Bakhmut about to fall.

a reply to: Grenade

What's left of it. At what cost?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Again, i entered this thread to try and sift through the propaganda in order to provide analysis of the combat situation.

As i suspected and predicted, Russia now controls the city after taking the key positions i alluded to.

My timeline was a few weeks off, which is testament to a brave defence by the entrenched Ukrainian forces, unfortunately for them the supply lines are now broken and my arm-chair generalship appears to be correct.

EDIT:

Elevated positions and forests to the West look like an ideal place for the Ukrainian military to regroup and shell Russian positions. I expect they will fall back there over the next few weeks.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Again, i entered this thread to try and sift through the propaganda in order to provide analysis of the combat situation.

As i suspected and predicted, Russia now controls the city after taking the key positions i alluded to.

Even Russia doesn't claim to control all of Bakhmut, but they do control the city center, and the eastern part, so probably at least 2/3 of the city.

Ukraine has been trying to hold a defense line at the railroad tracks to the west of the city center but even according to the most optimistic Russian accounts, Ukrainian forces still have at least some presence in Western Bakhmut and the Russian advances have slowed recently.

This is the ISW map of Bakhmut from April 13th, and Ukraine still controls a significant amount of the west part of Bakhmut, even Prigozhin admits that.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 13, 2023

Prigozhin stated that Ukrainian forces continue to defend Bakhmut and provision and reinforce their forces within the city. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian ground attacks in Bakhmut

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Looks like Bakhmut has fallen.

No gloating, just facts.

Not yet, it would seem?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Grenade

What's left of it. At what cost?

That's my confusion as well...what tactical advantage is this city?? I get defending your homeland but in warfare at some point things become all about that..

I fail to see why so many should fall for this place

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I think that there is little or no strategic value for this city. Not that there is now anything left of it.

Probably Ukraine sees it as a way of causing maximum attrition against the invader, with Russia just throwing more and more of it's men into a meat grinder.

Like I said, it would only be a Pyrrhic victory,, for the sake of Putin being able to claim some sort of success to save face.

Which is pretty sad, whichever way you look at it.

Just my two cents. For what it's worth.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The live map shows Russia controlling 80-90% of the city and making increased advances daily. Looks like a fighting retreat to me.

a reply to: Grenade

Maybe.

"Looks like Bakhmut has fallen."

Like I said, not yet.

Probably a matter of time, but not yet.

And at what cost to Russia and for what?

"The live map shows Russia controlling 80-90% of the city...."

More like two thirds?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

Probably Ukraine sees it as a way of causing maximum attrition against the invader, with Russia just throwing more and more of it's men into a meat grinder.

If that's Ukraine's strategy, it's a losing one. This is how Russia has always won wars in the past. It's not like only Russia is suffering casualties in this battle, and they have a much bigger supply of replacements than Ukraine does.

Without asking NATO for troops, of course.

a reply to: face23785

By "replacements", you mean untrained conscripts etc?

More meat to chuck in the grinder?

NATO troops on the ground won't happen.

Training, yes.

remember the port city and how its defense absolutely wrecked any momentum russia had in other areas because their logistics arm is non-existent.

I expect Ukraine wants to do they same thing here, lock a good chunk of them in place bleed them, burn up a bunch of ordinance allowing movement elsewhere. Yea its sacrificing the troops defending the city, but look at their history thats a fairly normal approach.

That would be my WAG.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
remember the port city and how its defense absolutely wrecked any momentum russia had in other areas because their logistics arm is non-existent.

I expect Ukraine wants to do they same thing here, lock a good chunk of them in place bleed them, burn up a bunch of ordinance allowing movement elsewhere. Yea its sacrificing the troops defending the city, but look at their history thats a fairly normal approach.

That would be my WAG.

I suspect you're on the right track.

Ukraine has bled Wagner private forces in particular that were active in the Bakhmut area, and has been successful at doing so, and that was likely at least one of their objectives in holding Bakhmut. Wagner previously attacked along 90 km of the front lines and there are so few left they have been reduced to only a 5 km span of the front line according to this video (of course not all were killed, many prisoners were recruited 7 or 8 months ago on 6 month contracts, so those who lived mostly left when their contracts were up, and Wagner doesn't recruit prisoners anymore, so they don't get replacements).

13 Apr: WOW. Wagners ARE DAMAGED MORE THAN ANYONE EXPECTED | War in Ukraine Explained


There are still regular Russian forces left, and Russia will be sending new poorly trained conscripts to the front lines, but they don't pose as much of a threat to Ukraine due to their inexperience, and less competent leadership of the Russian army (compared to Wagner). All the Russian generals and other high ranking leaders that were killed hasn't helped Russian military leadership either.

It's semantics at this point.

You can't say the city has fallen when your enemy still controls about a 1/4 of it and there is still active fighting with in the areas that you claim control over.

Also

You can't say that the city is holding when there is an enemy occupying about 3/4 of the city and there is active fighting in and around the area you claim to control.

All I can say for sure is that Russia has pushed this city and the area around it, Soledar, Krasnahora, Bakhmutske, Yadihine since last August and they still haven't taken the whole thing. The terrain around the area favours the defenders and they have used it to great effect so far.

The only thing to say for sure is that Bakhmut is still contested with the Russians holding, at this point, a much larger share of the ground.

I am sure the Ukrainians will pull out totally at some point and I suspect it will be soon. My guess is and it's only a guess, is that the Ukrainians will pull out right before they launch any offensive this spring. They might pull out tomorrow or the Russians might overwhelm the city today and push the Ukrainians back to Chasiv Yar, which will be another huge test for the Russians if they ever advance far enough.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: face23785

By "replacements", you mean untrained conscripts etc?

More meat to chuck in the grinder?

Who do you think Ukraine is replacing their casualties with? Western training is better for sure but neither side has a large pool of seasoned vets to send in at this point. "You bleed us, we bleed you" is a losing proposition for a country that's outnumbered.

NATO troops on the ground won't happen.

I hope not. But we've been lied to multiple times about what Ukraine "will never get."

originally posted by: face23785
I hope not. But we've been lied to multiple times about what Ukraine "will never get."

Like?

No one has lied about the political, humanitarian and military support for Ukraine. Do you have some amazing revelation?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: face23785
I hope not. But we've been lied to multiple times about what Ukraine "will never get."

Like?

No one has lied about the political, humanitarian and military support for Ukraine. Do you have some amazing revelation?

Seriously?

They weren't getting HIMARS. They got HIMARS.

They weren't getting Patriots. They got Patriots.

They weren't getting MBTs. That's in progress now.

They weren't getting F-16s. There are now Ukrainian pilots training on the F-16.

Where have you been getting your information from about this war? They haven't been keeping you very well informed. Don't get mad at me, get mad at them.

originally posted by: face23785
Who do you think Ukraine is replacing their casualties with? Western training is better for sure but neither side has a large pool of seasoned vets to send in at this point. "You bleed us, we bleed you" is a losing proposition for a country that's outnumbered.

That's what Putin is hoping for, and if the kill ratio is 1:1 that's certainly true, but what if the kill ratio is 5:1?

Russia is losing 5 of its soldiers for every Ukrainian it kills in the war's bloodiest battle, NATO official tells CNN

I don't know the actual ratio but I do suspect it's significantly above 1:1, and the enemy most effective at making advances in Ukraine, the Wagner private army, has been decimated to the point it's a shadow of its former self.

I hope not. But we've been lied to multiple times about what Ukraine "will never get."

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but on the Abrams tanks for example, the US never said those were off the table, they were reluctant to provide them due to all the training and support required for not only for operation, but also for maintenance of the turbine engines.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: face23785
Who do you think Ukraine is replacing their casualties with? Western training is better for sure but neither side has a large pool of seasoned vets to send in at this point. "You bleed us, we bleed you" is a losing proposition for a country that's outnumbered.

That's what Putin is hoping for, and if the kill ratio is 1:1 that's certainly true, but what if the kill ratio is 5:1?

Russia is losing 5 of its soldiers for every Ukrainian it kills in the war's bloodiest battle, NATO official tells CNN

I don't know the actual ratio but I do suspect it's significantly above 1:1, and the enemy most effective at making advances in Ukraine

It's undoubtedly more than 1:1, but I'd wager it's less than 5:1 as well. So is it above or below that crossover point that Russia can sustain? We really have no way of knowing.

And that's assuming that's the only consideration, which it's not. The West has the best tech, the best training, the best tactics. We lose wars because our public get tired of supporting it and quit. Once the public quits, the elected officials either quit or get voted out of office and replaced with representatives that want to quit.

Putin, being a dictator, doesn't have to worry about that. He just has to worry about his people getting fed up enough that they start a revolution. That's a much higher threshold than our people getting fed up enough to vote a different way.

Odds are we blink first. We always have in the past. The one exception in the last few decades was the 1991 Gulf War. We won that so fast that none of what I mentioned above had a chance to matter. That is obviously not the strategy here. The Western strategy appears to pretty obviously be to give Ukraine just enough to keep this going for years. If that's our strategy, we're gonna lose.

originally posted by: face23785
I hope not. But we've been lied to multiple times about what Ukraine "will never get."

originally posted by: face23785
Seriously?

They weren't getting HIMARS. They got HIMARS.

They weren't getting Patriots. They got Patriots.

They weren't getting MBTs. That's in progress now.

They weren't getting F-16s. There are now Ukrainian pilots training on the F-16.

Where have you been getting your information from about this war? They haven't been keeping you very well informed. Don't get mad at me, get mad at them.

If MBT means Abrams, Kirby never never said "Ukraine "will never get"" them. In 2022 he said they are not going to get them in 2022 but they are not off the table. He reiterated that here that they were never off the table and that's what I recall him saying last year even as he said the US was not sending them at that time:

National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby

MR. KIRBY: So, a couple of things. We’ve — you’re right, we’ve been completely open and transparent about the sophistication level of the Abrams tank. It’s the, as the President said, the most capable, powerful tank in the world. And a lot goes into making it the most capable tank. So, we’ve been very honest about that.

There’s — there’s training that’s needed. There’s sophisticated maintenance requirements. There’s a supply chain. I mean, it uses a gas turbine engine to — basically, a jet engine — 1,500 horsepower. So, there’s a lot that goes into operating these tanks on the field.

That said, we never ruled tanks out.

So there's a difference between saying "You're never going to get Abrams", versus saying "You're not going to get Abrams right now, but getting them at some future date is not off the table". That briefing elaborates on all the concerns expressed about sending Abrams without adequate support and training.

On the other examples you mentioned, I'm not sure if it's a similar situation to the Abrams or not where when the US said "we're not sending those now", some people interpreted to that to mean "we're not sending those ever, never ever", or as you put it "what Ukraine "will never get." If you can find someone saying Ukraine "will never get" Abrams tanks, I'd like to see that source, but if you can't provide that, I don't think it happened.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Grenade

What's left of it. At what cost?

That's my confusion as well...what tactical advantage is this city?? I get defending your homeland but in warfare at some point things become all about that..

I fail to see why so many should fall for this place

Logistical hub.