Sans Hoot

1/3 About Casualty Rates Casualty disinformation is targeted to both sides of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by the criminal regime of Russia. If you want to understand a layman’s view of how casualties are calculated read on, its a big thread that unpicks the methodology behind the figures we see on our feeds regularly. If you find the info interesting, please leave a like and retweet. Thanks for stopping by! Figures on casualties are posted by both sides, Ukraine it’s daily and Russia very infrequently. To develop a balanced view on the numbers, some context about the methodology is explored in this stream which helps to unpick and contextualise the information being pushed out to people across the globe. Firstly, the war is a battle across many fronts even before the battlefield casualties are considered. Examples are Economic, Informational Warfare and Territorial fronts. A war can be won or lost on these other off-battlefield fronts too, so the casualty rate is not the only consideration when assessing the state of war between Ukraine and Russia. These fronts are intertwined, for example one side may be wining on the battlefield but losing on the Economic front and thus unable to continue winning or even fighting. In the context of casualties, one side may be winning the territorial front and gaining territory, but losing on the casualty (attrition) front, again a position that it will be unable to ultimately bear. Neither side has an infinite number of soldiers and equipment (even though Russia dwarfs Ukraine in numbers). They both have finite reserves that will mean when one runs out, they are likely to lose the war. The war will be determined on how much an army has lost and how they are able to regenerate those losers. The war will be determined on how much an army has lost and how they are able to regenerate those losers So remember that when assessing the probabilities that lie behind the casualty rates. So how are casualty estimates calculated? There are a few standard approaches to estimating casualties, which have been used since the day of dawn of conflict. Casualty rates have changed across the ages relative to technological, social, geopolitical and war fare styles. Greek Hoplite warfare for example (Battle of Delium) had a 2.7% casualty rate for the attacker against the 10% for defenders - because of the style of warfare waged, which with the improvement in technology on the battlefield that has now flipped over. This in layman’s terms is attributable to the difference between spears and machine guns. There are often spikes in casualties with the introduction of disruptive technologies and the attrition rate does not balance out until a mitigation is deployed, i.e kamikaze drones = high casualties, until the technology is deployed to deal with the new threat. Another consideration is the non-conflict casualties. In early history, casualty rates for non-combatants was as high as 80% - you were more likely to die from a disease or mosquito bite than in combat. With the advancement of medicine and military capability this has again changed the ratio, where for example in the Afghanistan the American combat casualties were over 80%. A breakdown in medical care and social factors will drive up non-combat casualties, in this case Whilst Ukraine retains a high standard of medical care and ethics - the Russians have poor medical care and social factors such as alcoholism dramatically increase the rate of non-combat casualties in the war, figures of which are not counted in casualty rates. Another consideration is the ability for an army to adapt to warfare, where western forces are configured with small reserve components and compact active components, with further adaption to protracted counter-insurgency and stability operations.