Lee Merritt MD: FreedomDoc1

This is a translation of a Russian ( Probably a Wagner guy because it was on the Wagner Telegram site), about how modern warfare has changed dramatically recently. It’s pretty interesting. When the AI translator supplies this they consistently mistranslate a word probably meaning assault eschalon or maybe stormtrooper as “Assault Aircraft”. I need to look it up in my 1970’s Smirnitski’s Russian dictionary because it is somehow wrong in all computer translation. But it clearly is not airplane and I know the word for airborne so its not that. Here’s what they describe in current ground warfare:

“When the sentence 'the nature of war has changed' appears in the text, it's there to emphasize that the nature of war has indeed changed. If we approach the assessment of the current war from the perspective of military science based on the experience of World War II and try to give advice on how to fight - this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how and, most importantly, why we have come to the current format of war.

To use a crude comparison, modern warfare in the field differs from the one described and glorified by classics roughly like an electric smelting furnace differs from a blast furnace. In a blast furnace, everything - ore, coke, and flux - is loaded from above and melted, forming slag and cast iron. This is like infantry, tanks, and assault aircraft launching a massive offensive in unison - like at the Battle of Kursk.

In an electric smelting furnace, a graphite rod is immersed as an electrode in the material to be melted, electricity is applied, and an arc is formed, which melts the surrounding volume. Now, assault aircraft are like a graphite rod: they are plunged into the war and melt it, gradually burning themselves out.

The current fighting army is like an inverted pyramid, with the apex pointed towards the front. At the top are assault aircraft - and the further from the front line, the wider the 'geometric figure' expands. And this happens not because there are heroes and everyone else: reinforcing the front with manpower won't increase the efficiency rate, but will rapidly increase the number of casualties.

When we see the ruins of cities where battles are still ongoing, we won't actually see conventional combat in the traditional sense. What we'll see are destroyed buildings and deserted streets littered with debris - even burned-out equipment won't be in large quantities, because there are no fools left to drive heavy equipment into urban traps. The city will seem dead, but in every surviving basement, in every suitable crevice, we or the enemy will be hiding. Sitting quietly like mice, sometimes not even understanding where our own are and where the enemy's. In Kupiansk, the enemy identified ten authentic call signs - somewhere our people are hiding, but the enemy only hears them on the radio, not seeing them. He doesn't conduct classic sweeps - he seems to control something, but he's also afraid to venture out into the open, because our drones aren't sleeping either.

In the past, breaking out into operational space meant opening up room for maneuver. Now, it's much harder in open terrain than in ruins. There, at least, you can try to run from shelter to shelter, but in the open field with sparse forest strips, people who are already running for ammunition or supplies with a halo over their heads... They're already one foot in the grave. If we declare mobilization and try to return to large-scale tactical operations - the enemy will just rejoice. There will be no result, but the losses will increase by about eight times: the troops won't even make it to the front line. In the past, a man in a fur hat with a telescopic sight would command: 'Right flank regiment! Left flank regiment! Ambush regiment!' Now, if the command's ears are exposed somewhere - within five minutes, a Hellfire missile will be shoved into the telescopic sight...
That's it, we can safely send most military science books to the archives and start writing new ones."

❤27👍22

3.2K viewsedited 08:46