i just want to say the RUclips algorithm somehow always delivers your video really early to me through the random recommendation feed for example, i saw this video 24 minutes after you uploaded
As someone who spent a few years as an army driver's training instructor, the first thing I told my soldiers was "These vehicles are built for offroad performance and combat capability. Crew safety isn't even a factor in their design. Keep that in mind when you're driving."
I should clarify I told them "crew safety in event of a crash" not crew safety in entirety. Obviously crew survivability in event of mine, IED, or ambush is a factor in design, just not highway crashes.
Yeah. Same reason why Chinook helicopters cannot be used for transport (of people) by civilian operators and can only be used for cargo service. They do not meet civilian standards for transport helicopters in the event of a crash.
@@OmrifereVery true. AFVs, IFVs and ARVs were simply not built for that. When you design them to take enemy fire and still keep operating, things like seatbelts and crumple zones in the event of a crash are simply not considered. As an operator and mechanic, this is somewhat concerning in peacetime, when accidents are likely, but in wartime, it puts me at ease.
@@davebaton8879 isn't the Boeing 234 a civilian Chinook? But I know what you're saying, it's been fitted out to meet civillian passenger safety standards. Which is very different from military personnel standards.
@@NMJZ Surely they could be fitted out with suitable seating and harnesses to make them safer when cruising... You just wouldn't wear them in the conflict zone. But I guess it's not a priority.
I think the Ukrainian War casualties actually highlight how critical air superiority is. The war would have gone much differently had one side achieved air superiority.
Yes and Also sometimes due to the lack of air superiority casualties cannot be evacuated until dark, that increases the number massively Edit: it is sop of the Ukrainian armed forces to only evacuate casualties at night. Only volunteers do it during the day
I think that's only somewhat true. If the west had provided the same military aid a year earlier, Russians would not have had the time to dig in. That alone would almost certainly have made things much easier for Ukraine, even without air superiority. Now that Russians are firmly entrenched, I don't think air superiority will change the front lines. Air superiority will make it less costly to defend Ukrainian lines, but IMHO not more. Aircraft don't help Ukraine get rid of mines, nor do they allow troop formations to msnruver without being spotted by drones, which are the main problems. IMHO the air superiority narrative is just the next iteration of the west looking for a silver bullet. It doesn't exist. We wasted the opportunity to win this cheaply. We were too hesitant. Now it will require an overwhelming mass assault and mine clearing and anti-drone tech that doesn't yet exist.
@@a5centin a conventional war no amount of entrenchment is going to save you from a smart bomb. Russian artillery can't be used if it is getting bombed. In modern conventional war air superiority is a sliver bullet
@@a5cent doesn't it feel like the aid for Ukraine was deliberately delayed? US intelligence kept taps on the situation in the region since the attack in 2014 and they were well aware Putin will try to attack Ukraine again. Hence US even warned Ukrainian administration about a year or 2 before invasion about increased activity of Russia around the border. It's all strange, there was a time even during the first stage of the invasion when this war all out war could been averted all it would take would be receiving aid quick enough in form of artillery able to pentrate deep into Russian territory to cut the supply chain what would Grant Ukrainian forces some breathing room.
@@JoeLaFon3 true. I've been to 3 different wars in my time in the military.. . wouldn't wish it on anyone. The worst part is that none of the wars I was deployed to had a justified reason.
My Ex's brother actually died on an aircraft carrier during an accident on the deck -- was really sad. The service and memorials and all were really nice.
the navy seal situation happens so much more often than you think. I have 4 friends who dropped from buds who rerated to my rate. They tell me all the time how there is a huge culture of just ignoring your sickness and pain because it’s manly or whatever to the point where major injuries such as salmonella or a heat stroke or breaking your leg in half, they just ignore and tell you you’re fine. It makes sense as they have to be some of the strongest elite sailors in the world, but it is quite sad.
I don't believe it's about being manly or macho at all. It's about surviving and pushing through some horrible things to get out on the other side--or to save others. If they gave up because it hurts or they didn't feel good or it's cold, then there's a good chance someone's not coming home alive. That's the sad truth about it. Also, the human brain and body are a lot more resilient than people give it credit. There's a lot of pain and things your body will actively ignore just to keep you alive as it focuses on more important problems.
@@nightjarflying That's why we all have to take responsibility for our mental health... Because others, or the government won't. We gotta do healthy activities, visit therapists etc. No one else is going to do it for us.
In my experience, all front line combat jobs have this culture. You go until you become immobilized from broken bones, being a heat causality or your body shutting down on you for any other reason. Doesn't matter if you're legitimately injured, if you quit before your body does you are viewed as weak by your peers and ostracized. There are very few exceptions to this, seeking treatment is almost always interpreted as trying to get out of work and to avoid sharing the load with the group. Not healthy at all, but the social pressure does drive performance far beyond what you think you're capable of.
just a note; How many times the Osprey or AH-60 crashed in a year is meaningless without normalizing for amount of flight hours, or sorties or whatever else. If one flew 10s as much the comparison can be misleading. I'm not worried about this specific comparison but just in general. good vid though :)
Yep, per flight hour you're about 50% more likely to die on a 60 than a 22. Really a shame the Osprey has such a bad reputation when its actually safer and more reliable than the "venerable" blackhawk
Just to be pedantic, I've always thought the number of hours (whether it's pilot or aircraft) is not such a great metric as it's mostly the bits at the beginning and end of a flight that matter the most, both in terms of stress on the aircraft, and skill needed by the crew. For instance, flight hours on long haul flights will be larger than short haul but the short haul flights will have done many more take offs and landings even though with much lower flight time. For instance, flying in a straight line on autopilot is not the same risk as continually taking off and landing. Driving a car in cruise control for miles on a highway will not be the same as driving a taxi around town. Just another parameter to throw into the equation. There are plenty more I can think of. Straight comparisons are often comparing apples with oranges. True comparisons are usually much more complex and may well involve things that have nothing directly to do with the things being compared. I know that's not helpful though.
I feel like the Rus-Ukr war is running into a similar issue seen in WW1. Technology has surpassed tactics. I think tactics will eventually catch up just like they did after WW1. It would be a good idea for other nations to run war games and try to figure out which tactics neutralize the technological advantage
We already know what the shortcoming is: its SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), which is a capability neither side really practices. Ukraine simply lacks the planes that can do this (until they get F16s) whereas Russia hardly trains for it. Without air support, you can't make offensives. Neither side has the tools to meaningfully destroy enemy air defense and let the planes support the troops. Ukraine was denied SEAD capable planes before their offensive and as a result their last offensive has only seen small gains. You simply cannot assault dug-in mined positions without air coverage.
I think tactics will always be the most dynamic and important element of any war or battle. It can temporarily be overcome with technology, but good tactics will eventually, in most cases, beat technology. I think, for this reason, we have to protect our ability to communicate (and this include communication technology) and focus training on tactics on all levels so no matter the threat, decisions can be made to overcome it, even if those decisions are tactical retreats. A good example of tactics > technology was Vietnam. We were far superior technologically, but we couldn’t adjust fast enough to fight guerrilla warfare. Not to mention, the heart of tactics, the end goal, was almost non existent. “Winning” is hardly a real goal since what defines winning wasn’t really defined in that war, or if it was, it wasn’t communicated to the troops except, “were fighting commies!” Idk, there’s so much to this, but fact is, we can’t rely on technology above tactics or we’ll fail. If we have good tactics, good technology will be a great tool to help make better tactics. Technology is a tool of tactics.
L@@nicholasdominguez3952You also can't go gung-ho with F-16s or any aircraft when every aforementioned dug in mined position could potentially have MANPADS.
ukraine uses much more technology than russia in the war, well, at least they don't send meat waves of soldiers over and over again, also they are training with western tactics since 2014, so at least they have better tactics than russia
@@vilian9185 I agree. And good thing too. With Russia having greater numbers, Ukraine needs better tactics and technology to defend themselves. Although if these casualty numbers are correct, Ukraine will need to improve its situation quick or they won’t have enough people to use the technology or tactics to win.
I agree. Wish they had a “citizen life” boot camp at the end of service to mentally prepare them for the challenges of post military and even the challenges of normal life. Funny how so many organizations focus so much on preparing you for what you’ll experience inside of it, but when the time is done there is zero prep for leaving it.
This is a bullshit line people use to feign how much they care about homeless veterans. The truth is that a lot of people join the military for their life already being pretty hopeless, they have no family support, and they are often not very intelligent. For such people the military is a good means to postpone their struggles, but the military is never going to make them able to live in the real world.
Yup, it’s the most over looked thing about veterans imo. THAT and the bullsht they have to go through when they get out with the lack of support from our government!
@@Gundumb_guy not to bag of police officers and firefighters, but in many states their benefits and retirement is way better than military personnel. Grant their jobs are risky, but military jobs are way more dangerous! It’s crazy how our country treats our veterans.
You know, this is scary.When I was younger, i used to believe, that humanity have finally reached the point, where we wouldn't kill each other in wars. And now, here i am, in the country, that started a war, where an equivalent of half of my whole city have died. Also when the war started, I thought that nobody supported it. It is shocking how many people support war. I think, like, 60% of adults and much less significant % of young people do. And I can't even tell anything to them because it is LITERALLY illegal. We have patriotic lessons ("conversations about important things") once in a week. I can't believe how much i hate, what i supposed to call my "motherland".
That’s called childish ignorance, you’ve grown up a little and see it’s not sunshine and rainbows. Shit even while you were growing up wars were happening that you just don’t know about. Nobody likes war lmfao, but good luck just walking into another country and saying you own it.
well, the no more wars thing was always based primarily on much of the world's news not reaching you. unless you're following al jazeera, there is a sort of minimum whiteness and minimum wealth level for people involved below which it's only newsworthy if there are rivers of blood. it's of course a substantially different situation, but as someone who dropped out of highschool with a s°°° diploma because I despised it and decided that I didn't want to get a certificate for performing useless tasks and displays of submission (so I started to only attend half of the time, never do homework, and tell my teachers and argue about it if they asked), I want to encourage you to play along. I only realized years later that my decision to soft-quit school had been based on flawed thinking - because I abdicated the role of arguing in favour of school to other people, and when they failed to convince me, I took that to mean that my position was correct. I neglected to really make an effort to question myself. other people and especially teachers kept trying to argue about the value of the knowledge and skills in the curriculum, when the lane they should have argued with me to convince me to make minimal effort would have been that there objectively is a lot of value in education certificates, despite them often not indicating any noteworthy knowledge or skill. you're unlikely to help anyone if you out yourself in school as subversive. even without any politics involved, almost all my teachers hated me for arguing in effect that there was little value in what they (based on the curriculum they had to follow) were teaching. many of my peers would quite transparently hold a similar view to me, but I was the only one who didn't lie to them about it, and I discovered that they really craved that lie, they would be satisfied with even very weak attempts. for example one friend of mine would do exactly the same thing every time he was asked to present homework he also almost never did: he would bend down mumbling while rifling through his bag, and hold that position to literally duck away from the attention until the teacher either called on another student, or asked again - and it worked almost every time. if he was asked a second time, he would never admit that he didn't do it, just that he couldn't find it (without actually making a claim either way about having done the homework xD). that sort of charade was strongly preferred by the teachers over my choice to just say that I didn't do my homework and had never intended to. to the best of my knowledge, in russia you need to expect at least some teachers and administrators to be keeping a list of subversive students that will end up in a police or FSB database. the more you want to say things that could get you on that list, the more of a reason you have to avoid being added to it. if you really can't stop yourself from challenging one particular issue, it is likely to make a huge difference if you pretend to hold more conformist views, and only voice very narrow disagreement while referencing other ways in which you buy into government narratives. the techers don't really have to believe that you're being honest. but if they see you refusing to play the game, THAT is going to be a problem. you should look up explanations and examples of how people used to express dissent during soviet times. you can probably find instructions that are still very applicable to russian state institutions of specific things you do and ones you do not want to be seen doing in order to give the impression that you are essentially under control.
Glad you see through it at least. Hope you're safe and not contributing to Russias military efforts in any way. Freedom for Russia, and Victory for Ukraine ❤️
Take a basic biology class, what they teach you about animals is that intraspecies (same species) competition for resources is much higher than interspecies (different species) competition. Humans like any other animals will always fight and compete against their own species because we need / want the same resources as each other. There is always a finite amount of resources / commodities, which means there will always be war and competition between arbitrary tribalist groups. This is why whenever you watch cute animal videos of different animals all getting along that naturally don't get along due to having predator / prey relations in nature, you see it only happens due to humans removing the animals need to acquire their own resources for survival. The idea that humans can all get along will never happen, because we're the highest on the food chain. We can provide for the needs of a few domesticated animals that we can keep as pets / livestock, but we can't provide for the needs of all humans. If you believe in science at all, then you should understand that the world is a zero sum game. Because the very basic laws of science is the conservation of energy, mass, matter, etc... Which states those things can't be created or destroyed. Only converted to a different form. So as the human population grows, it means the net useable resources dwindle. For instance we're stripping nutrients from the soil and converting them into humans. The more humans on earth, means we make more electronics like phones and computers that need gold / copper for circuitry. So as time goes by, fighting and war will only increase, not decrease.
There's nothing surprising about the casualty numbers, if anything I would have expected them to be higher. The USA and UK militaries were amazed at how few casualties they took in the opening stages of Gulf War 1, the US estimated over 20k US soldiers would be killed during the initial invasion.
Maybe if soldiers werent forced to fight in pointless wars as well as legitimate ones and were taken care of properly when they returned home, the US military wouldnt have recruitment issues
Or tell them to stop hating white people and embracing the woke. Veterans have been treated like shit since WW1 and we haven’t had such recruiting problems.
The trouble lies in the fact that the MANY of today’s military age males aren’t physically capable to serve and they would rather hold their hands out for free stuff while playing with the latest electronic gizmo. Service above or beyond self is a concept foreign to them. Many live for the now.
I think its understated how low the number of Killed in Combat for the US Military over the past two decades is compared to Russia over the same period of time. It truly shows how good and efficient America has gotten at waging war. HOWEVER, the worst part of this is that to achieve this efficiency, 500% more American soldiers, airman, marines, and sailors will kill themselves either by accident or intentionally. Its sad the idea that most likely the way you will die in the US Military will be by your own hand, and its just 50% coinflip that you will actually want it to happen. Myself, a vet who has been on the dark side of that coinflip and by the grace of God I survived, I can tell you the entire thing is avoidable and preventable. Unfortunatly, the military will only spend as much money as it needs to complete the mission, afterwards you're on your own. As evidenced by the homelessness epidemic that veterans have faced since Vietnam.
I am Greek reserve soldier. In Greece, it's like part of our identity to be soldiers, because the word civilian (πολίτης) and soldier (οπλίτης) are almost the same. The thing about captains is that they always have a plan, that usually doesn't care a lot about what the enemy can do. I won't say more details, but watching the videos of the operations in Ukraine, I immediately get in my mind, how that ended up like this. From the moment they got out, till they get smoked. And I am not surprised, unlike media that presents it like out of this world event. There is too much emphasis in propaganda, and the presentation is too poor. I am sad that soldiers die for this and civilians suffer. Dieing for your country, used to be an honour. People have no ethics unfortunately, these days.
OK, what is your point? From what you wrote, I get this: - You're a Greek - You think that Greeks are somehow good soldiers. Better than who? What is your opinion based on? - "captains always have a plan", whatever that means. Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. - By watching Ukraine war videos, you think you know better than them. Typical TV watching, beer drinking sports fan attitude 😅 - There's a lot of propaganda. Duh! - "people have no ethics" 🤦🏻♂️
@@JL-tm3rc It is still incorrect, russians do not have med evac and as seen in countless amount of drone footage their squads prefer to leave wounded behind to bleed out. Ukrainians have issue recovering wounded as well since a lot of first contact/line positions require traveling several miles on foot, as someone mentioned earlier their standard operating procedure is to try to retrieve wounded at night - if you are bleeding heavily or lost a limb mid day you wont make it this long on a tourniquet. You cant model this conflict based on previous conflicts.
@@dark666king That's sad bro 😭 To think that one man's desire for more land has led to these many people suffering... Hope they are in heaven... Puck Footin
1 Jungle, two balkans and 1 sandy combat tour, never stuck once! Chased by Taliban in a truck with a bunch fuel across an unmapped/uncleared desert…never stuck and telling this story Training, matters! 21 yr Canadian 🇨🇦 Veteran.
@@kazkaskazkas8689 No. Canada already left Afganistan since 2014. While they're briefly redeployed in 2021. Their mission is only evacuated Canada Citizen in Afghanistan, not to fight Taliban Again.
Don't forget about the recruitment problem that US is facing too. Meanwhile finding unbiased pieces is very difficult. Most of them depict Russia and China as a paper tiger, that the US is the one and only superpower and we all lived happily ever after. I am not taking a side or anything i am just saying would be nice to know what is actually going on.
- America’s been only fighting small nations and people are questioning the military’s effectiveness in an actual war - You know what’s happening to Russia in Ukraine - China is a wild card, and we don’t really know if they’re a paper tiger or serious threat
@@joohyunkyoung5905Russia and China have set up their armies to defend their homeland. The US is set up to project power. You can’t keep a population down indefinitely if they fight back against you. That is the reason the US keeps loosing.
Us war collage surprisingly does a balanced analysis on china same with the “ex- cia” guy, also they dont associate hong kong to be equivilent to taiwan, hong kong never had democracy under the British and they even pointed it out in the video
Fact is that "western" society basically chilled their balls after cold war and thought that after the time around 1990 global piece between all nations had been achieved. That china or Russia still had the desire for revenge or at least wanting to rival the west in aspects like economy or global influence and power wasn't even considered. We thought that just signing treaties and agreements with them would be sufficient to contain any potential futuristic threat. Now, Russia has and china is starting to show the world what they have been working on the past decades and if the west doesn't respond appropriately it is a good question if the "West" is able to retain its global dominance. If you are still not convinced just look towards africa and how Rus and Ch have been quietly starting to influence countries there, further strengthening their foothold as an international power without the west realizing the potential threat this can have in the future
One thing to remember is that different armies have different standards of safety for personnel, just a little example : in the French Air Force (Armée de l'air) and French Navy (aéronavale) every aircraft is certified for navigability, meaning strict levels of flight safety, to ensure safer operations for the personnel and the civilians. When we upgraded our MQ9 reapers to the latest standard, we had to redo the whole certification as the US doesn't bother with such safety requirements for military devices
@@thomaslove6494In all seriousness though, France does have one of the best militaries in the world. Lucky bastards also get better food on their ships
@@armorhide406yeah people give them a lot of crap and think they are all hopeless cause of ww2 but that just shows how ignorant they are in the first place if they think that they have been one of the better army’s in the world for a long long time
An interesting statistic is that despite accident related deaths being the most common way to die in the military. The military has a lower fatal accident rate than the civilian sector, at 1.3 fatalities per 100,000 individuals. Compare that to the civilian sector, with 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people.
would love it if you share your sources. You say "estimates show" ,"researchers say" but dont show any source. I am not calling you wrong though would love to see source material
It’s hard when we have countless mutual defense treaties with countries all over the world, and on top of that hellbent on protecting the petrodollar. I think George Washington said something about foreign policy in his farewell address
Well unfortunately if you want to lead the largest defensive alliance in the world: NATO, you need to be an active participant You can't just form NATO on a piece of paper and then keep all soldiers strictly within your own borders and think that's enough of a deterrent, because it isn't you will need to be proactively involved in each of the interests of each member nation as they will not always get along with each other and they might even attack each other like Turkey and Greece Being a part of the globalized world means you have to actively participate because if you don't there will always be someone else who will as nature abhors a vacuum and the strong leader position will be filled by someone
Please try to minimise Ukrainian casualties brother.. Ukraine can receive endless supply of equipment, but manpower, every man on the Ukrainian frontline is priceless. 🙏 God be with Ukraine
I served in a British army tank regiment, those tanks are designed to kill and they don't care if it's you or the enemy. Get your maintenance wrong and you're going to lose some weight, it may just be a few fingers but it could be a lot more and sometimes it's your life. Injuries and death on training exercises aren't that uncommon either, it's a hard life and if you lost concentration you may end up as a statistic but with poor training the numbers can go up quickly. The Russian troops don't seem to be that well trained and the kit doesn't seem to be well maintained, add to that being tired and working in poor conditions, I would imagine that they've lost a lot of people in accidents.
About 85% of deployment casualties and deaths are DNBI. Disease and Non Battle Injuries. I flew military Critical Care Life Flight, stabilizing and transporting critically ill patients, mainly military members. Very few were combat related. Most were illnesses from infection or diseases; injuries from ground and air crashes.
As a Ukrainian, I am grateful for toned-down narration. We'll hold, we'll win, but the price really is horrible already. Everyone has someone valuable or relatives lost there.
For the much of human civilisation, the biggest killer of soldiers in war was disease, followed by environmental factors like freezing and heat, and starvation. Not unusual for more than half the army to die or desert while on march before they even reach the battlefield and less than 10% of casualties in a given campaign or war to be from any actual fighting. Only in last century or so did this begin to shift.
Yep. The turn around is relatively recent. WW1 then WW2. The speed of casualty evacuation has helped enormously as well as improvements in treatment. Compare the deaths of the Crimea war with 100 years later and the situations are totally reversed in terms of (military) deaths from combat or disease. Florence Nightingale was a nurse but, more importantly, also a statistician, and her stats on how people were dying totally revolutionized the focus.
Exactly what you say is documented true - in the Crimean war, 10000 soldiers died of dysentary before the first major battle, and it wasnt particularly a thing of importance but was accepted as a foregone conclusion as unavoidable (espeacially in the ranks as officers quarters were separate)
Imagine volunteering into Navy, thinking it saves you from meat grinder because now you have special skill as seamen, only to have your entire ship complements pushed into naval infantry😅.
Here's an idea for conscription: In addition to congressional approval have a referendum on it BUT only the people who are eligible for conscription get to vote on it. It'd avoid the issue to old people sending young people to die for nothing.
Real balance of conscripts vs volunteers may not be accurate as most of volunteers preferred to be mobilised instead of signing a contract. This is considered more safe practice from legal point of view.
I remember a story that someone told me many years ago. When people are frequently being stung by bees from one of his beehives, the beekeeper simply removes the queen for another less aggressive one. I think World War 11 would not have happened if this had been done in Germany.
Speaking as a collective of examples in history the highest death toll comes from following poor commands, strategies and decisions from high ranking officers who only got their position through being upper class, privately educated and involved in special interest groups of the aristocracy
I thought that the invading forces was said to be near 200 thousands and the New recruits were about 300 000 if all Russian soldiers that died are 315 thousands or 450 as Ukraine claims what can't they Win over the remaining 50 thousands?
That's not how it works, invasion force was of 200.000, but Russia mobilized 300.000 extra men to the frontlines, covering losses and generating New forces, after that Russia did other 2 mobilisations, another of 300.000 and one pf 200.000 (i'm not counting the 147.000 who are normally conscripted every 6 months in Russia). So, it's à mobilized force of 800.000 men +200.000 already in the front in the beguining of the war. Today, all estimations points that between 400.000-450.000 russian soldiers are in the frontline today. The numbers makes sense, casualties May turn between 300.000-500.000
@@Dylan-pj7rvRussia have only ONE mobilization! Because i live here and know better. Invading force was 150.000, mobilization was 350.000 and other 200.000 is volontueers, who sign up contract because of huge payment. Thats all. Dont spread misinformation!
I used to be a conscript in the army. Due to the war we only received 4 months of training instead of 6 months required. But we were lucky. The guys that were conscripted right after us had only 3 months of training. We were noticably less qualified than the guys who got a 6 months Training. But those who were trained for 3 months were outright unworthy. They have caused an incident which has significantly damaged an APC sending it to repairs and killed one private. They forgot the barrel cleaning equipment inside the 30mm cannon barrel before firing an HE round. explosion, gun operator was wounded, died before the arrival of the medics.and another incident where A BMP drove over a soldier. And another one where a BMP rolled over, luckily no casualties, minor equipment damage.
Examples of casualties/dead are realistic for Navy Seals ; selection/training is for best mental/physicsl characters, But accidents that USA American life style produces are in an ENTIRELY different category!,
The US 20 year war in Afghanistan wouldn't have lasted so long if there was a draft, that is why the US stopped it. Only 3% of the US population had skin in the game so it was easy to keep the war out of the public's attention. With an active draft that 3% goes to 90+% and that overmatches the US Military Industrial Complex!
no one wants to be in the army., the us missed recruitment by tens of thousands. if theres an unpopular war, that recruitment would dry up. No one in america wants to fight the russians or chinese.
I still think that the US military decided that we draftees were such a pain in the butt that they never wanted to see another one of us again. They gave us the mandatory re-up lecture as part of our separation. It lasted 2 seconds. They didn't want us to re-up and we wanted to get the hell away from them as quickly as possible. All they'd managed to do was convince us that they were incompetent and useless.
One of the big issues i see with the calculations on casualty numbers is that it does not seem to take into account that in ukraine neither side has air supiriority which world really help mitigate casualties on the side that has it.
Casualties in total war were always awful, the change is the size of the available personals because of bigger population, in theory in total war between China and India each army would have at list 100M available people
@@Av8B-HarrierGGestimates must be based on something. For example, Mediazona project - Russian anti-Putin media labeled as Foreign Agent by Russian authorities bases it's estimates on obituaries and inheritance legal cases for certain ages. And it's latest estimates in the late autumn of 2023 were around 75 000 KIA. Ukrainian MOD bases it's numbers of Russian losses - both human and material - on nothing, it's straight up fairytales for the media.
Common sense is when you become a soldier you are not expected to come home if you are going to fight in a foreign land, a soldier is supposed to fight and protect one’s family,home and country
People from the USA learned and discovered that if two equal armies meet, this will lead to great casualties. If the war lasts a long time, then there will be a need for mobilization. Half of the video is about non-battle casualty, and the other part is about combat losses. And the story about non-battle casualty is as if it were something amazing and incredible, but in fact it is an ordinary death, that is, he died during normal work or in an accident. It's no wonder why Americans are considered stupid and some are considered effeminate. What does it say here, in Eastern Europe they tell it in high school (Poland is the best) The contract army is good, but it is very expensive and if there is a big war, this army will quickly wear down. And here we will have to mobilize. The Conscription Army is less professional, but during peacetime it is much cheaper. Also, if there is mobilization, it will be faster and easier to train people, because they served in the army
Then better to aid Ukraine now itself. If Ukraine falls then others like china and iran will be encouraged to start wars and that will keep growing until finally the US will be involved directly at some point
I used to read books on the selection processes for top-tier services around the world - it's mind blowing reading about minds that perform what you perceive to be impossible 👍
The primary mistake done by most countries with land borders is they do not prioritize the construction of defensive fortifications across their border. Simply with the use of alone defensive fortifications, soldiers in the battlefield have high chance of survivability in defending their homeland. Hopefully, countries with land borders will start the construction of defensive fortifications within their country's border.
Fortified positions are worthless in modern warfare. It's noted on The art of war how, due to the static nature of forts, they can be ignored, bypassed, encircled and sieged in a matted of days by mobile armies or even annihilated by dirty weapons. We've seen this on napoleonic wars through mobile infantry with horses , the great war through chlorine gas, artillery and tanks, in world war two with major artillery barrages on the german festungs, or simply the bypass of maginot, leningrad forts and dozens of positions on the stalin and molotov lines. Today, with missiles, sarin gas, barely infinite artillery barrages, spy rings deeply connected on governments due to globalization, no fortified position shall be left
The battlefield of Ukraine already proved my statement. Simply the danger brought by drone technology and firepower of artillery systems already has enough reason for Ukraine to dig and fortify their position or else they will die in less than a minute.
@@mateusp.santos111 You are talking about the old trench warfare. C'mon we are in the era of 2020 onwards. Whether we agree or not, attacking a frontline fortified and supported by modern defensive fortifications, manpower, man-portable weapons, drones, artillery, mechanized support, etc is a suicide mission.
@@nieljosephpalca7849 It seems like you are presuming that other wars will end up like Russia v. Ukraine. Most won't just due to the variety of situations that can arise.
@@nieljosephpalca7849 Complete bulls*** proven by history. First, you seem to not understand how forts proved to not be a big deal in post WW1, AFTER the "old trench warfare" you say. In general, forts only work in specific situations, like against tired, inexperienced or poorly led armies, but in the best cases it stopped the invading army for a stage of the war, on a few scenarios there would be an actual victory for the defending army. - Atlantik wall, a german shore line of fortified positions from 1944 failed heavily on 4 out of the 5 main assaults, delaying only for a few days the assault of one single beach. Germans lost control of France afterwards. - Siegfried line was a german defensive line made on the 1930's and modernized in 1944 with peak technology, protecting the actual german territory after the defeat on France. The germans were outmatched because on allied air superiority and firepower. All it did was buying a few months for Germany, concrete cannot survive against actual siege weapons, sappers and constant bombing. - Maginot line was a french defensive line on the german border, it has extensive use of concrete pillboxes, underground tunnels and bunkers, but didn't see any significant battle because it was bypassed. - Molotov line was a soviet defensive line built on occupied Poland on the new german border, it failed miserably. Major sectors were overrun and encircled due to combined arms warfare agility. - Stalin line was a series of fortified lines from the baltics to black sea built from 1928 to 1939, it resulted on the encirclement of large portions of the red army due to the static nature of a fort. You find a nearby gap, take advantage of it, encircle and let them surrender to hunger like in 2022 Azovstal - German festungs were impregnable forts in and out of Germany used to delay the advancing allies, every single one of them got encircled and destroyed with heavy artillery fire. Breslau, Danzig, Brest, Budapest, Poznan, Kolberg, Konigsberg, Berlin, you know what they have on common? all of them are failed german impregnable forts. - Soviet impregnable forts, like Leningrad and Sevastopol were bypassed and encircled, although Leningrad could hold for enough time, Sevastopol fell. There were other two examples, Stalingrad (which actually fell for the german on november of 1942) and Moscow, these two examples worked for the defenders because the germans were in lower numbers, tired, out of supplies, lacked organization and stretched out, so the proper way to deal with forts, encircling it, would never happen.
About Ukraine, people seem to forget that since WW1 artillery was by far the main cause of casualties (not machineguns or anything else) and back then it was completely random fire with less powerful explosives in the shells when they landed. Even in WW2 where you would think the war was more mobile and you had tanks and more advanced infantry weapons, CAS from planes etc.. it was still artillery in 1st place. Anywhere from 50 to 75% of casualties depending on the front you consider. Fast forward to these days we have even more powerful explosive compounds than WW2 era, more guidance systems, and now drones delivering them directly on your head with not much guesswork. The human body just cannot handle that. Neither the blast nor the shrapnel. And this is only the spanish war of drones, im 100% sure we will have autonomous drone swarms you can release towards a place in a few years time.
Drones are quickly catching up with Artillery. Your comment about drone swarms is creepy. Imagine hundreds of explosive drones slamming into a base overwhelming Air Defenses.
This is why russia has almost certaniltoy less kia and wia then the ukrainians every one agrees arty causes 70-85% of casulites and both sides agree russia has a very large arty superiority
Accidents happen, stuff goes wrong, things fail, it’s unfortunate but with high risk it always comes, even in the shower you are at risk of slipping and hurting yourself
I mean let's be honest Russia might suffered high loses at the beginning of the war but currently it's ukraine being at big disadvantage There's basically no way ukraine might have 200k while russia has over 300k Yet it's also bs to say ukraine lost 50k people in summer offensive which i saw a lot lol
In my neck of the woods it’s called “bastardisation” that is making something onerous, exhausting, humiliating etc just to be a bastard, without a valid military objective. It’s cure is easy, make the “trainers” aware they will be serving in the same unit as graduates of the program, in other words, the trainers will have to depend on the students at some future time. It is the case that hubris and arrogance can cause neglect of standards and slip in standards. I was on a National Safety Council for a high risk sport for some years. The stats were consistent, the “accidents” happened to students early in their training then the next highest group to suffer “accidents” were the most highly experienced!
For a while it almost seemed like modern large-scale peer conflicts were a relic of the past. Ever since the end of the Second World War with reliance on MAD and proxy wars along with increasing globalization. Two modern militaries engaging in a direct war seemed unthinkable. Its mind blowing that we are witnessing a massive peer war in Europe with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Have the war planners considered that wars are expensive and we're bankrupt? At least that will keep the casualties down. We spent $6 trillion invading Iraq and the potential bill for taking care of the casualties for the rest of their lives is another $2 trillion. Scale that up to a high intensity war that we have to borrow money to fund when we've already borrowed more than we can ever pay back. We really need to find some other method of conducting foreign policy than buying countries off or going to war with them if they don't do what we say. We're committing suicide.
as always a good video. i definitely agree with your opinion at the end of the film, unless a third world war happens I do not see conscription happening in America again in my lifetime.
315k+ Russian KIA and WIA? Even mediazona counting hasn't reached 50k Let's say mediazona is still undercounting, even if it's 3x times, still 150k, nowhere near 315k This whole casualty list publication was started by Ukrainian MOD and other countries cite these numbers, they don't do their own calculations
A years ago Prigozhin said that Wagner suffered 20k and the Russian military 120k losses. That was a years ago already and done by a pro Russian source. In the end you can only try to calculate the losses but 50k in 2 years of intense fighting is very unlikely.
@@hikey7955but you forgot Prigozhin said Wagner troops killed 50 thousand Ukrainian soldiers 70 thousand were injured and that only happened in bakhmut source:guardian
@tekinfomedi the 120k casualties was in regards to the overall war if I remember correctly (I couldn't find the article anymore). Only for Bakhmut, as you said, he stated around 50k ukrainian and 20k Wagner casualties. The problem with these numbers is obviusly that they can't be confirmed and he isn't exaclty the most neutral person. On the one hand he will probably overstate the Ukrainian losses because he is pro-Russian afterall and will claim that his enemys suffered high losses. On the other hand he will probably overstate the Russian losses as well because he had personal problems with the russian defense minister and wants him to look bad by claiming he lost a huge amount of troops as well.
This video seems to meander without a point, just making random observations. The US/NATO would have air and sea superiority over Russia. The reason NATO didn't respond for Ukraine like it otherwise might is the nuclear weapons Russia might escalate to. The US wouldn't fight like Ukraine has to, and that's the crappy part about what they tried to get the ZSU to do. NATO would never make that kind of land offensive. There are current conflicts with higher mortality than Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ethiopia's Tigray, for example. The longer running Syrian and Yemeni wars have higher death tolls but have been running longer. My point being we are familiar with these losses when you fight without air superiority. Pleae cite a source when you say the US is considering conscription. No one is seriously talking about that and for the long-known reason you do mention at the end. What the US needs to do is improve recruitment to its all-volunteer force and it's something that is getting more attention, finally.
Calling Russia and Ukraine equal has gotta be the least expected bit of information coming from this video. Ukraine is no way near the fire power of Russia.
@@gimmethegepgunUKR received 300 thousand artillery shells for its counteroffensive and united states promises to deliver 700 thousand more so UKR has matched its calibres of ammo with Russia
@@user-et2dx5du7eits because armoured warfare has lost its meaning because today there are shaped charges that could penetrate 5000mm of steel that can be delivered by a drone so its more dependent on more powerful explosive reactive armour but not too strong that would penetrate the armour from the inside
So you are telling me the US has hundreds of amphibious tanks AND helicopters just rusting there but none of them they can give to Ukraine which IT SO HAPPENS needs aviation and amphibious tanks right now? What a sick joke.
@@Peter-jo6yu But they can dump their potentially faulty equipment onto Ukrainian battlefields and snatch this opportunity to make new ones. Who doesn't love new military manufacturing jobs?
@@Peter-jo6yuusually if they have large numbers of old vehicles like this they melt them down, dump them in the ocean, sell them to africa etc. Strategically for the US Ukraine is the best place the vehicle can be
I had a stepfather(Don Hackett from burien Washington)that was a radio man in Vietnam, heard some noises in the jungle and went on a killing spree. He came back with a purple heart but left the planet's surface with a big house full of his blood thanks to the bottle.😢
It's not surprising that the military sees high accident rates. We have the energy and risk-taking instincts of youth, hyped up, flooded with adrenaline operating powerful and demanding vehicles in unsafe conditions.
Canada's solution to this during WWII was to have conscription to units that would not be used for overseas service. Buttigieg has proposed (and perhaps has a trial program) of national service in non-military organizations. Properly managed (always a problem with large bureaucracies the US) (and perhaps Canada) could employ young people for one or two years, have cadres of young people trained with military skills, or emergency relief skills or alleviate understaffing in schools and medical facilities.
Yeah but it wasn't modern warfare between peers that killed Russian troops, it was the total incompetence of command, the structure of that command system itself, the lack of any combined arms training, integration, and experience and on and on and on. NONE of those things apply to the US military. It's the same story on sterreroids for Russian vs US (and thus NATO) logistical system.
When they tell you that casualties caused by accidents are more than the combat casualties you have to know that they are lying about combat casualties.
In the military, statistical analysis of EVERY injury is necessary on a constant ongoing basis and feedback loops instituted to give information to both the troops and the planners. Certainly designers and manufacturers of equipment should be informed of injuries involving their equipment.
In a democracy the public won't stand for high casualties and will watch the support of a war plummet if the war is taking place not on their own home soil And for the US that's a big deal because the US doesn't suffer very high casualties from conflict very often, and when they start to climb up the public gets very angry In 20 years of participation the US suffered only about 2500 casualties in Afghanistan, from a purely tactical viewpoint that's nothing less than amazing Still even that was more than enough to erode support from the public Meaning it won't take very much in casualties losses maybe 50-200 for anger to again burst forth That's a stark contrast to authoritarian regimes who will throw the lives of their soldiers away for little gains in a conflict outside of their borders
That's a disrespect with the true the western propaganda indicates more than 315.000 deaths among russian troops when Russia deployed a limites manpower and the Mediazone project sponsored by western think tanks indicate around 60.000 deaths. Meanwhile Ukraine lacks the basic to get manpower due so high losses, recruiting even women and old people. This conflict will be a tragedy for western narrative.
Did not know accidents cause more deaths then combat. I know 'friendly fire' is a big issue, but your stats show it is even more deadly than enemy fire?
Conscription makes the public more seriously consider their support for war. That is important. For example, The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were easy for people in the U.S, etc, to support- since they knew that they or their families and friends wouldn't have to fight and die if they chose not to. (It was, and is still, all to easy to be a warmongering neo-con or alt-right holy-rolling crusader if it's not your ass on the line.)
Careerist officers and non coms are constantly cutting on proper maintenance to make budgets look good. This activity causes a LOT of casualties. Everyone who matters is part of what has become a kind of a conspiracy.
something most people don't understand - "casualty" does **NOT** mean DEATH. get the figures for DEATHS and in many cases - especially U.S., the figures are surprisingly low.
I've got to known many Ukrainians that are affected by the war and witnessed first hand, how a Family lost it's father, while he was fighting and they got refuge here in Switzerland. Since this moment, I can't play Shooters anymore. The cry of the mother and children really went through my bones... And this was one loss. To imagine hundreds of thousands already died in that war is beyond my comprehension.
Future of war's going to be remotely controlled machines fighting each other. But the problem with a 'remote pilot' is going to be interruption of wireless signals. So next step is going from 'enemy identification' to fully AI powered automatic targeting and trigger, so you can send a drone in to automatically target enemies and the enemy having drones that automatically return fire. You simply cannot put a platoon of people against a platoon of remotely operated drones and expect a decent outcome.
To call this war approx even is completely wrong. Yes, Russia and Ukraine are sustaining comparable losses, but that isn’t putting in the fact that Russia has more income, men, and money. Almost all the effective combat vehicles currently in Ukraine have been supplied by nato, while the smechalca vehicles have been much less effective and since they are without armor, can barely be used due to the need of keeping soldiers alive, not just spending them like Russia. Russia on the other hand has the ability to purchase weapons and supplies in mass quantities. In fact, they used to be americas largest 556 ammo supplier before Biden shut that down. Really, Ukraine is going to continue recieving support. However, without active troops being sent into Ukraine the Russian supply will eventually overturn Ukraine eventually. It will take years, but it will still happen.
"Russian supply will eventually overturn Ukraine eventually". Like they did in Afghanistan? Russia could be subjected to massively more logistics strain by providing Ukraine with more long range weapons and allowing them to be used on international border Russian territory. Even without boots on the ground, NATO could give Russia a world of economic hurt by naval blockade. But at this point, Europe and Saudi Arabia are still buying Russian hydrocarbons. It really is a question of whether Russia is willing to become a Chinese vassal in order to get some sea shore property. And how close to the line is NATO willing to pressure Russia. Finally, I doubt that Ukraine even if it was defeated that it would become co-opted like the Chechens (which is a major drain on the Russian state to maintain). Instead, Russia would face a grinding regime of terrorism and sabotage in perpetuity.
I actually find it hilarous how badly russia is doing in this battle. I know that they really arent, and russia is fighting hard, but holy shit russia is stupid. They have some engineers look at the M3 Bradley and they say it stands no chance against the russian counterpart, yet reports say that as of feb 2022 russia has lost almost 3K tanks. And the Su-57 is just funny. Its humongous, and has the radar crossection of a tank. And now theyre making the Su-75 "Checkmate", which is a stupid name, that chuck of metal is just a F-35 with bad camo.
The U.S never had conscription. The U.S has what is called the draft. All men 18 to 35 must register for the draft or Selective Service as it's called. Meaning that an event of a major conflict you could be called up to serve.
The US did have conscription but it was highly unpopular the first time it was used in massive numbers was by the Abraham Lincoln administration in 1860s And it caused massive riots and protests, with some union states even calling for secessionist movements to protest the draft like New York state even doing so That's why it was eventually was replaced, but it took another 100 years to do so during the Vietnam war, with again more riots and protests The draft was replaced with a sign up process called selective service meaning every single man in the entirety of the United States population must by his 18th birthday register his name in the event of a draft being implemented So basically it's the same thing as registering for a draft because you MUST register or else you go to prison but a draft just isn't being called by the government however they reserve the ability to call for a draft in the future
@@rejvaik00 Yes it did have conscription but that was the only time in history that we've had it. Since then the u s military has been a purely volunteer processional military. You can many of our modern day.Allies can't even claim to do that. And still rely on conscripts to fill the ring.
Why do I get the sense that you have something to say about this video? 🤔
it's not what you think
Heey, can you do a video covering about friendly fire on warfare?? I think it’s an amazing topic that’s non well know. Greetings from Chile!
i just want to say the RUclips algorithm somehow always delivers your video really early to me through the random recommendation feed
for example, i saw this video 24 minutes after you uploaded
If countries aren't willing to go full nuclear - then today's conflicts are a waste of time and money.
19:43 you're talking dick...
As someone who spent a few years as an army driver's training instructor, the first thing I told my soldiers was "These vehicles are built for offroad performance and combat capability. Crew safety isn't even a factor in their design. Keep that in mind when you're driving."
I should clarify I told them "crew safety in event of a crash" not crew safety in entirety. Obviously crew survivability in event of mine, IED, or ambush is a factor in design, just not highway crashes.
Yeah. Same reason why Chinook helicopters cannot be used for transport (of people) by civilian operators and can only be used for cargo service. They do not meet civilian standards for transport helicopters in the event of a crash.
@@OmrifereVery true. AFVs, IFVs and ARVs were simply not built for that. When you design them to take enemy fire and still keep operating, things like seatbelts and crumple zones in the event of a crash are simply not considered. As an operator and mechanic, this is somewhat concerning in peacetime, when accidents are likely, but in wartime, it puts me at ease.
@@davebaton8879 isn't the Boeing 234 a civilian Chinook?
But I know what you're saying, it's been fitted out to meet civillian passenger safety standards. Which is very different from military personnel standards.
@@NMJZ Surely they could be fitted out with suitable seating and harnesses to make them safer when cruising... You just wouldn't wear them in the conflict zone.
But I guess it's not a priority.
I think the Ukrainian War casualties actually highlight how critical air superiority is. The war would have gone much differently had one side achieved air superiority.
Yes and Also sometimes due to the lack of air superiority casualties cannot be evacuated until dark, that increases the number massively
Edit: it is sop of the Ukrainian armed forces to only evacuate casualties at night. Only volunteers do it during the day
I think that's only somewhat true.
If the west had provided the same military aid a year earlier, Russians would not have had the time to dig in. That alone would almost certainly have made things much easier for Ukraine, even without air superiority.
Now that Russians are firmly entrenched, I don't think air superiority will change the front lines. Air superiority will make it less costly to defend Ukrainian lines, but IMHO not more. Aircraft don't help Ukraine get rid of mines, nor do they allow troop formations to msnruver without being spotted by drones, which are the main problems.
IMHO the air superiority narrative is just the next iteration of the west looking for a silver bullet. It doesn't exist.
We wasted the opportunity to win this cheaply. We were too hesitant. Now it will require an overwhelming mass assault and mine clearing and anti-drone tech that doesn't yet exist.
@@a5centin a conventional war no amount of entrenchment is going to save you from a smart bomb. Russian artillery can't be used if it is getting bombed. In modern conventional war air superiority is a sliver bullet
same with Russia
@@a5cent doesn't it feel like the aid for Ukraine was deliberately delayed? US intelligence kept taps on the situation in the region since the attack in 2014 and they were well aware Putin will try to attack Ukraine again. Hence US even warned Ukrainian administration about a year or 2 before invasion about increased activity of Russia around the border. It's all strange, there was a time even during the first stage of the invasion when this war all out war could been averted all it would take would be receiving aid quick enough in form of artillery able to pentrate deep into Russian territory to cut the supply chain what would Grant Ukrainian forces some breathing room.
War is no fun, the people that send you to war should experience it first and maybe think twice.
They never will. Pretty much every politician dont sent their kids to war. They know better
@@JoeLaFon3 true. I've been to 3 different wars in my time in the military..
. wouldn't wish it on anyone. The worst part is that none of the wars I was deployed to had a justified reason.
say that to putin and his bootlickers
That's actually what saved Ukraine, Zelensky refused to leave, showing he was willing to fight too
War is not noble anymore since gunpowder. Before that kings used to lead armies.
My Ex's brother actually died on an aircraft carrier during an accident on the deck -- was really sad. The service and memorials and all were really nice.
Lost Scott Ford on cv64 1976
😔
the navy seal situation happens so much more often than you think. I have 4 friends who dropped from buds who rerated to my rate. They tell me all the time how there is a huge culture of just ignoring your sickness and pain because it’s manly or whatever to the point where major injuries such as salmonella or a heat stroke or breaking your leg in half, they just ignore and tell you you’re fine. It makes sense as they have to be some of the strongest elite sailors in the world, but it is quite sad.
You forgot performance drugs - at one time endemic in SF selection
I don't believe it's about being manly or macho at all. It's about surviving and pushing through some horrible things to get out on the other side--or to save others. If they gave up because it hurts or they didn't feel good or it's cold, then there's a good chance someone's not coming home alive. That's the sad truth about it. Also, the human brain and body are a lot more resilient than people give it credit. There's a lot of pain and things your body will actively ignore just to keep you alive as it focuses on more important problems.
@@nightjarflying That's why we all have to take responsibility for our mental health... Because others, or the government won't. We gotta do healthy activities, visit therapists etc. No one else is going to do it for us.
In my experience, all front line combat jobs have this culture. You go until you become immobilized from broken bones, being a heat causality or your body shutting down on you for any other reason. Doesn't matter if you're legitimately injured, if you quit before your body does you are viewed as weak by your peers and ostracized. There are very few exceptions to this, seeking treatment is almost always interpreted as trying to get out of work and to avoid sharing the load with the group. Not healthy at all, but the social pressure does drive performance far beyond what you think you're capable of.
I think it's strange they weren't aware of this culture before even attempting BUD/S.
just a note; How many times the Osprey or AH-60 crashed in a year is meaningless without normalizing for amount of flight hours, or sorties or whatever else. If one flew 10s as much the comparison can be misleading. I'm not worried about this specific comparison but just in general. good vid though :)
Even normalized it is still safer. Roughly half the fatalities per 100k flight hours as the H-60
@@baammm3871 That's what I was looking for! Thanks 👍
Yep, per flight hour you're about 50% more likely to die on a 60 than a 22. Really a shame the Osprey has such a bad reputation when its actually safer and more reliable than the "venerable" blackhawk
@@rileybriggs4731 You're another crack head... Read my comment just above.
Just to be pedantic, I've always thought the number of hours (whether it's pilot or aircraft) is not such a great metric as it's mostly the bits at the beginning and end of a flight that matter the most, both in terms of stress on the aircraft, and skill needed by the crew. For instance, flight hours on long haul flights will be larger than short haul but the short haul flights will have done many more take offs and landings even though with much lower flight time. For instance, flying in a straight line on autopilot is not the same risk as continually taking off and landing. Driving a car in cruise control for miles on a highway will not be the same as driving a taxi around town. Just another parameter to throw into the equation. There are plenty more I can think of. Straight comparisons are often comparing apples with oranges. True comparisons are usually much more complex and may well involve things that have nothing directly to do with the things being compared. I know that's not helpful though.
I feel like the Rus-Ukr war is running into a similar issue seen in WW1. Technology has surpassed tactics. I think tactics will eventually catch up just like they did after WW1. It would be a good idea for other nations to run war games and try to figure out which tactics neutralize the technological advantage
We already know what the shortcoming is: its SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), which is a capability neither side really practices. Ukraine simply lacks the planes that can do this (until they get F16s) whereas Russia hardly trains for it. Without air support, you can't make offensives. Neither side has the tools to meaningfully destroy enemy air defense and let the planes support the troops.
Ukraine was denied SEAD capable planes before their offensive and as a result their last offensive has only seen small gains. You simply cannot assault dug-in mined positions without air coverage.
I think tactics will always be the most dynamic and important element of any war or battle. It can temporarily be overcome with technology, but good tactics will eventually, in most cases, beat technology.
I think, for this reason, we have to protect our ability to communicate (and this include communication technology) and focus training on tactics on all levels so no matter the threat, decisions can be made to overcome it, even if those decisions are tactical retreats.
A good example of tactics > technology was Vietnam. We were far superior technologically, but we couldn’t adjust fast enough to fight guerrilla warfare. Not to mention, the heart of tactics, the end goal, was almost non existent. “Winning” is hardly a real goal since what defines winning wasn’t really defined in that war, or if it was, it wasn’t communicated to the troops except, “were fighting commies!”
Idk, there’s so much to this, but fact is, we can’t rely on technology above tactics or we’ll fail. If we have good tactics, good technology will be a great tool to help make better tactics. Technology is a tool of tactics.
L@@nicholasdominguez3952You also can't go gung-ho with F-16s or any aircraft when every aforementioned dug in mined position could potentially have MANPADS.
ukraine uses much more technology than russia in the war, well, at least they don't send meat waves of soldiers over and over again, also they are training with western tactics since 2014, so at least they have better tactics than russia
@@vilian9185 I agree. And good thing too. With Russia having greater numbers, Ukraine needs better tactics and technology to defend themselves.
Although if these casualty numbers are correct, Ukraine will need to improve its situation quick or they won’t have enough people to use the technology or tactics to win.
The military is good at making soldiers, but turning soldiers back to funktioning citizens is not their strong suit.
I agree. Wish they had a “citizen life” boot camp at the end of service to mentally prepare them for the challenges of post military and even the challenges of normal life.
Funny how so many organizations focus so much on preparing you for what you’ll experience inside of it, but when the time is done there is zero prep for leaving it.
Once a marine always a marine
This is a bullshit line people use to feign how much they care about homeless veterans. The truth is that a lot of people join the military for their life already being pretty hopeless, they have no family support, and they are often not very intelligent. For such people the military is a good means to postpone their struggles, but the military is never going to make them able to live in the real world.
Yup, it’s the most over looked thing about veterans imo. THAT and the bullsht they have to go through when they get out with the lack of support from our government!
@@Gundumb_guy not to bag of police officers and firefighters, but in many states their benefits and retirement is way better than military personnel. Grant their jobs are risky, but military jobs are way more dangerous! It’s crazy how our country treats our veterans.
I love how the "winning side" needs to announce mobilizations 24/7
Yeah classic
You know, this is scary.When I was younger, i used to believe, that humanity have finally reached the point, where we wouldn't kill each other in wars. And now, here i am, in the country, that started a war, where an equivalent of half of my whole city have died.
Also when the war started, I thought that nobody supported it. It is shocking how many people support war. I think, like, 60% of adults and much less significant % of young people do. And I can't even tell anything to them because it is LITERALLY illegal. We have patriotic lessons ("conversations about important things") once in a week. I can't believe how much i hate, what i supposed to call my "motherland".
underrated comment - thank you for your opinion
That’s called childish ignorance, you’ve grown up a little and see it’s not sunshine and rainbows. Shit even while you were growing up wars were happening that you just don’t know about. Nobody likes war lmfao, but good luck just walking into another country and saying you own it.
well, the no more wars thing was always based primarily on much of the world's news not reaching you. unless you're following al jazeera, there is a sort of minimum whiteness and minimum wealth level for people involved below which it's only newsworthy if there are rivers of blood.
it's of course a substantially different situation, but as someone who dropped out of highschool with a s°°° diploma because I despised it and decided that I didn't want to get a certificate for performing useless tasks and displays of submission (so I started to only attend half of the time, never do homework, and tell my teachers and argue about it if they asked), I want to encourage you to play along. I only realized years later that my decision to soft-quit school had been based on flawed thinking - because I abdicated the role of arguing in favour of school to other people, and when they failed to convince me, I took that to mean that my position was correct. I neglected to really make an effort to question myself. other people and especially teachers kept trying to argue about the value of the knowledge and skills in the curriculum, when the lane they should have argued with me to convince me to make minimal effort would have been that there objectively is a lot of value in education certificates, despite them often not indicating any noteworthy knowledge or skill.
you're unlikely to help anyone if you out yourself in school as subversive. even without any politics involved, almost all my teachers hated me for arguing in effect that there was little value in what they (based on the curriculum they had to follow) were teaching. many of my peers would quite transparently hold a similar view to me, but I was the only one who didn't lie to them about it, and I discovered that they really craved that lie, they would be satisfied with even very weak attempts. for example one friend of mine would do exactly the same thing every time he was asked to present homework he also almost never did: he would bend down mumbling while rifling through his bag, and hold that position to literally duck away from the attention until the teacher either called on another student, or asked again - and it worked almost every time. if he was asked a second time, he would never admit that he didn't do it, just that he couldn't find it (without actually making a claim either way about having done the homework xD). that sort of charade was strongly preferred by the teachers over my choice to just say that I didn't do my homework and had never intended to.
to the best of my knowledge, in russia you need to expect at least some teachers and administrators to be keeping a list of subversive students that will end up in a police or FSB database. the more you want to say things that could get you on that list, the more of a reason you have to avoid being added to it.
if you really can't stop yourself from challenging one particular issue, it is likely to make a huge difference if you pretend to hold more conformist views, and only voice very narrow disagreement while referencing other ways in which you buy into government narratives. the techers don't really have to believe that you're being honest. but if they see you refusing to play the game, THAT is going to be a problem. you should look up explanations and examples of how people used to express dissent during soviet times. you can probably find instructions that are still very applicable to russian state institutions of specific things you do and ones you do not want to be seen doing in order to give the impression that you are essentially under control.
Glad you see through it at least. Hope you're safe and not contributing to Russias military efforts in any way. Freedom for Russia, and Victory for Ukraine ❤️
Take a basic biology class, what they teach you about animals is that intraspecies (same species) competition for resources is much higher than interspecies (different species) competition.
Humans like any other animals will always fight and compete against their own species because we need / want the same resources as each other. There is always a finite amount of resources / commodities, which means there will always be war and competition between arbitrary tribalist groups.
This is why whenever you watch cute animal videos of different animals all getting along that naturally don't get along due to having predator / prey relations in nature, you see it only happens due to humans removing the animals need to acquire their own resources for survival.
The idea that humans can all get along will never happen, because we're the highest on the food chain. We can provide for the needs of a few domesticated animals that we can keep as pets / livestock, but we can't provide for the needs of all humans.
If you believe in science at all, then you should understand that the world is a zero sum game. Because the very basic laws of science is the conservation of energy, mass, matter, etc... Which states those things can't be created or destroyed. Only converted to a different form. So as the human population grows, it means the net useable resources dwindle. For instance we're stripping nutrients from the soil and converting them into humans. The more humans on earth, means we make more electronics like phones and computers that need gold / copper for circuitry. So as time goes by, fighting and war will only increase, not decrease.
There's nothing surprising about the casualty numbers, if anything I would have expected them to be higher. The USA and UK militaries were amazed at how few casualties they took in the opening stages of Gulf War 1, the US estimated over 20k US soldiers would be killed during the initial invasion.
Lol when u see fpv drone flying above you u will lnow why so much death
@@mobilelegend1458Do you have a name for that vidoe or a link pls?
@@Victor-ze3sd wtf are u even talking about? There are many fpv drone footage from both side
@@mobilelegend1458And what do they show?
@@Victor-ze3sd they showed your mom and dad 👉👌
Maybe if soldiers werent forced to fight in pointless wars as well as legitimate ones and were taken care of properly when they returned home, the US military wouldnt have recruitment issues
Nahh I think its the fact that 90% of Americans are unfit for combat.
Or tell them to stop hating white people and embracing the woke. Veterans have been treated like shit since WW1 and we haven’t had such recruiting problems.
The trouble lies in the fact that the MANY of today’s military age males aren’t physically capable to serve and they would rather hold their hands out for free stuff while playing with the latest electronic gizmo. Service above or beyond self is a concept foreign to them. Many live for the now.
I think its understated how low the number of Killed in Combat for the US Military over the past two decades is compared to Russia over the same period of time. It truly shows how good and efficient America has gotten at waging war. HOWEVER, the worst part of this is that to achieve this efficiency, 500% more American soldiers, airman, marines, and sailors will kill themselves either by accident or intentionally. Its sad the idea that most likely the way you will die in the US Military will be by your own hand, and its just 50% coinflip that you will actually want it to happen. Myself, a vet who has been on the dark side of that coinflip and by the grace of God I survived, I can tell you the entire thing is avoidable and preventable. Unfortunatly, the military will only spend as much money as it needs to complete the mission, afterwards you're on your own. As evidenced by the homelessness epidemic that veterans have faced since Vietnam.
Very well written
thank you for your service and i hope you get better. eventhough i am a chinese i do not wish for anyone to hurt themselves.
Man you've only been fighting cavemen for the last decades
@@sisyphusofephyra7801 dude wouldnt be alive if they were fighting the chinese or indians
@@DrBluefox nobody survives the pajeet rush
I am Greek reserve soldier. In Greece, it's like part of our identity to be soldiers, because the word civilian (πολίτης) and soldier (οπλίτης) are almost the same. The thing about captains is that they always have a plan, that usually doesn't care a lot about what the enemy can do. I won't say more details, but watching the videos of the operations in Ukraine, I immediately get in my mind, how that ended up like this. From the moment they got out, till they get smoked. And I am not surprised, unlike media that presents it like out of this world event. There is too much emphasis in propaganda, and the presentation is too poor. I am sad that soldiers die for this and civilians suffer. Dieing for your country, used to be an honour. People have no ethics unfortunately, these days.
OK, what is your point?
From what you wrote, I get this:
- You're a Greek
- You think that Greeks are somehow good soldiers. Better than who? What is your opinion based on?
- "captains always have a plan", whatever that means. Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.
- By watching Ukraine war videos, you think you know better than them. Typical TV watching, beer drinking sports fan attitude 😅
- There's a lot of propaganda. Duh!
- "people have no ethics" 🤦🏻♂️
@@kazkaskazkas8689 W reply. I was thinking the same thing.
I'm Sure you have a lot of combat experience......
@@Donner906 nah. If turkey invites us for a party, I will get experience. I am waiting invitation.
@@agpaok0704 Sure you are
Remember “casualties” means injuries and or deaths…
Yeah right now the kill to injury ratio is 1:10 due to advances in medical treatment and use of body armor
@@JL-tm3rcnot in the Ukraine it isn't
The medical services are not at Western levels
@@Marvin-dg8vj maybe not but it would be at least philippine level. I am basing it on the battle of marawi in the philippine
@@JL-tm3rc It is still incorrect, russians do not have med evac and as seen in countless amount of drone footage their squads prefer to leave wounded behind to bleed out. Ukrainians have issue recovering wounded as well since a lot of first contact/line positions require traveling several miles on foot, as someone mentioned earlier their standard operating procedure is to try to retrieve wounded at night - if you are bleeding heavily or lost a limb mid day you wont make it this long on a tourniquet. You cant model this conflict based on previous conflicts.
@@dark666king That's sad bro 😭 To think that one man's desire for more land has led to these many people suffering... Hope they are in heaven... Puck Footin
1 Jungle, two balkans and 1 sandy combat tour, never stuck once!
Chased by Taliban in a truck with a bunch fuel across an unmapped/uncleared desert…never stuck and telling this story
Training, matters!
21 yr Canadian 🇨🇦 Veteran.
So you were 19 at most when chased by the taliban? Plus all those other things. You probably just dreamt that you were there 😅
@@kazkaskazkas8689 No. Canada already left Afganistan since 2014.
While they're briefly redeployed in 2021. Their mission is only evacuated Canada Citizen in Afghanistan, not to fight Taliban Again.
@@kazkaskazkas8689 36, do you just through random answers out? I was there in 06. Read a book FFS!
@@robandcheryls My bad, I interpreted "21 yr" as your age and not the time of service 😆
@@kazkaskazkas8689 shit happens, all good.
Don't forget about the recruitment problem that US is facing too. Meanwhile finding unbiased pieces is very difficult. Most of them depict Russia and China as a paper tiger, that the US is the one and only superpower and we all lived happily ever after. I am not taking a side or anything i am just saying would be nice to know what is actually going on.
- America’s been only fighting small nations and people are questioning the military’s effectiveness in an actual war
- You know what’s happening to Russia in Ukraine
- China is a wild card, and we don’t really know if they’re a paper tiger or serious threat
@@joohyunkyoung5905Russia and China have set up their armies to defend their homeland.
The US is set up to project power.
You can’t keep a population down indefinitely if they fight back against you. That is the reason the US keeps loosing.
Looks like the sources you mentioned know.
Us war collage surprisingly does a balanced analysis on china same with the “ex- cia” guy, also they dont associate hong kong to be equivilent to taiwan, hong kong never had democracy under the British and they even pointed it out in the video
Fact is that "western" society basically chilled their balls after cold war and thought that after the time around 1990 global piece between all nations had been achieved.
That china or Russia still had the desire for revenge or at least wanting to rival the west in aspects like economy or global influence and power wasn't even considered.
We thought that just signing treaties and agreements with them would be sufficient to contain any potential futuristic threat.
Now, Russia has and china is starting to show the world what they have been working on the past decades and if the west doesn't respond appropriately it is a good question if
the "West" is able to retain its global dominance.
If you are still not convinced just look towards africa and how Rus and Ch have been quietly starting to influence countries there, further strengthening their foothold as an international power without the west realizing the potential threat this can have in the future
One thing to remember is that different armies have different standards of safety for personnel, just a little example : in the French Air Force (Armée de l'air) and French Navy (aéronavale) every aircraft is certified for navigability, meaning strict levels of flight safety, to ensure safer operations for the personnel and the civilians. When we upgraded our MQ9 reapers to the latest standard, we had to redo the whole certification as the US doesn't bother with such safety requirements for military devices
Yes... that's also why French tanks have rear view mirrors installed.... So they can safely survey the battlefield....
@@thomaslove6494In all seriousness though, France does have one of the best militaries in the world.
Lucky bastards also get better food on their ships
@@armorhide406yeah people give them a lot of crap and think they are all hopeless cause of ww2 but that just shows how ignorant they are in the first place if they think that they have been one of the better army’s in the world for a long long time
Even china does more testing than the usa 😂😂😂 the usa just chooses a contract and then leaves it up to the corperations
@@NeostormXLMAX you sound like someone who has no idea what they are talking about...
An interesting statistic is that despite accident related deaths being the most common way to die in the military. The military has a lower fatal accident rate than the civilian sector, at 1.3 fatalities per 100,000 individuals. Compare that to the civilian sector, with 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people.
That depends on your job
Yup👆 I'm a toolroom machinist, a lathe will turn a man into hamburger meat. Pretty sure the office people don't get turned into hamburger meat.
@@Donner906yea durr. Thanx captain obvious
@@weldmin4818 Some jobs are unexpectedly dangerous.
@@Donner906 For sure. I never would've imagined pizza delivery would be dangerous, but turns out it can be as dangerous as being a cop, maybe more so.
this was really hard to watch, thinking about all the lives lost, rest in peace
would love it if you share your sources. You say "estimates show" ,"researchers say" but dont show any source. I am not calling you wrong though would love to see source material
A very informative, if also alarming, study of the reality of the front line. That's sobered me up, I'll admit. 🤔
US can avoid casualties by not participating in wars and meddling with other countries
It’s hard when we have countless mutual defense treaties with countries all over the world, and on top of that hellbent on protecting the petrodollar. I think George Washington said something about foreign policy in his farewell address
Well unfortunately if you want to lead the largest defensive alliance in the world: NATO, you need to be an active participant
You can't just form NATO on a piece of paper and then keep all soldiers strictly within your own borders and think that's enough of a deterrent, because it isn't
you will need to be proactively involved in each of the interests of each member nation as they will not always get along with each other and they might even attack each other like Turkey and Greece
Being a part of the globalized world means you have to actively participate because if you don't there will always be someone else who will as nature abhors a vacuum and the strong leader position will be filled by someone
@@joohyunkyoung5905that's called entanglement theory
I have served 20 months in Ukraine, mostly Donbas and Kherson. I know just as many guys who died in vehicle accidents as artillery.
Please try to minimise Ukrainian casualties brother.. Ukraine can receive endless supply of equipment, but manpower, every man on the Ukrainian frontline is priceless. 🙏 God be with Ukraine
I was roommates with a guy who laughed about not completing maintenance checklists on fighter jets while he was stationed at the Vegas air base.
That is attempted manslaughter. If it's true. What a dick.
I served in a British army tank regiment, those tanks are designed to kill and they don't care if it's you or the enemy. Get your maintenance wrong and you're going to lose some weight, it may just be a few fingers but it could be a lot more and sometimes it's your life. Injuries and death on training exercises aren't that uncommon either, it's a hard life and if you lost concentration you may end up as a statistic but with poor training the numbers can go up quickly. The Russian troops don't seem to be that well trained and the kit doesn't seem to be well maintained, add to that being tired and working in poor conditions, I would imagine that they've lost a lot of people in accidents.
About 85% of deployment casualties and deaths are DNBI. Disease and Non Battle Injuries.
I flew military Critical Care Life Flight, stabilizing and transporting critically ill patients, mainly military members.
Very few were combat related. Most were illnesses from infection or diseases; injuries from ground and air crashes.
As a Ukrainian, I am grateful for toned-down narration. We'll hold, we'll win, but the price really is horrible already. Everyone has someone valuable or relatives lost there.
Конечно-конечно победите, очереди в военкоматы стоят. Правильно говорят Украину лучше любить издалека, пока она существует
@@МаксимС-ф2с мне кажется, или я видел твоего брата на башне танка, которая брала первую космическую?)
@user-ec9jy4pm1w shouldn't you be in the grinder? I'm telling your supervisor you held a blank piece of paper in public.
For the much of human civilisation, the biggest killer of soldiers in war was disease, followed by environmental factors like freezing and heat, and starvation. Not unusual for more than half the army to die or desert while on march before they even reach the battlefield and less than 10% of casualties in a given campaign or war to be from any actual fighting. Only in last century or so did this begin to shift.
Yep. The turn around is relatively recent. WW1 then WW2. The speed of casualty evacuation has helped enormously as well as improvements in treatment. Compare the deaths of the Crimea war with 100 years later and the situations are totally reversed in terms of (military) deaths from combat or disease. Florence Nightingale was a nurse but, more importantly, also a statistician, and her stats on how people were dying totally revolutionized the focus.
Exactly what you say is documented true - in the Crimean war, 10000 soldiers died of dysentary before the first major battle, and it wasnt particularly a thing of importance but was accepted as a foregone conclusion as unavoidable (espeacially in the ranks as officers quarters were separate)
Training accidents caused more casualties to my unit than a deployment to Afghanistan did. So hard to comprehend
Did Afghanistan have a military, or was it just guys in sandals driving old toyotas?
Imagine volunteering into Navy, thinking it saves you from meat grinder because now you have special skill as seamen, only to have your entire ship complements pushed into naval infantry😅.
Yikes that’s about the worst possible thing you could get too in terms of surviving long amphibious assaults are brutal asf
Here's an idea for conscription: In addition to congressional approval have a referendum on it BUT only the people who are eligible for conscription get to vote on it. It'd avoid the issue to old people sending young people to die for nothing.
Biggest casualties for a military that hasn’t fought against a real army in decades.
Real balance of conscripts vs volunteers may not be accurate as most of volunteers preferred to be mobilised instead of signing a contract. This is considered more safe practice from legal point of view.
I remember a story that someone told me many years ago. When people are frequently being stung by bees from one of his beehives, the beekeeper simply removes the queen for another less aggressive one. I think World War 11 would not have happened if this had been done in Germany.
damn thats crazy
Speaking as a collective of examples in history the highest death toll comes from following poor commands, strategies and decisions from high ranking officers who only got their position through being upper class, privately educated and involved in special interest groups of the aristocracy
Also those officers who don't value the opinions of their subordinate commanders
I thought that the invading forces was said to be near 200 thousands and the New recruits were about 300 000 if all Russian soldiers that died are 315 thousands or 450 as Ukraine claims what can't they Win over the remaining 50 thousands?
You think he is telling the truth? Just propaganda
That's not how it works, invasion force was of 200.000, but Russia mobilized 300.000 extra men to the frontlines, covering losses and generating New forces, after that Russia did other 2 mobilisations, another of 300.000 and one pf 200.000 (i'm not counting the 147.000 who are normally conscripted every 6 months in Russia). So, it's à mobilized force of 800.000 men +200.000 already in the front in the beguining of the war.
Today, all estimations points that between 400.000-450.000 russian soldiers are in the frontline today.
The numbers makes sense, casualties May turn between 300.000-500.000
@@Dylan-pj7rvRussia have only ONE mobilization! Because i live here and know better. Invading force was 150.000, mobilization was 350.000 and other 200.000 is volontueers, who sign up contract because of huge payment. Thats all. Dont spread misinformation!
@@Dylan-pj7rv россия провела одну мобилизацию, больше не было, так что хватит врать про потери в 350 тыс, это просто не реально
I used to be a conscript in the army. Due to the war we only received 4 months of training instead of 6 months required. But we were lucky. The guys that were conscripted right after us had only 3 months of training. We were noticably less qualified than the guys who got a 6 months Training. But those who were trained for 3 months were outright unworthy. They have caused an incident which has significantly damaged an APC sending it to repairs and killed one private. They forgot the barrel cleaning equipment inside the 30mm cannon barrel before firing an HE round. explosion, gun operator was wounded, died before the arrival of the medics.and another incident where A BMP drove over a soldier. And another one where a BMP rolled over, luckily no casualties, minor equipment damage.
Yea, that shows how important it is that countries are ready for conflicts and don't engage in wars they are not prepared to fight
5:25 My brain was like oh look a frog
Examples of casualties/dead are realistic for Navy Seals ; selection/training is for best mental/physicsl characters,
But accidents that USA American life style produces are in an ENTIRELY different category!,
The US 20 year war in Afghanistan wouldn't have lasted so long if there was a draft, that is why the US stopped it. Only 3% of the US population had skin in the game so it was easy to keep the war out of the public's attention. With an active draft that 3% goes to 90+% and that overmatches the US Military Industrial Complex!
no one wants to be in the army., the us missed recruitment by tens of thousands. if theres an unpopular war, that recruitment would dry up. No one in america wants to fight the russians or chinese.
I still think that the US military decided that we draftees were such a pain in the butt that they never wanted to see another one of us again. They gave us the mandatory re-up lecture as part of our separation. It lasted 2 seconds. They didn't want us to re-up and we wanted to get the hell away from them as quickly as possible. All they'd managed to do was convince us that they were incompetent and useless.
One of the big issues i see with the calculations on casualty numbers is that it does not seem to take into account that in ukraine neither side has air supiriority which world really help mitigate casualties on the side that has it.
Casualties in total war were always awful, the change is the size of the available personals because of bigger population, in theory in total war between China and India each army would have at list 100M available people
I love your vids
Can you publish your sources in the description?
I got you covered on that:
1) "Approved guidelines for the conent making of agency's public influencers" - CIA, late 2023
@@dimbasz ?
@@Itk8989 read several times, you'll eventually get it
@@dimbasz I don't
Russia has not lost that many troops.
It's an estimate and the offical death count is classified.
@@Av8B-HarrierGGestimates must be based on something. For example, Mediazona project - Russian anti-Putin media labeled as Foreign Agent by Russian authorities bases it's estimates on obituaries and inheritance legal cases for certain ages. And it's latest estimates in the late autumn of 2023 were around 75 000 KIA.
Ukrainian MOD bases it's numbers of Russian losses - both human and material - on nothing, it's straight up fairytales for the media.
Most casualties are caused by getting your troop transports ambushed. (Its not as bad for Bradleys tho, because they split squads into 2 vehicles)
Common sense is when you become a soldier you are not expected to come home if you are going to fight in a foreign land, a soldier is supposed to fight and protect one’s family,home and country
I’m so lucky I had an amazing support system when I finished in my 21st year.
That's really nice.
People from the USA learned and discovered that if two equal armies meet, this will lead to great casualties. If the war lasts a long time, then there will be a need for mobilization. Half of the video is about non-battle casualty, and the other part is about combat losses. And the story about non-battle casualty is as if it were something amazing and incredible, but in fact it is an ordinary death, that is, he died during normal work or in an accident. It's no wonder why Americans are considered stupid and some are considered effeminate. What does it say here, in Eastern Europe they tell it in high school (Poland is the best)
The contract army is good, but it is very expensive and if there is a big war, this army will quickly wear down. And here we will have to mobilize. The Conscription Army is less professional, but during peacetime it is much cheaper. Also, if there is mobilization, it will be faster and easier to train people, because they served in the army
Let’s all pray it never comes to conscription again in the USA. It would mean shit has truly hit the fan.
Then better to aid Ukraine now itself. If Ukraine falls then others like china and iran will be encouraged to start wars and that will keep growing until finally the US will be involved directly at some point
@@Peter-jo6yu that’s a line of logic that cannot be rejected. We are walking a razor’s edge these days. Difficult decisions.
I used to read books on the selection processes for top-tier services around the world - it's mind blowing reading about minds that perform what you perceive to be impossible 👍
The primary mistake done by most countries with land borders is they do not prioritize the construction of defensive fortifications across their border. Simply with the use of alone defensive fortifications, soldiers in the battlefield have high chance of survivability in defending their homeland. Hopefully, countries with land borders will start the construction of defensive fortifications within their country's border.
Fortified positions are worthless in modern warfare. It's noted on The art of war how, due to the static nature of forts, they can be ignored, bypassed, encircled and sieged in a matted of days by mobile armies or even annihilated by dirty weapons. We've seen this on napoleonic wars through mobile infantry with horses , the great war through chlorine gas, artillery and tanks, in world war two with major artillery barrages on the german festungs, or simply the bypass of maginot, leningrad forts and dozens of positions on the stalin and molotov lines. Today, with missiles, sarin gas, barely infinite artillery barrages, spy rings deeply connected on governments due to globalization, no fortified position shall be left
The battlefield of Ukraine already proved my statement. Simply the danger brought by drone technology and firepower of artillery systems already has enough reason for Ukraine to dig and fortify their position or else they will die in less than a minute.
@@mateusp.santos111
You are talking about the old trench warfare. C'mon we are in the era of 2020 onwards. Whether we agree or not, attacking a frontline fortified and supported by modern defensive fortifications, manpower, man-portable weapons, drones, artillery, mechanized support, etc is a suicide mission.
@@nieljosephpalca7849 It seems like you are presuming that other wars will end up like Russia v. Ukraine. Most won't just due to the variety of situations that can arise.
@@nieljosephpalca7849 Complete bulls*** proven by history.
First, you seem to not understand how forts proved to not be a big deal in post WW1, AFTER the "old trench warfare" you say. In general, forts only work in specific situations, like against tired, inexperienced or poorly led armies, but in the best cases it stopped the invading army for a stage of the war, on a few scenarios there would be an actual victory for the defending army.
- Atlantik wall, a german shore line of fortified positions from 1944 failed heavily on 4 out of the 5 main assaults, delaying only for a few days the assault of one single beach. Germans lost control of France afterwards.
- Siegfried line was a german defensive line made on the 1930's and modernized in 1944 with peak technology, protecting the actual german territory after the defeat on France. The germans were outmatched because on allied air superiority and firepower. All it did was buying a few months for Germany, concrete cannot survive against actual siege weapons, sappers and constant bombing.
- Maginot line was a french defensive line on the german border, it has extensive use of concrete pillboxes, underground tunnels and bunkers, but didn't see any significant battle because it was bypassed.
- Molotov line was a soviet defensive line built on occupied Poland on the new german border, it failed miserably. Major sectors were overrun and encircled due to combined arms warfare agility.
- Stalin line was a series of fortified lines from the baltics to black sea built from 1928 to 1939, it resulted on the encirclement of large portions of the red army due to the static nature of a fort. You find a nearby gap, take advantage of it, encircle and let them surrender to hunger like in 2022 Azovstal
- German festungs were impregnable forts in and out of Germany used to delay the advancing allies, every single one of them got encircled and destroyed with heavy artillery fire. Breslau, Danzig, Brest, Budapest, Poznan, Kolberg, Konigsberg, Berlin, you know what they have on common? all of them are failed german impregnable forts.
- Soviet impregnable forts, like Leningrad and Sevastopol were bypassed and encircled, although Leningrad could hold for enough time, Sevastopol fell. There were other two examples, Stalingrad (which actually fell for the german on november of 1942) and Moscow, these two examples worked for the defenders because the germans were in lower numbers, tired, out of supplies, lacked organization and stretched out, so the proper way to deal with forts, encircling it, would never happen.
About Ukraine, people seem to forget that since WW1 artillery was by far the main cause of casualties (not machineguns or anything else) and back then it was completely random fire with less powerful explosives in the shells when they landed.
Even in WW2 where you would think the war was more mobile and you had tanks and more advanced infantry weapons, CAS from planes etc.. it was still artillery in 1st place. Anywhere from 50 to 75% of casualties depending on the front you consider.
Fast forward to these days we have even more powerful explosive compounds than WW2 era, more guidance systems, and now drones delivering them directly on your head with not much guesswork. The human body just cannot handle that. Neither the blast nor the shrapnel. And this is only the spanish war of drones, im 100% sure we will have autonomous drone swarms you can release towards a place in a few years time.
Drones are quickly catching up with Artillery. Your comment about drone swarms is creepy. Imagine hundreds of explosive drones slamming into a base overwhelming Air Defenses.
This is why russia has almost certaniltoy less kia and wia then the ukrainians every one agrees arty causes 70-85% of casulites and both sides agree russia has a very large arty superiority
Accidents happen, stuff goes wrong, things fail, it’s unfortunate but with high risk it always comes, even in the shower you are at risk of slipping and hurting yourself
I mean let's be honest
Russia might suffered high loses at the beginning of the war but currently it's ukraine being at big disadvantage
There's basically no way ukraine might have 200k while russia has over 300k
Yet it's also bs to say ukraine lost 50k people in summer offensive which i saw a lot lol
To be fair both armies are pretty much stuck in donbass and Crimea.
@@Av8B-HarrierGG What a shit u talking about? Who stuck in Crimea? Sach a clown)
@@Nikita17ist You cannot Even spell lmao.
@@Av8B-HarrierGG Its all you have to say clown?
@@Nikita17ist Says the guy who cannot spell.
In my neck of the woods it’s called “bastardisation” that is making something onerous, exhausting, humiliating etc just to be a bastard, without a valid military objective. It’s cure is easy, make the “trainers” aware they will be serving in the same unit as graduates of the program, in other words, the trainers will have to depend on the students at some future time. It is the case that hubris and arrogance can cause neglect of standards and slip in standards. I was on a National Safety Council for a high risk sport for some years. The stats were consistent, the “accidents” happened to students early in their training then the next highest group to suffer “accidents” were the most highly experienced!
For a while it almost seemed like modern large-scale peer conflicts were a relic of the past. Ever since the end of the Second World War with reliance on MAD and proxy wars along with increasing globalization. Two modern militaries engaging in a direct war seemed unthinkable. Its mind blowing that we are witnessing a massive peer war in Europe with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Have the war planners considered that wars are expensive and we're bankrupt? At least that will keep the casualties down. We spent $6 trillion invading Iraq and the potential bill for taking care of the casualties for the rest of their lives is another $2 trillion. Scale that up to a high intensity war that we have to borrow money to fund when we've already borrowed more than we can ever pay back. We really need to find some other method of conducting foreign policy than buying countries off or going to war with them if they don't do what we say. We're committing suicide.
When you wage war to siphon taxpayer money into private pockets, the bill tends to get rather big.
The mashine gunner is the deadliest job in accidents, because they simply get squished.
as always a good video. i definitely agree with your opinion at the end of the film, unless a third world war happens I do not see conscription happening in America again in my lifetime.
315k+ Russian KIA and WIA? Even mediazona counting hasn't reached 50k
Let's say mediazona is still undercounting, even if it's 3x times, still 150k, nowhere near 315k
This whole casualty list publication was started by Ukrainian MOD and other countries cite these numbers, they don't do their own calculations
A years ago Prigozhin said that Wagner suffered 20k and the Russian military 120k losses.
That was a years ago already and done by a pro Russian source.
In the end you can only try to calculate the losses but 50k in 2 years of intense fighting is very unlikely.
@@hikey7955but you forgot Prigozhin said Wagner troops killed 50 thousand Ukrainian soldiers 70 thousand were injured and that only happened in bakhmut source:guardian
@tekinfomedi the 120k casualties was in regards to the overall war if I remember correctly (I couldn't find the article anymore).
Only for Bakhmut, as you said, he stated around 50k ukrainian and 20k Wagner casualties.
The problem with these numbers is obviusly that they can't be confirmed and he isn't exaclty the most neutral person.
On the one hand he will probably overstate the Ukrainian losses because he is pro-Russian afterall and will claim that his enemys suffered high losses.
On the other hand he will probably overstate the Russian losses as well because he had personal problems with the russian defense minister and wants him to look bad by claiming he lost a huge amount of troops as well.
This video seems to meander without a point, just making random observations. The US/NATO would have air and sea superiority over Russia. The reason NATO didn't respond for Ukraine like it otherwise might is the nuclear weapons Russia might escalate to. The US wouldn't fight like Ukraine has to, and that's the crappy part about what they tried to get the ZSU to do. NATO would never make that kind of land offensive.
There are current conflicts with higher mortality than Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ethiopia's Tigray, for example. The longer running Syrian and Yemeni wars have higher death tolls but have been running longer. My point being we are familiar with these losses when you fight without air superiority.
Pleae cite a source when you say the US is considering conscription. No one is seriously talking about that and for the long-known reason you do mention at the end. What the US needs to do is improve recruitment to its all-volunteer force and it's something that is getting more attention, finally.
Calling Russia and Ukraine equal has gotta be the least expected bit of information coming from this video. Ukraine is no way near the fire power of Russia.
And yet Russia has been largely incapable of making any progress since the first few months of the war.
the firepower of ww2 tanks and human wave tactics vs modern tanks and actual military tactics
@@gimmethegepgunUKR received 300 thousand artillery shells for its counteroffensive and united states promises to deliver 700 thousand more so UKR has matched its calibres of ammo with Russia
@@user-et2dx5du7eits because armoured warfare has lost its meaning because today there are shaped charges that could penetrate 5000mm of steel that can be delivered by a drone so its more dependent on more powerful explosive reactive armour but not too strong that would penetrate the armour from the inside
@@user-et2dx5du7e then why your nato instructors didnt teach them these tactics? 😄
So you are telling me the US has hundreds of amphibious tanks AND helicopters just rusting there but none of them they can give to Ukraine which IT SO HAPPENS needs aviation and amphibious tanks right now? What a sick joke.
USA also needs to store equipment for a possible conflict with China. That's why
@@Peter-jo6yu But they can dump their potentially faulty equipment onto Ukrainian battlefields and snatch this opportunity to make new ones. Who doesn't love new military manufacturing jobs?
@@Peter-jo6yuusually if they have large numbers of old vehicles like this they melt them down, dump them in the ocean, sell them to africa etc. Strategically for the US Ukraine is the best place the vehicle can be
@@ImpreccablePony If it's faulty then it will break down in mud of Ukraine
@@PL34535 Any mechanization is better than no mechanization.
What Causes The Most Military Casualties?
Corrupt politicians !
I had a stepfather(Don Hackett from burien Washington)that was a radio man in Vietnam, heard some noises in the jungle and went on a killing spree. He came back with a purple heart but left the planet's surface with a big house full of his blood thanks to the bottle.😢
That's sad bro. Hope he found peace in heaven 🙏😞💕
Do they add civilian murders into those numbers?
of cause no
It's not surprising that the military sees high accident rates. We have the energy and risk-taking instincts of youth, hyped up, flooded with adrenaline operating powerful and demanding vehicles in unsafe conditions.
Canada's solution to this during WWII was to have conscription to units that would not be used for overseas service. Buttigieg has proposed (and perhaps has a trial program) of national service in non-military organizations. Properly managed (always a problem with large bureaucracies the US) (and perhaps Canada) could employ young people for one or two years, have cadres of young people trained with military skills, or emergency relief skills or alleviate understaffing in schools and medical facilities.
Yeah but it wasn't modern warfare between peers that killed Russian troops, it was the total incompetence of command, the structure of that command system itself, the lack of any combined arms training, integration, and experience and on and on and on. NONE of those things apply to the US military. It's the same story on sterreroids for Russian vs US (and thus NATO) logistical system.
US needs to ramp up military stockpiles. Who knows what is waiting on the horizon
You are my favorite youtuber, thank you for that, what are you doing and also your videos!
When they tell you that casualties caused by accidents are more than the combat casualties you have to know that they are lying about combat casualties.
Or it shows the US military hasn't been up against a real military since ww2.
In the military, statistical analysis of EVERY injury is necessary on a constant ongoing basis and feedback loops instituted to give information to both the troops and the planners. Certainly designers and manufacturers of equipment should be informed of injuries involving their equipment.
In a democracy the public won't stand for high casualties and will watch the support of a war plummet if the war is taking place not on their own home soil
And for the US that's a big deal because the US doesn't suffer very high casualties from conflict very often, and when they start to climb up the public gets very angry
In 20 years of participation the US suffered only about 2500 casualties in Afghanistan, from a purely tactical viewpoint that's nothing less than amazing
Still even that was more than enough to erode support from the public
Meaning it won't take very much in casualties losses maybe 50-200 for anger to again burst forth
That's a stark contrast to authoritarian regimes who will throw the lives of their soldiers away for little gains in a conflict outside of their borders
They need to make a peace deal. Both sides need peace.
That's a disrespect with the true the western propaganda indicates more than 315.000 deaths among russian troops when Russia deployed a limites manpower and the Mediazone project sponsored by western think tanks indicate around 60.000 deaths. Meanwhile Ukraine lacks the basic to get manpower due so high losses, recruiting even women and old people. This conflict will be a tragedy for western narrative.
90% 🥶🥶
Did not know accidents cause more deaths then combat. I know 'friendly fire' is a big issue, but your stats show it is even more deadly than enemy fire?
I guess the answer is pretty clear. Don't support War!!!!
Conscription makes the public more seriously consider their support for war. That is important.
For example, The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were easy for people in the U.S, etc, to support- since they knew that they or their families and friends wouldn't have to fight and die if they chose not to. (It was, and is still, all to easy to be a warmongering neo-con or alt-right holy-rolling crusader if it's not your ass on the line.)
We have plenty of strong independent women : thats how you fill the casualty gap.
I just hope everyone can get along :3
SAS in borneo lost more men through accidents like this than in combat. Same with Australian SAS in Vietnam
Who anticipated a modern, high intensity conflict would have low casualties? The lethality of weapons has only gone up since WW2.
Careerist officers and non coms are constantly cutting on proper maintenance to make budgets look good. This activity causes a LOT of casualties. Everyone who matters is part of what has become a kind of a conspiracy.
something most people don't understand - "casualty" does **NOT** mean DEATH. get the figures for DEATHS and in many cases - especially U.S., the figures are surprisingly low.
even if the war ends today thousands with pschological troubles will return home
I have a feeling that we would revert to mainly gun-based naval warfare due to the issue of ammunition and training.
Self-inflicted, ruling out mishap or error of judgement, is alarming af.
I've got to known many Ukrainians that are affected by the war and witnessed first hand, how a Family lost it's father, while he was fighting and they got refuge here in Switzerland.
Since this moment, I can't play Shooters anymore. The cry of the mother and children really went through my bones...
And this was one loss. To imagine hundreds of thousands already died in that war is beyond my comprehension.
The major cause of accidents may be due to young men revelling in driving these vehicles. The average 18-20 year old has no concept of danger.
As if you are in the military, expect that you're gonna literally die and the rate of it gets high
Future of war's going to be remotely controlled machines fighting each other.
But the problem with a 'remote pilot' is going to be interruption of wireless signals.
So next step is going from 'enemy identification' to fully AI powered automatic targeting and trigger, so you can send a drone in to automatically target enemies and the enemy having drones that automatically return fire.
You simply cannot put a platoon of people against a platoon of remotely operated drones and expect a decent outcome.
To call this war approx even is completely wrong.
Yes, Russia and Ukraine are sustaining comparable losses, but that isn’t putting in the fact that Russia has more income, men, and money.
Almost all the effective combat vehicles currently in Ukraine have been supplied by nato, while the smechalca vehicles have been much less effective and since they are without armor, can barely be used due to the need of keeping soldiers alive, not just spending them like Russia.
Russia on the other hand has the ability to purchase weapons and supplies in mass quantities. In fact, they used to be americas largest 556 ammo supplier before Biden shut that down.
Really, Ukraine is going to continue recieving support. However, without active troops being sent into Ukraine the Russian supply will eventually overturn Ukraine eventually. It will take years, but it will still happen.
"Russian supply will eventually overturn Ukraine eventually". Like they did in Afghanistan? Russia could be subjected to massively more logistics strain by providing Ukraine with more long range weapons and allowing them to be used on international border Russian territory. Even without boots on the ground, NATO could give Russia a world of economic hurt by naval blockade. But at this point, Europe and Saudi Arabia are still buying Russian hydrocarbons. It really is a question of whether Russia is willing to become a Chinese vassal in order to get some sea shore property. And how close to the line is NATO willing to pressure Russia. Finally, I doubt that Ukraine even if it was defeated that it would become co-opted like the Chechens (which is a major drain on the Russian state to maintain). Instead, Russia would face a grinding regime of terrorism and sabotage in perpetuity.
Just like how Russia took over Afghanistan right 👍😁
@@richdobbs6595 Guerilla warfare bro
I actually find it hilarous how badly russia is doing in this battle. I know that they really arent, and russia is fighting hard, but holy shit russia is stupid. They have some engineers look at the M3 Bradley and they say it stands no chance against the russian counterpart, yet reports say that as of feb 2022 russia has lost almost 3K tanks. And the Su-57 is just funny.
Its humongous, and has the radar crossection of a tank. And now theyre making the Su-75 "Checkmate", which is a stupid name, that chuck of metal is just a F-35 with bad camo.
what this war has shown..(( old men love to throw young men at their problems ))
The U.S never had conscription. The U.S has what is called the draft. All men 18 to 35 must register for the draft or Selective Service as it's called. Meaning that an event of a major conflict you could be called up to serve.
The US did have conscription but it was highly unpopular the first time it was used in massive numbers was by the Abraham Lincoln administration in 1860s
And it caused massive riots and protests, with some union states even calling for secessionist movements to protest the draft like New York state even doing so
That's why it was eventually was replaced, but it took another 100 years to do so during the Vietnam war, with again more riots and protests
The draft was replaced with a sign up process called selective service meaning every single man in the entirety of the United States population must by his 18th birthday register his name in the event of a draft being implemented
So basically it's the same thing as registering for a draft because you MUST register or else you go to prison but a draft just isn't being called by the government however they reserve the ability to call for a draft in the future
@@rejvaik00 Yes it did have conscription but that was the only time in history that we've had it. Since then the u s military has been a purely volunteer processional military. You can many of our modern day.Allies can't even claim to do that. And still rely on conscripts to fill the ring.