"Mythys" Topic

In the current Ukraine war much is made of the fact that the Russians are held to the roads and if the ground was better they would do better. Wide sweeping movements off road seems to be a myth that never dies and the gains are not easily understood by me.

In mobile warfare there is little time to dig in its all about time and space. If an aggressor decides to go "off road" and can what are his gains/

1) The theory is he can outflank the enemy. If the enemy is immobile that may be the case. However even now looking at Ukraine around the area of Torśke, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine noted as an area of fighting on April 20th

link

Its not clear terrain, so any sweeping move will be slow 12 to 14kph (a bit less then 10 mph) as opposed to a road move of say twice that at least and it may be less if there are significant obstacles like streams or soft ground. As both sides are slowed down seems to me the defender has the edge as in a large area he can disperse and the enemy has to disperse to follow losing momentum and cohesion.

Second after a few hours the attacker will need to re-arm. His supply's will also need to be off road so will be slower or can provide less with the same trucks. Attackers supply needs will be higher than a defenders so again it looks no disadvantage for the defender to have a wider area to deploy.

I welcome a critique of these statements as to why they are incorrect.

PS does anybody have data on the intravisibility ( The military term is intervisibility (IV) line. These are relatively minor and often very subtle variations in terrain that mask observation from one side to another. On one side of the line you cannot see, or be seen by, the other.) for Ukraine in the area. I have assumed that of Norther Europe so Javelins will normally be within range if it can see a target, so distance shooting off road would seem to be unaffected.

This is all key stuff if you want a plausible tabletop simulation.

More of the ability to move off road is that it is less likely to know the avenue of approach. Wider approach, more places to be watching

Less chance of running into IEDs, ambushes, pre-plotted artillery (which might not be a big deal anymore), etc.

saber6 that is a valid point
Stryderg, interesting the IED bit make a valid point. something not mentioned in Ukraine so much as Afganistan for reasons that are not immediately apparent.

I agree on the artillery side. We (Authors of Maneouvre group) were talking about artillery post a game last night. With modern forces increasingly being so mobile and dispersed at the front, large scale pre-planned fire looks less practical, even in trenches far less dense targets so very large areas of fire required to hit relatively few targets.

US Army has trained for off road movement since the development of the atomic bomb. Being in once place bunched up is a good atomic target.

US vehicles, trucks and logistics vehicles of all types, are off road vehicles. Moving down a road at high speed is fine once you break the thin crust of an enemy defender. Look at the Iraq War with the US Army doing a "thunder run" straight down the road into Baghdad.

But also look at the wide circling movement the "hail Mary" play of tanks that flanked the Iraqi army in the middle of the desert.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Bunkermeister true, it may be that having air superiority is a key factor, wide slow sweeps work if the enemy can't interdict your sweep and can also limit the enemy's ability to re-deploy. I guess Ukraine is unique recently, as the forces are not too dissimilar, Ukraine having a bit of a technology edge in places) but smaller but neither having anything like air superiority. Perhaps the Marines with there strategy from the AV8 B onward was right, local air superiority may be all you can get most of the time in the future.

It doesn't even have to be a wide sweeping off road through muddy farm fields across stream swollen with melting snow. I have rewatched an ambush of a Russian column in a town that was posted on TMP.

link

Some thoughts…

1. No reconnaissance of town appears to have taken place before committing the column to drive through it. You might not discover infantry hidden in buildings but there is no way that tank was going to hide. Maybe have some recon dismounts trip the ambush in advance.

2. Instead of driving around the town and getting back on the road they drive right up the middle of main street. When I say drive around, I mean take your column and drive around the outer edge of town to the left or right, then you get back on the road once you by passed it. Don't drive through a potential kill zone. (A soldiers sixth sense should have kicked in with the heebie jeebies as soon as they saw the kill zone. In other words, a healthy dose of paranoia)

3. At the end of the video they are still on the road getting shelled by artillery. There is no dispersion of the column they just stay on the road.

Granted what I am talking about is more of a tactical issue instead of a grand sweeping off road strategic envelopment. The Russians appear to be road bound in everything they do. In the Russian's defense I hear the northern part of Ukraine is mostly swamps and bogs.

"US Army doing a "thunder run" straight down the road into Baghdad"

That was possible only because the Iraqis had obsolete equipment, were inept and had poor morale. A peer adversary would have never let that happen.