Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Any gains Russia makes is a bloodbath for them and basically makes it impossible for them to get new forces and wears them down.
Gains don't mean anything when you dint have tje forces

Not supported by any evidence and is being openly admitted by both Western Press and the Ukrainians themselves:

Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.​
But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.​
Ammunition is certainly running short on the Ukrainian side, again by their own admission. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has said Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, and has “almost used up” its stockpile of Soviet 152mm standard shells. It is now relying on Nato-standard 155mm howitzers; it is unclear how many of these it has.​
Commanders have told the Guardian that Ukraine struggles for some basic equipment such as encrypted radios (where mobile phones work, it is not uncommon to rely on the secure Signal app instead) or advanced sights and optics of the types commonly used by western militaries.​
Ukraine is not short on bravery and determination. Western support is still in place, as shown by the UK announcement to supply a handful of – perhaps three – multiple rocket launchers this week, even if Kyiv said almost immediately it wanted many times more. But it is Russia’s forces that have found a way to advance in the Donbas, raising the question of whether the three-month war is at another turning point.​
 
Im honestly surprised they lasted as long as they have.

The Ukraine is freaking flat land, its perfect tank country, and Russia was considered to be the second strongest milatary on earth the fact they have done as well as they have is amazing.
 
Copes. Copes everywhere.


Ukraine is grinding Russia into mincemeat, and even the Russian propagandists are starting to admit it. Russia has been completely unable to make any lasting and serious gains in any theatre where the Ukrainians have gotten around to countering in force.

To quote Zelensky himself, from June 1st:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.​
“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.​

Zelensky advisers, as the situation continues to develop, are now admitting to far higher losses as of June 10th:

A senior Ukrainian presidential aide has told the BBC that between 100 and 200 Ukrainian troops are being killed on the front line every day.​

To put this into historical perspective:
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.​

It would certainly come as shock for Kherson, Melitopol, Mariupol, Lyman and 90% of Severodonetsk last I checked that the Russians have failed to make any serious advances. It would equally come as a shock to the men of the JTO, around 70,000 men before the war, they were not a large grouping given they were the largest deployment of Ukrainian servicemembers in February. As for the idea the Russians have been getting bloodied, that's been disabused by the BBC:

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.​
The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.​
 
To quote Zelensky himself, from June 1st:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.​
“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.​

Zelensky advisers, as the situation continues to develop, are now admitting to far higher losses as of June 10th:

A senior Ukrainian presidential aide has told the BBC that between 100 and 200 Ukrainian troops are being killed on the front line every day.​

To put this into historical perspective:
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.​

It would certainly come as shock for Kherson, Melitopol, Mariupol, Lyman and 90% of Severodonetsk last I checked that the Russians have failed to make any serious advances. It would equally come as a shock to the men of the JTO, around 70,000 men before the war, they were not a large grouping given they were the largest deployment of Ukrainian servicemembers in February. As for the idea the Russians have been getting bloodied, that's been disabused by the BBC:

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.​
The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.​
Do you have a serious memory problem? You tried the bullshit claim misrepresenting the BBC info, and I pointed it out. You wonderfully fucked off. Then, hoping everyone forgot, you came back with more bullshit. When I addressed your lying, you tried to obfuscate, and asked for a quote. I gave it, and you fucked off again. It was great. Now, you're seriously going to repeat it a third time?
 
Do you have a serious memory problem? You tried the bullshit claim misrepresenting the BBC info, and I pointed it out. You wonderfully fucked off. Then, hoping everyone forgot, you came back with more bullshit. When I addressed your lying, you tried to obfuscate, and asked for a quote. I gave it, and you fucked off again. It was great. Now, you're seriously going to repeat it a third time?
He remember,but hope that we gorget.Either troll,or fsb suicidal agent who replaced @Chiron after he vanished.
P.S i hope,that KGB do not killed him.Personally,i liked his bullshit.
 
-Snip-

To put this into historical perspective:
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.​
-Snip-
Or, to put this up against a different warped perspective, about 117 Americans die in motor vehicle accidents per day. Or, 124 to firearms.

"So, I guess serving in the Ukrainian army is less dangerous than just driving or wandering the streets of America."
"Well, they're totally different situations with totally different factors!"
"Well, so are the Ukrainian and Vietnam wars."
"Well, they're both wars though!"
:rolleyes:
 
Ukraine forces outgunned up to 40 to one by Russian forces, intelligence report reveals

Ukrainian troops are suffering massive losses as they are outgunned 20 to one in artillery and 40 to one in ammunition by Russian forces, according to new intelligence painting a bleak picture of the conflict on the frontline.A report by Ukrainian and Western intelligence officials also reveals that the Ukrainians are facing huge difficulties responding to Russians shelling with their artillery restricted to a range of 25 kilometres, while the enemy can strike from 12 times that distance.For the first time since the war began, there is now concern over desertion. The report, seen by The Independent, says the worsening situation in the Donbas, with up to a hundred soldiers being killed a day, is having “a seriously demoralising effect on Ukrainian forces as well as a very real material effect; cases of desertion are growing every week”.
Wow, that's some impressively bad reporting.

Ukraine's best medium range artillery is the M777, which has an effective range of 30km.

Ukraine's best long range artillery is the CAESAR self-propelled howitzer, which has an effective range of 50km.

Russia's longest range artillery is the 2S7 Pion, which has an effective range of 37.5km.

So putting aside the false claim of 25km artillery range for Ukraine. The only way you get Russia being able to strike from "12 times that distance" is if you are measuring Ukraine artillery against Russia MLRS. Meaning the article is either being intentionally deceptive trying to make us think that "12 times" was in reference to Russia's artillery. Or the person who wrote said article is just extraordinarily stupid.

Either way, it's safe to say we can completely write off that article as being just straight up wrong about everything.
 
I generally stopped replying to these kind of threads because I knew time would prove me right soon enough, and indeed it has.

Ukraine is running out of ammunition as prospects dim on the battlefield:

[T]he odds against the Ukrainians are starting to look overwhelming, said Danylyuk, the government adviser.​
“The Russians are using long-range artillery against us, often without any response, because we don’t have the means,” he said. “They can attack from dozens of kilometers away and we can’t fire back. We know all the coordinates for all their important targets, but we don’t have the means to attack.”​
Ukraine has now almost completely run out of ammunition for the Soviet-era weapons systems that were the mainstay of its arsenal, and the Eastern European countries that maintained the same systems have run out of surplus supplies to donate, Danylyuk said. Ukraine urgently needs to shift to longer-range and more sophisticated Western systems, but those have only recently been committed, and in insufficient quantities to match Russia’s immense firepower, he said.​
Russia is firing as many as 50,000 artillery rounds a day into Ukrainian positions, and the Ukrainians can only hit back with around 5,000 to 6,000 rounds a day, he said. The United States has committed to deliver 220,000 rounds of ammunition — enough to match Russian firepower for around four days.​

Ukraine forces outgunned up to 40 to one by Russian forces, intelligence report reveals

Ukrainian troops are suffering massive losses as they are outgunned 20 to one in artillery and 40 to one in ammunition by Russian forces, according to new intelligence painting a bleak picture of the conflict on the frontline.​
A report by Ukrainian and Western intelligence officials also reveals that the Ukrainians are facing huge difficulties responding to Russians shelling with their artillery restricted to a range of 25 kilometres, while the enemy can strike from 12 times that distance.​
For the first time since the war began, there is now concern over desertion. The report, seen by The Independent, says the worsening situation in the Donbas, with up to a hundred soldiers being killed a day, is having “a seriously demoralising effect on Ukrainian forces as well as a very real material effect; cases of desertion are growing every week”.​

Anyone at this point claiming the Ukrainians are winning or even having an easy time of it are deluding themselves and ignoring even what the Ukrainians themselves are admitting to. To quote Zelensky himself, from June 1st:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.​
“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.​

Zelensky advisers, as the situation continues to develop, are now admitting to far higher losses as of June 10th:

A senior Ukrainian presidential aide has told the BBC that between 100 and 200 Ukrainian troops are being killed on the front line every day.​

To put this into historical perspective:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.​

Just to really hammer it home:

Any way you count it, the figures are stark: Ukrainian casualties are running at a rate of somewhere between 6oo and 1,000 a day. One presidential adviser, Oleksiy Arestovych, told the Guardian this week it was 150 killed and 800 wounded daily; another, Mykhaylo Podolyak, told the BBC that 100 to 200 Ukrainian troops a day were being killed.​
It represents an extraordinary loss of human life and capacity for the defenders, embroiled in a defence of the eastern city of Sievierodonetsk that this week turned into a losing battle. Yet the city was also arguably a place that Ukraine could have retreated from to the more defensible Lysychansk, across the Siverski Donets River, the sort of defensive situation that Ukraine has fared far better in.​

Further:

Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.​
But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.​
Ammunition is certainly running short on the Ukrainian side, again by their own admission. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has said Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, and has “almost used up” its stockpile of Soviet 152mm standard shells. It is now relying on Nato-standard 155mm howitzers; it is unclear how many of these it has.​
Commanders have told the Guardian that Ukraine struggles for some basic equipment such as encrypted radios (where mobile phones work, it is not uncommon to rely on the secure Signal app instead) or advanced sights and optics of the types commonly used by western militaries.​
Ukraine is not short on bravery and determination. Western support is still in place, as shown by the UK announcement to supply a handful of – perhaps three – multiple rocket launchers this week, even if Kyiv said almost immediately it wanted many times more. But it is Russia’s forces that have found a way to advance in the Donbas, raising the question of whether the three-month war is at another turning point.​



They have half of the combat brigades Ukraine had in February and their own war games found the Russians would crush them in less than a week.

Not supported by any evidence and is being openly admitted by both Western Press and the Ukrainians themselves:

Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.​
But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.​
Ammunition is certainly running short on the Ukrainian side, again by their own admission. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has said Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, and has “almost used up” its stockpile of Soviet 152mm standard shells. It is now relying on Nato-standard 155mm howitzers; it is unclear how many of these it has.​
Commanders have told the Guardian that Ukraine struggles for some basic equipment such as encrypted radios (where mobile phones work, it is not uncommon to rely on the secure Signal app instead) or advanced sights and optics of the types commonly used by western militaries.​
Ukraine is not short on bravery and determination. Western support is still in place, as shown by the UK announcement to supply a handful of – perhaps three – multiple rocket launchers this week, even if Kyiv said almost immediately it wanted many times more. But it is Russia’s forces that have found a way to advance in the Donbas, raising the question of whether the three-month war is at another turning point.​

To quote Zelensky himself, from June 1st:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.​
“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.​

Zelensky advisers, as the situation continues to develop, are now admitting to far higher losses as of June 10th:

A senior Ukrainian presidential aide has told the BBC that between 100 and 200 Ukrainian troops are being killed on the front line every day.​

To put this into historical perspective:
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine is now losing 60 to 100 soldiers each day in combat. By way of comparison, just short of 50 American soldiers died per day on average in 1968 during the Vietnam War’s deadliest year for U.S. forces.​

It would certainly come as shock for Kherson, Melitopol, Mariupol, Lyman and 90% of Severodonetsk last I checked that the Russians have failed to make any serious advances. It would equally come as a shock to the men of the JTO, around 70,000 men before the war, they were not a large grouping given they were the largest deployment of Ukrainian servicemembers in February. As for the idea the Russians have been getting bloodied, that's been disabused by the BBC:

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.​
The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.​

Even if Russia will win the war, it will fail in the main desired goal of Russian nationalists, which would be to acquire a lot of Ukraine's human capital. Less than 5% of Ukrainians (including less than 10% in eastern Ukraine) actually want to integrate into the Eurasian Economic Union right now. I thus suspect that a lot of Ukrainians would rather emigrate than live under Russian or Russian puppet rule, and the EU is currently welcoming them with open arms. So, Russia could get some--maybe even a lot of--Ukrainian territory, but it won't get that much of Ukraine's people, most of whom will likely prefer to emigrate than to provide additional human capital to Russia.
 
Do you have a serious memory problem? You tried the bullshit claim misrepresenting the BBC info, and I pointed it out. You wonderfully fucked off. Then, hoping everyone forgot, you came back with more bullshit. When I addressed your lying, you tried to obfuscate, and asked for a quote. I gave it, and you fucked off again. It was great. Now, you're seriously going to repeat it a third time?

I'm sure that's what happened in your head, but I'm sorry that doesn't have any relevance to what actually happened in reality. You made a claim I misrepresented the BBC, I literally quoted the article in question to show you lied and presumably you, as you claim here, cited me saying exactly that; I didn't see that post, but quite frankly your entire version of events as presented here leads me to conclude I didn't have to see it to know its baseless bluster.

You're simply all projection, you're not clever you're just amusement for me honestly. I've presented the BBC link and directly quoted it, no misrepresentation at all and if you feel otherwise dear the onus is on you to actually make an argument that has more merit to it than you simply claiming you're correct because you said it.

Or, to put this up against a different warped perspective, about 117 Americans die in motor vehicle accidents per day. Or, 124 to firearms.

"So, I guess serving in the Ukrainian army is less dangerous than just driving or wandering the streets of America."
"Well, they're totally different situations with totally different factors!"
"Well, so are the Ukrainian and Vietnam wars."
"Well, they're both wars though!"
:rolleyes:

Dear, let's start with something called math instead of you going over the voices in your head, as amused as I am to know I literally do live in your head lol. Median figure for daily Ukrainian losses is 150 KIA a dead and 700 wounded, based on most recent reporting. Let's project out on those losses, from June 1st for six months, or 180 days. Follow along with me if you can:

180 x 150 = 27,000 KIA
180 x 700 = 126,000 WIA

Now let's add those up, we get 152,000 KIA and WIA in six months. That's not including POWs, of which the Russians have taken thousands if not tens of thousands at this point, or MIA, both serious and from desertions which even Ukie sources are acknowledging is happening. Even ignoring all of that, and assuming Ukraine did fully mobilize to 500,000 since February, that means a third of the Ukrainian total armed forces is just gone in six months time from KIA/WIA alone. It gets worse however, so please follow along with me longer if you can.

Modern tooth to tail ratio (combat:support) is between 1:1 to 2.5:1 with the latter being more common for support-heavy Western militaries. Given how Ukraine has been basing its forces on such a model since 2014, let's assume they have a 2:1 model. Which means roughly 170,000 Ukrainian combat troops of all types. Typically in wars such as this, the rate of casualties is 80:20 of combat losses to support cadre losses.

Thus, meaning that the loss rates you dismiss here leave Ukraine with almost no remaining combat troops in six months. Take in note we're not factoring in MIA, PoWs or even Pre-June losses. You may now start coping and seething, as I know you are want to do but that's all you can do because you can't actually argue with any of my points here. Russia is decisively winning now, all the fantastical claims aside of people like you.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's some impressively bad reporting.

Ukraine's best medium range artillery is the M777, which has an effective range of 30km.

Ukraine's best long range artillery is the CAESAR self-propelled howitzer, which has an effective range of 50km.

Russia's longest range artillery is the 2S7 Pion, which has an effective range of 37.5km.

So putting aside the false claim of 25km artillery range for Ukraine. The only way you get Russia being able to strike from "12 times that distance" is if you are measuring Ukraine artillery against Russia MLRS. Meaning the article is either being intentionally deceptive trying to make us think that "12 times" was in reference to Russia's artillery. Or the person who wrote said article is just extraordinarily stupid.

Either way, it's safe to say we can completely write off that article as being just straight up wrong about everything.

I'm going to pretend the argument in of itself is in good faith and not transparently disingenuous, which I'm pretty sure it is based alone on the fact you only talked about tube artillery instead of including MLRS and the like. Even with that allowance, just about every claim made in this argument is false or missing context. Let's start with Russian artillery ranges:

Russia’s BM-21 Grad systems are certainly not the only ones fielded by the former superpower. The BM-21s have an effective range of 20-45kms (depending on the rockets used). Russia also has access to a large number of other artillery systems:​
9A52-4 “Tornado” MLRS: up to 90km range​
BM-30 “Smerch” MLRS: 70 to 90km range​
2S7 “Pion” 203mm heavy artillery: 37,5 to 55km range​
TOS-1 220mm MLRS and thermobaric weapon: 0.5 to 6km range​
2S19 Msta 152.4mm howitzer: 45 to 62km range​
2S35 “Koalitsiya-SV” 152.4 or 155mm artillery: 40 to 80km range.​
So not only did you give the wrong maximum range for the Pion, you were outright false in claiming it to be their longest range artillery when Msta and Koalitsiya both have greater or equal ranges; that's three different tube systems alone. I'm also going to be kind and assume you forgot about MLRS when discussing Russian artillery, which adds another three systems with ranges well above 37 km.

Now, let's move to the Ukrainian systems. You cite the M777 having an effective range of 30 km....except they don't. Base models only have an effective range of between 12-15 km, depending on your source. It's only with boosted artillery shell systems and support systems the M777 gets that extended range and the U.S. has already admitted they didn't supply the Ukrainians with a lot of the core systems associated with the greater performance of the M777:

KYIV -- Dozens of artillery systems supplied by the United States to Ukraine were not fitted with advanced computer systems, which improve the efficiency and accuracy of the weapons, ABC News has learned.​

But what about those CAESARs, shall we? Again, we find your claim is false because you're not citing effective ranges, you're discussing maximum distances using specialized shells:

Most importantly, CAESAR’s eight-meter-long 52-caliber gun barrel could attain an impressive 26 miles using NATO ERFB base-bleed rounds (roughly $4,000 per shot), or 31 miles using a rocket-assisted projectile, compared to a 12-18 mile range for most Russian howitzers. It’s also compatible with U.S. GPS-guided M982 Excalibur rounds and the 34-mile VLAP round.​
Well, what does that mean? The Ukrainians themselves say they have none of these specialized shells:

Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, according to Skibitsky. “We have almost used up all of our [artillery] ammunition and are now using 155-calibre Nato standard shells,” he said of the ammunition that is fired from artillery pieces.​
So, by admission of the Ukrainians themselves, they have none of the shells or equipment needed to get the performance figures you cite for those systems. Again, you were wrong to claim this. As for the claim about "12 times that distance", noticeably the author did not say it was conventional Russian artillery doing that; cruise missiles, to which the Ukrainians are saying the Russians are shooting 10-14 a day on average, have a range in the hundreds of miles, for example.
 
Dear, let's start with something called math instead of you going over the voices in your head, as amused as I am to know I literally do live in your head lol. Median figure for daily Ukrainian losses is 150 KIA a dead and 700 wounded, based on most recent reporting. Let's project out on those losses, from June 1st for six months, or 180 days. Follow along with me if you can:

180 x 150 = 27,000 KIA
180 x 700 = 126,000 WIA

Now let's add those up, we get 152,000 KIA and WIA in six months. That's not including POWs, of which the Russians have taken thousands if not tens of thousands at this point, or MIA, both serious and from desertions which even Ukie sources are acknowledging is happening. Even ignoring all of that, and assuming Ukraine did fully mobilize to 500,000 since February, that means a third of the Ukrainian total armed forces is just gone in six months time from KIA/WIA alone. It gets worse however, so please follow along with me longer if you can.

Modern tooth to tail ratio (combat:support) is between 1:1 to 2.5:1 with the latter being more common for support-heavy Western militaries. Given how Ukraine has been basing its forces on such a model since 2014, let's assume they have a 2:1 model. Which means roughly 170,000 Ukrainian combat troops of all types. Typically in wars such as this, the rate of casualties is 80:20 of combat losses to support cadre losses.

Thus, meaning that the loss rates you dismiss here leave Ukraine with almost no remaining combat troops in six months. Take in note we're not factoring in MIA, PoWs or even Pre-June losses. You may not start coping and seething, as I know you are want to do but that's all you can do because you can't actually argue with any of my points here. Russia is decisively winning now, all the fantastical claims aside of people like you.
Funny you mention June 1st given that was when Zelenskyy said they were loosing 60-100 troops a day.

But to add to that, I will point out that Russia is still sitting at a 4 to 1 ratio of vehicle losses to Ukraine.

And note, you're not actually factoring in Russian troop losses in this.

So if all of Ukraine's 500,000+ troops are going to be gone in 6 more months of fighting, what will Russia's 190,000 troops be sitting at?




I'm going to pretend the argument in of itself is in good faith and not transparently disingenuous, which I'm pretty sure it is based alone on the fact you only talked about tube artillery instead of including MLRS and the like. Even with that allowance, just about every claim made in this argument is false or missing context. Let's start with Russian artillery ranges:

Russia’s BM-21 Grad systems are certainly not the only ones fielded by the former superpower. The BM-21s have an effective range of 20-45kms (depending on the rockets used). Russia also has access to a large number of other artillery systems:

9A52-4 “Tornado” MLRS: up to 90km range
BM-30 “Smerch” MLRS: 70 to 90km range
2S7 “Pion” 203mm heavy artillery: 37,5 to 55km range
TOS-1 220mm MLRS and thermobaric weapon: 0.5 to 6km range
2S19 Msta 152.4mm howitzer: 45 to 62km range
2S35 “Koalitsiya-SV” 152.4 or 155mm artillery: 40 to 80km range.

So not only did you give the wrong maximum range for the Pion, you were outright false in claiming it to be their longest range artillery when Msta and Koalitsiya both have greater or equal ranges; that's three different tube systems alone. I'm also going to be kind and assume you forgot about MLRS when discussing Russian artillery, which adds another three systems with ranges well above 37 km.

Now, let's move to the Ukrainian systems. You cite the M777 having an effective range of 30 km....except they don't. Base models only have an effective range of between 12-15 km, depending on your source. It's only with boosted artillery shell systems and support systems the M777 gets that extended range and the U.S. has already admitted they didn't supply the Ukrainians with a lot of the core systems associated with the greater performance of the M777:

KYIV -- Dozens of artillery systems supplied by the United States to Ukraine were not fitted with advanced computer systems, which improve the efficiency and accuracy of the weapons, ABC News has learned.

But what about those CAESARs, shall we? Again, we find your claim is false because you're not citing effective ranges, you're discussing maximum distances using specialized shells:

Most importantly, CAESAR’s eight-meter-long 52-caliber gun barrel could attain an impressive 26 miles using NATO ERFB base-bleed rounds (roughly $4,000 per shot), or 31 miles using a rocket-assisted projectile, compared to a 12-18 mile range for most Russian howitzers. It’s also compatible with U.S. GPS-guided M982 Excalibur rounds and the 34-mile VLAP round.

Well, what does that mean? The Ukrainians themselves say they have none of these specialized shells:

Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, according to Skibitsky. “We have almost used up all of our [artillery] ammunition and are now using 155-calibre Nato standard shells,” he said of the ammunition that is fired from artillery pieces.

So, by admission of the Ukrainians themselves, they have none of the shells or equipment needed to get the performance figures you cite for those systems. Again, you were wrong to claim this. As for the claim about "12 times that distance", noticeably the author did not say it was conventional Russian artillery doing that; cruise missiles, to which the Ukrainians are saying the Russians are shooting 10-14 a day on average, have a range in the hundreds of miles, for example.
Learn to read, I said "Effective Range" not "Maximum Range".

Also MLRS ISN'T ARTILLERY!

MLRS stands for Multiple Launch Rocket System.

Further, there were a grand total of twelve 2S35 “Koalitsiya-SV” in existence at the start of the war.

And finally, your own articles actually disproves your claims. Next time... Maybe actually try to read them before posting...
 
I'm sure that's what happened in your head, but I'm sorry that doesn't have any relevance to what actually happened in reality. You made a claim I misrepresented the BBC, I literally quoted the article in question to show you lied and presumably you, as you claim here, cited me saying exactly that; I didn't see that post, but quite frankly your entire version of events as presented here leads me to conclude I didn't have to see it to know its baseless bluster.

You're simply all projection, you're not clever you're just amusement for me honestly. I've presented the BBC link and directly quoted it, no misrepresentation at all and if you feel otherwise dear the onus is on you to actually make an argument that has more merit to it than you simply claiming you're correct because you said it.



Dear, let's start with something called math instead of you going over the voices in your head, as amused as I am to know I literally do live in your head lol. Median figure for daily Ukrainian losses is 150 KIA a dead and 700 wounded, based on most recent reporting. Let's project out on those losses, from June 1st for six months, or 180 days. Follow along with me if you can:

180 x 150 = 27,000 KIA
180 x 700 = 126,000 WIA

Now let's add those up, we get 152,000 KIA and WIA in six months. That's not including POWs, of which the Russians have taken thousands if not tens of thousands at this point, or MIA, both serious and from desertions which even Ukie sources are acknowledging is happening. Even ignoring all of that, and assuming Ukraine did fully mobilize to 500,000 since February, that means a third of the Ukrainian total armed forces is just gone in six months time from KIA/WIA alone. It gets worse however, so please follow along with me longer if you can.

Modern tooth to tail ratio (combat:support) is between 1:1 to 2.5:1 with the latter being more common for support-heavy Western militaries. Given how Ukraine has been basing its forces on such a model since 2014, let's assume they have a 2:1 model. Which means roughly 170,000 Ukrainian combat troops of all types. Typically in wars such as this, the rate of casualties is 80:20 of combat losses to support cadre losses.

Thus, meaning that the loss rates you dismiss here leave Ukraine with almost no remaining combat troops in six months. Take in note we're not factoring in MIA, PoWs or even Pre-June losses. You may not start coping and seething, as I know you are want to do but that's all you can do because you can't actually argue with any of my points here. Russia is decisively winning now, all the fantastical claims aside of people like you.
You've repeatedly expressed the BBC claim as if it represents the entirety of Russian losses. It doesn't. They even expressly state themselves it doesn't. The 3,500 figure is the number where they could specifically identify by name and rank particular deaths, within the limits of operating in a censor happy, propogandistic totalitarian regime. You constantly holding it up to suggest low Russian losses just makes your bad faith misrepresentation more transparent.

Further, I didn't actually dismiss the loss rate. I was pointing out the stupidity of your own comparison. Your further work here is just another example of you dressing a pig. It's all bullshit, with enough cleverness wrapped around it to make it seem meaningful. Those aren't median figures, they're cherry picked. They're noted for being high for the war so far. Second, randomly projecting those cherry picked figures out in to the future is just asinine. It ignores that the nature of the conflict has changed dramatically in just the three months it's already run, nor how it might change in future. No accounting for the attrition of Russian equipment, nor global rearming of Ukraine. It doesn't consider the make-up of those forces. It ignores pretty much everything relevant, so you can jerk off to a pile of imagined Ukrainian corpses.
 
Funny you mention June 1st given that was when Zelenskyy said they were loosing 60-100 troops a day.

But to add to that, I will point out that Russia is still sitting at a 4 to 1 ratio of vehicle losses to Ukraine.

And note, you're not actually factoring in Russian troop losses in this.

So if all of Ukraine's 500,000+ troops are going to be gone in 6 more months of fighting, what will Russia's 190,000 troops be sitting at?

I'm going to be extremely generous here and assume you didn't follow your own advice of reading before you posted, rather than assume you're outright lying.

I literally cited Zelensky saying that, and you're misrepresenting what he said. Let's re-quote that, shall we:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.​
“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.​

The 60-100 figure is literally just KIA and on top of that Zelensky is saying there is 500 WIA. That's 600 Casualties a day solely from WIA and KIA, not including MIA or PoWs. His advisers have since upped the figures. Likewise, I did factor in Russian losses, again, if you bothered to follow your own advice and know what you're arguing against might be helpful in these situations. What are those losses?

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.​
The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.​

So to answer your question, the Russian forces will probably be at about 180,000 or so while the Ukraine Army will cease to exist based on current loss rates backed up by actual evidence.

Learn to read, I said "Effective Range" not "Maximum Range".

No, you presented the maximum range as the base range for the Western pieces with no context, you've been playing fast and loose with the definitions and terms. The problem isn't that I didn't read, the problem is you either don't know what you're talking about or being actively malicious. Case in point is you doing exactly as I'm saying you did with the CAESAR system, would you like me to quote you lol?

Also MLRS ISN'T ARTILLERY!

MLRS stands for Multiple Launch Rocket System.

Except it is, according to the U.S. Army, which literally uses the term "rocket artillery".

Further, there were a grand total of twelve 2S35 “Koalitsiya-SV” in existence at the start of the war.

And the French have only in the last few weeks sent exactly 12 CAESARs to Ukraine, very curious how the size and recent nature of the addition doesn't matter for Ukraine but somehow does for Russia in your arguments. It's almost as if you are, gasp, engaging in strawman arguments and goalpost shifting.

And finally, your own articles actually disproves your claims. Next time... Maybe actually try to read them before posting...

Wow, very compelling argument, with absolutely nothing beyond you making the claim. I'm sorry reality doesn't agree with your world view and I'm able to see past the obvious bullshit claims you've been making.
 
I'm going to be extremely generous here and assume you didn't follow your own advice of reading before you posted, rather than assume you're outright lying.

I literally cited Zelensky saying that, and you're misrepresenting what he said. Let's re-quote that, shall we:

“The most difficult situation is in the east of Ukraine and southern Donetsk and Luhansk,” Zelensky said in an interview with Newsmax that was published on Tuesday.​
“The situation is very difficult; we’re losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day as killed in action and something around 500 people as wounded in action. So we are holding our defensive perimeters,” he added.​

The 60-100 figure is literally just KIA and on top of that Zelensky is saying there is 500 WIA. That's 600 Casualties a day solely from WIA and KIA, not including MIA or PoWs. His advisers have since upped the figures. Likewise, I did factor in Russian losses, again, if you bothered to follow your own advice and know what you're arguing against might be helpful in these situations. What are those losses?

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.​
The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.​

So to answer your question, the Russian forces will probably be at about 180,000 or so while the Ukraine Army will cease to exist based on current loss rates backed up by actual evidence.



No, you presented the maximum range as the base range for the Western pieces with no context, you've been playing fast and loose with the definitions and terms. The problem isn't that I didn't read, the problem is you either don't know what you're talking about or being actively malicious. Case in point is you doing exactly as I'm saying you did with the CAESAR system, would you like me to quote you lol?



Except it is, according to the U.S. Army, which literally uses the term "rocket artillery".



And the French have only in the last few weeks sent exactly 12 CAESARs to Ukraine, very curious how the size and recent nature of the addition doesn't matter for Ukraine but somehow does for Russia in your arguments. It's almost as if you are, gasp, engaging in strawman arguments and goalpost shifting.



Wow, very compelling argument, with absolutely nothing beyond you making the claim. I'm sorry reality doesn't agree with your world view and I'm able to see past the obvious bullshit claims you've been making.
And, yet more misrepresenting of the 3,500 figure as total losses.
 
You've repeatedly expressed the BBC claim as if it represents the entirety of Russian losses. It doesn't. They even expressly state themselves it doesn't. The 3,500 figure is the number where they could specifically identify by name and rank particular deaths, within the limits of operating in a censor happy, propogandistic totalitarian regime. You constantly holding it up to suggest low Russian losses just makes your bad faith misrepresentation more transparent.

Except that's all false dear, and none of the coping and seething you're doing here change reality. I know that's hard to accept on your end, but that is all:

Based on the open sources of the BBC, the names of more than 3,500 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine are already known. Not all the dead are reported by local authorities. Every week we find new evidence of Russian military funerals in cemeteries in different cities of Russia, which are not publicly reported.​
The BBC Russian Service maintains a list of casualties of Russian servicemen in Ukraine jointly with Mediazona (recognized in Russia as a "media-foreign agent") and a team of volunteers. As of June 10, we were able to confirm information about 3,502 dead soldiers and officers.​

In other words, there is only actual evidence for 3,500 Russian KIA; any other numbers depend on guess work entirely to arrive at their numbers. I know you're a big believer in magic and fairy dust at this point-presumably from the voices in your head of me, apparently-but why should we accept estimates that, as the BBC admits, don't have supporting evidence? The term you're looking for is called hearsay.

Since, I'm still amused by you at this point, I'm going to humor your fascination with hearsay. What does the BBC actually say:

After the start of the war in Ukraine, 18 military graves appeared at the central cemetery of Khabarovsk. The names of 15 of them (that is, more than 80%) were not named publicly and were not even mentioned in social networks. At the same time, six soldiers died in March, and four in April.​
There are six new graves at the cemetery near Novorossiysk, the names of five servicemen were not previously announced. After studying the graves at the Voronezh cemetery, it was possible to establish three names of the military, which had not previously been publicly reported.​

In total, the BBC got acquainted with the situation at 14 cemeteries in cities and villages of Russia. On each of them were the graves of soldiers whose deaths were not publicly reported, their proportion varied from 30 to 100%. Thus, we can assume that the list of confirmed losses maintained by the BBC may contain at least 40-70% fewer names of the dead than actually buried in Russia.​

So, the BBC says they only have evidence for 3,500 Russian KIA but, based on 18 graves from the beginning of the conflict into April-yes, just 18-they think their confirmed tallies contain 40-70% of Russian casualties. Even if we take the 40% figure that means Russian KIA, at the absolute worst case scenario from the BBC....is 8,000. For comparison, Ukraine has officially admitted to at least 10,000 KIA, meaning they've taken a losses 20% higher than Russia to date based off their own admitted figures.

Further, I didn't actually dismiss the loss rate. I was pointing out the stupidity of your own comparison. Your further work here is just another example of you dressing a pig. It's all bullshit, with enough cleverness wrapped around it to make it seem meaningful. Those aren't median figures, they're cherry picked. They're noted for being high for the war so far. Second, randomly projecting those cherry picked figures out in to the future is just asinine. It ignores that the nature of the conflict has changed dramatically in just the three months it's already run, nor how it might change in future. No accounting for the attrition of Russian equipment, nor global rearming of Ukraine. It doesn't consider the make-up of those forces. It ignores pretty much everything relevant, so you can jerk off to a pile of imagined Ukrainian corpses.

In other words, you dismissed the loss rate lol. You have a way with obfuscating, distorting and generally engaging in strawman to the extent that I'm starting to think, as I said before admittedly, a lot of what you say about me is what is called projection.

How about instead of calling it bullshit, how about you cite some actual sources and show differing evidence? While you're at it, how about you explain how citing the President of Ukraine, his General Staff and his advisers is a cherry pick? I've linked to their official statements as reported in the media, none of them have disputed it via their official outlets or on social media, so how is taking their official statements to the media wrong? Are you looking for information from another source? How about you start naming such, but let's be honest here; you're not going to do such because we both know you can't dispute it and that's why you're projecting again with calling it bullshit.

Cope harder.
 
Did the voices in your head tell you that lol?
"BBC Russian Service has established that the names of 2,336 Russian soldiers who died during the fighting in Ukraine have already been confirmed."
"The BBC bases its analysis only on reports containing specific information about the deceased, including the full name and rank"
"our list is clearly incomplete, and the real losses of the Russian army and the National Guard in Ukraine are higher."

No, the same source you're citing did.
 
"BBC Russian Service has established that the names of 2,336 Russian soldiers who died during the fighting in Ukraine have already been confirmed."
"The BBC bases its analysis only on reports containing specific information about the deceased, including the full name and rank"
"our list is clearly incomplete, and the real losses of the Russian army and the National Guard in Ukraine are higher."

No, the same source you're citing did.

Nope, it's not dear. Perhaps you should take the time to read the actual link I'm using instead of citing an entirely different article?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top