Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Frontline Medics reveal the grim reality of Ukraine’s war" video.

I'd say that although drones have made artillery more deadly that drones themselves are now the number one killer in Ukraine. You can hide from artillery strikes and survive even intense barrages however with suicide drones and explosive dropping drones, they have become mini precision guided weapons that troops cannot escape from. Cheap and plentiful there are so many targets on the battlefield these days that you can now strike with drones that you probably wouldn't want to waste an artillery shell on even if you could hit it with one shot. Right now there's no scarier weapon on the battlefield than an armed drone piloted by a good operator.
14
More like new technology with little defense against that new technology. Drones are the biggest menace on the battlefield in Ukraine and it ain't even close and until there's some effective defense against them like a good signal jammer or something, troops on both sides will continue to get injured and killed by them.
8
Do you have a source for that 400k number for Ukraine? I don't doubt that the Ukrainians are taking significant losses, but I doubt its 400k killed though.
3
Because Russia hasn't been firing 60k shells consistently for the past 2+ years? That was only for a brief period of time that they were firing so many until they too were suffering a shell shortage to a degree which is why they're buying shells from North Korea. Also that 70% casualty rate from artillery doesn't apply to this war because drones have been causing a large proportion of casualties these days and might've even overtaken artillery as being the biggest cause of casualties.
2
@LamboHUA Ukrainians need more soldiers not only to replaces their losses, but also to relieve many of their units who have been fighting since the beginning of the war. You can't keep soldiers on the frontlines forever without taking them off the battlefield and allowing them to rest and recover. Also why don't you mention the heavy losses that the Russians have taken and how they're also constantly trying to recruit new men to throw into the war? And the Russians definitely aren't doing well when they're taking so much equipment from the Cold War era out of storage to use in Ukraine. Can you ever imagine the US losing so much equipment in a war that they would be forced to bring equipment from back in the 1960s or even earlier to use in a 21st century war? I certainly can't and yet here we see the Russians doing that very thing during the Ukraine war.
2
@tommyt4259 nope, the whole war Russia has had roughly a 10/1 arty advantage while simultaneously out producing NATO in arty rounds. Russia is outproducing NATO countries in arty rounds because Russia relies much more on arty than NATO does. When you have vastly superior airforces and have tons more precision guided missiles you tend to rely less on artillery to support your troops. Also you don't take into account that NATO nations are ramping up their arty shell production and have a much greater capacity to produce shells as well as every other type of modern weapon compared to Russia if they chose to put more funding towards it which they're currently doing now. Also they are made producing drones and high end ones at that (eg lancet). Truth is, Ukraine casualties are too high for the world to cope with so they aren't being told the true numbers. I think anyone who has followed the war closely would acknowledge that Ukraine has taken significant casualties, but you'd have to be INSANE to also not acknowledge that the Russians have taken far, FAR more casualties during this war. You can't have watched all the videos from this war and see how the Russians really don't give a damn about their troops and how many casualties they take as long as they achieve their objectives. To put it simply if Ukraine and Russia both had about the same population size, the Russians would've ended this war LONG AGO because of the massive losses they've taken. This war wouldn't be going into the 3rd year and Russia would've either retreated or been pushed out of most if not all of Ukraine by now. If Russia was doing so well and taking so few casualties then they wouldn't be announcing another wave of mobilization for 300,000 more troops just a few days ago would they? Like I said if they had the population size the same as Ukraine they would've been done for by now.
1
Russians are 100% taking more casualties than the Ukrainians and its not even close. If you've followed the war since the beginning you'd see that the Russians really don't give a damn about their troops and how many they lose as long as they achieve their objectives.
1
@poppystars9005 I wouldn’t be shocked if Ukraine was well above 400k, Russian 150, Ukrainians fighting for Russia likely 150 as well. Ukrainians are certainly taking alot of casualties, but the Russians are losing far, FAR more. It would be impossible for them to not to with how carelessly they throw their own troops' lives away as long as they achieve their objectives.
1
You'd have to be taking some seriously awesome drugs to believe that Ukraine has taken 1 million casualties. I mean its not as low as Ukraine publicly acknowledges, but 1 million is laughable. With that number there wouldn't be many troops left on the frontlines and Russia should be rolling through Ukraine by now. Also I'm curious if you really believe Ukrainians have taken 1 million casualties, then what do you believe the casualty number is for Russia?
1
@Zero4Infinitives The 31 000 lost figure that Zelensky put out is biggest lie of 21st century. They are not like Russia said, like for every 7 ukrainian 1 russian dead so a 7:1 ratio but they are more like 2:1 and Russia has more population willing to fight, much more. No doubt that the Ukrainians have lost more than 31,000 troops, but there's also no doubt that the Russians have lost 100,000+ killed easily by now and probably much more. The Ukrainians at least know when to stop costly attacks and to retreat when necessary while the Russians don't seem to care about casualties at all as long as they achieve their objectives. If you've followed the war since the beginning you'd see how costly Russian offensives are and how they just keep coming no matter what the costs are. Lets just say that if the Ukrainians and the Russians had the same population size that the Russians would've retreated out of Ukraine and ended this war a long time ago. The Russians are still fighting now because they still have plenty of poor, unfortunate men to throw into battle without a care in the world.
1
You're smoking crack if you seriously believe that the Russians haven't taken many more losses than the Ukrainians.
1
@anthonyeaton5153 You hide from artillery shells the same as its been done for a hundred plus years now since large scale bombardments became a regular occurrence in WWI. Namely you take cover and preferably in a deep hole or trench. Unless your enemy is using guided shells, its been shown that simply having underground cover like a trench greatly reduces artillery shell effectiveness. Why? Because unless you take a direct or a near direct hit, a hole or trench protects you from a shell blast and shrapnel pretty well. Compare that to attack drones who are human guided and can literally follow you everywhere and try and kill you like a terminator and its no comparison. As scary as artillery or missiles or many other things that can kill you on the battlefield, they all pale in comparison to the absolute terror that drones have become in war where its extremely hard to escape from them. Just watch all those drone videos where pilots fly their suicide drones packed with explosives straight into your dugout or trench to take you out. Its just crazy how good many of these pilots have become during the war and because drones are so cheap, they have no problems wasting it on a single target that you probably wouldn't waste an artillery shell or missile on.
1
@1112viggo I don't get it. How are military suicide drones with all their technology, electronics and small parts of different materials, cheaper and faster to produce than simply stuffing a metal casing with the same explosives and launch it from artillery? Have you looked up the cost of producing a standard NATO 155mm shell these days? Its listed at anywhere between $3000-8000 per shell in 2023 depending on which source you look at. For that price you could build at least several suicide drones that are far more accurate and can hit individual targets and take them out much more effectively rather than trying to hit them with an artillery shell. And if you want to use precision guided shells like Excalibur then you're talking about $120,000+ US per shell. In comparison suicide drones are MUCH easier to produce in large numbers and you don't need any special equipment and materials to build a suicide or explosive dropping drone the same way that you do for artillery shells that require large factories to produce. All you need to do to setup a drone factory is to get drone parts and have some people to assemble drones and others to deal with the electronics. Not very hard at all in comparison to requiring so many specialized factory processes to make artillery shells that actually work rather than exploding in your face. Id also think its harder to intercept a shell before impact than a larger slower moving drone that's susceptible to jamming. Yes some drones can be shot down or jammed, but when you have such large numbers of drones flying around the battlefield, its impossible to place jamming equipment that can effectively jam every drone with every military unit. Plenty are going to get through and hit their targets and if you've watched all the drone videos in the past year or so, they are frighteningly effective in taking out their targets. I don't think I'd be surprised to see that in the past year and certainly going forward in 2024 and beyond that drones have become the biggest killer on the battlefield. If there's one single system that I could get rid of in my opponent's inventory it would be drones easy. Surveillance/suicide/explosive dropping drones are just far too effective and dangerous for the cost of producing them and keeping them in the field. No other weapons system is so scary dangerous and yet so accessible as drones are these days.
1
These days its more like God is on the side with the most drones with the best pilots. Artillery is still scary, but NOTHING is scarier than drones being controlled by experienced pilots on the battlefield these days.
1
@michaelhowell2326 I'm not arguing, just asking, but at what point is it considered fully mobilized? And are you saying Russia is a peer or near peer to the US and/or NATO? In a conventional war without nukes, Russia is NOWHERE NEAR close to NATO without the US let alone including them. This war has once and for all proven that the Russian armed forces are largely a paper tiger that relies mostly on sheer numbers to overwhelm their enemies as they've so often done so in the past. Russia with the way they fight would've never lasted in any major conflict without the size of their population, the size of their industrial capabilities and the size of their country. The Russians have rarely beaten their opponents with a superior trained, organized and led armed force and instead have almost always beaten their opponents with sheer size and amount of men and equipment they could bring to the battlefield and simply overwhelm their opponents. And if they can't do that quickly then they try and out last you and hope you run out of men and supplies before they do.
1
And yet the Russians can't use their airforce anywhere over Ukraine where the Ukrainians are because they'll likely get shot down and so they're relegated to only operating behind their own lines.
1
Other than thin air, where's the proof that they lost 300k men? I think its much more likely that Russia has lost that many than the Ukrainians when you see how little they give a damn about their troops and throwing their lives away in poorly organized and led attacks over and over again.
1
And if you look at other conflicts fought in Middle East - Yemen civil war, Syria civil war - or Africa - war in Ethiopia - where the numbers of civilians killed are just staggering and run into the hundred of thousand the war in Ukraine would simply stands at the bottom of the list of the most deadly conflicts of the 21st century. There's no war in the 21st century that has gone as full scale as the war in Ukraine has. All the other conflicts going on in the world are fought by poorly armed, poorly trained men and also often fought by uneven opponents like the Israelis vs Hamas. The war in Ukraine is the first one since WWII that has involved mostly modern armies fighting each other head to head in an all out war.
1
@lucapieralisi Syria was not a full scale conflict? The war in Yemen was not a full scale conflict? The war in Ethiopia was not a full scale conflict? The war in Nagorno Karabakh was not a full scale conflicts? What were these, couple of skirmishes between couple of rag tag bands??? Why don't you tell these people that they weren't killing each other but just slapping each other cheeks. None of the conflicts you mentioned are anywhere near the size and scale that's close to the war in Ukraine. Sure the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc. are deadly, but they're nowhere near as large and as deadly as it is in Ukraine. This is the first war that has involved conventional forces at this scale for this length of time since WWII in Europe. The Russians and Ukrainians/NATO are throwing their industrial might against each other the likes we haven't seen since WWII. Thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, artillery systems etc. have been lost. Hundreds of thousands of men killed and wounded and many weapons that were meant to fight a third world war are being used here. All the other conflicts going on in Africa, the Mideast and elsewhere might produce large numbers of casualties, but in terms of industrial scale and how much financing, men and equipment is being put onto the battlefield, all of them pale in size and scope compared to the Ukrainian war.
1
@lucapieralisi That's the thing though. When people talk about the size and scale of a conflict they're often talking about the armed forces involved and the intensity and scale of the fighting more so than just the amount of casualties. Just look at the various Sudan/Darfur conflicts that have been going on for decades that have killed and wounded hundreds of thousands over the years and yet in terms of military scale its nothing compared to the Ukrainian war and that's why this war is getting much more attention than most every other conflict we've seen in recent decades.
1
Drones have overtaken artillery as the biggest killer on the battlefield.
1
Drones are the new deadliest weapon on the battlefield now. I don't think there's a more frightening sight than seeing a drone coming towards you and knowing that its going to be hard if not near impossible to dodge one or more attack drones if the enemy drone operator really wants to kill you. If there's one weapons system that I could completely remove from my enemy's arsenal it would be drones of all types.
1
Ukrainians have definitely lost alot of men, but the Russians have lost even much more. If the Ukrainians and Russians both had the same population size, Russia would've ended this war a long time ago with all their losses. Right now they're staying in the fight solely because of the size of their army and their ability to draw from a much larger pool of men to throw their lives away in Ukraine. Its crazy to see countless videos of Russian losses everyday and yet they still keep attacking without a care in the world with how many men and how much equipment they lose as long as they achieve their objectives.
1