Ukraine Conflict - "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

[xzar_monty]

16 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

And expects some breakthrough soon, as RU is getting exhausted more and more due to the illogical RU offensives.

Exhaustion, defined in the physical-medical sense, may well set in. But what I find interesting (and what has been written about in our press and commented upon by Zaluznyi and others) is that apparently Russia really doesn't care about its own losses of personnel. This is really quite something, and this war has really hammered it home for me, among others.

[Gorth]

20 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Exhaustion, defined in the physical-medical sense, may well set in. But what I find interesting (and what has been written about in our press and commented upon by Zaluznyi and others) is that apparently Russia really doesn't care about its own losses of personnel. This is really quite something, and this war has really hammered it home for me, among others.

it worked for the Soviet Union and it was more or less how they won WWII... throw enough stuff at the Germans and eventually they will run out of bullets.

[xzar_monty]

18 minutes ago, Gorth said:

it worked for the Soviet Union and it was more or less how they won WWII... throw enough stuff at the Germans and eventually they will run out of bullets.

Indeed. I suppose that one thing that follows from this is that Russia will never attack either China or India, through sheer force of numbers.

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

it worked for the Soviet Union and it was more or less how they won WWII... throw enough stuff at the Germans and eventually they will run out of bullets.

I dunno, stuff like Bagration or Uranus wasn't just zerging.

[Mamoulian War]

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Exhaustion, defined in the physical-medical sense, may well set in. But what I find interesting (and what has been written about in our press and commented upon by Zaluznyi and others) is that apparently Russia really doesn't care about its own losses of personnel. This is really quite something, and this war has really hammered it home for me, among others.

TBH not much surprising for us, who got some experience with “Russian World” (read occupation). I always took the word “exhaustion” in connection with Russian army from people like Girkin as “running out of bodies” and not as getting tired in combat in before rotation  

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

..Bagration

One of my favourite wikipedia articles for pointing out the massive bias you get from 50 years of using German/ western sources.

Biggest German defeat of WW2 with an entire Army Group destroyed yet the Soviets supposedly suffered twice the number of losses/ casualties. Indeed, one source gives the Germans a 9:1 kill ratio... for their biggest defeat. As one prominent wag put it: "you could tell how the war was really going because our glorious victories kept getting closer to Berlin".

Not like there wasn't a load of wasteful attacks too, but much as with Ukraine when one side does it it's human waves, when the other does it it's tactical infantry assaults.

[Mamoulian War]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:50 PM, Malcador said:

Zaluzhnyi on what Ukraine needs - https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/11/01/the-commander-in-chief-of-ukraines-armed-forces-on-what-he-needs-to-beat-russia

Just seems like "everything" to be honest - drones, artillery, mine clearing equipment and reserves.

 

 

On 11/2/2023 at 12:05 PM, pmp10 said:

There was also a second piece with him.

In short, Ukraine needs a serious technological edge or the war is (at best) a stalemate. 

another look at the Zaluzhny’s assays, which in short blasts the economist and other outlets for shoddy clickbait journalism which took out of a single mention of Stalemate out of his articles to the headlines

 

[Gorth]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

I dunno, stuff like Bagration or Uranus wasn't just zerging.

You can add Leningrad, Unternehmen Zitadelle (Kursk) and the battle of Berlin to the list. All strategic victories... gained at loss ratios between 2:1 and 5:1 depending on the battle. As said, throw enough bodies at the fight, and you may just make the other guy despair and give up.

[Malcador]

41 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You can add Leningrad, Unternehmen Zitadelle (Kursk) and the battle of Berlin to the list. All strategic victories... gained at loss ratios between 2:1 and 5:1 depending on the battle. As said, throw enough bodies at the fight, and you may just make the other guy despair and give up.

I suppose some value in the old saying “It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will conquer.", at least for Leningrad.   Didn't recall the casualties being that skewed in Berlin, although you would expect the defender to get the advantage. 

Right.

[Gorth]

24 minutes ago, Malcador said:

I suppose some value in the old saying “It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will conquer.", at least for Leningrad.   Didn't recall the casualties being that skewed in Berlin, although you would expect the defender to get the advantage. 

Right.

Berlin was a bit atypical, as most sources include the half a million surrendering German troops as casualties (which is technically correct, as they are no longer an available asset). Atypical because there wasn't really a lot of German held territory nearby to retreat to anymore. Looking just at dead and wounded, it still was an expensive price for victory to pay. Also, most sources only focus on the battle in the city, not the advance towards the city...

Best estimates I could find (Quora) are only for the final battle of Berlin (the city itself). The advance or rather the race towards Berlin was considerably more costly in Soviet lives, as neither Konev nor Zhukov cared about casualties incurred in the race to be the first to actually reach Berlin. Sadly Google is not your friend, as any and all search involving the words Soviet and Berlin all leads to the same 20 sites only covering the battle in the city, not the battle to get to the city.

 

The battle for Berlin itself:

Germany's Strengths:

1,000,000 soldiers (also children and elderly)
10,400 artillery
1,500 tanks
3,300 aircraft

Casualties and Losses:

Exact losses unknown But i will try to give the closest number
Estimate: Between 320,000 to 400,000 killed or wounded
Around 500,000 POW

Around 700+ tanks

Between 1,500 to 2,500 Aircraft

Artillery losses unknown

 

Soviet's Strengths:

2,500,000+ Soldiers
41,600+ Artillery
6,250+ Tanks
7,500 +Aircraft

Casualties and Losses:

360,000+ dead or missing
2,000+ tanks
2,108 artillery pieces
900 to 1500+ aircraft

[Keyrock]

I certainly don't endorse the throw great numbers at an objective and if that doesn't work throw even greater numbers at it strategy. Even if I were cold-hearted enough to look at casualties as mere numbers that's still wildly inefficient. That said, if one has both the numbers necessary and the willingness to sustain MASSIVE casualties, and Russia has historically had both, purely in terms of achieving an objective it's proven effective. This is why Russia is so difficult to defeat in a war of attrition. They have the numbers and the willingness to throw said numbers into the meat grinder. I find it disgusting, but it does produce results. Maybe I'm just weak for putting value on human life?

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

You can add Leningrad, Unternehmen Zitadelle (Kursk) and the battle of Berlin to the list. All strategic victories... gained at loss ratios between 2:1 and 5:1 depending on the battle. As said, throw enough bodies at the fight, and you may just make the other guy despair and give up.

The Germans consistently cooked the books on their losses after 1941, and the worse the result the more they cooked them. As a result any casualty ratios have to be taken with an Aral Sea sized dose of salt.

eg, total casualties for the Eastern Front inc PoWs are 14M soviet, 10M German (figures swiped from wikipedia, as indicative). If you exclude PoWs the ratio is 6.5M to 4.5M dead, even if you count the PoWs who died in captivity it's 'only' 10M to 5M. The only major battle that beats all three of those ratios is... Stalingrad. The only one. Consider:

(Citadel)/ Kursk: German casualties 160k, Russian casualties, 860k. So a ratio of ~5.5:1.

Operation Barbarossa: German casualties 1M, Russian casualties 4.5M. So a ratio of... 4.5:1? And that includes 2.5M Soviet prisoners. For the worst defeat suffered by any side in the entirety of WW2 and which included a whole host of tactical disasters for the Soviets, vs Kursk, which was effectively a tactical draw (but major strategic loss for Germany)... who would have thought that Kursk was more successful than Barbarossa. Well, no one. Yet if you go by casualty ratios, it was, and bet the average for the Eastern Front pretty handily.

And it's even worse for other 43 ops like Rumyantsev and Kiev ('43) where the supposed casualty rates were 10:1 and 8:1, in Germany's favour. As previous, the worst German defeat of the war still has them, in some sources, attaining a stunning 9:1 kill ratio while losing Belarus and much of eastern Poland/ Baltics.

German casualties simply don't add up. Unsurprising, since they were extensively Goebbeled for public consumption. Kind of baffling the number of historians who will use the German figures almost without question though, fair enough maths isn't their strong suit but... it isn't exactly advanced calculus.

[pmp10]

8 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

 

another look at the Zaluzhny’s assays, which in short blasts the economist and other outlets for shoddy clickbait journalism which took out of a single mention of Stalemate out of his articles to the headlines

 

I'm sure Zaluzhny is aware of the sad state of modern journalism given that he is capitalizing on it.
The economic interviews and the times piece were clearly synchronized political moves, likely aimed at Zelensky and his administration. 

The point is that failure of the offensive has finally become so obvious that it turned into a useful political cudgel. 
Instead of asking, why was the objective was missed by 90%, we are witnessing a part of a blame-game. 

[xzar_monty]

3 hours ago, pmp10 said:

The point is that failure of the offensive has finally become so obvious that it turned into a useful political cudgel.

Zaluzhny was strongly against the much earlier offensive in the northeast, arguing that it would drain resources from a much more necessary offensive in the south. While the offensive in the northeast was very succesful, it can still be argued that Zaluzhny was probably right, but Zelensky, as president, had the final say.

Edited November 8, 2023 by xzar_monty

[Mamoulian War]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

I suppose some value in the old saying “It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will conquer.", at least for Leningrad.   Didn't recall the casualties being that skewed in Berlin, although you would expect the defender to get the advantage. 

Right.

Well of course West nor Russia were prepared for such a war, which is currently at play in UA. Why else would be Putin begging Kim for artillery shells, and why would still be West struggling to fulfill the promised number of shells to supply UA? Also, most of the drones currently supplied to the battlefield are made in UA and not in the West. Only thing which the west can provide enough to fulfill the needs is the mentioned GMLRS, which the UA started to use as a counter battery weapons for few months, and USA still have them enough for few years to use it that way.

[Sarex]

Apparently the Ukrainian forces are complaining that North Korean artillery shells don't make any noise. It seems that the Soviet era shells made a whining noise and that gave them time to at least duck, the NK ones just explode.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Sarex

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

Apparently the Ukrainian forces are complaining that North Korean artillery shells don't make any noise.

Sounds impossible, unless they're actually owls and not artillery shells.

But, seriously: that's interesting, and do you have a source?

[Sarex]

14 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

But, seriously: that's interesting, and do you have a source?

No. It was a telegram video with an Ukrainian solider that I was told about.

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

Apparently the Ukrainian forces are complaining that North Korean artillery shells don't make any noise. It seems that the Soviet era shells made a whining noise and that gave them time to at least duck, the NK ones just explode.

https://english.nv.ua/nation/former-aidar-battalion-company-commander-claims-north-korean-artillery-shells-have-4-reliability-50365895.html

Mhm.

 

[Keyrock]

In a move that surprised nobody, Zelenskyy has cancelled the upcoming elections, because nothing says democracy like cancelling elections. Obviously, the war is used as an excuse, but plenty of countries have held elections during the height of war (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam).

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

In a move that surprised nobody, Zelenskyy has cancelled the upcoming elections, because nothing says democracy like cancelling elections. Obviously, the war is used as an excuse, but plenty of countries have held elections during the height of war (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam).

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/ukraine-democracy-wartime-elections-russia-zelensky/

No there  are valid and  legitimate reasons to cancel  the elections, to quote 

 

"Whether objections to the postponement of Ukraine’s elections come from a place of hostility or sympathy, they fail to understand that voting during this war would be legally, practically, and institutionally impossible. Ukraine is under martial law, with constant threat of Russian bombs and many of its people displaced. Postponing elections was not a function of any fear on Zelensky’s part, since his approval ratings have soared during wartime. A country under a full-scale invasion and occupation is simply in no position to vote "  

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well of course West nor Russia were prepared for such a war, which is currently at play in UA. Why else would be Putin begging Kim for artillery shells, and why would still be West struggling to fulfill the promised number of shells to supply UA? Also, most of the drones currently supplied to the battlefield are made in UA and not in the West. Only thing which the west can provide enough to fulfill the needs is the mentioned GMLRS, which the UA started to use as a counter battery weapons for few months, and USA still have them enough for few years to use it that way.

May be confusing what they've given for what they have, US has a lot and some EU countries as well that decide they still need a military themselves rather than sending everything.  The real funny part was that Ukraine is defending the world, that scthick has serious mileage (israel is using it now, lol)  His other comment that its an "equal partnership" is a bit rich.  

 

[Lexx]

32 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

In a move that surprised nobody, Zelenskyy has cancelled the upcoming elections, because nothing says democracy like cancelling elections. Obviously, the war is used as an excuse, but plenty of countries have held elections during the height of war (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam).

It makes absolute sense to not do elections right now.

[Keyrock]

44 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/ukraine-democracy-wartime-elections-russia-zelensky/

No there  are valid and  legitimate reasons to cancel  the elections, to quote 

 

"Whether objections to the postponement of Ukraine’s elections come from a place of hostility or sympathy, they fail to understand that voting during this war would be legally, practically, and institutionally impossible. Ukraine is under martial law, with constant threat of Russian bombs and many of its people displaced. Postponing elections was not a function of any fear on Zelensky’s part, since his approval ratings have soared during wartime. A country under a full-scale invasion and occupation is simply in no position to vote "  

 

22 minutes ago, Lexx said:

It makes absolute sense to not do elections right now.

Yeah, except that prior to this war Ukraine was regarded by many as the most corrupt country in Europe. People have conveniently forgotten that and now I guess they're virtuous angels, except that corruption didn't just simply disappear when the war started. So forgive me if I don't give Zelenskyy the benefit of the doubt.

[xzar_monty]

53 minutes ago, Lexx said:

It makes absolute sense to not do elections right now.

Indeed. The practicalities of the elections would be immensely difficult.

Ukraine has extremely serious problems with corruption which I don't suppose anyone has forgotten about or would disregard, but despite that, not doing the elections now is probably the right thing.