Approximately how long would it take the U.S.

Approximately how long would it take the U.S. military to capture a settlement of this size, assuming it was a division-level or higher primary objective?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is getting old

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so is this battle

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Damn, son.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      unlike russian conscripts

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so is this battle

      You know what's not getting old? Any of the Russians participating in it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not unlike the average age of a new Russian conscript

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Less than a day

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So the right question to ask about Pisky is: Why is not Russia pushing it?

    Not gonna be a PrepHoleopefag and say straight away that they can't, because we know very well they can take such settlements easily. So, we need to then ask ourselves why don't they want to take it first, and then if we don't have a good answer to that question, we can go and ask why are they not doing it, despite wanting to do so.

    We know it's a small town/village at the edge of the old Donetsk occupied territory. What are the strategic advantages of taking it? Would it be a good point to start an encirclement? Would it be a good logistical hub or any other strategic importance? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then yeah we can ask why CAN'T they take it, given how close it is? Is personnel that bad in that area? We know LNR/DNR are not willing to fight outside their oblast, and have seen plenty of videos of them refusing to push into Ukraine, so it could be that there's no Russian presence there so they are just not doing anything.

    Lots of questions, with few answers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why is not Russia pushing it?
      They are. They have been for weeks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are they using full force to push it then? Or are they just applying pressure? Big difference, if the first, then that means Ukraine is extremely dug-in that area, if the second, then even a couple hundred soldiers on rotation could hold that place

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They've been trying to push along the entire Donetsk line for weeks now to try and create a buffer.=

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >because we know very well they can take such settlements easily
      What settlements have they taken last month to prove that they are capable of taking anything on Donbass at this point?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So, if they don't want it, why do they keep trying to push into it and losing men for nothing?

      Oh yeah, because they do in fact want it and you're coping.

      Also, Pisky is part of Donetsk Oblast, retard. It's right outside the freakin' airport of Donetsk itself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Russian strategy since April has been to utilize artillery superiority to attack/destroy Ukrainian defenses instead of large-scale assaults. Once a position has been deemed sufficiently damaged they send in armored probing forces—if strong resistance is met the shelling continues, and if the Ukrainian response is weak they assault the position and capture it. This strategy is very slow, but minimalizes casualties and puts the Ukrainians in an almost unwinnable situation because the Russians have far more artillery pieces and the west isn’t sending Ukraine nearly enough howitzers and MLRS.

      The problem with this strategy is that Ukraine can simply rotate brigades to different locations. If one unit takes heavy casualties to Russian shelling, they can rotate it out of their defensive line, replenish it with conscripts, and send it back in. It’s like if the Japanese could infinitely teleport soldiers into the battle of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, forcing the marines to fight forever. However this doesn’t replace the equipment and trained manpower Ukraine is losing.

      (1/2)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do I think this is true?
        Russian progress has been extremely slow, and Ukrainian counteroffensives have had even less progress.

        Instead of repelling huge armored/infantry assaults, Ukrainian sources only show them engaging small groups of Russian armor/infantry. These are the RUS probing/recon forces which sometimes meet resistance and take losses.

        Despite conscription of hundreds of thousands of troops (doubling the size of the ukranian army on paper), Ukraine has only put a handful of new brigades into service (like the 66th and 63rd mechanized brigades) and has been unable to retake significant land since May, indicating a large proportion of the conscriptions are likely replacements.

        Ukrainian artillery has started operating individually, indicating they’re pressed to preserve what they have at the expense of fire efficiency (splitting up artillery means fire missions are less efficient due to the greater burdens it placed on communication and operations). There’s been pictures and videos of Russian artillery besides mountains of spent casings and without grass in sight, indicating the opposite is true for them.

        Foreign volunteers returning from Ukraine (such as the renowned Canadian sniper “Wali”) have described conditions where the Russians continuously shelled them while they were unable to resist.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ukrainian artillery has started operating individually, indicating they’re pressed to preserve what they have at the expense of fire efficiency

          Modern communications that Ukraine uses keeps fire efficiency at the same while not risking casualties. Russias cant into modern artillery fire missions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I see some here are still operating under the delusion that the Russians are unwilling, as opposed to unable, to advance.
            The fact is the Ukrainians had severe fire inferiority up until a couple months ago when himars really kicked into high gear. This has been so evident that we literally saw russian arty die down from orbit.
            Your statement about russians using arty heavy tactics was accurate up until June. Since then, Russian "advances" have amounted to a couple villages, some factories and little else. They have captured literally nothing of note.
            Ukrainians have been unable to push or generate brigades because most of their newly mobilised soldiers are barely trained territorial defense types and they lack tanks and ifvs.
            Uke arty has shown itself to be spectacularly efficient and operating in a dispersed manner thanks to funky decentralised Uber-style fire mission control software they've implemented.
            Uke arty is literally writing the textbook on 21st century operations at the minute.

            Every time you split artillery units up, you have to account for the logistics, targeting and organization of every single individual unit. Having better communications and intelligence obviously helps, but it’s a huge sacrifice of efficiency and reaction time compared to what you could achieve otherwise, and indicates you’re outgunned, which is my point.

            HIMARS are perfectly capable modern MLRS and have had successes, but if they were really as effective as people say they are NATO would’ve sent more than a few dozen (they might have).

            >But FIRMS data
            Can’t tell artillery apart from bonfires and somebody’s house burning down.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Can’t tell artillery apart from bonfires and somebody’s house burning down
              Huh? So the whole 5 months every house/bonefire on the exact line of contact between armies was engulfed in flames but suddenly they just stopped?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How can you use FIRMS to get a reliable idea of what’s happening on the ground considering all the potential for error? Obviously wars cause fires, but you can’t tell if a fire is a burning supply depot, or Ivan and his friends having a bonfire. If Russian artillery fires 100 shells into a Ukrainian trench network from a wooded area, and the Ukrainians respond with 10 shells that start a small forest fire, does that mean that the Ukrainians are doing better. According to the FIRMS map sub Saharan Africa and the Amazon rainforest are more exciting places than an active war zone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you playing a retard? For almost 5 months you could paint the maps of the conflicts by FIRMS data alone. As soon as HIMARs started hitting those depots everything started to subside. I don't need to fucking know what exactly is burning when the data speaks for itself.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >but if they were really as effective as people say they are NATO would’ve sent more than a few dozen (they might have).

              The reason they arent sending more is ammo.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What is your source on this? GLMRs are expensive and only a moderate amount are produced a year, but the US has sent additional ammo in many of the recent aid packages. Over 500 launchers have been built compared to the few Ukraine has received, so the notion that only a handful can severely depleted the ammo apply seems suHispanicious.

                Are you playing a retard? For almost 5 months you could paint the maps of the conflicts by FIRMS data alone. As soon as HIMARs started hitting those depots everything started to subside. I don't need to fucking know what exactly is burning when the data speaks for itself.

                According to FIRMS early-mid March was relatively quiet (lmao), before picking up in late March, waxing/waning throughout April/May/June, picking up in late June/early July, subsiding, then picking up in late July again, going down the first week of august, then rising again. Overall I don’t see a consistent trend, which reinforces my idea that it isn’t very reliable to do tactical analysis

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lockmart has made over 40K GMLRS

                https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/guided-mlrs-unitary-rocket.html

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >According to FIRMS early-mid March was relatively quiet
                Well yeah? At that stage Russian forces were still riding in columns on roads...
                >waxing/waning throughout April/May/June, picking up in late June/early July
                Day to day data could be a bit unreliable but in general it was brightly glowing on the whole line of conflict throughout all that period. Again, until HIMARs arrived. I don't know what kind of "story" you're trying to build here but FIRMS has been incredibly consistent and brought to us the most up to date info about this conflict all this time. It's been way less useful this past months because of actual fires that are happening in the region in this period of the year but otherwise it has been stellar.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There’s more fires overall in July/August after HIMARS entered service than in April/May.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, on the map overall there is more. But those fires are actual fires as evidenced by them being tens if not hundreds of km away from the fighting. Data from the line of contact is way down and same was corroborated by Ukie soldiers. Literally everyone says that artillery fire from Russians is way down compared to what it was around Sieverodonetsk.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It rises and falls overall. There was a lot in May which died down later in the month, and the first week of July was very heavy. I don’t see the correlation you’re describing. Russian artillery fire did decrease after they took sievierdonetsk, which is a relief for the Ukrainians, but it makes sense for them to do that since the surge was in direct support of a significant offensive. They haven’t fought any major infantry battles since then as far as I can tell. What are your sources reporting on the experiences of Ukrainian soldiers?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >but if they were really as effective as people say they are NATO would’ve sent more than a few dozen (they might have).
              You can't just dump modern artillery systems on people without training. The West sent as many HIMARS as Ukraine had crews for.
              Good news is, more crews are being trained in the States right now.
              Bongs and other Euros are training infantry. Russia is going to lose this war, they simply win in an attritional war against Western industry and Ukrainian fanatacism.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >HIMARS numbers limited by Ukrainian crew numbers.

                This doesn’t make sense to me. If the west planned to send more, why not train more crew from the start instead of sending them in piecemeal? They aren’t experienced with western weapons, but Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS before the war, and therefore should have a body of experienced personnel for the west to start training.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I see some here are still operating under the delusion that the Russians are unwilling, as opposed to unable, to advance.
          The fact is the Ukrainians had severe fire inferiority up until a couple months ago when himars really kicked into high gear. This has been so evident that we literally saw russian arty die down from orbit.
          Your statement about russians using arty heavy tactics was accurate up until June. Since then, Russian "advances" have amounted to a couple villages, some factories and little else. They have captured literally nothing of note.
          Ukrainians have been unable to push or generate brigades because most of their newly mobilised soldiers are barely trained territorial defense types and they lack tanks and ifvs.
          Uke arty has shown itself to be spectacularly efficient and operating in a dispersed manner thanks to funky decentralised Uber-style fire mission control software they've implemented.
          Uke arty is literally writing the textbook on 21st century operations at the minute.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >renowned Canadian sniper "Wali"

          A fucking e-celeb who came out of nowhere, entered Ukraine and left just as quickly is a shady as fuck source, and talking about pictures but not posting any is even shadier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do I think this is true?
        Russian progress has been extremely slow, and Ukrainian counteroffensives have had even less progress.

        Instead of repelling huge armored/infantry assaults, Ukrainian sources only show them engaging small groups of Russian armor/infantry. These are the RUS probing/recon forces which sometimes meet resistance and take losses.

        Despite conscription of hundreds of thousands of troops (doubling the size of the ukranian army on paper), Ukraine has only put a handful of new brigades into service (like the 66th and 63rd mechanized brigades) and has been unable to retake significant land since May, indicating a large proportion of the conscriptions are likely replacements.

        Ukrainian artillery has started operating individually, indicating they’re pressed to preserve what they have at the expense of fire efficiency (splitting up artillery means fire missions are less efficient due to the greater burdens it placed on communication and operations). There’s been pictures and videos of Russian artillery besides mountains of spent casings and without grass in sight, indicating the opposite is true for them.

        Foreign volunteers returning from Ukraine (such as the renowned Canadian sniper “Wali”) have described conditions where the Russians continuously shelled them while they were unable to resist.

        Ukraine has been turning things around in the South and only a retard obsessed with maps won't notice it. Yeah Russia still has a lot of artillery and are still using it to their advantage, but if that's the only advantage they have left they're fucked. Artillery doesn't just function on its own in a vacuum.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ukraine has been turning the tide in the south

          They knocked out the bridges near Kherson, but besides that not much seems to have changed in their favor. The Russians keep hitting Mikolayiv and brought in more armored troops recently. Russians even claimed to have gained some ground, but it’s either minuscule or not true.

          Artillery by itself cannot win, but apparently Ukraine struggles with Russian infantry as well due to their inability to regain ground since early May.

          Lockmart has made over 40K GMLRS

          https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/guided-mlrs-unitary-rocket.html

          I’ve read the total number of produced GLMRS is between 40-50k as well. Do you know how much ammunition they use per day? I ran some calculations and the lack of ammunition being a limiting factor makes more sense. If each M142 launches 1-2 volleys a day each one would’ve used hundreds of missiles by now. If so then the U.S needs to step up procurement.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What vatniks seem to be forgetting is that every time you send a probing attack out to see what resistance there is, you lose men. The way such a group finds out there is resistance in the first place, is them getting shot at. This is the manpower that Russia is losing but keep quiet about.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >So the right question to ask about Pisky is: Why is not Russia pushing it?

      Thats easy. They intend to encircle it and either force a withdrawal or surrender by the garrison. Pisky is an ukie fortress city that has been built up over 8 years.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Pisky is an ukie fortress city
        Ok, if this fish village of 9 people is now 'fortress city' what are Slaviansk and Kramatorsk then? And how many centuries are they going to fight over them?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why is not Russia pushing it?

      They've been doing it for 8 years. Pisky has seen hundreds of attempts to take it, literally hundreds. How many thousands of pidors died there only God knows.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A few hours

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They should add map mods to wargame red dragon and let people make maps after ukraine lol.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wow,
    >that forest
    >that river/lake
    >town cuddling both of them

    must have been a nice place to live/grow up in.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Eastern Euro rural settlements are nothing like the ones in Western Europe or North America.
      Living in a tiny village like this often meant being stuck 50 years behind the rest of the country.
      Or 200 in the case of some places in the Balkans.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >forest full of local drunk hobos with aids waiting to rape some teenagers while talking about the great soviet time
      >river/lake full of sewer shit and needle but is also the water source of that town
      >town full of both
      Sounds like Home

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    in about six hours after repeatedly getting hit with cruise missiles and pounded with 500lbs from the sky. THen send in a clean up team that shoots anything that moves. Maybe 4 hours if we leave a few still alive

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Between a week and 11 years

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    4 hours, 8 minutes. And that's with hiccups.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That tiny town could be erased by air strikes in an hour.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what is the tactical advantage of claiming you've captured a town and quietly taking back that claim a month later?
    https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1563628688968749056

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have you Yankees forgotten about Monte Cassino?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shoigu, has Pisky, the capital of Ukraine and last stronghold before Poland taken already?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Approximately two hours. The US military is in a different league of its own.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So, fresh to the zone, no setup beforehand? 3-4 days. A day or two to recon and (if the river's aren't dried up) send in riverines. The remainder of the time to establish control after targeted airstrikes following SEAD/DEAD. USMC armor, Army air and regular cavalry following airspace domination by USAF/USN of course. Space Force sucks its own dick in a broom closet while making 7 figures.

    With proper intelligence assets available? 24-48 hours if the intention is to occupy the space. 6-12 if simple decapitation and strategic reacquisition is the goal.

Your email address will not be published.