As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
just a bit North of Kherson and the other over the dam at Nova Kakhovka (purple pentagons).
Since the arrival of M142 HIMARS both crossing have been pounded heavily by Ukrainian forces.
Since August the Antonovsky bridge near Kherson is impassable for vehicles (photo), while 2/n
the dam at Nova Kakhovka is still passable for trucks, but not heavy vehicles (photo).
Over the last month Ukraine has been wearing the russian forces in Kherson down: through artillery fire, constant probing attacks, drone attacks, and by destroying their ammo and supplies. 3/n
russia brought in pontoons to supply its forces in the South near Kherson (photo), but thanks to HIMARS Ukraine has been hitting and sinking these pontoons.
Now Ukraine went on the offensive in the North and quickly overran the starving, demoralized russian forces there. 4/n
This is the same map as in tweet 1, but seeing this map makes it easier to understand Ukraine's initial attacks (blue arrows):
One attack pierced the russian line near the Dnipro, using the 5 km wide river to cover its eastern flank. At the same time Ukrainian troops attacked 5/n
from their Inhulets bridgehead - thus fixing the russians forces there in place.
Meeting little resistance Ukrainian forces pushed South to Dudchany. This meant that the russian troops still holding the front in the North are now at risk of being encircled. The latest news
6/n
indicate that these russians are already fleeing from there (red arrows).
Kherson is steppe = a flat landscape with some thin treelines as only cover. There are no natural barriers, which makes it impossible for the russians to set up an improvised defensive line.
7/n
The russians can't stop retreating until the next natural barrier: either the Dnipro river or the Inhulets river
Retreating over the Dnipro Nova Kakhovka would make more sense for the russians, as
(Photo of the landscape in northern Kherson - ideal armored warfare country) 8/n
here their trucks and light vehicles can still cross and once on the left bank the russians could set up a defensive line to secure the rear of their forces fighting in Zaporizhzhia.
The other option is to retreat South to the Inhulets river (blue line). 9/n
Retreating to the Inhulets would be what a complete moron does... so the russians will do it.
Let's look again at the map with the second phase of the operation in Kherson: the russians retreat either over the Nova Kakhovka dam or over the Inhulets river: 10/n
if they retreat over the dam they will have to leave all their heavy vehicles behind, if they retreat over the Inhulets they will have to abandon most of their vehicles for lack of fuel.
And if the russians retreat over the Inhulets, the Ukrainians can cross the Dnipro and
11/n
establish a bridgehead on the left bank, from which they can attack towards Crimea and Melitopol. At Kakhovka they can also cut the water to Crimea.
In short the russians only have bad options (putin the "strategic genius" at it again).
Some russians will flee over the
12/n
Nova Kakhovka dam, but most will retreat over the Inhulets... and as said that's the most moronic option, because then the russians there will be boxed in by Ukrainian troops from three sides, with M777 howitzers able to hit almost every spot, and 13/n
AHS Krab, PzH 2000, Zuzana 2 and CAESAR able to hit every spot. And the only supply line will be pontoons, whose landing spots on both sides of the Dnipro are in Ukrainian artillery range.
Retreating over the Inhulets is retreating into a death trap. Once Ukrainian M777 can
14/n
hit the pontoons no ammo, no fuel, no food - nothing will reach the 15,000 russians stuck there. It's starve to death or freeze to death or surrender for them.
And they can't flee across the Antonovsky bridge as Ukrainian spotters will see them & artillery will shred them.
15/n
And in fall/winter they can't swim across the 1 km wide Dnipro river with its freezing water, as that would mean death by hypothermia.
putin just annexed Kherson, so he refuses to give it up... which means he has doomed all the russian troops there to death.
16/n
This is a textbook example how a smart, capable, flexible, motivated army can use terrain, enemy incompetence, and operational art to beat a cretinously led army.
We're gonna see more of this, because putin is a moron and General Zaluzhnyi is a genius.
17/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Please stop saying Europe should cancel weapons deals with the US.
Yes, we should not sign new weapon deals with the US; but canceling existing deals will hurt Ukraine and also Europe.
And there are 3 reasons for that. Let me explain.
1) Europe's armed forces have nearly
1/19
0 spare equipment, as almost everything taken out of service over the last 35 years was either sold off or scrapped. Europe must continue to support Ukraine and therefore Europe needs to buy whatever weapons it can get it hands on to free up equipment to donate to Ukraine. 2/n
I.e. you can't demand that Belgium cancel its F-35A deal and demand that Belgium must donate its F-16 to Ukraine...
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands could donate their F-16 to Ukraine, because they already received enough F-35A as replacement. 3/n
🇬🇧 @Keir_Starmer is NOT increasing defence spending this year.
🇬🇧 @Keir_Starmer is NOT increasing defence spending next year.
🇬🇧 @Keir_Starmer is increasing defence spending FROM (!) April 2027 by 0.2%.
This means that for
1/7
the next two years the British Armed Forces get nothing. They will remain as broken as they are.
The British Army has 78,000 troops of which just 18,000 are combat capable (the remaining 60,000 (= 77%) lack the materiel, training, equipment, etc. to be useful).
2/7
The situation is even worse for the Royal Navy.
Next year the British Armed Forces actually get even LESS money than this year (inflation is 10 times higher than GDP growth and so inflation cuts into the defence budget).
Then from April 2027 the situation will begin to
3/7
Yesterday I posted a thread about American weapons and components in fighter aircraft and how Europe has to wean itself off them.
Today let's look at transport, tanker, maritime patrol, and airborne early warning aircraft.
(Tomorrow then trainer aircraft and drones)
1/25
Transport aircraft come in two sizes: for strategic airlift or tactical airlift.
Simplified: strategic airlift transports materiel between continents and tactical airlift within a theater of operations.
For strategic airlift the choice for Europe is easy: A400M Atlas, because 2/n
it is the only strategic airlifter in production (C-17 Globemaster production ceased in 2015) and because the French were involved in its design the A400M Atlas comes with all key parts "Made in Europe".
Yes, it carries only half the payload of the C-17 Globemaster, but for 3/n
Let's talk about American weapons and how Europe has to wean itself off them.
Part 1 of a long thread; this one looking at fighter jets.
First and foremost: Europe has to get all American made components out of all weapon systems produced in Europe. If Trump can shut down a
1/24
European production line by withholding a component, then that component has to replaced... and if that is impossible, then that weapon system has no future and production has to end.
As for the F-35... Europe has nothing even close in combat capability. Best course will be 2/n
to see the existing deals through and then focus on acquiring Eurofighters and Rafales, both of which are way more capable than whatever junk russia sends up in the air.
The main issue will be that the Rafale's production line is running already at full capacity, while the 3/n
The Gripen was designed by Sweden for Sweden's Bas 90 air base system and - truly - Sweden built the perfect fighter for Sweden's Bas 90 system... which resulted in a fighter no one but Sweden needs.
Bear with me as I explain a few things @Saab doesn't want you to know.
1/29
Bas 90 was developed in the 1970s, when the Swedish Air Force was flying the Viggen (and some upgraded Draken). Bas 90 consisted of some 30+ reserve air bases with a 2,000+ metres (6,600+ ft) long main runway and 2-3 short runways of 800 metres (2,600 ft). 2/n
Here are the airbases of Kubbe (63°37'59.81"N 17°56'10.79"E) and Jokkmokk (66°29'48.43"N 20° 8'45.17") with the short runways highlighted in red.
Some of the short runways used public roads, but most were built specifically for the Bas 90 system in the 1980s. 3/n
I set out to create a table showing the reduction in British Infantry units between 1989 and 2025...
After doing Scotland, Wales and Yorkshire - I gave up.
For three reason:
a) the sheer size of it! The British Army had 100 infantry battalions in 1989 (not counting the 1/8
nine battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment).
b) the British Army's habit of reroling battalions every four years.
c) the disbanding of volunteer regiments in the early 1990s, then the merging of volunteer battalions into new volunteer regiments in the mid 1990s, and then
2/8
the disbanding of these new volunteer regiments some 5-6 years later, followed by the de-merging of some of the volunteer battalions.
In short: it was all very haphazard and chaotic!
So, instead here come the numbers about the British Army's infantry decline between 1989
3/8