Against Considerable Odds

Colonels and generals are expected to fight moving, active battles, always seeking an advantage from the use of terrain, surprise and mobility.
Generals are expected to concentrate defending forces in front of the main thrusts of the enemy so that the fighting troops do not have to meet a greater ratio of strength against them than three or four to one.
…
The captains and their troops have learned that modern weapons in the defense can and should inflict losses on an attacker, in comparison to their own, of well over three to one.  They have learned, in short, that a successful defense against considerable odds is possible.
—    General Sir John Hackett (Ret.)
From his book:  “The Third World War:  A Future History“
The book was “written” by General Hackett and “others” and purported to be a “future history” of a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.  The “war” ends following a limited tactical nuclear exchange which leads to a revolution in Russia.
[With the delays in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, much has been said about the failure to overwhelm the militarily over-matched defenders.
Ukraine vs Russia (In Theater) Armed Forces 200,000 850,000 200,000 Fighter Aircraft 69 772 193 Attack Aircraft 29 739 185 Helicopters 112 1,543 386 Attack Helicopters 34 544 136 Tanks 2,596 12,420 3,105 Personnel Carriers 12,303 30,122 7,531 Self-Propelled Artillery 1,067 6,574 1,644 Towed Artillery 2,040 7,571 1,893 Mobile Rocket Launchers 490 3,391 848
What isn’t clear to me is how many of Russia’s forces are actually “in theater” and committed to the invasion.  The numbers I’ve seen indicate approximately “200,000” Russians were gathered for the invasion.  This is (again approximately) 25% of Russia’s forces.  If we assume a similar ratio across the board for other assets, the numbers are far less indicative of an assured success for the invasion.
In military theory, it is almost a given that the attacker needs a six-to-one superiority in order to have a reasonable “guarantee” of success against a prepared defense.  (This is why you concentrate forces at breakout / breakthrough points.)  Three-to-one superiority is considered the bare minimum to have a reasonable “expectation” of success.
Based on the above numbers, the “only” Russian advantage is in attack aircraft (29 vs 185).  This is an even greater advantage than just the numbers indicate as attack aircraft serve as force multipliers for both your tanks and your ground forces.
IMHO this invasion will succeed or fail based on three factors:  logistics, will and geography.  If the Russian forces can maintain their supply of fuel and ammunition, they will have the advantage in a war of attrition.  If Ukraine can maintain their will to fight in the face of both heavy civilian losses and questionable munitions resupply from other countries, they will make the war / occupation unsustainable for Russia.  Finally, we should recall Russia invaded and then dominated Afghanistan for almost twenty years before finally being driven out.  Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas.  Texas is only about 10-15% larger than Ukraine.  There is a vast amount of land to hide in and fight from IF you have the will to do so.  So far, the Ukraine people have shown the will…
Of course, all of this assumes Russia does not choose a tactical nuclear option…    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2023	Webs
2022	Against Considerable Odds
2021	Only 10
	Just A Hopeless Case (Can’t Get Used To Losing You)
2020	What We Know About Ourselves
2019	But It Feels Dirtier Lately
2018	I Remember Some More Than Others
2017	Creating Reality
2016	Come, Read To Me Some Poem
2015	Exceeding Service
2014	Still Learning
	Hospitality
2013	Execution Not Intensity
2012	Charles Carroll Of Carrollton (The Only Catholic Founder)
2011	Life Works
	Pay Like Hell
	Prosperity Finds Its Way Up

Read Full Post »