[81alum]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-weapo...02031.html

This article includes many of the positive points made on this board about the situation in Kherson in general and around Kherson city in particular. It does not address the comments coming from other Ukrainian reports that Russian artillery is actually increasing their rate of fire. Infantry always has a tendency to deprecate their own artillery and inflate the opposing artillery (because they face one but not the other), but even allowing for that, these reports are a bit disturbing.

This article also reports by a Ukrainian likening the Russian position to that of the Germans at Stalingrad. It is important to remember that the Russians defeated the 6th army not by beating it to death but rather by surrounding it, cutting it off from supply and reinforcement, and waiting for the inevitable. They took 91,000 prisoners. Granted, the right bank occupying force is a lot smaller than 6th army was, but the principle is the same. Ukraine wants the entire Oblast back, not just Kherson. Suffering heavy casualties to just get back the city is not a win. Ukraine needs to do what Russia did at Stalingrad, cut off the city and then advance in the enemies rear areas.

Yes, Goose, you and I certainly see the war of movement and envelopment to offer the most promise for Ukraine.  As I understand it, the US and NATO adopted this combined arms war-of-movement strategy during and after WWII after the Germans more or less invented it.  The Soviet Union, however, during WWII and later did not fully embrace that doctrine--despite their spectacular success at Stalingrad.  And given that the Ukrainian military (until recently) has been more a product of Soviet doctrine than of Nato doctrine, is there simply a lag in military doctrine?  The Ukrainian success in the NE sure looked like it was designed to be a war of movement, but what is happening around Kherson does not.  I presume they really do want a Stalingrad and not a Verdun.

[81alum]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-weapo...02031.html

This article includes many of the positive points made on this board about the situation in Kherson in general and around Kherson city in particular. It does not address the comments coming from other Ukrainian reports that Russian artillery is actually increasing their rate of fire. Infantry always has a tendency to deprecate their own artillery and inflate the opposing artillery (because they face one but not the other), but even allowing for that, these reports are a bit disturbing.

This article also reports by a Ukrainian likening the Russian position to that of the Germans at Stalingrad. It is important to remember that the Russians defeated the 6th army not by beating it to death but rather by surrounding it, cutting it off from supply and reinforcement, and waiting for the inevitable. They took 91,000 prisoners. Granted, the right bank occupying force is a lot smaller than 6th army was, but the principle is the same. Ukraine wants the entire Oblast back, not just Kherson. Suffering heavy casualties to just get back the city is not a win. Ukraine needs to do what Russia did at Stalingrad, cut off the city and then advance in the enemies rear areas.

Yes, Goose, you and I certainly see the war of movement and envelopment to offer the most promise for Ukraine.  As I understand it, the US and NATO adopted this combined arms war-of-movement strategy during and after WWII after the Germans more or less invented it.  The Soviet Union, however, during WWII and later did not fully embrace that doctrine--despite their spectacular success at Stalingrad.  And given that the Ukrainian military (until recently) has been more a product of Soviet doctrine than of Nato doctrine, is there simply a lag in military doctrine?  The Ukrainian success in the NE sure looked like it was designed to be a war of movement, but what is happening around Kherson does not.  I presume they really do want a Stalingrad and not a Verdun.