I mean if you have ever tried to measure anything large and complex you know individual numbers can only ever represent a small part of the relevant details.
More people? Then how does their experience level and training level compare to what they had before? More equipment? How modern is it? How many of the consumables it requires are available in suitable numbers? How many of their people are trained in its use? Is it in a place where it is needed are thousands of kilometers away?
Size rarely matters, what really matters is where the bottlenecks are, so basically not how much you have total but how much do you have of exactly what you need right now and in which areas do you not have enough of exactly what you need? How well can you substitute other things (e.g. less trained troops at higher casualty rates),…
The answers are pretty obvious if you actually think about this for even a few minutes. There is no substitute for having real combat experience, and Russia now has a large seasoned army that’s seen serious combat action for two years. Not only does this mean that the troops are far more experienced than any NATO army, but it also forced Russia to iron out any supply chain issues they had, let them test their equipment, and learn the faults that need to be fixed, it resulted in Russia ramping up their military industry to incredible levels. As CNN recently reported, Russia now outproduces all of the west by a ratio of three to one in artillery shell production. This is just one example https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Meanwhile, the only western source that provides any methodology shows that Russian casualty rates are relatively low, and have been going down significantly, which is an indication that Russian army is getting better at combat https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng
The whole point of my comment was merely to point out that measuring army size or power as a single value is a flawed way of looking at a complex issue like this but don’t let anything get in the way of spouting some more Russian propaganda.
Do be specific what this Russian propaganda you speak of is. Last I checked, I’m quoting mainstream western publications here. Or perhaps, it’s Royal United Services Institute that’s spreading Russian propaganda I’m parroting, help me understand what you mean here little buddy!
What does that even mean?
I mean if you have ever tried to measure anything large and complex you know individual numbers can only ever represent a small part of the relevant details.
More people? Then how does their experience level and training level compare to what they had before? More equipment? How modern is it? How many of the consumables it requires are available in suitable numbers? How many of their people are trained in its use? Is it in a place where it is needed are thousands of kilometers away?
Size rarely matters, what really matters is where the bottlenecks are, so basically not how much you have total but how much do you have of exactly what you need right now and in which areas do you not have enough of exactly what you need? How well can you substitute other things (e.g. less trained troops at higher casualty rates),…
The answers are pretty obvious if you actually think about this for even a few minutes. There is no substitute for having real combat experience, and Russia now has a large seasoned army that’s seen serious combat action for two years. Not only does this mean that the troops are far more experienced than any NATO army, but it also forced Russia to iron out any supply chain issues they had, let them test their equipment, and learn the faults that need to be fixed, it resulted in Russia ramping up their military industry to incredible levels. As CNN recently reported, Russia now outproduces all of the west by a ratio of three to one in artillery shell production. This is just one example https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Meanwhile, the only western source that provides any methodology shows that Russian casualty rates are relatively low, and have been going down significantly, which is an indication that Russian army is getting better at combat https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng
The whole point of my comment was merely to point out that measuring army size or power as a single value is a flawed way of looking at a complex issue like this but don’t let anything get in the way of spouting some more Russian propaganda.
Do be specific what this Russian propaganda you speak of is. Last I checked, I’m quoting mainstream western publications here. Or perhaps, it’s Royal United Services Institute that’s spreading Russian propaganda I’m parroting, help me understand what you mean here little buddy!
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine