What can the equipment losses tell us about the war between Russia and Ukraine?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лис 2023
- As the war between Russia and Ukraine has lasted for more than 20 months, at least 17 000 pieces of military equipment have been lost by both sides. Putting them into a graph can tell us something about this conflict.
Sources:
Data:
www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02...
www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02...
deepstatemap.live/
Media:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Halls of the Undead by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Footage provided by mmatvey, ALeXaNDeRua/Pond5
Alternative explanation to some of these equipment losses. Bakmut, for example was urban fighting. Not much use for armor, as they are mostly static positions. Big infantry losses, low armor losses. Similar in the winter overall. Russians had to retreat to urban areas to survive and be resuplied, and became static positions. It is when the russians leave the cities to fight in the open, without cover, that they suffer big equipment losses.
Bakhmut still saw a lot of equipment losses, in the form of artillery for example.
@@VRichardsn There was a two week period in the Bakhmut fighting where infantry casualties soared to 1000+/day for the Russian side. Wagner's own estimate says they suffered 62k losses in Ukraine, with 22k dead. Most of that was in the Bakhmut Winter Offensive. These were at least on par with, if not exceeding, the loss rates even of the initial offensive. There is a question of whether Wagner equipment losses are factored into Eastory's report, since they weren't officially part of the Russian army and were technically mercenaries.
@@TrueXyrael, Russians lie about everything. It’s a country full of brainwashed liars.
@@TrueXyraelhow much for ukraine
@@TrueXyrael Well the data came from Oryx, who just counts visual losses of armour on both sides. If there is visual evidence of a Russian tank being destroyed, Wagner or Russian Federation, it will be counted as a Russian loss.
It tells us that man
It sucks to be shot at
😂 bruh
It is weird that you are referring to equipment losses as casualities. This isn't common practice in native english speakers. The technical definition is deaths and injuries among the combatants. In common speaking, most people think of a casualty as a death, and typically presenters mention that this term means deaths and injuries sufficient to be out of the fight.
which english american british australian or canadian
@@victorschwartzkopf3377 all of those, stop BSing.
We don't need to pretend like it's about people. You can always get another dudes, it's not a problem (expect dudes in tanks and so on - they are very important). You need an equipment to win a war. You can get 5 x of people but if they have no weapons they are useless. But if current people get 5 x weapons then it's totally over. Our life is not important, it's just a propaganda. You can die and there is 43829 dudes at your place. If you lose tank - it's a tragedy. Our culture is very funny, everyone thinks they matters, when there is a lot of arguments, that it's nothing more than words. China, Russia and countries like that dont lie about that, they are just a war meat. We are same people, just it's not accepted in our culture to say that. But we are same war meat as they. Simple people can die all the time, nothing is going to change, we need only to protect important people.
Framing it as 'common practice' is a bit too kind, it is outright incorrect
Well he is Estonian so not a native English speaker.
I just came here to say that I saw that there was an update and I didn’t even read the title. I just clicked on it that’s how much I enjoy the contact of this channel.
Go back to that same front in WW2 and compare how many troops they had to use to cover that size of a front. There were 2 to 3 million soldiers on both sides throughout the area back then - because that's how many you need. It's such a huge area you do need millions of boots on the ground. Neither side is capable of doing that so we get these little battles involving brigade and company-sized elements.
ukraine has about a million persons in arms, and russia probably has about 600-800k at or close to the front. both could send more. but it only would result in more casualities. most of the fighting is not at the front anymore. its an electronics, drone, rocket and artillery war with moving elements maybe coming after. a single drone operator can observe kilometres of frontline.
WW2 was a different war with both sides struggling to maneuver from a lack of motor vehicles (and for the Germans) fuel. WW2 saw the widespread continued use of horses in the German army, wide spread use of tank riders in the USSR, and the combat on the Eastern front either moved back and forth, was a stalemate, or was an absolute rout of one side's forces. The impetus of momentum was placed on Divisions, and now a days that impetus rests on Brigades, because you do now simply need less men and less tanks to do the same work required in WW2.
It was said at the start that neither side was capable of launching and sustaining large-scale maneuvers. Looks like that assessment was a correct one.@@jett6906
And that isn't enough guys. For example the Red Army needed 2.5 to 3 million stretched from the Kursk area all the way down to Rostov-on-Don. Even then the Germans were still able to threaten a break through with around a million less men.@@certaindeath7776
There's a video somewhere of that region from a high altitude that show the vastness of the area. It reminded me of the French bocage area - it just stretches on endlessly. It's frickin' huge.@@certaindeath7776
What are the sources? One would think that in the latest Ukrainian offensive they lost a lot of armour to Russian helicopters.
In the description
@@bobgatewood5277so oryx
Man, it's shty info...
Very interesting. Thank you!
It's a lie😂
@@user-ef5bl8ss3o I swear these bots become more stupid by the hour. Did you even watch the video in question ?
?@@user-ef5bl8ss3o
@@user-ef5bl8ss3o laughter through crying?
Are you sure Ukraine didn't have increase in loss during its last offensive?
He said that the sources are very limited, and it's likely most of the numbers are rough approximations and imprecisions
No ukraine offensive as gone soo well they have gained bradleys and challengers xF..
This video uses Oryx as a source. That alone should tell you its value. zero.
Oryx has been exposed several times for fabricated numbers and swapping ukrop losses for russian ones.
They were so sloppy they claimed some czech donated tanks lost were russian.
While russia didn't even used that model at the time.
It is also telling that they almost stopped reporting when kiev started gielding massive amount of western equipment.
You can't sell a lost challenger for a t72.
They tried btw.
It's a lie from the beginning and to the end. UKRAINIAN LOSSES MORE 3-5 TIMES THAN RUSSIAN
According to visually confirmed losses, since June on the southern front: 492 UA losses vs 500 RU losses (not counting drones or trucks, then it is more positive for UA)
@@impulsespecifix4580 believe in it further
Thank you for your work Eastory
You have a very understandable and clear perspective to explain things. This video was better than other tv channel news for months. Thanks a lot and keep making videos.
Nice! I’ve missed your videos!
Glad you're back!
A big problem with analysing losses is the unreliability of sources, oryx is far from being reliable, channels on both sides will be biased and the information they provide will reflect that, plus until the Russian winter campaign videos and images from the Russian side were rare compared to the ridiculous amount released by the Ukrainian side. All these factors combined makes it impossible to get any accurate figure of losses on either side
Oryx is very reliable, their methodology is very sound.
@@madisondines7441 when they report 2500 tanks lost and only 140 of those are reported damaged, a obviously ridiculous ratio, it doesn’t take a genius to see those numbers as very dubious
@@madisondines7441OK, thanks for that, I'll not be critical of them or any sources in future because what incentive have any of them to lie or even exaggerate?
Oryx 😂
@@maxleo8748 visual evidence and documented geolocation. It's hard to get more reliable than that.
Great and quick review of the war, thank you.
Thank you so much for creating this Video. I hope ther is going to be a new video in the near future?
It was said at the start that neither side was capable of launching and sustaining large-scale maneuvers. Looks like that assessment was a correct one.
I'm a fan of this channel, but concluding things about balance of power from territory and (estimated) equipment losses doesn't seem correct. Even the loss estimation itself is hard to believe considering the initial losses of the UA summer offensive were so great, including top tier western reinforcements, that they had to switch from large scale armored to small scale infantry assaults. It also doesn't reflect the intensity of fighting very well without graphing the losses of human life. Probably impossible to make a vid about since these stats are closely guarded secrets but it's safe to say they're pretty enormous vs. the equipment numbers and probably much more relevant to the balance of power.
Not so hard to estimate the number of deaths. Just look at the cemeteries. Ukraine made a lot of them
@@fal2218Sure, just talk to that guy who photographed every RU and UA grave right?
I agree with you, I don't know this channel, but I thought it was weird he would throw in the balance of power as a statistic without explaining how he calculated it. And it's pretty complicated, considering not all equipment is made the same, and old reserve equipment doesn't hold a candle to new generation equipment.
Not just that, the number of losses used in this video has been proved to be both unreliable and impossible to verify.
The problem with the "visual confirmation" method is the lack of context and geolocation, as well as lack of identification of lost machines (i.e. serial number). 1 loss can easily be counted multile times and given to the wrong side with or without intention.
@@WillowLiv Yep, I wish Eastory would stick to well-documented historical stuff, his large scale animations on WW2 are pretty legendary. Ongoing events require a totally different skillset IMHO, submerging oneself in a sea of unreliable info and terrible imagery.
I would say the biggest mistake of this video was the absence of infantry, Russian losses in equipment were much higher because they had a lot more equipment per infantry. Ukraine had basically no heavy equipment per soldier so they had much higher losses, which isn’t shown by looking at a graph of specifically heavy equipment losses.
Also on a side note, it looks like Ukrainian losses in heavy equipment in the recent months are inaccurate, for example they lost a lot of stuff in the first week of the first week of their counter offensive recently, but then scaled down their armored formations significantly and probably had less after that.
+1. There were tonnes of videos in "Bradley square", looks suspicious that UAF loses was "low" during their "counteroffensive".
Doesn't it make it worse for Russia's prestige?
@@NikolayBychkovRusthe key take away is that in terms of vehicles uk losses have never exceeded that of russia's. In terms of infantry it also wildly believed russia has lost more men than ukraine although the proportion is lower than for vehicles, it is hard to gauge especially through osint but circumstancial evidence such as the wagner offensive (basically throwing light infantry at fortifications) confirms the uk favored ratio. Low equipement losses by ukraine cannot be solely attributed to lower degree of mechinazation either, even during the recent ukrainian offensive this summer where most of the units had access to western vehicles on top of soviet legacy equipement and were facing endless minefield, in a region with russian air superiority , against entrenched positions, russia STILL manages to lose more equipement than ukraine even though it has every defensive cards imaginable in its pockets. Russia in 2 years never managed, not even once, to get a positive ratio. It's a skill issue, not just a comparative advantage in equipement possessed.
The equation is simple, if ukraine and russia were losing men and material at the same rate russia would have already won or be in an advantageous position. Therefore the current assumption goes this way: if the stalemate continues russia will lose as western supply will simply outlast russia's deep reserves (in a battle between production vs storage production always wins). If support from the west subsides russia will be capable of seizing the advantage and maybe even "win" (whatever winning means for russia), if support increases from the west it's scenario 1 all over again except even worse for russia.
Russia currently doesn't respect ukraine long range capability, but if ukraine were authorized to lob weapons inside russia proper you can expect a serious and continuous rise in russian casualties not only because of vulnerable depots airways etc... being destroyed (like what happend with himars, naval drones, scalp missiles, or atacms in occupied ukraine) but also because logistic damage will make the russian frontline less resilient and porous
And that's even before considering strategic concerns, ok russia won in ukraine, what now? Russian military capabilities right now are that of a regional power, poland even alone would have a shot to do do a thunder run to moscow.
@@franrodriguezrondero5749 point of view from Russia: this is struggle NATO Vs Russia. Even all combined west forces can't change the outcome, so prestige is ok. P.s. guys who serve on border in Kharkov oblast told me they killed some Poland and some africans.
@@NikolayBychkovRuswhat nonsense are you even saying?
When's the next update video of this war as it stands now
Hi! your video was great at explaining the back and forth offensives that took place between Russia and Ukraine. I would like to ask the question what is military equipment defined as? Is it just rifles? or does it include things such as medical equipment uniforms etc. Just curious.
It's more like Tanks, Artillery pieces, ... not rifles
I strongly suspect that with these numbers and images, he is talking about vehicles, like tanks, armoured personell carriers, and artillery
@@mennoltvanalten7260 oh alr so its just the number of vehicles lost by each side then it would be cool if it was categorized in a way which allowed us to see the number of tanks artillery pieces lost on their own rather than clumped into one category
@@vihaankaushal7452 You can visit Oryx for that.
@@vihaankaushal7452 he is probably trying to see if we want to see more about these statistics! More will come soon ;)
Why would we believe Oryx as a sole source during active war? I think it may be too early to reliably review the losses of equipment.
1:35 it was because all heavy equipment was evacuated immedetly following the war, and the only equipment lost was the equipment the Ukrainians failed to evacuate. By the 3rd or 4th week they had already evacuated all of their heavy equipment and deployed it to stabilize the front.
Great analysis. As far as I can tell your conclusions make perfect sense.
It would be useful to examine the loss charts in terms of % total inventory lost.
It bothers me that your graph isn't scaled properly.
Oryx recently failed an audit. I wouldn't use them as a source.
They are the best we have.
The “audit” in question was by someone who definitely had a foot on the other side of the fence for the Russians. Also he was getting bodied in the replies to posts in his thread. And also, the audit is from a random twitter user.
@@ApeX-pj4mq Putler said don't trust anyone aside from the Russian Ministry of Defence, so I guess that's what we should do.
Loyd Austin said the info from ABC was incorrect & supplies of ammunition were on target . One more Himars dosen't immediately mean the loss of one . Glass half full or Half empty ?
waiting for your analizis about Avdievka armor losses
We really have absolutely no idea about equipment casualties. We don't know how many pieces were recorded more than once, we don't know how many were not recorded at all, we don't know how many were captured or recaptured, we don't know how many were Russian or Ukrainian, we don't know if they were destroyed by the enemy or were destroyed to prevent capture, we can't even confirm the level of destruction of most of the pieces of equipment, we can't confirm how many were repaired and sent out again and how many were scrapped, etc. We really know very little.
But we can estimate casualty and equipment loss figured based off estimates from satiate footage of infantry numbers, artillery shell estimates, drone number estimates, and presence of armored vehicles
My guess is that due to ukraine have proportionally fewer armored vehicles and artillery they supplement their combat capabilities with infantry, leading to lower equipment losses but higher casualty figures.
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
I think this data is taken from Oryx - they had a biggest database of both sides losses.
Russia built around 25-30 new tanks per month and 60-70 they restore from old bases, those are huge, still thousands of tanks there.
@@spqr1945 Thanks for your reply. At those raw rates of replacement Russia wouldn't hit the wall very soon, I suppose.
However, I'm inclined to think that lightly and even extensively refurbished old models (T-64/62/55s and the older T-72s, which entered production between 1946 and 1969), while not being useless, might not really deserve much regard, being prone to subsequent breakdown and unable to deliver or (especially) withstand much punishment.
@@dixonpinfold2582 this is true, however tanks on Ukrainian battlefields usually used as infantry artillery support mostly, firing from closed positions. Both sides have plenty of anti armour weapons so using tanks as offensive weapons became practically useless. This is mostly artillery and drone war.
@@spqr1945 Perhaps that is so, but when you steered us onto the subject of tanks specifically, I had not even used the word _tank._
So one second you brought them up - if not due to their importance, then why? - and then promptly dismissed them, it would seem, as not very important.
Please clarify. Thanks.
@@dixonpinfold2582 I just happened to know numbers of tank production in Russia, and I don’t know other numbers. Looks like Russia produces about 700 thousand of artillery shells per year, but we don’t know exactly, theses numbers are top secret.
Too long didn't watch summary lol thanks, though I did watch the whole thing! lol
Where the Bradley square in the graph?
Very very good Video however only the equipment losses are not all the Manpower losses are also extremely decisive in Wars. But still your Video has high quality and it is very good 👍
It's still crazy that this war is still going on.... At least less men and women suffers but DAM.
Great video.
Blame putler for it
@@_braileanulYou are stupid. Blame USA for it, it is profitable for them to support the war.
@@_braileanul Nato*
@@_braileanulshould have agreed to the Minsk agreement
@@t.n.h.ptheneohumanpatterna8334 nope. They chose to resist the invasion instead. Too bad for you
Your video is great. Can I repost your video to a Chinese website? I will mark the author and the original website so that more people can see your video!
Hey eastory can you remake the eastern front series because the other is too old now maybe sometime in the future
Weird how war is somewhat discussed like a sporting match terms like win, loss, advantage, disadvantage having to do with horrific unimaginable experiences and end of life of so many people. How else can one review these things but that just kinda blows my mind.
Paid off most likely.
How is it any different from historians discussing any history? There were many massacres in the past that are still taught in school. It's not weird
Just because it's happening right now when it's consequences can be experienced in real time doesn't mean people should cover it
Nice perspective. One of many of course. Sometimes a lot is happening while not showing in a particular graph. But it still does seem to tell part of the story!
It would be very relevant to have the available numbers of equipment of the different sides at different times.
The loss graph is one component of the “derivative” of the amount graph. Supply and capture would be other components. It would be even better if it was possible to track a few different regions independently. But the more fine grained it becomes the harder it will be to get accurate data of course.
Great video!
Nice story - to belive that the losses fall during offensive operations
@@seazonchik Well without referring to anything in particular, it seem like that would depend on the situation and on losses of what exactly.
Different types of defensive and offensive actions would use different amounts of different kinds of resources.
That on its own doesn’t mean these numbers are true of course.
But it does mean that one has to gauge the details to rule it out as inconsistent.
I’m not saying you have to trust then numbers or anything. But do you think it rises to the level of impossibility or is it just unexpected?
Could there be reasonable explanation you haven’t thought of?
Just curious about your reasoning here.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow same armies, same weapons, same methods, but different losses, are you kidding?
@@seazonchik Well I’m not kidding but I don’t think what you wrote there is a quote of mine.
I’m happy to answer questions about my position if you wish. If so just ask.
A little bit of my thinking about the argument you assigned as being mine even though it wasn’t. I’ll rephrase it in a positive form:
--
1. Same armies, same weapons and same methods leads to the same losses
2. U & R have the same armies, the same weapons and the same methods
=> 3. they should have the same losses
--
To what extent do I agree here?
About (1) as a general statement I’d say armies, weapons and methods are factors that partially determine losses in a war. Even if they are the same there are probably other factors. And even if we include many factors the result might still not be fully determined. In mind there are many unknowns about how much each factor contributes. So would only partially agree with (1), enough not to find it impossible that results could be different.
About (2) I actually think the armies, weapons and/or methods in the different offensives under consideration are significantly different in this war. Some cases may be similar. In those cases my views on (1) may apply.
The conclusion only makes differences unreasonable if (2) hold and the factors mentioned in (1) sufficiently determine the outcome.
I’d expect therefore that in many cases the true losses might be different.
Does that reasoning make sense to you.
I’m not saying this to defend these specific numbers. Maybe they’re wrong. My best judgment of that will depend on my judgement of various sources and there we may have room for disagreement.
Maybe your argument can be used forcefully if we compare some specific offensive to another one. But in the general form it just doesn’t shift my prior beliefs very much since I already consider the possibility of differences in the situations that could explain different outcomes.
To strengthen my counter with analogy a little bit, suppose you have two football teams. They have the same number of players playing in a professional league the same shoes the same game strategy.
Yet one of the teams let’s in 3 goals and the other team 1. It doesn’t seem impossible to explain that. Either with differences we didn’t consider here and in addition to that simple variance. And after all things like that does happen doesn’t it.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow i dont read this
Too short, would watch a longer and more detailed version :)
I have a question. Do the crews killed in tanks or other vehicles count as loss of manpower?
absolutely
Why wouldn’t they?
Those losses would be reflected in human casualty statistics, though it should be noted that this video focuses exclusively on equipment losses
Imagine using oryx as your source 💀
_"We are very very lucky that they are so f*cking stupid."_
- Ukrainian soldier on the front in late 2022.
Funny enough Ukrainians do indeed have the lowest average iq according to several sources. By those they have an average IQ of around 91/92, Russia is with somewhat between 95 and 97 slightly underneath European average.
Highest average IQ in Europe is in Belarus I believe
@awesomeguy2689 Yeah, stupid implies Russians can learn. Mentally Disabled is the correct term.
@@awesomeguy2689 Source: _"Bro trust me, I watch Zigger propaganda."_
@@carlbruh6059 Who is losing more and more territory and sacrificing more and more men for failed assaults again as we speak?
_Right._
@@awesomeguy2689 >Using the word Russophobe unironically
Do you at least get paid the necessary Rubles for these low effort posts, Rashya, or are you so patriotic that you're doing it for free?
Can you do documentaries about wars in Syria and Iraq?
so what's the complete body count?
Very informative video
Not. Why do you believe that?
@@user-ef5bl8ss3o whats the truth ? Can you share ?
The main source seems to be Oryx and here is the problem, it has heavy flaws in its calculations. Once, the channel Weeb Union showed that in a very accurate way. It also completly believes the claims of the ukranian MoD, which is absolutly bogus in many occasions, making this video unfortunatly worth absolutly nothing. .
Oryx doesn't use MOD numbers
@@sababugs1125 True, but i said the REPORT here uses Oryx as main source and believes in the numbers of the ukranian MoD
funnily enough the most viewed section of the video isn't the tldr section, which surprises me. But regardless, great video
Hey , Eastory , i have an idea , you can start covering ww1
Did ukraine use that abandoned equipment?
yes
Yes but probably not all cause they lack of soviet era ammunition, that's good to capture tanks but to sue them you need the ammo for them... There's only one factory in Bulagaria that produce such ammo in EU/nato. Aleady last summer Ukraine put artillery piece in storage because no more soviet era shells...
Why was there no surge in Ukrainian losses during their recent offensive?
GIGO- Garbage in, garbage out.
Because Ukraine has virtually no military equipment left, and there are not enough supplies of Western equipment. Ukrainians compensate for losses in equipment with colossal losses of personnel.
There are three reasons:
1. Russians have an insufficient supply of high-precision energy systems;
2. The approach is to reduce spillage through constructive advantages;
3. Ukraine advances in small tactical groups, but does not always rely on the importance of technology as a means of fire support. More often - mortars, artillery and drones
Because ukraine has a low ratio of equipment per soldier, russia has a high one.
Greetings from Ukraine! We are here! Thank you for all support!
just found your chanel and you sound exactly like one of the guys from shulkercraft
Next, an update on the Russia-Ukraine war map for the period February 2022 to December 2023
sources
>oryx
>liveuamap
Ok, so none.
Found History Legends viewer.
@@numa418 Found a moron that thinks a war is a football match.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Even in Universities they wouldn’t allow one to use those as sources. And certainly not in the military- and I am a retired military officer. So again, what is your reliable source of information, I.e. one active duty military officers would rely on?
where is the artillery? where is the infantry fighting vehicle?
Great work! But there are some questions. If Ukraine faces such a small amount of losses and casualties than why is it demand new technique and recruit more than 6 wawes of mobilization? Secondly it has never been a secret that offensive side struggles much more than defensive one. Thats why I sincerely admire ukrainian commanders. Best counter offensive of the human being. But why were they fired this autumn, cant get it.
There is a massive fight insude Kiev one faction wants to retake Crimea one thinks a compromise should be sought before they end up in a worse position. The former are politicians whose wives, kids live abroad ..the latter, military, who have sons in the armed forces.
Info about 6 waves of mobilisation?
@@sircatangry5864By August 2023 (according to a Ukrainian source anyway and that's right after the counteroffensive) there have been announced to be 4 mobilization waves, with 2-3 currently active at that time. Russia, at the time, was not activating it's second mobilization to this day. Take into account the equipment losses with personnel casualties (MIA, KIA and the POWs, I won't count the wounded since these mostly go on the front as well) and the fact that overall Ukraine is a much smaller country, the numbers add up, and you actually have to feed and pay those troops out of pocket, both their economy and population is not likely to make it through 2024-2025 if Russia DOES mobilize.
If there haven't been 6 mobilisations yet, I'd say they are at least planned if Ukraine wishes to stay in the conflict.
@@Yanramich Source? Those are only words.
@@sircatangry5864 I don't fucking know, wikipedia? There have been 6 waves there for 90 days each, 2 in 2022, 4 in 2023, with the last one still ongoing until 2 weeks later from now in 2024.
Why are you asking me for a source if you haven't even bothered to look it up?
At 0:50 you make an error in claiming there was a major balance of power favoring Russia. I don't think the balance of power initially was that much different, considering Russia's invading infantry force was LESS than what Ukraine had fielded and could muster within short notice. That is a significant discrepancy, especially for an attacking force on a front paralleled in size to the eastern front in WW2.
the difference was in equipment, Ukraine did not have the weaponry to fully equip it's army, Russia had an enormous store of equipment. However, Russian equipment losses were also enormous and Ukraine was bolstered by weapons packages from its allies, which is why the numbers evened out.
Russia had an Air Force and Navy while Ukraine didn’t
@@tristanfaulkner6003 The equipment advantage is immense I agree. What I'm saying is that on the contrary the fact that if you're an attacking force and you somehow decide to invade a technologically equal, numerically superior force that also possesses the ability to rapidly mobilize, then you don't have such an overwhelming advantage as this video claims.
Ukraine and Russia had a similar number of troops, but Ukraine's troops weren't just fighting. Many were national guard, training, maintaining stuff, guarding bases in areas no where near combat, etc. They also had to do logistics over the span of the entire country. Russia's forces had two jobs. Fight, and move supplies over 20km. There were no units in training, no guards, no national guard, and all were prepared. The vast majority of the logistics were done by units not a part of the ~250k initial formations.
@@tristanfaulkner6003😂lol Ukraine aredy get 2000 new equipment
Eastory casually dropping a video
Thoughts on the scale of casualties in this war versus previous wars? It all seems drastically scaled down.
When he says casualty, he does not mean a human life, but he is exclusively talking about materiel lost. Vehicles and that sort of stuff. I never heard anyone call those casualties but he does.
Yeah, sorry, but this video is clearly biased with pro ukrainian sources, you're ignoring the tons of ukrainian losses during their failed counteroffensive, after sept. 2022 the ukranians had more losses than the russians
He’s literally saying during the offensive they were still losing less vehicles than the Russians which makes absolutely no sense because the Russians had absolutely every advantage and that offensive. Prepare defensive position, AirPower advantage, more or less manpower parity, and artillery superiority and fire control. Theirs no way in hell the Russians lost more than the Ukrainians it’s just numerically impossible especially with the fact they’ll see the Ukrainians first because they are the ones defending.
Exatcly@@mattbanco4406
Russians are good liars, Ukrainians are great warriors. Thats why Russians didnt take over Ukraine, thats why there are pro Russians.
-Mcdonalds or something
all depends if you're taking casualty numbers from russian or ukrainian sources. For obvious reasons it's going to be biased between each side
These are visually confirmed losses and there is no bias in visually confirmed losses.
@@SturmMedikhow many of those tanks have been repaired and sent back again do you count them as losses again
Appreciate you analysis and work to create this and other videos but we will see the truth next few months.
Solid work! A rare overview over the whole of the war 👍
WW1 Western Front also had the most losses during 1914 and 1918, the beginning and end phases of their war. With lower casualties during 1915, 1916 and 1917, even if some of the best known battles (like the battle of Verdun) happened in this period.
I'm seeing similarities with Ukraine-Russia.
This video will age poorly.
I'll be back once the war ends.
Or this video will age like a fine wine
We can estimate casualty and equipment loss figured based off estimates from satiate footage of infantry numbers, artillery shell estimates, drone number estimates, and presence of armored vehicles
My guess is that due to ukraine have proportionally fewer armored vehicles and artillery, they supplement their combat capabilities with infantry, leading to lower equipment losses but higher casualty figures.
You can't simply trust either sides reports, but you can use indirect figures to project what is happening
Where are you getting your data> They are not verifiable or realistic, 6:32
Very interesting. But, what is the source of the lost equipment numbers?
Listed in description.
ukropedia
@@Chaldon-hl6yk Massive cope orc bot
@@rangodenalo6185 yeah, oryx. But right now oryx is pretty discredited.
@@lisakeitel3957 Source ?
Riiiight... Ukrainians did not have a spike of losses when they've gone into the offensive, that was cooking for a year and lasted for 4 months. They only lost 60 pieces of equipment.
Why? Well, because they are immortal elves with magic nato equipment.
They change to small infantry tactics when the first mechanized offensive failed. where is the footage of loses if they didn't?
@@numa418 The Russians launch 100 500 kilogram guided missiles per day alone.
Do the videos on the osint show the number of losses after such arrivals?
ty
best mapper on yt
¿Cómo el número de unidades afecta el radio de bajas?
Прямо пропорционально, ибо голую пехоту в бой ни та ни другая сторона не посылает
so you are saying that even when Ukraine was on offensive they had astounding 2 times less casualties then russian military which had more and better tanks, more artillery, more MLRS, more airplanes, better SAMs, same if not more drones, cruise missiles, ships,....
the only way this could make sense is if half of the Ukranian military is as trained as US Delta forces or British SAS, even then without air support or artillery they would be fucked
all NATO or USA operation are done within the reach of extensive air support and constant presence of air planes, which is the reason why Ukraine counter offensive failed even the new batch of soldiers who are trained by NATO failed to achieve their goals because achieving their mission is not possible without constant air support
As a Slovak who has lived all his life in Eastern Europe and knows the local mentality, I can confirm that lying is the basis of every Soviet citizen. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Ukrainians were to drive the destroyed Russian tanks on heavy tractors to random places in order to increase their "confirmed losses" on sites like Oryx. Technically and mathematically, their data do not make sense. As you write, only an army with absolute air supremacy could have such good statistics.
lmao this whole comment is pure propograda. russia does not have more/better tanks, they do not have more artillery, they do not have better SAMs, they do not have more drones, cruise missile attacks dropped massively during the offensive due to lack of ammo.
Only think they have is more airplanes and more MLRS. Obviously with such a material disadvantage they were going to take higher attrition.
I saw a video where a leopard 2 was destroyed by a drone and they said the Russian tank was destroyed😂
the data is from all the front, Russians continued to lose equipment in the ratio of about 3 to 1 in other areas while in the offensive zone it was 1/1
@@MaddoScientisto-fb3kb do you understand what it takes to have 3 to 1 ratio in a war where both militaries have good equipment and in large number of it.
Russians have to be so bad that even ISIS flipflop soldiers would be impress by it.
in order to constantly lose 3x more soldiers then ukraine while having more of everything and in larger number of it, and on top of that russian tanks and other military equipment are better or at leas the same as ukranian
the only advantage that Ukraine have is the number of soldiers, at one point Ukraine had 3 times more soldiers then Russia in combat
i m not saying it isn't possible but i would like to see the result after the war from multiple sources
I think this data is useful, but it requires a lot more context to give much insight into how the war progressed. There's so many possible explanations for changes in absolute and relative equipment losses - different terrains, different supply situations, different tactics, different operational phases, different anti-air or anti-missile measures, different equipment mixes in the forces etc etc etc.
On it's own, I just don't think that graph is helpful.
The answer is simple, better defensive weapons. At the beginning of their counteroffensive in Zaporizhia, Ukraine used leopards and Bradleys, good western stuff and all lay waisted in the fields. Then they realized it was impossible and they changed to infantry tactics, it was when they made minimal gains with huge infantry loses, then they called the counter offensive off. I still see from time to time Russian armored columns, looks like they haven't learn.
Russia goes in offensive - have more vehicles lost. Ukraine goes in offensive - Russia have more vehicles lost 😂
Tactics, heard of it?
@@YOUPIMatin123 Bias reports, heard of it?
@@YOUPIMatin123 yeah it’s called a minefield the size of Florida it’s numerically impossible for the Ukrainians to be doing more damage to the Russians than the other way around especially when the Russians have advantage in every single metric in the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The Russians had prepared defenses complete with fortifications, they were reacting to Ukrainian moves which means the preserve more forces because they see the enemy coming first because they are on the defensive. The Russians also have artillery and air superiority the volume of fire the Russians give off is far more than Ukraine can dish out. There’s no way the Ukrainians were losing less on the attack with a disadvantage in every single way like make t make sense
@mattbanco4406 so why hasn't russia been able to take a single town since bakhmut? Can't believe we used to think of them as a great power 😂
@@tylerw6438 crying will not help you or change the fact that Ukraine is crumbling
The equipment losses are quite well documented.
Casualties of soldiers might show a different balance, which we are not really able to work out.
If a piece of equipment is captured, it actually means it would be a gain for the other side. If you would apply this calculus, Ukraine's losses at some point would be even negative...
Not every Vehicle captured can be used. Its likely that most of these are used for Spare Parts
The ukrainians ones are not. The every single russian loss has been since the start. However the russians didnt really began to boast of destoryed enemy equipment untill weeks after the conflict had begun, that means that initial gap of 2000 piece of equipment isnt really real and that ukriane has lost a lot more equipment than we know.
Thank you for correct pronounciation of Kyiv
well, according to this video and stats in it, I would assume Ukraine conflict will be at least 5+ years conflict since today (so 7+). I have doubts about that, but we will see
miss your old vids
Losing equipment is fine, but life is more important than equipment.
Equipment is life.
Only on Romantic Narratives, not on Pragmatism and objectives.
The main role of the AFVs was always to protect lives. Losing more equipment than the other side is a sign of higher attrition and a risk of higher carelessness of human lives.
@@georgecostan3248 A Romantic hahaha The role of the Military is to kill and Win. Everything else is for civilians like you to romanticize.
Not for russians 🙂
The thing is, some of the biggest sources for equipment losses are unabashedly pro Ukrainian and will claim that 5 russian tanks have been destroyed without proof from pics, videos, geolocation, serial numbers or any proof. I found a video talking in depth about how the biggest sauce for equipment losses constantly does this and gets away with it.
I thought this was the Italy video😢
If the curve were true, Ukraine had won already.
No. Russia still has thousands of vehicles in reserve. But the quality of the Russian army equipment is in fact, dropping.
@@madisondines7441 and the quality of Ukrainian troops is growing? :)
Especially after the failed publicized counter-offensive, which involved the most selected units trained according to NATO standards.
Why is there no video about this fail? Is our channel author biased? :)
@@Arwiden yes, actually. On the balance,ore are being trained than becoming casualties.
I don't buy this. Especially during great Ukrainian offensive near Roborine Ukrainians had more losses then Russians.
Actually that's not true. With satellite images the picture becomes more clear. Ukraine doesn't post trophy videos of that area because of security reasons. All we have in the public video sphere is from Russia. Russia never admits their own casualties, so it requires OSINT to see the full picture.
@@madisondines7441 This is one sided video. Not objective at all.
@@2004milten claiming that something isn't true because you don't want it to be is called delusion. The OSINT professionals literally post their satellite images for you to reference.
@@madisondines7441 Then these "profesionals" are clearly not profesionals after all. There should be a spike in Ukrainian loses after begining of summer ofensive and Rabotino, and on this video I dont see one. This is not objective and one sided story.
@@2004milten there is one my dude. Their loss rate about doubled before it subsided. Go towards the back half of the video, you'll find it.
Hell yeaaaa NEW EASTORY VIDEOOOO 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
The disappearance of the Nova Kakhovka dam @9:20 💀
It would be interesting to overlay this graph with events of significance. Like how the Ukranians broke all the river crossings to kherson, starved them out for a while, and then a heavy push. The retreating russians could not take their equipment with them. Or when a field general gets fire/replaced, things like that. It would be interesting to know which tactics had a significant impact on russian equipment losses due to bad supply infrastructure
are you confusing kherson with kharkiv?
The Kherson Retreat was very well-done and coordinated; there were minimal equipment lost. However there was no kharkiv withdrawal; they were routed by the Ukrainians in a very , very successful counter-offensive operation which the russians did lose a lot of equipment.
The kherson was a very successful retreat (minimal equipment lost) compared to the devastating kharkiv "retreat"
What had bad impact on Russians at early invasion was 5000 NLAW, hundreds of Javelins + Bayratkar drones. The other Blow was Kharkiv offensive where they flee while abandonning alot of equipment and ammo. Kherson offesnive was a good retreat in order for Russians.
When the Ukrainians recaptured Kherson, Russia didn't lose that much equipment. There were Russian Paras present and I remember vividly seeing dozens of videos of them using kornet ATGM's against Ukrainian collums. Ukrainian armoured losses were horrendous for that advance, still worth it though as they recaptured a tonne of land.
What do you consider to be "equipment" because the losses especially for the Russian's seem unreasonably high especially during periods of time where not much fighting was going on. If your including things such as drones, then that could explain how so much equipment was lost.
The losses are actually unreasonably low. He’s using Oryx data which requires photo documentation for losses. “Equipment” in this sense refers to tanks, vehicles, artillery, aircraft, helicopters, AA, construction equipment for building defenses ect.
Why do you think the numbers are unreasonably high? This is a high-intensity war between two modern armies.
A bit sus how Ukraine never atcsny stage has more losses than Russia. Lol.
@@100lanceyI don't think you understand how open source intelligence works..... or what it is.
@@firebird4491 unreasonably high for Russians.
The aggressor is unable to punch through. However they have been able to build obstacles. What does this tell, Ukraine is more vigilant to win, Russia moral is off. This is not a castle siege, so there is no "loss for the defenders as time goes by". For the offender ? They do lose will to fight!
When you have few to loose you loose fewer. Simple logic.
Yes! Eastory made another video!
So let me get this straight, Russia attacks and they lose more equipment but if Ukraine attacks they still lose less? No defender advantage?
Literally every war Russia ever fought against any western country, offensive or defensive.
This is pure propaganda! Of course they lost more equipment then Russia
@@Andre-by4suespecially Kursk they lost more than double the German casualties on the frickin defense
Yeah not to mention Russian trench network was far better than Ukraine's especially mine field which was 20× denser in some areas if compared to world war 2 . I definitely think Ukrainian are doing exceptional till now but I don't trust these loss ratios sounds sus
@@shivanshna7618 not mentioning their huge artillery advantage
That Russia should have listened to me and responded as requested.
Archangel Michael
Can you do on Israel and Gaza??
😂😂😂 no insight.. just a bar graph and words. A waste of a video. You also have to account on the ukraine laws. You can't report on the war in a fair manner.
Excellent. Well done
The numbers can't possibly be right given the losses. The leaked Pentagon documents showed a kill ratio of 1 to 7 in Russian favor. It was the Pentagon's estimates and is explained by the fact that Russia has 5-10 times more artillery and that upwards of 80% fall from just artillery.
There are usually leaks in the Pentagon when the politicians lie so much that the data collectors have had enough. The analogy has happened several times, the first one I remember was from the Vietnam War when the military lied so that it would sound so good that they would get a lot more resources to end the war, when the reality was the opposite.