"How Russia's warfare doctrine is failing in Ukraine" Topic

Interesting article discussing how Russia's doctrine of massed long-range fire is failing in Ukraine. For example, Russia has not taken total air superiority and Ukraine's outnumbered air force continues to fly. And, despite the utter devastation of Mariupol by artillery, air and missile
strikes on a scale not seen in Europe since WW2, the city remains contested -- a brutal mini "Stalingrad" campaign that has bogged down the Russian advance.

Russia's military doctrine does not call for using its airpower apparatus to quickly take total control over enemy airspace, nor does it even call for the rapid elimination of enemy air defenses. This speaks to Russia's lack of dedicated suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) platforms like America's specialized Wild Weasel F-16s. Russian jets can and do employ anti-radiation missiles to engage air defense systems, for instance, but it's not a job that any Russian pilot or aircraft specializes in or frequently trains specifically for.

Instead, Russia places a heavy emphasis on long-range fires, with the use of their own integrated air defense systems even prioritized over tasking aircraft with dominating the airspace above their forces.

Russia's approach to warfare calls for using advanced air defense systems to mitigate the effectiveness of enemy air defenses and aircraft alike, all while using a high volume of artillery, rocket, and missile fire to gain and leverage fire superiority. Aircraft support ground forces to these ends, rather than serving as the primary means of taking control over the battlespace. If airpower serves as the backbone of America's military doctrine, large tank units and artillery serve as the backbone of Russia's.

link

From the little I read on Grozny the Russians don't want to fight in cities since the 70s. Doubtful anyone wants to but without MOUT training they'd be at a disadvantage trying to do it.

If airpower serves as the backbone of America's military doctrine, large tank units and artillery serve as the backbone of Russia's.

One doctrine is completely prepared to fight World War 2 in Europe.

The article seems like a fair assessment of Russian army doctrinal failings in Ukraine.

However, some of the quotes about US military power scare me/irritate me. From the article:

> "In the stabilize and enabling civil authorities phases, airpower is once again relied on for everything from reconnaissance to providing armed support to help legitimize the new sitting government."

See, this is the kind of assertion which makes the rest of the world fear the US. First, it describes an exercise of "regime change" by power. Second, does anyone really think armed support can "legitimize" a sitting government? (My guess is that Putin really thinks this, but does the West really want to emulate his thought?)

They are proving that massive artillery attacks are very effective at obliterating whole cities.

Again, they don't fight combined arms very well. With limited capabilities to provide Log support.

Russia's doctrine of massed long-range fire is failing in Ukraine.

They always favored the use of FA. But have not achieved air superiority even over Ukraine. And SEAD is required to gain air superiority if only in limited areas. Where the battles will be fought, etc.

FA, missiles and CAS cannot really "win" on it's own. It's part of the combined arms team. And is most effectively used in concert with Infantry, Tanks, etc.

I think Russia is stuck fighting the last war in many ways.

I will stick my neck out and claim that Russians cannot fight wars. Their doctrines does not work, they are not seriously thought through.

NATO knows about the lethality of air defense, therefore NATO strike packages include all kinds of support aircrafts. Russia does not, for reasons unknown, understand its lethality.

Strike aircraft are supposed to support frontline troops by braving enemy fire…

That would cost them dearly in a conflict with NATO. Aircraft are so expensive and (relatively) few that you have to protect them at almost any cost.

You cannot use it as an "fire and forget about it" asset.

The idea that you defeat the enemy by destroying his combat units are a bit outdated. Destroying supplies and trucks are a much more effective way of slowing down or stopping an enemy advance. No fuel trucks and the advance will stop.

Of course you need to kill tanks also but aircraft strikes are more effective against supply columns than over the frontline.

"Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics."

Yes we learned that at Officers' Training, etc.

Apparently Putin and his cronies never got that far. Maybe all they did was play tactical wargames.

Yes … that would be good take away. And looks like they were not very good at tactics as well.

soledad + 1

Armchair observation only but Russia doctrine seems to be a patchwork quilt. Their use of airpower and massed artillery is Soviet era, but the newer BTGs seem to have been built around some very particular premises, and the elements don't seem mesh. Do they still have the Divisional/Brigade assets which the older Soviet-style doctrines would seem to rest on or have they all been siphoned away into the BTGs, which don't seem to cooperate well? BTGs clearly impress against sub-par troops for managing those 'frozen conflicts' Putin likes to perpetuate, but they clearly have their limitations when it comes to war fighting. The article below quotes an estimate of 20 of the 120 deployed BTGs being broken.

link