(10-04-2022, 07:32 AM)GK3 Wrote: It seems to me that the Ukraine should go all out to reach Nova Kahovka before the Russians. While its possible the Russian forces under attack from Davydiv Brid could some how maneuver enough force to hit the Ukraine flank along the river, it would be extremely difficult. If the Ukraine gets to the bridge first the Russian forces are in a world of hurt.
I think your statements are totally correct. The problem with going all out down the right bank of the river would not be forces from Davydiv Brid and points further south on the road, but rather forces already in the area between the road (T2207) and the river. There are lots of small towns on the T0403 (and nearby area) and any one of them could impose a delay or cut the road after the spearhead passes. Ukraine would have a very long flank exposed to whatever is in that area. They undoubtedly know how much is there and will evaluate the risk.
Quote:So as you say the best thing Russian forces can probably do is to try and withdraw to Nova Kahovka as fast as possible while maintaining some semblance of command and control. A big challenge for the commanders and troops on both sides. HIMARS can probably interdict most of T2207 running down to Nova Kahovka. Would not be a fun retreat.
No it wouldn't be an easy one. If Russia was fighting smart they would try to stop the retreat well to the northwest of the river and keep the P47/M14 road open. They would be wise to retreat "early" and leave a blocking force on the T2207, possibly at/near Charivne. If they think they can hold there, give it a try. Even if they can't, this would delay the Ukrainians and let the Russians get organized north west of Kozats'ke. Undoubtedly they won't do that.
(10-04-2022, 08:12 AM)Treefence Wrote: Goose, that all makes sense, but I think one more thing that could have a drastic effect is when Ukraine is within standard artillery range of all Dnipro crossings. Up until now, Ukraine has had to use HIMARS attacks to hit the bridges, which have mostly put them out, but there's a big limit to those. As the lines are drawn now, Ukraine is about 40km from the Nova Kakhovka bridge. Soon enough they can hit the bridge, and any surrounding pontoon bridges with enormous amounts of artillery, and rely on partisan networks in the area to scout for them. I'd guess they won't be able to make a very long stand if Ukraine is able to push just a bit further, with those troops knowing they are losing all forms of escape besides swimming. As per usual, I could be wrong, I often am.
You are IMHO quite correct. The big advantage conventional artillery has over HIMARS is persistence. HIMARS can deliver a devastating blow, but then it must go someplace to reload. Conventional artillery can't deliver anywhere near as much ordinance in a few seconds, but it can deliver ordinance steadily for a long time. It is reloaded in situ. Ukraine getting within 15-20km or so of the bridge would mean that their artillery can interdict the bridge 100% of the time and free the HIMARS to go wreak havoc elsewhere. They will still have to move their 155mm stuff around to prevent the Russians from targeting it, but by now they know how to do that :-).
I would not hazard a guess at if/when the Russian troops on the right bank of the river attempt to retreat across the river. If they do, lots of them will be lost to Ukrainian artillery/HIMARS. If a general retreat begins with no rear guard/blocking force, the Ukrainians can also make a dash for the bridges. Given the alternatives, if I were a junior commander (the senior ones all having already "relocated" themselves) on the right bank, I would give my guys the option of surrender in place. The odds of getting across the river in an uncontrolled rout are just too high.
(10-04-2022, 12:29 AM)M T Wrote: Former CIA director and retired army general David Petraeus in a report:
Quote:Petraeus said that he had not spoken to national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the likely US response to nuclear escalation from Russia, which administration officials have said has been repeatedly communicated to Moscow.
He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”
I can't imagine he is speaking without having good knowledge that his statement wouldn't be counter-productive. An unofficial suggestion of a strong response, and one that undoes the 2014 borders.
I can imagine he is speaking based on what he "knew" when he was head of the CIA. However, I am virtually certain nobody who actually is involved in the decision making process today would ever talk to him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html
He is pretty much poison for anybody with a clearance to speak with.