[Goose]

As Hodges notes, Ukraine badly needs ATACMS. Ukraine has done an okay job of keeping a lid on information from the battlefield in recent days, but everyone knows that Ukraine hasn’t gained significant ground. It may benefit Ukraine to hold back those haymaker punches until the US concludes that ATACMS are necessary.

While I think having ATACMS would be great (and have been saying so for a very long time), I don't think that is the "problem". The "deep strike" missions help a lot, but what Ukraine really needs is an air force. Unfortunately, that isn't happening in the next 6 months or so, no matter what NATO/the west does.

The first reason they need it is to keep the Russians from launching strikes on both Ukraine's cities and Ukraine's  troops using "standoff" weapons. Ukraine is already taking a beating in the cities and they are very concerned that if they commit a large armored force to a concentrated attack it will be basically decimated by Russian air for which they have no answer. That is, IMO, a big reason why they are keeping their concentrations relatively small. They don't want to present Russia with a lucrative target unless and until they are "sure" it is worth it.

The second reason they need an air force is to provide a relatively cheap way to attrit the Russian defensive positions. This can be done with missiles, but it is very expensive to do so. It takes lots and lots of missiles. Bombs are cheaper and much more plentiful. If you are fighting a "quantity" enemy, like Russia, you will quickly discover there aren't enough missiles in the world to do the job, unless you use nuclear weapons. We fight under the AO, and Ukraine wants to as well.

[Goose]

As Hodges notes, Ukraine badly needs ATACMS. Ukraine has done an okay job of keeping a lid on information from the battlefield in recent days, but everyone knows that Ukraine hasn’t gained significant ground. It may benefit Ukraine to hold back those haymaker punches until the US concludes that ATACMS are necessary.

While I think having ATACMS would be great (and have been saying so for a very long time), I don't think that is the "problem". The "deep strike" missions help a lot, but what Ukraine really needs is an air force. Unfortunately, that isn't happening in the next 6 months or so, no matter what NATO/the west does.

The first reason they need it is to keep the Russians from launching strikes on both Ukraine's cities and Ukraine's  troops using "standoff" weapons. Ukraine is already taking a beating in the cities and they are very concerned that if they commit a large armored force to a concentrated attack it will be basically decimated by Russian air for which they have no answer. That is, IMO, a big reason why they are keeping their concentrations relatively small. They don't want to present Russia with a lucrative target unless and until they are "sure" it is worth it.

The second reason they need an air force is to provide a relatively cheap way to attrit the Russian defensive positions. This can be done with missiles, but it is very expensive to do so. It takes lots and lots of missiles. Bombs are cheaper and much more plentiful. If you are fighting a "quantity" enemy, like Russia, you will quickly discover there aren't enough missiles in the world to do the job, unless you use nuclear weapons. We fight under the AO, and Ukraine wants to as well.