08-01-2022, 02:44 PM
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...nt-july-31
https://www.yahoo.com/news/battle-kherso...00378.html
The Kherson article hits on lots of points that I think are very cogent. It points out the importance of the fact Ukraine has forced Russia to respond to Ukrainian advances for the first time. More importantly, this article restates the Ukrainian view that the battle in Kherson Oblast will be to occupy the various strong points each side maintains and that there is a lot of open ground between them that is effectively no mans land.
The conduct of the rest of the war is also addressed. The new weapons are credited with reducing the Russian artillery fire from 20,000 rounds a day to "ten times less". How much of that is a natural pause for the Russian redeployment is not knowable but the Ukrainians at least are attributing it to the destruction of ammunition supplies, which is plausible. However, as the article also points out Russia has made some gains in the Donetsk area anyway. While it is unclear how the Russian redeployment will work out, it does appear they intend to actually INCREASE the number of areas where they are undertaking offensive operations.
This de-centralization of the Russian offense could be partially in response to the ability of the Ukraine to destroy large concentrations of resources at greater depth than before. Spreading out and attacking across broader areas could reduce the need for logistics on a large scale, trading that for having to supply more disparate operations. That doesn't sound like a good tradeoff for a logistically challenged army, but maybe it is their best option. It also matches Putin's expanded war aims. The exact reasoning remains unknown.
It is interesting to note that Ukraine was able to destroy a train carrying Russian troops and material redeploying to the south. That is great news. Apparently the rail line is at least in some places within HIMARS range. Of course, with ATACMS all of it would be :-). Making redeployment costly has to be a major Ukrainian goal. Every Russian asset destroyed in transit is one they don't have to destroy while it is shooting at them.
Unfortunately, the slow rate at which the US supplied the HIMARS to Ukraine created an interval where Russia would be effectively "immunized" by their use. They were not available in large enough numbers to kill the "organism" or to even make it real sick, but it did allow the organism to adapt to their presence. If those 50 ammunition dumps had all gone up on the same day, not weeks apart, the ability of the Russians to conduct offensive operations would have temporarily collapsed all along the line. Ukraine could have reasonably exploited that situation by pushing the Russians back and inflicting casualties while the Russians had few/no shells. Once again, "Smack them, don't tap them" is proved true. It wouldn't have ended the war, but it would certainly have been superior to what did happen. This is an error our country repeatedly has made over many years.
It remains to be seen exactly how the Russian redeployment will work out. It is obviously imperative that Russian advances in Donetsk be stopped. If Russia can continue to "inch along" there while transferring units to Kherson Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast to do the same thing, Ukraine would be in even bigger trouble. OTOH, spreading out will hopefully create a situation where Russia is too weak to advance anywhere and Ukraine can continue to make progress in Kherson and possibly elsewhere.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/battle-kherso...00378.html
The Kherson article hits on lots of points that I think are very cogent. It points out the importance of the fact Ukraine has forced Russia to respond to Ukrainian advances for the first time. More importantly, this article restates the Ukrainian view that the battle in Kherson Oblast will be to occupy the various strong points each side maintains and that there is a lot of open ground between them that is effectively no mans land.
Quote:The only sure way to dislodge Russian troops from established positions is to mount a large-scale counteroffensive, following up artillery fire with assaults combining armor and infantry. This may become necessary although for the moment the Ukrainians may have insufficient brigades that are fully equipped and prepared to mount such an attack with confidence.It should say mechanized infantry, as IFV protection is required in an artillery heavy area. This is the crux of it. Does Ukraine have those forces and the will to use them? If not, the results of this offensive will be quite limited. As the article points out, they may be able to force the Russians to evacuate Kherson city itself by making it logistically untenable. However, that is very much second place to cutting them off and forcing a surrender. If they live to fight another day, they will, and Ukraine may not beat them in a rematch.
The conduct of the rest of the war is also addressed. The new weapons are credited with reducing the Russian artillery fire from 20,000 rounds a day to "ten times less". How much of that is a natural pause for the Russian redeployment is not knowable but the Ukrainians at least are attributing it to the destruction of ammunition supplies, which is plausible. However, as the article also points out Russia has made some gains in the Donetsk area anyway. While it is unclear how the Russian redeployment will work out, it does appear they intend to actually INCREASE the number of areas where they are undertaking offensive operations.
This de-centralization of the Russian offense could be partially in response to the ability of the Ukraine to destroy large concentrations of resources at greater depth than before. Spreading out and attacking across broader areas could reduce the need for logistics on a large scale, trading that for having to supply more disparate operations. That doesn't sound like a good tradeoff for a logistically challenged army, but maybe it is their best option. It also matches Putin's expanded war aims. The exact reasoning remains unknown.
It is interesting to note that Ukraine was able to destroy a train carrying Russian troops and material redeploying to the south. That is great news. Apparently the rail line is at least in some places within HIMARS range. Of course, with ATACMS all of it would be :-). Making redeployment costly has to be a major Ukrainian goal. Every Russian asset destroyed in transit is one they don't have to destroy while it is shooting at them.
Unfortunately, the slow rate at which the US supplied the HIMARS to Ukraine created an interval where Russia would be effectively "immunized" by their use. They were not available in large enough numbers to kill the "organism" or to even make it real sick, but it did allow the organism to adapt to their presence. If those 50 ammunition dumps had all gone up on the same day, not weeks apart, the ability of the Russians to conduct offensive operations would have temporarily collapsed all along the line. Ukraine could have reasonably exploited that situation by pushing the Russians back and inflicting casualties while the Russians had few/no shells. Once again, "Smack them, don't tap them" is proved true. It wouldn't have ended the war, but it would certainly have been superior to what did happen. This is an error our country repeatedly has made over many years.
It remains to be seen exactly how the Russian redeployment will work out. It is obviously imperative that Russian advances in Donetsk be stopped. If Russia can continue to "inch along" there while transferring units to Kherson Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast to do the same thing, Ukraine would be in even bigger trouble. OTOH, spreading out will hopefully create a situation where Russia is too weak to advance anywhere and Ukraine can continue to make progress in Kherson and possibly elsewhere.