Bernd
03/05/2023 (Sun) 12:09
No.49912
del
03/05/2023 (Sun) 12:09
No.49912
del
Still exploring this bloke's videos, I want to exfoliate my onions about one particular point he makes here.
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=b7WmubuUEjQ
https://youtube.com/watch?v=b7WmubuUEjQ [Embed]
Title:
7 Lessons NATO should learn from Ukraine war - He also introduces it as "7 Biggest Myth of the Ukrainian War".
Here I list them, because all interesting. Don't forget these are the false preconceptions they had, and how the war should change the perception of these.
1. The Tank is outdated on the battlefield (if tanks are useless why Ukraine requested for MOAR????)
2. Bayraktar TB2 is an invincible weapon (it's just cheap, easy to employ, maintain, use, it's a quick fix, but quite a few important drawbacks)
3. Battalion Tactical Groups are the best military structure (they lack infantry, and when this taken out, they fail quickly)
4. Special Forces will turn the tide of a war (hard to make them, limited use, when no special missions, they are used as normal infantry roles where they die fast - or just sit idly)
5. Close Air Support dominates the battlefield (only if you have complete air superiority, and against groups with no AA, otherwise it's the cheaper artillery)
6. Tactics over Strategy (concentrating on small unit tactics is only good against insurgents, in real wars the emphasis is on large scale operations with many components, no time to micromanage)
7. The Future belongs to compact professional armies (against insurgents, in real wars they die fast, and what you have is incompetent fresh recruits)
#3 I want to refer to.
For me BTGs feel liek Panzerkeils of WWII, when Germans concentrated armored units into battle groups which were used to throw into places that needed a counter-push to stop the Soviet advance, so the frontline can be stabilized. The size and composition of these armoured kampfgruppes could vary a lot depending on the time and situation, and in most cases they were far from an ideal. They did not have lots of covering infantry, but the front consisted of infantry so they were readily available at the places where these battle groups were sent. So if situation would be similar, a continuous infantry unit line, then BTGs can be moved to places where superior firepower and mobility is needed - as long as there is no long distance advances.
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=b7WmubuUEjQ
https://youtube.com/watch?v=b7WmubuUEjQ [Embed]
Title:
7 Lessons NATO should learn from Ukraine war - He also introduces it as "7 Biggest Myth of the Ukrainian War".
Here I list them, because all interesting. Don't forget these are the false preconceptions they had, and how the war should change the perception of these.
1. The Tank is outdated on the battlefield (if tanks are useless why Ukraine requested for MOAR????)
2. Bayraktar TB2 is an invincible weapon (it's just cheap, easy to employ, maintain, use, it's a quick fix, but quite a few important drawbacks)
3. Battalion Tactical Groups are the best military structure (they lack infantry, and when this taken out, they fail quickly)
4. Special Forces will turn the tide of a war (hard to make them, limited use, when no special missions, they are used as normal infantry roles where they die fast - or just sit idly)
5. Close Air Support dominates the battlefield (only if you have complete air superiority, and against groups with no AA, otherwise it's the cheaper artillery)
6. Tactics over Strategy (concentrating on small unit tactics is only good against insurgents, in real wars the emphasis is on large scale operations with many components, no time to micromanage)
7. The Future belongs to compact professional armies (against insurgents, in real wars they die fast, and what you have is incompetent fresh recruits)
#3 I want to refer to.
For me BTGs feel liek Panzerkeils of WWII, when Germans concentrated armored units into battle groups which were used to throw into places that needed a counter-push to stop the Soviet advance, so the frontline can be stabilized. The size and composition of these armoured kampfgruppes could vary a lot depending on the time and situation, and in most cases they were far from an ideal. They did not have lots of covering infantry, but the front consisted of infantry so they were readily available at the places where these battle groups were sent. So if situation would be similar, a continuous infantry unit line, then BTGs can be moved to places where superior firepower and mobility is needed - as long as there is no long distance advances.