Thread by @gslavic

Let us be realistic here and treat things like they should be treated - objectively. What we saw today was a probe that for some reason evolved into the screening assault. There are 3 levels of attack that should be distinguished.
1. Probe
2. Recon in force
3. Screening assault.

1. Probe is a hit-and-run attack on the enemy by troops primarily to discover the location of the defending troops. It is done with a very small mobile group that has the task of simply provoking defenders to action in order to reveal what is the readiness of the defender.

2. Recon in force is the type of attack where a significant number of troops are sent in the attack (much more than the simple probe) in order to not only locate places of concentration and composition of the troops but to engage them in a protracted battle before the retreat.

This allows the attacker to ascertain the full composition of the defender, locate fire support assets and prepare viable plans for assault in the future, by analyzing all of the aspects of the defender's behavior during the battle (response time, fire support availability, etc.)

3. Screening assault is the prelude to a full attack on the enemy positions. In a way, it can be an introduction to a full assault on the enemy or an attack on the enemy positions that are not on the axis of the main assault in order to anchor/tie down the enemy to a position.

It is mostly used to pint-point all of the enemy fire points, support assets, and locations of the fortifications so that they can be destroyed by troops committed to the full assault that follows or by the fire support assets that are allocated to support the said main assault.

A big problem can arise if the enemy has decided to implement not static but flexible defences where the first line of defence is not committed to the defence of the section of the front but is meant just to act as the "tripwire" for committing the friendly reserve to the area.

That means that the action will not reveal the real disposition of the defending troops but misinform the commander that the portion of the front is very weak and have him commit the troops to the wrong place because "even initial screening is already yielding the results"!

In addition - it can in fact be an extremely dangerous turn of events because it will reveal to the defender axis of the assault and have him commit the troops to the right place. From Sun Tzu to this day there is a military rule "If your attack is going too well - it is a trap".

In modern warfare, this type of defense is, in fact, the only viable defense considering that any pitched battle defending a static fortification is heavily problematic (which is a major paradox-to be honest) for the defender considering the precision of modern support assets.

With all of the PGM, drone-corrected artillery fire, and satellites reckon only the suicidal idiot stays in the initial positions once coming under a sustained attack. You need to move, relocate, and even give up territory if needed to survive, persist and be able to fight back.

While in WW1 and WW2 you would dig in to survive - in modern warfare if you dig in, and remain there, you are just "helping the undertaker" (he only has to fill up the grave).
With precision munition and artillery drone correction to remain static - is to die very quickly!

If and when the offensive of either side starts we might see large successes of the attacker in the initial days of the attack. The reason for this is a simple fact - both sides of the conflict have learned the quality of mobile defense from Zukov's blunder at Seelow Heights.