the only part of that defense system that would actually work is the minefield, as the cost required to lay them is vastly lower than the cost required to lift them
assuming that they cover a valuable approach rather than just being laid at random and easily circumvented, anyways
the dragoons teeth and anti-tank ditches are nearly useless
and the foxholes can be defeated with artillery
>and the foxholes can be defeated with artillery
The issue is that it slows you down. Also you need to do a direct hit on the part of the trench that's holding the defender to take him out. And while this is happening the Russians will launch airstrikes and their own artillery attacks on your positions.
A trench isn't gonna win the war but its gonna slow down the Ukrainians which will help the Russians.
Funny enough sitting in foxholes and allowing things to progress into a heavily attritional trench warfare stage was identified as a huge weakness by the FDF and replaced by a more proactive defense strategy for deterring an offensive.
No they don't. The attacker has initiative, and can decide where and when to attack. This is where intelligence is critical - if you can identify weak spots, destroy the defenders' logistics and hammer them with idf until they no longer pose a problem, punch through, cut and isolate, then the attacker obviously has the advantage. The best trench system and the most advanced anti-armour structures won't help a jot if your ability to supply the men is fricked.
initiative is not an advantage, its ability to act - for better of for worse...
what baffles me is that this offensive is 100% probing attacks - no breakthrough ones up till now - few Bradleys and lone leo2 is not enough... and instead cutting deep they are cleansing area before moving on... something does not add up here
Initiative absolutely is an advantage, you mouth breathing badger farmer. Forcing your oppoment to react to what you're doing means you can set the stage in a way that is advantageous to you.
>Forcing your oppoment to react to what you're doing means you can set the stage in a way that is advantageous to you.
except that stage was set by other actor - Ukies act because they have to - not because its beneficial to them - their hand is forced - if they do nothing they loose
initiative is not an advantage, its ability to act - for better of for worse...
what baffles me is that this offensive is 100% probing attacks - no breakthrough ones up till now - few Bradleys and lone leo2 is not enough... and instead cutting deep they are cleansing area before moving on... something does not add up here
>what baffles me is that this offensive is 100% probing attacks - no breakthrough ones up till now
The sheer volume of advanced armor used shows it's not probing. They're all attempts at breakthrough but only some were successful
Attacker has initiative advantage
But that advantage evaporates after a while
Defender has defensive advantage, the longer the fight goes on
Any lands gained by attacker needs to be heavily guarded and reinforced, including the supply lines to fuel the attacks. While defender's supply lines are already established and any losses they occur wont mean they have to establish new supply route as its already been established behind the the line.
Yes, you have to defend your supply lines, that's true. Which is why the defenders in this case don't have an advantage.
>Forcing your oppoment to react to what you're doing means you can set the stage in a way that is advantageous to you.
except that stage was set by other actor - Ukies act because they have to - not because its beneficial to them - their hand is forced - if they do nothing they loose
That is absolutely ludicrous, why would ukraine be forced to act? The longer they wait, the more materiel and training they receive, and the more Russian economy is going to shrink in the meanwhile. A delay doesn't benefit Russia.
There is no arbitrator that declares Russia the winner because enough time elapsed, you utter toddler.
>That is absolutely ludicrous, why would ukraine be forced to act? The longer they wait, the more materiel and training they receive, and the more Russian economy is going to shrink in the meanwhile. A delay doesn't benefit Russia
delay is what Russia actively seeks - winter offensive was a total dud and only meaningful development was Wagner recycling tens of thousands of prisoners into fertilizer - apart of that they were building layers upon layers of defensive positions in the south setting stage for Ukie spring offensive - search when they begun to build those - that's when they decided that west support is unstable and decided to play the long game.
Delay is what Russia seeks because they don't have any other options. They can't generate momentum for an offensive to seize initiative, but digging in isn't beneficial to them either. The only hope they have is that Ukraine delays and the West loses interest, but that's not very likely. So in other words, they're fricked.
1) Defensive supply lines are already built and maintained. Offensive supply lines need to be built whenever to push forward. Hence the defensive will always have the advantage
2) The longer Ukraine waits, the worse it may become. Russia economic infrastructure shock cost them a bit but if they are able to stablize and replace the foreign/western products with domestic products or Chinese products, then their economics continue to resume and will produce more war machines as time goes by. You could say Ukraine will do the same with western goods but patience will be thin without any real results. When lines dont move much for few years, then the support dries up. The war economic packages given to Ukraine could solve many of the nation's social problems. Free health care, funding for building infrastructure, etc. Instead you get high inflation, low growth, covid shutdowns, constantly being in the brink of a nuclear war.
The arbiter that declares Russia as the winner will be man power + sustained economy + time. Population replacement in Russia will be higher than Ukraine, Ukraine itself is the battlefield not Russia, so economic development within Ukraine are basically net negative each passing year. The longer this war goes, the worse Ukraine will be. In the end, all this fighting might be for nothing, if they capitulate
Russian supply lines rely entirely on trains, which are currently becoming more and more vulnerable to artillery. They have an extremely long front, extremely poor and vulnerable logistics. Sure they have defender's advantage, but they're about to get fricked by NATO surplus alone
1) Great, so they're easier to target and destroy by long range precision fires thanks to overwhelming intel advantage.
2) No. Western industrial capacity and economic prowess outstrips the Russians' by such a degree that it's not even a contest, and China is not interested in alienating the west to prop up Russia's imperialist delusions. If your only hope of victory is that your opponent gets bored, then you've lost.
>why would ukraine be forced to act? The longer they wait, the more materiel and training they receive
The countries supporting them don't want to keep sending money and supplies. I hear people complaining about it all the time in my country. Ukraine has a limited amount of time for support.
I don't think the support will end while the war is still active. Sure, people tire out, but there's also the sunk cost factor to be considered - the west will not want to see ukraine fall after all that was already expended to save it.
A lot of stuff is being produced new as well. The EU has started a programme for artillery shells, various states are producing decent numbers of artillery pieces. I'm sure APCs of various types are being produced as well. Tanks are the biggest problem, leopards are getting scarce in europe and new ones are not being produced at sufficient rates. Unless america releases a lot more abrams, ukraine will probably run out of tanks.
>the west will not want to see ukraine fall after all that was already expended to save it. >A lot of stuff is being produced new as well
The stuff that was sent was all old shit. Sending it just gives an excuse to build new shit. With elections coming up, it's going to be a big topic on debates.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Funny thing, following Ivan's line of reasoning... Didnt CIA kill JFK for revenge on Bay of Pigs? I wonder what they will do with the Orange Man if he decides to back down on the support if he gets elected, considering he is a fan of Putin who let him do as he pleased during his first term and an old gay to bother its not like it would be that hard to arrange a particularly lethal accident for him.
>Source: just trust me bro
Multiple polls indicate that the majority of western countries are perfectly willing to endure continued hardship to keep supplying Ukr.
>That is absolutely ludicrous, why would ukraine be forced to act?
Russia has more artillery and is constantly killing Ukrainian troops all over the line of contact. The Russian airforce has also been more active lately due to the degradation of Ukraine's air defense so stuff like ammo stockpiles and troop gatherings are getting hit more often.
Ukraine can't keep waiting like this anymore and is forced to attack the Russians.
Funny enough sitting in foxholes and allowing things to progress into a heavily attritional trench warfare stage was identified as a huge weakness by the FDF and replaced by a more proactive defense strategy for deterring an offensive.
The Russians have a numerical advantage to the Ukrainians. So a 1-for-1 battle they'll still win, fighting on a defensive position while the Ukrainians have to deal with minefields and other obstacles while being shelled means that they'll be much less combat capable than if the Ukrainians where the ones defending.
The Russians have been sending loads of airstrikes into camps and bases that the Ukrainians launched the offensives from just days prior to it, so a lot of the offensive systems had already been destroyed before the battle.
>Russia has more artillery
This hasn't been accurate for a few weeks now, gramps.
Any sources on that?
This report says that Russia uses 35,000 shells a day
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3711875-russians-using-up-to-35000-shells-in-bakhmut-and-kupyansk-directions-daily.html
And this report says that Ukraine uses 7,000 shells a day
https://www.vox.com/2023/6/6/23744349/ukraine-artillery-counteroffensive-united-states-europe
The Russian numbers are even scarier because they're talking about only 1 part of the battlefield while they're destroying Ukraine forces all over the contact line.
11 months ago
Anonymous
But if you consider the kill ratio published this means on average the russians need 35 shells to kil one ukrainian while the ukrainians only need around 2.5 shells to kill a russian, I don't believe Prigozhin was complaining about lack of shells only because MOD wanted to frick over Wagner, MOD must be actually auffering some shortages, now, the russians are not going to run dry in 2 weeks but if they don't improve their efficiency and production we may end up seeing more and more videos from russian commanders calling off MOD.
Ukraine has functioning supply lines and heavy local superiority pushing in a carefully coordinated assault. The russians are outstretched, badly commanded and poorly equipped. Overall numerical manpower and equipment superiority is rather worthless if you can't properly coordinate those assets to be in the right places at the right time or do their job properly.
>the more Russian economy is going to shrink
LMAO they're making bank from sky-high oil and gas prices you daft c**t. They're selling it to China which sells it to the west. It's Europe's economies that have been battered.
Are you perhaps slightly moronic? The claim was: >Defenders always have the advantage
I have argued that they don't. If you think that this means that the attacker always has the advantage, then you need a lesson in basic logic or English. Take your pick.
If you insist on displaying your stupidity, I'll happily oblige. An analogy, if you will: >a motorcycle is always faster than a car
No it's not. >Lol u redart here a proof of bike being more speed than car
Yes, you're correct, you blathering moron, but that argument was never made.
A 6'4 chiseled out of stone anglo Saxon god has taken sleeping tablets and is drowsy and thinks a 5'4 fat Mexican American that vapes is his gf and he's attempting to rape him
What's the Mexican Americans advantage
Militarily
In a militaristic setting
Crossing no-man's-land is dangerous and that's the extent of the defender's advantage.
Attackers who mass to overwhelm the defender (3:1 or better) can take fewer losses than the defenders.
From a strategic perspective the defender has to entrench, mine, and defend the entire frontline. Even if you have overall numerical superiority, you won't have superiority where you're being attacked. Overall war is difficult and both attacking and defense are required by both parties.
BTW 3:1 is the traditional heuristic for an attacker to want. An advanced force with air superiority and great support like US vs primitives doesn't need a 3:1 ratio. Against a fortified enemy like Ukraine attacking Russia right now might want an 8:1 local superiority, which really just means you attack an enemy company with 1-2 battalions. Also breakthroughs are quite technical as we've seen with the video the ziggers keep spamming.
Yes and no. The defender has time to prepare their positions but the attacker can control the timing and location. The attacker can call the entire thing off last minute if they don't like the weather or want to wait for reinforcements. The defender can only prepare their positions further and wait.
the only part of that defense system that would actually work is the minefield, as the cost required to lay them is vastly lower than the cost required to lift them
assuming that they cover a valuable approach rather than just being laid at random and easily circumvented, anyways
the dragoons teeth and anti-tank ditches are nearly useless
and the foxholes can be defeated with artillery
>and the foxholes can be defeated with artillery
The issue is that it slows you down. Also you need to do a direct hit on the part of the trench that's holding the defender to take him out. And while this is happening the Russians will launch airstrikes and their own artillery attacks on your positions.
A trench isn't gonna win the war but its gonna slow down the Ukrainians which will help the Russians.
Funny enough sitting in foxholes and allowing things to progress into a heavily attritional trench warfare stage was identified as a huge weakness by the FDF and replaced by a more proactive defense strategy for deterring an offensive.
Airburst shells should clean up trenches and fox holes easily, no?
No they don't. The attacker has initiative, and can decide where and when to attack. This is where intelligence is critical - if you can identify weak spots, destroy the defenders' logistics and hammer them with idf until they no longer pose a problem, punch through, cut and isolate, then the attacker obviously has the advantage. The best trench system and the most advanced anti-armour structures won't help a jot if your ability to supply the men is fricked.
Yeah well in this point in time technology favors the defender.
Except it doesn't as previously stated.
Initiative absolutely is an advantage, you mouth breathing badger farmer. Forcing your oppoment to react to what you're doing means you can set the stage in a way that is advantageous to you.
>Forcing your oppoment to react to what you're doing means you can set the stage in a way that is advantageous to you.
except that stage was set by other actor - Ukies act because they have to - not because its beneficial to them - their hand is forced - if they do nothing they loose
They want to come closer to russias supply, and as soon as possible
initiative is not an advantage, its ability to act - for better of for worse...
what baffles me is that this offensive is 100% probing attacks - no breakthrough ones up till now - few Bradleys and lone leo2 is not enough... and instead cutting deep they are cleansing area before moving on... something does not add up here
Hint: have you seen Chieftains?
My bet is that when vatniks commit everything we see them, somewhere.
Somehow...
Just theorizing
>what baffles me is that this offensive is 100% probing attacks - no breakthrough ones up till now
The sheer volume of advanced armor used shows it's not probing. They're all attempts at breakthrough but only some were successful
Attacker has initiative advantage
But that advantage evaporates after a while
Defender has defensive advantage, the longer the fight goes on
Any lands gained by attacker needs to be heavily guarded and reinforced, including the supply lines to fuel the attacks. While defender's supply lines are already established and any losses they occur wont mean they have to establish new supply route as its already been established behind the the line.
Yes, you have to defend your supply lines, that's true. Which is why the defenders in this case don't have an advantage.
That is absolutely ludicrous, why would ukraine be forced to act? The longer they wait, the more materiel and training they receive, and the more Russian economy is going to shrink in the meanwhile. A delay doesn't benefit Russia.
There is no arbitrator that declares Russia the winner because enough time elapsed, you utter toddler.
>That is absolutely ludicrous, why would ukraine be forced to act? The longer they wait, the more materiel and training they receive, and the more Russian economy is going to shrink in the meanwhile. A delay doesn't benefit Russia
delay is what Russia actively seeks - winter offensive was a total dud and only meaningful development was Wagner recycling tens of thousands of prisoners into fertilizer - apart of that they were building layers upon layers of defensive positions in the south setting stage for Ukie spring offensive - search when they begun to build those - that's when they decided that west support is unstable and decided to play the long game.
Delay is what Russia seeks because they don't have any other options. They can't generate momentum for an offensive to seize initiative, but digging in isn't beneficial to them either. The only hope they have is that Ukraine delays and the West loses interest, but that's not very likely. So in other words, they're fricked.
Both of your points are wrong.
1) Defensive supply lines are already built and maintained. Offensive supply lines need to be built whenever to push forward. Hence the defensive will always have the advantage
2) The longer Ukraine waits, the worse it may become. Russia economic infrastructure shock cost them a bit but if they are able to stablize and replace the foreign/western products with domestic products or Chinese products, then their economics continue to resume and will produce more war machines as time goes by. You could say Ukraine will do the same with western goods but patience will be thin without any real results. When lines dont move much for few years, then the support dries up. The war economic packages given to Ukraine could solve many of the nation's social problems. Free health care, funding for building infrastructure, etc. Instead you get high inflation, low growth, covid shutdowns, constantly being in the brink of a nuclear war.
The arbiter that declares Russia as the winner will be man power + sustained economy + time. Population replacement in Russia will be higher than Ukraine, Ukraine itself is the battlefield not Russia, so economic development within Ukraine are basically net negative each passing year. The longer this war goes, the worse Ukraine will be. In the end, all this fighting might be for nothing, if they capitulate
>but if they are able
>>if
Lmao, you're cracking me up anon
Russian supply lines rely entirely on trains, which are currently becoming more and more vulnerable to artillery. They have an extremely long front, extremely poor and vulnerable logistics. Sure they have defender's advantage, but they're about to get fricked by NATO surplus alone
1) Great, so they're easier to target and destroy by long range precision fires thanks to overwhelming intel advantage.
2) No. Western industrial capacity and economic prowess outstrips the Russians' by such a degree that it's not even a contest, and China is not interested in alienating the west to prop up Russia's imperialist delusions. If your only hope of victory is that your opponent gets bored, then you've lost.
However Putin has cancer, so his replacement may not have the support to continue.
>why would ukraine be forced to act? The longer they wait, the more materiel and training they receive
The countries supporting them don't want to keep sending money and supplies. I hear people complaining about it all the time in my country. Ukraine has a limited amount of time for support.
I don't think the support will end while the war is still active. Sure, people tire out, but there's also the sunk cost factor to be considered - the west will not want to see ukraine fall after all that was already expended to save it.
A lot of stuff is being produced new as well. The EU has started a programme for artillery shells, various states are producing decent numbers of artillery pieces. I'm sure APCs of various types are being produced as well. Tanks are the biggest problem, leopards are getting scarce in europe and new ones are not being produced at sufficient rates. Unless america releases a lot more abrams, ukraine will probably run out of tanks.
>the west will not want to see ukraine fall after all that was already expended to save it.
>A lot of stuff is being produced new as well
The stuff that was sent was all old shit. Sending it just gives an excuse to build new shit. With elections coming up, it's going to be a big topic on debates.
Funny thing, following Ivan's line of reasoning... Didnt CIA kill JFK for revenge on Bay of Pigs? I wonder what they will do with the Orange Man if he decides to back down on the support if he gets elected, considering he is a fan of Putin who let him do as he pleased during his first term and an old gay to bother its not like it would be that hard to arrange a particularly lethal accident for him.
>Source: just trust me bro
Multiple polls indicate that the majority of western countries are perfectly willing to endure continued hardship to keep supplying Ukr.
>Source: just trust me bro
>That is absolutely ludicrous, why would ukraine be forced to act?
Russia has more artillery and is constantly killing Ukrainian troops all over the line of contact. The Russian airforce has also been more active lately due to the degradation of Ukraine's air defense so stuff like ammo stockpiles and troop gatherings are getting hit more often.
Ukraine can't keep waiting like this anymore and is forced to attack the Russians.
The Russians have a numerical advantage to the Ukrainians. So a 1-for-1 battle they'll still win, fighting on a defensive position while the Ukrainians have to deal with minefields and other obstacles while being shelled means that they'll be much less combat capable than if the Ukrainians where the ones defending.
The Russians have been sending loads of airstrikes into camps and bases that the Ukrainians launched the offensives from just days prior to it, so a lot of the offensive systems had already been destroyed before the battle.
now this is cope. Fog of war is still up jackass, nobody knows what's going on
>Russians have more artillery
You need to stop this stupid meme because it's not really true anymore.
Any sources on that?
This report says that Russia uses 35,000 shells a day
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3711875-russians-using-up-to-35000-shells-in-bakhmut-and-kupyansk-directions-daily.html
And this report says that Ukraine uses 7,000 shells a day
https://www.vox.com/2023/6/6/23744349/ukraine-artillery-counteroffensive-united-states-europe
The Russian numbers are even scarier because they're talking about only 1 part of the battlefield while they're destroying Ukraine forces all over the contact line.
But if you consider the kill ratio published this means on average the russians need 35 shells to kil one ukrainian while the ukrainians only need around 2.5 shells to kill a russian, I don't believe Prigozhin was complaining about lack of shells only because MOD wanted to frick over Wagner, MOD must be actually auffering some shortages, now, the russians are not going to run dry in 2 weeks but if they don't improve their efficiency and production we may end up seeing more and more videos from russian commanders calling off MOD.
>The Russian airforce has also been more active lately
Source?
>Russia has more artillery
This hasn't been accurate for a few weeks now, gramps.
Ukraine has functioning supply lines and heavy local superiority pushing in a carefully coordinated assault. The russians are outstretched, badly commanded and poorly equipped. Overall numerical manpower and equipment superiority is rather worthless if you can't properly coordinate those assets to be in the right places at the right time or do their job properly.
>the more Russian economy is going to shrink
LMAO they're making bank from sky-high oil and gas prices you daft c**t. They're selling it to China which sells it to the west. It's Europe's economies that have been battered.
Can you stop being moronic please?
Monopsony isn’t a desirable situation you midwit
2 more weeks and russia can afford indoor plumbing
>arbitrator
*arbiter
Arbitratemator*
If that were true Russia would have taken Kyiv last year.
requires the massive assumption of russians being competent
Also Russians still fighting for Bakhmut after a year.
Are you perhaps slightly moronic? The claim was:
>Defenders always have the advantage
I have argued that they don't. If you think that this means that the attacker always has the advantage, then you need a lesson in basic logic or English. Take your pick.
Keep ignoring things that prove you wrong.
If you insist on displaying your stupidity, I'll happily oblige. An analogy, if you will:
>a motorcycle is always faster than a car
No it's not.
>Lol u redart here a proof of bike being more speed than car
Yes, you're correct, you blathering moron, but that argument was never made.
Change the subject all you want.
>Dragons teef
Lmao even
I like to call them Dragon's Dentures, because they're not real teeth and they fall out easily.
Ok so here's the scenario
A 6'4 chiseled out of stone anglo Saxon god has taken sleeping tablets and is drowsy and thinks a 5'4 fat Mexican American that vapes is his gf and he's attempting to rape him
What's the Mexican Americans advantage
Militarily
In a militaristic setting
The fat Mexican's fricked. The god can simply strike him in the head to daze him, completely bypassing all of his fat.
what about the holes with poop-covered bamboo spears
Not when the attacking side has wallhacks tier ISR and rocket arty that does not have a 500 meter CEP
The defender does not have a strategic or operational the advantage unless they know where the attacker is going to mass and attack.
The defender at best has a local tactical advantage of prepared positions and being okay with status quo.
We went from
>1 dead leopard*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
To
>Defenders have advantage*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
How bad is it?
Crossing no-man's-land is dangerous and that's the extent of the defender's advantage.
Attackers who mass to overwhelm the defender (3:1 or better) can take fewer losses than the defenders.
From a strategic perspective the defender has to entrench, mine, and defend the entire frontline. Even if you have overall numerical superiority, you won't have superiority where you're being attacked. Overall war is difficult and both attacking and defense are required by both parties.
BTW 3:1 is the traditional heuristic for an attacker to want. An advanced force with air superiority and great support like US vs primitives doesn't need a 3:1 ratio. Against a fortified enemy like Ukraine attacking Russia right now might want an 8:1 local superiority, which really just means you attack an enemy company with 1-2 battalions. Also breakthroughs are quite technical as we've seen with the video the ziggers keep spamming.
>dragons' teeth
More like cardboard doritos.
Unstoppable*~~))
Yes and no. The defender has time to prepare their positions but the attacker can control the timing and location. The attacker can call the entire thing off last minute if they don't like the weather or want to wait for reinforcements. The defender can only prepare their positions further and wait.
> layered defensive systems that Russians must retreat through