The War in the Ukraine

Biscuits said:

In the first place what is this supposed NATO doctrine?

Above we heard anecdotes that Ukrainians were advised by NATO to counter minefields by driving around them. While that is just 1 anecdote from an Ukrainian crew being trained in NATO doctrine, it's hard not to ask the question: what is NATO style thinking?

What do commanders of NATO advocate doing when faced with well defended ground and formidable adversaries?

NATO didn't seem to have an answer aside from pushing forward with heavy armor and "going around" minefields whenever they encounter such.

Maybe someone who knows more about what real NATO doctrine in such a situation could tell me what correctly executed NATO doctrine would be, but to me, it looks like such doctrine doesn't even exist, whereas Ukrainian/Soviet/Russian doctrine has at least some theories around the subject.

Click to expand...

This is very true. There is no NATO doctrine on assaulting well defended fortification besides "just bomb them until it works". In fact I can't recall any western doctrine since WWI regard this kind of situation. Nazi Germany had the "just drive around it" strategy, but we tend to forget maneuvering units safely requires some kind of air superiority and enemy being ill-prepared. It ceased to work after the first year of invasion of Soviet Union.

Artillery strike via Krasnopol on a Ukrainian ammo depot in the Artemevosk sector.


More Ka-52 kills.


Lancet finished off a damaged BMP-2 in southern Donetsk.


Artillery and FPV drones attacking Ukrainian landing boats in the Kherson sector.


FPV drone attack on Ukrainian trenches.


Destroyed Ukrainian vehicles in Ugledar after failed attack.


TOS-1A Solntsepek attack on a Ukrainian assault through the forest line.


I don't see a lot of Russian T-54/55 on the field but here's one. Direct fire takes out a vehicle in the forest line.

Russia has conducted a sinking excercise in the Black Sea against a target that might have been a captured Ukranian ship.

TK3600 said:

This is very true. There is no NATO doctrine on assaulting well defended fortification besides "just bomb them until it works". In fact I can't recall any western doctrine since WWI regard this kind of situation. Nazi Germany had the "just drive around it" strategy, but we tend to forget maneuvering units safely requires some kind of air superiority and enemy being ill-prepared. It ceased to work after the first year of invasion of Soviet Union.

Click to expand...

When I was in training (long time ago), my mentors pretty much told us to go around it (mine). But the reality is, mine fields are bigger than 100x200. As much as NATO do not like to admit, going through a heavy defended position has only one strategy. Bomb it, shell it, and take your time. Otherwise, the attacker will face heavy casualty.

Minefield and fortification do what it do best, slow a down push.

generalmeng said:

When I was in training (long time ago), my mentors pretty much told us to go around it (mine). But the reality is, mine fields are bigger than 100x200. As much as NATO do not like to admit, going through a heavy defended position has only one strategy. Bomb it, shell it, and take your time. Otherwise, the attacker will face heavy casualty.

Minefield and fortification do what it do best, slow a down push.

Click to expand...

Then of course, there's this to greatly complicate a minefield.



It attacks from a radius of 50 meters, jumps and strikes from above. An MRAP designed to protect itself from land mines and IEDs from below isn't going to expect a strike from above.

Then there's this.


An MLRS style mine launcher that can quickly deploy mines ahead of any assaulting direction, or right at it's back, complicating the supply and retreat line of the attacking force. A mine field can be laid in minutes, which can be PTKM or the POM 2 below.

Anti personnel self deploying mine with sensors.


The mines are also networked so if something has begun to cross the minefield, the operator can be alerted. The entire mining field acts like a warning net of it's own, which can alert friendly forces to throw artillery, ATGMs, and FPV drones at the attacking forces to worsen their dilemma.. The Russians can also self destruct the mines if they wished if they are crossing the field or to deactivate the minefield entirely for safety reasons.

Western media has started to shift away from "The counteroffensive isn't failing" "Coming weeks blah blah"

It's now more like "Risks are growing", "It's not a failure, but....." "slow pace...tough..etc"

I think the hope of Ukraine regaining territory is getting further and further away. If they continue this counteroffensive I won't be surprised if Russia launches their own offensive in a couple months, one that might actually be successful.

TK3600 said:

This is very true. There is no NATO doctrine on assaulting well defended fortification besides "just bomb them until it works". In fact I can't recall any western doctrine since WWI regard this kind of situation. Nazi Germany had the "just drive around it" strategy, but we tend to forget maneuvering units safely requires some kind of air superiority and enemy being ill-prepared. It ceased to work after the first year of invasion of Soviet Union.

Click to expand...

There is established doctrine.
SOSRA
Suppress - Artillery duel to reduce enemy counter fire
Obscure - Jamming/Smoke screen/Misinfo
Secure - Prevent enemy reinforcement, providing safety zone for breaching equipment to work
Reduce - Attrit enemy units within zone of breach attempt
Assault - Capturing land

I can't see a step where Ukraine is not attempting at the moment.

Just as Russia couldn't fully apply Soviet doctrine earlier in the war to overrun Ukrainian positions through overwhelming artillery barrage due to low manpower, poor ISR and limited SEAD, neither can Ukraine actually execute NATO breaching tactics as envisioned since half the equipment they are using a hand-me-downs, not in enough numbers and insufficiently trained to used them to begin with. There's no wunderwaffe for breaching fortification, Ukraine simply don't have the capability to conduct combined arms operations against defensive positions, you can only play with the hand you're given and all.

Round up of recent events in Ugledar with the failed Ukrainian thrust.


Direct retaliation for the Kerch Bridge attack.


That's a big ammo depot that the Russian missile hit.


Bradley after hitting a mine.


Ukrainian howitzer hit by Lancet.


Ukrainian tank hit by Lancet.

tankphobia said:

Ukraine simply don't have the capability to conduct combined arms operations against defensive positions, you can only play with the hand you're given and all.

Click to expand...

They're doing combined arms to the degree they can.
Few Western forces can achieve that they do - they have neither the same specter of equipment nor the depth of stocks (Ukraine shoots a modern country arsenal worth of munitions every week).

US - quite likely to be different, but I'd personally would like to see first how the US would adapt to a situation of very fiercely contested air, and complete inadequacy of USAF against "small air".

Gloire_bb said:

They're doing combined arms to the degree they can.
Few Western forces can achieve that they do - they have neither the same specter of equipment nor the depth of stocks (Ukraine shoots a modern country arsenal worth of munitions every week).

US - quite likely to be different, but I'd personally would like to see first how the US would adapt to a situation of very fiercely contested air, and complete inadequacy of USAF against "small air".

Click to expand...

This is getting off topic, but I'd imagine if US armies were to attempt the same offensive, they'll be able to do each step better. They can leverage their large UAV fleet to provide ISR and strike capability across the entire front, use vast stocks of precision guided munitions to attrit enemy artillery platforms, contest the skies using stealth aircraft and allowing for air support for breaching troops, use cruise missiles to strike at the rear command nodes and supply depots.

That all hinges on the huge amount of munitions expended would not be needed for a conflict with China.