Military Losses in the Ukraine
Discussion
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reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.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?
Having faced up to Soviet-era tanks and AFVs, I think it's true to say that a lot of the Russian kit is pretty woeful in terms of protection on a modern battlefield. MT-LBs are absolute death-traps for instance. Barely more than tinplate armour, flimsy, and very "agricultural" in terms of build quality. 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reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.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?
photo source here... https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C252698
This MT-LB, or one very much like it in terms of damage, was pretty much the first thing I saw upon crossing the Saudi/Iraqi border.
We see on news footage video of "modern" Russian kit, but much of it looks exactly like their old kit, but with a new turret or main armament, like those BTRs with what looks like a remotely operated cannon in a small turret on top. There doesn't appear to be a great deal of fresh design in hulls nor any additional armour. This despite huge improvements in accuracy, effectiveness, and portability of anti tank guided (and unguided) munitions. There's also the issue of the "turretless tank" syndrome. Too many of their tanks, as a percentage of losses, have had their turrets blown straight up in the air and flung down elsewhere. It's an inherent flaw in their design that there is no protection for/from the ammunition storage, so when a tank is hit it's more likely to be catastrophic and vaporise the crew. Not that this is a particularly good thing, of course, because the Ukrainians are using the same hulls/platforms too.
We used to refer to our Fv432s disparagingly as "biscuit tins" due their perceived lack of armour protection, but we had our eyes opened in Iraq in 1991, where only a couple of years earlier we were holed up in barracks in northwest Germany fearing the "mighty Red Army". I think any war in Europe would favour NATO these days. Mainly because of the quality of man-portable anti-tank systems which would give an army in defence the upper hand, and it's hardly likely that NATO could ever be persuaded to go on the offensive and roll into Eastern Europe all guns blazing.
Unable to provide sources but 'Speak the Truth' n his latest video commented that he has information indicating that Ukraine has lost a total of 18,000 military personnel which he considered fairly accurate.
Would be a big morale dent if true, he also believes this next phase will see the biggest losses since WW2
Would be a big morale dent if true, he also believes this next phase will see the biggest losses since WW2
rdjohn said:
Interesting that human life does not seem to get counted in this scoresheet.
What does seem pretty clear in this clusterf
k is that in any war with NATO, Russia would need to turn to its chemical and nuclear arsenal at a pretty early stage.
As sad as this is to say, the human losses in conflicts are the least (visibly) obvious on the battlefield. And they are more difficult to count accurately too, at least "on the battlefield". The respective armies will (or at least should) know where all of their personnel are, or where they are meant to be if their CASREP system is working. Rolls still get called, and heads counted, during combat operations. But my original point? Some of the dead will remain unburied (at least initially) where they fell. Some will be recovered by their comrades and moved back through the casualty clearing/handling system. Some will be buried by their own side where they fell, and some will be buried by their enemy. If combatants are conducting war according to "the rules" then they should be accurately recording (and making attempts to record the identities of) their own dead and those of their opponents. Although with hastily trained militia (and distasteful behaviour of regular troops) this is less likely to be a job that gets done properly. What does seem pretty clear in this clusterf
k is that in any war with NATO, Russia would need to turn to its chemical and nuclear arsenal at a pretty early stage.As for what the true numbers are? Go back to WWII, and the Battle Of Britain for some insight on that. After the war Allied forces captured Luftwaffe records. While the NAZIs in Berlin would never have exposed the truth about losses and failed operations to the propaganda-controlled population, the German armed forces were very good record keepers. So if an aircraft was dispatched on a raid over England and it failed to return, it would need recording properly so that replacement aircraft and crews could be ordered from factories, supply depots, and training units. When German records were compared with RAF squadron "claims" of aircraft damaged or destroyed it was clear that many RAF pilots had claimed a single (the same) destroyed German aircraft. Whether that was speculatively, maliciously, or simply through "fog of war" we can't say, but many pilots "credited" with a "kill" or two during the BofB should, by rights, have had those claims disputed after the smoke had cleared in May 1945. but because many of those pilots had subsequently been lost themselves on operations there was no stomach among senior officers to go back and re-interrogate their own pilots or their logbooks and Squadron War Diaries.
If/when this conflict is over, it depends on who "wins". But it's likely that UN observers will enter any part of Ukraine still held by the Ukrainians, and graves will be counted, and vehicle losses will be recovered and consolidated and yes, counted too. So we may yet get an accurate picture of who and what was lost and by which side. Whether that picture is shared with the general public, though, depends very much on who appears to be the "winning side" and by what margin. If Russia prevails, though, and holds on to all/part of formerly Ukrainian territory, then getting independent observers in to do the counting will be orders of magnitude less likely to happen at all, and many of their losses will be recorded only in some dusty archive under the Kremlin, never to be admitted or referred to again.
Jake899 said:
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.
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.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
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.
The question is what unique capabilities does a tank give me? Given that it is not practical to armour a vehicle to give all points protection from ATGMs etc it means that tanks will still need hard and soft active protection which can be fitted to any armoured vehicle. The unique capability is one of being able to fire KE rounds (which are currently more difficult to stop with active protection) and to resist these rounds on the turret front only.
If I were looking at spending the money ~£1 billion (but much more is spent on unique support systems and op costs) that is being spent on a tiny amount of heavy armour I would instead spend it on a high velocity kinetic kill missile that replicates the tank's direct fire mission but could potentially be carried on any armoured vehicle or carried by infantry. This would give a much broader capability and mitigate against something like active defence systems being effective against your existing missiles. Unfortunately this requires long term planning and defence industrial capability.
Tanks do have the unique property that they are actually quite compact compared to things like Ajax but that is more of an issue that a lot of non-tank armoured vehicles are derived from infantry carriers which means they end up bulky. If one was designing a pure fighting armoured vehicle today it would probably have
• Low profile
• A cannon and a machine gun in a remote weapons station
• Two missile systems a KE line of sight system and an ATGM with an over the horizon capability (eg Spike)
• Active defence systems, methods for detecting air targets
• Two crew low in the hull using synthetic vision, both with the same workstation with the ability to drive it, see any sensor and fire any weapon.
• Optionally manned
Which sounds a lot like ground based Apache.
The other interesting capability which I think will be replicated is the Ukrainian Stugna missile, it is a relatively conventional laser guided ATGM but it has remote guidance option so the crew can emplace it and retreat to a safer remote location such as a bunker. The same logic can be applied to sensors and other weapons, essentially allowing a dug in force to cover a much larger area and to shoot with much greater “bravery”.
I think the vulnerability of the logistics chain is also an issue in a world where Azerbaijan and the Hothis have 400km ballistic missiles with 10m accuracy. This probably means that every vehicle needs to have some method to detect and respond to long range precision fires/drones or at least be escorted by something which does. This effectively make every vehicle a fighting vehicle.
Talksteer said:
I think the vulnerability of the logistics chain is also an issue in a world where Azerbaijan and the Hothis have 400km ballistic missiles with 10m accuracy. This probably means that every vehicle needs to have some method to detect and respond to long range precision fires/drones or at least be escorted by something which does. This effectively make every vehicle a fighting vehicle.
Yes, it's particularly tricky to invade anywhere in vehicles when modern anti-tank weapons are so effective.The same is likely to turn out to be the case down on the Black Sea, with every Russian ship now vulnerable to modern anti-ship missiles given to Ukraine. You no longer need a navy of your own, or even an air force, to destroy somebody else's navy.
Ah yes, as we were saying, turning up with large vehicles/vessels against modern defence weaponry is a high risk strategy.
The only catch is that Mr Putin is likely to be rather cross and react accordingly.
Meanwhile Finland and Sweden might as well sign up for NATO while he's distracted elsewhere.
The only catch is that Mr Putin is likely to be rather cross and react accordingly.
Meanwhile Finland and Sweden might as well sign up for NATO while he's distracted elsewhere.
alfaspecial said:
Possibly slightly off-topic, but
I remember reading that during the battle of Normandy (WW2) Allied 'claims' of German vehicles destroyed were significantly wide of the mark, when compared to German (reported) losses.
The discrepancy being due to very good German post battlefield tactics ie if a German tank was disabled/broke down they would make every effort to recover it (so it could be repaired and returned to service) using tank transporters. Because the Allies had (almost) unlimited resources they had a tendency to just abandon a disabled/broken down tank.
A wise policy would have been for Allied ground attack aircraft to mark tank recovery vehicles as primary targets?
That's not borne out by historical record; one particularly bad day in July 1944 allied forces in Normandy suffered over 400 tanks destroyed or knocked out, within 24hrs repair units had put over 200 of those back in commission and a further 60 within 72hrs. The germans had practically no tank transporters and moved tanks long distances almost exclusively by rail, when breakdowns occurred recovery was a tow from either a halftrack or another tank.I remember reading that during the battle of Normandy (WW2) Allied 'claims' of German vehicles destroyed were significantly wide of the mark, when compared to German (reported) losses.
The discrepancy being due to very good German post battlefield tactics ie if a German tank was disabled/broke down they would make every effort to recover it (so it could be repaired and returned to service) using tank transporters. Because the Allies had (almost) unlimited resources they had a tendency to just abandon a disabled/broken down tank.
A wise policy would have been for Allied ground attack aircraft to mark tank recovery vehicles as primary targets?
llewop said:
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.
There are a few sites which reckon the russians developed a DU round for the 125mm but also state it wasn't used much because it was less effective than their tungsten round.Talksteer said:
I think the vulnerability of the logistics chain is also an issue in a world where Azerbaijan and the Hothis have 400km ballistic missiles with 10m accuracy. This probably means that every vehicle needs to have some method to detect and respond to long range precision fires/drones or at least be escorted by something which does. This effectively make every vehicle a fighting vehicle.
Active protection systems are getting pretty clever now, it's unlikely C3 will be rolled out without one.Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 15th April 18:59
Hackney2 said:
Have to say it is a bit of concern Putin ‘threatening’ nuclear & hypersonic missile if Finland & Sweden join NATO.Any views on this?
Typical bully-boy Putin issuing his usual threats again. While Russia has a very large army and depth of equipment, but as I saw the other day - Russia has gone from the second most powerful army in the world to the second most powerful in Ukraine!A well trained and significantly smaller army handed Russia a true spanking. If the Ukrainians can do this, imagine what the Finns and Swedes can do? And Putin can barely string together a strategy for Ukraine, never mind open up a second front.
part of me, and I admit a deep down dark part actually hopes he is stupid enough to open a second front and we see the Russian Army picked apart. The problem Russia has is despite all its bluster it simply cannot commit enough units to open up another front without leaving themselves exposed elsewhere. That institutional paranoia will be sitting there knawing away. The Chinese want to roll north, we must protect the Southern border We must maintain a solid defence against Nato, So a large enough force must be maintained on the western borders. Maybe the Finns fancy rolling their 240 tanks across the border and having a stab at mother Russia too.
off_again said:
Typical bully-boy Putin issuing his usual threats again. While Russia has a very large army and depth of equipment, but as I saw the other day - Russia has gone from the second most powerful army in the world to the second most powerful in Ukraine!
A well trained and significantly smaller army handed Russia a true spanking. If the Ukrainians can do this, imagine what the Finns and Swedes can do? And Putin can barely string together a strategy for Ukraine, never mind open up a second front.
The Russian army seems pretty useless mob.What amuses me though(& it is really horrific) is that while they are retreating they are killing hundreds of people & destroying towns,,it’s like the Nazis did in WW11 same tactics.A well trained and significantly smaller army handed Russia a true spanking. If the Ukrainians can do this, imagine what the Finns and Swedes can do? And Putin can barely string together a strategy for Ukraine, never mind open up a second front.
LeadFarmer said:
If it wasn't for the very realistic nuclear threat from Russia, it would be nice to see an army invade Russia just to see their panic response, their army divided and their retreat from Ukraine. But instead he would probably fire off some very big bombs and end all human existence.
There have been over 2,000 nukes deployed/tested be it under sea underground above ground and high altitude in a myriad of locations over the world. Impact——not sure there has been a nuclear winter or anything.
Hackney2 said:
Have to say it is a bit of concern Putin ‘threatening’ nuclear & hypersonic missile if Finland & Sweden join NATO.Any views on this?
He was going to turn off the gas pipelines a couple of weeks ago unless Germany started paying in Rubles....They'll join and he'll make a lot of noise.
As something I read yesterday pointed out. He's a man scared of dying of Covid so clearly deeply narcissistic....hitting the button signs his own death warrant. And also it is not clear that if he gave the commend it would happen....there are apparently several different authorities that have to be given.
Welshbeef said:
However that warship was sunk it’s sunk
A huge boon and morale booster for Ukraine and the “fk you russia” ship is gone those slaughtered Ukrainians refusing to surrender have been justified.
I don't know what to make of the loss of the guided missile cruiser Moskva.A huge boon and morale booster for Ukraine and the “f
k you russia” ship is gone those slaughtered Ukrainians refusing to surrender have been justified. Ukrainians claiming they hit it with a missile strike. Russians claiming it was lost to an onboard incident leading to a catastrophic event in ammunition storage magazines. If I were a Russian naval captain I think I'd be claiming the Ukrainians hit the ship even if it were true that a fire on board caused it's loss. For a crew to be so poorly trained and exercised in DAMCON procedures during a deployment to a shooting war, and for the (prestigious) ship's fire suppression and compartmentalisation systems to be so wholly inadequate, is an absolute clusterf
k, and terribly embarrassing to the Russian navy. It would be more palatable to claim that a "lucky shot" Ukrainian missile "fluked" a hit on the ammunition magazines.With the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's refit woes, it's a shame that Ukraine sold it's sister-ship the Riga/Varyag to China really, as a Ukrainian aircraft carrier might (if it were not already resting on the ocean floor) be something to put the cat among the Russian navy's pigeons.
yellowjack said:
Welshbeef said:
However that warship was sunk it’s sunk
A huge boon and morale booster for Ukraine and the “fk you russia” ship is gone those slaughtered Ukrainians refusing to surrender have been justified.
I don't know what to make of the loss of the guided missile cruiser Moskva.A huge boon and morale booster for Ukraine and the “f
k you russia” ship is gone those slaughtered Ukrainians refusing to surrender have been justified. Ukrainians claiming they hit it with a missile strike. Russians claiming it was lost to an onboard incident leading to a catastrophic event in ammunition storage magazines. If I were a Russian naval captain I think I'd be claiming the Ukrainians hit the ship even if it were true that a fire on board caused it's loss. For a crew to be so poorly trained and exercised in DAMCON procedures during a deployment to a shooting war, and for the (prestigious) ship's fire suppression and compartmentalisation systems to be so wholly inadequate, is an absolute clusterf
k, and terribly embarrassing to the Russian navy. It would be more palatable to claim that a "lucky shot" Ukrainian missile "fluked" a hit on the ammunition magazines.With the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's refit woes, it's a shame that Ukraine sold it's sister-ship the Riga/Varyag to China really, as a Ukrainian aircraft carrier might (if it were not already resting on the ocean floor) be something to put the cat among the Russian navy's pigeons.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff