news from Russo-Ukraine Front

[Tom Peters]

NO :attacking is not always more costly
When Japan was attacking in Malaya ,the Philippines and DEI, its losses were lower than when it was forced to defend them .
A force that is ordered to attack is always different from a force that is ordered to defend,qualitatively and quantitatively .
It is the same for two forces with the same mission .
That is why one can not compare both forces .

Japan lost 19000 men during the conquest of the Philippines, but many more during the US liberation of the Philippines .Some 400000 .

No one said that ATT was always more casualty intensive than DEF. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the ATTACKER TENDS TO TAKE MORE CASUALTIES THAN THE DEFENDER. This is statistically borne out by combat data.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

As usual, US military ''experts '' are living in Alice's Wonderland ,in a castle in the air where only their army is operating and where the enemy has no importance .And then, they start their claims : if we do A ,we will obtain X, if we do B ,we will obtain Y . And the enemy ? Let's not talk about him ,otherwise our calculations are not correct .

How droll. ljadw dismissed the US army manual, as apparently ljadw is far better a source of information.

/s

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

Russian counterstrike, just beginning:

A couple of other important pieces of info from ISW you failed to mention:

-The Russian Federation is likely extracting ammunition and other materiel from Belarusian storage bases—activity that is incompatible with setting conditions for a large-scale Russian or Belarusian ground attack against Ukraine from Belarus.

Extracting ammo ? Why I thought the RU had unlimited amounts ?!?!

- Geolocated footage showed at least two Belarusian trains transporting Belarusian T-72 tanks and Ural military trucks in Minsk and Tor-M2 surface-to-air missile launchers in Orsha (Vitebsk Oblast) on October 11

Hmmm.....more equipment form BEL going to RU. Evidence of further equipment shortages ?

- Russian sources claimed that Russian forces conducted a local counterattack and recaptured territories west of Kreminna while continuing to establish defensive positions in the Kreminna-Svatove area on October 11. Russian milbloggers claimed on October 11 that Russian forces conducted counteroffensive operations east of Lyman and recaptured Terny, Torske, Novosadove, Makiivka, and Nevske, although ISW cannot independently verify any of these claims.

Lots of claims, no proof. Lets see how the next few days go. I predict not much movement either way.

Mad Dog

[Texas Jäger]

elements of 3rd Canadian division were directly involved in the creation of the armoured corridor…they cleaned out Colombelles and took Giberville (literally right next to the Infatry of 11th Armoured that were clearing out Demouville right next door) to protect the right flank, they dealt with the 192nd Panzergrenadier Regiment and parts of the 16. LWF Division. The remainder of the 3rd Canadian and the entire 2nd Canadian Divisions cleaned out the Vaucelles district of Caen, before advancing toward Verrieres for the notorious failed assault by the Essex Scottish and South Saskatchewans on the same general high ground of Bourgebus that was the immediate objective of Goodwood, the next sector over on July 20th was 7th Armoured Division attacking Bourgebus itself. You are talking about the same battle.

That’s not including the diversionary attacks in the Odon in the days before (Pomegranate/Greenline) that were in support of Goodwood, but unlike Atlantic that was a distinctly seperate offensive.

I know Canadian troops were in Bras and Hubert Folie on 20th July but that was after the fighting had ended. This film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH1oItw ... Path%C3%A9


from 1m 35s- 2m 04 is Canadian troops in what I believe to be the SE corner of Hubert Folie and as it is not IWM Film almost certainly a film shot by a Canadian Cameraman and a copy of some of the raw footage lost in the fire in the 1960s.
2m 06s is Cagny and that proves a Canadian got that far east.

Isn’t 1:36 Cagny too? The famous PAK 43 in the orchard?

I know that later footage must be somewhere in the Troarn/Sannerville area since one of the Infantry men (4:09) has British 3rd Division patch on his shoulder.

[Michael Kenny]

Isn’t 1:36 Cagny too? The famous PAK 43 in the orchard?

It is captioned so all over the internet but I got details of every '88' left behind on the GOODWOOD battlefield. The nearest ones were SW of Cagny (a single flak 88) and 2 pak 88 NE of Cagny. The only pak 88 that could match the details on the photo is at Hubert Folie. I have never been able to find the source of the still photo and it for sure is not a Canadian or IWM Official photo. It must be a press photo . The film that shows the exact same scene is definitely Canadian and I am sure the troops with the Nebelwerfers are Canadian as well

[ljadw]

The fact remains that the Russians lost in the first 10 days of the war, during their offensive ,498 deaths and 1500 wounded

Those being Orc Ministry of Offense numbers, the fact remains that they are in the highest probability lies and irrelevant to any real comparison. Since Putinistan leadership and much of their armed forces of evil are liars, thieves and murderers and represent the worst scum in universe anything their pig snouts utter should be considered a probable lie.

Markus

For Russian losses : one source : Russia
for Ukrainian losses :one source: Ukraine

How woefully gullible would you have to be to believe the RU or UKR MOD on issues such as these ?

Mad Dog

It is not a question of believing, but the FACT that only the Russians can now the number of their losses .
US media can NOT know the number of Russian WIA .

[ljadw]

More losses than what ? than who ?

More losses than the same force in the same circumstances would do defending.

This possibility does not exist .
The force with as mission to defend would not be the same force with as mission to attack .

You seem to be missing the point again. And again. And again.

Mad Dog

The force with as mission to attack can NEVER be the force with as mission to defend,because two different missions mean two different forces .

[ljadw]

NO :attacking is not always more costly
When Japan was attacking in Malaya ,the Philippines and DEI, its losses were lower than when it was forced to defend them .
A force that is ordered to attack is always different from a force that is ordered to defend,qualitatively and quantitatively .
It is the same for two forces with the same mission .
That is why one can not compare both forces .

Japan lost 19000 men during the conquest of the Philippines, but many more during the US liberation of the Philippines .Some 400000 .

No one said that ATT was always more casualty intensive than DEF. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the ATTACKER TENDS TO TAKE MORE CASUALTIES THAN THE DEFENDER. This is statistically borne out by combat data.

Mad Dog

An other word for statistics is lies .
You can prove everything with statistics

[ljadw]

As usual, US military ''experts '' are living in Alice's Wonderland ,in a castle in the air where only their army is operating and where the enemy has no importance .And then, they start their claims : if we do A ,we will obtain X, if we do B ,we will obtain Y . And the enemy ? Let's not talk about him ,otherwise our calculations are not correct .

How droll. ljadw dismissed the US army manual, as apparently ljadw is far better a source of information.

/s

Mad Dog

US army manual is about wars where the US fought, and these wars are only a minority and can not be used as a proof : most of WW2 fighting was done in the east,between the Soviets and Germany and the US army manual has no data about the war in the east .

[Aida1]

The fact remains that the Russians lost in the first 10 days of the war, during their offensive ,498 deaths and 1500 wounded

Those being Orc Ministry of Offense numbers, the fact remains that they are in the highest probability lies and irrelevant to any real comparison. Since Putinistan leadership and much of their armed forces of evil are liars, thieves and murderers and represent the worst scum in universe anything their pig snouts utter should be considered a probable lie.

Markus

For Russian losses : one source : Russia
for Ukrainian losses :one source: Ukraine

How woefully gullible would you have to be to believe the RU or UKR MOD on issues such as these ?

Mad Dog

It is not a question of believing, but the FACT that only the Russians can now the number of their losses .
US media can NOT know the number of Russian WIA .

And you really think the russians would admit their real losses. Intelligence services can make estimates.

[Aida1]

More losses than what ? than who ?

More losses than the same force in the same circumstances would do defending.

This possibility does not exist .
The force with as mission to defend would not be the same force with as mission to attack .

You seem to be missing the point again. And again. And again.

Mad Dog

The force with as mission to attack can NEVER be the force with as mission to defend,because two different missions mean two different forces .

That is an obvious untruth as has already been pointed out to you.

[Aida1]

NO :attacking is not always more costly
When Japan was attacking in Malaya ,the Philippines and DEI, its losses were lower than when it was forced to defend them .
A force that is ordered to attack is always different from a force that is ordered to defend,qualitatively and quantitatively .
It is the same for two forces with the same mission .
That is why one can not compare both forces .

Japan lost 19000 men during the conquest of the Philippines, but many more during the US liberation of the Philippines .Some 400000 .

No one said that ATT was always more casualty intensive than DEF. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the ATTACKER TENDS TO TAKE MORE CASUALTIES THAN THE DEFENDER. This is statistically borne out by combat data.

Mad Dog

An other word for statistics is lies .
You can prove everything with statistics

If you believe that then you cannot invoke them either to support your statements :roll: :roll: .

[Aida1]

As usual, US military ''experts '' are living in Alice's Wonderland ,in a castle in the air where only their army is operating and where the enemy has no importance .And then, they start their claims : if we do A ,we will obtain X, if we do B ,we will obtain Y . And the enemy ? Let's not talk about him ,otherwise our calculations are not correct .

How droll. ljadw dismissed the US army manual, as apparently ljadw is far better a source of information.

/s

Mad Dog

US army manual is about wars where the US fought, and these wars are only a minority and can not be used as a proof : most of WW2 fighting was done in the east,between the Soviets and Germany and the US army manual has no data about the war in the east .

I suspect you never read the us manual neither do you know what information it is based upon so you are bluffing.

[Aida1]

That an attacker should be at least three times stronger than a defender ( a very questionable claim :the Germans were not three times stronger than the French and British in May 1940 ) does not prove that an attacker with less that strength would have more losses .
And for Westerplatte : the Poles would not attack into the fire of the Schleswig-Holstein,etc ,because their mission was defensive . If their mission was offensive, their strength would be much bigger .
The Poles did not attack,thus a imaginary comparison is not possible .
You invent something that did not happen to prove your claim .
And Clausewitz and Napoleon lived in the past and no one takes notion of what they said,because there is an evolution in war .
You can't say that the forces who attacked in Desert Storm (and had no superiority of 3/1 ) would have suffered less losses if they remained defensively . It would essentially depend on the opponent , not on the strength of these forces ,not on what these forces would do .
As usual, US military ''experts '' are living in Alice's Wonderland ,in a castle in the air where only their army is operating and where the enemy has no importance .And then, they start their claims : if we do A ,we will obtain X, if we do B ,we will obtain Y . And the enemy ? Let's not talk about him ,otherwise our calculations are not correct .
There are always two parties in a war .
And, there are no immutable principles in war :what Clausewitz and Napoleon said has no longer any significance, because we are living in a different world .
The old Moltke said : getrent marschieren, vereint schlagen . In English : advance separately ,fight united . This has no longer any importance .

You clearly have a big ego as you dismiss all great thinkers of military history. Basic principles always remain the same. Something you seem to ignore. Not surprising as you dismiss all books, statistics etc.. and replace it by fantasy.

[ljadw]

The fact remains that the Russians lost in the first 10 days of the war, during their offensive ,498 deaths and 1500 wounded

Those being Orc Ministry of Offense numbers, the fact remains that they are in the highest probability lies and irrelevant to any real comparison. Since Putinistan leadership and much of their armed forces of evil are liars, thieves and murderers and represent the worst scum in universe anything their pig snouts utter should be considered a probable lie.

Markus

For Russian losses : one source : Russia
for Ukrainian losses :one source: Ukraine

How woefully gullible would you have to be to believe the RU or UKR MOD on issues such as these ?

Mad Dog

Is saying the man who insists that we should believe the information from Oryx, which has as source the UKR MOD. :roll:
Now he will reply that the RU took photos of the tanks it lost and gave them to make anti-russian propaganda . :roll: