That’s far far too high. Their army would be combat ineffective with that level of losses, and there’s no way they would be making the gains that we know they have made.
Tim_N
6679
Just curious, what is this based on?
If Turkey can give Ukraine drones, and they’re part of NATO, why can’t we?
Because of the nature of combat, most of those losses are going to be concentrated on the infantry and other direct combat units - the percentages are probably 50% higher for them. Historically in modern times, once units reach 20% - 30% losses, they become combat ineffective. Thus is especially true when you are on the offensive, which requires more effort than defense.
That reminds me, I haven’t played the “Bayracktar” song yet today.
I got a chuckle out of this:
Our friend Curt is back with the opinion that sanctions will only result Russians increasing their support of Putin:
Now I happen to believe that he is right, but is missing the greater picture. The West is waging economic war on Russia, with the goal (as I noted in a post above), to make an example of Russia. If Putin is disposed of, that’s a bonus, but it’s not necessarily the goal. When the Allies declared war in Germany, no one was concerned that such an action would increase German support for Hitler. They were beyond that - and they are beyond that now.
Tim_N
6686
I don’t really understand this. Do you mean losses are concentrated on those in the frontline because that’s presumably where the combat is happening? Is it possible that Ukraine has inflicted heavy losses on Russia’s supply units? The latter would line up with the fact that logistics and morale are clearly a big problem for the Russians right now.
Are you talking about a specific unit reaching 20-30% losses the unit becomes ineffective, or once the army as a whole reaches 20-30% losses it becomes ‘combat ineffective’ (whatever that terms mean, it almost sounds like the Russian military from day 1 of the invasion)?
What are some historical examples of this?
ShivaX
6687
This is great:
Context: It’s an actual VDV (Russian Airborne Forces) recruiting song thing that’s cringe as fuck.
They just changed the subtitles to be more… accurate.
But the horrible cringe is all original.
No doubt the Russians have taken losses among support troops, but even so, it is still highly likely that the large majority of their losses have been in combat troops. The Allied air power in Normandy inflicted heavy losses on German logistics (probably better than UA is doing) but still it was the German infantry that took the vast majority of losses.
The newer units in combat would be obviously be suffering less from losses. But if the Russians have 20 - 30% losses, even if they are concentrated in some number of units, then those units are all but wiped out. The remaining units will be too few to carry out their mission. They can still fight, but not be numerous enough to do what they need to do. So either way, if the losses are spread out, or more concentrated, at those levels the Russians couldn’t be doing what they are doing.
Allow some sick UA beats to cleanse your palette. (The translation is in the thread.)
So I hear you like Ukraine and games?
Russian economy “under siege”, likely to default on foreign debt:
Pushing armor into urban areas will translate to lots of dead tanks.
CraigM
6693
Damn, that second to last picture, there isn’t anything left!
It looks like the Russians are pulling out WW2 type armored trains:
Timex
6695
As a Cold War vet, I wonder if they’ve always been that bad
This is what I’m wondering.
Did the Russian military just become much worse since the cold war, or did they always suck and we just imagined that they were equal to our own military?
pyrhic
6696
I have to assume the troubles are recent, probably post-cold war. Their military didn’t fall apart in afghanistan…
