Advertising my lack of military knowledge in advance, I have a question concerning Russia's desire to conquer certain cities. In the past, when we fought with more primitive weapons, most building structures would be left intact, even if all the inhabitants were killed. Additionally, the control of significant cities meant controlling su…
Advertising my lack of military knowledge in advance, I have a question concerning Russia's desire to conquer certain cities. In the past, when we fought with more primitive weapons, most building structures would be left intact, even if all the inhabitants were killed. Additionally, the control of significant cities meant controlling supply lines, transportation hubs, manufacturing facilities, and centralized communication centers. Most of these factors are no longer valid. In addition, with modern high explosive munitinitins, there is little left of the city after it has been conquered. When I see pictures (which I guess are accurate) of cities pounded into piles of rubble, I wonder the point of trying to capture this city that no longer exists. Other than the psychological benefit of attempting to demoralize the enemy, all I see is the firming of Ukrainian resolve to resist Russian advances. Also, the Ukrainians know the consequences of being taken prisoner by the Russians, which is another reason for fierce resistance. From a military perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to go around a city, blockade it, destroy any airfields, and offer good terms to anyone who surrenders? I see the Ukrainians doing something similar to what the Russians did to Germany in WWII. Retreat, leave a wasteland behind, and stretch the enemy's supply lines to the breaking point. Not exactly the same, but similarities are enough to make wonder what is passing for military strategy in the minds of the Russian high command?
Not 100% sure about this, but I've seen suggestions that any real Russian advance would require the ability to use the Ukrainian rail system for logistical support, since they can't keep up the truck supply. Rail lines go through big cities, so to use them, you need to hold at least part of the city.
The Russian military isn't really set up to conduct the same type of war that the US military is. Part of the reason for that is that it is set up along the lines of the Soviet military--which was intended for two uses:
1) A war against NATO forces;
2) Suppression of revolt inside the Soviet empire (including their Warsaw Pact "allies.").
Condition #1 sort of dictated both the TO&E (table of organization and equipment) of the units and the force structure. One of the primary factors in this appears to be the general assumption on the part of the Soviets (later Russians) that they would not have air superiority (in fact the reverse).
This accounts for the large number of AAD systems in the Soviet army that had no American equivalents (like the ZSU23-4). No really effective equivalents of AWACs or Joint Stars (or whatever they are calling it these days)...and LOTS of artillery.
The Russians apparently also suck at SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses), which has been developed into a fine art by the American Air Forces (one of the reasons for the American early adoption of stealth and why we basically lead the world in it).
Air/ground interoperations also seem poor... something else that has been hugely refined by the Americans.
Given their force composition, the only real option for the Russians WRT urban combat is the old shell the place into oblivion approach--which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
Destroying a city actually makes it more defendable.
If you have a decent logistics train (oops, sorry Russia) it isn't really necessary to take a city--as pointed out, you generally had to wreck the place to take it and you had to expend a lot of logistics and manpower to do that.
Taking a city is more of a political objective than a military objective... which is why there is a certain fixation about it on the part of the leadership.
Getting bogged down in urban warfare is a big no-no (from a military perspective)--especially if you are armor-heavy (because armor is kind of useless in that type of warfare).
Russian military strategy appears to be primarily driven by the political objectives of Putin. While the overall political strategy should be guiding operations , there is a difference between political and military objectives that causes some apparent stupidity to appear. What this generally means is that the political leadership is micromanaging.
Given modern technologies, the capability of modern logistics (at least on the American side), and the nature of contemporary high intensity warfare as being mostly about fighting with what you already have on hand (because there isn't time to build stuff or train new people), most of the historical rationales for taking cities have essentially disappeared, other than the political rationales.
We regularly fight wars on the other side of the globe. The last time the Russians did that was essentially WW2--in the Soviet Far East versus Japan. They had MASSIVE American logistical support for that.
Thank you for the explanation. I don't believe the Ukrainians can accept any peace agreement that allows Russia to keep any territory it has taken. Whatever Putin agrees to today, he will find an excuse to break tomorrow. Today either we, the West, drive him back to Russia, or we will pay the price tomorrow. If he gets to keep any territory, he will use it as a victory in his propaganda war. He has supporters in America as well as in Europe. We are looking at Europe in 1936 when Churchill was warning everyone about Nazi Germany. I realize the comparison is not a one-to-one, but there are enough similarities that should make us very wary of the immediate future.
The point of leveling cities is casualty-aversion. Russian losses are already sky-high because they tried to Blitzkreig Kyiv on day one, which is a significant departure from their traditional tactics. When it failed measurably, they went back to their traditional model of barraging cities with artillery instead of sending motorized infantry into the urban combat environment to get slaughtered. The Russian military is passing the buck on casualties from their ranks to the Ukrainian civilians. Remember when they evacuated Russian-speaking Ukrainians prior to the invasion? This is why. It's so that they can turn the populous of any city that mounts resistance into refugees while turning their old homes into rubble. If the defenders don't end resistance, the Russians turn their families into refugees. Suddenly, defenders are making the choice between looking after their families or staying in the fight. It's disgusting shit, but it has worked in Russia's favor every time it has been employed in the past. It turns defenders into refugees and leaves nothing behind to defend.
There will be no trusting between what a Russian soldier says and what a Ukrainian hears. Not after 02/24.
Holding the area that the city controls hands that control over to your side, so long as you can keep it. Putin (not "Russia", but Putin) wants the country. So long as he can keep soldiers in those areas and nominally hold them, those cities can be standing or they can be glassed.
That's a further problem for his military: Can they hold what they claim?
Advertising my lack of military knowledge in advance, I have a question concerning Russia's desire to conquer certain cities. In the past, when we fought with more primitive weapons, most building structures would be left intact, even if all the inhabitants were killed. Additionally, the control of significant cities meant controlling supply lines, transportation hubs, manufacturing facilities, and centralized communication centers. Most of these factors are no longer valid. In addition, with modern high explosive munitinitins, there is little left of the city after it has been conquered. When I see pictures (which I guess are accurate) of cities pounded into piles of rubble, I wonder the point of trying to capture this city that no longer exists. Other than the psychological benefit of attempting to demoralize the enemy, all I see is the firming of Ukrainian resolve to resist Russian advances. Also, the Ukrainians know the consequences of being taken prisoner by the Russians, which is another reason for fierce resistance. From a military perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to go around a city, blockade it, destroy any airfields, and offer good terms to anyone who surrenders? I see the Ukrainians doing something similar to what the Russians did to Germany in WWII. Retreat, leave a wasteland behind, and stretch the enemy's supply lines to the breaking point. Not exactly the same, but similarities are enough to make wonder what is passing for military strategy in the minds of the Russian high command?
Not 100% sure about this, but I've seen suggestions that any real Russian advance would require the ability to use the Ukrainian rail system for logistical support, since they can't keep up the truck supply. Rail lines go through big cities, so to use them, you need to hold at least part of the city.
Assuming that it won't take you a couple of weeks to get the rail system that you just obliterated working again.
The Russian military isn't really set up to conduct the same type of war that the US military is. Part of the reason for that is that it is set up along the lines of the Soviet military--which was intended for two uses:
1) A war against NATO forces;
2) Suppression of revolt inside the Soviet empire (including their Warsaw Pact "allies.").
Condition #1 sort of dictated both the TO&E (table of organization and equipment) of the units and the force structure. One of the primary factors in this appears to be the general assumption on the part of the Soviets (later Russians) that they would not have air superiority (in fact the reverse).
This accounts for the large number of AAD systems in the Soviet army that had no American equivalents (like the ZSU23-4). No really effective equivalents of AWACs or Joint Stars (or whatever they are calling it these days)...and LOTS of artillery.
The Russians apparently also suck at SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses), which has been developed into a fine art by the American Air Forces (one of the reasons for the American early adoption of stealth and why we basically lead the world in it).
Air/ground interoperations also seem poor... something else that has been hugely refined by the Americans.
Given their force composition, the only real option for the Russians WRT urban combat is the old shell the place into oblivion approach--which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
Destroying a city actually makes it more defendable.
If you have a decent logistics train (oops, sorry Russia) it isn't really necessary to take a city--as pointed out, you generally had to wreck the place to take it and you had to expend a lot of logistics and manpower to do that.
Taking a city is more of a political objective than a military objective... which is why there is a certain fixation about it on the part of the leadership.
Getting bogged down in urban warfare is a big no-no (from a military perspective)--especially if you are armor-heavy (because armor is kind of useless in that type of warfare).
Russian military strategy appears to be primarily driven by the political objectives of Putin. While the overall political strategy should be guiding operations , there is a difference between political and military objectives that causes some apparent stupidity to appear. What this generally means is that the political leadership is micromanaging.
Given modern technologies, the capability of modern logistics (at least on the American side), and the nature of contemporary high intensity warfare as being mostly about fighting with what you already have on hand (because there isn't time to build stuff or train new people), most of the historical rationales for taking cities have essentially disappeared, other than the political rationales.
We regularly fight wars on the other side of the globe. The last time the Russians did that was essentially WW2--in the Soviet Far East versus Japan. They had MASSIVE American logistical support for that.
Thank you for the explanation. I don't believe the Ukrainians can accept any peace agreement that allows Russia to keep any territory it has taken. Whatever Putin agrees to today, he will find an excuse to break tomorrow. Today either we, the West, drive him back to Russia, or we will pay the price tomorrow. If he gets to keep any territory, he will use it as a victory in his propaganda war. He has supporters in America as well as in Europe. We are looking at Europe in 1936 when Churchill was warning everyone about Nazi Germany. I realize the comparison is not a one-to-one, but there are enough similarities that should make us very wary of the immediate future.
The point of leveling cities is casualty-aversion. Russian losses are already sky-high because they tried to Blitzkreig Kyiv on day one, which is a significant departure from their traditional tactics. When it failed measurably, they went back to their traditional model of barraging cities with artillery instead of sending motorized infantry into the urban combat environment to get slaughtered. The Russian military is passing the buck on casualties from their ranks to the Ukrainian civilians. Remember when they evacuated Russian-speaking Ukrainians prior to the invasion? This is why. It's so that they can turn the populous of any city that mounts resistance into refugees while turning their old homes into rubble. If the defenders don't end resistance, the Russians turn their families into refugees. Suddenly, defenders are making the choice between looking after their families or staying in the fight. It's disgusting shit, but it has worked in Russia's favor every time it has been employed in the past. It turns defenders into refugees and leaves nothing behind to defend.
There will be no trusting between what a Russian soldier says and what a Ukrainian hears. Not after 02/24.
Holding the area that the city controls hands that control over to your side, so long as you can keep it. Putin (not "Russia", but Putin) wants the country. So long as he can keep soldiers in those areas and nominally hold them, those cities can be standing or they can be glassed.
That's a further problem for his military: Can they hold what they claim?