Bakhmut vs World War 1 - Similarities & Differences

There have been a lot of comparisons between the fighting in Bakhmut and the trench warfare of World War 1 recently, hence I thought I would ask an officer and World War 1 historian about his opinion on this matter. In this video Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Tom Simoens from the Royal Military Academy in Brussels will provide us with his insights. Be aware that the views expressed in this interview don’t represent the views of the Belgian Armed Forces.
If you are interested in his work, be sure to check out his article about Combined Arms in the Defence Horizon Journal, which is linked in the description.
Check out his article: www.thedefencehorizon.org/pos...
Follow Dr. Simoeons here: / tomsimoens137
French soldiers photographed in their trench, Bain News Service, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Sgt. 1st Class Walter Van Ochten, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Cover support vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
www.thedefencehorizon.org/pos...
• Artillery Combat in Wo...
00:00 Intro
09:57: Vertical vs Linear Tactics
16:20 Force Density
19:25 Artillery Combat
26:19 Counter-Battery
#underestimated #russianarmedforces #russia

[@sikorsky5815]

The war is FAR more similar to how the Iran-Iraq War was. Both sides had semi-well equipped militaries with mass artillery usage, light aviation usage and more or less, modern trench warfare.

[@sikorsky5815]

I am surprised nobody mentioned this conflict despite the massive size of it, very interesting and brutal stuff

[@topperis1501]

@@sikorsky5815 hope the chemical weapons doesnt get involved as in Iran-Iraq war

[@sikorsky5815]

@@topperis1501 That is something I have actually heard about. Reports from Mariupol claim usage of chemical weapons against targets during the siege, although I don't really know if these are true.

[@topperis1501]

@@sikorsky5815 well riot control chemical agents are likely to have been used, dont know if conventions apply to these

[@uwesca6263]

​@@sikorsky5815 as far as i heard (rumors!) It was teargas and not something like mustard gas or similar.

[@winj3r]

After the end of WW1, the German army conducted a study about the war, and concluded that the stalemate of the western front was an exception. In the eastern front, despite also having some trenches, it was still a war of mobility. And of course, when WW2 came along, they were proven right.

[@vandeheyeric]

They weren't proven nearly as right as they thought, and indeed it even showed. Literally everybody was surprised how quickly the West collapsed in 1940 (one of the great upsets in world history and easily one of the most tragic), and positional fighting had been prevalent in the Spanish Civil War, Chinese Wars, and others. The Germans also ran into it in the Balkans and Greece at various points. There's a reason why positional fighting has been so prevalent throughout the millennia, and woe to those who undercount it.

[@Captainkebbles1392]

The German army in ww1 WANTED the Western front to be held with minimal forces until the war in the east was won so this either is false or a self praising study done to praise themselves

[@LOL-zu1zr]

@@vandeheyeric Chinese civil war was most definitely a war of mobility. Communists were very heavy on the concept of mobile warfare. The nationalists invested heavily to motorized and mechanized forces, but was too incompetent to carry out complex maneuvers.

[@vandeheyeric]

@@LOL-zu1zr "Chinese civil war was most definitely a war of mobility. Communists were very heavy on the concept of mobile warfare. The nationalists invested heavily to motorized and mechanized forces, but was too incompetent to carry out complex maneuvers. " Sure, but this was in large part as a direct response (especially on the Communist side) to the crushing failures they had in positional warfare, such as with the KMT's encirclement and annihilation operations in the 1920s and early 1930s, which unsurprisingly played into all the nationalist strengths. And even after Japan's defeat you still saw periodic revisions to positional and trench warfare, albeit they tended not to last long.

[@davidwhittington7638]

Although, both wars were a mistake.. For them...

[@roadhouse6999]

2:40 I don't know about other NATO countries, but in the U.S., a big part of my training as an infantry officer was clearing out trenches and attacking bunkers.

[@munchingfoo]

Same with the UK. We love a bayonet charge in training.

[@Matamoros212]

German here. We did alot of ground work too. But that was 30 years ago... Good times

[@vextronx]

@@munchingfoo Really? Bayonet charges are still a thing? That's new for me.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

​​@@vextronx still pretty common to carry out in the british army, they worked especially well against untrained insurgents and conscripts in the falklands. Look up a few famous recent british bayonet charges in the falklands and afghanistan on youtube, some of them are covered well.

[@vextronx]

@@Ukraineaissance2014 Thank you!

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Expenditure of ammunition, especially artillery shells, is 10 times bigger, while troop density, and human losses are 10 times smaller. What is now called "human wave attack" would be small probing attack in WWI. Number of landmines is probably exponentially higher so much that is easier progressing through town then through field. Mechanization use is far bigger, not only weapons but also trench digging equipment. So, killing soldier is much harder but one squad with RPG and automatic weapons can make far more damage on attackers then whole company in WWI.

[@Paciat]

The main difference is the lack of radio. The only way WWI commanders could coordinate attacking troops was by pre-planning everything according to time. Thats why KIA ratio favored defenders (with telephones and railroads) greatly.

[@michimatsch5862]

Not really. Most phone lines were usually destroyed by the preliminary bombardment.

[@Getoffmycloud53]

…human waves, mostly propaganda

[@Paciat]

@@michimatsch5862 Thats why phone lines were laid like a ladder. Destroy one link and it still works. And with trench lines up to 15 km deep you didnt have the gun range to reach rear positions. Thats why attacks didnt go further than artillery range (witch was placed a few km away from no mans land itself).

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

expenditure of ammunition is not higher than in WW1. Peak days of artillery use come close to the average line of WW1, while the average of artillery rounds used per day is lower than WW1. yes, they use alot. but not every day russia bombards ukraine with 50.000 rounds, that are only peak days, the average is around 5000-8000 rounds per day in total, average for WW1 is around 9.500 rounds per day.

[@alatamore]

I’m laughing to myself because when I saw those headlines about the comparison to WW1, I immediately thought that I hope MHV does a video on this topic. As always, I appreciate your content, use of experts and linking sources. Thank you!

[@vanq86]

To the point of there being more artillery / infantry cooperation in WW1, it's important to keep in mind the rolling barrage and strategies like it were basically a necessity at the time. Nowadays infantry have a lot more firepower at their dosposal in the form of man-portable grenade launchers, rocket and missile launchers, mortars, etc.. There isn't as much for a need anymore to announce where your attack is taking place with an extended area barrage, as troops on the ground generally have the tools needed to deal with the obstacles they run into, especially when they're supported by drones that give them a top-down view of the battlefield to aid in their maneuvering and preparations.

[@wol06fi89]

Also with drones the artillery can spot for themselves and are basically independent from the infantry. Close integration and communication with the infantry is no longer necessary

[@mariahaselnuss3826]

And both sides use tanks mostly as assault guns!

[@edwardblair4096]

Don't WW1 style rolling barrages impose a kind of fixed pre-planed nature to the battle? Start fire at 500 yards at time X. Fire Y minutes at that range and then advance fire by Z yards every XX minutes. There us little room to adjust for an infantry unit that wasn't ready to start off in time, or for pockets of unexpected strength in the enemy position. This seems to me to be the opposite of the more flexible battle planning of NATO.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@edwardblair4096 "There us little room to adjust for an infantry unit that wasn't ready to start off in time, or for pockets of unexpected strength in the enemy position. This seems to me to be the opposite of the more flexible battle planning of NATO." You should probably read up again. Rolling artillery barrages were used because they were EFFECTIVE. The Germans were better at trenchwarfare in large part simply because they held far more of their troops further behind the lines in reserve, because they were well aware that troops that were hit by a rolling barrage were generally either dead or mostly unfit for combat for the next several weeks or months. Unless they were in DEEP cover. As in, completely incapable of fighting back. If troops advanced close enough behind the rolling barrage, there wasn't any "unexpected strength in the enemy position" because the defenses were either destroyed or unmanned. But the moment the advancing troops outran their artillery support, that's when they could be counterattacked by the enemy reserves, often VERY effectively, because THEIR artillery already had all their own positions presighted. So, the Entente generally took massive losses both to central alliance attacks and even worse to counter attacks. And it is for the same reason that Russian troops when they advance, they either fall back again, or they advance to SECOND or even THIRD line of Ukraine trenches, because the first line is always trapped and artillery presighted. "This seems to me to be the opposite of the more flexible battle planning of NATO." *lol* Any Russian officer who came up with so rigid planning as is normal in Nato would be kicked out of the Russian military for incompetence. Nato military planning tends to be completely reliant on having overwhelming advantage in forces and ticking off chronically linear goals, to make sure it looks good on powerpoint presentations. And then having individual lowlevel units improvise when something inevitably happens that the commanders didn't plan for. This generally causes only the occasional disaster as long as the above mentioned "overwhelming advantage" holds true. Russian, and to a large extent Soviet planning before that, relies on a deeply nestled set of options, with alternate and backup plans for pretty much every occasion. USSR took the art of war and made it into a science. While it still remains mostly an art in the field, the science part that was developed by USSR and improved on by Russia greatly assists in making their warfare more capable. Could Nato forces have assaulted the biggest set of fortifications since the Maginot line, with a 1 to 3 numerical disadvantage against a nearpeer opponent? And without ANY preparatory buildup or airwar. NOT A CHANCE! It would be a disaster. In fact, there was that leaked PM from Nato just recently, where Nato generals estimated that to have ANY chance of intervening successfully in Ukraine, even just only facing the forces Russia has deployed there, Nato would need THREE MILLION TROOPS. Triple what was used against Iraq. And that would only be enough if Russia did not move more forces to counter. And Nato does not HAVE 3 million troops.

[@marxel4444]

Infantery also dont has to rely on other means to stop "armoured" vehicles or planes compared to ww1 and ww2. They have reliable anti tank wappons that are not your big and heavy antit ank guns or aa guns (like the pack 40 / Flak 88) but Stingers and Javelins. Infantery basicly isnt as helpless anymore against other threads then before

[@tylerclayton6081]

It’s not just Bakhmut, most of the front line is just trench warfare with offensives happening in small sections of the front line like in Avdivka, Vulhedar, Kremina, Svatove and Bakhmut. Both sides go back and forth trading very small amounts of territory This is only because both sides are evenly matched on the ground and neither side can gain air superiority

[@hendrikvanleeuwen9110]

Also aerial and space surveillance makes it very difficult to mass forces for a breakthrough style attack.

[@toddfromwork8931]

@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 Yeah, infantry sneak attacks are very difficult now. It seems like the war can be boiled down to winning through outright attrition, just firing artillery at stand off range until the opponent's men or materiel is depleted.

[@hendrikvanleeuwen9110]

@@toddfromwork8931 yeah, as a rule of thumb the side that fires the most artillery wins. True in every war except Vietnam and Afghanistan (probably another couple of examples out there). There is one account by an American on the Willie OAM channel. His combat experience was getting the shit shelled out of them, twice without actually seeing any Russians. Whole unit devistated* both times. I am sure that goes both ways. Pretty grim. (*Ed)

[@phunkracy]

Its mostly because the massive jump artillery amd recon made lately. UAV+howitzer is just an unbeatable combo. Even an old ww2 gun can suddenly be dead accurate

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"and neither side can gain air superiority" How exactly do you mean that works, when Russia is flying 100-400 air missions per day, nowadays usually without taking any losses at all, while Ukraine ATTEMPTS and mostly FAILS to fly 0-5 air missions per day ever since last May, and generally loses half the planes involved in any attempts. One side destroys the other whenever they attempt air attacks while conducing massive amount of airstrikes of their own, the other side is lucky if they're able to conduct a single airstrike in a day and most of their remaining airforce is constantly under repairs after getting missionkilled. "Both sides go back and forth trading very small amounts of territory" If you think that, you really haven't been paying attention. Russian advances specifically aim primarily to establish combat contact so that they can start shelling their targets accurately, or trying to gain better positions to do so from, WITHOUT taking large casualties. While Ukraine is fighting a propaganda war where the only thing that matters is to make it look like they're holding or taking ground. No matter how many casualties they take because of that. When the CONSERVATIVE estimate of the killratio in Russian advantage is over 10 to 1, then it's pretty damn obvious what's happening. "It’s not just Bakhmut" No, but as was recently "leaked" from Russia, the first thing Surovikin did upon taking over command was to select Bakhmut as THE killzone. And many months later? Tens of thousands of dead Ukrainian troops there, while Russian losses have mostly been marginal. And even AFTER that little fact leaked, apparently because Russia was seeing the end of Bakhmut's usefulness as a killground coming, even despite that, Ukraine keeps sending cannonfodder into the grinder. But the very fact that in the 2 weeks after that leaked, Russia has taken more of Bakhmut than it took 20 weeks before that, SHOULD very much tell you what is going on.

[@Mediumdave1983]

Always nice to hear a genuine expert talking articulately about their subject area! Thanks! :)

[@jimiorezzoli]

So insightful, thank you both!

[@bradleyl3]

I found this very interesting. Thanks!

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

You learned it! Its Bahmut. Liked.

[@sapperjaeger]

This is outstanding!!!

[@marxel4444]

WW1 trench warfare is like a football match. Sure, its so easy to just score a goal in theory is the other side just..sits there and does nothing. But you fight constantly,try to outmaneuver, outflank the other side and the other side does the same. Equaly good matched teams / armys will do their best to counteract every advantage the other side tries to gain and when the action actually kicks off because the stalemate is broken it gets VERY CHAOTIC VERY FAST

[@davidwhittington7638]

Yes, but modern warfare is more like a chess board.. It takes a smart mind to understand and control combined warfare. Any mentally unhinged psychopath can use human wave tactics, and if you look around the world, the most barbaric countries like Iran, Russia, China and North Korea still do..

[@martinsmith9054]

An excellent chat. Thank you for covering these points. I feel that whatever side includes a training period for their infantry that covers old fashioned basics like scouting, camouflage, infiltration, skirmishing, trench fighting, and basic engineering tasks with or without modern technology will be in a better position. Infantry trained like this can do a lot just with small arms and crew served man portable weapons. Of course they would need mechanised and armored support but you need good infantry as a base it seems.

[@antoinelachapelle3405]

Yup, the infantry is the backbone of any army and the only one that can operate with some degree of efficiency entirely on its own.

[@just_a_turtle_chad]

The difference is that Russia is using modern tactical shovels.

[@usun_politics1033]

Good thing ghosts of Ukrainian cities are repelling those attacks.

[@casedecker]

you just believe anything theyll tell you. Get this, the banking system is safe and stable too 🫵🤣

[@seegurke93]

Finally good video quality of you :D Thanks for not having the 1970s pixel art webcam anymore!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Nothing changed in the setup. Guess it was just the lighting.

[@toddfromwork8931]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized You've got camera gremlins 🤪

[@Sightbain.]

My personal opinion on why everyone refers to WW1 is because of how often we see historical footage of WW2 and it is usually dog fights or bomber formations or tanks and vehicles moving around France when in reality the lines were static trenches for years but that idea of sitting in trenches soaking up artillery just isn't ingrained like it is with WW1.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

Agreed.

[@jerrysmooth24]

ww2 was faster 5 months at Ypers got 800 yards gain june of '44 and 5 months later the allies were in Belgium stacking blackshirts up at the battle of the bulge.

[@jamesgornall5731]

The battles of manoeuver in the West 1944 couldn't have happened without the far larger battles of manoeuver in the East which had a ferocious rate of attrition on both sides

[@jerrysmooth24]

@@jamesgornall5731 both fronts were dependent on each other and given the size of the eastern front they still covered way more ground than in the great war even though both wars had horrific attrition rates operation Barbarossa was literally the largest military operation ever and would have worked if not for the western allies lend lease and putting pressure on Italy and later France.

[@jamesgornall5731]

@@jerrysmooth24 Barbarossa was long finished by the time any lend lease supplies began to hit the Soviet Union. The program helped but was not decisive, in the same way breaking Enigma helped but not decisive on its own

[@Fusilier7]

The Korean war has also been compared to the first world war, as both sides became stalemated in trenches, firing artillery at each other, while counting territorial gains as progress. The Korean war was America's largest artillery war, more artillery shells were fired in Korea, than were fired in the entire European theatre of WWII, despite having air superiority, the US had to rely on artillery to defend or capture enemy emplacements. Although the US had the means to fight manoeuvre warfare, the Korean topography was a major obstacle, such as mountains, valleys, and hills, which were used by the North Koreans and Chinese for entrenchments and camouflage, the KPA and PVA dug into these natural features, and would attack US artillery batteries with infantry, so artillery was overstretched to nullify these positions, and defend against infantry assaults. At many points in the war, American tanks were used as mobile artillery, tankers would place their tanks at an incline then fire into the distance, the Korean war exposed the limitations of airpower, and caused the Americans to reform their artillery doctrine, such as using radar guidance, grid reference points, fire coordination centres, gunnery directions, and building fighting positions to defend the gunners, the Korean war modernised the US artillery doctrine, which was still trying to fight WWII, however, despite these changes the Korean war bogged down in trenches, bunkers and emplacements, leading to the ceasefire than remains to this day, for Ukraine's sake, they must rout the Russians completely.

[@Losantiville]

Terrain major factor, the hills and mountains controls the valleys. Near impossible for armor to move unobserved.

[@Casmaniac]

I have read interviews with (Belgian) Korea veterans describing it as "14-18" but in Asia, and more hilly (compared to very flat west front in WWI) indeed. This was specifically about the phase when the Chinese were (counter)attacking in human waves

[@Losantiville]

US artillery operations were close to WW2, Fire Direction Centers, Requests for fire, observed fire, unobserved using target numbers dates to the 30s. US Artillery doctrine and tactics didn’t change much in Korea, just the rest of world learned how advanced we were.

[@Losantiville]

@@Casmaniac narrow valleys dominate central Korea. A quick peak at satellite maps might be helpful.

[@andrews.5212]

I'll say it over and over. 30 years of colonial was in the middle east have made the west forget how ACTUAL war is. When countries have comparable firepower stalemate ensue. As Russia shown large manoeuvre warfare is extremely costly and deadly and not worth it anymore. Every unit has antitank guns. Ukraine succeeded in Kharkiv because they were against NO resistance whatsoever

[@nobodyherepal3292]

No, it just shows why the west invest so much into air power. This war has also shown that Russian air defense can not counter western air dominance in a hypothetical war, and as a result, there top-down, artillery heavy WW2 styled army would melt away under NATO’s aerial onslaught. While the Kharkiv offensive has shown the superiority of small maneuver focused units over the tank heavy and logistically strained Russian army units. No different to Iraq’s forces back in 1991.

[@loganknezovich8394]

​@@nobodyherepal3292 you're completely wrong lmao, this war has actually proved how effective soviet/Russian air defenses are because if I recall correctly Russia suffered massive aviation loses during the initial phases of the war when Ukraine was using old soviet air defense systems (most have been destroyed by now) so could you imagine what modern day air defenses would do to a militaries aviation like NATO? hell according to war simulations that NATO has done they estimated they would lose the vast majority of their aircraft in the first 6 months of a war with Russia due to Russia's air defenses and good luck trying to destroy those air defense systems without artillery, cruise missiles, drones, ect. which NATO heavily lacks in because of their heavy emphasis on air superiority instead of producing other stuff, also you do realize that it would almost be next to impossible for NATO to surround Russia with their navy and destroy their SAMs with cruise missiles like they did in the gulf war? not to mention Russia has a much more in depth and advanced missile/air defense system than Iraq did in 1991 by a massive margin, mainly because Iraq had just got done fighting a major war with Iran and that depleted a lot of their SAM stocks, also don't forget the fact that Russia has nukes, and lastly Iraq is open desert with no obstacles or cities in the way to stop an armies advance, hence why we did so damn good in 1991 because we just completely out maneuvered Iraqi defenses and flanked them, while Eastern Ukraine is heavily forested with cities and towns every few km so it would be next to near impossible to achieve what we did in 1991 in Ukraine simply because the terrain is much more defensible and it would be much harder to hit and destroy targets than it would be in an open desert.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@@loganknezovich8394 and yet, we literally just saw the kremlin hit by *2* drones just this week, at least 2 oil refineries burning, Crimea being attacked semi regularly now by UAVs, the Russians *still* not having destroyed the Ukrainians Air-force or disrupt the UAF logistical chain further inside Ukraine. All this has proven, is that Soviet made air defense systems are damn good at fighting Soviet made aircraft. Until NATO made aircraft are flown against Russian systems, im going to stand by my earlier statement. Honestly, all this shows as well, is NATOs technological and numerical advantage in stealth aircraft and drones would lead to the complete destruction of Russias air defense network, especially along border regions like St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad, and Russian bases in Belarus, in relatively short order, should a war ever broke out between the two. You claim Russia can’t be surrounded by NATOs Navies, yet the recent ascension of Finland into the alliance has effectively done just that. The Baltic Sea and black seas are now “NATO lakes” along with the Sea of Japan in the far east. Nevermind all the new strike capabilities bases in Finland would give NATO strike aircraft (in particular, the incoming B-21 raider) against the Russian Northern fleets home port at Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, and Russia interior industrial regions.

[@merocaine]

The biggest problem in creating a breakthrough are the use of mines. The variety of advanced mines and there mind boggling number, are defeating the best efforts of mine removing units on both sides. The advent of remote mining in sealing off armoured break throughs has not been acknowledged by most commentators. Both sides have realised that the way to advance is to inch forward ,demining as they go. The Russians are cracking the front in this manner, using there advantage in artillery and air to destroy enemy positions one at a time. Once a position has been cleaned of mines, then the armour can advance and the process starts again. The Russians have no intentions of breaking through, with remote mining this would get you stuck with the Flank's exposed, and well, you know. The Russian bet is that this constant pressure will eventually wear out the Ukrainian army leading to a general lose of effectivness over time forcing the Ukrainian government to enter negotiations at a disadvantage. Hence no big moves into the rest of Ukraine, just a slow grind to capture the remaining part of Donesk oblast. If the Russians are persisting with this strategy it means they have looked at there bleed rate and the Ukrainians bleed rate and determined that they will win that race.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

Sure, that's why Vulhedar happened, is it? Putin obviously wants a breakthrough, so does everyone else, but Vranyo doesn't help with bullets. And it's a big assumption that Russia and it's leaders are acting rationally. Stalin believed Hitler wouldn't attack him. The French believed the Ardennes was impenetrable, even when their own scouts said otherwise. The US kept trying in Vietnam and Afghanistan, which was hardly worth it. In WW1 noone "looked at the enemy bleed rate and their bleed rate and determined they'd win". The fog of war is thick, and the future is unpredictable. If we were to try and disprove your theory, how would we do it? If offensives were attempted, like Vulhedar, but no gains were made, like Vulhedar, we can just say this means they weren't actually an offensive, like you have implied. Ukraine is probably holding forces back from the frontlines to prepare for combined arms warfare offensives with western tanks and other equipment, because Ukraine probably knows they can't keep this up forever. I do agree with you that mines have been somewhat underappreciated, and I don't think Russia will try another massive offensive for more than Donetsk, but I don't think you've thought about this thoroughly

[@Losantiville]

Drones are used for for observed fire in real time. WW1 it was mostly unobserved fire. The current trench warfare is the result huge un-replaced equipment losses , and periods of mud.

[@davidty2006]

WW1 had balloons or towers for spotting eventually planes. However communications between the 2 were at best a telegram line and running back to the guns and shouting at the crews at worst... Compared to drones that litterally have the spotter standing next to the guns to the point the crews can see where the shells are landing themselves...

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@davidty2006 "However communications between the 2 were at best a telegram line" Morsecode radio messaging became a very important thing exactly for artillery spotting.

[@davidwhittington7638]

Planes and balloons took pictures in WW1. Warfare has moved on, the Russians lead by a Stalinist never got that memo...

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@davidwhittington7638 Maybe you should research better on the topic of who right now has the best functioning C4ISR? Oh right, Russia...

[@davidwhittington7638]

@@DIREWOLFx75 Well, considering this topic is comparing a modern conflict to the tactics of WW1, Perhaps you should read more history and study Russia, its defeat by Japan in the early part of the 20th century, the incompetence of Tsars and Communist tyrants, it's 6 soon to be 7 Genocides since 1917, the countless atrocities committed on its own people, Stalin's Purges and Gulags that murdered millions, the masochistic mentality of a peasant creed still sending its worse scum to fight in barbaric suicidal human wave attacks. Considering you are too cowardly to show your name, so people have to guess your gender and country of origin, it is impossible to take you seriously.

[@jamesbuckley907]

I'm very surprised by the tactics being used considering Soviet battle doctrine was heavy on the use of "Shock Troops" to find and exploit a weak point to penetrate enemy lines and continue into the enemy rear area while by passing any enemy units smaller than battalion size which would be dealt with by following units. The fact that they have only had sporadic moments where a sort of maneuver warfare was applied makes me think they are concerned about, and likely for good reasons their logistical ability to sustain any large scale attempts at manuever warfare and rather than risk overstretched supply lines and possibly significant numbers of enemy troops that were by passed being able to cut of supply routes and trap the maneuver force as it grinds to a halt out of food, water, ammo, medical supplies, fuel and replacements for casualties.

[@Nn-3]

Perun made a video about the application of those tactics in the current conflict. He claimed that they followed that doctrine initially, but ran into problems with it because their implementation of it incentivized troops to falsely report successful breakthroughs. (We see some evidence of false reports with the number of times that Russian media published false reports of successful territory captures) Basically, this materialized in the form of the Russians launching an attack, then failing, but then sending a second/third failed wave due to false reports of successes. I am not sure how they have adapted to this. False reports seem to be less of a problem nowadays, though I'm not sure whether it's attributable to them perfecting the tactic, or abandoning it.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

I wonder if it makes a difference that in Bakhmut, it is mainly Wagner troops. If you notice, the rest of the Russian army is just sitting and digging in.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"I'm very surprised by the tactics being used considering Soviet battle doctrine was heavy on the use of "Shock Troops" to find and exploit a weak point to penetrate enemy lines and continue into the enemy rear area while by passing any enemy units smaller than battalion size which would be dealt with by following units." Perhaps you SHOULD remember that: 1. Russia was for most of the time in 2022 fighting at a numerical disadvantage worse than 1 vs 3, and in August/September, due to a large number of contract soldiers contracts running out at the same time, at the same time as Ukraine forces peaking around a million troops, closer to 1 vs 7. 2. Ukraine started with the biggest set of fortifications built anywhere on Earth since the Maginot line. They started building it in 2014, very blatantly aimed at Russia, not at DPR/LPR. 3. Your understanding of Soviet doctrine is flawed to say the least. Russia is in fact doing exactly one of the things Scott Ritter talked about a whole year ago. Force enemy units into positions where they can be fixed, locked in place, and then exterminated with massive application of firepower. Fix enemy location, apply firepower, walk over the remains. Ritter specifically warned about this because, as he said, it sounds simple, but it is also extremely effective. "they are concerned about, and likely for good reasons their logistical ability to sustain any large scale attempts" Riiight... Lets see, Russia has maintained the ability to fire over 20 thousand artillery shells per day, and up to nearly 70 thousand more than once, for over a year, without preparation, when it took USA over 6 months of preparation to be able to use around 60 thousand shells during the whole war with Iraq. And 100-400 air missions per day as well. Think about what that ACTUALLY says about Russian logistics capability.

[@markkelly9621]

@@DIREWOLFx75 Re logistics, I don't think he is suggesting that Russian logistics in its own territory or within a few dozen kilometres from Russia is an issue; I think he is suggesting that the Russians may be concerned about their ability to supply their forces with arms and fuel through large tracts of seized enemy territory. Of course it get much harder to supply forces, the further away an army gets from its own territory.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@markkelly9621 While true indeed, based on what we have seen of Russian troops operating away from easy logistics, there is no hint of any weaknesses. Of course, that may very well be exactly because they are avoiding operating anywhere they would be less able to supply their troops. But even when their troops advanced much too far into Kherson region, they still managed BETTER supply than Ukraine could achieve to their troops. That at least strongly suggests that they are capable of it. And yet again, of course, there is the caveat that this may simply be a matter of numbers, as the Russian numerical disadvantage simply does not allow effective logistics if forces are stretched out too much. So yeah, sort of yes, sort of no.

[@dankovac1609]

I'm guessing most of the comparisons come from people who don't understand a trench always was and still is the most common effective form of a defensive position.

[@norbertblackrain2379]

The first world war was not just the western front. Personally i think WW1 Eastern Front would be a good comparison even with regards to force density.

[@randomname3109]

Eastern Front was far more mobile and less bogged down in trench warfare

[@submarine6410]

@@randomname3109 just like Ukraine, trenches are exceptions, not the norm

[@truedemoknight6784]

@@submarine6410 Not true, trenches have been used by every military, in every conflict in the last century.

[@submarine6410]

@@truedemoknight6784 not really, after the invention of tanks, trenches have only been used in places where tanks cant be used optimally or were available.

[@truedemoknight6784]

@@submarine6410 I guess I'm being a bit liberal with the definition of trench here by grouping them in with other elaborate fighting positions that aren't "trenches" in the conventional sense. What I meant is that elaborate fighting positions have never fallen out of use, though how they're constructed might vary.

[@jacobhill3302]

Trenches and artillery is about the extent of the similarities. ISR, Drones, communication advances, GPS have made it exponentially deadlier IMO

[@thurbine2411]

Is it deadlier though. Many more would have died from diseases in ww I than in Ukraine

[@ffff7164]

NATO is running low on artillery and drones.

[@derrickthewhite1]

The movement and scale of the battles also bring similarities: large focused battles for small towns.

[@theimmortal4718]

​@@ffff7164 That's a lot of wishful thinking

[@manyinterests1961]

For 152-155 mm howitzers or 120 mm mortars working on enemy positions it's advisable to seek shelter and not to go near target in the open

[@lyingcorrectly]

18:46 I believe the documentary is "Restrepo", it's a good one.

[@edwardgranger1722]

I would love to hear a comparison to when the Allies hit the West Wall in WWII. The mention of infiltration tactics is something I think we will be talking more about.

[@sparkyfromel]

Check " the Hurtgen forest " , in late 44 , General Bradley got stuck in a WW1 situation

[@scumskimmer]

Why isn't anyone talking about WW1 on the Eastern front? This is surely a far better comparison to make to the current fighting than conditions on the Western Front.

[@TrangleC]

I have been saying it from the first time on I heard about the US Army's plan to adopt the 6.8 mm caliber as the new standard. I could go back and dig through my old comments from years ago to prove it, if I had to. They say that is to defeat modern Russian and Chinese body armor and to have more long range lethality. That never made sense to me. Long before the Ukraine War started, in my opinion it was obvious that in any new "near peer" war, infantry would have to go back to fighting from foxholes and trenches and to crawling around on their bellies and shooting from prone position, just like in the good ol' days. In that kind of combat body armor doesn't play much of a role, at least the kind of body armor we are used to. You would need something that protects the head and shoulders. So accepting all the drawbacks (more recoil, less ammo per soldier, more weight) from shifting to a bigger, heavier standard rifle round just so you can defeat body armor better was a stupid idea from the beginning. The Ukraine War proved that right, but I don't feel much triumph or schadenfreude from being right, because it was so obvious and inevitable that this would happen all along.

[@chinuchu]

It's because they are thinking about fighting in deserts and mountains (Middle East). You can see a lot of the new war toys the US makes are geared towards fighting an inferior foe. The US plans to go back to the middle east sooner or later.

[@lucagerulat307]

Body armour is still a big factor in Ukraine especially against artillery shrapnel.

[@TrangleC]

@@lucagerulat307 I didn't say body armor is useless. I said it is stupid to adopt a new, in every other way worse, standard rifle round to defeat body armor when that body armor doesn't really play much of a role in stopping rifle rounds anyways. PS: I see I have 2 replies but I can only see the one from lucagerulat307 when I click on the "2 replies" button. Not sure whether this is a bug or a new form of KZbin censorship, but my money is on the latter.

[@jonathansibrian695]

​@@TrangleC youtube censor

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@TrangleC There's plenty of videos of men being caught in the open and in the exchange of fire the plate seems to be catching most of the rounds. If the artillery rain stops, and the drone operator is telling me the incoming wave is getting near, I don't want to put rounds in some guy wearing a plate for him to toss a grenade into my hole.

[@casparcoaster1936]

Whether he's right or not about Bahkmut battle, I'd take a WW1 history class from that dude anytime... that comment about year over year improvement in attack & defense tactics was deep... thanks for this one (all of em)!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@mariahaselnuss3826]

The technic developed quite much (like drones dropping grenades into bunkers, modern tanks), but the tactic is more or less the same!

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

From what I've read from participants on the Ukrainian side, it sounds like tanks are being used mostly as self-propelled guns. Is that true? I kept thinking, "What happened in 1418?" But he said (or meant) '14 to '18.

[@aww2historian]

Wouldn't it be more akin to say the Soviet counteroffensives that stalled out in the Spring of 1942 following the Battles of Moscow/Leningrad/Donets? Meaning that counteroffensive breakthroughs and flank attacks are still possible once weather conditions are favorable (schwerpunkt, air support, etc...)?

[@NikhilSingh-007]

Could you please do a setup tour?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

?

[@angelg3986]

Difference is that not havy bombs were dropped over the civilian infastructure and a lot of drones are used, because the transistor has been discovered.

[@Krusesensei]

2 other similarlys: AmmunitionCrysis + Auftragstaktik

[@jamesevans886]

I actually see more similarities to the trench fighting in the American Civil War (ACW) than I do to WW1. Positional warfare always see a hardening of the lines which in turn can lead to attritional warfare if the fortified line is not breached. On the other hand fighting in a trench is not trench warfare either. Trench warfare is a highly sophisticated system which in turn has many similarities with a main line of resistance in that it has a number of zones each with its own function. What I see from Ukraine is a very primitive hardened front line looking much like the trenches of the ACW. Compared to the NATO and Soviet armies of the mid 80s what we see in Ukraine is a more adhoc affair so there's no guarantee that the right equipment will be present when needed. The Russian forces have weapons which are ideal for clearing trenches such as thermobaric rockets which they have used at least once in the beginning of the war which they have not used here. For those that missed it thermobaric weapons have a unique fingerprint. They don't blow windows in, they suck them out along with light things such as office chairs.

[@user-ou9qd9no5n]

They seem to have lost many of TOS to ambushes and artillery and have stopped using them wherever there is a chance of coming under fire.

[@katrinapaton5283]

You're right about the force concentration. Ive been amazed to hear that well defended Ukrainian positions were forced to retreat or be over run because the enemy sent in a unit of 20 guys, instead of the usual squad of ten guys which was getting nowhere.

[@anttieskelinen1]

"The track man was right. As defense minister, Finns Party Jussi Niinistö believed in tanks, mines, cannons and assault riflemen. Many laughed." "As minister, Niinistö had a strong vision of the direction in which Finland's defense should be developed. He was a researcher by background and worked as a docent of Finnish military history at the National Defense University. Niinistö was stubborn: if a high-ranking soldier disagreed, the soldier was replaced rather than Niinistö's opinion." "More artillery ammunition was bought, the Defense Forces' stocks were replenished. The closure of the Ähtäri army depot was prevented. Now cannon ammunition is made there in two shifts." "Niinistö wanted self-propelled howitzer. When the purchase of howitzers did not proceed as quickly as hoped, Niinistö changed the head of the resource policy department." "During Niinistö's period, laws were also changed. As a result, reservists could be called into service more efficiently, and a standby jaeger system was created from conscripts. In 2019, in his last significant act as Minister of Defense, Niinistö completed the purchase of anti-artillery radars from Israel." ""Besides, I didn't understand how Russia wages war either. I had thought that Russia was still in the time of World War II. I didn't realize it still works like it did in the First World War.”" www.hs.fi/sunnuntai/art-2000009464304.html

[@gulahenrik8204]

Im not an expert and sorry for my english but there is something that i think should be mentioned. 1. Rolling barrage is an obsolate method where artiery used as a strategic weapon, in ukraine we do see actualy far better cooperation between infranty and atiery. Battalion commanders can have a direct observetion on the battlefield choosing targets on tactical level, eliminating atgms, automatic grenade launchers etc. Making it possible for a small group to clean a trench. 2. This is one of the main reason you dont see mass infranty, its simply not worth the risk, modern artiery can unleash a salvo under 5 minute, optics can spot thermal image of humans from kilometers, if you amass a couple houndred soldier for every kilometer you gonna get a combat innefective brigade in a couple hours. When you hear about human wave tactics its more platoon size or just squad size attacks, to gather information to your own artiery.

[@Ilix42]

It really says something about a military that will spray and pray with artillery. I don’t know what it says, but something.

[@clarkeorchard2304]

We expect the Ukraine offensive to be a combined arms attack, yet we do supply the air arm part of the supply. Therefore I ask why do we expect them to do it, when we tie one of their arms behind their back?

[@tomsemmens6275]

Genuine question - why do the trench systems in this war appear so crude? I don't see a parados or a firestep or revetments or duckboards or extensive use of barbed wire to stop infiltration attacks. If the Russians are really using "human wave" (what i think is actually infiltration tactics) then barbed wire in particular would be really useful for defenders? Can the Ukrainians not get a supply of wire?

[@tcbbct509]

most likely because positions are changing fast enough to make that type of investment relatively pointless.

[@mixedchannelgameproduction901]

Do you think trench warfare is such a big thing because one side doesn't have enough equipment to launch a serious offensive push (Ukraine for most of the war not having enough armor/ air assets to conduct a large scale offensive) and Russia over relying on their infantry for most of their gains, while not knowing/ being relatively unsuccessful in taking air supremacy while have a far superior airforce? My question is this, how would a war have developed against Russia against a nation that would actually know how to fight in the air and would also have the air assets/ ground assets to back that up? I'm my opinion trench warfare is just a side effect of 1 side not having the tools and the other side using a very outdated way of fighting and over relying on infantry that would be completely destroyed by any military that would actually be half decently supplied and armed in the air and the ground.

[@usun_politics1033]

Russia has not enough infantry as a result of military doctrine change and btgs replacing divisions. Russia built army to fight insurgencies, not near peer full scale war. Only now they are reorganizing back to brigade and divisional structure of the USSR.

[@user-ou9qd9no5n]

That's exactly what I wanted to say

[@krzywygeneral]

When it comes to "holes in lines" due to "less troops than in WW1" I think it is not true. Hard to compare one of the most urbanised areas of European urban banana (even in XX century) to Ukrainian frontline. Density of railway and roads that can support heavy equipment is a crucial factor in how continuous the frontline has to be. As others suggest, comparison to WW1 Eastern front seems to be more aligned.

[@davidwhittington7638]

Yes and No.. The Italian front is more similar. Although mountainous, the same rules apply. Back and forth attacks with initial small gains, then later more significant attacks due to build ups on both sides.. Then there are comparisons of the Western Front. Mud delaying troops and equipment, ridiculous suicidal attacks, miss management and incompetence, psychopathic leadership disregarding the lives of their own soldiers, penal units being sent out first, the casualty rate... etc. etc. Poor leadership and corruption, is just not a sign of a useless military, but also of a useless political system.

[@falanglao01]

Excellent analysis. Now we are all wondering - as in WWI - how either side is going to find a way to break this stalemate. A breakthough isn't easy, and once Ukr does achieve it, they might come under counter-attack + if they leave their protective SAM umbrella, air strikes. See Yom Kippur war in 1973 and many other examples. Or Georgia - a few Su-25s can wreak havoc even with unguided rockets. Will Russia let another panic-induced disaster as during the Kharkiv counteroffensive happen? It's a viable strategy to let your enemy break through and counter-attack with your best units to destroy the enemy, especially if you have lost the initiative and dont have the capacity to attack yourself. One would expect they keep their best mobile units in reserve for such an occasion and hold the line only with cannon fodder. Tides can turn quickly.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

What stalemate? If you think THIS is a stalemate, you have no clue. "Or Georgia - a few Su-25s can wreak havoc even with unguided rockets." Problem is, for the last 8+ months, Russia is flying 100-400 airstrikes per day, with pretty much every warload successfully delivered on target. Ukraine is flying 0-5 per day(or mostly per WEEK nowadays) and usually lose at least half its aircraft and only rarely does their airstrikes actually manage to reach their targets at all. So, Russia is delivering 100-800 planeloads of rockets or bombs on target per day, while Ukraine simply isn't achieving anything with what little remains of their airforce. Every time they send aircraft up above treetop height, they get attacked by longrange missiles from Russian airdefence or airforce, or both. And because of the Russian missile attacks, every time one comes, they have to liftoff with aircraft as a precaution to avoid them being destroyed on the ground. "Will Russia let another panic-induced disaster as during the Kharkiv counteroffensive happen?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... You mean when they started to evacuate civillians TWO WEEKS before the Ukraine advance? The region that Russian troops LEFT almost entirely before it even began? The only troops left was a DPR unit out at the edge that barely saw combat, and 2 companies of Roskvadria, that's basically militia MP, not fighting troops, and they only remained because they volunteered to stay behind to protect civillians that had been slow to evacuate. Maybe you should try to learn FACTS before spouting off and making yourself look like an ignorant fool?

[@Overlord734]

@@DIREWOLFx75 don't use up all your copium supplies too fast.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@Overlord734 Don't worry, since i'm not a user, i will have plenty to sell you when you can no longer deal with reality.

[@Overlord734]

@@DIREWOLFx75 I heard copium-producing equipment has been sanctioned and prohibited to be sold in russia. So be careful with the remaining supplies.

[@Overlord734]

@@thejsffenix6365 yeah, that's most likely.

[@Bedrock1966]

Does the slog around bakhmut indicate that Russia cannot implement another combined attack?

[@loganoldon8924]

Actually a lot of it is tank mobility especially ones with pintle it’s and very well trained or prepared troops with radios

[@eastcoastsailingcenter7768]

Cannot breakthrough ??

[@VonGrav]

is Bakhmut more like stalingrad? Two armies bleeding eachother dry..

[@davidty2006]

It's lasted longer than stalingrad.... nearly verdun.

[@georgehh2574]

While his WW1 knowledge definitely showed, I do feel that his knowledge and ability to explain what's going on in Ukraine war is lacking somewhat. Differences in artillery usage includes the heavy use of drones and surveillance equipment, to make targeted strikes on specific positions. This wasn't the case for World War 1, where artillery strikes were much more indiscriminate and based on bombardment patterns. This is due to differences in technology and lower quantities of shells. So artillery usage is still very different to the style of 1914-1918. Another criticism is the lack of context around Bakmut. Pictures don't tell you the whole story. The use of human wave tactics by Russian (specifically Wagner troops recruited from prisons) is due to a lack of consideration of casualties ('disposable' status as prisoners seeking their freedom) and importantly, the lack of proper artillery and armour available. He completely missed out the lack of these equipments in association with the human wave attacks. It's not like World War 1 where it was mainly due to reliance on artillery to enable troops to go forward.

[@stephend50]

Offensive and defensive equilibrium

[@mitree11]

Very interesting topic. Solid expertise and researched opinion. Please with a different moderator.

[@awesom6588]

I remember reading on a forum that modern war will turn back into trench warfare because anti tank systems are so ubiquitous that mass tank breakthroughs will be too costly to do, aircraft are too expensive to lose, so they will only be used as stand-off weapons, the only thing that’s expendable are men, and they will be chewed up and ripped apart by modern systems. This seems to be the case. I think Russia will break the stalemate once Ukraine runs out of air defense, which according to the leaks, is very very soon.

[@katamarankatamaranovich9986]

And Ukraine will not get a SAM ammunition resupply like before.... because?

[@jessehachey2732]

That’s a hard cope 😂😂😂 Ukraine is getting more and more AA systems, don’t you worry your pathetic little noggin 🙄

[@awesom6588]

@@katamarankatamaranovich9986 the US doesn’t manufacture s300 ammunition. And existing US systems are all very short range and in low numbers, way too low to even cover the front. There are 2 or 3 of those nasam’s that are in the ballpark of the s300, but they sent all they can send, new ones must be manufactured and will take a long time. Ukraine won’t lose all air defense, but will lose like 80% of it

[@katamarankatamaranovich9986]

@Haylen NASAMS uses AMRAAM and AIM-9x and there is literally unlimited supply of those, because those are the main aircraft missiles of nato countries for the past 30 years. HAWK and it's derivatives are also quite widespread and are being retired. Same with Crotale. It was supplied and will be.

[@awesom6588]

@@katamarankatamaranovich9986 those are all extremely short range systems. Russian aircraft can literally fly over them, tu160’s will be able to carpet bomb all over Ukraine pretty much

[@scifidude184]

I predicted this, not with Russia and Ukraine, but the concept is 2 industrialized, educated, and populous nations with technology parity will remove the advantages of each other. Thus when you gain no advantage digging in is the safest option to allow time for additional capabilities. Just watch, later on we will probably see BVR dogfights again as electronic countermeasures and defensive systems outmatch BVR weapons thus forcing either abandonment of missions or merge in close dogfighting.

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

The battle in bachmut is more comparable to the battles in the donbass in WW2. There is a great video about this on eastory.

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

Interesting it would have liked more info about the comparisons made like number of artillery pieces and ammo, logistics etc. It seems to me from What is heard on the news that this war more than any other has a constant lack of weapons and ammo. Before other wars there had been years of military build up and we have had 3 decades of downsizing the armies in Europe. And the production of shells etc can’t keep up.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"It seems to me from What is heard on the news that this war more than any other has a constant lack of weapons and ammo." If you're listening to western propaganda, please do remember how Russia has run out of missiles at least once per month since March last year and run out of artillery ammo at least twice a month since last June. As in, yes, that's complete and utter rubbish and has no relation to reality. Russia is firing around 20 thousand heavy artillery ammo per day. But up to nearly 70 thousand occasionally. Compare that to how USA in the war with Iraq fired over 60 thousand shells IN TOTAL. And had to build up for 6 months to have that. Ukraine used to fire around 5-7 thousand per day. But as they are now running out more and more, nowadays it's more like 2-5 thousand. However, Russia is also flying 100-400 airstrikes per day. The vast majority of which successfully hits their targets, and Russian losses of aircrafts have basically dropped to 1 per month by now(used to be around 1/week for some time(do note that aircraft losses i quote also includes missionkilled aircraft, as in damaged or somehow otherwise forced to return to base, so not a complete writeoff)). Meanwhile, for a long time, Ukraine ATTEMPTED 0-5 airstrikes per day, with very few reaching their targets, while generally losing half their aircraft involved. Nowadays however, it looks more like 0-5 attempts per WEEK. Oh, and Russia has even greater advantage in regards to lighter support weapons than they do with artillery. "And the production of shells etc can’t keep up." Russia just ramped up ONE of its factories to keep up with shell production. It still hasn't even touched the mobilisation factories left over from the USSR. Meaning that if they feel the need to, they can increase their production by another magnitude. Similarly, when it became apparent that the war wasn't going to be over quickly, back in June last year, Russia ramped up production for its primary factory for modern T-90s. The first delivery of 300 brand new T-90Ms, latests model, came in January, and the factory is expected to reach a yearly production of around a thousand soon-ish. Currently estimated to have a production rate of 800. And beyond that, you may want to realise that Russia has fired more cruise missiles in this war, than USA has ever produced. And probably over twice that many SAMs. And that almost nothing is safe from being hit by Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. They're not used often, but every time so far against highvalue targets, probably by now including several Nato command posts, and every time they are utterly devastating. Complete destruction even of bunkers meant to survive near misses from nukes.

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

@@DIREWOLFx75 I was actually talking about the lack of ammo for Ukraine and how despite all of Europe and the US making ammo they can’t keep up. The US in Iraq was not in a war of attrition but used modern blitzkrieg so they didn’t need to constantly shell artillery to advance. Russia seems to have prepared a lot more for the war. Not that they are progressing much despite such a massive superiority in firepower.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@wertywerrtyson5529 "The US in Iraq was not in a war of attrition but used modern blitzkrieg so they didn’t need to constantly shell artillery to advance." *lol* No, they just spent 6 months BOMBING everything that moved? And no, it was NOTHING like "modern blitzkrieg". Blitzkrieg was capable of overrunning opponents who were strategically STRONGER. Iraq was basically an already destroyed shadow of a military being mopped up. "Russia seems to have prepared a lot more for the war." Not really. They didn't ramp up military production until May and June 2022. They DID have a lot of longterm sort of preparations because they were expecting this war to come, especially considering how people in the west openly said so for years, like the Rand corporation publication "Extending Russia" from 2019, which arguest that one of the best ways to enable a western coup in Russia is by forcing them into a war with Ukraine and then turn the country into a Russian Afghanistan. "Not that they are progressing much despite such a massive superiority in firepower." 400 thousand dead Ukraine soldiers says otherwise. Well, twice that if you ask the most extreme estimations. Half that if you look at the excessively conservative. Compared to less than 20 thousand Russian KIAs, and the fact that most wars have close to 1:1 in casualties, that is a huge amount of progress. Russia isn't fighting for territory, they're fighting to remove the Ukraine military as a functional force.

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

@@DIREWOLFx75 The documents leaked from pentagon estimates around 200k casualties for Russia and 130k for Ukraine. I’m not sure why Russia would be so obsessed with trying to destroy Ukraine as a fighting force. It isn’t like Ukraine ever had the capability of invading Russia. If they intended to secure their borders from Ukraine possibly joining NATO it backfired since Finland now has joined and Sweden is on the way. All Putin has managed is make the world fear Russia again and with Europe picking up arms production Russia will eventually be completely outnumbered and outgunned since Russia’s economy is less than some individual EU countries not to mention the entire union combined. I’m any case I’m hoping for some kind of peace but it seams neither side has realistic peace proposals at the moment.

[@vandeheyeric]

@@DIREWOLFx75 "If you're listening to western propaganda, please do remember how Russia has run out of missiles at least once per month since March last year and run out of artillery ammo at least twice a month since last June. " Even most of the "Western Propaganda" didn't claim Russia had flat out run out of those things, but that it was RUNNING OUT. Facts that are provably true given the decrease in overall artillery and missile fighting and the fact that Russia is desperately trying to source artillery supplies from as far afield as North Korea "As in, yes, that's complete and utter rubbish and has no relation to reality." Which is why it sounds more like a strawman you lot have cobbled together by intentionally misconstruing what was said into something obviously wrong. As Perun and others noted. "Russia is firing around 20 thousand heavy artillery ammo per day. But up to nearly 70 thousand occasionally. " Which is why they're having to restock from foreign sources. Moreover, the results have been underwhelming, as shown by Ukrainian artillery fire becoming more and more competitive, as famous Western propaganda sources like...... Girkin and the Russian MoD have attested. "Compare that to how USA in the war with Iraq fired over 60 thousand shells IN TOTAL." Because the US didn't make a point of flattening entire cities to take them, and had far more powerful and unlimited use of air support to do jobs that the Russians have to rely on artillery and SPGs to do. Add that to how Iraq was overwhelmingly NOT a positional or attritional war and there wasn't a huge need or ability to soften up the Madhi Army Trench Line or Command Bunker, and you have it. "And had to build up for 6 months to have that." True enough, but also there. "Ukraine used to fire around 5-7 thousand per day" And as Perun and Girkin agree, they get VASTLY MORE EFFECTIVE USE per shell than the Russians do. ." But as they are now running out more and more, nowadays it's more like 2-5 thousand." Unsurprising given the shell hunger of modern war. "However, Russia is also flying 100-400 airstrikes per day. " Broadly true. "The vast majority of which successfully hits their targets," Citation Needed. " and Russian losses of aircrafts have basically dropped to 1 per month by now(used to be around 1/week for some time (do note that aircraft losses i quote also includes missionkilled aircraft, as in damaged or somehow otherwise forced to return to base, so not a complete writeoff))" Not sure if it is that low, but yes both sides have had much less lost aircraft because they commit them less actively. "Meanwhile, for a long time, Ukraine ATTEMPTED 0-5 airstrikes per day, with very few reaching their targets, while generally losing half their aircraft involved. Nowadays however, it looks more like 0-5 attempts per WEEK." Yeah, that's a crock of nonsense. The Ukrainian Air Force was always smaller and less active than the Russian one and is used even more conservatively, but we are still seeing dozens of missions per day on average. "Oh, and Russia has even greater advantage in regards to lighter support weapons than they do with artillery." Citation Needed. "Russia just ramped up ONE of its factories to keep up with shell production. " A: BS, the Russian MoD points to hiring in many other factories. B: You're "conveniently" ignoring Russia attempting to source WarPac Artillery from other countries. " It still hasn't even touched the mobilisation factories left over from the USSR." You say that as if it would be a good think in spite of lead times. "Meaning that if they feel the need to, they can increase their production by another magnitude. " In theory. And in theory, the Ukrainian military should have risen up to overthrow their government and Novorossiya should've been formed sometime in 2014-2015. As we've seen, theory often betrays those who rely on it, regardless of their orientation. "Similarly, when it became apparent that the war wasn't going to be over quickly, back in June last year, Russia ramped up production for its primary factory for modern T-90s. The first delivery of 300 brand new T-90Ms, latests model, came in January, and the factory is expected to reach a yearly production of around a thousand soon-ish. Currently estimated to have a production rate of 800." Mhmm. Sure Mate And let's ignore the fact that most of those will be of lower quality than even the T-90Ms produced two years ago, and that this is all assuming ideal ramp up which is unlikely. "And beyond that, you may want to realise that Russia has fired more cruise missiles in this war, than USA has ever produced. And probably over twice that many SAMs." You say that like it's a good thing in spite of having much less effect from those things than the US had in its previous wars. It's not. "And that almost nothing is safe from being hit by Kinzhal hypersonic missiles." Assuming they can be acquired quickly enough. Which they often can't be. "They're not used often, but every time so far against highvalue targets, probably by now including several Nato command posts, and every time they are utterly devastating. " This is simply stupid. If they were trying to hit several NATO command posts, we'd be in WW3 by now. But I take it you're one of the Pavel Fekula types that thinks Russia is fighting thousands of NATO commandos in Ukraine (as opposed to maybe a few hundred hush hush wet works men that largely fade into the background)? " Complete destruction even of bunkers meant to survive near misses from nukes. " Ok. Literally how. Do you even know how physics works? Apparently not. "lol No, they just spent 6 months BOMBING everything that moved?" This is ironic considering how the Russian strategy after the failed escalade on Kyiv (and even before it, see the sieges of inner city Luhansk and Donetsk) was "shell everything that moved." It also ignores the fact that Allied bombings were far more precise and effective per ton than Russian ones. "And no, it was NOTHING like "modern blitzkrieg"." Saddam Hussein could not be reached for comment. In any case Blitzkrieg as a whole is overstated and largely meaningless marketing lingo. But the US absolutely weaponized a war of maneuver. "Blitzkrieg was capable of overrunning opponents who were strategically STRONGER." Overrunning and outmaneuvering is not the same as that. Moreover, the core of blitzkrieg isn't how strong the enemy is but how you go about fighting them. "Iraq was basically an already destroyed shadow of a military being mopped up. " So was Yugoslavia in April 1941, but that didn't change German tactics.

[@halporter9]

Grant following the Overland campaign in June 1864 forbade any of his sub/corps commanders in the Petersburg siege to attack well fortified positions directly w/o his permission. Sherman likewise at siege of Atlanta summer 1864. Military historians have overlain the trench lines with sketches of WWI lines. Difference, if any, may have been barbed wire. Both Grant and Sherman essentially strategically and tactically outflanked Confederates. Cut off logistics, rr line by rr line, especially Grant, over 9 months. Brutal but not as bad as WWI. Could never understand what happened to that professional knowledge in US army given Pershing’s difficulties retraining officer corps, whereas wouldn’t have had same degree of problems in late Civil War army

[@Davitofrito]

Think of all the counter insurgency lessons learned in Vietnam that were forgotten by 2003. Part of it could be the wars fought between the two. Spanish American war and Mexican raids before WW1. Before Iraq 2003, we had the Gulf war and interventions in Balkans.

[@Sentimentmedia234]

Good content but the audio hurts my ear. :(

[@edwardblair4096]

I would imagine that geography and manpower play a big role in why Ukraine is different than the western front of WW1. In WW1, the western front stretched from Switzerland to the ocean. Once Italy was in the war, France did not have to worry about being attacked from the south east. In Ukraine they have a much larger "front line" to man with fewer troops. I am 7sing quotes here because Ukraine must also have at least some troops along its border with Belarus, the northern part of its border with Russia, and also along the Dniper River. This is countered by the increased fighting capability of a single unit, and by better reconnaissance that allows better detection of large attacking forces in time to reinforce where needed. That is keep light screening forces up front that can handle light skirmish probing attacks while keeping a larger reserve force that is comparably more rested available to be deployed where it is needed. If you put up a more heavily manned outer defense, then more troops are getting exhausted being on guard, and you don't have as many reaction troops available (because they are out deployed on parts of the front line that are not being attacked).

[@michimatsch5862]

They even need troops on the border with Moldova because there's a Russian unit stationed in that occupied strip as well.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

At the limit of Europe? Ukraina is solidly in Europe.

[@novosib9017]

Why are you surprised? its only been 100 years and all the war books/knowledge has been based on WW1 an WW2. Infact, we as civilians still talk about it and honor our soldiers to this day.

[@George-bb9yi]

Much of WW2 on the eastern front resembled the trench warfare of WWI.

[@climatehero]

This war shows that armies should train even for old style warfare.

[@davidty2006]

artillery will always remain king... And the trench will always be a good spot to hide from explosives.

[@devildogu1284]

This aged like milk

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

?

[@joeblack1052]

The thinking that “combined arms” would break through Russian lines

[@devildogu1284]

worked good for them now lets see russias card @@joeblack1052

[@Rustsamurai1]

Hurtgen Forest WW2?

[@goetzliedtke]

While there were 35,000 miles of trenches dug in WWI, the distance from Switzerland to the English Channel was 475 miles - so the front line of that war was 475 miles long. The front line in the Ukraine war is about 600 miles. There were 15,900,000 soldiers from the Allied Powers on the Western Front over the four years of the war. Subtract the 7,500,000 casualties and you have a maximum at any one time of 8,400,000. If we divide that by four years, that leaves 2,100,000 soldiers on the Allied side of the Western Front. The same calculations of the Central Powers - 13,250,000 - 5,500,000 = 7,750,000/4 = 1, 937,500. If we allow for another 125 miles of trenches between Austria and Italy, that comes to the same as in Ukraine. It's tough to get a good picture of how many Russians and Ukrainians are currently fighting on the front lines in Ukraine. The estimate on Statista of Total Military Personnel is probably as good as the number for WWI - Russia 1,330,900 vs Ukraine 500,000. In both the WWI figures and the Ukraine War figures, the majority of the numbers are in the tail rather than on the front lines, but, if we assume the tail is the same in both wars (probably higher in WWI), we can say that in WWI, there were 3,500 allied and 3,229 central powers soldiers per mile. In Ukraine those numbers are - 2,218 Russians per mile and 833 Ukrainians per mile. That is significantly less in the Ukraine war. If we divide the total for the four years in WWI by two instead of four, assuming that some soldiers fought all four years, the difference becomes even larger. There is not trench warfare taking place in Ukraine, only trench-liek warfare.

[@jameslecka8085]

Comparing WWI trench warfare to Bakhmuh. WWI about 7500 men per mile: Ukraine about 500 men per mile. This is difference of 15:1. In terms of modern infantry weapons, and area fire artillery, you need somewhere between 50 and 500 per mile of front line, in the defense.

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

I see the Battle of Helsinki as the first step of joining NATO 😂

[@TringmotionCoUk]

Isn't the better comparison Korea? Good to listen to an expert

[@readhistory2023]

Whoever is shooting the arty is using the wrong fuzes on the shells. You don't want to use impact fuzes for trenches, you use them for destroying bunkers. Proximty fuzes are 4 times as effective and ICM even more so. Shooting impact fuzes at trenches is a waste of rounds.

[@themetalfox3725]

It’s sad how much stalemate there is in Ukraine now and how similar the fighting is becoming like that of WWI

[@johnlansing2902]

As a poor student of military history I have thought ……. Education and great training will win wars of maneuver , morale and a clear need to win favors urban / trench warfare . Just a thought .

[@patwilson2546]

WWI with drones.

[@johnquestel4852]

Bakhmut as Verdun?

[@Comradez]

Good points at first, but the speaker lost credibility when he started bringing up "human wave" attacks. I have yet to see actual footage of human wave attacks from either side in the Russia/Ukraine war. Most attacks I see are at the scale of a squad, maybe a company in rare circumstances. Also, both sides seem to fight in a very furtive and unsure manner. I have yet to see an entire field covered by an advancing battalion all shouting "Ura!" as they storm enemy trenches at a brisk jog. Just hasn't happened yet, as far as I can tell.

[@davidwhittington7638]

Well perhaps you don't understand the concept of what a Human Wave Attack is, and how Russia still conducts third rate soldiers or criminal penal unit suicide missions. The size of the wave is not the point, it's the sending of people on mass to take on heavily defended positions, with no concern of the cost, and in some cases survivors being branded cowards and shot by their own side. I refer to phone calls listed by Russian families, from love ones in penal units stating they were to be executed.. Size is not the issue, its the Barbarity of Russia that is.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4baiGlrn696n8k

[@stevenhartley318]

No side in the Ukraine war is using human wave attacks or frontal attacks. They both use highly specialised “shock troops”. Both sides can break through each other’s line but it will be high casualties. Russia is playing the long game. It more important for Ukraine to have a quick decisive victory than Russia. Gbu. Fr Hartley

[@thelikesofus324]

I agree with your comment. This is my 1st time viewing content on this channel and I was very disappointed to hear the Belgian guy refer to human wave attacks. where have the Russians used human wave attacks similar to WW1 tactics ? Also Kherson was a tactical retreat for the Russians with territory gained by the Ukrainians at great cost.

[@20goodmen72]

In a positional war, most attacks are frontal since easily assilable flanks will largely be unavailable.

[@stevenhartley318]

@@20goodmen72 No the Russians and the Ukrainians don’t use “human wave attacks”. They both use specialised “shock troops” to find gaps or create gaps using grenades mortars artillery etc. neither side can afford to use their men in useless frontal attacks. There will be times when both sides make mistakes and the offensive turns into a blood bath but that’s bad commanders and bad planning. Gbu. Fr Hartley.

[@toddfromwork8931]

@@stevenhartley318 Yes but Putin is insane so he orders his men to attack in human waves with nothing but shovels. Don't you even read the news? Inform yourself

[@davidty2006]

Atleast if places that arn't Vuhledar....

[@bigsarge2085]

✌

[@ianmortimer5325]

Do a comparison between Ukrainian-Russo War and the Iran-Iraq war.

[@AlthewizardofOz]

A thought I have been grappling with for a while now....and Bernhard, if you are reading, please indulge me....if you are fighting sustained trench warfare in post-1945/21st century, and particularly if you are the aggressor (Russia in this case), it's a symptom that you are doing warfare all wrong. I think that post-1945, and if you are a relatively well equipped army (I would say Ukraine and Russia both are), against a defender relying on trenches, you have all the firepower and maneuver necessary to achieve Schewrpunkt, achieve breakthrough, and exploit. If this is not happening, it is because your forces are not competent enough, and/or your operations planning is all wrong (likely the Russian case). I think this type of widespread trench warfare we are seeing is a reversion/degeneration to a more unsophisticated method of fighting caused by an army who does not know how to use to full effect the platforms and systems that they have. Of course, for the sake of brevity, I have simplified many variables (e.g. correlation of focus, logistics, phases in the campaign, terrain/urban warfare especially), but over a long campaign, I think my generalization holds. Thoughts? I welcome all critiques on this.

[@mmartinu327]

Are there any precenets in breaking through trenches in modern warfare?

[@AlthewizardofOz]

@@mmartinu327 many, starting from WWI, to WWII, Yom Kippur war had some elements of trenches as defenses being broken, and 1st Gulf War as well.

[@jehl1963]

You and Dr. Simoens make some excellent points. I think to say that there were no breakthroughs in the Ukraine in 2022 would be to overlook the retaking of Kherson. As far as the force density being so much lower in the Ukraine compared to the Western Front in WWI -- I think that this is a result of the firepower of the individual soldier being so much higher than the bolt action rifles of the average WWI solder. Interestingly -- the Russian experience in WWI was very different than that of Britain, France and Belgium. In every year of WWI the war in the east had far more movement compared to the west.

[@falanglao01]

It would be very interesting to know more about the Russian retreat from Kherson - several analysts hinted that there must have been some kind of agreement to let the Russians retreat more or less unscathed, after Ukr had been shelling the bridges constantly for weeks

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@falanglao01 No, the west just can't deal with Russia being far more competent than themselves.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"I think to say that there were no breakthroughs in the Ukraine in 2022 would be to overlook the retaking of Kherson." You mean where Russia chose to withdraw AFTER winning every battle? Because Ukraine was trying to destroy a dam that would have flooded Kherson city and the western side of the river and made it a complete mess and completely indefensible. What retaking of Kherson? Ukraine had it's complete attacking force of 55 thousand troops essentially exterminated in just 2 weeks of fighting. At least 20 thousand KIA. With Russian troops losing less than 200. And i bet Ukraine never blindly listened to any more CIA battleplans about how they could overwhelm the Russians. And as part of that fighting, Russian troops countercrossed a river which completely cut off the Ukraine forward forces and forced them to commit their rear waves into rescuing their forward troops instead of being the next part of the attack. The Ukraine offensive spearhead was almost completely obliterated. The Russians literally COUNTED over 12 thousand dead there. And then, AFTER THE FIGHTING WAS OVER... Russia CHOSE to withdraw to avoid risking having their troops stuck in up to meterhigh water on the western bank of the river. And since then, they've been picking off sizeable numbers of Ukraine troops with artillery, while taking effectively no losses themselves. If you call THAT a breakthrough, dear gods, you're a looney.

[@vandeheyeric]

@@DIREWOLFx75 "You mean where Russia chose to withdraw AFTER winning every battle?" That's very obviously not what happened, as the inability to secure places like Hostomel or the outlying towns of Kyiv show. "Because Ukraine was trying to destroy a dam that would have flooded Kherson city and the western side of the river and made it a complete mess and completely indefensible." Got any evidence for that? Don't think so. "What retaking of Kherson?" The retaking of Kherson in which the Ukrainian Military went on the offensive for months attiring Russian logistics and troops, and eventually the Kremlin decided it was better to retreat from the "Forever Russia" city rather than hunker down. "Ukraine had it's complete attacking force of 55 thousand troops essentially exterminated in just 2 weeks of fighting. At least 20 thousand KIA." That's a nice fable. Got any evidence for that? "With Russian troops losing less than 200." What an absolute crock. We have more than 200 confirmed pieces of Russian war material destroyed or captured around Kherson. Granted, at least some of that was abandoned after the withdrawal order was given, but it still points that Russia lost vastly more than 200. " And i bet Ukraine never blindly listened to any more CIA battleplans about how they could overwhelm the Russians. " Translation: You don't know what the CIA's job is. Grat logic. "And as part of that fighting, Russian troops countercrossed a river which completely cut off the Ukraine forward forces and forced them to commit their rear waves into rescuing their forward troops instead of being the next part of the attack. " Ok. Which forward forces? " The Ukraine offensive spearhead was almost completely obliterated. The Russians literally COUNTED over 12 thousand dead there." Oh really? The propaganda-loving dictatorship with a proven track record of inflating enemy casualties intentionally undercounting their own counted 12,000 dead (not killed, wounded, and captured, SPECIFICALLY dead) in the middle of a battle where even you admit they were under attack by the Ukrainian second echelons in an exposed position across a river? Tell us you're stupid and gullible in as many words. "And then, AFTER THE FIGHTING WAS OVER... " No, it VERY OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AFTER THE FIGHTING WAS OVER, as geolocated and timed coverage of destroyed and killed troops shows. " Russia CHOSE to withdraw to avoid risking having their troops stuck in up to meterhigh water on the western bank of the river." Half-true. " And since then, they've been picking off sizeable numbers of Ukraine troops with artillery, while taking effectively no losses themselves." They've been picking off sizable numbers of Ukrainian troops with artillery but have also been taking sizable losses from Ukrainian artillery of their own. Like, do you even bother checking the Russian MOD or Death Notices? Apparently not.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@vandeheyeric "That's very obviously not what happened, as the inability to secure places like Hostomel or the outlying towns of Kyiv show." Russia sent less than 30 thousand troops towards Kiev. A HUGE city of over 3 million population, located across a river. Russia sent 50 thousand troops to take Mariupol, a small city with around 300 thousand population. Do the math, anyone who thinks Russia was trying to capture Kiev is an idiot. The statements coming from troops that went to Hostomel is that it was done primarily in support of the Russian raiding of USAs bioweapon labs during the first 2 weeks of war. Also, that Ukraine was suspected to have a radiation bomb ready to be used at Hostomel. Whether there was a dirty bomb or not is unconfirmed, but that was THE PRIMARY reason for going there. "Got any evidence for that? Don't think so." Uh... It was reported all over western media. *lol* "The retaking of Kherson in which the Ukrainian Military went on the offensive for months attiring Russian logistics and troops, and eventually the Kremlin decided it was better to retreat from the "Forever Russia" city rather than hunker down." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Keep on dreaming boyo. That's as delusional as calling Ukraine or North Korea a democracy. "What an absolute crock. We have more than 200 confirmed pieces of Russian war material destroyed or captured around Kherson. Granted, at least some of that was abandoned after the withdrawal order was given, but it still points that Russia lost vastly more than 200." Perhaps you should REMEMBER, the little fact that about 80% of destroyed and abandoned "Russian" equipment have been shown to be Ukrainian. Usually with a little Z painted on or sometimes with some photoshopping done to the pictures. Also, Russian troops have simple orders, their lives are more important than equipment. "That's a nice fable. Got any evidence for that?" Several leaks from Ukraine and then later confirmation from Russia and 3rd parties. "Translation: You don't know what the CIA's job is." Correction: CIA doesn't know what their job is. In case you don't have a clue, like is obvious you don't, it is already not just well known, but CIA has openly ADMITTED to such fun stuff as false flag terrorist attacks in Vietnam and spreading misinformation to the media. Try listening to Stockwell's interview from the 70s. And yes, it was leaked from Ukraine troops that f**k the CIA, their advice killed thousands. "Ok. Which forward forces?" Maybe learn to read? *lol* "Oh really? The propaganda-loving dictatorship with a proven track record of inflating enemy casualties intentionally undercounting their own counted 12,000 dead (not killed, wounded, and captured, SPECIFICALLY dead) in the middle of a battle where even you admit they were under attack by the Ukrainian second echelons in an exposed position across a river?" No, you little illiterate monkeybrains, that was what was counted in the cauldron that the Ukraine first 2 attack waves were trapped in after Russian troops crossed to the other side of the river and destroyed the Ukraine bridges and then held that position until the force across the river was mostly destroyed. "The propaganda-loving dictatorship with a proven track record of inflating enemy casualties intentionally undercounting their own" Wow, perfect description of Ukraine. Which we now, thanks to the Pentagon leaks, KNOW were complete fantasies. Amazing how the Pentagon KNOWS that Russian losses are exactly what they themselves have said they were. "No, it VERY OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AFTER THE FIGHTING WAS OVER, as geolocated and timed coverage of destroyed and killed troops shows." Really, then how come so many people agreed that it was an amazing piece of trickery to completely evacuate the military forces without getting shot at even once. The only people actually getting shot at all during the evacuation being the civillians. Bravo, you have no idea when it happened! Monkey wants a banana now that it showed it cannot count? "They've been picking off sizable numbers of Ukrainian troops with artillery but have also been taking sizable losses from Ukrainian artillery of their own" I never claimed it was completely onesided. But in that area, there have been no reports on any notable Russian casualties, while Ukraine very definitely have bene taking nearconstant losses, even if mostly small.

[@ZeSgtSchultz]

That BFA in the thumbnail Lol

[@baastex]

Tbh wouldnt the Ukraine-Russian war and Talvisota be the closer as a reference?

[@caracallaavg]

Up until July 2022 I'd say. Then it's like alternative history Talvisota where Finland got supplies from the west

[@antcommander1367]

@@caracallaavg not even altenative history of winter war, considering we Finns received shipments of British, French, Italian, Swedish and American aircrafts.

[@davidty2006]

@@antcommander1367 Along with eventually german panzers and stugs. But sweden did give them alot of bofors guns.

[@foilhat1138]

WW1 on bathsalts.

[@uniball5667]

Man, I've been saying this for years. People keep visualizing WW2 when it comes to modern war, but we continually forget that anti-armor technologies have advanced exponentially along with intelligence gathering. I saw someone reference the Iran-Iraq war, which I have to agree is a pretty good comparison. Still, i really don't understand why people are so surprised at the development of trenches. We can now use precision munitions from kilometers away like TOW and Javelins to annihilate tanks and armored vehicle's, which are necessary to exploit breakthroughs. Modern SAMS and AA guns like PIVADS make aerial insertion behind enemy lines nearly impossible without significant SEAD support, not to mention the difficulties of providing CAS. And we haven't even mentioned modern information gathering, allowing for lightning fast reaction times. Basically, we've become so good at combined arms warfare, it's becoming harder to use those combined arms against your opponent. It's like two fencers who are constantly parrying one another, so neither can get a lethal blow in. I really dont think people understand how deadly ATGM's really are, especially against older tanks like T-80's or T-72's(videogames like WARGAME don't help lol). Same goes for modern anti-air systems. Oh man, and we haven't even talked about modern artillery. Point is, i really dont think we should be so surprised at the similarities, though we should obviously recognize there's nuance.

[@looinrims]

Tell that to the Iraqis Just because one side doesn’t have the equipment needed to do something doesn’t make the something outdated

[@uniball5667]

@looinrims the Iraqis went against the largest coalition assembled in human history, and were using outclassed equipment. I think there were other factors at play during the Gulf War lmao. Also, that was in '92. That was over 20 years ago. That's about how long it was from the end off WW1, to the beginning of WW2. The Iraqis didn't have a lot of the ATGM technology we have now. Same with intelligence gathering tech.

[@looinrims]

@@uniball5667 there were two wars with Iraq, if you forgot that part My original comment still stands

[@uniball5667]

@looinrims oh, so are you referring to the second war that happened after the 1st war which DECIMATED the Iraqi military? Jeez, I wonder why they we're incapable of defending their country after that? It's almost as if the first war being so destructive to their military made them even less capable the second time around? I guess we'll never know though. I'm being sarcastic. Oh, and the second war happened 20 years ago, the first war happened 30 years ago. I got time warped, my bad. Edit: I know I'm being unnecessarily sassy, but I just feel like the Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War are the worst examples to pull from.

[@looinrims]

@@uniball5667 you’re dodging the point at all costs regardless

[@toddfromwork8931]

I'm surprised there aren't more trench assaults being conducted in coordination with kamikaze drones and loitering munitions. I think they would be quite helpful striking the openings of trenches and dropping munitions on infantry in open trenches while infantry are assaulting on the ground.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

Because whenever anyone has done so, they(as in 99 times of 100 meaning Ukraine) has taken massive casualties. The only time Russian troops did this was the initial big attack on Vuhledar, the only place Russia has taken serious casualties in a short timeframe. In case you don't understand, Ukraine has mined all their trenches, especially the forward ones and have them presighted for nearby artillery. Which is why every time Russian troops actually assault trenches, they do so by bypassing the first trench and attacking the 2nd or even 3rd line. Letting pure firepower deal with the forward trench(es). Ukraine essentially attempted to set up huge traps, but Russia refused to cooperate.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@DIREWOLFx75 they seem to be falling into the traps. It's amazing how soldiers complain, milbloggers complain, but random youtubers got it all figured out.

[@toddfromwork8931]

@@DIREWOLFx75 Okay, but why don't they combine their assaults on the 2nd and 3rd trench lines with suicide drones and loitering munitions?

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Yes, it's amazing how many gullible people who still haven't realised just how much propaganda warfare USA and UK are shitting out everywhere. Or maybe you haven't noticed how many neutral or pro-Russian youtube channels have been censored away in the last year? Only the people saying the right things are left alone. Even when it's just "for fun" or travelguides. If you don't say bad things about Russia, you get demonetised or outright banned. While anyone who claims to say whatever bad crap, oh suddenly they are shown to EVERYONE. Fancy that.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@toddfromwork8931 They DO. It's one smaller part of why there is such an extreme killratio in Russian favor.

[@thomashyatt7031]

Similarities occur in any seige and occupation tactic. Russia failed in it,s attempt at a swift and decisive invasion and has resorted to squatting and relying on attrition. There is no good outcome for Russia win or lose.

[@rttakezo2000]

'42-43 Eastern Front

[@matthewcherrington2634]

Will we see tunnels

[@DNG12900]

One of the biggest comparisons is Russia's failures on the Eastern Front against Germany. While they did well against Ottoman Empire and Austria Hungary, the German army's superior strategy, tactics and weaponry caused the Russian army to retreat further into their own land. Made all the worse by Russian Army being having shortages in supplies as well as ineffectual commanders. There was the Brusilov offensive but they ran kut of supplies before they could finish. Sounds a lot like Wagner and their advances.

[@jcarey568]

Is the anti aircraft so effective, as to prevent helicopter deployment of troops Vietnam style?

[@beepboop204]

🙂🙂

[@A1509MDIX]

Ukrainians in must trenches firing Maxim machine guns at Russian human waves, while artillery shells fly overhead both ways, and air support is very limited.

[@doggydude2668]

Another difference, Russia surrendered in WWI, while they won in Bahkmut XD xd

[@captianmorgan7627]

I think a better war to compare it to would be the Spanish Civil War.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

I enjoyed the talk, but I wish to point out that trench warfare was used extensively long before ww1, Caesar, the US Civil War, WW2 on all fronts, in Korea and probably most significant conflicts since. Even major wars of movement, like the Six-Day War, saw extensive trench warfare. What is the big stunner? At one point, I do disagree although originally, the lines were simply where the forces were as the war progressed, the Germans went on a defensive posture and moved their lines to positions that were militarily better. The French and Beligums full of national pride did not do this, "it is our national land mentality". I suspect the same is happening in this conflict. The Russians will move to strong military positions and the Ukrainians will have to follow them.

[@submarine6410]

I mean ww1 was the only war to have trench warfare at that scale, ww2 barely had trenches.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@submarine6410 Still huge Anzio, Stalingrad, Crimea, Tobruk, Leningrad, Kursk, etc., all saw massive trench warfare. In the Pacific, in the Island campaigns, the foxholes, the Battle of Shanghai, Burma, etc.

[@submarine6410]

@@WagesOfDestruction Yea, but thats more of a byproduct of just the huge scale of the war.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@submarine6410@ submarine6410 Yeah, what we are dealing with here is the only success Russia has been having recently is Bakhmut. So the political leadership of Russia is pushing for a victory somewhere. It is one of these useless villages/towns that are strategically pointless, as the speaker pointed out.

[@submarine6410]

@@WagesOfDestruction yea, morale boost, nothing else.

[@slashteam8440]

Or the eastern front of world war II

[@glenmcgillivray4707]

So. When tanks and mobility fail. Either flank. Or wind up in trenches. So clearly that's when we should use infiltration to break lines, cut supplies and use tanks for infantry support once again. You are going to lose tanks but the infantry won't get mowed down nearly as easily. But Russia can't co-operate with themselves to save their lives. And spent tanks without infantry in open fields with no support but an artillery barrage.

[@YAH2121]

Marinka is a better comparison imo

[@mididoctors]

The wat it's reminds me of is the Iran Iraq war

[@davidty2006]

Just without Saddams chemical weapons.