https://www.yahoo.com/news/armor-expert-...07678.html
IMO this article provides useful context on what might be going on in Ukraine's armored battles. It is indeed important to realize that despite the fact they have been "trained" for several months, they haven't actually fought combined arms battles against a "real" enemy. Mistakes will be made, and in some cases even when Ukraine does everything "right", the Russians will prevail because they were just too strong where the attack went in.
Ukraine's "advantage" is that the front is very long and Russia cannot hold the entire line in adequate strength and depth. Ukraine can and will "break through" in places. These operations will be costly, as assaulting prepared fortified positions always are. It is what happens after the breakthrough that defines success or failure. The combined arms team that breaks through needs to isolate and bypass as many Russian fortified positions as possible and cut them off. These positions will run out of ammunition and food fairly quickly if they are just trenches/emplacements dug into open country. Mask them with infantry to fix them in place and keep exploiting. They aren't going anyplace.
The question then becomes how quickly Russia can supply a quick reaction force to seal off the Ukraine's combined arms exploitation force. The Russians can buy themselves time by using Frontal Aviation to damage the Ukrainian forces advancing in open country. Obviously air attacks can even destroy such an advance if they are large enough and persistent enough. Even if they just inflict losses and slow down the advance they can be very effective. Ukraine is very concerned that the significant losses they suffer in the breaching attempt may be wasted if their exploitation forces are hit heavily from the air and do not accomplish much.
Normally, one would also be concerned about an enemy quick reaction force showing up and a meeting engagement developing between the Ukrainian exploitation force and the Russian blocking force. This is an event the US always has trained for and considers extremely important. However, it is unclear (to me anyway) that Russia has the training or assets available in Ukraine to do this effectively. We have yet to see such a battle in this entire war, AFAIK. It can't be ignored though as a possibility. I think Ukraine would actually love to fight such a battle. Best case though, Russia can't step up quickly enough and the Ukrainian combined arms advance wrecks havoc. I don't know enough about the troop dispositions in Ukraine to know what mobile reserves Russia has or where they are. I do know that Russia will have the advantage in the air. I also know that Russia has tended toward a static "layered" defense (second line of fortifications) to contain the initial breakthrough. How well manned and motivated this second line (where it exists) is, I have no idea. This is the WW I/II "solution". It works fine if you have the forces to execute it. Hopefully, Russia does not.
IMO this article provides useful context on what might be going on in Ukraine's armored battles. It is indeed important to realize that despite the fact they have been "trained" for several months, they haven't actually fought combined arms battles against a "real" enemy. Mistakes will be made, and in some cases even when Ukraine does everything "right", the Russians will prevail because they were just too strong where the attack went in.
Ukraine's "advantage" is that the front is very long and Russia cannot hold the entire line in adequate strength and depth. Ukraine can and will "break through" in places. These operations will be costly, as assaulting prepared fortified positions always are. It is what happens after the breakthrough that defines success or failure. The combined arms team that breaks through needs to isolate and bypass as many Russian fortified positions as possible and cut them off. These positions will run out of ammunition and food fairly quickly if they are just trenches/emplacements dug into open country. Mask them with infantry to fix them in place and keep exploiting. They aren't going anyplace.
The question then becomes how quickly Russia can supply a quick reaction force to seal off the Ukraine's combined arms exploitation force. The Russians can buy themselves time by using Frontal Aviation to damage the Ukrainian forces advancing in open country. Obviously air attacks can even destroy such an advance if they are large enough and persistent enough. Even if they just inflict losses and slow down the advance they can be very effective. Ukraine is very concerned that the significant losses they suffer in the breaching attempt may be wasted if their exploitation forces are hit heavily from the air and do not accomplish much.
Normally, one would also be concerned about an enemy quick reaction force showing up and a meeting engagement developing between the Ukrainian exploitation force and the Russian blocking force. This is an event the US always has trained for and considers extremely important. However, it is unclear (to me anyway) that Russia has the training or assets available in Ukraine to do this effectively. We have yet to see such a battle in this entire war, AFAIK. It can't be ignored though as a possibility. I think Ukraine would actually love to fight such a battle. Best case though, Russia can't step up quickly enough and the Ukrainian combined arms advance wrecks havoc. I don't know enough about the troop dispositions in Ukraine to know what mobile reserves Russia has or where they are. I do know that Russia will have the advantage in the air. I also know that Russia has tended toward a static "layered" defense (second line of fortifications) to contain the initial breakthrough. How well manned and motivated this second line (where it exists) is, I have no idea. This is the WW I/II "solution". It works fine if you have the forces to execute it. Hopefully, Russia does not.