.
The Russo-Ukrainian War turned into a trench war contrary to my expectations. The Russian ground forces' ability to break through such defences is shockingly and ridiculously marginal - I did not expect that.
This is a shocking display of incompetence in no small part because the recipe for breakthrough has very largely been found in 1917 already (Bruchmüller's artillery tactics and modern infantry training and small unit manoeuvring of Stoßtruppen).
You don't even need armoured vehicles for it. A skilful and sufficient application of artillery (and nowadays glide bombs) and a simultaneous assault by many infantry sections on a wide-enough sector would do the trick if supported by a few modern ingredients such as barrage jamming in the 0.2...1 kHz band and fragmentation protection vests.
So I decided to write this blog post in order to help readers arrange their thoughts on offensives in an orderly manner:
The forms of attacks are (I rephrase the official lingo a bit here):
- raid
- counterattack
- meeting engagement
- pursuit
- hasty attack
- deliberate attack with limited objectives
- breakthrough offensive
raid: The usual purpose is to storm one position, take prisoners of war, capture radios, get away without trying to hold any newly gained ground.
counterattack: Can happen from lowest to highest levels. Attackers are particularly vulnerable (position-wise and in terms of morale) to a sudden attack. So often times a company defending a trench system would immediately launch a platoon-sized counterattack when the signal arrives that enemy assault troops are reaching another platoon's position, for example.
meeting engagement: Both forces are entering battle in a mobile phase of war (does not apply to trench warfare).
pursuit: Similar to meeting engagement, except that one side doesn't want to accept battle other than for purposes of delay at most. Not very relevant in trench warfare.
hasty attack: This is a planned attack with up to a few hours of preparation.
deliberate attack with limited objectives: The Russians do n inept form of this very much. The objective is limited (such as capture this village, eliminate this bridgehead, create a bridgehead, take this hill, take this trench system) and "deliberate" communicates that there was plenty time for preparations.
breakthrough offensive: This is what happens very rarely, mostly by Ukrainians and successfully only against particularly weak Russian sectors (Kharkiv, Kherson and Kursk Oblast offensives).
I wrote before; we know how breakthrough could be achieved. The Russians appear to be too incompetent, the Ukrainians (also quite an 'amateur' army with few peacetime-trained troops) appear to be rather risk-averse and in fear or the consequences of a major defeat in battle.
But here's a problem: Breakthrough in itself is of marginal value. Germany broke through the Entente fronts in France in 1918 on unprecedented widths, yet it lost the war months later. The British created a glimpse of how to exploit a breakthrough when they created the "fast" Whippet tank in 1917. Post-WWI they did split up tank development in infantry tanks for breakthrough and cruiser tanks for exploitation. They didn't get much more than that right, though.
Exploitation requires more than just full motorisation and tanks that are faster than a bicycle. The German army developed the attitude and had the superior idea of what exploitation is good for in its Moltke the Elder's Cannae (encirclement battle) fixation. Blitzkrieg was created, characterised by (in 1940 and 1941) hugely successful breakthrough exploitations.
The Russians have another historical root that should and could have informed them how to do things well in a pursuit (Suvorov's battles-winning obsession with quickness and getting into a fight before the enemy is ready for it, on all levels). Imagine a boxing fight in which one boxer is slow and the other lucky punches him before he's got his cover up the first time, then the quicker boxer goes in up close and the hits keep coming till knockout. That's a form of meeting engagement.
The German Blitzkrieg style used some parts of this as well, most notably there was an understanding that a tank division is not very good in positional defence, it should rather defend the flanks of a breakthrough or a bridgehead by attacking. The aim was to overrun the hostile reserves as they move to attack themselves, but haven't deployed for a fight yet.
Both the Russian and the Ukrainian side are INCREDIBLY far from the state of art of warfare of 85 years ago and I'm convinced that this is not technology's fault. Technology does NOT keep them from being more competent on the offence.
We should understand that both sides are fairly incompetent at most things. They know most about the state of man-in-the-loop drone warfare and associated electronic warfare, and that's about all their top competence.
The Russian ground forces has been rotten for decades and the quickly mobillised troops are either old or poorly trained, period.
The Ukrainian army has been rotten till 2014, then it tried to get its act together (also lots of warbands/warlord armies/militias that were later integrated into the regular forces). Its budget and thus its means for training had been small until 2022, though. Now they have lots of old and too briefly trained troops that are nowhere near Western conceptions of proper training levels, though they do have wartime experience. Almost all of that wartime experience since 2014 was about positional warfare and attacks with limited objectives and limited means, though. Both old age of infantry and deep experience in positional defence are rather detrimental to breakthrough efforts.
Long story short: We do NOT see the state of art of offence and defence in Ukraine and Kursk Oblast. What we see there is more akin to watching the Iraq-Iran (Gulf) War during the 1980's, a war fought with 1970's equipment but (at most) WWI levels of competence.
S O
.
No comments:
Post a Comment