So this is the 3-pronged Ukrainian attack on the Zaporozhe sector towards Tokmak that resulted in a battalion worth of Bradleys and Leopard 2s being destroyed before even reaching enemy lines.
Unit is the 2nd Battalion of the 47th Brigade.
They came under 152 mm artillery fire almost immediately after leaving their staging areas and harassed with precise fire by Russian forward observers.
Then they hit an X-shaped limited minefield and started being picked off at long range by Kornet and Vikhr ATGMs from loitering Ka-52s.
All remaining forces withdrew to their starting positions.
Unfortunately, the Russians had their shit together and pulled off a model defence.
How would NATO have done differently?
And then your mom ran out of korkodil and you made this thread.
This thread is for discussion of weapons and tactics. Shitposters will fricking hang.
So you agree that OP deserves the rope. Good.
Shut the frick up already Jesus fricking Christ this is completely insufferable
Why are you so angry about nobody buying your lies, pidorashka? Get a fricking brain, moron.
>make up shit and give no links
>calls it an anal-sis
>someone points it out
>go apeshit
Even vatBlack folk know their own proofs are worth nothing kek.
Your mom has a penis and don't take threads like this too hard, like her penis in your ass.
You don't need to reply three times because your feelings are hurt, Olga.
Tard wrangling is hard, but not as hard as your mothers penis in your ass.
>angry kacap barking
You like men.
Russians think about trannies 24/7. Must be awful.
Why are vatniks so obsessed with dicks, holy shit. Looks like the stereotype is true
Because they were prostituted out during military service. And because they are savages who can only think in a primitive dominance/submission dichotomy.
They don't know any other way of life.
If only this pig knew blackrock will turn his country into epstein island once the war is over
>cries about Epstein
>staunch trump supporter
There's no harder cognitive dissonance than being a /misc/troon.
He didn't day anything wrong. Frick off.
NATO would have had air superiority using it to bomb the shit out of fortifications and than close air support for advancing units.
>How would NATO have done differently?
Establish air supremacy
Have near perfect intelligence
massive air support
ground forces don't even see combat
Don't shit up the one good tread we have on the topic just because vatniks have been spamming about it non-stop.
That's one of their side-goals, to make it impossible to have normal discussions.
>Wolski
Ok, I was wrong, this is a shill thread as well.
>Ok, I was wrong, this is a shill thread as well.
Are you implying Wolski is pro-Russian or a Vatnik?
The dude raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in field kit and drones to Ukraine via his channel and Twitter.
How many tonnes of webbing and IFAKs have you sent to Ukraine?
homosexual.
It's the year 2057, Ivan Chuggob***h from the Chinese Eurasian Protectorate, still posts about the Leopard in between beatings from Zhao laoban.
Geolocation by Wolski. (best milblogger, Polish)
>https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros/status/1668337721415438336/photo/1
>best vatnik, can connect to his Polish VPN correctly
Very nice!
>Wolski
>Vatnik
You are and idiot.
>a battalion worth of Bradleys and Leopard 2s being destroyed
Go sign up with Wagner, pidor.
> Act badass
> Uses woman reaction
At least give sauce
>/misc/ reconditioned him to reject women
Like you could be any gayer lmao
you're an extreme idiot citing someone who barery understands english yet alone russian/ukrainian
let's not even talk about his armchair general skills
>How would NATO have done differently?
Bombed the ever living shit out of anything that moved in the area then pushed forwards.
>Bomb every foxhole
>On a 400 km front
>Supporting 150,000 troops
You realize this isn't some GWOT cowboys and sandBlack folk game in Shitcanistan where every platoon had access to an aircraft because of the extreme low intensity of that bullshit "war"?
The US doesn't have enough airframes to provide CAS for every Ukrainian platoon, even if they engaged in full on warfare against Russia.
Heh. You're moronic.
>You realize this isn't some GWOT cowboys and sandBlack folk game in Shitcanistan where every platoon had access to an aircraft
You asked how NATO would have done it, you Black person.
>because of the extreme low intensity of that bullshit "war"
>Gulf War
>low intensity
>This thread is for discussion of weapons and tactics.
No, it clearly isn't, you fricking shill
The US doesn't even have half of the airframes it had in 1991.
Point disqualified.
Which means most US ground units would be operating against Russians no differently than how the Ukrainians did it.
The Iraqi army in and around Kuait was 5 times the size of that front, and this is a NATO scenario, just like how Desert Storm wasn't just the US. And, just to make sure it gets through your thick head, this is BEFORE anyone starts calling for CAS, because nobody's stuck their heads over the top yet. And if there's a shortage of planes on hand, then, well, that's what the HIMARS are for. I know you've come to think of them as an operational or strategic-scale weapon, but that's only because Ukraine has so few of them that they can't afford to spend the time and ammo using them as fire support.
Come to think of it, we should send them more of those.
>The US Airforce only has 5,000 aircraft so they'll act the same as a country with a couple hundred old Soviet aircraft.
Did you fall and hit your head?
You did it, Timmy! With your impeccable logic and fax you've singlehandedly defeated all of NATO.
The Russian army has abandoned it's efforts in Ukraine (where it literally can not advance against the poorest country in Europe) and is now on its way to Berlin!
For modern army it is no big feat, after all!
How many airframes does the USA has compared to the end of ww2?
Russia has just over 4000 aircraft of all types TOTAL.
USAF alone has 5000.
USN has another 2600.
US army at 193 fixed wing and 3300+ helicopters.
Almost all the aircraft in 91 were still using dumb bombs, it was the vast majority of ordnance dropped. A single sortie today, even from a similar aircraft as used in 91, can hit far more targets in one mission than they did back then.
That's an overexaggeration, anon. Something like 15% of the bombs dropped were still precision guided. Gulf war is known for being the first case of a large scale use of precision guided weapons.
>The US doesn't even have half of the airframes it had in 1991.
And advances in ISR, precision weapons, stelath etc. mean that every US airframe today represents 3-5 timkes the combat power of one in 1991, so in fact US gorund untis would enjoy even greater air support.
>28 Bradley IFVs destroyed/damaged
Ackhchually that means Iraq won, because managing to destroy any amount of Western AFVs is the threshold for thirdie victory now.
>>You realize this isn't some GWOT cowboys and sandBlack folk game in Shitcanistan where every platoon had access to an aircraft because of the extreme low intensity of that bullshit "war"?
Are you implying that the brigade doing this action wouldn't simply request a few helicopters from its parent unit's combat aviation brigade? Those foxholes aren't getting bombed, they're getting strafed after the Apache pilots (who by now have severe PTSD, severe stimulant addiction and a pathological hatred of Russians) are done throwing radar guided missiles at anything with wheels.
>Supporting 150,000 troops
Just wait until you learn about how many Coalition troops participated in the Gulf War!
I mean yeah honestly.
I'm on Ukraine's side and wish we could just nuke the borders of Russia so precisely that it turns into the largest sheet of glass the world has ever seen, but the AFU is probably going to have a rough time slogging through defenses just because combined arms without air superiority is just a slog. Even shitty defenses against a really well coordinated attack will hold out for months.
Even so I think Russia is done for when it's done. NATO/America replenishes what Ukraine lost and they have lots of veterans who survive from Western armor taking hits, whereas Russia keeps begging Iran/China/NK for tanks and parts, Belgorod keeps getting liberated, Priggy and Shiggy keep checking their backs, and the whole criminal country collapses. I feel bad that a lot of Ukies are gonna die and that Russia will keep bombing civvies for years, but there isn't any replenishment coming for Russia.
NATO would have lit the whole front up for a month with air power before anyone even stepped off. Hopefully the F-16s will start moving Ukraine towards that point.
>battalion
Black person that's a company.
>back in my day we just entered the front and gave them a firm CAS:ing
thanks grandpa
>that's a company
No, that is a Russian battalion. They sold/never got most of the gear and lied about manpower but on the books it is a battalion.
>NATO would have lit up the whole front up for a month with air power?
Russia is not Iraq or Afghanistan.
Your f-16s will be slapped to the ground by S400 the moment they take off.
Your airbases will get hit.
You will have no air force left.
>What are F-35s and B-2s
Big talk for a country that couldn't take out the Ukrainian air force
2 day of the they didnt gain air superiority when some UA pilots were still trying to get to their air bases. Where UAF night shift were probably flying after 48 hrs of no sleep
Where is the Ukrainian air force?
Remember one of your fancy stealth wunderwuffen was shot down by an ancient air defence system in Serbia.
RCS comparison
F-117 have similar RCS is F-35.
>Where is the Ukrainian air force?
Dropping Storm Shadows on generals.
>Storm shadow
Not Ukrainian
>Rented planes
Not Ukrainian
The Ukrainian airforce which used to exist before the start of war doesn't exist anymore.
The only reason they are able to do hit and run attacks is because of NATO which russia can't attack.
>which russia can't attack.
But I though the entire reason we were having this conversation was to prove that Russia could beat NATO.
We are talking about NATO wunderwuffens.
Anyway
Can NATO beat Russia?
I will answer your question with the level of respect it deserves.
I know this is bait or a vatnik with a tumor filling half his skull but jesus fricking christ the F-117 had literally no ability to see around it. If the pilot knew an SA-6 was tracking him and preparing to fire he would have aborted.
what about the second f117 that got hit? same story?
So we're now going to get into a pissing contest where you falsify half of the facts and ignore the other half instead of talking about the fact the F-35 can detect your shitty SAM system and nail it with a cruise missile?
Like literally. The F-117 made a bombing run basically directly at a SAM site, the SAM site got lucky, it launched, and it hit. How do you see this as a win? Why do you think it compares to the F-35?
F-35 have similar RCS as F-117.
F-117 was shot down by an ancient air defence system 24 years ago.
Think about it.
>ancient air defense system
There's like a 10 year gap between the S-125 and project Have Blue
20 actually. Which is gigantic in military terms
And as a result the system lost track twice, and one of the missiles missed.
Seems to me that stealth worked as advertised, even with a near point blank shot of 8 miles.
SA-6 was not tracking him whole time.
SA-6 operator knew the route and waited for F-117 and slapped it out of sky
Last time you claimed where the Ukrainian air force was they used a fricking helicopter to jump over the border and destroy a fuel depot. Get fricked thirdie.
Russian themselves admit their AA radars can't see aircrafts with RCS below 0.01m2
Then how did they hit 2 F117's?
Imagine unironically being a seething Serbian
>no answer
He isn't lying.
An ancient air defence system slapped your wunderwuffen of its time to the ground.
reeeeee seething Serbian.
Kek
Well done but where is Kosovo now?
>2 F117's
And one B-2 uwu
They knew the route and laid a trap, catching the f117 when it opened the bomb bay
>completely ignore the fact a second f117 got hit
>bringing out the old ''same route bomb bay doors'' cope
proofs?
>the aircraft hit was in the middle of a bombing run
Hmm.
Google it, in 2020 an F-117 pilot said that a second F-117 was hit, but managed to return to base. Same situation though, F-117 on bomb run gets engaged by lucky SAM battery.
Yes anon. In the 20 years since that happened a new development has occurred. The F-35 has a RWR.
The same unit also slapped one F-16 to the ground.
>Google it, in 2020 an F-117 pilot said that a second F-117 was hit, but managed to return to base
>hit by 140 pounds warhead
>managed to return to base
>he thinks SAMs score direct hits
The warhead is 140 pounds precisely because it has to make up for the proximity fuze kills.
The AIM-7 warhead is twice the weight of a AIM-120 warhead because it is less accurate and thus needs a wider blast frag radius.
>second F-117 got hit
Did Serbian air defense accomplish its strategic goals?
What do you mean, anon? The Serbians destroyed three F-117s. They're just so gosh darn stealthy that no one has ever found the wreckage of the other two.
We're sorry, we didn't know Kinzhals couldn't be intercepted!
7-0
Serbia is a massive regret of mine.
We should have bombed them at least 10 times more.
Serbia is a massive regret period.
>"Cope"
There's no need to cope. When an old retired jet has a record of several thousand bombing sorties for 1 loss and 1 damaged over decades of use, that is a stellar track record.
Can you see how cucked you are that you point to a single shooting down of a single jet and hold it up as some magnificent victory? What the frick is wrong with you, lol.
If NATO want to play, then Russia will get their re-badged S-300s merked with SEAD spearheaded by stealth jets fielded in large numbers. Whilst you are jerking off over the handful of stealth jets lost by the west, the rest of the russian airforce will be obliterated until they stop taking off, whereupon the jets will get destroyed on the ground.
There won't be any F-16s involved
By quite literally firing the entire SAM division's worth of AA missiles and another AAG formation firing flak blindly at it.
And the F117 had it's doors open to drop bombs.
And only ONE Missile managed to stumble on it.
Want to add that the Shiterbs had the F117's on domestically modified early warning long wave radar sets. So they actually knew roughly within which 1x1km square in the sky the F117 was in after it opened it's bomb bay doors.
Ruztard radar illuminators and SAM missiles still could not get a lock so they had to launch blind and pray to stalin that to get divine intervention on their D100 roll.
>F-117 have similar RCS is F-35.
you are footwrap on head moronic
>F-117 have similar RCS is F-35.
>F-117 have similar RCS is F-35.
Russia couldn't even take out a post-soviet shithole with a military budget smaller than the one of Belgium. If the US attacks, it will just be Iraq all over again, maybe even worse.
If Russians hated dealing with 16x HIMARS truck doing hit and run. Imagine having to deal with 300x units of MLRS. And dozens of Ranger units lazing your units at night
US Army without lawyers is nothing we've seen since desert storm
With futuristic tech and shit Americans got their asses spanked in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Vietnam war losses.
3744 planes
5607 helicopters
Yeah, learning how to SEAD is a painful and expensive process. Shame Russia isn't a US ally, they could have picked up the lessons for free, like the rest of NATO did.
>We learnt SEAD while fighting against third world shitholes with ancient air defence systems.
Proved your SEAD capability against near pear?
Yes
No
?
>inb4 some boomermutt unironically claims iraq had an incredible ''top of the line'' AD network
Also the fact that Iraq has mostly desert terrain.
This made it easy to locate whatever Iraqis had.
Russian AD never worked against any serious opponent. This is the FACT.
The ancient Russian AD worked against the American wunderwuffen F-117 of its time.
>Serbia bombed to shit
>this is counts as "AD worked" by Russians
Every time Russian AD meets serious threat it's the same scenario again and again: opposing air force bomb whatever they like in Russian country (see defention of the air superiority) and Russians call it "AD worked". Literally zero (0) cases when they were able to stop serious enemy Air Force. FACT.
It's completely pointless to argue with the samegayging Serbian, anon. His arguing is on the same level as "we're winning because there's a video of a Gepard being droned". If you shoot down one aircraft, you have achieved air superiority, apparently
NATO planes have never faced an S400 or even an S300
I guess some desert sandpeople having a few ancient S125s counts as ''Russian AD'' to the deluded burgermutt
Zero (0) cases of Russian AD stopping serious Air Force.
This is the FACT.
You can't deny it.
Zero (0) cases of you having sex.
This is the FACT.
You can't deny it.
>NATO planes have never faced an S400 or even an S300
Da joooooos fly their F35s over these exact systems in Syria with impunity
How are you not aware of that?
>See definition of air superiority.
Tell us when the USA/NATO achieved air superiority against a near power.
>Target Russian soil.
Ukrainians are not arab jihadis they are getting weaponry from the USA.
Imagine USA getting hit by an ICBM donated by Russia to al Quada.
That's what Ukraine is doing.
Tell us when the USA/NATO *had* a neer peer.
Tell us when Russia had near peer.
It took a bit of digging but I found a war where they were fighting a peer power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
>Ukrainian peer power air force
Clearly. Otherwise Russia would have had air superiority in their push for Kyiv
Yeah, nevermind, Ukraine is better. Russia could maybe be a peer power to Congo
Tell us when Russia achieved air superiority against a minor regional power they border.
Russia isn't Vietnam nor Afghanistan, people would rather kill themselves than fight for Russia. you would surrender after 1-2 weeks if nato tried to take you
There is a reason there are so many weaklings in NATO.
They join for gibs and free protection against Russia.
Doesn't matter if it is Russia or USA NATO weakling will always suck diks.
>gay blowjob reference
What a surprise
Shameful right?
Russia is a weakling itself, weaker than most NATO countries.
>always suck diks
Vatniks really can't stop talking about dicks. Why are russians such homosexuals?
>Afghanistan
??? Afghanistan was a shit stomp all over again. The taliban didn't do shit when it comes to direct military action. Same with Vietnam. The nva/vietcong can't do anything when there were US marines/army stationed in the country.
>S400
Every time the US unveils another generation of stealth bomber, Russia adds another 100 to their repackaged missile from the 70s.
The S-500 isn't even a SAM, it's an anti-ballistic system.
It's wild because even Russia simps ignore this and pretend the S-500 is gonna rape F-35s and B-21s.
kek
Isn't an anti-ballistic missile still a SAM because it's launched from the ground to hit an air target
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
>Your f-16s will be slapped to the ground by S400 the moment they take off.
Wow, Russia's most advanced SAM might be able to shoot down our low-cost/low-capability last-gen fighter that entered service forty-nine years ago? Lol just because your broke-ass country's top-of-the-line fighter is a Su-27 derivative doesn't mean we don't have platforms that entered service in this calendar century.
>that entered service forty-nine years ago
lmao I keep forgetting about that
Russia really is pathetic
Actually, the Air Force is converting some of the early block F-16s into target drones for live-fire exercises.
>Russia really is pathetic
If you think that's bad, the Chinese still have second-generation(!) fighters in active service in 20-fricking-23.
Real talk, these things would just get swatted by A2A missiles from BVR without any hope of engaging anything in the US inventory, right?
these would get swatted by SAMs, too worthless to waste A2A assets on
More proof that Russians don't understand SEAD & DEAD
First prove your SEAD/DEAD capability against an equivalent/near equivalent nation.
We don't need to because they are all too pussy to try and start shit with us.
Since you're so unconcerned about our capabilities, why don't you have your homosexual Putin declare war and we can find out?
>cant even suppress ukraines air force
>we will defeat Americas!
Lol. Lmao.
>Your f-16s will be slapped to the ground by S400 the moment they take off.
What S400s? They were all destroyed in the first wave. You'll be firing soviet era AK's at the sky not knowing that the F-16s are unmanned.
No clue about the tactics, but when it comes to equioment, for one, they would have first bombed everything using stealth planes that freely bomb things in Iran and Syria and then moved in with far more equipment.
I'd like a non brownie to comment on what the Ukrainians could have done differently with what they have.
>drive in with mine clearing equipment at the front
>it gets immobilized
>rest of collumn can't move
>get shelled with arty
>relief forces come in
>also get shelled
There's really nothing much they could have done differently with the hand they were dealt with. Waiting for western planes also isn't really an option, just giving another year for Russians to dig in for what might not even constitute a massive change in firepower.
They unironically could see better success at using one of those western brigades to attack via Bakhmut, to break into the heartland of the meme republics.
Maybe they should have just focused on an undefended part of the front, screw the land bridge. Maybe an all in on the donbass-side, trying to roll up the right flank, or cross the river. Frick if I know, but the mid-part seems very heavily defended.
On a strategic level Ukraine's goal is to liberate all of their former territory, that includes Crimea. Attacking the "land bridge" makes the most sense because it's where it would hurt the Russians the most if they wanted to achieve that - the Kerch bridge has proven quite vulnerable, and so if the Ukrainians can reach the Zaporizhian rail line (Or less than that, simply get it within artillery range) then the rail-heavy Russian logistical system will suddenly be quite unable to resupply everything to the west and Crimea itself. Without supplies, even that tough defensive line will simply evaporate under pressure. The Russians realize this of course and are pulling every stop they can to delay or prevent the otherwise inevitable; the destruction of Nova Khakovka dam is a key example of this.
Never mind the important morale victories that could be achieved if they were able to close in on Mariupol and Melitopol. I personally doubt they'll capture those cities during this offensive but if successful then it will certainly pave the way for that to happen in a future offensive.
>I'd like a non brownie to comment on what the Ukrainians could have done differently with what they have.
Absolutely nothing. They had to attack entrenched positions without air superiority. That is quite literally impossible without losses
>How would NATO have done differently?
HIMARS for counter battery the artillery via ISR drones/decoys. SEAD/DEAD by MALD and ARMs. F-22s at Mach 1.5 and 65K feet lobbing AIM-260s if the MiG-31s want to get frisky. ARMAAMS for the Choppers and Stormbreakers for any ATGM positions.
Total and utter Russian rout.
>How would NATO have done differently?
NATO's doctrice is basically "do we have air superiority?" -> no -> "what the frick are we doing? achieve air superiority"
Then the proceed to strat bomb the living shit out of everything for half a year before sending 4 guys on a humvee.
I don't think westerners and specially the USA comprehend a scenario that doesn't evolve air superiority anymore. They are probably taking lots of notes here.
soon the bear will clench its ass once more, only then shall the west arrogance be vanquished.
This thread is specifically to address this specific action outside of Orikhiv towards Tokmak.
The offensive is along a 400 km long front-line.
NATO would absolutely destroy Russia like they did with Iraq in desert storm considering that Iraq had one of the largest supplied soviet supplied armies at the time. I'm pretty sure it was larger than what Russia has in ukraine right now.
Ukraine, even with its quasi nato trained army pushed russia's shit in 3 times already with maneuver warfare with essentially 5% of what the Americans spent on Afghanistan KEK.
>I'm pretty sure it was larger than what Russia has in ukraine right now.
It wasn't large but it was much worse equipped and trained. At best iraqis had better morale than russians do, though it's debatable.
>it was much worse equipped and trained
No it wasn't. Not only did they not spam mobiks with <2 weeks of training but they had also just gone through a long and bloody war with their neighbor, having many veterans of it in their ranks.
Their equipment was also less outdated compared to the US gear in 1991 than the things russia uses against threats it faces today.
>How would NATO have done differently?
Overwhelming airpower before the ground assault started. Every known air defense and command center would have been hit by stealth planes and weapons. Then SEAD flights for anything else that pops up, while fighters go after enemy air power. Then strikes from cruise missiles and fighter bombers under full fighter cover. Then massive bombardment from strategic bombers. Then ground attack strikes supporting the troop movements. NATO doesn't do anything without overwhelming use of air power because it fricking works really, really well.
The Ukraine war is some kind of freakish WW1 scenario where air power is either isolated recon or strike missions before a missile gets yeeted back at you. This benefits defenders, like Ukraine for most of the war, but it's hard to bring ground based air defense with you as an attacker. So Ukraine is now pushing into Russian air cover without an easy way to deal with it.
>How would NATO have done differently
Unironically NATO would have preceded the attack with a days/weeks long air and missile strikes and attempted to sanitize the area of any artillery, air defense, command centers, logistics hubs, aircraft and troop concentrations. After that probably pretty much the same push, maybe taken a few mine losses or ATGM hits, even then shit happens.
For Ukraine, with the current kit I'm honestly not sure, for starters pushing under artillery fire isn't ideal but you can't expect that in war, there's still very little context for this engagement as far as support elements, for example maybe if they were able to execute more responsive or more overwhelming counter battery fire it could mitigate the Russian artillery, dealing with the helos is tough because I'm sure they want to protect their SHORAD assets, they could have pushed them up further potentially at higher risk. I'm not sure about yook EW assets but that could have helped mitigate the drones correcting the artillery. Tbh and I know that they have been working over tons of targets but I kinda expected a much more massed HIMARs, storm shadow, artillery pounding for at least a few weeks on every target they could sniff out before probing attacks even started, but I'm just a homosexual on PrepHole so idk.
You all laughed at me, but who's laughing now???
The igla's on the Chonma-ho would have had the capacity of shooting down the KA-52's, they seem well within range.
Why is this not a more prevalent concept in the west?
Don't they have half the range of a vihkr?
You made a good point, but in most videos I've seen there are lots of trees in hedgerow type formations, it would seem pretty hard to fire a vihkr through those.
Then again I'm just a dude (he/sirs) from the internet with no AA experience.
I was thinking that popping through the foresr, firing an Igla or two would be sufficient to scare KA-52's away.
Or perhaps have recon with AA?
Sorry I'm just a Wargame Red Dragon armchair general
NK way of "mount manually controlled stand with single Igla on everything (apparently to shoot down supersonic jets that will fly dozen km high)" is a cope, joke, dumb and frankly useless.
But indeed, a SHORAD module on every fighting vehicle becomes must-have design choice as we move further into drone dominated environment.
An anti-drone jammer would probably be a better choice than a shorad module with missiles for that.
>that resulted in a battalion worth of Bradleys and Leopard 2s being destroyed
...may we see it?
>How would NATO have done differently?
Achieve Air Supremacy (sounds racist I know).
Preemptively destroy bulk of artillery by airstrikes.
Put most of you artillery on quick reaction counter battery duty.
Establish CAP over battlefield so no helicopters.
Suppress forward positions with arty smoke and overwatch direct fire.
Proceed with attack.
have a nice day
A breaching action is an incredibly delicate and dangerous maneuver and it doesn't take much to frick one up, hence the horrendous losses suffered by the 47th.
The only silver lining is that the superiority of the western equipment appears to have allowed them to evacuate most of the crews as well as even retrieve some of the equipment, whereas the legacy Soviet equipment would have been blown to kingdom come and killed everyone, as seen at Vuhledar many times.
The three critical areas of failure on this attack would be:
>Intelligence/Counter-intelligence (Premier) - it is apparent they were detected early and thus their troops concentrations were being engaged by IDF before they even began the attack. That should have been grounds to call off the attack right there and reschedule. Furthermore, it is apparent that Russia still has an edge in EW.
>Neutralization of enemy support - there was insufficient artillery preparation prior to the attack, and it doesn't appear there was use of smoke either to conceal the point of breach. The Russians were engaging with 152mm and possibly MLRS as well which should have been hammered with HIMARS and their own artillery to a greater extent
>Enemy Air - Unfortunately Ukraine's options here are limited as Russia still has limited air superiority in the region. Sure, they could have tried bringing SA-8s or another such platform forward, but that would have left those precious pieces of equipment vulnerable to other weaponry, most glaringly the drones and artillery.
Asking how NATO would have done it differently doesn't really apply, since we can safely assume that NATO would have uncontested air dominance if they were on the attack here, allowing them to easily neutralize the three aforementioned points.
Given Ukraine's situation and available assets, perhaps it would have been better to attempt a series of infiltrations with smaller dispersed groups of infantry.
Meanwhile however, the 35th Marine Brigade at Velyka Novosilka is enjoying much more success where the terrain is more favorable to tactical maneuvers in the offense and Russian defenses seem to be less crystalized - they had to rely on a mobile counter-attack which probably led to a meeting engagement where the superior unit tactics and equipment of the Ukrainians in that sector left the Russian 127th MRD utterly mauled. If they continue to show good progress here, and if Ukraine is still using Soviet offensive doctrine (idk), then it is expected that the main reserves will probably be committed in that direction. The 47th, if they don't attempt another breakthrough, may be left simply forcing the Russians to keep defending that section of the line.
>and it doesn't appear there was use of smoke either to conceal the point of breach.
I've seen differing times this action supposedly took place, some early in the morning (which would kinda make sense I guess) but yeah. This is what really confuses me. You are ALWAYS supposed to have smoke screens during any breaching action, we saw this in WW2 even. Why was there no blanket of smoke during the POV Bradley evacuation videos?
Possible that they lacked thermally opaque smoke, or it was judged to be too much of a hinderance, or some of the attacks occured during night time so the commanders perhaps felt it wasn't needed. During the daytime when the Bradleys were busy evacuating, they utilized local vehicle-launched smoke to cover their retreat.
>Possible that they lacked thermally opaque smoke,
Isn't that a NATO standard 155mm round though? I'm not too familiar with the specifics of artillery shells, just that smoke is always used in this case.
I'm not terribly familiar with modern artillery loadouts but at least during the cold war years setting up large smokescreens was the job of mortars and light guns rather than the 155mms.
I definitely remember a British battery killing an Afghan insurgent with a direct hit from a 155mm smoke carrier body. Unluckiest bastard in the world.
>You are ALWAYS supposed to have smoke screens during any breaching action
moron you get yourself killed.
Unless your plan is to completely cover 5x5km square with thick smoke, that shit will only give away your position to any drone within 40km from you. You only use smoke when you already detected and enemy opened fire at you.
I swear you guys got your brains rotted fighting goatfrickers.
You don't need a drone to see a giant plume of smoke which can stretch up to hundreds of meters into the sky. And yes, they can be kilometers in size. You lay multiple across the front to keep the enemy guessing. And even if he guesses correctly, it is better to be targeted by dumbfire rounds where the enemy does not know precisely to the meter where your important equipment such as the mineclearing vehicles are, than for them to know your exact position and thus be able to target that vehicle with precise munitions, drones, or ATGMs.
>A decoy Screen is established to deceive an enemy as to the actual location of friendly forces and a probable direction of attack. The site and location of decoy screens depends upon the type of combat action, time available, terrain, and weather conditions. An example of the use of decoy screens is a river crossing in which several possible crossing sites are screened simultaneously. If the enemy fires into the decoy screen, black smoke devices and fires will be ignited to simulate burning vehicles or equipment. Other "disinformation" which should be expected includes speakers emitting sounds of tanks operating.
This shit is literally doctrine.
>50 years old doctrine
It takes few minutes at most to identify fake targets with drones. And drones also can have thermals which would neglect smokescreen completely.
It's not 70' anymore, all pros of smokes nowadays can be easily countered by easily available equipment, and their cons became only more vital. Their use now is limited to very specific conditions and situations and highly reliant on luck of enemy not immediately expecting them.
Any sources for any of the data or analysis behind this assessment?
I like task graphics as much as the next loser, but where are they coming from?
From geolocating vatnik videos.
https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
He made a more detailed vid on youtube but it's only in polish.
>How would NATO have done differently?
ESL thread
>Then they hit an X-shaped limited minefield
How do you know that they hit a minefield and it was x-shaped? It seems to me that all of that damage could have been done by artillery and ATGM fire.
>It seems to me that all of that damage could have been done by artillery and ATGM fire.
From what pics posted many AFVs were disabled by mines. Including de-ming vehicles. Lack of visible damage, fires, and artillery craters tells us its mines. I think Russian employ some "trap mines" that can't be easily neutralized by rollers and ploughs.
Ah, yes, the infamous ever-receding first line of defense. Where will it eventually end up? Mariupol? Sevastopol? Moscow? No one knows.
Hohols still haven't reached the real first line of defense at the Urals *~~)
>Unfortunately, the Russians had their shit together and pulled off a model defence.
Whoa there anon, you can't just say such outlandish shit without any video evidence and expect people to believe you.
good morning sirs!
>a battalion worth of Bradleys and Leopard 2s
You mean like 10 vehicles tops?
>>a battalion
Russian precision strike hits US mercenaries HQ, how USA gonna response? Gloves status? Egg size?
>ANAL-ISIS tactics
>resulted in a battalion worth of Bradleys and Leopard 2s being destroyed
2 leopards and 4 bradleys is a battalion?
Have you seen the Oryx numbers? Two MBTs and four IFVs is a reinforced brigade by Russia's current standards.
>NO!!!! PEOPLE ARENT ALLOWED TO HAVE COMMON SENSE! IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!!! THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE BEHIND IT!!!
>How would NATO have done differently?
Unlike Ukraine NATO would have been in a totally different situation from the beginning thanks to sheer aerial power.
Russia could pull this just because they didn't have to fear the sky turning dark from hundreds of ukie planes and helos turning their arty AT-helos and all the other stuff into piles of ash.
>How would NATO have done differently?
They would have established air supremacy 16 months ago.
>How would NATO have done differently?
1. Long range strikes on all command posts (including in Moscow), ammo and fuel storage, transport infrastructure
2. SEAD
3. Bomb everything with a heat signature
4. ???
5. Win
Worked great in afghanistan huh?
cute false equivalence, zigger
USA has occupied afghanistan for 20 years. Also do you think russians will be as willing to blow themself for allah as afghans?
Occupied Serbia for thirty years with zero dead. Slavs know their place when conquered.
Counterpoint: vatniks are vastly worse in this regard
>implying anyone had to pay me to get me to hate Russia
based
>I too do it for free
>and will continue to do so for as long as I live
NATO would of relied upon air superiority and Artillery to destroy and surpress the back lines while trained troops slowly cleared the way forward so the tanks could come up behind.
>that resulted in a battalion worth of Bradleys and Leopard 2s being destroyed before even reaching enemy lines.
The Ukrainians DID receive tank training before we gave them tanks, right?
>battalions worth
A dozen vees is not a battalion.
>destroyed
Most were lightly damaged and immobilised, and later recovered and repaired.
>muh Kornet and Vikhr
Not a single actual documented hit on any vehicle by these weapons.
>All remaining forces withdrew to their starting positions.
And yet the Ukrainians were and are in uncontested control of the area by the time the fighting ended. Even zigger sources admit this.
People already told you all of this multipel times, zigger. Why do you keep lying?
>Why do you keep lying?
Russian.
>battalion
Frick off moron
Nobody's ever driven you away from anything, churka.
I guess the Brits just didn't train them in night fighting?
What moron shit pig thought it was a good idea to assault in broad daylight
Potentially unrelated but why did NATO never integrate MANPADs to IFVs the same as ATGMs? Its not like the USSR never had helicopters. Was an autocannon assumed to be sufficient defence helos at the time? Assumption of complete air superiority?
Because they are given out to infantry. Those and autocannons should be good enough to take down helicopters, and local SAM systems + CAP should take care of any fixed wing assets
>why did NATO never integrate MANPADs to IFVs the same as ATGMs?
They did, the Linebacker IFV was exactly that. They didn't field it because Avenger was good enough for their purposes, namely shorad.
>Its not like the USSR never had helicopters
They actually didn't. Hind was a thing but it never really was an actual attack helicopter and NATO realized that fairly quickly. NATO also invested into air superiority and had capable look-down-shoot-down radars and missiles that wouldn't have a problem downing a helicopter 20-30km away from them.
>How would NATO have done differently?
had air power
The issue with smoke is that it is very weather dependent. If it is moderately windy, the smoke can thin out very quickly
>Zaporo-
didn't read