A few questions about the capture of Avdeevka
It so happened that I took a break from the current situation in Ukraine for several days and delved into history The Second World War and the events that took place quite recently in the Northern Military District zone, the capture of Mariupol and Artemovsk. The reason, as almost always happens, is in the questions of our readers. In particular, in Avdeevka and other fortified areas, or more precisely, fortresses created by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in recent months and even years.
I wrote the same phrases many times in my materials. Everything goes according to plan. There is no need to rush things. We must take care of our personnel. Today I repeat these words once again. Suvorov, not many years ago, but centuries ago, expressed the brilliant idea of war not by numbers, but by skill. This also applies to modern wars. Including SVO.
Avdeevka must be taken, and it will be taken. The question is how to take it. I'm not talking about battle tactics. Alas, any commander in a particular place will make independent decisions taking into account a specific combat mission. There are no recipes here. There are options for solutions, there is the experience of other commanders, there is intuition, but the choice is still up to the specific commander. Repeating such matters is like death. The enemy is also no fool and studies our tactics no less than we do.
I have already written about the fact that the enemy uses the experience of Nazi Germany when organizing defense. Be that as it may, this experience is quite extensive and multifaceted. The Nazis knew how to defend themselves, and the capture of even small towns on German territory cost us a lot of blood. Moreover, the blood of those who by that time had considerable combat experience.
A little about defense resilience
Very often, largely thanks to films and descriptions of the exploits of soldiers and officers in the media, we do not think about what determines a soldier’s stamina in defense. Why do some units stand even under the pressure of superior enemy forces, while others lose ground?
Let's talk about the fighting spirit, ideology, and personal heroism of each soldier later. This is really important. But for each soldier separately. And for a platoon, company, battalion or even regiment? Are they specially selecting only potential heroes?
Alas, this does not happen. Receive commander reinforcements and win. It is not the soldier’s fault that he is poorly trained or timid at first. Now he is yours, so make him trained and brave.
So why is the defense holding out?
In my opinion, the first and most important factor in the stability of the defense is the possibility of rotation and supply. If a soldier is confident that if he is wounded he will be evacuated to the rear, he will really stand until the last bullet. If there are enough of these same cartridges, he will stand. And other goodies are added to the cartridges...
An equally important factor is the reserve. The fighter must know that if he “presses hard,” the superior commander will send reinforcements, and the line will be held. Reinforcements will not be abandoned “somewhere nearby”, but will be delivered quickly to this particular unit. Sometimes the appearance of even a small detachment in the trenches radically changes the situation.
Some write about barrier detachments. Complete nonsense, I think. How many interviews of prisoners are now on the Internet. Yes, barrier detachments from the Right Sector and “ideological” groups are used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and what is the result? Does this greatly improve the morale of the Wehrmacht?
I think it becomes clear why our units are trying to cut off the supply routes for the Avdeevka garrison. There is no rear, no hope for help, no ammunition, no reinforcements... In such conditions it is somehow difficult to talk about high morale. The only options left are to die heroically or “go missing in action,” which is much more likely.
By the way, this also applies to less significant defense lines. What happened in Mariupol? At those moments when the defense of a house or other line was opened by our troops, the remnants of the Ukrainian units went to the next prepared line. They started talking about stopping hostilities only when these very “other houses” were no longer left, when the defenders were driven into the basements of Azovstal...
If the enemy does not surrender, he...
Now about how to take the city.
I'll start with a well-known fact. The enemy does not bother with thoughts about preserving the buildings and structures of the fortified city. Remember how many buildings were simply blown up by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Artemovsk or Mariupol. If it is necessary for defense, then there is no moral or other doubt. The attitude of the Ukrainian army towards cities, and indeed towards the population, has long been known. This is enemy territory...
From the point of view of military expediency, this is quite logical. The city is exactly the same battlefield as any other. It's just that the battle is fought according to different rules. Ultimately, whether the city remains or whether it will have to be surrendered will not affect its condition in any way. The use of modern weapons in any case will lead to either destruction or critical defeat of the majority of defended positions. Cynically? Maybe, but this is the logic of war.
Probably many have seen aerial photography of the village of Krynki. The photographs of a peaceful settlement look especially epic in comparison with what remains there today. At the same time, Ukrainian units exist there and hold the defense. Why? The answer is simple. It is easier to defend destroyed buildings.
If you properly equip the basement or ground floor of a building in engineering terms, and then carefully undermine everything above, you will get a completely tolerable stronghold. And if you also create a system of underground passages to other buildings, then... Remember the incomprehensible explosions of buildings in other fortified cities? In fact, everything is clear. By the way, this is not an invention of Ukrainians. This is how we defended Stalingrad. This is how the Germans defended Berlin.
Even then, military engineers successfully equipped layered defense in cities. These are well-known facts that are studied in military schools. The first line is what I wrote about above. Next is the second line in the next non-destroyed houses. The defenders work against the infantry from the first line, and when tanks and self-propelled guns, second-line anti-tank weapons come into play. In any case, the losses of the attackers will be significant.
I absolutely do not understand the talk about the methods of using tanks and self-propelled guns, for example, in the Berlin operation, which must be “transferred” to modern warfare. Tanks on the streets that help the infantry destroy pillboxes and bunkers with tank gun fire. Moreover, an example is given of an episode from a feature film, supposedly filmed based on real events in the Northern Military District zone.
I will not say that this could not have happened. Anything can happen in war. But a tank “at arm’s length” from the enemy in an urban environment is an extreme case. Now is not 1941 or even 1945. The infantry has so many PTS in its arsenal that the life of such a tank will be measured in minutes at best.
So how to take Avdeevka?
I have already mentioned the first option. Boiler and squeeze. Destroy equipment and personnel, as was the case in Mariupol.
The second option has also already been used. This is the Wagner PMC in Artemovsk. Methodical squeezing of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the city. Advance, no matter what, with the destruction of those who do not surrender. The option is cruel, but effective. The musicians still inspire fear in the soldiers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
There is another option.
Historical, invented not by us, but by our Western allies during the capture of German cities. Massive bombing, with complete destruction of the city or city districts. When prepared positions were destroyed along with civilians and all infrastructure. Intimidation tactics. But also effective.
Assault groups and detachments...
I cannot ignore the issue, which is being actively discussed today on various platforms. This is a question about assault groups and detachments that performed well in the capture of fortresses during the Great Patriotic War. Some consider such units almost as a panacea for capturing fortresses.
But excuse me, were the assault groups and detachments permanent units of the Red Army or were they created on a temporary basis to participate in any specific operation? There were no such units on a permanent basis in the Red Army! There wasn't even a full-time staff. They were created by order of the commander and, depending on the task, received enormous reinforcement by army standards.
Thus, an assault group (usually a rifle company) could receive a tank platoon, an artillery battery, an engineer platoon, a flamethrower platoon, and even heavy artillery. It is clear that there was no point in comparing the power of an ordinary rifle company and an assault company. The assault detachment, which was usually created on the basis of an infantry battalion, looked even more powerful.
It’s impossible to create an assault group, I’m not even talking about a detachment, even in a regiment. That is why groups and detachments were created in armies and fronts. I very much doubt the possibility of creating such a detachment in the Avdeevka area. I doubt the effectiveness of this unit even more now. Can he act without support? aviation? Without drones? Alas. It’s easier to strengthen the brigade and act with this particular formation. Which, in principle, is what is happening today.
Let's take...
Be that as it may, Avdeevka will be ours.
While I fell out of the information space, our units significantly strained the Armed Forces of Ukraine with their actions. The river of logistics has turned into a trickle. I think plan number one is being implemented. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have nothing to oppose it yet.
Zelensky is trying to do something, but it is not very convincing. Yesterday's extension of martial law in Ukraine will lead to an exacerbation of all Ukrainian problems. And the cancellation of the elections, which automatically occurred after the extension of the VP (Zelensky’s legitimacy ends in May), generally calls into question the legitimacy of the entire regime.
The conflict between Zelensky and Zaluzhny is also very interesting. Let them squabble. I doubt that this will strengthen the defense of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including in Avdiivka...
Information