-US world. That is a much larger problem that a glorious victory in Ukraine will not solve, but a defeat may create a forcing function.

My honest opinion, and has been for some time, is that you are staring far too hard at this one war.  It has become unhealthy and bordering on obsession. From your comments for some time now, the future of all humanity seems to hang on this conflict.  This has skewed your logic into very dangerous waters but if the only lens you apply to international relations is Ukraine then it probably makes sense.  My honest advice is to maybe take a break from this and look up and around. There are other things happening in the world other than this war. The primary strategy of every major power has been to contain it, manage it and push for the best outcome we can - not full on direct involvement which would come with expansion.

Edited June 8 by The_Capt

[Haiduk]

.

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[Offshoot]

Just because it's cool

Quote

Ukrainian Yak-52 which is used to hunt down Russian reconnaissance UAVs over the southern Ukraine. Video from a Russian drone.

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000010485351.html

"We are the largest producer of 155mm ammunition in Europe." (meaning Finland)
- Finnish militaries War Economy Manager(Sotatalouspäällikkö), Lieutenant General Mikko Heiskanen

[Letter from Prague]

Yeah, I think from NATO countries, Finland has the most artillery focused army, so it makes sense they are the best choice to scale it up.

edit: I'm gonna bite my tongue and not response to the whole "let's not support ukraine because nukes" spiel.

Edited June 8 by Letter from Prague
I'm a bad person.

[Haiduk]

On 6/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, Harmon Rabb said:

I'll be honest back in the summer of 2022 I was not sure I fully trusted Macron, I know I was not the only supporter of Ukraine who felt that way.

These days all I have to say is Viva Macron!!!

There are some conspiracies I've seen in UKR twitter, France and Ukraine have some secret deal about post-war Africa mop-up from Russian presense by the hands of UKR servicemen (GUR or PMC).

Probbaly you have read this news recenly:

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-03/russia-said-to-seek-takeover-of-france-s-uranium-assets-in-niger

Russia Is Said to Seek French-Held Uranium Assets in Niger

• Rosatom said to have contacts with junta on French-held mines
• Russia expands presence in Africa amid confrontation with West

Since influence of China and Russia in Africa have been growing more and more, France and some other western countries lose own influence and raw materials for own industry. Current left agenda of "struggle with colonial legacy" obviously makes impossible any military counter-actions to protect own economical intersts and fight influence of strategical rivals. So, as you could see, any victory of pro-Russian forces in African countries finishes with weak-willed withdrawal of westerners. In old good times it would be immediate intrevention or at least coup or sponsoring of armed opposition, but not now. So, West loses one position by one and Russia and China grab more and more resourses using false rhetoric "we are friends, we are not the same as your former colonizers"

So on the background of this "strange" on first look GUR actions in Sudan, Syria and probably in one of other African country may be prelude to some more significant actions after the war and sharply changed position of France is just a consequences of losing of some African contries with valuable resourses. So, French aid now may be as earnest for future help from Ukrianian side. Who knows...      

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[Letter from Prague]

.

Edited June 8 by Letter from Prague
Let's not, in fact I'll go away for now.

[LongLeftFlank]

27 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

So, French aid now may be as earnest for future help from Ukrianian side. Who knows...      

 

It only takes one itchy finger....

There may be an element of truth here, but I'd hope the lads are fighting and bleeding for something a little better than to become the expendable semibarbari foederati for the Gallic Empire....

Edited June 8 by LongLeftFlank

[Haiduk]

20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The last Bradley video posted here, where it was putting down suppressive fire along a row of houses,

47th mech.brigade has exellent PR-department )

But here 92nd assault brigade with own BTR-4 (by other version BMP-1TS with "Spys" RWS), pouring the wall of fire on the enemy in Kharkiv oblast

To the Kharkiv oblast developments:

UKR troops had some small gains in Vovchansk

On other Russian bridgehead, UKR troops conducted successfull counter-attack near Hlyboke village and reportedly prepare to assault of the village (or assault so far). Some sources say Russians move reserves to Pyl'ne village and among them so-called "African corps"

Video of fighting near Hlyboke

Strikes on the village (GBU-39?)

Fighting on the outskirts

 

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

12 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

but I'd hope the lads are fighting and bleeding for something a little better than to become the expendable semibarbari foederati for the Gallic Empire....

I think, Ukraine also has own ambitions in Africa. So, this may be mutually beneficial deal. And otehr aspect - after the war we will have many people, traumatized by the war, whicn never could return to civilian life. Adrenaline, shooting, feel of danger - the needs of this will be with them almost all life. There are not so much of this people we will have, but they will be. So, it would be good application for them to become "dogs of war" and execute some work out of the country 

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[keas66]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

We are seeing maybe a couple squads attacking a trench line long enough for a battalion position.  How are 8-15 guys are supposed to “decisive” in clearing a trench line that long.  This is another doomed attack from the get go.

The Russians do manage to get a couple APCs in  and debus but that is nowhere enough troops to do the job.  Next, those vehicles out in the open are spotted and being hit from all over the place.  Once in trench clearing, vehicles can provide limited support at best but in this case they are sitting ducks - and we can see this as a few get hit trying to exit.

Finally, the major issue is staring us in the face…we can watch the whole thing from a drone. Troops on the ground defending were very likely getting a direct feed and knew exactly how many Russian troops were there, and where they were. Defenders have a significant advantage with this.  Luckily for the Russians it looks like the UA did not have mortars or GLs or this thing would have ended before it started.  The fact that the RA squad managed to do anything is a small miracle.

There is no “decisive” here - that is the sort of thing Hollywood sells in the movies.  Trench clearing is brutal and slow.  Not having enough troops to start with and under the eyes of ISR the whole time just makes it impossible.

Now the next question - why could the RA only get a couple, squads to this trench line?  Lack of trying?  We know this is not true.  Lack of troops?  Or was it an inability to concentrate mass because it would draw in more interdiction?

The Ukrainians said  were making use of 120mm Mortar  through most of the work on the trenches . The commentary was directly referring to that and you could see several strikes on the Russians in the Trenches

[Haiduk]

Russian TGs two days ago wrote about 1009th motor-rifle regiment of TD troops, attached under subordination of 25th motor-rifle brigade of 6th CAA was completely wiped out on Vovchansk direction. I can't find now a screen of one more source, where it claimed this regiment lost 90 % of personnel KIA, WIA and MIA. 

Later the same source wrote he can't issue a details of 1009th regiment disaster, but says the regiment relaly was substituted on two battalions of 30th motor-rifle regiment of 72nd MRD of 44th Army Corps - main reserves of Troops Groupment "North". Also he adds, fluent situation, when positions continosusly сhange hands, has a dismoralling effect on Russian troops, so units of 9th motor-rifle regiment of 18th MRD have shaken and rejected to go in th battle

 

[Haiduk]

Despite Russians claimed they shot down all drones over N.Osetia, at least one drone reached Mozdok airfield and hit it.

 

Edited June 8 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

On Kupiansk sector (on Borova direction) Russians captured Ivanivka village and try to develop own success toward Stepova Novoselivka village, but their attacks are failing - the video of 43rd mech.brigade, mostly FPV strikes 

 

[Haiduk]

Never stand behind RPG! 

 

Edited June 8 by Haiduk