The War in the Ukraine

MarKoz81 said:

This would be the first instance of modern conflict with the dead outnumbering the wounded almost 2:1 when in every other instance it's 1:2 or 1:3, even going as far as WW1.

Click to expand...

I am surprised that no posters in a China defence forum pointed out the obvious counterexample to this argument. After 3+ months of stalemate and urban fighting in and around Shanghai in 1937 the KMT reported their losses as ~187,000 dead and ~83,000 wounded. A killed to wounded ratio well exceeding 2:1. For comparison IJA and IJN ground losses are often quoted as ~20,000 dead, ~40,000 wounded and ~40,000 sick. Historians point out several factors for this outcome:

• The Japanese military possessed significant fire superiority over KMT forces. The IJN was deployed along the coastline to provide constant shore bombardment and air support from carriers. Once a land foothold was established a regular IJA infantry division could deploy both more artillery and higher caliber artillery, than an equivalent KMT formation.
• The KMT retreat from Shanghai devolved into a rout, though IJA forces were never able to perform any significant encirclement. There were considerations to withdraw the KMT forces from Shanghai earlier and retreat to the pre-war defense line between Shanghai and Nanjing. However, political decisions were made to hold Shanghai for as long as possible in an attempt to garner more foreign support. By the time the order to retreat was given the remaining divisions were too attritioned to maintain an orderly withdraw.
• The KMT military medical system was either overwhelmed or collapsed. The pre-war KMT medical system was considered at best undersized and poor. When the fighting around Shanghai turned into a battle of attrition the medical system simply could not cope with the number of casualties. This caused many wounded soldiers to simply die from lack of adequate medical care.

MarKoz81 said:

I analyzed the image in a raster editing software and the "7" in the 76 640 doesn't match the other two in the main text or the other sevens in the document (header, footer etc). Fonts are described by numerical values. You can't have two sevens with a thick top horizontal line, and one seven without it if you are using a computer-generated font. It looks edited in but when I copied the sevens below it looked much more believable. It's as if someone wanted to do a bad job on purpose. Very strange. Perhaps it's deliberate to discover a leak?

Click to expand...

The original image is a picture of a computer monitor with the document on it. Rather than resorting to tenuous "photoshop" or "faked image" arguments, it would be easier to just point out that the document is simply unverifiable.

MarKoz81 said:

16k to 42k would be what I would expect and it is still very high casualty rate for six months of fighting when you consider what actually happens on modern battlefield and how casualties are responded to. Russian armed forces losses would be half of it and LPR, DPR and contractors bring it to parity.

Click to expand...

Totoro said:

Do you happen to have a methodology / your own study based on something behind those figures?
In other words, could you explain how did you reach those figures?

And are those figures deaths or something else?

Click to expand...

At best everyone on this forum is simply speculating about the casualties based on unverifiable secondary sources published by both sides. Even if someone provided a genuine casualty document, nobody here has the means to actually verify its correctness and authenticity.

Sheleah said:

Russia deploys the so-called 3rd Army Corps, made up of volunteers... Apparently receiving modern armored units like T-80s and T-90s

However, reports say they are untrained and undisciplined volunteers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563490266283376640

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563853802981101568

How long is the minimum required to train combat-ready tank crews, as well as operators of artillery and air defense systems, especially if the training is for volunteers with little experience in these systems???...

Click to expand...

Honest question: do you actual believe that? On the scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being completely true and 10 being pure fabrication, what is your opinion on the believability of those story you just posted? Don't mind me, I am just doing some simple research on how easily people are persuaded by fake new.

@wxw456
@MarKoz81
Now this is the type of analysis that I am looking for on this forum!

XiDada said:

I don't understand how anyone thinks the Russians are winning. They're not losing, but they sure as shit aren't winning:

• They've sustained almost a 1:1 casualties ratio in spite of fire superiority
• They've lost 5000+ military vehicles, and this from visual confirmation
• LPR/DPR are scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower, and Russia isn't exactly doing that much better at it either.

Click to expand...

I don’t know either! The idea of Russia being a major military power has been completely shattered for me. If you imagine replacing Russia with the US or China, do you think this conflict wouldn’t have been effectively over within the first week, he’ll within the first 48 hrs?

I am sure you see an insurgency like in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the government would be toppled and conventional military forces would be decimated.

SlothmanAllen said:

I don’t know either! The idea of Russia being a major military power has been completely shattered for me. If you imagine replacing Russia with the US or China, do you think this conflict wouldn’t have been effectively over within the first week, he’ll within the first 48 hrs?

I am sure you see an insurgency like in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the government would be toppled and conventional military forces would be decimated.

Click to expand...

Last time the US went up against a near peer, they didn't win, even after 10 years at it.

SlothmanAllen said:

I don’t know either! The idea of Russia being a major military power has been completely shattered for me. If you imagine replacing Russia with the US or China, do you think this conflict wouldn’t have been effectively over within the first week, he’ll within the first 48 hrs?

I am sure you see an insurgency like in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the government would be toppled and conventional military forces would be decimated.

Click to expand...

Ukraine has equal military numbers as Russia, 1/3 the population, 1/8 the GDP, and an untouchable hinterland used for supply.

Vietnam had lower military numbers as US, 1/10 the population, 1/50 the GDP, and an untouchable hinterland used for supply.

What happened in Vietnam?

Indicative tactical situation maps from @JominiW (Jomini of the West on Twitter) covering period of 1 to 14 August.

I found @JominiW to be reasonably reliable in conveying the situation on the ground although not free from errors. Images are 2000px to preserve legibility reduced from 4000px so I used thumbnails.

Pay attention to the green/yellow/red/black dot on unit markers. They indicate nominal strength by MTOE (table of organization and equipment):

• green: 75% and above
• yellow: 55% to 74%
• red: 41% to 54%
• black: below 40%, unit incapable of sustaining combat

I found his assessment to be mostly plausible and useful for gaining insight into the balance of force on the ground.

Kharkiv

Donbas

Zaporozhia

Kherson


-----------------------------

Summary of forces in Kherson region:

RUSSIA:

RU regiments have three battalions each with 3 companies of 10 vehicles, while brigades have four battalions with 4 companies of 10 vehicles.

• 75% = 7 coy / rgt , 12 coy / bg
• 55% = 5 coy / rgt , 8 coy / bg
• 40% = 4 coy / rgt , 6 coy / bg

To my knowledge Russian units continue to fight with BTG deployed by brigades and regiments. Deploying units in bold. Each should be counted as 1 BTG in rotation active on the front.

Russian units with * are on the west bank of Dnepr

7 airborne div
56 rgt
108 rgt *
247 rgt *
171 sep. bat (97 rgt) *
104 tank bat - absent

76 airborne div
104 rgt *
234 rgt *
237 rgt - absent
124 tank bat *

106 airborne div
51 rgt
137 rgt

98 airborne div
217 rgt
331 rgt - absent (destroyed durign attack on Kiyv)

11 airborne bg *

20 mech div (8 army / SMD)
33 rgt *
255 rgt *

4 mech bg (8A / SMD) (75+ %) *
126 mech bg (22C / SMD) *
34 mech bg (49A / SMD) *
205 mech bg (49A / SMD) *

127 mech div ( 5A / WMD)
143 rgt
394 rgt
218 rgt tank

57 mech bg ( 5A / EMD)
60 mech bg ( 5A / EMD)

36 mech bg ( 29A / EMD)

38 mech bg ( 35A / EMD)
64 mech bg ( 35A / EMD)
69 mech bg ( 35A / EMD)

In total the equivalent force is:

• Ru VDV have 10BTG (27-36 coy) on west bank and 8BTG (19-28 coy) on east bank
• Ru GF have 10BTG (32-38 coy) on west bank and 13BTG (40-48 coy) on east bank

UKRAINE:

UA regular brigades have four mech/tank battalions of four companies each and one battalion of Territorial Defese (light/motor infantry) of four companies. Regular battalions are either mechanized (3 mech companies and 1 tank company) or tank (1 mech company and 3 tank companies). UA tank companies have NATO structure - 14 vehicles. UA mech companies are similar to Russian - 3 platoons of 3 vehicles plus support.

UA TerDef brigades have three-four battalions. National Guard units have light infantry battalions similar to TerDef.

• 75% = 12 coy / bg
• 55% = 8 coy / bg
• 40% = 6 coy / bg

UA units fight with individual battalions which is why some brigades will deploy battalions in another section of the front.

All UA units are stationed on the west bank.

60 mech bg
63 mech bg
61 mech bg
5 tank bg
n/i bat (17 tank bg)
n/i bat (46 airborne bg)
n/i bat (35 naval inf. bg)
1 bat (36 nav inf. bg)
108 TerDef bg
109 TerDef bg
123 TerDef bg
124 TerDef bg
241 TerDef bg (unconfirmed, possibly another TD unit)
19 rgt pub.sec. NatGrd
21 bg pub.sec.NatGrd

In total:

• UA have 14 active bat. (48-68 coy) of mech units and 12 active bat. (52-76 coy) of TerDef/NatGrd light infantry on west bank

On the west bank of Dnepr UA keeps 14 mechanized battalions and 12 infantry battalions. Russia has 10 mechanized battalions and 10 VDV battalions which are not supported by tanks and use lightly armored BMD. However due to the differences in structure and deployment tactics as well as current unit strength Russia can plausibly deploy 6 to 8 active BTGs from GF and 7-8 active BTGs from VDV. They balance that disparity with greater artillery and air support. However in recent weeks that has been degraded by strikes against logistical lines and infrastructure. RU force on the west bank is also trapped due to crossing being in range.

Whether UA forces feel confident to begin offensive operations remains to be seen in the next 1-2 weeks. Regardless Russia put itself in a very bad position and concentrating all of VDV units in one vulnerable region poses an extreme risk. VDV is the most competent fighting force in Russia and it is taking very heavy casualties in this conflict. That's a very bad situation for Russia as VDV is the only formation capable of rapid reaction. The rest of RuGF is even more sluggish than US "Big" Army.

Anyway, we'll see how the situation develops.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ukraine has equal military numbers as Russia, 1/3 the population, 1/8 the GDP, and an untouchable hinterland used for supply.

Vietnam had lower military numbers as US, 1/10 the population, 1/50 the GDP, and an untouchable hinterland used for supply.

What happened in Vietnam?

Click to expand...

They bombed it without any care of anything and anyones but also sprayed it with toxic agent... Don't know why they didn't win ? Maybe because they never wanted to stay there or accepting them as citizens of their country ? We will see in Ukraine how it turn on 10 years.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ukraine has equal military numbers as Russia, 1/3 the population, 1/8 the GDP, and an untouchable hinterland used for supply.

Vietnam had lower military numbers as US, 1/10 the population, 1/50 the GDP, and an untouchable hinterland used for supply.

What happened in Vietnam?

Click to expand...

Vietnam had a fully modern airforce and one of the most sophisticated air defence systems ever implemented. On top of that, many people would argue the way the US conducted the war was destined to lead to a poor outcome.

I’ll as again. Do you think China would be struggling like Russia is with limited gains and large losses against Ukraine? I doubt it!

GodRektsNoobs said:

Honest question: do you actual believe that? On the scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being completely true and 10 being pure fabrication, what is your opinion on the believability of those story you just posted? Don't mind me, I am just doing some simple research on how easily people are persuaded by fake new.

Click to expand...

I don't think they would make their best equipment available to inexperienced volunteers, that would be a very silly idea, it would be much easier to equip this large unit with mid-level or low-quality equipment.

This is the large unit formed:

This new Russian Army unit is mainly composed of volunteers that will be equipped with T-90M, T-80BVM and BMP-3 armored tanks (2015) with soldiers armed with the new AK-12 rd 2020 rifle and the body armor 6B45 series bullets 2020. New offensive? We do not know. But it's practically a new O division.

SlothmanAllen said:

Vietnam had a fully modern airforce and one of the most sophisticated air defence systems ever implemented. On top of that, many people would argue the way the US conducted the war was destined to lead to a poor outcome.

I’ll as again. Do you think China would be struggling like Russia is with limited gains and large losses against Ukraine? I doubt it!

Click to expand...

Historically it could go either way. China struggled a bit with Vietnam as well, with a bigger population and GDP disparity. It was a more limited war though, and PLA inflicted favorable casualty ratios and PLAN took some islands. On the other hand China brushed India aside in Tibet borderlands, and there was no GDP or population disparity.

Right now Russian performance looks to be similar to, maybe a bit worse than Sino Vietnamese War. Not too good. Not too bad.