Over on Youtube, JimmyThomist is presenting on his channel, Operational Art of War, a magnificent series on the Russo-Ukraine War that looks at it largely from the operational perspective. What he means by ‘operational’ are the requirements necessary for armed forces to operate effectively, where the relevant dimensions are space, supply, transportation and terrain.
Update #5
In this episode, he directly tackles the question of whether the Battle for Kiev was a feint and covers the battles around Chernigov to Kiev’s north east.
Update #4
In episode 8, JimmyThomist looks at operations to the east of the Dneiper out of Chernigov, Konotop, and Sumy. He discusses the logistical constraints on the Russians given their mode of supplying troops in the field and how this played out in the first month. He then considers whether the forces the Russians actually deployed in the field east of Kiev could have either seized or isolated Kiev, and here the answer is both No; the number of troops they had deployed and considerably below what you would plan for if these were your objectives.
Update #3
In this episode, having answered the question of whether the seizing Hostomel Airport was part of a decapitation operation in the negative in the previous episode, he now considers whether it was a part of securing the necessary logistical lift capacity at least west of the Dneiper to support the seizing of Kiev. He demonstrates conclusively that a single runway at a single airport would assist in supporting 3 brigades in the immediate vicinity of Kiev, but would be unable to support the force necessary to enter the government district of Kiev from the airport which would require at least 4 divisions. This he notes would be almost half of what was deployed for the SMO in the first month. In the next episode, hec considers whether the operations objective was isolating Kiev.
Update #2:
In ep 5 he looks at the Ukrainian War according to FLOCARK.
He describes maximalist, moderate, and minimalist objectives, and given these, the operational requirements to achieve them. He concludes that the forces allocated to capture Kiev were insufficient, 2.5:1 initially, and 1:1 following Ukrainian mobilisation, while noting that many of routes south of both sides of the Dnieper, north of Kiev, had either an insufficient road network (Chernobyl route) to sustain a advance of sufficient weight or had important choke points (Chernigov route) that would be good for delaying and defending an advance. He also discusses the operational situation of Donetsk/ Lukansk in the south east, and Kherson/ land bridge in the south.
He looks at the situation of possible entry of Belorussia in the early stages and how the Pripet Marshes put the kybosh on such a circumstance, and finally, he gives a brief teaser at what the Battle of Kiev was about, whether incompetence, miscalculation, or feign/ feint (will use the former herein) designed to draw forces north away from the actual objectives in the south.
In ep. 6 he dives into the Battle of Kiev.
Re Battle of Hostomel Airport, he surmises that the first wave of VDV amounted to a battalion, and then was reinforced by another battalion later in the day. Size of relieving force travelling south through Chernobyl appears to be out 2 BTGs, with possibly another BTG in reserve; so the relief force was essentially a brigade. He also suggests that, given their shorter supply lines and the poor road network north of Kiev and around Pripet Marshes, that Ukraine enjoyed artillery superiority in this area.
Lastly, he considers whether the Battle of Kiev was a decapitation mission. He concludes for operational reasons that this wasn’t the case given the distance from the airport to the centre of the capital, force required to reach it, the time constraints, the airlift required, and the like.
Update #1:
In ep. 4, he introduces the final operational element: terrain.
Given the conditional constraints detailed in the original post, the huge manpower requirements of defending a long border, of supplying and maintaining large scale operations in the field, and the like, armies are forced to fight in areas conducive to the above. Areas with a decent road network and terrain, or, in other words, an area that allows you to ‘fight in the doorway’.
What terrain features naturally involve doorways? Mountain and hill ranges, waterways (coastlines, rivers), roads, cities, and the like. If you understand the operational requirements of an advance or defence, you can develop an effective defensive line employing an economy of force (essentially an efficient and effective deployment) because you will have a good idea where the enemy needs to advance, where they will need to concentrate their forces in the forward areas preparing for an offensive, etc. so you can have your artillery preregister fire-zones in those lanes and forward positions when and if the attack commences.
He then discusses how a screening force can help economize the use of troops so as to cover a larger front that allows you to concentrate your forces where needed on your main defensive line to your maximum advantage.
He also discusses how terrain also dictates the size of force (battalion, brigade, divisional, corps level ) that is able to advance along a continuous front.
FLOCARK -Features, lanes, objectives, canalizing ground, avenues of approach, key terrain
This will enable you to identify pinch points, primary, secondary, and tertiary defensive lines.
Finally, he uses the above tool to consider Ukraine’s military situation at the operational level
In ep. 1 he gives a brief summary of the difference between the tactical, operational and the strategic, as well as explaining the dominant arm of the armed forces is the artillery, causing 70% of the casualties of the enemy while only consisting of 10-20% of personnel. The effect of the domination of artillery in the late 19th/ early 20thC was the requirement to disperse, entrench, and maneuver.
In ep. 2 he goes into more detail about how the Firepower Revolution effected the battlefield. In sum, the requirements of both dispersing and entrenching, meant that lines of defense, rather than being continuous needed become discrete and mutually supporting in what is understood as a defense in depth. He also explains the space requirements for defense and offensive operations on the contact line. , For example, a battalion requires at least 3-5km of front and 5km of depth to operate effectively; that is, to be sufficiently dispersed so as to minimize loses from indirect fire (field and rocket artillery, air to ground munitions) but close enough to each other for mutual support when in contact with the enemy.
In ep. 3 he goes into more detail about the object of entrenchment. Here, he explains that a defensive line involves identifying the enemy on approach through forward observers, slowing down that approach and channel the enemy into kill zones, and so on. Note, that what occurs in both slowing and channeling also undercuts the advancing army’s requirement of dispersing. He then discusses the tail of the army here, that part of the armed forces that operates in the rear area, their numbers, and their operational requirements as well. And having done so, he concludes that given the space required for effective dispersion and maneuver, supply and transport, the div and higher deep zone/ bde deep/ close/ rear zones, need to be roughly 100km/75km in depth and with a front somewhere between 10-25km.
If we take all three of these episodes together, artillery is dominant but it can’t operate independently, it requires recon, infantry, mobile, air and other relevant units to find and fix the enemy. These units require a large supply and transport network in order to perform optimally.
A brigade to operate effectively and advance or defend requires a front of 10-25km with a depth of 75km. So 60 brigades (this would be the entire US armed force, professional and reserve), given the requirements of rotation and reserve, could only defend 300-650kms of its northern border in a continuous line.
Tomorrow we will discuss his video on terrain.
Note on this thread. Will post updates daily, adding ep. 4 tomorrow morning, ep. 5 and 6 on Mon, and the new ep. 7 on Tues.
Slightly off topic, but tangentially relevant:
As of 1943, the British (and Commonwealth) Principles of War were:
Taking into account the conflict mentioned above, how relevant are these principles now?
(An historical note: The above principles were deemed to be as relevant to jungle warfare in the tropics as they had been in the more open warfare of North Africa, Greece, and the Levant (Syria).
Muddy, they’re relevant and as principles of war broadly include all levels, from the tactical, the operational, and the strategic. BTW, they go back to Clausewitz, at the very least.
Given that there might be an offensive around Kharkov in the making, people might want to apply the lessons being learned in the videos to the above.
More meat assaults? Sure to work.
These episodes have been incredibly illuminating at highlighting the operational constraints of effective fighting to win.
I’m very impressed at how clearly he explains complex military concepts.
Bruce, just for giggles put ‘Ukraine is finished’ into DDG.
Ukraine: Hundreds flee Kharkiv area after Russian cross-border attack
Russian attacks in north-east Ukraine have prompted the evacuation of almost 1,800 people from the Kharkiv area, the regional head has said.
Heavy fighting has continued in the border area following Russia’s surprise incursions on Friday.
Kyiv has been expecting a Russian summer offensive for some time – including a possible attempt to capture Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second city.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68994877
And Colonel Douglas Macgregor on the UKR – Truth on the end of the UKR War –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dDFn5nUWDw
Telegram must be chockers with videos of those ubiquitous meat assaults.
Right?
Russia is NOT Bluffing – NATO be Warned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4I9JQe2ayg
The US hasn’t been able to fight a real war for decades. It is able to send expeditionary forces into shithole countries, but that is about it. No chance against China or Russia in anything of scale and duration that isn’t close to home. I suspect it’d have a very serious fight on its hands if it decided to take on Iran. US losses would become politically unacceptable before victory could be achieved.
Compare the first and second Gulf Wars. Operation Desert Storm was a ‘proper’ 1 million man effort that indicated the US was still capable of fighting a peer rival. The invasion of Iraq was done on the cheap – <200k force, when it should have been larger than the force of 1991, given its much more ambitious objective of taking out Saddam and keeping the peace until a new government could be established in his place.
Matters seem to be accelerating near Kharkov. Also Russian probes around Sumy. Nothing ever happens until it does.
The video series demonstrates there is zero point trying to make sense of reports of any activity 24 or 48 hours after news.
It takes months or in this case over two years to put together a coherent summary backed up with a range of sources.
Ftb, I think if you have some idea of the operational principles you can get an idea of what is going on but, yes, the more detailed appraisal really needs info that we aren’t typically given, like what units are actually involved, their strength, and so on.
Part 7 was another great watch.
I like the way his gone about this.
Reiterates that Kiev was never a genuine target.
Based on his previous videos, I had said that because the Russians didn’t show up with a division, this was always the case.
His view in this episode that four divisions would have been needed to take Kiev strengthens this.
In previous episodes, he killed off the idea of the Russians flying everything in.
And that was for a brigade strength force.
Let alone a division (& obviously not four divisions).
& he refers to Pavlov’s house in Stalingrad.
A few TIK episodes were centred around what a son of a bitch that was.
Imagine the carnage of a partial repeat of that nightmare in 2022.
No, it was even worse than. He argues that 4 divisions would have been need just to secure the corridor between the airport and the government sector.
Yes, there is no way holding the airport would allow for sufficient supply of an army large enough to seize the city of Kiev on the Western side of Dnieper. I love how he demonstrated the difference in transport capacity between sea, rail, road, and air transportation.
Yes, its been fantastic so far.
It also helps explain how the fighting around Avdivka, Bakhmut, and the like have been so difficult to crack. Mauripol fell reasonably quickly because it was surrounded and the defenders could not replace losses.
I admit I haven’t followed the entire Ukraine/Russia war mainly because the information was idiotic, shallow, and so heavily propagandised as to be of little use and not worth my time.
This bloke is quite right in that it appears the role playing games genre has dominated the information available. As I don’t bother with them, the information available was of little use to an understanding of the war.
I decided DB, to stop being a stubborn prick and – seeing as you’ve been so kind as to make a thread of it – I’d watch episode 1 just to be fair.
My reply?
He gets it.
A few years back I read about “Rasputini” which has save Russia from invasion for centuries. It’s seasonal mud, and appears to have been more effective than other strategies, but haven’t heard a word. But then again, I have heard almosy\t nothing about road destruction, or pipelines blown up.
The US hasn’t been able to fight a real war for decades. It is able to send expeditionary forces into shithole countries, but that is about it. No chance against China or Russia in anything of scale and duration that isn’t close to home.
Mate was talking with the other night jumped ship about 4-5 years ago, combat veteran. The above he would agree with to a point.
As for peer on peer or near peer, I also wonder how they would go with air parity when NATO is used to fighting with complete air superiority. That also trickles down to medivacs and resupply on an active battlefield. Also ME didn’t have huge amounts of MANPADS or AA wpns above the ubiquitous RPG7 & Iranian modifications.
US logistics he reckons are awesome so supplying their army would be a lesser issue but he would concede protecting them would be an issue with missiles & subs.
As for Russia, they have now been fighting a hot war for 2 years that would be churning out combat hardened veterans like the US had ranks full of after it ME follies. Russia could turn out to be a formidable foe if Europe rolled the dice but predictable AA’s as realist describes in his Terrain Analysis episode would be a constraint.
Unfortunately for us ME vets have largely gone from the US ranks. European armies would likely be the same from the ones that participated, (Germans & French I’m told flew a flag and not much more). China I’m not so bullish about, they haven’t fought a full war since the 1950’s and a small skirmish in the 1980’s. IMO they will get mauled at any wars start but they do have numbers and it will be marketed as a patriotic war to tap into the seething nationalism that has replaced the Com party there. As the US proved in WWII if you have average equipment and lots of replacements that can overcome a technologically superior enemy.
To be honest I’m more concerned about what is going on here. Same mate reckons most of our combat vets are 45yo up and at the WO2 level but ADF is currently on another culling program. He says most are quite happy to stay and work HQ’s or train the next boys who will be pulling triggers when it goes kinetic but no one wants them. Apparently the it all about DIE at the moment.
As normal my 2c for what it’s worth.