Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="McTallshort" data-source="post: 1102843" data-attributes="member: 53362"><p>No that's not what a pitched battle is. A pitched battle is when you plan to engage and defeat an enemy at a time and place of your choosing. So for example Lyman, this was an important transport hub but also had large numbers of Russian forces stationed there. So the Ukrainian forces planned to surround and destroy (this includes surrendering) those Russian forces. Lyman itself was only important because the Russians considered it important and concentrated lots of forces there. To the Ukrainian army it was an opportunity to destroy the bulk of the Russian forces in the north.</p><p></p><p>This is what is really important, destroying the enemies ability to fight by destroying it's command and control, it's logistics and forces on the ground, not liberating towns and villages. Look at the Russian July offensives, lots of shelling and creeping gains so Moscow could claim some sort of victory when Lurhansk was "liberated". All they had really done was occupy a couple of potato fields and bombed out towns. At no point had they decisively beaten the Ukraine forces who just withdrew to fight another day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="McTallshort, post: 1102843, member: 53362"] No that's not what a pitched battle is. A pitched battle is when you plan to engage and defeat an enemy at a time and place of your choosing. So for example Lyman, this was an important transport hub but also had large numbers of Russian forces stationed there. So the Ukrainian forces planned to surround and destroy (this includes surrendering) those Russian forces. Lyman itself was only important because the Russians considered it important and concentrated lots of forces there. To the Ukrainian army it was an opportunity to destroy the bulk of the Russian forces in the north. This is what is really important, destroying the enemies ability to fight by destroying it's command and control, it's logistics and forces on the ground, not liberating towns and villages. Look at the Russian July offensives, lots of shelling and creeping gains so Moscow could claim some sort of victory when Lurhansk was "liberated". All they had really done was occupy a couple of potato fields and bombed out towns. At no point had they decisively beaten the Ukraine forces who just withdrew to fight another day. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top