[linMcHlp]

My view: Ukraine does not have the necessary abundance of mobility-in-depth with which to drive deep into Russian lines.

With so much anti-vehicle (missile-type) weaponry at Russia’s disposal, very difficult to extend columns without advancing on both flanks, with troops.

Ukraine sorely needs more vehicles that mount one of:

- rocket tube launchers
- recoilless rifle
- SPG-9”

with which, Ukkraine may broadly suppress Russian positions.

Ukraine simply does not have the logistics trains, with which to support its offense ambitions.

[Rockingham]

Lack of information makes it hard to know what Ukraine and Russia actually have at their disposal on the battlefield. Russian logistics is notoriously poor by NATO standards, being heavily dependent on rail lines. And while Ukraine's logistics are now modeled on NATO, their ability in practice to mount and support deep offensive penetrations of Russian lines is untested.

Recent reports are that the Russians apparently aim at a defense in depth through a series of defensive lines like they used at Kursk in WW II. Such lines may be the best use for poorly trained and ill-equipped Russian troops that lack mobility, but they may simply become stages for withdrawals, with each static defensive line being relatively weak and crumpling when attacked in force.

You are correct about Ukraine's need for recoilless rifles and rockets. Swedish Carl-Gustaf M4 recoilless rifles and British NLAW tube launched rockets have proven highly useful for the Ukrainians, with NATO stocks now so depleted that the Swedes and Brits have had to issue new production contracts. Again, it is hard to know just what Ukraine has at its disposal.

[Does so]

“Ukraine sorely needs more vehicles that mount one of:

- rocket tube launchers
- recoilless rifle
- SPG-9”

with which, Ukkraine may broadly suppress Russian positions.”

Sweden has delivered many Bradley-type vehicles in recent days to Eastern Ukraine.