Military Losses in the Ukraine

[sospan]

I subscribe on youtube to the Drachinifel site. It is about naval military and there is a good video about the development of naval munitions from early plain cannonball to modern shells.
It describes the actions of the various types.
One enlightening comparison is how armour piercing behaves versus HE. AP would go right through a ship whilst HE explode on impact. A delayed action fuse in AP would allow penetration before explosion so more effective.
Similar design for land based munitions were developed.
In naval battles the choice of shell ( AP or HE) was crucial. AP passing through a ship left holes ( also internal equipment damage if hit) whilst HE caused a lot of damage and casualties if hitting lesser armoured areas.

[bazza white]

Here is the one i said i would post earlier. its from twitter and the numbers need adjusting but here it is.

[Jake899]

bazza white said:

Here is the one i said i would post earlier. its from twitter and the numbers need adjusting but here it is.

HOOOGE pinch of salt needed their though. Especially with regard to aircraft claims.

[Talksteer]

llewop said:

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.

hmm

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.

DU is primarily an alpha emitter, ergo your skin is stopping radiation. The sheath around a DU munition should be plenty to stop any radiation. UK tanks are obviously something of an outlier with fin rounds in the crew compartment.

DU doesn't have a long half-life in the human body nor does it concentrate ergo it is exceptionally difficult to get a high dose from it. There are plenty of people who were on the end of friendly fire who have DU in them without detectable health effects from radiation.

With regards to DU the Soviets had BM32 in the mid 80's. Chieftain Stllbrew provided some protection against it. It was never as widely deployed as preceding steel rods or following tungsten rods.

The whole thing is moot as I've seen no evidence of a tank or tank shot.

[eccles]

Some aircraft control surface balance weights are made of DU. There are no safety precautions mentioned in the maintenance manual when working with them. It's only when they start corroding, then you have to be suited and booted and have breathing apparatus.

[llewop]

Comments in bold

Talksteer said:

DU is primarily an alpha emitter, ergo your skin is stopping radiation. The sheath around a DU munition should be plenty to stop any radiation. UK tanks are obviously something of an outlier with fin rounds in the crew compartment. but not exclusively alpha, you get the set: alpha/beta/gamma, so gamma dose rate is there if enough around you + for significant bare metal components a decent, non-negligible beta dose rate can be measured

DU doesn't have a long half-life in the human body nor does it concentrate ergo it is exceptionally difficult to get a high dose from it. There are plenty of people who were on the end of friendly fire who have DU in them without detectable health effects from radiation. agree - it is just shrapnel in many respects (+ toxic metal)

With regards to DU the Soviets had BM32 in the mid 80's. Chieftain Stllbrew provided some protection against it. It was never as widely deployed as preceding steel rods or following tungsten rods. new info to me, thank you, on reflection it would be very odd if no one else had tried it

The whole thing is moot as I've seen no evidence of a tank or tank shot. absolutely and other than hitting MBTs (which they are doing fine with the missiles) not really optimum, straight through a soft target and out the other side

[Polly Grigora]

Jake899 said:

Russian losses as of Monday 28th of March:

310 tanks
229 armoured fighting vehicles
303 infantry fighting vehicles
77 armoured personnel carriers
12 Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles
65 infantry mobility vehicles
12 communications stations
60 engineering vehicles and equipment
63 anti tank guided missiles
24 Man Portable Air Defence systems
42 towed artillery
60 self propelled artillery
34 multiple rocket launchers
3 anti aircraft guns
9 self propelled anti aircraft guns
40 surface to air missile systems
3 radars
6 jammers and deception systems
16 aircraft
36 helicopters
16 UAVs
3 Naval ships
2 logistics trains
640 jeeps, trucks and vehicles

mcdjl said:

That looks like:

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

Thank you very much, top job

[deadtom]

Also while it's not strictly military, let's not forget the loss of the Antonov AN225 Mriya, that's a big one for Ukraine that's got to sting a bit.

[Jake899]

As of today, total Russian losses of 2,091.
Of which, Captured by Ukrainian forces: 770
Aircraft losses: 17
Helicopters: 35
UAV: 18
Tanks: 342

Total Ukrainian losses of 598.
Of which, Captured by Russian forces: 304
Aircraft losses: 12
Helicopters: 1
UAV: 12
Tanks: 79

If you don’t mind, from here on out I will just highlight the Air Force losses and the tanks as the main losses. For more details about other losses, please refer to the Oryx blog itself.

[deadtom]

Jake, I just saw on the other thread that you have taken in a Ukrainian family, good on you and respect for doing it

Is that partly why you started this thread? It must make it a lot more personal now that you have a personal connection (albeit a little more arms reach, thankfully) to the conflict.

I hope your guests are getting by and are able to reconsider their choice to head back east, though I think I understand why they want to go back.

[Jake899]

deadtom said:

Jake, I just saw on the other thread that you have taken in a Ukrainian family, good on you and respect for doing it

Is that partly why you started this thread? It must make it a lot more personal now that you have a personal connection (albeit a little more arms reach, thankfully) to the conflict.

I hope your guests are getting by and are able to reconsider their choice to head back east, though I think I understand why they want to go back.

Hiya Tom, yep we have had the girls with us for nearly two weeks now. And we’ve been planning to bring them over since early March.
It’s not connected to my interest in the conflict, I have followed Russian foreign relations for some time, it’s a subject that interests me among a few others!
Hopefully I have tried to keep an open mind on how things have developed in the Ukraine and to be honest having the girls here hasn’t changed that much, we don’t mention or discuss the war unless it’s something they bring up. But it certainly makes it real, that real people are being affected, simple, kind people who just want to go home and carry on their lives. The sooner it ends the better for both Ukraine and Russia and the less people from both nations who die the better for me.

[Jake899]

Greetings everyone,
An update on the military losses in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

As of 12/04/2022

Russian total equipment losses: 2770
Including,
Tanks 476, of which captured 192
Aircraft 20 (this includes the first SU-35S lost, a generation 4++ fighter, and probably the most advanced and capable aircraft in the Russian toolbox)
Helicopters 32, of which captured 1
UAVs 28, of which captured 10

Ukrainian total equipment losses 739
Including,
Tanks 103, of which captured 51
Aircraft 15, of which 8 are SU-27/MiG-29 fighters
Helicopters 3, of which captured 1
UAVs 12, 3 of which are the famous Turkish Bayraktar.

Russian losses have continued to be high. Recent reports from Russia of more Ukrainian air force losses, but no corroborated proof as yet.

[Johnnytheboy]

Nice to have this separate from the big thread.

[Jake899]

Johnnytheboy said:

Nice to have this separate from the big thread.

Agreed, the big thread is too big. And too full of armchair hawks.

[hairykrishna]

These numbers are interesting but I wonder how skewed they are by available photographic evidence. It seems that the Ukrainians are documenting their vehicle 'kills' quite comprehensively - I'm not sure how the Russians compare?

[Jake899]

hairykrishna said:

These numbers are interesting but I wonder how skewed they are by available photographic evidence. It seems that the Ukrainians are documenting their vehicle 'kills' quite comprehensively - I'm not sure how the Russians compare?

All "kill" numbers are hugely skewed in any conflict. It may be that after the war (assuming it has a decisive "end") there may be a more accurate assessment but I wouldn't hold my breath.

People have posted numbers of Russian losses as counted by the Ukrainian armed forces and predictably they are far in excess of Oryx's numbers.

The truth is, no one can be sure, but I believe that these numbers are as close as is possible. There's a few positive signs that they are constantly checking and reassessing the numbers, for example, last month there were 35 Russian helicopter losses, now there are 32. So obviously some diligent soul has had a closer look at the claims and seen that they need to be adjusted.

Neutral sources such as the Oryx blog are likely to be as close as anyone can get to the actual numbers. I appreciate their work, though as they say themselves, this is only a list of large equipment, it doesn't include MANPADS, small arms, troop numbers etc, so it's not to be taken as a guide on how the war is progressing, it's just a reference point to add to and guide your personal opinions.

[deadtom]

Thanks for keeping this up to date, Jake.

Interesting to see the proportion of captured to total lost for armoured vehicles is higher for the Ukrainians.

Given that both are using broadly the same kind of kit, but the Russians seem to have much worse awareness of what is actually going in in the conflict, I wonder if Ukrainian forces are more aware of the relative weakness of their vehicles in the face of modern ATGMs and urban operations, and are readily ditching their vehicles the moment they think they are at the wrong end of an ambush, rather than relying on their armour to keep them safe while fighting through?

This is not meant as a criticism of the Ukrainian forces, I am certain I would be the same in that situation, and living to fight another day will always be better than dying for nothing.

Edited by deadtom on Tuesday 12th April 10:31

[Jake899]

deadtom said:

Thanks for keeping this up to date, Jake.

Interesting to see the proportion of captured to total lost for armoured vehicles is higher for the Ukrainians.

Given that both are using broadly the same kind of kit, but the Russians seem to have much worse awareness of what is actually going in in the conflict, I wonder if Ukrainian forces are more aware of the relative weakness of their vehicles in the face of modern ATGMs and urban operations, and are readily ditching their vehicles the moment they think they are at the wrong end of an ambush, rather than relying on their armour to keep them safe while fighting through?

This is not meant as a criticism of the Ukrainian forces, I am certain I would be the same in that situation, and living to fight another day will always be better than dying for nothing.

Edited by deadtom on Tuesday 12th April 10:31

You're welcome Tom, it's not too much effort when I check the blog regularly anyways. It is strange that Russia has captured half of the tanks Ukraine has lost.
The numbers don't say whether they are abandoned in battle or whether the Russians over ran a tank park, there's no more detail than the numbers.
I think tactically when the conflict will be reviewed, many other nations will take note of just how much tanks and armoured vehicles have taken a hammering. The increased lethality of Javelin and NLAAW in the last decade has made it relatively easy for a single trooper with a disposable "cheap" launcher to take out a very expensive MBT. Loitering single use drone darts now wander the battlefield at will, looking for something crunchy to fall on.
Add to that the very long logistics tail of using tanks (fuel, ammo, maintenance, spares) all of which are usually carried in other armoured tracked vehicles which also require the same spares, makes the use of tanks in all situations look less and less appetizing.
Don't get me wrong, there will still be a time and a place for a tank in a modern army, but I think war planners will have to assess what that time and place is a lot more carefully from now on.
It may be that tanks will suit the defender much more suitably than an attacking force, if "shoot and scoot" tactics are employed, or there is time to dig roll up hull down positions.

[Hackney2]

Jake899 said:

Greetings everyone,
An update on the military losses in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

As of 12/04/2022

Russian total equipment losses: 2770
Including,
Tanks 476, of which captured 192
Aircraft 20 (this includes the first SU-35S lost, a generation 4++ fighter, and probably the most advanced and capable aircraft in the Russian toolbox)
Helicopters 32, of which captured 1
UAVs 28, of which captured 10

Ukrainian total equipment losses 739
Including,
Tanks 103, of which captured 51
Aircraft 15, of which 8 are SU-27/MiG-29 fighters
Helicopters 3, of which captured 1
UAVs 12, 3 of which are the famous Turkish Bayraktar.

Russian losses have continued to be high. Recent reports from Russia of more Ukrainian air force losses, but no corroborated proof as yet.

Thank you for your continued updates!Greetings from Australia!!

[Jake899]

Hackney2 said:

Thank you for your continued updates!Greetings from Australia!!

G'day,
Thanks to you, I am glad it is useful! You are lucky to be so far away from the mess Europe is in right now, although perhaps the way the world is, nothing is that far away.