Military Losses in the Ukraine
Discussion
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
Good effort but the numbers / categories don't make sense.
An AFV is the catch all term for ALL tracked or wheeled armoured vehicles.
Under that sits: tanks, APCs, IFV (basically an armed APC design to carry troops then provide fire support once deployed) , self propelled gubs etc.
Armoured fighting vehicle in this context contains the following for Russian forces:An AFV is the catch all term for ALL tracked or wheeled armoured vehicles.
Under that sits: tanks, APCs, IFV (basically an armed APC design to carry troops then provide fire support once deployed) , self propelled gubs etc.
6 BRM-1K
2 BMP-1Khs
1 BRDM-2
101 MT-LB
3 MT-LB with ZU-23 AA gun
1 MT-LBM 6MB
1 MT-LB Ambulance
10 MT-LBu
6 1V13 battery fire control center
2 1V14 battery command and forward observer vehicle
6 1V119 artillery fire direction vehicle
2 Vityaz DT-30 articulated tracked carrier
1 2S1 with ZU-23 AA gun
7 9P149 Shturm-S ATGM carrier
1 BMD-1KSh-A command vehicle
13 R-149MA1 command and staff vehicle
11 R-149MA3 command and staff vehicle
1 9S470M1 (or variant thereof) command post (for Buk-M1/2)
4 TZM-T reloader vehicle (for TOS-1A)
15 Unknown BTR-D/BMD-2
4 Unknown BTR-80/BTR-82A
34 Unknown AFV
And for the Ukrainians, the same types with the addition of the Ukrainian domestic Vepr MRAP.
Tanks, APV are listed separately. Feel free to check the sources yourself.
Jake899 said:
mcdjl said:
That looks like:
Excellent buddy thanks.| Item | Lost by Ukraine | Lost by Russia | Captured by Ukraine | Captured by Russia |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tanks | 79 | 310 | 131 | |
| armoured fighting vehicles | 60 | 229 | 87 | |
| infantry fighting vehicles | 60 | 303 | 107 | |
| armoured personnel carriers | 29 | 77 | 41 | |
| Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles | 12 | 5 | ||
| infantry mobility vehicles | 32 | 65 | 20 | |
| communications stations | 12 | 5 | ||
| engineering vehicles and equipment | 7 | 60 | 31 | |
| anti tank guided missiles | 51 | 63 | 39 | |
| Man Portable Air Defence systems | 16 | 24 | 24 | |
| towed artillery | 25 | 42 | 27 | |
| self propelled artillery | 16 | 60 | 24 | |
| multiple rocket launchers | 6 | 34 | 15 | |
| Anti aircraft guns | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| Self propelled anti aircraft guns | 1 | 9 | 1 | |
| surface to air missile systems | 21 | 40 | 12 | |
| Radars | 10 | 3 | 2 | |
| Jammers and deception systems | 6 | |||
| aircraft | 12 | 16 | 2 | |
| helicopters | 1 | 36 | ||
| UAVs | 9 | 16 | 5 | |
| Naval ships | 13 | 3 | ||
| Logistics trains | 2 | |||
| jeeps, trucks and vehicles | 186 | 640 | 185 | |
| Heavy motars | 8 |
A quick look at the data shows missile systems and aircraft are really the only net loss for the Ukraine, in most other factors the proportions are moving in their favour. Let’s remember that captured DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN USEABLE. The Ukrainians may not be able to repair, service or rearm Russian war booty.
The aircraft and missile systems are also the highest strategic value items and the hardest to replace. The fact that these are not being captured indicates they are being destroyed by precision strikes from afar rather than overrun on the ground, and the media reports certainly back that up.
On the positive side, both sides use a majority of these weapons (although in different iterations) so many parts, systems, ammunition and training will be interchangeable.
For example both Ukraine and Russia operate the T-64 and T72 tanks, so Ukrainian tank crews should be able to jump straight in and go. However many of the Russian T-72 tanks are “B” or newer models. I am a tank ignoramus but if aircraft are anything to go by, I expect targeting systems, radios etc will be quite different and take some training to use efficiently.
Diplomatico said:
Why the big misalignment between naval ships? How did Russia manage to destroy so many Ukrainian ones?
Six of these are captured Coast Guard small patrol boats. The rest are small patrol boats with the exception being the Frigate “Hetman Sahaydachniy” which was scuttled in port to prevent capture by the Russians. The remainder of the Ukrainian fleet is in port at Odessa.Interesting topic, thanks OP.
Also thanks to "mcdjl" for the excel reconciliations. When I first started reading the thread I thought I might have to do that myself!
What hasn't been mentioned is the (reportedly) large quantity of small arms changing hands. Assault rifles, sidearms, ammunition etc. Some of which very useful to the defenders owing to the commonality of calibres, meaning they have a source of free materiel to arm informal militia.
Works both ways though. It's reported that the first thing Russian troops do with dead Ukrainian troops is nick their boots.
If the reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.
For example the wheeled MT might have the theoretic capability to vary tyre pressures "on the fly" as most military MT should, but they haven't been doing the basic PMS so when they drop the pressures the sidewalls split.
Put it this way; have you ever driven a Russian car?
Also thanks to "mcdjl" for the excel reconciliations. When I first started reading the thread I thought I might have to do that myself!
What hasn't been mentioned is the (reportedly) large quantity of small arms changing hands. Assault rifles, sidearms, ammunition etc. Some of which very useful to the defenders owing to the commonality of calibres, meaning they have a source of free materiel to arm informal militia.
Works both ways though. It's reported that the first thing Russian troops do with dead Ukrainian troops is nick their boots.
If the reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.
For example the wheeled MT might have the theoretic capability to vary tyre pressures "on the fly" as most military MT should, but they haven't been doing the basic PMS so when they drop the pressures the sidewalls split.
Put it this way; have you ever driven a Russian car?
saaby93 said:
Jake899 said:
mcdjl said:
That looks like:
Excellent buddy thanks.| Item | Lost by Ukraine | Lost by Russia | Captured by Ukraine | Captured by Russia |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tanks | 79 | 310 | 131 | |
| armoured fighting vehicles | 60 | 229 | 87 | |
| infantry fighting vehicles | 60 | 303 | 107 | |
| armoured personnel carriers | 29 | 77 | 41 | |
| Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles | 12 | 5 | ||
| infantry mobility vehicles | 32 | 65 | 20 | |
| communications stations | 12 | 5 | ||
| engineering vehicles and equipment | 7 | 60 | 31 | |
| anti tank guided missiles | 51 | 63 | 39 | |
| Man Portable Air Defence systems | 16 | 24 | 24 | |
| towed artillery | 25 | 42 | 27 | |
| self propelled artillery | 16 | 60 | 24 | |
| multiple rocket launchers | 6 | 34 | 15 | |
| Anti aircraft guns | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| Self propelled anti aircraft guns | 1 | 9 | 1 | |
| surface to air missile systems | 21 | 40 | 12 | |
| Radars | 10 | 3 | 2 | |
| Jammers and deception systems | 6 | |||
| aircraft | 12 | 16 | 2 | |
| helicopters | 1 | 36 | ||
| UAVs | 9 | 16 | 5 | |
| Naval ships | 13 | 3 | ||
| Logistics trains | 2 | |||
| jeeps, trucks and vehicles | 186 | 640 | 185 | |
| Heavy motars | 8 |
A quick look at the data shows missile systems and aircraft are really the only net loss for the Ukraine, in most other factors the proportions are moving in their favour. Let’s remember that captured DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN USEABLE. The Ukrainians may not be able to repair, service or rearm Russian war booty.
The aircraft and missile systems are also the highest strategic value items and the hardest to replace. The fact that these are not being captured indicates they are being destroyed by precision strikes from afar rather than overrun on the ground, and the media reports certainly back that up.
On the positive side, both sides use a majority of these weapons (although in different iterations) so many parts, systems, ammunition and training will be interchangeable.
For example both Ukraine and Russia operate the T-64 and T72 tanks, so Ukrainian tank crews should be able to jump straight in and go. However many of the Russian T-72 tanks are “B” or newer models. I am a tank ignoramus but if aircraft are anything to go by, I expect targeting systems, radios etc will be quite different and take some training to use efficiently.
Error_404_Username_not_found said:
Interesting topic, thanks OP.
Also thanks to "mcdjl" for the excel reconciliations. When I first started reading the thread I thought I might have to do that myself!
What hasn't been mentioned is the (reportedly) large quantity of small arms changing hands. Assault rifles, sidearms, ammunition etc. Some of which very useful to the defenders owing to the commonality of calibres, meaning they have a source of free materiel to arm informal militia.
Works both ways though. It's reported that the first thing Russian troops do with dead Ukrainian troops is nick their boots.
If the reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.
For example the wheeled MT might have the theoretic capability to vary tyre pressures "on the fly" as most military MT should, but they haven't been doing the basic PMS so when they drop the pressures the sidewalls split.
Put it this way; have you ever driven a Russian car?
The data lists the categories:Also thanks to "mcdjl" for the excel reconciliations. When I first started reading the thread I thought I might have to do that myself!
What hasn't been mentioned is the (reportedly) large quantity of small arms changing hands. Assault rifles, sidearms, ammunition etc. Some of which very useful to the defenders owing to the commonality of calibres, meaning they have a source of free materiel to arm informal militia.
Works both ways though. It's reported that the first thing Russian troops do with dead Ukrainian troops is nick their boots.
If the reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.
For example the wheeled MT might have the theoretic capability to vary tyre pressures "on the fly" as most military MT should, but they haven't been doing the basic PMS so when they drop the pressures the sidewalls split.
Put it this way; have you ever driven a Russian car?
Destroyed
Damaged
Abandoned
Captured
I imagine that the abandoned and captured items are those that broke down, ran out of fuel, etc.
Western media reports that as being a significant amount in itself.
Bigends said:
Depleted Uranium rounds arent explosive rounds so not sure whet good theyd be against fortifications. They rely on kinetic energy to pierce the target. High explosive rounds would be far more effective. A depleted Uranium round would just drill a hole in the structure and probably exit the other side.
As I understand it, DU is pyrophoric, which means it bursts into flame under the immense pressure and high temperature of impact, spraying the target’s insides with burning debris. The main alternative, tungsten, could potentially over-penetrate and go through both sides without damaging anything. Unlikely, especially In compact Russian tank of course. The long term heavy metal poisoning with tungsten is likely as equally bad as DU.
For a softer target, HE Frag or HEAT would be selected ideally. HESH if you’re British probably.
Beati Dogu said:
Bigends said:
Depleted Uranium rounds arent explosive rounds so not sure whet good theyd be against fortifications. They rely on kinetic energy to pierce the target. High explosive rounds would be far more effective. A depleted Uranium round would just drill a hole in the structure and probably exit the other side.
As I understand it, DU is pyrophoric, which means it bursts into flame under the immense pressure and high temperature of impact, spraying the target’s insides with burning debris. The main alternative, tungsten, could potentially over-penetrate and go through both sides without damaging anything. Unlikely, especially In compact Russian tank of course. The long term heavy metal poisoning with tungsten is likely as equally bad as DU.
For a softer target, HE Frag or HEAT would be selected ideally. HESH if you’re British probably.
Jake899 said:
Thanks Tom, really nice to have someone a bit more knowledgeable on ground forces weigh in here. Tell me; does field artillery ever use an anti-armour round? I know its not their main use but there must be the provision to fulfill that role?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_...
https://www.army.mil/article/195413/the_king_of_ba...
Jake899 said:
Mr Spoon said:
Good. Although it will take them decades to recover, Putin's tank scrap metal will hopefully be a start.
Not really sadly. Most destroyed vehicles have been struck with armour piercing rounds, the dense depleted uranium projectiles making short work of thick armour but in doing so, liberally coating the vehicle remains and the surrounding area in radioactive material. As discovered by the massive rise in birth defects after the middle eastern wars. Nobody wins in war, not the scrap man and not the scrap man’s children.1: Most vehicles have been struck by indirect fires, HE rounds landing near by. After being immobilised or mission killed the crews abandon to avoid infantry attack.
2: Most armoured vehicle K kills have been carried out using ATGMs which use copper or tantalum liners forced into jets to penetrate the armour. (The liner in a HEAT round is an a solid state at all times, there is no plasma or anything like that, HEAT is an acronym not a descriptor)
3: Very limited numbers of Russian vehicles will have been knocked out by direct fire from a Ukrainian tank, tanks aren't really suitable for infiltration against an opposition superior in numbers with lots of AT weapons and indirect fires. Ukrainian tactics are based on not giving Russian firepower anything to shoot at.
4: Were the Ukrainians using tanks the majority of their APFSDS rounds are actually tungsten cored particularly all the most recent ones.
5: The Russian and Ukrainian tanks are all protected by Heavy ERA that is actually more effective against APFSDS rounds than twin charge HEAT rounds carried by ATGM, that is without taking account of top attack weapons.
6: Depleted uranium isn't radioactive it's what's left over after you remove the fissile bit, regular uranium isn't heavily radioactive you can handle it without protection. It's much more dangerous as a poisonous heavy metal, though less so than tungsten the "clean" alternative.
7: If you are sat in a tank with DU armour and a full load of DU ammo you will actually receive a much lower dose of radiation than being sat outside as the tank shields you against the natural background radiation.
8: Plenty of studies of those who have received high doses of radiation do not show any hereditary issues. Most of the "evidence" for this occuring is photo journalists simply exploiting people who have birth defects in large populations where you would expect a certain percentage of people to have birth defects anyway.
Talksteer said:
Errrr no.
1: Most vehicles have been struck by indirect fires, HE rounds landing near by. After being immobilised or mission killed the crews abandon to avoid infantry attack.
2: Most armoured vehicle K kills have been carried out using ATGMs which use copper or tantalum liners forced into jets to penetrate the armour. (The liner in a HEAT round is an a solid state at all times, there is no plasma or anything like that, HEAT is an acronym not a descriptor)
3: Very limited numbers of Russian vehicles will have been knocked out by direct fire from a Ukrainian tank, tanks aren't really suitable for infiltration against an opposition superior in numbers with lots of AT weapons and indirect fires. Ukrainian tactics are based on not giving Russian firepower anything to shoot at.
4: Were the Ukrainians using tanks the majority of their APFSDS rounds are actually tungsten cored particularly all the most recent ones.
5: The Russian and Ukrainian tanks are all protected by Heavy ERA that is actually more effective against APFSDS rounds than twin charge HEAT rounds carried by ATGM, that is without taking account of top attack weapons.
6: Depleted uranium isn't radioactive it's what's left over after you remove the fissile bit, regular uranium isn't heavily radioactive you can handle it without protection. It's much more dangerous as a poisonous heavy metal, though less so than tungsten the "clean" alternative.
7: If you are sat in a tank with DU armour and a full load of DU ammo you will actually receive a much lower dose of radiation than being sat outside as the tank shields you against the natural background radiation.
8: Plenty of studies of those who have received high doses of radiation do not show any hereditary issues. Most of the "evidence" for this occuring is photo journalists simply exploiting people who have birth defects in large populations where you would expect a certain percentage of people to have birth defects anyway.
hmm1: Most vehicles have been struck by indirect fires, HE rounds landing near by. After being immobilised or mission killed the crews abandon to avoid infantry attack.
2: Most armoured vehicle K kills have been carried out using ATGMs which use copper or tantalum liners forced into jets to penetrate the armour. (The liner in a HEAT round is an a solid state at all times, there is no plasma or anything like that, HEAT is an acronym not a descriptor)
3: Very limited numbers of Russian vehicles will have been knocked out by direct fire from a Ukrainian tank, tanks aren't really suitable for infiltration against an opposition superior in numbers with lots of AT weapons and indirect fires. Ukrainian tactics are based on not giving Russian firepower anything to shoot at.
4: Were the Ukrainians using tanks the majority of their APFSDS rounds are actually tungsten cored particularly all the most recent ones.
5: The Russian and Ukrainian tanks are all protected by Heavy ERA that is actually more effective against APFSDS rounds than twin charge HEAT rounds carried by ATGM, that is without taking account of top attack weapons.
6: Depleted uranium isn't radioactive it's what's left over after you remove the fissile bit, regular uranium isn't heavily radioactive you can handle it without protection. It's much more dangerous as a poisonous heavy metal, though less so than tungsten the "clean" alternative.
7: If you are sat in a tank with DU armour and a full load of DU ammo you will actually receive a much lower dose of radiation than being sat outside as the tank shields you against the natural background radiation.
8: Plenty of studies of those who have received high doses of radiation do not show any hereditary issues. Most of the "evidence" for this occuring is photo journalists simply exploiting people who have birth defects in large populations where you would expect a certain percentage of people to have birth defects anyway.
6. DU is radioactive, just not very, so the toxic metal bit I'd agree with. I'd personally not be handling DU without some protection (but only needs to be thick gloves - can get quite a beta dose rate close in.
7. Not true - been there, done that. Although it might depend on how much and where inside the vehicle you stack your rounds vs the crew locations.
8. Hereditary effects never seen in humans, but birth defects possible if the foetus exposed during development.
Whilst I'm at it: Is there any evidence either side has access to DU ammo? My info, which may be out of date, was that only the US and UK have used DU in rounds, certainly the only ones I know of and have seen post conflict contamination data for.
Beati Dogu said:
The main alternative, tungsten, could potentially over-penetrate and go through both sides without damaging anything. Unlikely, especially In compact Russian tank of course.
I believe the pressure and then suction of the round passing through causes loads of damage. While rounds exiting the other side can be a problem, there was a claim in Gulf War 1 of a single round taking out two vehicles but presumably not through an MBT's main armourReally interesting to hear the discussion on the long term harm of contamination from various rounds. It’s fair to say military equipment is not designed to be safe for the environment, and Ukraine will have to deal with these toxic chemicals, land mines, etc for a long time to come.
Also interesting to see reports of Generals being killed are greatly exaggerated. I’m not surprised, as has been already said, war necessitates good morale and reports of victories however small to keep the machine rolling. The basic facts are unchanged:
Russia has invaded the Ukraine.
The Ukraine forces have held back Russia more than expected.
Russian materiel losses are staggering.
Everything else is uncertain.
Also interesting to see reports of Generals being killed are greatly exaggerated. I’m not surprised, as has been already said, war necessitates good morale and reports of victories however small to keep the machine rolling. The basic facts are unchanged:
Russia has invaded the Ukraine.
The Ukraine forces have held back Russia more than expected.
Russian materiel losses are staggering.
Everything else is uncertain.
Jake899 said:
Really interesting to hear the discussion on the long term harm of contamination from various rounds. It’s fair to say military equipment is not designed to be safe for the environment, and Ukraine will have to deal with these toxic chemicals, land mines, etc for a long time to come.
Also interesting to see reports of Generals being killed are greatly exaggerated. I’m not surprised, as has been already said, war necessitates good morale and reports of victories however small to keep the machine rolling. The basic facts are unchanged:
Russia has invaded the Ukraine.
The Ukraine forces have held back Russia more than expected.
Russian materiel losses are staggering.
Everything else is uncertain.
I agree with almost all of your points, but the bit in bold I am not sure about. Certainly this is the way it feels to us watching from the outside and in the west, but given the Russian approach of 'quantity has a quality of its own' I do wonder if these losses are only staggering because Russia seems to have very little to show for it. If the invasion had gone as planned for them, then the loss of so many tanks (and more importantly, the crews) might be elicit little more than a resigned shrug from those apparently undead Russian generals. Also interesting to see reports of Generals being killed are greatly exaggerated. I’m not surprised, as has been already said, war necessitates good morale and reports of victories however small to keep the machine rolling. The basic facts are unchanged:
Russia has invaded the Ukraine.
The Ukraine forces have held back Russia more than expected.
Russian materiel losses are staggering.
Everything else is uncertain.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff