Russia Ukraine War 2022

[GaudaNaresh]

They had horses: we had elephants but elephants were obselete by the times nomad steppes came to India, some of our kings were masters in guerilla war, esp the ones in the hills. Tactics anydays trumps muh martial superiority nonsense

Elephants were not obsolete till cannons entered the field. Elephants are superior to horses in every which way, except for two: mobility & cost.

 

[Blood+]

You'll always have "flyers" in any statistical analysis. Take Battle of Longewala for example, a freaking 10:1 ratio

Those were definitely not outliers. And I was specifically talking about the Indian offensive undertakings, as the Pakistanis suck balls in that department. Take the 2nd battle for Dograi, for example, where a depleted 3 Jat (~550 men left for the assault at the beginning) managed to overrun the fortress town, which was crisscrossed with trenches, concrete pillboxes and was being defended by two full-strength battalions (one each from Punjab and Baloch regiments), supported by tanks and artillery!!
The casualty ratio was about 3-4 to 1 alright, but in India's favor!

Forget about that, take the battles of Kargil for example. Did the attacking Indian units suffer three times as many casualties as the Pakis?? No, they didn't. The same goes for the PLA units that overran ours in 1962 (except in few instances, Rezangla being one of those) or the NATO against the defending Iraqis.

I think, this whole 3 to 1 stuff is poorly understood by many of the so-called experts who've propagated this rather outlandish claim that an attacker is bound to suffer three times as many casualties as the defender, when the actual facts on the ground would prove otherwise.

As for Longewala, that was Pakistanis' genius on full display, lol. The outcome was more the result of utter incompetence on the Pakistanis' part than it was of the Indian defenders. Don't get me wrong, the Indian soldiers displayed a remarkable show of resolve and nerves of steel in the face of such odds, but had the situation been reversed, you can bet that the defenders would have had their asses handed to them.

 

[Kumaoni]

Elephants were not obsolete till cannons entered the field. Elephants are superior to horses in every which way, except for two: mobility & cost.

Didn’t ghazni send elephants or the Hindu shahi kingdoms back to crush their own ranks by scaring them with fire?

 

[Kumaoni]

Those were definitely not outliers. And I was specifically talking about the Indian offensive undertakings, as the Pakistanis suck balls in that department. Take the 2nd battle for Dograi, for example, where a depleted 3 Jat (~550 men left for the assault at the beginning) managed to overrun the fortress town, which was crisscrossed with trenches, concrete pillboxes and was being defended by two full-strength battalions (one each from Punjab and Baloch regiments), supported by tanks and artillery!!
The casualty ration was about 3-4 to 1 alright, but in India's favor!

Forget about that, take the battles of Kargil for example. Did the attacking Indian units suffer three times as many casualties as the Pakis?? No, they didn't. The same goes for the PLA units that overran ours in 1962 (except in few instances, Rezangla being one of those) or the NATO against the defending Iraqis.

I think, this whole 3 to 1 stuff is poorly understood by many of the so-called experts who's propagated this rather outlandish claim that an attacker is bound to suffer 3 times as many casualties as the defender, when the actual facts on the ground would prove otherwise.

PLA actually suffered more injured and killed combined than us (their gear superiority showed) while our men were killed more than wounded

 

[Kumaoni]

Also slight error Dograi was defended by 2.5 coys, platoon of Baluch of two of 16 Punjab (according to ORBAT). Taken by a multidirectional night assault. We did very well against a peer trained force in this battle. I know of many battles which I’d like to share esp in Kashmir

Those were definitely not outliers. And I was specifically talking about the Indian offensive undertakings, as the Pakistanis suck balls in that department. Take the 2nd battle for Dograi, for example, where a depleted 3 Jat (~550 men left for the assault at the beginning) managed to overrun the fortress town, which was crisscrossed with trenches, concrete pillboxes and was being defended by two full-strength battalions (one each from Punjab and Baloch regiments), supported by tanks and artillery!!
The casualty ration was about 3-4 to 1 alright, but in India's favor!

Forget about that, take the battles of Kargil for example. Did the attacking Indian units suffer three times as many casualties as the Pakis?? No, they didn't. The same goes for the PLA units that overran ours in 1962 (except in few instances, Rezangla being one of those) or the NATO against the defending Iraqis.

I think, this whole 3 to 1 stuff is poorly understood by many of the so-called experts who's propagated this rather outlandish claim that an attacker is bound to suffer 3 times as many casualties as the defender, when the actual facts on the ground would prove otherwise.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Didn’t ghazni send elephants or the Hindu shahi kingdoms back to crush their own ranks by scaring them with fire?

Timur. And thats the one and only time its ever been done, because Timur brought his camel train to the front, lashed them togehter, put wood on their back and set them on fire, then prodded them on to the elephants.
Not exactly a textbook tactic, since if it doesn't work, you are uber-fucked, as you just set fire to your supply vehicles.

 

[DumbPilot]

Arre ha Bhaiya, pata hai

> The casualty on offensive side is always 3:1 compared to defensive side; it's a rule of thumb
> Russia has been modernising it's military for quite a long time, compare that to Ukraine starting only in 2015 after getting caught with its pants down
> Even after inheriting the biggest chunk of Soviet MIC, Ukrainian suffered from chronic corruption for decades
> Ukraine has some of the best systems currently available; be it Storm Shadow or StarStreak...but truth is, end of the day numerical superior is a thing. You can definitely fight wars on alms, but to win them you need to pull off some serious tricks

Par is chutiye ko kaun samjhaye ye sab
To isiliye isse achha bakchodi krna hi laga

Ukraine does not have the required industrial depth against Russia. If Russia can actually sort out the (very, very deep) issues within their military, I don't see any reason for them to not win.

 

[Sanglamorre]

Russia is much colder than Ukraine. Moscow is -8 C in January. Kiev is -5 C in January. Russia compared to Ukraine is like Prussia compared to France. Colder place = thicker arms. Prussian arms twice as thick as French arms. Russian arms twice as thick as Ukrainian arms. Prussians crushed French at Waterloo.

You= modern day jester

 

[Blood+]

PLA actually suffered more injured and killed combined than us (their gear superiority showed) while our men were killed more than wounded

Yeah, most of our men died where they stood, with bullet wounds to their chests rather than their backs. And even if the PLA units suffered more casualties, it was never in 3 to 1 ratio, except for a few instances like Rezangla but those were the outliers rather than the norm.

My point is, it's not at all warranted that an attacker WILL suffer 3 times as many casualties, there's no rule dictating such an outcome as has been propagated by the so-called pundits.

 

[JaguarWarrior]

Man. Not only the lazy coward drugged up American young generation cannot make a single tank, they also cannot escort grain ships.

 

[Kumaoni]

Yeah, most of our men died where they stood, with bullet wounds to their chests rather than their backs. And even if the PLA units suffered more casualties, it was never in 3 to 1 ratio, except for a few instances like Rezangla but those were the outliers rather than the norm.

My point is, it's not at all warranted that an attacker WILL suffer 3 times as many casualties, there's no rule dictating such an outcome as has been propagated by the so-called pundits.

It all depends on the circumstances. If the defender is awake and both forces have near parity in supporting arms, attackers will suffer heavy. As was the case of Soviets when they invaded Germany took a bloody nose

 

[DumbPilot]

That I absolutely agree with. They allocated far too limited amount of resources during the initial stage of the operation. They went in with a chipping hammer when they needed a sledge hammer.

They were banking on a quick agreement after some fighting. If you remember, Sputnik had that auto-launched article 3 days after the invasion which detailed how "they were restoring the rightful Russian place in the world" and so on. So Kyiv in 3 days was definitely a real thing, but they didn't execute it properly.

To my knowledge, in the first few hours they were behaving like a modern, connected military(VDV drops, missiles strikes on critical nodes, targeting airfields, ..), however an hour or two into it, I think their EW moved ahead of their units, and they ended up jamming their own stuff. That caused confusion, and made them give Ukrainians a breathing room. Then Zelenskyy effectively rallied them up in that break.

I think we did see a deal coming through at the end of April last year, however that obviously did not go through

 

[JaguarWarrior]

They were banking on a quick agreement after some fighting. If you remember, Sputnik had that auto-launched article 3 days after the invasion which detailed how "they were restoring the rightful Russian place in the world" and so on. So Kyiv in 3 days was definitely a real thing, but they didn't execute it properly.

To my knowledge, in the first few hours they were behaving like a modern, connected military(VDV drops, missiles strikes on critical nodes, targeting airfields, ..), however an hour or two into it, I think their EW moved ahead of their units, and they ended up jamming their own stuff. That caused confusion, and made them give Ukrainians a breathing room. Then Zelenskyy effectively rallied them up in that break.

I think we did see a deal coming through at the end of April last year, however that obviously did not go through

Ukraine is not Georgia. Ukraine has 10 times the population of Georgia. Ukraine will take decades if not centuries to wear down its population.

 

[JaguarWarrior]

More tank losses in Zapo. Eventually tanks run out because no more are built to replace losses. Meanwhile, thousands of Kornet = modern day crossbow and Lancet = modern day longbow are built every single year.

 

[Blood+]

It all depends on the circumstances. If the defender is awake and both forces have near parity in supporting arms, attackers will suffer heavy. As was the case of Soviets when they invaded Germany took a bloody nose

Yes, but even in such a case, the ratio rarely reaches such levels. Take Bakhmut or Mariupol offensives, for example, Did the Russians suffer 3 times as much as did the Ukrainians?? Nope, not really. In the end, it all boils down to tactics.

 

[Sanglamorre]

Whom I'm talking to?
Steven, Marc or Jake?

Dick Mc4chanface mk.IV

 

[Kumaoni]

Yes, but even in such a case, the ratio rarely reaches such levels. Take Bakhmut or Mariupol offensives, for example, Did the Russians suffer 3 times as much as did the Ukrainians?? Nope, not really. In the end, it all boils down to tactics.

Bakhmut they did but Bakhmut was a meat grinder, causalities a part of war, this is what soldiers sign up to do.

 

[JaguarWarrior]

Yes, but even in such a case, the ratio rarely reaches such levels. Take Bakhmut or Mariupol offensives, for example, Did the Russians suffer 3 times as much as did the Ukrainians?? Nope, not really. In the end, it all boils down to tactics.

Exactly. Using nuke means no casualty to self and all casualty to enemy. 3 to 1 is only relevant for like medieval battles.

 

[Blood+]

Exactly. Using nuke means no casualty to self and all casualty to enemy. 3 to 1 is only relevant for like medieval battles.

Even then, one side would suffer such disproportionate amount of losses only when they fucked up real bad.

 

[Blood+]

Bakhmut they did but Bakhmut was a meat grinder, causalities a part of war, this is what soldiers sign up to do.

We are specifically discussing the sacred 3 to 1 ratio here, not just heavy casualties. In Bakhmut, both side suffered similar losses.