4 ms·

They can't keep territory because of manpower shortage, but they surely have a million others, they just can't be bothered to get them involved? :-D What you

by trasz 4y ago

They can't keep territory because of manpower shortage, but they surely have a million others, they just can't be bothered to get them involved? :-D What you are talking about are the fictional numbers found in Russian documents. This war wouldn't look anything like it did if those numbers matched reality. (As for the numbers lost, see https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...)

HelloNurse 4y ago
Measuring military manpower by count of formally military personnel is naive or at least "on paper". How many of these soldiers have the vehicles, equipment and weapons to contribute effectively? If current invasion forces are running out of tanks, what should the reinforcements use?
foverzar 4y ago
> They can't keep territory because of manpower shortage, but they surely have a million others, they just can't be bothered to get them involved? :-D Ergo mobilization, that, among other things, changes the way the military and military industrial complex operates and allows allocating resources and setting priorities more freely? > What you are talking about are the fictional numbers found in Russian documents. This war wouldn't look anything like it did if those numbers matched reality Well of course, this war looks like it looks cuz the reality of involved force does not match the reality of total force, ergo mobilization. > (As for the numbers lost, see https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...) Ugh, referring to some blog as a solid source is kinda wierd, but ok, I see > Russia - 6202, of which: destroyed: 3844, damaged: 143, abandoned: 303, captured: 1911 So, does this mean that you imply that Russia's army is only like 13000 total altogether?
- trasz 4y ago
  >Well of course, this war looks like it looks cuz the reality of involved force does not match the reality of total force, ergo mobilization. Except it's not total force, it's fictional force. Those new people will be less trained than real soldiers, will have worse equipment (all the newest stuff already got spent); Russia lost a lot of officer cadre, so their leadership will be (somehow) worse too, and most importantly, they are being sent there by force, so will be less motivated to fight. Given the collosal failures in Kyiv and Charkov, the new corps, being even worse, will either become a low-grade meat for Ukrainian artillery, like the recent "Third Army" reportedly did, or realize their situation and change sides.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > Those new people will be less trained than real soldiers Ok, I see you didn't even bother to do a minimal research on the topic at hand. Sorry, but it's really hard to take you seriously when your reasoning is based on assumptions and imagination, instead of specifics and facts. > all the newest stuff was spent Yesterday's talking points were that there isn't new stuff at all and it's all old Soviet stuff. Doublethink at it's finest.
    - trasz 4y ago
      So, can you give me some pointers to the explanation how they wouldn’t be worse trained? Especially given the previous attempt, the (already failed) “third army”? As for “new stuff” - the actually new stuff didn’t exist or was so scarce it didn’t matter. Here I mean the “new stuff” from Russian army point of view. This includes late Cold War. Note how Russia can’t manufacture Armata tanks or BMP3, so it’s switching back to manufacturing 80’s models instead.

by trasz 4y ago

HelloNurse 4y ago

Measuring military manpower by count of formally military personnel is naive or at least "on paper". How many of these soldiers have the vehicles, equipment and weapons to contribute effectively? If current invasion forces are running out of tanks, what should the reinforcements use?

foverzar 4y ago

> They can't keep territory because of manpower shortage, but they surely have a million others, they just can't be bothered to get them involved? :-D Ergo mobilization, that, among other things, changes the way the military and military industrial complex operates and allows allocating resources and setting priorities more freely? > What you are talking about are the fictional numbers found in Russian documents. This war wouldn't look anything like it did if those numbers matched reality Well of course, this war looks like it looks cuz the reality of involved force does not match the reality of total force, ergo mobilization. > (As for the numbers lost, see https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...) Ugh, referring to some blog as a solid source is kinda wierd, but ok, I see > Russia - 6202, of which: destroyed: 3844, damaged: 143, abandoned: 303, captured: 1911 So, does this mean that you imply that Russia's army is only like 13000 total altogether?

trasz 4y ago
>Well of course, this war looks like it looks cuz the reality of involved force does not match the reality of total force, ergo mobilization. Except it's not total force, it's fictional force. Those new people will be less trained than real soldiers, will have worse equipment (all the newest stuff already got spent); Russia lost a lot of officer cadre, so their leadership will be (somehow) worse too, and most importantly, they are being sent there by force, so will be less motivated to fight. Given the collosal failures in Kyiv and Charkov, the new corps, being even worse, will either become a low-grade meat for Ukrainian artillery, like the recent "Third Army" reportedly did, or realize their situation and change sides.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > Those new people will be less trained than real soldiers Ok, I see you didn't even bother to do a minimal research on the topic at hand. Sorry, but it's really hard to take you seriously when your reasoning is based on assumptions and imagination, instead of specifics and facts. > all the newest stuff was spent Yesterday's talking points were that there isn't new stuff at all and it's all old Soviet stuff. Doublethink at it's finest.
  - trasz 4y ago
    So, can you give me some pointers to the explanation how they wouldn’t be worse trained? Especially given the previous attempt, the (already failed) “third army”? As for “new stuff” - the actually new stuff didn’t exist or was so scarce it didn’t matter. Here I mean the “new stuff” from Russian army point of view. This includes late Cold War. Note how Russia can’t manufacture Armata tanks or BMP3, so it’s switching back to manufacturing 80’s models instead.