first time so far that i saw Bakhmut referred to as Verdun. mind boggling that ru would still pursue it at 7-1 losses, and ua would still hold it after facing the biggest concentration of infantry since the beginning.
But analysts believe China downplays how much it spends on defence.
Russian reservists are likely using “shovels” for “hand-to-hand” combat in Ukraine due to a shortage of ammunition, the UK’s Ministry of Defence says.
I don’t believe 7-1 losses for the Russians though. Even 4-1 would be unprecedented and a failure of epic proportions. I expect the real ratio is even lower than that. If you can inflict 7-1 losses then your opponent is not gaining territory.
1 Like
wagner and ru army has been trying to take bakhmut for over 10 months already. they’re gaining territory so slowly that they it’s difficult to see the progress unless you zoom to street level. that’s close to what you describe.
also, 7-1 is high, but hardly unprecedented. second battle of Kharkiv, germans lost ~30k, soviets lost ~280k.
Russians have historically jumped at the opportunity to lose 3-1 thinking they had 8:1 population advantages. Something that doesn’t go well where they lose 7:1 seems entirely within the realm of possibilities especially as an under equipped, under trained army sending in prisoners with 2 weeks of training.
Kharkov was an absolute disaster on the defensive side. We are talking about the attacking army losing 7-1 in a stalemate that is slowly turning in a slow advance for the attacking army supposedly on the bad side of that ratio. If Ukraine can inflict a casualty ratio like that then they would advance just as easily as the Germans did. Logistics just can’t maintain a front let alone advance if you have to replace people 7 times as fast.
1 Like
second battle of kharkiv was an attempted soviet advance into the city, that turned into a rout the other way.
third battle of kharkiv was a german recapture of kharkiv, where soviet defense overstretched itself. it also ended 9-1 against in casualties.
there are examples, eg Battle Of Narva. my point is that it’s a fixture for russia to throw they forces into the grinder like idiots.
but these are all qualitatively different from this century. maybe there aren’t any real 4-1 battles anymore unless us is fighting iraq or russia is bombing syrian rebels. but that assumption may be flawed. we will eventually find out how many ukraine lost and see.
also 7-1 losses are bad, but putin doesn’t really care, as 7 convicts are traded for a trained ukrainian. that might be ok. and i disagree that it means Afu can advance at will. 7-1 is because bakhmut was heavily trenched, and has helpful geography.
I read again this morning that holding Bakhmut is mostly a decision by the political leaders. Selensky even designated it as a fortress. Advisors believe it was a good decision in the beginning but said they have been overdoing it echoing the military leadership. Zaluzhnyi wants to retreat from the city but Selensky doesnt. I wonder how good it is that Civilians trying be commander in chief? I mean Putin isnt very successful either and the past has shown it wasnt actually a winning strategy.
Holding Bakhmut is good strategy as long as your defense costs a lot less resources than your enemies offense. This is a war of attrition so solid defensive positions are worth holding as long as possible. The biggest risk for Ukraine is not being able to hold and realizing that to late as you can lose a lot of resources when surrounded or with hasty retreats. Maybe when Ukraine has enough Leopard and M1A1 tanks it becomes better for them to have a more fluid front outside of cities and over a bigger area. Politically not giving Putin his victory is also worth a lot as well as having an easy focal point to show what Ukraine needs to their Western Allies.
1 Like
horrific video out today of a war crime. russian soldiers essentially firing squad an unarmed and captured ukrainian fighter after he says “Glory to Ukraine!”
they did give him a cigarette first. so, not orcs?
ETA: the video seems to show the pow standing in a grave site he was probably forced to dig.
Debbie Downer here, but Ukraine needs to be at 8:1 or higher to offset smaller population.
how did you arrive there? before the war, populations were 44m to 145m. are you counting with LDNR and occupied territories, and minus refugees from ukraine?
i know it’s grim, but i’m hopeful.
Population ratios mean nothing in this war anyway. Ukraine can basically mobilise all adults and leave war production to the West while Russia needs to fight and keep their economy going at the same time. This is going to be decided by the willingness of USA, UK, France, Germany and Switzerland to force military production far beyond peace time levels especially ammunition. So far they haven’t done that while Russia has.
2 Likes