Ukraine's gay soilders fight Russia and for their rights

a reply to: MykeNukem

Well i can provide links to support the claims i make.

If only you could do the same then you might actually have a dog in the fight.

Woof woof.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
BS Claims like: "Russia has lost more troops than the USA did during WWII and in all the wars since."

The poster said since WWII, not during.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

Well i can provide links to support the claims i make.

If only you could do the same then you might actually have a dog in the fight.

Woof woof.

I didn't make any claims, lol.

I refuted a BS claim that had no links or data.

And that triggered you I guess.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
BS Claims like: "Russia has lost more troops than the USA did during WWII and in all the wars since."

The poster said since WWII, not during.

Show me I'm wrong.

I'm not the one making claims.

The one making claims backs their claims up.

That's how it f'n works....

It's BS, plain and simple.

Or, prove it's not, plain and simple.

a reply to: MykeNukem

I believe the other member said since WW2, not including.

Here's official stats for US KIA and total casualties in all combat missions since 1945.


102,670 dead
402,905 casualties

en.wikipedia.org...

I have no doubt that the Russians have more than 103K KIA, regardless of Jay's BS numbers a reply to: JAY1980
( hint: it's why he doesn't provide links ) All I can really do at that post is lol. Cause I do try and keep up with the public number of obits and the like within Russia and Ukraine to see what those numbers actually look like. And officially, from the MoD of Russia, who hasn't released a casualty report in almost 7 months, put the number of dead at about 6K. Oh and remember, all those folks with Wagner, the separatists and the other PMC's fighting in Ukraine aren't considered losses to the Russian MoD.

As far as Oryx, they do nothing but compile the materiel losses from both sides that have video or photo confirmation. And they are pretty rigorous in trying to keep duplicates out of the tally. You'll see the numbers change up and down by small increments for just that reason. I won't say they are impartial but they try to stay as accurate as possible about the losses. And yes, extrapolating actual loses to materiel losses isn't a good idea. In the beginning of the war, much of the IFV/s and APC's were not fully crewed. There is a bunch of video evidence of this from both sides. Where an IFV may be meant to carry 10-14 infantry, they had 3-4 soldiers mounted on board. What's the problem with Oryx?

AS to the OP, it's just our little homophobic immigrant showing his stripes. Vnex, I offer you a way to escape all this wokeness that is offending you here in my country. A plane ticket to St. Petersburg with the contact number for Wagner. Just be careful going out to cafe's, I hear you can have a really banger of a time.

a reply to: GAOTU789

Whether it was "since" or not isn't the issue.

The issue is that we don't have reliable data to make such grandiose claims as what I was responding to.

That's all it boils down to, at least, my participation in the thread.

After that, it's all just people getting triggered because I'm not a Zelenskyy cheerleader.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Show me I'm wrong.

Start with the Oryx data for starters. 10,000 vehicles lost, minimum two to three man crews (20-30,000), most likely more. In the case of APC's the personnel being transported, with 2,000 destroyed, can easily be another 15-20,000. That's 35-50,000 without even trying and not counting infantry losses or vehicle losses that aren't 100% verifiable. Saying the number of KIA is around 100,000 is not a stretch at all.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Show me I'm wrong.

Start with the Oryx data for starters. 10,000 vehicles lost, minimum two to three man crews (20-30,000), most likely more. In the case of APC's the personnel being transported, with 2,000 destroyed, can easily be another 15-20,000. That's 35-50,000 without even trying and not counting infantry losses or vehicle losses that aren't 100% verifiable. Saying the number of KIA is around 100,000 is not a stretch at all.

All within a year, eh?

originally posted by: MykeNukem
All within a year, eh?

Since the war began.

Oh, I see what you're angling at; pedantry and semantics. They're still dead even if it took another two months more.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
All within a year, eh?

Since the war began.

Oh, I see what you're angling at, pedantry and semantics. They're still dead even if it took another two months more.

No, no, no.

Did you not just correct me on "since"

I'm not playing your game.

I was responding to a statement, a statement I was corrected on (which I accepted), I then continued to participate in your discussion.

Then, when I show that the statement said "all within a year", you start crying semantics?

GTF off me with that...

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Did you not just correct me on "since"

Because if it was 'during' it would mean another 500,000 which is a wholly unrealistic number.

I'm not playing your game.

I make the rules and you already are. Hernk! Hernk! All aboard Augie's freedom truck.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Did you not just correct me on "since"

Because if it was 'during' it would mean another 500,000 which is a wholly unrealistic number.

I'm not playing your game.

I make the rules and you already are. Hernk! Hernk! All aboard Augie's freedom truck.

Unrealistic number? Say it isn't so...

You into the cognac already too?

Don't you have some zoom meetings or something?

There must be freedom somewhere that need stifling...

Yes, honk honk

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Unrealistic number? Say it isn't so...

500,000 isn't, 100,000 is a very realistic number.

Hernk! Hernk!

a reply to: MykeNukem

Nope we don't have reliable data for either side. Tracking public obits is not reliable, as many of the deaths don't get a mention in the Russia social media space, the governors of the different oblasts have stopped reporting local deaths. And the people who are trying to tally the dead are small in number. It's not a safe practice in Russia, so there are lots that haven't been counted.

Through most of my work, I think that the Russia and Ukrainian losses are similar in number, with Russia suffering more losses in total. The Ukrainians are losing lots as well. The nature of the fighting in the East Central part of the country is brutal. I have watched videos from Russian sources ( and Ukrainian sources of the same battle ) that show soldiers being pushed towards the contact lines without weapons of any sort. This was a couple of platoon sized groups of men literally walking into their death. I give them credit though, in the couple of videos I seen, they pushed forward. They didn't turn and run, they died by being shot in the chest and not in the back.

originally posted by: GAOTU789
a reply to: MykeNukem

Nope we don't have reliable data for either side. Tracking public obits is not reliable, as many of the deaths don't get a mention in the Russia social media space, the governors of the different oblasts have stopped reporting local deaths. And the people who are trying to tally the dead are small in number. It's not a safe practice in Russia, so there are lots that haven't been counted.

Through most of my work, I think that the Russia and Ukrainian losses are similar in number, with Russia suffering more losses in total. The Ukrainians are losing lots as well. The nature of the fighting in the East Central part of the country is brutal. I have watched videos from Russian sources ( and Ukrainian sources of the same battle ) that show soldiers being pushed towards the contact lines without weapons of any sort. This was a couple of platoon sized groups of men literally walking into their death. I give them credit though, in the couple of videos I seen, they pushed forward. They didn't turn and run, they died by being shot in the chest and not in the back.

I can't and don't disagree with anything you said.

It's the MSM and political bias that makes me have trust issues with "numbers".

a reply to: MykeNukem

They can’t have it both ways.

www.theguardian.com...

From what I understand the extrapolation they speak of is from destroyed equipment.

Just because equipment was destroyed doesn’t mean it was occupied at the time as it appears the Russians have a habit of abandoning their swag.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Triggered. LoL

What did you refute the claim with MykeNukem?

Because its not with any sort of tangible evidence that's for sure.

So your refutal amounts to an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

The Russians are on their arse, forced to resort to conscription to replace the forces that have been decimated on the battlefield.

Then there is the use of antiquated pieces of military hardware.

Which does not exactly spell success or inspire confidence, so there is that.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuffx2
a reply to: MykeNukem

They can’t have it both ways.

www.theguardian.com...

From what I understand the extrapolation they speak of is from destroyed equipment.

Just because equipment was destroyed doesn’t mean it was occupied at the time as it appears the Russians have a habit of abandoning their swag.

Let's go with that theory, then.

How many millions of troops must the States have lost in Afghanistan?

ETA: sent ya a dm

a reply to: MykeNukem

Millions? LoL

Plenty and far too many would be my guess in that department, but millions????

Make sense man.

There were 2,402 United States military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,921 of these deaths were the result of hostile action. 20,713 American servicemembers were also wounded in action during the war. In addition, 18 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives also died in Afghanistan.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=There%20were%202%2C402%20United%20States,operatives% 20also%20died%20in%20Afghanistan.

Over 15,000 Soviet troops were killed in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1989. In the war, the Soviet Army also lost hundreds of aircraft, and billions worth of other military machines. Around two million Afghan men, women and children died in the war.

simple.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Over%2015%2C000%20Soviet%20troops%20were,children%20died%20in%20the%20war.

There is a reason they call the place "the graveyard of empires" you see, but i dont think anyone has lost millions of troops anywhere in recent memory, even the British did not lose numbers like that when they held sway, or tried to.

a reply to: MykeNukem

You owe me a Timmys ‘cause I just spit mine all over my desk!

No, still can’t log on with NOS.