Sudanese Civil War (2023–present)(2023)
15 April 2023 - günümüz
Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Allies
Commander: Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan
Initial Combat Strength
%47
ⓘ Analysis Parameter: Raw combat force projection only. Does not reflect the mathematical average of operational quality scores.
Decisive Force Multiplier: SAF possesses air force and heavy artillery superiority, but struggles against RSF's mobile structure in ground combat. International recognition and foreign bases (Egyptian support) provide advantage.
Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Allies
Commander: General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti)
Initial Combat Strength
%53
ⓘ Analysis Parameter: Raw combat force projection only. Does not reflect the mathematical average of operational quality scores.
Decisive Force Multiplier: RSF is notable for high mobility, semi-independent structure, and extensive ground control; illegal gold trade provides financing. However, dispersed command-control and foreign dependency create vulnerabilities.
Final Force Projection
Post-battle strength after attrition and strategic wear
Operational Capacity Matrix
5 Military Metrics — Staff Scoring System
SAF maintains access to limited state logistics and supply lines from Egypt, while RSF sustains itself through seized assets and gold smuggling; both sides have sufficient resilience for prolonged warfare but face critical bottlenecks.
SAF preserves traditional command hierarchy yet adapts slowly in the field; RSF exhibits a decentralized, tribally reinforced flexible structure, but this complicates coordination.
RSF gained an advantage through high mobility and surprise raids in urban and rural areas; SAF attempted to buy time with positional defense and slow advancing counterattacks; the vast desert terrain favored RSF.
Both sides rely on human intelligence and local knowledge; SAF's technical reconnaissance edge (UAVs) remains limited, while RSF's networks within the local population feed its operational intelligence.
SAF's air power and heavy artillery provided conventional superiority, while RSF's alliance with jihadist elements and use of extreme violence served as a psychological multiplier; both sides maintained the balance of power through external support (UAE, Russia, Egypt).
Strategic Gains & Victory Analysis
Long-term strategic gains assessment after battle
Victor's Strategic Gains
- ›SAF regained initiative in Khartoum and the north, partially reestablishing state authority; however, most of Darfur remained under RSF control.
- ›While SAF sustained international legitimacy, RSF maintained financial independence through gold exports, prolonging the proxy war.
Defeated Party's Losses
- ›RSF gained strategic depth in Darfur amid ethnic cleansing allegations, but was forced to withdraw from Khartoum, losing its claim to central authority.
- ›The RSF-led coalition's fragmented structure and external pressure prevented a lasting political settlement; the conflict evolved into a war of attrition.
Tactical Inventory & War Weapons
Critical weapons systems and combat vehicles engaged in battle
Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Allies
- MiG-29 Fighter Jet
- Su-25 Attack Aircraft
- T-55 Main Battle Tank
- BM-21 Grad MLRS
Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Allies
- Technical (Armed Pick-up)
- BMP-1 Armored Fighting Vehicle
- DShK Heavy Machine Gun
- SPG-9 Recoilless Rifle
Losses & Casualty Report
Confirmed and estimated casualties sustained by both parties as a result of battle
Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Allies
- 26,000+ PersonnelConfirmed
- 45+ Fighter JetsEstimated
- 200+ Armored VehiclesIntelligence Report
- 3x Division HQsClaimed
- 12+ Supply DepotsUnverified
Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Allies
- 22,000+ PersonnelEstimated
- 0 Air AssetsNone
- 550+ TechnicalsIntelligence Report
- 5x Brigade HQsClaimed
- 25+ Gold MinesUnverified
Asian Art of War
Victory Without Fighting · Intelligence Asymmetry · Heaven and Earth
Victory Without Fighting
Despite diplomatic initiatives such as the Jeddah Declaration, the parties failed to secure a lasting ceasefire; SAF used its international recognition to maintain legitimacy, while RSF survived through gold trade and external backing. The strategy of winning without fighting failed, making conflict inevitable.
Intelligence Asymmetry
RSF's tribal connections and local collaborators give it an intelligence advantage in rural areas; however, SAF's electronic signals intelligence and urban surveillance capacity partially offset this gap. The struggle for informational superiority continues.
Heaven and Earth
Sudan's vast plains and scorching desert climate enable RSF's light-vehicle rapid movement, while creating a logistical nightmare for SAF's mechanized units. The Nile River and urban areas favored SAF's defense.
Western War Doctrines
Attrition War
Maneuver & Interior Lines
RSF employed interior lines advantage to launch simultaneous raids on multiple fronts; SAF remained often reactive, unable to rapidly redeploy heavy units, limiting initiative to short-term gains.
Psychological Warfare & Morale
Ethnic tensions and past massacres, especially in Darfur, fueled fear and rage, boosting combat motivation on both sides; but civilian casualties under international pressure lowered SAF morale, while RSF's notoriety for brutality provided short-term psychological advantage.
Firepower & Shock Effect
SAF attempted to create shock effect through UAVs and artillery barrages; RSF pursued psychological collapse through sudden raids and ruthless violence. Although SAF was superior in firepower, RSF was more successful in shock maneuver.
Adaptive Staff Rationalism
Center of Gravity · Intelligence · Dynamism
Center of Gravity
SAF correctly focused its center of gravity on controlling the capital Khartoum and the northern axis; RSF directed its main effort towards Darfur and western states, managing to disperse SAF's striking point. Neither command fully identified the enemy's center of gravity.
Deception & Intelligence
RSF's infiltration tactics using civilian vehicles and humanitarian corridors proved deceptive; SAF attempted to influence international public opinion through disinformation. Intelligence blindness was common on both sides.
Asymmetric Flexibility
RSF displayed asymmetric flexibility by rapidly adapting unconventional warfare doctrine to circumstances; SAF remained heavy and cumbersome, unable to break away from traditional concepts. RSF was clearly superior in adapting to changing front dynamics.
Section I
Staff Analysis
The Sudanese Civil War has become a hybrid attrition war between two regular military forces. While SAF initially relied on air superiority and heavy weapons, RSF's agile tactics and popular support created unexpected equilibrium. SAF's logistical sustainability depends on state resources, while RSF manages through confiscation and smuggling. In terms of command-control, SAF is more centralized but faces bureaucratic hurdles, whereas RSF's decentralized structure enables rapid decisions yet causes coordination problems.
Section II
Strategic Critique
Both command echelons made serious errors in strategic planning. SAF overextended its forces in Darfur, facilitating RSF's rapid advances; RSF failed to anticipate a long attrition war in Khartoum and fell into logistical difficulties. SAF's Omdurman counter-offensive was a correct move but failed to evolve into a synchronized general counter-attack. RSF's combination of external support and gold trade was clever, but condemned it to diplomatic isolation.
Other reports you may want to explore