Exactly right. This is the sort of conflict (also fought with soviet equipment) we should be comparing it to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean%E2%80%93Ethiopian_War
Some highlights:
>There was then a lull as both sides mobilized huge forces along their common border and dug extensive trenches.
>Realizing that they were about to be cut off, the remaining Eritrean units deployed in the Badme area hastily retreated, abandoning nearly 100 kilometers of fortifications and most of their heavy weapons.
>The Ethiopians used pack animals such as donkeys for logistical support for their infantry, and, due to their cumbersome logistical chain, primarily relied on infantry assaults to capture Eritrean positions. >Ethiopian forces initially struggled to exploit the gaps they had torn in the Eritrean positions, often at great cost in frontal assaults against Eritrean trenches.
>the Eritreans claimed they withdrew from the disputed border town of Zalambessa and other disputed areas on the central front as a "'goodwill' gesture to revive peace talks" and claimed it was a 'tactical retreat' to take away one of Ethiopia's last remaining excuses for continuing the war
>withdrew from the disputed border town of Zalambessa and other disputed areas on the central front as a "'goodwill' gesture to revive peace talks" and claimed it was a 'tactical retreat' to take away one of Ethiopia's last remaining excuses for continuing the war >giving the enemy everything they want is somehow a win
This is fricking spooky
the enemy everything they want is somehow a win
between complete annexation and losing a single town, losing a single town is a win
Because it's being fought by two third world countries.
This also happened in Iran-Iraq war when Iranians had, acquired from Shah era inventory, western tanks while Iraqis had the tactical advantage. So, it eventually devolved into tranch warfare with stupid amount of suicide attacks from both sides.
Because nobody can gain air superiority, much less supremacy. Furthermore, most Ukrainian forces haven't had the training necessary for proper combined-arms advances, and all the Russian forces that SHOULD be capable of this all got crippled or killed last year.
It never left, look up the Korean War which took place just 5 years after WW2, where after the initial phases of manuver warfare turned into static trench warfare that led to the DMZ that exists still today
The UN forces did not use trenches, they primarily used the terrain
The static nature was self-enforced because they were simply stalling until they north and south negotiated
Because it proves that the Russia way of thinking (providing lots of reliable, tried and trusted designs like the T72) is correct, while the NATO overreliance on hyperexpensive wunderwaffen simply doesn't work. There's a reason Russia is able to take on all of NATO despite barely committing any reserves
Trench warfare naturally occurs when opposing sides enter a stalemate. It existed before the first world war and it will continue to exist for the rest of time.
>before the first world war
People really need to understand that we've been fighting with trench warfare since the 1500's. We're over 500 years deep into it, it's never going away. It's the only logical conclusion to being forced into a stalemate and everyone being armed with firearms.
Trench warfare was made obsolete by combined tanks and planes offensives.
Tanks are made obsolete by spreading of ATGMs and air superiority has become unachievable against a peer enemy.
So everybody's reverting to warfare before planes and tanks, except this time there's drones.
>Tanks are made obsolete by spreading of ATGMs
Not with a competent army that uses airpower effectively. >and air superiority has become unachievable against a peer enemy.
Not with a competent airforce with sufficient numbers, training and tech to overcome it.
Your observations sums up to >not if the enemy is peer
But here they are (as they were in the Iran-Iraq war, whose lessons were too easily dismissed and heaped on both sides incompetence)
I also said a competent army.
That means using them effectively and not leaving them unsupported by other elements.
Does that mean that you will be able to save every one? No, but it increases their survivability and by extension their effectiveness.
Because in modern war if neither side can gain a decisive advantage in armor and air power it devolves into trench warfare.
Trench warfare was never truly made obsolete, it’s the inevitable conclusion if you can’t overwhelm the enemy.
Neither Ukraine or russia are capable of engaging in combined arms operations. One for lack of equipment, the other because of incompetency and corruption.
This is how an actual war is going to go, not that gay larp yanks did in the Middle East where they just went to rape little children and dome civilians.
>Why has trench warfare returned in 2022?
because this is what you do when your enemy has big guns shooting shells at your positions >muh maneuver warfare
shut the frick up, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy. in a real peer on peer, you will dig the fricking hole
[...] >, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy
WWII was special case when forces consisted of two different types one completely dominated another in speed: small numbered armored and motorized force, and main bulk was foot slogging infantry force. Armored force could run circles around foot sloggers and thus WWII was extremely maneuverable with those forces exploiting their advantage in maneuver.
But such times gone. Even Africans have technicals and can march 1000 km per day. There are no foot sloggers anymore everyone is maneuverable and thus there is no inherit advantage to execute maneuver warfare.
>WWII was special case when forces consisted of two different types one completely dominated another in speed: small numbered armored and motorized force, and main bulk was foot slogging infantry force. Armored force could run circles around foot sloggers and thus WWII was extremely maneuverable with those forces exploiting their advantage in maneuver.
Literally still the case in Ukraine.
And Africa.
>Literally still the case in Ukraine. >And Africa.
It's not. Maybe be you didn't get the memo but even 3rd world countries get the automobiles in the year 2022. They can load their terbattalions into trucks and move them to the other side of the country with single day (ironically faster than armored division march).
USSR in 1941 had 5 (!) motor vehicles per 1000 . Ukraine in 2022 had 190 motor vehicles. It's too different worlds. Of course burgers can't just imagine world without the car.
>shut the frick up, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy. in a real peer on peer, you will dig the fricking hole
WWII.
>, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy
WWII was special case when forces consisted of two different types one completely dominated another in speed: small numbered armored and motorized force, and main bulk was foot slogging infantry force. Armored force could run circles around foot sloggers and thus WWII was extremely maneuverable with those forces exploiting their advantage in maneuver.
But such times gone. Even Africans have technicals and can march 1000 km per day. There are no foot sloggers anymore everyone is maneuverable and thus there is no inherit advantage to execute maneuver warfare.
Its also worth noting that the terrain lends itself to trenches. Ukraine is a flat prairie country. Visibility is high and there are few areas that provide natural barriers. Not enough ridgelines, canyons, mountains etc. So with that, trenches would become relevant.
Iraq dug more than a few trenches in Gulf War I and II and I think trenches were used in the Iran Iraq war as well.
Because ukraine, all of ukraine is an open field. There is no cover of any kind anywhere. If you had a 12ft ladder to climb onto you could see as far into the horizon as physically possible by weather.
Surely flat terrain would favor the attacker as all recon is done by drones, and with the exception for the mud season there are little to no logistical challenges.
> Mud, mines, and missiles took out the tracks and trucks. > guns and missiles keep the planes on the ground > Men have to sit in holes so they dont get bombed or shot
They would have to push past the initial rock and stick fight area to get into an area where trenches are necessary though.
Whose rocks are better tactically anyway? Chinese or Indian?
Trenches will literally never go away. The only thing that would change this is if the US developed a fortification that can be instantly dropped into a warzone, and even then I would still dig a hole.
in WWII the nazis and the commies didn't have tank killers like the slavs have right now. The tanks and planes killed killed the trenches. Neither side has tanks or planes
The war is being fought between two countries with questionable logistical capabilities whom are unable to do any large-scale advances like they did in the very beginning.
Everyone uses field fortifications for infantry, they work very well and cost very little, it's just that on a more dynamic battlefield the infantry is on the move more so they don't have time to build truly extensive trench systems.
In Ukraine I think there are a number of factors for why we see such extensive trench fortification.
Things are relatively static on the strategic level because modern technology has made force concentration difficult, concealing brigade size formations from satellite recon is almost impossible and logistics are highly vulnerable to precision strike.
The result is dispersion of forces along the line and the absence of large scale breakthroughs.
The result is relatively more static and grinding offensives where there is time for large trench formations to form.
Both sides are artillery focused armies, with comparatively huge amounts of artillery, this combined with the revolution in low level ISR through drones, also favours trench fortifications and grinding combat.
Infantry really needs that protection from blast and frag.
Lastly both sides forces are made up mostly of large numbers of relatively poor reserve or mobilised formations, with limited strategic mobility and offensive capability.
The relatively static defense suits these kinds of units that might end up disorganised by trying to pull off a more more mobile defense
As I've noticed earlier, defense systems used in Ukraine have neutralized most of the mobile warfare developed after WWI. The beginning of the end of mobilized warfare started with the first use of effective AT weapons for infantry (Panzerfaust, bazookas) in battlefield. Since then research and development on anti vehicle weapons has increased and expanded.
Second off, In Ukraine both sides won't or can't execute grand scale ops. Since the cold war era or earlier, armed forces have been focusing more on small scale, tactical incursions instead, that's for a series of reasons: Be it political, logistical, or it's just about troops morale, etc. But with massive defenses awaiting attackers, and with vehicles unable to pass through or disabled in the process (due mines, STUGNA-Ps, S300, drones,etc). tactical incursions have rendered ineffective and quite irrelevant in the long term.
Third, intel and surveillance services has been formidably developed since, that both sides can watch and forecast each other's moves. Rendering massive mobile attacks is predictable and often futile. Thus the surprise factor is rarely executed in this theater of operations.
You can also consider the g factor on the slavs as why they just aren't capable of successfully repeating movements that world powers and white countries have done in earlier conflicts. Perhaps it's just because they're slavs, that's their way to do.
Neutralized the armed vehicles and troops not willing to advance in great numbers, you gotta dig a trench and wait for orders until you die off a mortar barrage, just like in 1914. Just add killing drones. Slavs are set back into one of the worst type scenarios of war. It's utterly gruesome.
Because it's being fought by two third world countries.
Exactly right. This is the sort of conflict (also fought with soviet equipment) we should be comparing it to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean%E2%80%93Ethiopian_War
Some highlights:
>There was then a lull as both sides mobilized huge forces along their common border and dug extensive trenches.
>Realizing that they were about to be cut off, the remaining Eritrean units deployed in the Badme area hastily retreated, abandoning nearly 100 kilometers of fortifications and most of their heavy weapons.
>The Ethiopians used pack animals such as donkeys for logistical support for their infantry, and, due to their cumbersome logistical chain, primarily relied on infantry assaults to capture Eritrean positions.
>Ethiopian forces initially struggled to exploit the gaps they had torn in the Eritrean positions, often at great cost in frontal assaults against Eritrean trenches.
>the Eritreans claimed they withdrew from the disputed border town of Zalambessa and other disputed areas on the central front as a "'goodwill' gesture to revive peace talks" and claimed it was a 'tactical retreat' to take away one of Ethiopia's last remaining excuses for continuing the war
>"'goodwill' gesture
Soviet doctrine really emphasizes the importance of goodwill gestures and the tactical advantage of feints
>it even has the goodwill gesture
I kneel.
>withdrew from the disputed border town of Zalambessa and other disputed areas on the central front as a "'goodwill' gesture to revive peace talks" and claimed it was a 'tactical retreat' to take away one of Ethiopia's last remaining excuses for continuing the war
>giving the enemy everything they want is somehow a win
This is fricking spooky
the enemy everything they want is somehow a win
between complete annexation and losing a single town, losing a single town is a win
This also happened in Iran-Iraq war when Iranians had, acquired from Shah era inventory, western tanks while Iraqis had the tactical advantage. So, it eventually devolved into tranch warfare with stupid amount of suicide attacks from both sides.
It never went away though.
Because nobody can gain air superiority, much less supremacy. Furthermore, most Ukrainian forces haven't had the training necessary for proper combined-arms advances, and all the Russian forces that SHOULD be capable of this all got crippled or killed last year.
Even if you do, if you dig deep enough you can't do shit with planes. See vietnam and what the north koreans are doing.
It never left, look up the Korean War which took place just 5 years after WW2, where after the initial phases of manuver warfare turned into static trench warfare that led to the DMZ that exists still today
The UN forces did not use trenches, they primarily used the terrain
The static nature was self-enforced because they were simply stalling until they north and south negotiated
The Ukrainians and Russians were doing trench warfare for 8 years before the war. What do you think the whole Donbass thing was?
Because it proves that the Russia way of thinking (providing lots of reliable, tried and trusted designs like the T72) is correct, while the NATO overreliance on hyperexpensive wunderwaffen simply doesn't work. There's a reason Russia is able to take on all of NATO despite barely committing any reserves
>There's a reason Russia is able to take on all of NATO despite barely committing any reserves
is NATO in the room with us right now?
But anon, the Iraqis used Soviet doctrine, and that resulted in one of the most one-sided military curbstomps in all of human history.
those were ukrainians
> Iraqis used Soviet doctrine
Cmon now!
And Ukrainians now are using NATO doctrine, since they are trained by NATO
>barely committing any reserves
Oh so all those reserves still in Russia?
Is that why Priggy managed to go from Rostov to Moscow in a day with nothing in his way but trucks of sand??
8/10
Already collected 3 (you)s
Trench warfare naturally occurs when opposing sides enter a stalemate. It existed before the first world war and it will continue to exist for the rest of time.
nooooo it’s what happens when weapon’s technology outpaces logistics technologies
>before the first world war
People really need to understand that we've been fighting with trench warfare since the 1500's. We're over 500 years deep into it, it's never going away. It's the only logical conclusion to being forced into a stalemate and everyone being armed with firearms.
Roman sieges were pretty close to trench warfare too, but it looked a bit different because you could stop arrows with wooden palisades
Trench warfare was made obsolete by combined tanks and planes offensives.
Tanks are made obsolete by spreading of ATGMs and air superiority has become unachievable against a peer enemy.
So everybody's reverting to warfare before planes and tanks, except this time there's drones.
>Tanks are made obsolete by spreading of ATGMs
Not with a competent army that uses airpower effectively.
>and air superiority has become unachievable against a peer enemy.
Not with a competent airforce with sufficient numbers, training and tech to overcome it.
Your observations sums up to
>not if the enemy is peer
But here they are (as they were in the Iran-Iraq war, whose lessons were too easily dismissed and heaped on both sides incompetence)
>Not with a competent army that uses airpower effectively.
So your basically admit that without proper airpower they ARE useless. moron.
I also said a competent army.
That means using them effectively and not leaving them unsupported by other elements.
Does that mean that you will be able to save every one? No, but it increases their survivability and by extension their effectiveness.
Is an army competent when half of it is 80 IQ Blacks?
Idk ask the Russians that.
cause the US is a pussy and is sending f16's 2 years into the war, probably in cuck quantities
Because in modern war if neither side can gain a decisive advantage in armor and air power it devolves into trench warfare.
Trench warfare was never truly made obsolete, it’s the inevitable conclusion if you can’t overwhelm the enemy.
Neither Ukraine or russia are capable of engaging in combined arms operations. One for lack of equipment, the other because of incompetency and corruption.
Time is a flat circle
This is how an actual war is going to go, not that gay larp yanks did in the Middle East where they just went to rape little children and dome civilians.
angry euroBlack person detected
Euros got in on the fun too,
during Gulf war one and two,
With Brimstone and Hellfire,
They avoided the quagmire,
That saw many a slav be slew,
>Why has trench warfare returned in 2022?
because this is what you do when your enemy has big guns shooting shells at your positions
>muh maneuver warfare
shut the frick up, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy. in a real peer on peer, you will dig the fricking hole
>Going to war when you dont dominate the enemy
The first mistake.
>shut the frick up, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy. in a real peer on peer, you will dig the fricking hole
WWII.
>he really thinks there where no trenches in WW2 silly moron
There were trenches AND mobile warfare, moron.
>WWII was special case when forces consisted of two different types one completely dominated another in speed: small numbered armored and motorized force, and main bulk was foot slogging infantry force. Armored force could run circles around foot sloggers and thus WWII was extremely maneuverable with those forces exploiting their advantage in maneuver.
Literally still the case in Ukraine.
And Africa.
>Literally still the case in Ukraine.
>And Africa.
It's not. Maybe be you didn't get the memo but even 3rd world countries get the automobiles in the year 2022. They can load their terbattalions into trucks and move them to the other side of the country with single day (ironically faster than armored division march).
USSR in 1941 had 5 (!) motor vehicles per 1000 . Ukraine in 2022 had 190 motor vehicles. It's too different worlds. Of course burgers can't just imagine world without the car.
>, this shit works only when you completely dominate the enemy
WWII was special case when forces consisted of two different types one completely dominated another in speed: small numbered armored and motorized force, and main bulk was foot slogging infantry force. Armored force could run circles around foot sloggers and thus WWII was extremely maneuverable with those forces exploiting their advantage in maneuver.
But such times gone. Even Africans have technicals and can march 1000 km per day. There are no foot sloggers anymore everyone is maneuverable and thus there is no inherit advantage to execute maneuver warfare.
Its also worth noting that the terrain lends itself to trenches. Ukraine is a flat prairie country. Visibility is high and there are few areas that provide natural barriers. Not enough ridgelines, canyons, mountains etc. So with that, trenches would become relevant.
Iraq dug more than a few trenches in Gulf War I and II and I think trenches were used in the Iran Iraq war as well.
Because ukraine, all of ukraine is an open field. There is no cover of any kind anywhere. If you had a 12ft ladder to climb onto you could see as far into the horizon as physically possible by weather.
Surely flat terrain would favor the attacker as all recon is done by drones, and with the exception for the mud season there are little to no logistical challenges.
>Surely flat terrain would favor the attacker
>attackers run across an open field while defenders sit in trenches with machine guns
You should be working for nato.
run across an open field while defenders sit in trenches with machine guns
imagine...
Russia can't SEAD
almost like that's what happens when you send massive amounts of equipment designed for use during trench warfare
because no air superiority
air superiority = no artillery
no artillery = no trenches
Standing exposed in open flat fields is moronic.
blablabla
Masculine urge to dig
ryan gosling on the right
modern air combat is so fricking gay. we will never see kino ww1/ww2 style dogfighting. everything is now covered by SAM death zones
> Mud, mines, and missiles took out the tracks and trucks.
> guns and missiles keep the planes on the ground
> Men have to sit in holes so they dont get bombed or shot
It just werks
Neither side is a superpower.
If China and India fought it would probably be similar. Assuming they didn't nuke each other into oblivion.
They would have to push past the initial rock and stick fight area to get into an area where trenches are necessary though.
Whose rocks are better tactically anyway? Chinese or Indian?
Both sides' rocks have toxic damage, from poo or pollution, or both.
it appears Ukrainian officers are fully embracing the mentality of officers during that time
I am both thoroughly demoralized and convinced of the authenticity of this video. Much obliged comrade
Damn, that's brutal
That's gigabased, if you disagree you're gay.
Also he refused the frag, they're fine, except for the hearing damage.
So, was anyone left alive?
Oh no the video curiously cuts off before we can see the results. How unfortunate.
Because neither side can gain air domination except for grenade carrying drones.
Because slavs are too incompetent for mobile warfare let alone combined arms warfare.
I disagree.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm
Trenches will literally never go away. The only thing that would change this is if the US developed a fortification that can be instantly dropped into a warzone, and even then I would still dig a hole.
Frenchie got back
Or they might be German nm
Defence is currently the meta
lack of air superiority on both sides due to lack of current gen planes and the anti tank weapons are better than the tanks
On Eastern front WWII both sides had no air superiority nevertheless front went back and forth with constant maneuver operations.
in WWII the nazis and the commies didn't have tank killers like the slavs have right now. The tanks and planes killed killed the trenches. Neither side has tanks or planes
No air support
Because it never left
Massed artillery is why. You'd get blown to pieces if you couldn't take cover in the ground.
https://twitter.com/highwalker69/status/1673322571796733952
Interview with the Ukrainian SOF who did the trench clearing
Good stuff, thanks for posting.
A shame this is buried in the middle of a tangentially related thread.
Made a thread for it cause might as well.
The war is being fought between two countries with questionable logistical capabilities whom are unable to do any large-scale advances like they did in the very beginning.
Everything is coming full circle.
Why is it that we keep coming round to helmet shapes that look like something the Germans invented?
Because WWI tier armies use WWI tactics.
Only America has sufficient experience to do SEAD, without air supremacy it turns into trenches
Trench warfare never went away. When two sides hit a stalemate it's an inevitability. See Iran Iraq war.
Everyone uses field fortifications for infantry, they work very well and cost very little, it's just that on a more dynamic battlefield the infantry is on the move more so they don't have time to build truly extensive trench systems.
In Ukraine I think there are a number of factors for why we see such extensive trench fortification.
Things are relatively static on the strategic level because modern technology has made force concentration difficult, concealing brigade size formations from satellite recon is almost impossible and logistics are highly vulnerable to precision strike.
The result is dispersion of forces along the line and the absence of large scale breakthroughs.
The result is relatively more static and grinding offensives where there is time for large trench formations to form.
Both sides are artillery focused armies, with comparatively huge amounts of artillery, this combined with the revolution in low level ISR through drones, also favours trench fortifications and grinding combat.
Infantry really needs that protection from blast and frag.
Lastly both sides forces are made up mostly of large numbers of relatively poor reserve or mobilised formations, with limited strategic mobility and offensive capability.
The relatively static defense suits these kinds of units that might end up disorganised by trying to pull off a more more mobile defense
because one air force is underpowered, the other is incompetent, and both are overmatched by anti-air systems nets developed in the 60s
its what happens when a third world shithole invades another third world shithole.
the russians are so backwards with everything, they actually managed to moron warfare by 100 years into the past.
its actually quite fricking astonishing.
As I've noticed earlier, defense systems used in Ukraine have neutralized most of the mobile warfare developed after WWI. The beginning of the end of mobilized warfare started with the first use of effective AT weapons for infantry (Panzerfaust, bazookas) in battlefield. Since then research and development on anti vehicle weapons has increased and expanded.
Second off, In Ukraine both sides won't or can't execute grand scale ops. Since the cold war era or earlier, armed forces have been focusing more on small scale, tactical incursions instead, that's for a series of reasons: Be it political, logistical, or it's just about troops morale, etc. But with massive defenses awaiting attackers, and with vehicles unable to pass through or disabled in the process (due mines, STUGNA-Ps, S300, drones,etc). tactical incursions have rendered ineffective and quite irrelevant in the long term.
Third, intel and surveillance services has been formidably developed since, that both sides can watch and forecast each other's moves. Rendering massive mobile attacks is predictable and often futile. Thus the surprise factor is rarely executed in this theater of operations.
You can also consider the g factor on the slavs as why they just aren't capable of successfully repeating movements that world powers and white countries have done in earlier conflicts. Perhaps it's just because they're slavs, that's their way to do.
Neutralized the armed vehicles and troops not willing to advance in great numbers, you gotta dig a trench and wait for orders until you die off a mortar barrage, just like in 1914. Just add killing drones. Slavs are set back into one of the worst type scenarios of war. It's utterly gruesome.
Air defense is too good, neither side can gain air superiority. 4th generation fighters have no place on a modern battlefield