Lot of recent talk about Russian (and Ukrainian) casualties.
Reports vary, based on who provides them, and how they are counting the losses.
History shows that in war, those who are conducting the offense (Russia), casualties tend to be higher...in the defense, lower 1/18
But number of casualties are also affected by other things:
-the type of conflict (conventional vs insurgency)
-the method of war (infantry vs tanks/aircraft)
-the quality of medical support 2/
This war is different than what Americans are used to seeing in Iraq & Afghanistan, with patrols taking fire or vehicles hitting IEDs.
In an insurgency/counterinsurgency, casualties are mostly among infantry, engineers, support personnel...and there are fewer killed/injured. 3/
I have a box on my desk with cards showing the faces of 153 soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice who were part of the Division I commanded during a 15 month tour in 2007-8
I look at those pictures daily, and remember those soldiers. It still hurts 4/
The number of casualties Russians and Ukrainians are taking in this conflict are - so far - staggering to those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's a different conflict, where tanks, armored carriers, artillery, and airplanes are engaging on this battlefield. 5/
The type of conflict is different. The battles are more intense with more killed and wounded. I would guess the probability has a RU unit losing 153 soldiers in a day, as opposed to our 15 months in combat.
But the intensity and type of fight is only one factor. 6/
Medical support is another factor.
There was much made about RU "stocking blood" a few weeks ago in Belarus. That is critical, for if a wounded soldier loses more than 1-2 pints...he won't make it. 7/
You have to have highly trained medics with each unit...
That's tougher with long convoys, and the Russian army soldier is mostly a conscript. That includes their medics, too. Not very well trained. 8/
Contributing to medical support is something the US military calls "the golden hour."
If you don't get a wounded soldier initial aid (a medic) and then to an aid facility with doctors within an hour, their chance of survival drops significantly. 9/
Which brings me to the 40-mile convoy everyone was talking about.
Yes, that convoy was stalled with fuel, ammo, food, & spare part for several days.
I would bet there was also medical support in that column...and they were there to execute ground transport to aid stations. 10/
What about the famous "airevac," or what we've learned to get the seriously wounded back to a combat hospital?
Well, this hasn't shown to be an environment where helicopters fly without being shot down. So scratch that approach, too. 11/
Logisticians & medical officers use planning factors to get the wounded out...but as I said a few days ago, the RU generals are not very good at integrating logistics plans into their combat operations.
So, a lot of wounded Russians will likely die due to lack of aid. 12/
Finally, as the terrific @juliaioffe mentioned tonight, Russians don't use the word "cannon fodder" in combat...they derisively call their soldiers "cannon meat."
Horrific. Shows the leadership approach by Russian officers and civilian masters. 13/
Now, this type of intense conflict also affects Ukraine's soldiers. It will be harsh, and lethal, and catastrophic.
But in hosting Ukraines' soldiers at our facility in Germany, they were provided medic training for those going to Afghanistan as part of ISAF. 14/
The Ukrainian senior and junior officers - and newly established NCO corps - were also provided with training on establishing ways to get wounded soldiers off the battlefield.
And that, i'm convinced, will make a difference. 15/
But Russia attacking civilian populations also affects this calculation. It is part of their plan.
Attacking civilians causes confusion, chaos, frustration, death and injury, and the desire to escape.
That's what's happening now as Russia strikes civilian cities. 16/
Attacking civilians takes manpower away from the Ukrainian fight. The medical personnel (and those giving out sandwiches, protecting busses, getting families out) are pulled in two directions:
Protect the citizens, or go with the Ukrainian units? 17/
I only provide this for information for consideration by those who are uninitiated to what we're seeing now.
But will end with one statement: It is Vladimir Putin who is purposely causing this pain and death...to his soldiers, and to Ukraine.
That's why he sickens me. 18/18
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many seem to be stuck on instituting a US/NATO No Fly Zone (NFZ) in Ukraine. Some asking for this compare doing so to what happened in Iraq and the Balkans.
I don't think it's a good idea, for several reasons. So here's a quick thread. 1/11
The concept of a NFZ is such that a nation puts aircraft into a contested area to prevent another nation from using aircraft against an ally.
It seems simple: Put aircraft in the sky, and stop someone else from using their aircraft from doing bad things. 2/
There's a couple problems to this:
First, in order to ENFORCE a NFZ, you have to be prepared to shoot the other aircraft down. If you're not worried about doing that because you have the power that nothing else bad could happen, you're okay. 3/
A thread on an experience I had in 2004 with a Russian General. 1/12
In returning from Iraq in 2004 as a one-star general, I was assigned as the commander of the US Army Training Center in Grafenwoehr, Germany. Beautiful place, and one of my favorite jobs during my career. 2/
This is a place where we conducted training and exercises with US forces, but my boss had given me the task to turn it into a multinational training center for our NATO allies and other partners. 3/
I was a major during Desert Storm. Other armies have attempted to model our actions during that 45 day air campaign & 4 day/100 hour ground campaign.
But they don’t understand the things we applied during that fight. 1/8
The US/alliance had brilliant political leadership in Bush & Powell. There was operational competence in the generals. There was a masterful plan that relied on coordinated intel, logistics & the principles of war. 2/8
Perhaps most importantly, there was a new generation of professional & trained military personnel, with great equipment, sound doctrine, realistic training & terrific leadership development. (A new school for planners -SAMS- also played a huge part). 3/8
After one of my @CNN appearances, one of the anchors asked me off-air why I had confidence in Ukraine's army to push back agains the illegal Russian military onslaught.
I used a bit of "battlefield math" to explain my rationale. 1/16
Their are two major factors most military folks consider to determine combat power: the force's resources and the force's will.
There are more elements under each of these categories that contribute to military capabilities. 2/
The force's RESOURCES: that's quantity (size of the force, Number of different capabilities...like air, artillery, # of soldiers), quality of equipment, extent and specificity of their training, their logistics & ability to resupply, their intelligence, etc. 3/
It appears the city of Kharkiv may be an objective of Putin and the Russian Army. My Ukrainian counterpart - Col-Gen Vorobyof - took me on a tour of that city (his hometown) in 2011. My impressions: 1/8
First, it is a beautiful city, and relatively modern. The city had suffered through 4 different battles during WWII, so it was mostly rebuilt. But many buildings had beautiful architecture. 2/
The citizens were very welcoming to me, as an American (likely because of my host’s influence & my Army rank at the time). It was my first taste of samovar tea, but we also had excellent Kharkiv vodka. 3/
Earlier, I commented about a reporter in @PentagonPresSec briefing asking whether @82ndABNDiv would parachute into Poland.
Since then, lots (LOTs) of paratroopers commented on in-flight rigging, how it would send a message, how it's been done on exercises etc. 1/7
From a theater commander's perspective, here are the pros and cons:
Pros: 1. Yes, you can do in-flight rigging (but it's difficult and takes excessive space). 2. Yes, it would send a message (but not a good one, given we are not trying to be excessively provocative). 2/7
3. Yes, the 82d has parachuted into Poland (and Germany, and several other countries in Europe) before (but almost all were in the summer, as part of an exercise, and with other nations). 4. Yes, I'm a tanker & therefore a "leg" (but I know a bit about airborne ops in EU). 3/7