Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Russia Approaches Remaining Roads in Bakhmut, Ukraine Offensive Fails in Kremennaya, Makeyevka 89" video.

@КрисДосс 💯!!! Modern combined arms against a static defence can be utterly devastating. Anyone who naively parrots the "attacker always loses more", clearly stopped their study of military history at 1918. 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️
7
@gtengineer1967 people are probably not aware that the average UK + Commonwealth daily casualty rate during WW1 was around 525. Given that the mid-range (best between Ukrainian and Russian figures) estimates already had Ukrainian casualties at or above that figure, if the casualty figures are now CLOSE to 800/day for even a few weeks, then that is truly horrific, unforgivable and history will judge the West and their Ukrainian lackeys VERY harshly for their pointless waste of men. I say pointless, because, for all the "victories" the Ukrainians are scoring, there is still ZERO appetite amongst the general populace to start WW3; the West will not save Ukraine. Ukraine has been used and - like EVERY puppet before - abandoned as soon as the situation looks like it will escalate. It's really hard to tell who is worse - Putin for his aggression or the Western/Ukrainian leadership for their cynical waste of Ukrainian men.
6
@Vikramsingh-jm1uu Doesn't work that way. Falklands: professionals against conscripts. Argentina had a 3 or 4:1 numerical advantage - far more guns (and planes) than the British - but still lost ~3:1 casualties (and the conflict). The "maths" behind casualty figures is never simple and is, generally, conflict-specific - the calculus from one conflict rarely applies to one that follows.
4
@Bobfett1982 ???? BUT THEY WEREN'T!!! "We only lost because they were better!" Do you realise how idiotic you sound?
1
@hmldjr 🤣 No one serious believes that. At worst, there would have been a peace treaty that restored the borders to 1914, but the general consensus is that the war would have ground on for about another 6 months, with a German surrender coming in mid-1919. By early 1918, the Germans were already a spent force, primarily due to the British naval blockade and were on the verge of economic collapse. The offensive of early 1918 was only possible due to the withdrawal of the Russians in late 1917; the 1918 offensive was the last that the Germans were capable of. Without the US, the Germans may have taken more ground, but would not have broken the British and French. The US troops in theatre in early 1918 were fresh, enthusiastic, but as green as they come and TERRIBLY led. They were valuable in blunting the 1918 offensive, but this was more through personal courage than organisational merit; it wasn't until the Summer that they were truly "effective". So no, we didn't "need" the US forces, but they did shorten the war - even though that came at the cost of 1 million dead due to the "Spanish" flu. History is more complex - and interesting - than Hollywood presents.
1