3 ms·

Putin is running out of troops to launch attacks on Ukraine [video]

7 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

ggm 4y ago
Something I found it hard to understand reading military history is the difference between a specific engagement's reported casualties/losses, and the sustained attrition rate. It is often said no force can sustain attrition rates much above 6-7% for a long period. Quite a few units on all the fronts in WW2 had unbelievably high casualty/loss rates. We're often told the Omaha beach landings were terrible and at a company level they were: 90% losses in some cases. That's just awful. But by the end of the day the US forces had landed 34,000 troops. the 2,400 casualties are under 10% of the total. This is a point-loss on a specific day in a specific engagement. Their opposition (German) lost 1,200 which was 20% of the local force and they had no reserves. This was a high loss, but it was in the context of a specific engagement. Sustained attrition rates cannot be kept to this level. At 10% or 20% daily losses the entire force has been replaced in 6-7 days. If this rate of loss continues then there has to be the same numbers of troops in reserve as are deployed, and because of rotations the number of deployed troops has to be far less than the total number of troops: you cannot leave troops in the front-line for more than a short time, if you expect to run a sustained campaign. Russian forces have been losing 300-500 troops per day, sustained, for weeks and months. 100,000 troops will have been lost by Russia in this war by year-end, which exceeds the total US losses in Vietnam over the entire 8 year period of engagement. If Russian forces in the Ukraine are 100,000 to 200,000 then this loss rate is under 1% per day but given how many troops will not be front-line engaged, It is very probably higher, but none the less, I would be wondering what is the sustained attrition rate the Russians are working with. Given the fight has been going on for 10 months, with 100k losses by end of year, that means the replacement of 100% of the forces deployed has been dealing with a sustained attrition rate above 1% but below 10%. It's bad, and it IS probably unsustainably bad. I suspect the polity in Russia cannot accept this yet, and there is a significant period of time to go before they withdraw on some terms. Maybe my arithmetic is wrong, or my understanding of force viability under sustained attrition is wrong. I am not making any moral observations about Russia and Ukraine here, I do actually wish the Ukrainians win, and Russia withdraws but that's not the material point: the point is whether or not this loss rate is sustainable. (it's not just about bodies. It goes to morale and effectiveness. Replacements which have no chance of learning how to survive have higher loss/attrition rates and morale drops massively amongst them, and their coming replacements) I'm not a historian and have never been in the armed forces. This is what I read, from historians I believe. They said it about the Napoleonic war, the Crimean war, the first and second world wars, the Vietnam war.

7 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

Something I found it hard to understand reading military history is the difference between a specific engagement's reported casualties/losses, and the sustained attrition rate. It is often said no force can sustain attrition rates much above 6-7% for a long period. Quite a few units on all the fronts in WW2 had unbelievably high casualty/loss rates. We're often told the Omaha beach landings were terrible and at a company level they were: 90% losses in some cases. That's just awful. But by the end of the day the US forces had landed 34,000 troops. the 2,400 casualties are under 10% of the total. This is a point-loss on a specific day in a specific engagement. Their opposition (German) lost 1,200 which was 20% of the local force and they had no reserves. This was a high loss, but it was in the context of a specific engagement. Sustained attrition rates cannot be kept to this level. At 10% or 20% daily losses the entire force has been replaced in 6-7 days. If this rate of loss continues then there has to be the same numbers of troops in reserve as are deployed, and because of rotations the number of deployed troops has to be far less than the total number of troops: you cannot leave troops in the front-line for more than a short time, if you expect to run a sustained campaign. Russian forces have been losing 300-500 troops per day, sustained, for weeks and months. 100,000 troops will have been lost by Russia in this war by year-end, which exceeds the total US losses in Vietnam over the entire 8 year period of engagement. If Russian forces in the Ukraine are 100,000 to 200,000 then this loss rate is under 1% per day but given how many troops will not be front-line engaged, It is very probably higher, but none the less, I would be wondering what is the sustained attrition rate the Russians are working with. Given the fight has been going on for 10 months, with 100k losses by end of year, that means the replacement of 100% of the forces deployed has been dealing with a sustained attrition rate above 1% but below 10%. It's bad, and it IS probably unsustainably bad. I suspect the polity in Russia cannot accept this yet, and there is a significant period of time to go before they withdraw on some terms. Maybe my arithmetic is wrong, or my understanding of force viability under sustained attrition is wrong. I am not making any moral observations about Russia and Ukraine here, I do actually wish the Ukrainians win, and Russia withdraws but that's not the material point: the point is whether or not this loss rate is sustainable. (it's not just about bodies. It goes to morale and effectiveness. Replacements which have no chance of learning how to survive have higher loss/attrition rates and morale drops massively amongst them, and their coming replacements) I'm not a historian and have never been in the armed forces. This is what I read, from historians I believe. They said it about the Napoleonic war, the Crimean war, the first and second world wars, the Vietnam war.