After the Brittney Griner deal it was only a matter of time before Russia takes another hostage.
honest to god question, is the high ground really that important in a modern artillery war?
Sooner or later somebody has to go up that hill and take it. To the best of my knowledge, neither side so far has given up a position just because they were in artillery range.
1 Like
Wouldnāt higher ground help with sight lines and visibility to find targets and also the range of the artillery? Also if someone wants to storm the position and make the artillery move back itās slower going and more tiring.
Maybe also better at reading and understanding wind or whatever, but Iām not sure if that matters in the era of smarter munitions.
yes, it still holds. adding 5-10km of artillery range when the target is an armored assault and its supply lines can absolutely be the difference between a battle that quickly takes a fortified city and a months-long slaughter-fest.
when i watch videos posted by drone units that correct artillery fire, itās just very clear that extra range is even more useful with precision ammunition.
I dunno in the era of drones and APVs Iām just not sure. Maybe? Probably?
this is a good point, but look at the bakhmut supply route. itās some of the highest terrain around. thatās how AFU is holding it both from north and south. technically RU has the route in range, but without close units, they are not able to completely sever it, and bakhmut stands, killing a couple of thousand wagnerites per week per city block. i personally think wagner recruits are super low effectiveness, but still a high kill ratio might dictate to zaluzhnyj that the defense is worth it. only question that remains: what happens next? overspent and stretched russian lines around bakhmut look exposed for a counter-assault. a high speed operation like Kharkiv might cut them off from supplies.
Many people on Twitter question that Ukraine has a high enough ratio considering that 3:1 is not good enough. Obviously Ukraine will know things we donāt but the publicly available information does not show that holding Bakhmut is worth it.
my guess is that itās much higher than 3:1.
for one, as i said, wagner recruits are cannon fodder. they are not really trained, they are not well supplied, they are thrown into the grinder. they might be wilfully sabotaged by regular RU army. mobilized are also less effective than regular army.
secondly, we are hearing of 6-15k wagner dead. at 3:1 weād know of 2-5k AFU dead. open source intel would have gathered that knowledge either from ukrainian politicians, or analysts, or reporters, or allied generals, or other public events would have brought it up. thereād be no way to keep that under wraps. everything has publicity right now, i donāt see how they could hide deaths of thousands of the most capable defenders.
and finally, at 3:1, i think bakhmut really would fall. mariupol ratios were 4 or 5 to 1, and encirclement took a month, and azovstal defense was another two. and in the end zelensky ordered a surrender to save lives. russian forces simply donāt have the same type of progress around bakhmut.
This paints a rosy picture:
1 Like
1 Like
This looks like the same trench in a tree line that Ukraine previously defended successfully. Now occupied by Russians and attacked by one of two Ukrainian tanks that keeps shooting at them at close range. Somehow the Russians survive that barrage (well, not sure about that last shot).
1 Like
straight out of all is quiet on the western front
jesus