That's why 50 or even 100 HIMARS can't turn the tide of this operation. Russia can concentrate 10-15 divisions of howitzers and MLRS on a small sector of the front, and they plow everything with cheap shells and unguided rockets. And Ukraine can oppose only 1-2 divisions, which, moreover, are forced to hide from drones and high-precision missiles. The success of the operation to liberate Donbass is not a matter of strategy or tactics, it is a matter of logistics and timing.
Nothing new. RF shelling with 60's equipment and "conquering" a land of rubble. There are several things that you got wrong:
- HIMARS is precisely there to fuck up those logistics you describe and with just 4 of them, high value targets have been destroyed. It is clear to anyone that the pace of the offensive has slowed.
- RF can concentrate troops... at the cost of leaving other areas dangerously undefended. There are tiny advances from Ukraine in the South. In themselves they do not mean much, but the fact that there's actually any advance should give you food for thought on how strong the grip on the invaded lands is.
But the biggest caveat is that the tactic is slow and costly. RF cannot maintain and army working at that pace for a long period of time under economic sanctions and certainly will need to convince many of joining an army that has a reputation for not giving a F*k for their soldiers and sending then unprepared and untrained.
Regarding "high precision"... nothing to be shown for that. The technical weaponry exists, but is so limited that makes zero effect. Ukraine has always been ready for air raids and missiles and use the right tactics to minimise the effects of these.
Overall, there is nothing like a "winning strategy" going on at all.
Although what am I talking about? Talk about a counterattack on Kherson turned out to be part of an information-psychological operation, in other words, another fake.