Until we can see a credible source for said supposed losses, it is pointless to engage in speculation...
The account he quotes isn't serious, he immediately discredits himself on the first reply to comments
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
The account he quotes isn't serious, he immediately discredits himself on the first reply to comments
South Vietnamese were also defending their own home as well and NVA were more brutal than anything Russia has done in this conflict and judging by the hundreds of thousands civilians that flee Vietnam after their victory they're not popular among South Vietnamese as well. But they still win in the end.Until we can see a credible source for said supposed losses, it is pointless to engage in speculation...
The account he quotes isn't serious, he immediately discredits himself on the first reply to comments
View attachment 123504
It's not the defending homes part dude. That's just subjective and doesn't invalidate him as a source.
It's the part where they're claiming thousand losses in 2023 for Ukraine. It's inconsistent with reality and shows delusion.
They're definitely not. He is off by at least one order of magnitude in my opinion.
They always exaggerated their enemy losses to dehumanize them. Just look at Korean war, it's like every contingents from US, British, Filipino and Turkey have some stories about how several hundreds of them fought against hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers and inflicted 100 to 1 casualties but if you dig deeper many of the stories are exaggerated.
Let's not be hasty and jump to conclusions prematurely. Perhaps there's a reason @SolarWarden quotes a source that states a 100:1 casualty ratio in favour of Ukraine and expects us to take it (and him) seriously. We should give him a chance to explain.Until we can see a credible source for said supposed losses, it is pointless to engage in speculation...
The account he quotes isn't serious, he immediately discredits himself on the first reply to comments
View attachment 123504
There must be a lesson in there for the world's militaries, too. I'm sure they'd love to learn how to achieve such Rambo ratios against potential adversaries.
Source : true me bro
Same source as "patriot shot down 5 flankers! Patriot is a beast".
It just makes sense really. Both Iran and North Korea can probably make artillery ballistic missiles for cheaper than Russia can considering they have lower salaries. North Korea in particular is perpetually energy and food starved so you just need to pay them with oil or food.
Now that the UN sanctions on Iran elapsed they can export their missile technology again as well.
Yeah they show the booster stage fell on some house. But where is the warhead?
The US press is claiming Russia is getting missiles from both Iran and North Korea.
As for your snark comment, how come the US, supposed mightiest economy on Earth cannot make enough artillery shells and have to buy them in Pakistan and South Korea. Heck they buy them everywhere. Even shells from India have showed up. Pretty lame. If the US and the EU can buy weapons everywhere and send them to Ukraine then so can Russia. Two can play at this game.
When the Iran-Iraq War happened some nations even sold weapons to both sides at the same time. Wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again.
By sending Indian artillery shells to Ukraine the US risks this seriously backfiring on them. Imagine that India decides to export V92 tank diesel engines to Russia as a counter for example. Remember they have their own fully localized production line to make T-90 tanks.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Makes even more sense than that. Especially North Korea likely has a lot of old missile stock. Not only are they paid to get rid of it so they can make new ones, both North Korea and Iran are undoubtedly getting feedback from Russia on how to improve the designs as they are used in large numbers in actual combat.
I thought Viet Cong did most of the fighting in 73 and first half of 74? Then when North Vietnamese forces where properly deployed in late 74 South Vietnam soon collapsed under their weight? Sure, on paper the North Vietnamese faced a much larger force, but South Vietnam was unable to muster nearly as much combat troops as the 1 million man army implied and already had their hands full.
A similar scenario might be possible if Russia has a massive surge in manpower and then doubles the width of the front, but the Russians don't seem too keen on simply overwhelming Ukraine. As long as there is a rough parity in frontline numbers I'd expect the front to stay put. I could however see the Russians making slow but steady gains if they start to outnumber the Ukrainians throughout 2024.
Let's remember attrition warfare isn't really about attrition, but rather about force buildup.
Last edited: