Unless the Russians abandoned all of good Soviet military doctrine (which is quite possible since they’re so virulently anti-communist), that is the furthest from the truth possible.
The Soviet military doctrine has been Deep Operation since the founding of the nation, where there is no single hard battlefront, instead keeping the combat line deep and flexible. Unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the operational paradigm for the Russian military remains the same.
It’s not exactly a line. It’s miles and miles of defensive fortifications, entrenchments, units, and supply lines in a myriad configurations. There’s no breaking through it in a traditional sense. Like I said earlier, the entire doctrine of warfare is different, like how the US armed forces doctrine is based on aerial support.
I’m not seeing a “mesh” on that map. I’m seeing a line. There’s a speckling of fortifications deeper in, but a military that has broken through that line isn’t going to have much trouble with a speckling. That’s the “gooey center” I was talking about. The main strength is concentrated along the line.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. That’s the thick crust of defensive lines. Once you’re through that it becomes easier to move.
The whole point here is that people are complaining that the offensive is “moving slowly” and I’m pointing out that of course it’s moving slowly, it has to get through the most heavily defended regions first. Once it’s done that it’ll move more quickly.
Yes, exactly. The soviet defensive doctrine is partially inefficient because they wanted the entire operational area to be hardened without a specific weak point to exploit or breakthrough. The offensive army is forced to Trudge 😉 through the entire region.
Unless the Russians abandoned all of good Soviet military doctrine (which is quite possible since they’re so virulently anti-communist), that is the furthest from the truth possible.
The Soviet military doctrine has been Deep Operation since the founding of the nation, where there is no single hard battlefront, instead keeping the combat line deep and flexible. Unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the operational paradigm for the Russian military remains the same.
If there’s a “combat line” then there’s another side to that line.
It’s not exactly a line. It’s miles and miles of defensive fortifications, entrenchments, units, and supply lines in a myriad configurations. There’s no breaking through it in a traditional sense. Like I said earlier, the entire doctrine of warfare is different, like how the US armed forces doctrine is based on aerial support.
Ok, a thick line. Haven’t you seen the map?
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. How is that a line to break through? It’s a mesh of defensive fortifications miles deep.
I’m not seeing a “mesh” on that map. I’m seeing a line. There’s a speckling of fortifications deeper in, but a military that has broken through that line isn’t going to have much trouble with a speckling. That’s the “gooey center” I was talking about. The main strength is concentrated along the line.
Your own map shows fortifications all over the theater. Yes, there’s more concentrated towards the front naturally. Are you talking about that?
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. That’s the thick crust of defensive lines. Once you’re through that it becomes easier to move.
The whole point here is that people are complaining that the offensive is “moving slowly” and I’m pointing out that of course it’s moving slowly, it has to get through the most heavily defended regions first. Once it’s done that it’ll move more quickly.
Yes, exactly. The soviet defensive doctrine is partially inefficient because they wanted the entire operational area to be hardened without a specific weak point to exploit or breakthrough. The offensive army is forced to Trudge 😉 through the entire region.