Загальні бойові втрати противника з 24.02.22 по 28.10.24 (орієнтовно)
t.me/GeneralStaffZSU/18241
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ukraine
8239 readers
21 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So few tanks to so many men.
Tank losses this month are higher then most months of 2023. That picked up a lot in October of 2023, which was the peak and then started to slowly drop. So this can just mean massive human wave attacks.
Are you sure? because that's not how I remember it, as I recall numbers were generally close to 20 per day last year.
The average for the war according to these numbers is 9120 tanks /940 days = 9.7 tanks per day.
So considering this is one of the highest casualty numbers of the war, the tank number is relatively small.
Right, but about the turn from 2023 to 2024 tank numbers dropped a lot. Generally it was thought that russia ran out of tanks in storage that can quickly be reactivated. Of course they still have a lot, but the running out of tanks in storage forced hard decisions about how to use tanks. In turn that made the tanks lost number go way down this year, but since they have a lot of tanks they can use them more and sometimes they will lose more than they can make.
https://index.minfin.com.ua/en/russian-invading/casualties/
OK it was only by the end of 2023 the numbers were very high, still compared to being one of the highest numbers of casualties, the number of tanks today is relatively low, as it is below average.
And the number of tanks is on a clearly downwards trajectory since a year ago. October ending as possibly the 2nd lowest this year.
their cold war vehicle park is slowly (and in case of specific models quickly) running low. perun made a great video about it, using data from Covert Cabal and @highmarsed, who used private satellite providers to shoot photos of russian military bases and painstakingly counted the stored vehicles.
@Gradually_[email protected]
Good to see y'all showed up with receipts, I only have enough mental bandwidth for hunches right now
Maybe they really run out of battle ready tanks now, and that pays heavily into casualties as they can't give cover to advancing orcs?
Russia still has a lot of tanks in storage - many dating back to just after WWII. However all the good ones have been used up and so what is left needs major rework, or brand new off the assembly line tanks. Generally it is thought between the two Russia can produce about 3 tanks per day (the real number is classified so we/I don't know). What this means is Russia was forced to make hard decisions about using tanks
From the updates I've seen, I get the sense that Russia is fighting through the culmination of their multi-front offensive in hopes of making gains ahead of the muddy season. I try not to remark too much about casualty rates, but the increase in tandem with the low ratio of tanks does seem to speak to this bit of speculation (not a military expert or even a "war nerd", just following along as a layperson mind you).
This is what confuses me about Russia's choosing these huge losses in the past couple of months. In less than week the USA will have submitted all ballots for the Presidential election (with likely another week of confusion and complaints until the victor is clear). If Trump wins, he will destroy US and possibly European support for Ukraine causing Ukraine to be wiped out by Russia. If Harris wins, then at least the amount of military and economic support continues as it has so far, or it could get even larger. Even if Harris keeps the support the same, Putin doesn't cannot take 4 more years at the current rate of attrition, and he'll have to withdraw or be kicked out when the Russian well runs dry.
So when the answer is less than a month away, why double down on meat waves with such tremendous losses? Why not wait for the results of the election defensively, while building up your forces, and either go forward with attacking a then weakened Ukraine under Trump, or turn around and use your forces at home to attempt to suppress your population to keep Putin in power under a Harris win?
My guess would be that they wa't to settle the frontiers as far as they possibly can to keep as much territory as possible with a cease fire that can become a frozen frontier. If Harris wins, they can ask for a cease fire, and then will the US and Europe deny it? If Trump wins, Russia can probably take the whole dombass rapidly before accepting a cease fire from Ukraine.
It's all speculation though.
I think a ceasefire will be denied. There was an unofficial ceasefire in 2014 with the taking of Crimea. A month later Russia invaded Donbass. Until Feb 2022, the frontlines were fairly fixed. Then in Feb 2022 Russia invaded Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv while trying to take even more Ukranian territory.
A ceasefire from Russia only means they will be back to take more land later. That, and Russia's war machine is running out of equipment. Unless China suddenly starts supplying tanks and armored vehicles, in 6 months to a year Russia will be fielding horses for assults.
It's too simple to assume Putin is the only one in Russia with an agenda, even though so much power has been consolidated with him.
What would be another plausible benefit to ramping up your own casualties for marginal land gains when the outcome of the war is largely going to be influenced in a month or two?
You're a general with political ambitions, and you're sabotaging the strategies of a rival with malicious compliance. Who knows really, the point is that there isn't a good reason for it because we don't know who in that chain of command might benefit - and the null hypothesis that it's an unforced error definitely can remain in play here, I'm not discounting that at all.