First World War Doctrine and the Modern [Russia vs Ukraine] War of Positions.
by Josiah Mosser
This blog was issued by
https://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.com/2025/10/recommended-download-first-world-war.html
On October 31 2025.
The document discusses the concept of positional warfare, particularly in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and analyzes the historical and modern implications of the elastic defense strategy used during World War I.
AI-generated summary.
Understanding Positional Warfare Today
The analysis of the Russo-Ukrainian War highlights the relevance of positional warfare in modern conflicts.
Positional war is characterized by limited movement and focuses on capturing terrain and attrition.
The U.S. may need to adapt to positional warfare due to potential air dominance loss.
Historical context shows that positional warfare allowed for strategic advantages in World War I.
The Elastic Defense in Depth Explained
The Russian defense in Ukraine reflects the German First World War elastic defense in depth.
Elastic defense involves light front-line deployment and local troop authority to withdraw when necessary.
The system includes five zones: Barrage Zone (BrZ), Outpost Zone (OZ), Main Line of Resistance (MLR), Battle Zone (BaZ), and Line of Artillery Defense (LAD).
The elastic defense allows for counterattacks and compression of defenders, enhancing defensive capabilities.
Modern Adaptations of Elastic Defense
The Russian defense has evolved with increased depth and technological advancements.
The BrZ in Ukraine is typically 1-1.5 km deep, accommodating mechanized warfare.
The introduction of the gray zone (GZ) aims to deny vehicle movement behind enemy lines.
Modern artillery and drone technology have expanded the effective range of defensive fire.
Objections to the Elastic Defense Interpretation
Critiques of the elastic defense interpretation highlight the need for internal Russian doctrine insights.
The Russian doctrine emphasizes maneuver in defense, but battlefield adaptations suggest an elastic approach.
The strength of the OZ may indicate a more rigid defense, but it can still align with elastic defense principles.
Benefits of Interpreting Russian Defense as Elastic
Viewing the Russian defense as elastic provides a nuanced understanding of its structure and challenges.
The elastic framework allows for a detailed analysis of distinct disruption zones.
Recognizing the importance of air superiority is crucial for successful breakthroughs against elastic defenses.
Minefields present a significant challenge, echoing World War I tactics but requiring modern solutions.
Historical Methods of Breaking Elastic Defense
Two historical methods—technical and shock—offer insights into overcoming elastic defenses.
The technical method relies on industrial advantages and overwhelming artillery to grind down defenses.
The shock method emphasizes disorganization of the enemy through coordinated infantry and artillery tactics.
Proposing a New Tandem Method
A new tandem method combines infantry and mechanized units to effectively breach modern elastic defenses.
Infantry can exploit lightly held positions in the OZ and MLR.
Mechanized units should focus on countering enemy reinforcements and preventing defender compression in the BaZ.
Modern Breakthrough Artillery Tactics
Modern artillery tactics are essential for overcoming elastic defenses in contemporary warfare.
Simply using infantry to clear paths for armor is insufficient against modern defenses.
German breakthrough artillery tactics may provide a solution, requiring centralized command.
Drones can track and target enemy artillery, enhancing the effectiveness of preparatory bombardments.
Attack drones can assist in counterbattery roles, reducing the need for traditional artillery.
Challenges of Obstacle-Clearing Fire
Addressing the complexities of clearing modern minefields requires innovative approaches.
Mortars are effective for obstacle-clearing due to their low cost and high rate of fire.
Artillery support must be maintained during advances, as minefields can extend up to 10 km deep.
Close contact with defenders can allow forces to penetrate defenses before they can be sealed.
Remote-Deployable Mines as a Solution
Remote-deployed mines could replace traditional gas tactics in modern warfare.
These mines can disrupt enemy artillery and hinder their shoot-and-scoot tactics.
Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are particularly vulnerable to this technique.
Short-duration minefields can pin defenders to their positions, weakening their elastic defense.
Resource and Equipment Considerations
The implementation of new tactics may require additional resources and equipment.
The need for increased munitions and equipment for effective minefield deployment is a significant concern.
The German AT-2 rocket is compatible with current systems and meets many offensive mining requirements.
Development of antipersonnel mines with similar capabilities is necessary for effective deployment.
Conclusion on Positional Warfare Strategies
Understanding the challenges of positional warfare is crucial for modern military strategies.
The elastic defense model presents significant challenges for offensive operations.
Historical tactics from World War I provide valuable insights into overcoming these challenges.
Continuous adaptation and innovation are essential for success in future conflicts.