Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
Jul 4 25 tweets 9 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
In Germany @derspiegel, @welt, @ntvde and in Austria @derStandardat write that "the Ukrainian Offensive has failed"... ...

That is wild nonsense.

This nonsense happens, because all of them interviewed the same expert, who doesn't understand Ukraine's Offensive phases, of
1/25
which there are at least 5, and we're barely in the middle of Phase 1 - Attrition & Interdiction.

I wouldn't have to do this thread, if i.e. @derStandardat wouldn't confuse the Ukrainian Army's Assault brigades, with the National Guard's Offensive Guard brigades, but...
2/n
The reason people don't consider Ukraine's Phase 1 a success comes from people being used to US/NATO wars, in which Phase 1 is purely air power.

Phase 1 is meant to attrition enemy forces and interdict/disrupt their lines of communication. The West uses fighters and bombers,
3/n
and cruise missiles for that.

During the 1991 Gulf War 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets.
4/n
During the 2003 Invasion of Iraq coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets.
This time the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and
5/n
3rd Infantry divisions.

Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power; and so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow and drones.

Whereas in US and NATO operations the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking
6/n
for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for russian equipment, ammo points, command centers, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects.
Once a drone spots a target, the drone operator has to request
7/n
mensuration, the results of which are then transmitted to either a M142 HIMARS or M270A1 MLRS launcher, which will enter the target's coordinates into a GMLRS rocket; or transmitted to a M777, PzH 2000, M109A6 or Archer howitzer, which will enter the target's coordinates into
8/n
an Excalibur projectile; or the data is transmitted to the Ukrainian Air Force's 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, which will enter the target's coordinates into a Storm Shadow...

Did you notice that all of these take time? Ukraine can only hit russian equipment that is static.
9/n
Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit russian vehicles and objects that are static. A massive drawback.
Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory, and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front,
10/n
while Ukraine's range is limited to:
Excalibur range: 40 km
GMLRS range: 84 km
Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers

Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a russian target and by the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve HIMARS
11/n
range but the production line is not yet running...)

Now if you're russia, all you have to do it to park your heavy equipment outside of GMLRS range and Ukraine can't hit it.

It makes no sense to use a expensive Storm Shadow missile to hit i.e. a russian T-90M tank...
12/n
Still Ukraine must attrition russia's heavy equipment before it can begin Phase 2 of the offensive... and the only way to do it is to bait russian forces into GMLRS and Excalibur range.
And Ukraine is doing this right now by attacking the russian lines with four of the ten
13/n
brigades that have been readied for this Phase:

• 23rd Mechanized Brigade
• 31st Mechanized Brigade
• 37th Marine Brigade
• 47th Mechanized Brigade

All other brigades (i.e. 35th Marine, 68th Jaeger, etc.) are merely supporting these four brigades.
14/n





A further six brigades can be deployed for this phase. Now the russians are in a dilemma: either bring their heavy equipment forward and risk losing it to GMLRS and Excalibur or leave their heavy equipment out of range and allow Ukraine an unexpected early breakthrough
15/n
through the russians lines... well, the russians decided to bring their equipment forward and Ukraine is hitting it relentlessly.

Still it is a far, far slower process than air power... and unlike in an air campaign Ukraine is losing troops and vehicles... and this has led
16/n
to some analysts declaring the Ukrainian Offensive a "failure"... it is NOT. These "analysts" and "experts" just fail to understand the Ukrainian plan.

And they fail to understand that Ukraine gets stronger every day: Ukraine readied 35 (!) brigades for the offensive, by
17/n
raising new units, splitting existing units, pulling units out of the front and refreshing them... and just 4 of 35 are in the fight now.

All the others are at the training grounds - training every day to improve their skills; AND incorporating the lessons learned in the
18/n
offensive so far.
And every day troops return from training in NATO countries and Sweden; and new equipment arrives - the Offensive Guard brigades started out as light infantry... and are now getting tanks from Germany and Denmark, turning them into mechanized formations.
19/n
So many troops return from training in Europe that Ukraine recently formed three new brigades; and as the russians have stopped attacks in the South and along the Donetsk front, Ukraine recently pulled two elite brigades out of the front to freshen them up for the offensive.
20/n
How can an offensive have "failed" if more than 90% of forces are still training for the offensive?

I do not know when the next Phase of the Ukrainian Offensive will begin... but I am sure it is not tied to a date or certain geographic locations.

21/n
I assume the next Phase will be triggered when Ukraine is confident it has destroyed a certain % of the remaining russian howitzers, rocket launchers, electronic warfare systems, air defense systems; and degraded russian logististics by striking russian supply lines, and
22/n
destroyed most of the russian ammo dumps and command posts... you know, the exact same parameters that triggered the ground campaign of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Ukraine's Offensive has barely begun. And due to the lack of air power Phase 1 will take far longer than
23/n
people are used to... but journalists need to come up every day with a fresh new drama.

But the real story here is how many more forces Ukraine is readying, how many more forces Ukraine and NATO are training, and how much more equipment the West needs to donate for these
24/n
new units.

In Phase 3 Ukrainian forces will slice through russian lines and liberate Mariupol; will cross the Dnipro and liberate Northern Crimea; and will destroy russia's army in the South.

Ukraine's victory is inevitable. We just need a bit of patience.
25/end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

Jun 28
A few weeks ago I did a thread about mortars - today I will do a thread about mortar carriers 🧵:

Mortar carriers are becoming more and more important on the battlefield due to their speed and high rate of fire; and Poland's fully automatic M120 Rak is the best of them all.
1/n
first army to use mortar carriers in battle. The initial M4 Mortar Motor Carriage (MMC) consisted of a M2 Halftrack with a 81mm M1 mortar that could be dismounted, while the later M4A1 MMC used the same mortar but in a fixed mount in the vehicle's rear.
3/n

In 1944 production was switched to the M21 MMC, which was based on the larger M3 Halftrack. In 1945 the two M4 and M4A1 MMCs were retired, while the M21 remained in service until 1968, when it was replaced by the most produced mortar carriers in history: the M106/M125 series.
4/n
Read 28 tweets
Jun 26
I see so much nonsense and (unfounded) fear about "Wagner acquiring nukes".

1) that is bullshit of the highest order
2) it's spread by clowns
3) it was invented by a habitual liar

Let me walk through some basics of tactical nuclear weapons (= the ones you use against enemy
1/10
units, airfields, bridges, etc.).

• let's assume Wagner really made it into a nuclear weapons storage base (absolutely no proof of that) - ok, all the nuke parts are stored in bunkers. Unless the base's officers open the bunkers for you, Wagner got nothing.
2/10
• let's assume Wagner got the officers to open a bunker - ok, now you got part of a nuke. Tactical nuclear weapons are stored unassembled. Unless the officers open ALL the bunkers, Wagner got nothing.

• let's assume Wagner got the officers to open all the bunkers - ok,
3/10
Read 10 tweets
Jun 25
The key aspect of the aborted Prigozhin "coup" is for me that not one general came out to support putin or Prigozhin.

And not a single soldiers showed up to stop Wagner units when they passed by these division's bases:

• 150th Motor Rifle Division in Novocherkassk
1/4
• 3rd Motor Rifle Division in Boguchar
• 106th Airborne Division in Tula

and no one from the two regime-protecting divisions in moscow showed up to prepare defenses against Wagner:
• 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division
• 4th Guards Tank Division

Most of these divisions'
2/4
units have been destroyed in Ukraine, but there are still training battalions and battalions with conscripts at their bases. Not one battalion was willing to come out and fight for putin.

Prigozhin has exposed that putin's regime is brittle. Prigozhin is hated by most of the
3/4
Read 4 tweets
Jun 6
Naturally that offensive crushingly failed.
When the russians finally accepted their failure it was too late to build defenses in depth and with many of the surviving troops sent to Bakhmut to take that city, almost no russians were left to dig trenches. The third time the
2/6
russians attacked at Vuhledar it became obvious that there would be a gap in the russian defensive belt there. Every true military expert understood it and certainly every Ukrainian staff officer understood it.

The "top analysts", who only today start talking about Vuhledar
3/6
are clowns, just like the russians, who thought they could split the Ukrainian front with an advance through Vuhledar. That actually works better in reverse: a Ukrainian advance from the Vuhledar sector to the Azov Sea cuts off all the russian forces in the South, liberates
4/6
Read 5 tweets
Jun 4
Quick note:

• platoon/section/Troop = 30-60 soldiers (or 4 tanks, 2 howitzers - it varies from army to army) and led by a Lieutenant
• company/battery/squadron = 4-5 platoons (again varies from army to army) = 80-200 soldiers and led by a Captain
(In the US Army "troop" is
1/n
a company sized formation of the cavalry)
• battalion/group = 4-5 companies/batteries/squadrons (but not in the US Army, where squadron is the equivalent of a battalion in the cavalry) some 300-600 soldiers (during the Cold War infantry battalions had up to 1,000 troops) and
2/n
are led by either a Major or a Lieutenant Colonel (it varies from army to army... also i.e. tank battalions varey from 31 to 58 tanks)

So far units are of one type: i.e. armor companies form a armored or tank battalion, infantry companies form a infantry battalion, artillery
3/n
Read 21 tweets
May 31
Blekinge-class submarines for Poland, etc. etc.

EVERYONE must spend 2% and if that's too much for your military spend it on YOUR country's industry for equipment that will strengthen an ally with lower GDP.

During the Cold War a HUGE part of the US defense budget was spent
8/n
on equipment, materiel, and even ammo for NATO allies, because it is SO MUCH cheaper to equip allies to fight well alongside you then to have to send your own troops to fight a war alone.

NATO is an alliance and every member not spending 2% by 2024 should lose their voting
9/n
rights. I have been arguing for years to make defense spending a solidarity issue.

Last but not least: most NATO members, which are also EU and Euro members are constrained in their defense spending by the Euro-area's self-inflicted 3% budget deficit rule: a country may not
10/n
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(