Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "We Were Wrong - Ukraine Map Analysis - News Update" video.

@giovanni-ed7zq Yes, but they are very effective at killing Ukrainian professionals at a rate of at least 4:1. So all is good.
20
Its start of "preparing" the "people" for a huge UA loss campaign.
6
He says a lot of things - they are frequently "aimed". I would not consider what he says for or against as "reliable".
2
@donohirst That is quite a good ratio for UA. Notice ration in Mariopol was around 1:10. For comparison in similar battles US had at least 10:1 ration and frequently 12:1. Sure you can say UA losses are 7x Wagner as well - but I am not so sure about that - mainly b/c UA does have some weak artillery support and some weak armor etc. availability / it is still connected to the rest of UA forces. But hey, I could be wrong, and it indeed could be 7:1 losses as you claim.
1
@kingkarlito At least at 4x rate. Mariupol was 10x the rate. US usually has more than 10:1 ratio. Exactly, they take few buildings per day ===> very low attacker losses and huge defender losses. The 4x is very conservative, it could be way more, some claim 6x. There are a LOT of historical examples of heavy defender losses as defender vs. attacker conflict is more based on firepower of each faction. In Bakhmut Russia has at minimum 6x artillery advantage - probably more like 10x. Russian experienced Wagner troops are moving slowly, letting artillery do bulk of the work. Russia also does air strikes around 1 per hour. This all translates into high UA losses. In urban area, all things equal both sides would take heavy losses - but things are NOT equal. Russia has enormous advantage. Imagine guys armed with rifles in open field. Russia has 10 times they guys and attacking. Russian losses would not be 3x UA side - they would indeed be tiny, maybe 1/10 UA side, i.e. 1% vs. 100% for UA side. Same firepower idea plays here. If firepower did not matter in war, we would all just have riflemen - I mean why invest in expensive jets - if they do not give you any advantage or expensive tanks or expensive artillery pieces. Why fire 1000s of artillery shells if its "nothing" as many in the west claim???
1
@johanmetreus1268 Not true - best example is WWI, WWII, Stalingrad and even D day landings. Artillery is very good at reducing enemy fortifications. Thus the idea of a siege gun - a heavy gun whose role is to reduce enemy fortifications. During WWI there was constant shelling by both sides - not just at enemy that was moving - but also against enemy fortified positions. One example stuck in my mind is Soviet attack on German positions during WWII. Artillery was used en masse. A group of surviving German soldiers, once barrage was over started running back. A sergeant was trying to stop them and they told him he can stay... well he did not. Artillery is used extensively in cities against enemy positions - again best examples are WWII but also more recent - such as US fight in Falujah. Air power is very similar to artillery - also very useful against fortifications. How else would you smash enemy defenses? What else is there that can go big boom? Artillery and more recently air power are the answer. All the way to cannons banging on the walls of enemy's castle.
1
@johanmetreus1268 D day was too quick to remove all defenses. And certainly the big guns helped a LOT. There are examples of German tanks disintegrated by BB guns. Granted this is not a stationary fortification, but certainly more durable than any field prepared position. After WWII a lot of fortified lines were deemed ineffective - until war in Ukraine and other modern wars. Main difference now is that a tank is no longer as effective as it used to be in breaking through enemy lines. Without ability to maneuver we see combat in which artillery rules the day. Also fortifications that are raked by artillery can be re-manned - something we see a lot in Ukraine - artillery kills UA troops, but Ukraine simply sends more - and Russian armor push is repelled. Russia again rakes with artillery, kills a lot, but UA sends quick reinforcements and Russia armor is repelled.
1
@johanmetreus1268 You under estimate the power of replacements. I.e. the other side, when heavily bombarded, did not just sit on their hands - they replaced. Neither side in WWI exactly run out of people. Artillery on average, killed 1 person for around 200 shells.
1
There were few survivors and they can now be conscripted back... as they have experience. I doubt this is numbers of note.
1
Russia is in no hurry - its Ukraine which is running out of time - it is Ukraine whose economy is sinking more and more, and it is Ukrainians that are running into EU. So why change that - why hurry? Take it easy, let the artillery crush them. Minimize losses - losses are bad PR. If Ukies want to die for their country, let them.
1
@attilamarics3374 I think he is doing part of his job - confusing the enemy. Confusing western UA supporters. When he is strong, he pretends to be weak and vice versa. Just war propaganda. Give enemy false hope stuff. He knows UA is loosing the war - but why make the loss long and painful for Russia - make UA do stupid things - pressure public to pressure UA into on offensive on well prepared multi line defensive positions.
1