[GK3]

As long as they can keep moving, they make artillery less usefull.  If they get stuck they might get hammered.

May their logistics and supply trains be kept safe and stay swift.

Amen, ghosts of William T. Sherman and George Patton
I was thinking that they might be able to get enough food locally, but getting adequate fuel and munitions is a serious challenge in this environment.
I wonder how important "seizing and holding terrain is in this operation"?
I do not believe Ukraine wants to carve out a piece of the Russia and try and hold it. What they want is to get the Russian forces moving and then hit them when they are moving. Obviously this can lead to Ukrainian losses, particularly if they get bogged down. I think Ukraine gaines the most by getting the Russian forces moving and trying to stop whatever a particularly Ukrainian force is trying to do. Ukraine wants Russian units out on the road in a line of units, vulnerable to drones and whatever other weapons can reach that location. It might even be a F16. Ukraine can keep its losses and casualties down be staying mobile and letting artillery and drone forces hit the Russian units directlyk then maybe doubleing back and mopping up.

---

Putin is going to have a hard time admitting this even happened once it is over.  This ranks up with embarrasing events like the Israeli smuggling bombs into an Iranian guest house.

IMO this is much more embarrassing. Smuggling in a bomb and killing one guy is not ideal, but it isn't costing Iran territory or lives. In fact, it is entirely possible some parts of the Iranian government actually wanted this guy out. They couldn't control him. Russia OTOH is losing territory and people.

I hope the Ukrainian forces have a lot of MANPADS so they destroy a few more SU 25's and MI 8's.  As long as they can keep moving, they make artillery less usefull.  If they get stuck they might get hammered.

Totally agree. It might be nice to bring forward some of the old I-HAWK batteries Ukraine has. They can't do much against high altitude-long range threats, but they are deadly against anything else. Russia is going to need lots of "Tac air" in the traditional sense to cut Ukraine's supply lines. Keeping KA-52s off the troops and fighter-bombers away from the GLOCs is necessary, and I-HAWKS can still do that.

You are right that if Ukraine can keep moving Russia can have a very hard time targeting them with artillery. Even if Russia succeeds in finding them moving vehicles don't spend a lot of time in the "kill zone". Lots better than sitting in a trench where Russia knows exactly where you are and you can't move. Unfortunately rapid combined arms advances have a history of coming to a halt because of over-stretched supply lines. I suspect Ukraine doesn't know how to set up a FARP :-).

Exactly right, Ukraine does not want to be tied down to a fixed position conflict. They can't win that kind of conflict. On the other hand if the can force Russian forces to keep moving, it opens them up far more to drone and longer range weapon attacks.  I wonder what William T Shermanand Greorge S. Patton would have done.

[GK3]

As long as they can keep moving, they make artillery less usefull.  If they get stuck they might get hammered.

May their logistics and supply trains be kept safe and stay swift.

Amen, ghosts of William T. Sherman and George Patton
I was thinking that they might be able to get enough food locally, but getting adequate fuel and munitions is a serious challenge in this environment.
I wonder how important "seizing and holding terrain is in this operation"?
I do not believe Ukraine wants to carve out a piece of the Russia and try and hold it. What they want is to get the Russian forces moving and then hit them when they are moving. Obviously this can lead to Ukrainian losses, particularly if they get bogged down. I think Ukraine gaines the most by getting the Russian forces moving and trying to stop whatever a particularly Ukrainian force is trying to do. Ukraine wants Russian units out on the road in a line of units, vulnerable to drones and whatever other weapons can reach that location. It might even be a F16. Ukraine can keep its losses and casualties down be staying mobile and letting artillery and drone forces hit the Russian units directlyk then maybe doubleing back and mopping up.

---

Putin is going to have a hard time admitting this even happened once it is over.  This ranks up with embarrasing events like the Israeli smuggling bombs into an Iranian guest house.

IMO this is much more embarrassing. Smuggling in a bomb and killing one guy is not ideal, but it isn't costing Iran territory or lives. In fact, it is entirely possible some parts of the Iranian government actually wanted this guy out. They couldn't control him. Russia OTOH is losing territory and people.

I hope the Ukrainian forces have a lot of MANPADS so they destroy a few more SU 25's and MI 8's.  As long as they can keep moving, they make artillery less usefull.  If they get stuck they might get hammered.

Totally agree. It might be nice to bring forward some of the old I-HAWK batteries Ukraine has. They can't do much against high altitude-long range threats, but they are deadly against anything else. Russia is going to need lots of "Tac air" in the traditional sense to cut Ukraine's supply lines. Keeping KA-52s off the troops and fighter-bombers away from the GLOCs is necessary, and I-HAWKS can still do that.

You are right that if Ukraine can keep moving Russia can have a very hard time targeting them with artillery. Even if Russia succeeds in finding them moving vehicles don't spend a lot of time in the "kill zone". Lots better than sitting in a trench where Russia knows exactly where you are and you can't move. Unfortunately rapid combined arms advances have a history of coming to a halt because of over-stretched supply lines. I suspect Ukraine doesn't know how to set up a FARP :-).

Exactly right, Ukraine does not want to be tied down to a fixed position conflict. They can't win that kind of conflict. On the other hand if the can force Russian forces to keep moving, it opens them up far more to drone and longer range weapon attacks.  I wonder what William T Shermanand Greorge S. Patton would have done.