>>15366
>I meant pointless from the Ukrainian side.
Well that goes without saying. Ukraine really doesn't gain anything from this war at all aside from keeping the current regime in power. It's not like they'll manage to hold onto the ground Russia wants, much less regain their pre-2014 borders.
>Sooner or later even the most retarded hohol will realize that the real enemy is the one sending him to the meatgrinder.
I think they'll just be dead. If they were going to wise up they would have done so a long time ago.
>It's not a bug, it's a feature.
I have seen multiple pro-Ukrainian sources say that units are operating at 40% manpower or less, and I first heard that figure back in late 2024. I think that Ukraine would definitely man many of their positions more heavily if they could.
>Now if you can imagine this mechanized force you describe having to stop at every such speedbump and losing say 10% of vehicles to each, then it will become combat ineffective pretty fast.
But I do not imagine it proceeding like that. I imagine that the initial breakthrough would follow similar tactics to the current assaults, but would involve even more fire support and a much larger allocation of artillery and air support to enable them to proceed much faster. The larger numbers of Russian troops involved would not be committed all at once, but instead would be following behind to conduct assaults on subsequent Ukrainian positions immediately after the previous one falls. I don't think the mechanized force would be the same force conducting the breakthrough, they'd be separate and kept in reserve waiting for a breakthrough to exploit. The breakthrough would be conducted with mostly the same light infantry tactics they've been using, but they'd sustain the pressure at a much higher level and provide a lot more support.
>Even at a third of the shell production, that is still a lot of shells to send towards the Russians.
While my knowledge on the topic is spotty, I did see figures indicating Ukraine only has a few hundred howitzers left, so I think their major bottleneck would be tubes rather than shells right now. Russia can't completely disarm Ukraine, but there are a lot of areas where the west couldn't provide them with enough stuff even if they wanted to. Ukraine has already used up a huge chunk of NATO's stockpiles of Patriot missiles, and they aren't being produced fast enough to keep up with demand. They also probably won't get many more MBTs or planes. Another thing to keep in mind is that if Ukraine is getting a third of the shells Russia is, that increases the relative impact of Russian strikes on Ukrainian logistics.
>I think you underestimate how many resources US intelligence brings to bear.
I'm probably not.
>They are probably radar-mapping the area 24/7.
There are lots of things the Russians could do to about that even if they were, which I doubt. Russia has substantial EW capabilities including multiple platforms which are tailored to jam specific AEW&C radars.
>It's not as simple as bypassing the Maginot.
No, but it's also not as difficult as going through the Maginot line would have been. It might or might not be harder than punching through a WW1 trench line. I suspect it's probably easier, due to the difficulties that actually exploiting a breakthrough in the lines with WW1 technology would have involved, you would have needed a much larger and more sustained breakthrough back then for it to make a difference.
>Ukraine still should have an overall manpower advantage over Russia in theatre
Do they? I genuinely thought they were at a disadvantage right now in terms of total manpower. Maybe the figures I was saw were including Russian forces outside of the theater or were using a broader definition of what counted as being in the theater.
>if you gather the numbers for the type of thing you're suggesting, it's tens of thousands of troops with accompanying logistics, they will get noticed.
I envision things being more dispersed than you do. Any large gatherings would be done well inside of Russia, and the actual movements to the front would be done in thousands of small groups over the course of weeks where they would move into small concealed positions and entrenchments. It'd be a major undertaking, but one that is very similar to what they are already doing, just at a much larger scale. They'd be noticed, but Ukraine would not have much reason to believe a mechanized breakthrough was incoming, and even if they did, they wouldn't have much they could do about it. At worst if Ukraine rushes everything they can to reinforce that section of the front then they can just call things off and count the fact that other sectors would suddenly make a ton of progress as a win.
>They will get ATACM'd in the assembly area, their depots and logistics will get struck repeatedly,
That's why I was suggesting that they would pre position hidden caches of equipment and supplies near the front. It wouldn't be enough to sustain the whole operation, but it'd go a long way towards keeping the tempo up.
>their assault will be anticipated and met with drone swarms and mined fields.
The drones mostly have something like a 10km range, and the minefields don't extend much past the front line. It'd be infantry tactics like we've been seeing that would clear the way, the mechanized force would be there to exploit the breakthrough, not create it. Once the path is cleared of Ukrainian forces, the mechanized exploitation force would need to clear paths through the minefields and get through before the Ukrainians can respond.
>I really don't know where you got the idea Ukraine has holes in the frontline due to lack of personnel.
I don't think there are holes. I think that there are places where the speed bumps are a lot thinner on the ground than they should be, and the forces that are there to respond to those speed bumps being turned into potholes are much weaker than they would need to be in order to contain a major Russian attempt to make a breakthrough.
>A layered intel gathering operation would still probably pick up on it.
Russian intelligence is pretty famous for their deception operations. I don't think it'd be hard to convince HUMINT that it's just corruption or something and to create a convincing cover story. Or they could just move stuff around so much that things get lost in the noise. There are lots of options here. It doesn't really matter if western intelligence knows
something is up, just that they don't know
what is up.
>Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The officers would need to know what's going on, but the troops already are doing the same stuff they'd be doing. The mobile element that actually exploits the breakthrough might need a week or two of notice so they can get briefed on everything, but they aren't going to be at risk of being taken POW until it's already too late for the Ukrainians, so as long as they keep them from telling anyone or posting about it on the internet, it should be fine.
>Ukraine does rotate troops, what they don't do is demobilize them.
Just today WillyOAM was talking about a post by a Ukrainian officer where he complained that his men sit in dugouts for months with no human contact at all getting food and water by drone. Some units might have the luxury of rotating, but not all of them.
>Trust me, if troops didn't get rotation, they'd quit pretty fast.
From what I've gathered Ukraine does have a pretty major desertion problem.
>again, Ukraine still probably holds the numerical advantage.
We really should dig into this. I'll try to take some time to tomorrow and see if I can find some credible estimates.
>it's a Geran strike in Ukraine
I figured. I think I read somewhere that there are Gerans with thermobaric warheads being made, do you have any clips of those?
>It kind of looks like an MT-LB from the shape of the hatches
I think you're right. I was thrown by the shape of the cage over the top which made me think it had a turret, which was reinforced by the dude laying on the front firing at the drone which I thought was coming from said turret.