WrriterNig:
🇺🇸 🇰🇵

WrriterNig:
🇧🇷 🇷🇺 🇮🇳 🇨🇳 + 🇸🇦

Masterviolence:

The theory of the attacking side having more casualties than the defending side is absolutely gibberish.
It all boils down to two objectives.
1. The quality of troops
2. Their firepower

If the attacker has well trained troops with a higher firepower, the defending force will surely suffer a higher casualty level, same goes for the the attacker if the defending force have well trained troops and a higher firepower.

This is the reason Russia has fewer casualties compared to the losses the Ukrainians have suffered.

coke75:


1. You don't understand the 'theory'. Obviously it referes to a situation were both sides are roughly equal in strength and not if one side has tanks and the other sticks and stones. This is literally understood by every military on the planet. The general rule is that the attacking force needs to have 3x more soldiers and equipment.
2. As one would expect, russia has had significantly higher losses.

Visually confirmed losses of equipment from both sides:
Ukraine - 3464, of which: destroyed: 2258, damaged: 216, abandoned: 95, captured: 895
Russia - 10500, of which: destroyed: 6920, damaged: 353, abandoned: 404, captured: 2823
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/

mzansiboy:


You left out the host nation 🇿🇦

WrriterNig:
⚡🇬🇧 British experts teach Ukrainians to make bombs the size of a tin can, which have increased destructive power, CNN reports.

🇺🇦 Ukrainians use them to drop from UAVs. In addition to exercises on the production of IEDs, British experts are supplying the Armed Forces with important components for the manufacture of these explosive devices: switches, microchips and 3D printers.

As CNN clarifies, "these parts are much easier to obtain from experts than through NATO countries."

WrriterNig:
🇺🇸 🇯🇵 🇺🇦

coke75:


1. You don't understand the 'theory'. Obviously it referes to a situation were both sides are roughly equal in strength and not if one side has tanks and the other sticks and stones. This is literally understood by every military on the planet. The general rule is that the attacking force needs to have 3x more soldiers and equipment.
2. As one would expect, russia has had significantly higher losses.

Visually confirmed losses of equipment from both sides:
Ukraine - 3464, of which: destroyed: 2258, damaged: 216, abandoned: 95, captured: 895
Russia - 10500, of which: destroyed: 6920, damaged: 353, abandoned: 404, captured: 2823
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/

Masterviolence:

My friend, all you've written makes no sense in the military perspective.

Remind me of any battle in history where the attacker and defender have the same quality and quantity of troops and also with same firepower.
I'll give you an example which was recent and highly relatable:
The battle of bakhmut

At the initial stage of this war, the orchestra were outnumbered so authorities gave their boss the permission to recruit from prison.
When the recruitment from prison was halted, the orchestra were still largely outnumbered.

What made the orchestra suffer less casualties compared to AFU was because of the firepower of the orchestra, they fire 2-3times what the Ukrainians fire in a day, and not undermining the quality of the wagnarians.

So come up with a more logical approach to this question.

coke75:


You didn't give me an example, you made up a fantasy in your head.
Nobody here knows how many troops were deployed in bakmut, you don't and I don't. What we know is is that Wagner took heavy losses taking very little territory in Bahkmut...
Prigozhin said he lost 20000 troops, only counting wagner soldiers, not including other russian troops. Add the wounded and they probably lost more than 60000 troops, just to take a tiny city.
We don't know how many ukrainians were deployed or KIA, but definitely not as many. There's no reason for the ukrainians to defend the city if they were lossing so many many troops, ukraine wouldn't have an army anymore if they were taking as many losses.

The reported K/D ratio early on was 7 to 1. 7 dead russians for every ukrainian. This probably got a little less favourable for ukr in later stages. Nobody can confirm those numbers but they seem realistic. The only value the city had for the ukrainians was that a ton of russians died trying to take it.

Masterviolence:

Yes Russian's died in large numbers, i think a million troops died trying to take a little city.

On the other hand Ukrainians are known immortals, so they don't die, only Russians do.

coke75:


1. You don't understand the 'theory'. Obviously it referes to a situation were both sides are roughly equal in strength and not if one side has tanks and the other sticks and stones. This is literally understood by every military on the planet. The general rule is that the attacking force needs to have 3x more soldiers and equipment.
2. As one would expect, russia has had significantly higher losses.

Visually confirmed losses of equipment from both sides:
Ukraine - 3464, of which: destroyed: 2258, damaged: 216, abandoned: 95, captured: 895
Russia - 10500, of which: destroyed: 6920, damaged: 353, abandoned: 404, captured: 2823
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/