The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
There so far aren't any eyewitness reports of a missile incoming, despite there being crowded beaches nearby. I suspect if it's a Ukrainian strike, it's probably something like the quadcopter attack on the VMF HQ in Sevastopol'. It could also be a Ukrainian infiltrator team. Finally never underestimate regular incompetence. This could very well have been a case of dramatic incompetence. Reportedly they're up to 1 killed 13 wounded civilians. Allegedly no military casualties, though I find this doubtful.

EDIT: I'm hearing references in various news articles to a leaked report from Ukrainian Armed Forces commander Zaluzhniy, where Ukraine apparently lost ~191 000 in KIA and WIA, is sufferring from mass desertion, and Ukrainian hospitals are no longer up to the task of handling the heavily wounded. I'm having a hard time locating the report itself, and it's entirely plausible that this leak is a Russian propaganda effort. On the other hand it's not implausible and explains why a 700 000 strong Ukrainian force can't seem to push back ~250 000 Russian troops and associated rebel forces. It also tracks well with the massive discrepancy in firepower, and the rather desperate looking recruiting efforts we're seeing in Ukraine.

So far I'd treat it as possible but completely unconfirmed. I'm going to try and find the original. I suspect it will also be some time before we see corroboration in either direction, unless it gets discredited as a fake.
A quick googling and literally that report I would say 100% fabrication.

Ukrainian losses are 191,000 people – even Prof. Vitanov spreads highly dubious data

This site went and looked into it and the source of it was was a Telegram channel "NachStabu " that didnt actually post any pictures of the report but "wrote down" what was allegedly in the report. If you have gotten your hands onto a document with such info your going to be posting pictures of it.

To beleive that would be to believe me when I say that I have got my hands onto internal reports from Alexander Bortnikov the Putin has a midget clown fetish.... I have the documents just not posting pictures just because.....

As it is common sense would dictate if it was so bad we would have heard from other sources on the ground ie: doctors and nurses begging for extra medical help, Ukraine begging EU nations to aid in helping their wounded, and potentially mass graves... Which we havent seen nearly enough of that to indicate casualties of that level IMO.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I doubt UKR has 700000 men actually in arms. I doubt they could equip that many at once.
That is the big point, Saying that Ukrainian losses must be huge because 700,000 havent defeated 250,000 ignores the equipment factor in which they dont actually have the working equipment or supplies to field those 700,000 on the front line. Only a portion of that will be armed with heavy equipment, the bulk likely have little more then an assault rifle at best.
 

vikingatespam

Active Member
If the casualty figures are correct, again from RUSSIAN sources. Then we have 960 dead AFU commanders. If we take something like "THE RELATIONSHIP OF BATTLE DAMAGE TO UNIT COMBAT PERFORMANCE" or "Fight Outnumbered and Win... Against What Odds". Then you can figure it out -
The average officer-to-soldier ratio in the armed forces is 1:24.7
The classic ratio of wounded to killed in wars with extensive use of artillery systems is 1:3. So ->
Between 23,000 and 24,000 killed.
70 to 72 thousand wounded.
But again, these are all theoretical calculations, and according to them, Russian casualties would be no less.
Estimating casualties has been very frustrating. I dont believe either the RU or UKR sources. Normally I would take a stab at it using the DuPuy QJM attrition model, but its been almost impossible to establish the strength and capabilities of both sides in any particular battle.

There is one data point you could use to estimate RU losses, and this comes form the official DPR sources which indicate as of August 3, they have suffered 2534 KIA and 10761 WIA. This is a W:K ratio of 4.25:1, which is about expected in conventional combat. The total losses represent about 60% of the total estimated DPR force pool. It would not be unreasonable to use this value for RU forces in general, although I would expect that the DPR losses represent the upper bounds of RU losses. Maybe 40-50% losses, given the disasterous performance of the first few months ?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
A quick googling and literally that report I would say 100% fabrication.

Ukrainian losses are 191,000 people – even Prof. Vitanov spreads highly dubious data

This site went and looked into it and the source of it was was a Telegram channel "NachStabu " that didnt actually post any pictures of the report but "wrote down" what was allegedly in the report. If you have gotten your hands onto a document with such info your going to be posting pictures of it.

To beleive that would be to believe me when I say that I have got my hands onto internal reports from Alexander Bortnikov the Putin has a midget clown fetish.... I have the documents just not posting pictures just because.....

As it is common sense would dictate if it was so bad we would have heard from other sources on the ground ie: doctors and nurses begging for extra medical help, Ukraine begging EU nations to aid in helping their wounded, and potentially mass graves... Which we havent seen nearly enough of that to indicate casualties of that level IMO.
Let's see if any actual leaked report emerges. If nothing comes out, then I'd say we should disregard it's contents.

This is the first confirmation I have see of the damage at the Saki airbase. It looks like Ukrainian claims of 9 aircraft destroyed may be conservative.

If accurate, this looks consistent with a missile strike. Note how there appear to be berms of dirt separating the aircraft spots, and we have some aircraft destroyed completely and some relatively intact.

EDIT: It could also be a strike by multiple small UAVs.

That is the big point, Saying that Ukrainian losses must be huge because 700,000 havent defeated 250,000 ignores the equipment factor in which they dont actually have the working equipment or supplies to field those 700,000 on the front line. Only a portion of that will be armed with heavy equipment, the bulk likely have little more then an assault rifle at best.
But there have been units on the frontline without any heavy equipment. A recent post out of Peski suggests that Ukraine is desperately short on artillery there, and the source is distinctly Ukrainian. We have seen many images and videos of Ukrainian light infantry operating on civilian cars and trucks with minimal heavy weapons and no armor to speak of. Something as simple as a Ukrainian infantry column riding BMPs gets hit by artillery, vs the same troops riding unarmored vehicles, and you get a completely different outcome.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That is the big point, Saying that Ukrainian losses must be huge because 700,000 havent defeated 250,000 ignores the equipment factor in which they dont actually have the working equipment or supplies to field those 700,000 on the front line. Only a portion of that will be armed with heavy equipment, the bulk likely have little more then an assault rifle at best.
What also needs to be taken into account is what is known as the tooth to tail ratio which is the ratio of support troops to the actual combat troops. Invariably there are far more support troops than combat troops and in some conflicts the number of combat troops has been as low as 10%, In the current conflict I would think that the Ukrainian' would be a lot higher than that. The RU troops in the conflict would have a significant portion of their support troops still in Russia. this means that any attempt to try and equate the troop numbers with actual combat numbers that face each other, with out some very good intelligence is pointless as comparing apples with cabbages.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
I've just seen before & after satellite images of the Crimean airbase that the Russians say suffered from an ammunition explosion. They're on the BBC at Ukraine war: Crimea airbase badly damaged, satellite images show

Amazing how multiple aircraft bays, separated from each other by berms, all suffered from explosions. It looks to me as if at least eleven spots were affected, incuding two buildings on opposite sides of the pictures being destroyed.

Yes, of course it was just an accident. Russian credibility is preserved. ;)
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Still not sure why the Russians think incompetently destroying their own equipment is somehow more acceptable than blaming enemy action. Still remember both sides claiming credit for sinking the Moskva.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Still not sure why the Russians think incompetently destroying their own equipment is somehow more acceptable than blaming enemy action. Still remember both sides claiming credit for sinking the Moskva.
Russian propaganda tactics are very simple but contradictory. They can say Russia is being bullied, and that it's the strongest nation on the planet - in the same sentence. They do it very often actually. Just watch for about 2 minutes their TV channel and you'll see.

I personally don't see why we should treat those claims as though they're part of some grand, well calculated scheme.
Russia frequently changes versions when it sees the previous one isn't sitting well with the public. I remember a while back when Syria downed a Russian Il-20 near Damascus, Russia blamed Israel with 3 different, mutually exclusive versions.

Ukraine handled this incident very well. On one hand the number of destroyed aircraft was high (at least 11 so far), and on the other hand it was very close to the populated beaches, causing a huge scare.

I think if Russia admits it was self incompetence, then that's a large fire and minimal damage done. Some people will be investigated, and everything is back to normal.

If Russia admits it was Ukraine, then that's a lot of damage done, plus Ukraine can strike at an area Russian public thought was totally safe, and Russia's air defenses and navy are incapable of protecting the people.

So it's some incompetence causing some reduction in public trust, versus a very competent enemy and huge reduction in public trust in the military.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Unless they lost aircraft due to attacks on bases in Afghanistan; this is probably the first time they've lost aircraft on the ground since WW2. This is very embarrassing and worrying for the Russians and a major PR coup for the Ukraine but ultimately it doesn't change anything with regards to the overall war.

If I recall years ago there was a Talib attack on a U.S. base which destroyed a significant number of USMC AV-8s and killed the squadron's CO.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Denmark is sending 130 trainers to the UK: 130 danske soldater skal træne ukrainske kolleger

Norway is also sending trainers to support the UK training program, number of trainers not clear: Norge vil bidra til opplæring av ukrainske soldater

Denmark today also announced a new package of 820 million DKK (114 million USD), bringing total military support from Denmark so far, to more than 420 million USD. Ny, massiv donationspakke til Ukraine

A total of 1.5 billion Euro in additional support has already been pledged during the ongoing meeting in Copenhagen:
So far, there are few indications that Western countries are planning to pull out -- on the contrary, these are all indications that many Western countries are planning and implementing long term military support to Ukraine. Great news!
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
This is very embarrassing and worrying for the Russians and a major PR coup for the Ukraine but ultimately it doesn't change anything with regards to the overall war.
That goes without saying -- apart from nuclear attacks it is extremely rare (if ever) that a single attack can change anything significantly in a war between nations.

Still the impact of this attack should not be completely ignored:

1. The loss of ammunition (and possibly fuel) is probably a bigger issue for Russia than the loss of aircraft (which by itself will also be felt of course)
2. The fact that Ukraine demonstrated the capability of attacking this air base in Crimea means that other installations in Crimea will also be at risk. Depending on the nature of the attack Russia may have to consider bringing in more advanced AD systems, hardening infrastructure, strengthening guard duty (if the attack was done by Ukranian soldiers), and/or dispersion.
3. This attack in Crimea will also hit Russian morale, both Russian soldiers but also Russian civilians will notice this attack -- conversely it will strengthen morale in Ukraine.

Russian civilians are now leaving Crimea, most likely due to fear for additional violations of fire safety regulations in the region... ;)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
That goes without saying -- apart from nuclear attacks it is extremely rare (if ever) that a single attack can change anything significantly in a war between nations.

Still the impact of this attack should not be completely ignored:

1. The loss of ammunition (and possibly fuel) is probably a bigger issue for Russia than the loss of aircraft (which by itself will also be felt of course)
2. The fact that Ukraine demonstrated the capability of attacking this air base in Crimea means that other installations in Crimea will also be at risk. Depending on the nature of the attack Russia may have to consider bringing in more advanced AD systems, hardening infrastructure, strengthening guard duty (if the attack was done by Ukranian soldiers), and/or dispersion.
3. This attack in Crimea will also hit Russian morale, both Russian soldiers but also Russian civilians will notice this attack -- conversely it will strengthen morale in Ukraine.

Russian civilians are now leaving Crimea, most likely due to fear for additional violations of fire safety regulations in the region... ;)
Another consideration is Russian tourists don’t have many friendly destination options now so even losing one location will be significant.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
That goes without saying -- apart from nuclear attacks it is extremely rare (if ever) that a single attack can change anything significantly in a war between nations.
The reason I brought it up is because the attack has created a lot of euphoria with Ukrainians and their supporters but does it have an overall impact on the actual.land war and will it lead to Russia losing heart? We both know the answer to that one. Whether the Ukrainians are able to carry out further attacks on the Crimes with the same level of success remains to be seen.

It also remains to be seen how the Russians react; this attack will add to their anxiety and desperation and they may lash out in ways which are unexpected - desperate people/nations do desperate things; things they wouldn't normally do. It's fine for the U.S. to declare that attacks on the Crimea are kosher because it's occupied/annexed territory and not Russia per see. The problem is the Russians don't see it that way and they can react. I don't need to remind you that it takes only a slight miscalculation for things to rapidly spiral out of control. You also need to take note that attacks on the Crimea might lead to many ordinary Russians; who don't necessarily support the war but see the Crimea as part of Russia; changing their attitudes towards the war.

Another consideration is Russian tourists don’t have many friendly destination options now so even losing one location will be significant.
Turkey will still be a favorite destination; as is the UAE and other places to a lesser extent. A friend got back from Pattaya last week; chock a block with Russians.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The reason I brought it up is because the attack has created a lot of euphoria with Ukrainians and their supporters but does it have an overall impact on the actual.land war and will it lead to Russia losing heart? We both know the answer to that one. It also remains to be seen how the Russians react; this attack will add to their anxiety and desperation and they may lash out in ways which are unexpected. Whether the Ukrainians are able to carry out further attacks on the Crimes with the same level of success also remains to be seen.
Well they destroyed quite a few aircraft, including a number of newer Su-30SMs. The Su-24Ms were arguably not particularly valuable and plenty are available from storage, but the Su-30SMs are all new-built and mostly less then a decade old. They've also put the airbase out of commission. The landing strip can still be used but the munition storage facility was destroyed. So it somewhat limits the availability of aircraft. That having been said the bottleneck on effectiveness for the VVS has been the inability to destroyed Ukrainian GBAD completely. So it's not clear whether this limitation is significant.

Overall this appears to be part of a pattern of successful, well planned strikes, with great symbolic value, against major targets (Moskva, Zmeiniy, now this). I suspect that the same peope are involved in the planning and execution of these.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I suspect that the same peope are involved in the planning and execution of these.
My main worry us that if further attacks of this nature continue with the Ukrainians receiving intel and other forms of assistance from their NATO backers; the Russians might take things to a new level. How they perceive things and how things are perceived by their opponents can differ greatly.

If we look at the popular narrative: it's of a demoralised Russian army which has suffered tremendous losses being on its last legs in the face of stiff enemy resistance; massive Western support and a Russia hard hit by sanctions. I question widely held narrative. People routinely claim-- with justification - that Russia can't win but I'm asking if the Ukrainians can win and what a win will really look like.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The reason I brought it up is because the attack has created a lot of euphoria with Ukrainians and their supporters but does it have an overall impact on the actual.land war and will it lead to Russia losing heart? We both know the answer to that one. Whether the Ukrainians are able to carry out further attacks on the Crimes with the same level of success remains to be seen.

It also remains to be seen how the Russians react; this attack will add to their anxiety and desperation and they may lash out in ways which are unexpected - desperate people/nations do desperate things; things they wouldn't normally do. It's fine for the U.S. to declare that attacks on the Crimea are kosher because it's occupied/annexed territory and not Russia per see. The problem is the Russians don't see it that way and they can react. I don't need to remind you that it takes only a slight miscalculation for things to rapidly spiral out of control. You also need to take note that attacks on the Crimea might lead to many ordinary Russians; who don't necessarily support the war but see the Crimea as part of Russia; changing their attitudes towards the war.



Turkey will still be a favorite destination; as is the UAE and other places to a lesser extent. A friend got back from Pattaya last week; chock a block with Russians.
Not familiar with ME tourism and its cost. Can understand Turkey being a viable alternative, unless Sultan Ergo changes things.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Can understand Turkey being a viable alternative, unless Sultan Ergo changes things.
Which he won't. Turkey has long been a popular destination for Russian tourists and they're highly welcomed and needed by the Turks. Erdogan has to walk a fine line;' Turkey is a NATO member; it supplies stuff to the Ukraine and has to maintain good ties with Russia; not only for economic interests but also security; it's involved in Syria and shares the Black Sea coast with both Russia and the Ukraine.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Which he won't. Turkey has long been a popular destination for Russian tourists and they're highly welcomed and needed by the Turks. Erdogan has to walk a fine line;' Turkey is a NATO member; it supplies stuff to the Ukraine and has to maintain good ties with Russia; not only for economic interests but also security; it's involved in Syria and shares the Black Sea coast with both Russia and the Ukraine.
Guessing Syria isn’t deemed an alternative! Perhaps the extent of Russian tourism to viable destinations could be a measure on the effects of the war and sanctions.
 

vikingatespam

Active Member
The reason I brought it up is because the attack has created a lot of euphoria with Ukrainians and their supporters but does it have an overall impact on the actual.land war and will it lead to Russia losing heart? We both know the answer to that one. Whether the Ukrainians are able to carry out further attacks on the Crimes with the same level of success remains to be seen.
The direct results will not be huge, other than putting the aviation regiment out of business for a bit. Indirectly, this will add to the Russian friction of operations as they divert air defense resources to what was before a safe rear area.
 
Top