Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[pas5898]

Is it wishful thinking or realistic that with 200+ MBT's Ukraine could cut off the land bridge to Crimea? Or even go further? 

Edited January 25, 2023 by pas5898

[Genie]

I wonder if Ukraine has enough willing troops to hold Russia where they are, and simultaneously progress along the border with Russia securing it.

The solution is so simple, who should I send this to?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Genie

[The Fun Factory]

On 24/01/2023 at 12:38, Spoony said:

I wonder what Ukraine plan to do with their image once this is over. Everyone is very pro Ukraine right now but don’t they genuinely have quite wide problems with racism and nazism? When this is all over do we remember it isn’t the lovely cuddly country it is now portrayed as?

This is completely separate to the Ukrainian war effort which I fully support, but they haven’t become a lovely great country over night. I hope they do actually commit to reforming their image and attitudes. 

They will have to change if they want to join the EU and NATO.

Though countries in those membership still have major problems- Hungary, Romania, Bulgariia etc.

Can't be too much holier than thou as we got our own problems with the Met.

[villa89]

18 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Can't be too much holier than thou as we got our own problems with the Met.

You can be though, that's a drop in the ocean compared to what's going on in Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria etc. 

[villa89]

36 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

Is it wishful thinking or realistic that with 200+ MBT's Ukraine could cut off the land bridge to Crimea? Or even go further? 

First thing I'd do if I was running Ukraine and they do reclaim Crimea is blow that Ikea built bridge to smithereens. However I suspect Ukraine isn't too arsed about taking back Crimea. Its more 'we really want it back' so if negotiations do happen they can pretend Russia got something out of the deal by letting them have it and then keeping the fresh water turned off.

[KentVillan]

2 minutes ago, villa89 said:

You can be though, that's a drop in the ocean compared to what's going on in Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria etc. 

direction of travel is important too, though. Backsliding is arguably more dangerous than improving from a bad starting point.

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, villa89 said:

However I suspect Ukraine isn't too arsed about taking back Crimea.

No, they definitely are arsed about it, they have to for many reasons, including but not limited to;

• Push the Russian Black Sea Fleet further from Ukraine's mainland by taking control of Sevastopol
• The natural resources of Crimea are huge, Ukraine want them including the oil and gas
• They have promised their people that they will take Crimea
• There will never be peace in Ukraine until Crimea is retaken and secured
• Not retaking Crimea will represent a form of winning for Russia

[avfc1982am]

I could be wrong but I think Ukraine would rather retake Crimea and lose the Donbas instead. Create a more hardened border in the East and keep their waters free of Russian's in the South. I still think taking Melitopol and the Zaporizhzhia region is key to this and the use of Western equipment could be very instrumental in the coming months at achieving this. 

I'm sort of hoping Ukraine have been busying themselves through the winter gathering all the resources and manpower in readiness to push towards Melitopol. If they can split the occupied territory especially in the South where the terrain is so much flatter and better suited to mobility.  I think Russians would start to panic.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

NATO tactics for defeating Russia were to let them advance,  destroy their supply lines and wait for collapse. 

Ukraine did that and pushed the Russians back.  But Russia is countering that tactic.  They are dug in and have no real ambition to advance.  They just want to defend what they have and make small gains.  

So Ukraine needs a new tactic. 

 The most obvious tactic would be to strike south east from Kherson and get to the sea.  That would leave Crimea completely dependent upon the bridge and well most of Crimea within HIMARS range. 

But that must be in the forefront of Russia's mind.  

In my opinion the next breakthrough will be an opportunistic one caused by Russia moving its forces to counter Ukraine's new tanks and inadvertently leaving a weakness.  Russia will leave some bunch of poorly trained clowns in a position where they can be cut off from supplies. They will surrender rather than fight to the death.  

[avfc1982am]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

NATO tactics for defeating Russia were to let them advance,  destroy their supply lines and wait for collapse. 

Ukraine did that and pushed the Russians back.  But Russia is countering that tactic.  They are dug in and have no real ambition to advance.  They just want to defend what they have and make small gains.  

So Ukraine needs a new tactic. 

 The most obvious tactic would be to strike south east from Kherson and get to the sea.  That would leave Crimea completely dependent upon the bridge and well most of Crimea within HIMARS range. 

But that must be in the forefront of Russia's mind.  

In my opinion the next breakthrough will be an opportunistic one caused by Russia moving its forces to counter Ukraine's new tanks and inadvertently leaving a weakness.  Russia will leave some bunch of poorly trained clowns in a position where they can be cut off from supplies. They will surrender rather than fight to the death.  

I think any advance from Kherson would need to be supported by an advance elsewhere. I'm not sure Ukraine could attack logistically or quick enough without an offensive from Zaporizhzhia and Russian forces being tied up on multiple fronts. Kherson and all the bridges have been blown to shit. Russians are dug in and to advance on them from Kherson alone isn't going to be quick enough to unsettle them due to the river crossing. Ukrainians would just leave themselves open to counter attack. Russia would have exactly the same difficulty trying to regain Kherson now.  

[KentVillan]

8 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

NATO tactics for defeating Russia were to let them advance,  destroy their supply lines and wait for collapse. 

Ukraine did that and pushed the Russians back.  But Russia is countering that tactic.  They are dug in and have no real ambition to advance.  They just want to defend what they have and make small gains.  

So Ukraine needs a new tactic. 

 The most obvious tactic would be to strike south east from Kherson and get to the sea.  That would leave Crimea completely dependent upon the bridge and well most of Crimea within HIMARS range. 

But that must be in the forefront of Russia's mind.  

In my opinion the next breakthrough will be an opportunistic one caused by Russia moving its forces to counter Ukraine's new tanks and inadvertently leaving a weakness.  Russia will leave some bunch of poorly trained clowns in a position where they can be cut off from supplies. They will surrender rather than fight to the death.  

Also, we all know that the strategic and tactical planning for this whole conflict on the Ukraine side is being done by a massive coalition of Ukraine and the best Nato has to offer, so the likelihood of Russia being outthought is pretty high. With the right resources, Russian mistakes will be exploited, and the Ukrainian forces’ morale and willingness to fight is naturally higher, as it has been throughout.

[sidcow]

13 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Also, we all know that the strategic and tactical planning for this whole conflict on the Ukraine side is being done by a massive coalition of Ukraine and the best Nato has to offer, so the likelihood of Russia being outthought is pretty high. With the right resources, Russian mistakes will be exploited, and the Ukrainian forces’ morale and willingness to fight is naturally higher, as it has been throughout.

Yeah, I get they're getting real high end advice from the best NATO military minds and tons of intelligence from satellite and AEW&C and reconnaissance aircraft. 

[tinker]

The US hasn't sent tanks there to be deystroyed or captured, there must be a plan that requires them to cover ground quickly.  I would  guess the end game is approaching,

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, tinker said:

The US hasn't sent tanks there to be deystroyed or captured, there must be a plan that requires them to cover ground quickly.  I would  guess the end game is approaching,

That’s my hope, and maybe why Germany were reluctant to be a part of the paymasters demise.

 

[bickster]

46 minutes ago, tinker said:

The US hasn't sent tanks there to be deystroyed or captured, there must be a plan that requires them to cover ground quickly.  I would  guess the end game is approaching,

Nah there's months and months of this to go yet. There'll be advances and wins for Ukraine but even with the new tanks the only way it will be over relatively quickly is Russian capitulation

I hope that does happen but I can't see it.

I along with others here really do think they'll begin to punch a hole southwards to the sea through Melitopol and Mariupol whilst just holding the Donbas front. That will have a number of effects

It will split the Russians into two separate fractured groups

It will cut the supply lines to those west of the hole and Crimea.Once they've done that or even whilst they are doing that, attempt to properly take out the Kerch Bridge. That cuts off any land supply to Crimea and makes it very hard to supply those troops to the west of the hole

That will have a huge negative effect on Russian moral on top of the huge logistics problem of resupplying Crimea

It would eventually force the Black Sea fleet back to mainland Russia too

Going back to the Kerch Bridge I'm failry dure if they do reach the sea, the bridge is then in HIMARS range and vitually the only way to supply Crimea would be by sea acorss the Kerch Straight because shipping in the Sea of Azov and the near Black Sea would absolutely be in Ukrainian range, the same would also be true of most Crimean airfields

Russia may have no option but to abandon Crimea. It may be impossible for them to be there. Many thousands of troops could be isolated. This would be no retreat from Kherson situation

I think the core central Donabas area will be the last to be liberated

 

That is just my inner armchair general speaking and it isn't based on any knowledge or information I've read

 

[tinker]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Nah there's months and months of this to go yet. There'll be advances and wins for Ukraine but even with the new tanksthe only war it will be over relatively quickly is Russian capitulation

I hope that does happen but I can't see it.

I along with others here really do think they'll begin to punch a hole southwards to the sea through Melitopol and Mariupol whilst just holding the Donbas front. That will have a number of effects

It will split the Russians into two separate fractured groups

It will cut the supply lines to those west of the hole and Crimea.Once they've done that or even whilst they are doing that, attempt to properly take out the Kerch Bridge. That cuts off any land supply to Crimea and makes it very hard to supply those troops to the west of the hole

That will have a huge negative effect on Russian moral on top of the huge logistics problem of resupplying Crimea

Going back to the Kerch Bridge I'm failry dure if they do reach the sea, the bridge is then in HIMARS range and vitually the only way to supply Crimea would be by sea acorss the Kerch Straight because shipping in the Sea of Azov and the near Black Sea would absolutely be in Ukrainian range, the same would also be true of most Crimean airfields

Russia may have no option but to abandon Crimea. It may be impossible for them to be there. Many thousands of troops could be isolated. This would be no retreat from Kherson situation

I think the core central Donabas area will be the last to be liberated

 

That is just my inner armchair general speaking and it isn't based on any knowledge or information I've read

 

I can't see away this war will end other than a Russian capitulation, ii Putin either going or those around him getting the blame. The weather,  ground conditions and training obviously play a part but once the conditions are correct I can't see how Russia can stop the tanks pushing through their lines causing chaos. Russia may try and attack by air but I'm sure that would be a last throw of the dice with the air defence systems the Ukraine now have. Maybe it's just a pipe dream.

The main problem for the Ukraine will be once the wars over, policing a pro Russian population ( immigration and historical ties) in the east of the Ukraine, the fact that Russia will fuel terrorism and poke the flames of discontent with it's troll farms won't help.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

Going back to the Kerch Bridge I'm failry dure if they do reach the sea, the bridge is then in HIMARS range and vitually the only way to supply Crimea would be by sea acorss the Kerch Straight because shipping in the Sea of Azov and the near Black Sea would absolutely be in Ukrainian range, the same would also be true of most Crimean airfields

 

Correct. 

There is a specific adaptation to HIMARS that is designed for that job.  I cannot remember the name, but instead of producing a large explosion it punches a foot wide hole downwards.  It's accurate to a few feet. 

The basic theory is that you pepper a small section of the bridge with so many holes that it collapses that section. 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Correct. 

There is a specific adaptation to HIMARS that is designed for that job.  I cannot remember the name, but instead of producing a large explosion it punches a foot wide hole downwards.  It's accurate to a few feet. 

The basic theory is that you pepper a small section of the bridge with so many holes that it collapses that section. 

Thats pretty much what they did with the Kherson bridges, took a while but thats what the bridges looked like in the end, confetti

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Correct. 

There is a specific adaptation to HIMARS that is designed for that job.  I cannot remember the name, but instead of producing a large explosion it punches a foot wide hole downwards.  It's accurate to a few feet. 

The basic theory is that you pepper a small section of the bridge with so many holes that it collapses that section. 

Just remembered.  Its called SDB.  Small Diameter Bomb. 

It can cause a 3 foot hole in steel reinforced concrete.

[villa89]

6 minutes ago, tinker said:

The main problem for the Ukraine will be once the wars over, policing a pro Russian population ( immigration and historical ties) in the east of the Ukraine, the fact that Russia will fuel terrorism and poke the flames of discontent with it's troll farms won't help.

The hope would be a civil war in Russia which would mean there would be no priority on meddling in foreign affairs.