>Modern war devolves into tench warfare due to machine guns and artillery
>WWI
>Trench warfare is broken by tanks
>WWII
>Man portable anti tank missiles become readily available making all tanks extremely vulnerable effectively reverting war back the early 20th century
>Iran-Iraq War
>Russo-Ukrainian War
What will break the stalemate of trench warfare this time?
>What will break the stalemate of trench warfare this time?
the power of friendship, love, and song.
So, having a sufficient force due to alliances, high morale and cultural dominance?
APS systems targeting drones and ATGMs, lighter base armor and higher mobility
True air support for either side, once land artillery is out of the question and air warfare begins the ground troops will move and attack more often
>Man portable anti tank missiles become readily available making all tanks extremely vulnerable effectively reverting war back the early 20th century
>he forgets desert storm
>the arab-israeli wars
the current conflict isnt even trench warfare
there has been lots of movement and maneuver, its just characterized by long periods of slow movement because ukraine is fighting against a country several times its size and so has to carefully manage the units they have
but when they do throw large offensives, it has all the speed and pacing you would expect from modern war
>but when they do throw large offensives, it has all the speed and pacing you would expect from modern war
They've been stuck fighting over like 5 villages back and forth for the past 2 or 3 weeks despite having a massive western armored fist and Russia having barely any reserves.
>Does Russia not have enough airplanes?
Not enough SEAD. It's a mix of insufficient airplanes and insufficient competence
>They've been stuck fighting over like 5 villages back and forth for the past 2 or 3 weeks despite having a massive western armored fist and Russia having barely any reserves.
You have this wrong on about every front. They're pushing in multiple areas along the front line from Vasylivka, Orikhiv, Velyka Novosilka, Bakhmut, and even somewhere around Svatove if some rumours are to be taken seriously. They've made the most progress south of Velyka Novosilka, capturing 3 or 4 villages at least just in that area. More than that they tore up the 60th MRB, 366th NIB, and the 127th MRD when it tried to counterattack.
The main push of the offensive hasn't been going on for more than a week, let alone "2 or 3." When taken into consideration for the damage they've caused and the amount of ground they've taken, that's not that bad at all, even with some failures.
The Ukrainian "massive armoured fist" isn't as massive as it's made out to be by Russians. The Bradleys and Leos have only really been seen in one or two areas which would indicate only one or two brigades that are equipped with them (one of them being a marine brigade) are actually engaged currently.
Russia does actually have a fair number of reserves. They have, somehow against all of God's designs, managed to learn a few lessons. Just in the Zaporizhzhia area they have at least three lines of reserves with several brigades and divisions. The 127th MRD was actually in the third line reserve before it was ordered to counterattack so you can determine how well those reserves are being utilized.
Ultimately, Ukraine is making decent progress. It's not "great" or explosive like it was in the Kharkiv-Luhansk area last year but they're having to deal with shit loads of mines that have been laid for months at this point and they haven't gotten to the first main line of defense yet. If they've planned well and have sufficient reserves that they can commit, it's still going to be a slog unless Russia fricks it.
>Russia having barely any reserves.
wrong. they have lots of reserves, considering all those old tanks they're pulling up for combat.
Trenches are just most basic tool of warfare, simplest fortification, utilized for as long as warfare goes. Trenches would always naturally occur when infantry clashes. War devolves into infantry clash when all the other forms of warfare, like be it cavalry, armor, aviation or drones, can't achieve superiority over the opponent, bringing the necessity to reach for the purest form of conflict, i.e. direct human-human contact.
Trench war is just a real form of true peer-on-peer conflict, you will always devolve into it against an equal opponent. The only way not to, is to not being a peer, or breaking the balance in the middle of it by bringing wunderwaffen gamechangers to the table.
air superiority destroys modern trench warfare. so...
Does Russia not have enough airplanes?
Is air superiority impossible?
Drone cant fill this role yet. why?
>What will break the stalemate of trench warfare this time?
drones, the evolution of what we are seeing now in Ukraine will make trench useless
>Desert Storm
>2003 Invasion of Iraq
The answer is air power. Ukraine has no planes and Russia can't into SEAD so they're forced to party like it's 1916.
Air power could do it but neither side is likely to get enough of it.
>hat will break the stalemate of trench warfare this time?
Air superiority.
The USAF had no problem dropping 1000 pounders on a mud hut on a hillside because someone took a shot from there an hour ago. You think they won't turn a trench line into a mass grave?
This war lacks air superiority (for either side). It also lacks significant uses of cruise missiles and other long range precision standoff munitions.
>B.. but Russia uses cruise missiles!
The US fired 60 at an empty airbase in Syria to do nothing more than send a message.
The USAF wouldnt have air superiority in ukraine
They would have it by now. Shit, a couple ancient Ukie slavshit fighters with HARM haphazardly strapped to them with limited functionality was enough to Russian GBADS in Kherson to shit the bed. It would be a fricking slaughter.
Correct, the USAF would achieve air supremacy.
Right now we are seeing Russia at full capacity and they can barely overcome Ukraine. One fricking Patriot battery was enough to put a huge dent in their deep strike ability. They only use helos in emergency situations. Their fighters hang deep in their own territory and take pot shots with missiles designed to take out tankers/AWACs to shoot at Ukrainian aircraft at the edge of their engagement envelope.
It would be costly for the USAF, sure, but they would have complete air superiority within 6 months to a year.
Annon I’m joking that the other guy is technically correct because the USAF would have moved past air superiority to air supremacy due to the reasons you described
Anti-drone/ATGM swarms that can be defensively deployed and which hover around a tank and actively work to intercept any targets coming in.
Speed is the main factor there. They have to be fast enough to actually intercept an ATGM, easier said than done.
At least a third of the influence of breaking trench warfare in WW2 belongs to airpower, not tanks
Aerial bombardment played a very important role in both Fall Gelb and Operation Cobra
With the aim of winning the war asap, you get to decide which plane you can send Ukraine 10 of. From any point in history to currently serving.
What are you giving them and why?
Fokker D7, good enough for snoopy good enough for them
Trench clearing suicide drones attacking during the night. Air superiority isn't even required.
There is no trench warfare im ukraine. Are you moronic
If the b 2 is a big heavy bomber use that. Give it lots of long range missles for deep strike. Hitting supply depots outside of himars reach would push them right back to russia. Also the war is large so lots of bombs are needed. If only ten planes get the biggest 10.