Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Wow they I bet they weren't expecting this to happen when they invited him on RT
Soldato
Bravo that man.
Edit/ Although it's a shame such a awful event had to happen for Israel to realise that Russia were never their allies.
Edit/ Although it's a shame such a awful event had to happen for Israel to realise that Russia were never their allies.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,821
There's a big push to wrap the Ukraine aid in with Israel aid to push it through.
Us politics is a mess.
NOELREPORTS (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image Good morning. Russian losses per 20/10/23 reported by the Ukrainian general staff. +1380 men +55 tanks +120 APVs +29 artillery systems +4 MLRS +8 UAVs +1 cruise missile Record numbers?
mstdn.social
I think we may be about to find out if these numbers are correct, those reported losses are just not sustainable.
Last edited:
Same with the f16, neither side has air superiority at the moment.
The best the west could do right now is copy the shadid drone and mass produce like mad.
One you could make forward airfields impossible to use, and it would cause a saturation of air defence wasting ammunition that Russians can’t replace
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,646
Can Russia even help - look at Armenia, they couidn't help them; any country that looks on Russia as a security guarantor must be nervous now.
Soldato
They've been having days of 1000+ men losses since the early days and always followed with "not sustainable". Yet they keep on going. Not sure how accurate the figures can be given the evironment.
Yeah, lots of A10s. Then we can send them Nimrods, Vulcans, Tornados, Jaguars and some Tiger Moths!
Associate
Is Shoigu really General Melchett is disguise?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,821
Russia decided not to help there, to punish the Armenian ruling party for shifting to a more pro-western stance.
Whether they had capacity to help, or wanted to antagonise Turkey (Azerbaijan's backer) are different points.
Last edited:
NOELREPORTS (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image Good morning. Russian losses per 20/10/23 reported by the Ukrainian general staff. +1380 men +55 tanks +120 APVs +29 artillery systems +4 MLRS +8 UAVs +1 cruise missile Record numbers?
I think we may be about to find out if these numbers are correct, those reported losses are just not sustainable.
Losing 55 tanks a day isn't remotely sustainable - irrespective of how many they have in storage between renovations and new production they can only get ~1.7 replacements onto the battlefield per day. I've lost track of how many they currently have in Ukraine but probably about a month worth at that rate of losses. Similar for armoured vehicles, etc. they could only sustain 30-40 days of losses at that rate with what they have left and even with ramping up production they are only producing like 5 a month of replacement IFVs.
Man power is another matter - on a total war footing they could sustain losing 1000 men a day for around 40 years on paper albeit moral and combat effectiveness would be heavily impacted in a much shorter time especially if that doesn't include injured. I suspect it would take more than 1-2 million losses to shake up the situation domestically.
Suspended
Manpower really is a difficult one to degrade enough to really matter should most modern nations decide to fully go to war.
Russia has about 70 million by the raw numbers.
Now of course that comes with many disclaimers, but as a simple raw "resource" they have hardly scratched the surface.
Even with their massive stocks of old dubious equipment they will run out of equipment far far earlier than manpower.
Its going to be painful because of the state of the nations spending already, but I really hope the UK and the other western nations on review take proper account of how quickly you can burn through equipment.
We seem woefully under prepared for even a medium term conflict. Thinking our couple of carriers keeps us relevant on the world stage is pretty poor.
NATO sure, but I think Trump and the republican loons in general should really have the rest of the members not relying on the US. (I agree with Trump in that regard, the rest really do rely on the US to do the heavy lifting)
Russia has about 70 million by the raw numbers.
2025 Russia Military Strength
Detailing the current military strength of Russia including air force, army, navy, financials and manpower.
www.globalfirepower.com
Now of course that comes with many disclaimers, but as a simple raw "resource" they have hardly scratched the surface.
Even with their massive stocks of old dubious equipment they will run out of equipment far far earlier than manpower.
Its going to be painful because of the state of the nations spending already, but I really hope the UK and the other western nations on review take proper account of how quickly you can burn through equipment.
We seem woefully under prepared for even a medium term conflict. Thinking our couple of carriers keeps us relevant on the world stage is pretty poor.
NATO sure, but I think Trump and the republican loons in general should really have the rest of the members not relying on the US. (I agree with Trump in that regard, the rest really do rely on the US to do the heavy lifting)
Even the regions of Russia where a lot of man power has come from I believe are still under 10% committed from their reserves (most are over 5% now), the figures haven't been updated recently. And losses are a smaller percentage of that. Many of the western/more affluent regions are still under 1% committed from their on paper reserve man power.
Total number of eligible age men doesn't tell how much you can actually field in a war. During ww2 Germany could max reach around 9 million, ussr/red army peaked at 14 million, U.S peaked at 16 million.
You cannot send every man over 16 to war , your economy will collapse. Most men need to stay behind to keep the economy going and to make supplies for the war.
It's about finding the optimal split where you can support the biggest possible army, producing enough supplies and weapons for every soldier and keeping your main economy humming along. If Russia tried to mobilise 70 million they'd quickly find out they can't make enough weapons for more than a couple million soldiers and the Russian economy would completely collapse in a few months
Last edited:
Soldato
This war won't be won by Russia running out of manpower, it's going to won when they run out of money and the economy can no longer support the large investments Russia is spending on it's military. That's why the west primary focus should be to make sure sanctions on Russia and it's allies are rigorously imposed forcing Russia to use up what's left of its sovereign wealth fund, after that's time to print money which leads to rampant inflation (assuming spending remains the same) and economic ruin. That might be enough of trigger for people in Russia (in the big cities at least) to final wakeup and demand a change in leadership.
They'd be mobilising everyone into the work force if it came to it from teenagers to grandmother's if they are able enough. I'm not sure where the cut off would be before the population had enough, but I don't see any signs Putin will stop before that. Though he does seem increasingly rattled of late - I wonder if he's had a bit more first hand exposure to what is going on Vs what the military, etc. have been telling him.
Suspended
No one said it did.
The fighting age availability as I said for the vast majority of nations is so high its practically irrelevant how many are lost. The impact will not be felt for a long time.
Its basically about equipment.
Especially if you have a massive manufacturing powerhouse who can supply you arms as opposed to begin forced to produce domestically. (IE the role the US played in WW2, but China could easily play for Russia right now)
Look at the semi panic in how fast Ukraine have been burning through the stocks of 155mm. Suddenly contracts all over for increased production, but with typical comments of taking a year to scale up.
In the west daily losses in the hundreds/thousands would start to create notable political issues. Within reason Putin doesn't have that issue.
In a full on war economy, ie the whole economy was refocussed to supporting food, munitions etc then all the scales change again. There is probably only one nation on earth who is remotely working in that kind of manner, thats North Korea.
Basically their whole economy is working in a way thats like a on a war footing nation would.
Yep indeed. The whole population being set to a war footing would be semi unbelievable.
I think in reality ability to source raw materials would be the main issue for most nations. In the modern world where many things are sourced from a long way away it would take quite some work for many nations to flip to higher domestic production.
I mean the UK has plenty of resources still there, but they are uneconomical to produce.
On a full war footing I would imagine we would see a massive drive to start reharvesting coal, shale, iron ore etc. It would take some work to get that into gear.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,821
Personally, I don't think trying to wait Russia out is a good strategy. Especially as waiting it out US their only strategy.
We're already seeing issues with re-supplying Ukraine. As re-supply moves from passing on obsolete/ end of life equipment, that becomes a budget problem for everyone but the US. And just look at the xxxxshow in US politics in the last month...
- Status