Military Losses in the Ukraine

[deadtom]

Jake899 said:

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.

Tank nerd version: I think most of the Russian AFVs are being destroyed by shaped charge munitions rather than KE projectiles, so shouldn't be contaminated with DU (unless of course the stowed ammunition on the destroyed vehicle is impacted directly which could feasibly cause spalling and shattering of the DU rounds).


Non tank nerd version: I think most of the Russian tanks and other vehicles have been destroyed by weapons that don't use depleted uranium.

[deadtom]

it's surprising to see that Ukrainian captured makes up over 1/3rd of the Russian losses, which does support the idea that Russian tank crews are just ditching their vehicles without even really getting into the fight.

Long may this continue

[Jake899]

deadtom said:

Jake899 said:

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.

Tank nerd version: I think most of the Russian AFVs are being destroyed by shaped charge munitions rather than KE projectiles, so shouldn't be contaminated with DU (unless of course the stowed ammunition on the destroyed vehicle is impacted directly which could feasibly cause spalling and shattering of the DU rounds).


Non tank nerd version: I think most of the Russian tanks and other vehicles have been destroyed by weapons that don't use depleted uranium.

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?

[deadtom]

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?

It must be a symptom of being on PH too long, but I am unsure whether your reply was earnest, so I shall answer twice to cover both possibilities.

A) you are being genuine.

Thank you and I am glad to be useful. Unfortunately I must now disappoint you because my knowledge of modern artillery is not particularly expansive. Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific anti armour capability that the artillery has (at least not against heavy armour), but that's not to say they don't use DU rounds against fortified structures even if not against armoured vehicles. I vaguely know a few people in various bits of the Royal Artillery who I could ask as it is an interesting question given how much the Russians are firing into Ukrainian cities.

Hopefully some of the other PHers with military experience and/or knowledge will be along shortly to be more useful.

I should clarify that while I was briefly in the Army, it was probably the least illustrious military career in history, and most of my knowledge comes from being a life long tank nerd rather than real life experience.

B) you are being sarcastic

well that's just mean.

[Bigends]

deadtom said:

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?

It must be a symptom of being on PH too long, but I am unsure whether your reply was earnest, so I shall answer twice to cover both possibilities.

A) you are being genuine.

Thank you and I am glad to be useful. Unfortunately I must now disappoint you because my knowledge of modern artillery is not particularly expansive. Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific anti armour capability that the artillery has (at least not against heavy armour), but that's not to say they don't use DU rounds against fortified structures even if not against armoured vehicles. I vaguely know a few people in various bits of the Royal Artillery who I could ask as it is an interesting question given how much the Russians are firing into Ukrainian cities.

Hopefully some of the other PHers with military experience and/or knowledge will be along shortly to be more useful.

I should clarify that while I was briefly in the Army, it was probably the least illustrious military career in history, and most of my knowledge comes from being a life long tank nerd rather than real life experience.

B) you are being sarcastic

well that's just mean.

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.

[Jake899]

deadtom said:

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?

It must be a symptom of being on PH too long, but I am unsure whether your reply was earnest, so I shall answer twice to cover both possibilities.

A) you are being genuine.

Thank you and I am glad to be useful. Unfortunately I must now disappoint you because my knowledge of modern artillery is not particularly expansive. Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific anti armour capability that the artillery has (at least not against heavy armour), but that's not to say they don't use DU rounds against fortified structures even if not against armoured vehicles. I vaguely know a few people in various bits of the Royal Artillery who I could ask as it is an interesting question given how much the Russians are firing into Ukrainian cities.

Hopefully some of the other PHers with military experience and/or knowledge will be along shortly to be more useful.

I should clarify that while I was briefly in the Army, it was probably the least illustrious military career in history, and most of my knowledge comes from being a life long tank nerd rather than real life experience.

B) you are being sarcastic

well that's just mean.

I assure you its A! And its a shame that you have been swayed to believe its otherwise. I know artillery is rarely used in direct attacks against armour but I was sure it was within its capabilities.
May I also ask a further question: with the abundance of Anti armour weaponry, ie NLAAW and the like, is the tank a dying method of warfare? Bearing in mind that historically people continue to use weapons long after they have been shown to be no longer suitable.

[ian in lancs]

Do the 'lost by Russia' numbers include 'captured by Ukraine'? For example Russia has lost 16 aircraft and 2 have been nicked by Ukraine. Does that mean Russia have lost 16 or 18?

[ric p]

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?

From memory, most artillery rounds are PD, point detonation, HE, high explosive. Ie burst on impact for use against structures with varying degrees of fragmentation, especially against unprotected troops in the open or soft skinned vehicles.

However a lucky hit on an armoured vehicle would certainly destroy it through explosive power. A 155 round is a big bit of metal. However the fragmentation also has the effect of damaging antenna, optics etc, which may reduce their combat effectiveness.

There are also air burst rounds with pure frag would have a similar damaging effect but not kill.

[Jake899]

ian in lancs said:

Do the 'lost by Russia' numbers include 'captured by Ukraine'? For example Russia has lost 16 aircraft and 2 have been nicked by Ukraine. Does that mean Russia have lost 16 or 18?

Numbers are included so for your aircraft example, 16 lost, of which 2 are captured.
The numbers also have an additional “abandoned” category but these have not been added to the Ukrainian inventory.

[ian in lancs]

Jake899 said:

ian in lancs said:

Do the 'lost by Russia' numbers include 'captured by Ukraine'? For example Russia has lost 16 aircraft and 2 have been nicked by Ukraine. Does that mean Russia have lost 16 or 18?

Numbers are included so for your aircraft example, 16 lost, of which 2 are captured.
The numbers also have an additional “abandoned” category but these have not been added to the Ukrainian inventory.

Thanks.

Ukraine are doing well on the MANPAD front then!

[knk]

The problem caused by Depleted Uranium (DU) is not radioactivity, it is the toxic effect of heavy metals.

[alfaspecial]

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?
Supposedly in the Pacific War the Japanese would specifically target US corpsmen (medics) - because one dead medic would result in the loss of that man plus those he would have saved..... a rather cynical way of conducting warfare to our modern eyes but effective?

Again in WW2, during the Battle of Britain - fought over the UK, a shot down British pilot landed in British territory and could be returned to duty, whereas German aircrew were banged up as POWs for the rest of the war.

[deadtom]

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.

Indeed, however a hardened target (concrete bunker for example) will still require a degree of armour piercing capability to deal with properly. High explosive is incredibly powerful stuff, however to be effective against hardened targets it needs to be focused or directed in some way, which is the principle behind shaped charges and HESH.
If you had a reinforced concrete bunker and lobbed HE shells at it, pretty much all you'd do is blast the paint off the outside. It's on a different scale, but this is why the strength of the bomb cases was critical to get right for the WWII era grand slam bombs to be effective against hardened concrete submarine pens and the like. I believe that more recent bunker-buster type bombs actually used repurposed tank gun barrels as a casing due to the need for a good degree of simple 'punch clean through the outside' ability before the HE inside can do its work effectively.
Anyway, all this to say [SPECULATION WARNING] if you had a smaller artillery piece (105 mm light gun say) that wasn't big enough to fire a shell that combined a very thick armour piercing case along with a decent loading of HE, a second best solution might be to rely on a DU (or tungsten, or hardened steel maybe?) penetrator (fnarr!) to punch through and cause enough chaos inside to do the job.

Jake899 said:

I assure you its A! And its a shame that you have been swayed to believe its otherwise. I know artillery is rarely used in direct attacks against armour but I was sure it was within its capabilities.
May I also ask a further question: with the abundance of Anti armour weaponry, ie NLAAW and the like, is the tank a dying method of warfare? Bearing in mind that historically people continue to use weapons long after they have been shown to be no longer suitable.

well thank you, faith in the PH massive: increased slightly

'heavy armour is redundant in the face of X/Y/Z weapon system' is an opinion that gets espoused regularly, and has been since the tank was invented in 1917, and yet pretty much every military in the world still sees the value in investing many many millions in the procurement, training and maintenance of heavy armour.

I will admit to being biased, 'cos tanks are badass, but I do believe that while the idea of them being unstoppable, unkillable mobile fortresses is simply not true, they are still a formidable thing to come up against and are still very relevant, and will remain so for a while yet.
Russia have just been completely rubbish at using theirs; sending them into urban environments without any infantry support or air cover would be a very bad idea with the latest western kit, let alone with the ageing 1980's kit that makes up the bulk of their numbers.

ric p said:

However a lucky hit on an armoured vehicle would certainly destroy it through explosive power. A 155 round is a big bit of metal. However the fragmentation also has the effect of damaging antenna, optics etc, which may reduce their combat effectiveness.

There are also air burst rounds with pure frag would have a similar damaging effect but not kill.

I often wonder this, but 155 mm is not -that- much bigger than the 120 mm, and given that artillery has much lower muzzle velocity (and [SPECULATION WARNING] therefore I suspect a 155 mm artillery shell will have a lower KE and than a high velocity 120 mm one from a tank gun) and isn't designed to be armour piercing, I think it would be the high angle of attack onto the weaker top armour rather than the explosive power directly that would do for the tank when that lucky 155 mm hit lands.

[rdjohn]

Interesting that human life does not seem to get counted in this scoresheet.

What does seem pretty clear in this clusterfk is that in any war with NATO, Russia would need to turn to its chemical and nuclear arsenal at a pretty early stage.

[Jake899]

rdjohn said:

Interesting that human life does not seem to get counted in this scoresheet.

What does seem pretty clear in this clusterfk is that in any war with NATO, Russia would need to turn to its chemical and nuclear arsenal at a pretty early stage.

The human cost is much harder to pin down.
Russian losses are something between the 1351 the Russian media claims, and the 15000 estimated by NATO
Ukrainian military losses and civilian costs are even harder to approximate. They understandably don’t want to demoralize their forces and populace, and I’m unable to find a Russian estimate of Ukrainian losses to balance things out.
Civilian losses according to the UN: 1,151 deaths
Civilian losses according to the Ukrainian government: 6,175
Ukrainian forces KIA according to the Ukrainian Government: 1300
Ukrainian forces KIA according to US government estimate: 2000-4000

All numbers as of 22nd of March. The true numbers are as always, somewhere in the middle.

While it seems easy and interesting to list destroyed war materiel, its a horrible thing to consider thousands of civilians killed.

[RizzoTheRat]

I've seen a direct fire simulator for 105 light gun so it's clearly a potential role, but no idea if they have armour piercing rounds for them.

I think western sabot rounds are all tungsten these days, but sure about aircraft cabin rounds though.

[Welshbeef]

mcdjl said:

= =||= Ukraine=||= Russia =||

tanks	79	310
armoured fighting vehicles	60	229
infantry fighting vehicles	60	303
armoured personnel carriers	29	77
Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles		12
infantry mobility vehicles	32	65
communications stations		12
engineering vehicles and equipment	7	60
anti tank guided missiles	51	63
Man Portable Air Defence systems	16	24
towed artillery	25	42
self propelled artillery	16	60
multiple rocket launchers	6	34
Anti aircraft guns	2	3
Self propelled anti aircraft guns	1	9
surface to air missile systems	21	40
Radars	10	3
Jammers and deception systems		6
aircraft	12	16
helicopters	1	36
UAVs	9	16
Naval ships	13	3
Logistics trains		2
jeeps, trucks and vehicles	186	640

So taking the Russian side - ball park what does that loss of assets cost to replace.

[bazza white]

Welshbeef said:

So taking the Russian side - ball park what does that loss of assets cost to replace.

I've got a list like that with costs from a tweet I meant to add today I'll add it tomorrow. Works out at around $6b iirc including soldiers

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

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.

[Welshbeef]

bazza white said:

Welshbeef said:

So taking the Russian side - ball park what does that loss of assets cost to replace.

I've got a list like that with costs from a tweet I meant to add today I'll add it tomorrow. Works out at around $6b iirc including soldiers

That’s not a lot really - considering the UKs budget is what £60b a year. I don’t think the UK has 300 tanks in totality.