Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Eastory"
channel.
-
@nevanmasterson46 True. However, (1) in any work (e.g., this video) to be circulated publicly, only the right words for things should be used. There should be no difference between what is said and what is meant.
(2) To say that "the word 'casualty' conventionally refers to deaths and injuries" (italics mine) is inadequate. In a war context the word 'casualty' always refers to deaths and injuries. Always.
(3) Anyway, your point that people got what the narrator meant, while true, was something the OC appeared to understand in the first place. His objection was to the "weird[ness]," and, after all, weirdness has no proper place in published material except where weirdness is the deliberate aim.
Of course this was by no means a major issue or defect in the video, but let's get it straight or not discuss it at all. (It likely won't surprise you that I'm a writer and editor.😄)
12
-
Good, I've been looking around for such a treatment of this subject. Three points/questions:
(1) Are your counts confirmed losses only, combatant claims, independent estimates, or a combo?
(2) It'd be even better to break them down into equipment type, as it's much worse to lose, e.g. an air defense battery or truck-mounted radar, than multiple APCs or fuel tankers. But I'm still very grateful.
(3) How do we put these losses into a sustainability context? If the Russian average has been 100 per week, it's now closing in on 10,000 vehicles/artillery pieces lost. (Much higher, though, I think.) Given its estimated (but classified) production rates, how much longer can that continue? I know, it's a huge and likely unanswerable question.
Thank you.
—Impressed new subscriber
10
-
1
-
1
-
1