- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
You can have a tank but it has to be operational. Meaning it can actually be used. You can count tanks all day long but that won't tell you much other than the number of tanks. A lot of information is left out.
Did you watch the video all the way through? He covers that and goes over his methodology. He was not just counting hulls.
Though you aren't wrong, I'd like to see a sort of Bayesian breakdown of "We have a high confidence of operational status for this group, low confidence for this group".
Something else to consider is even if the turrets on these tanks are completely rusted out, if there are engine/hull compoents they might still be extremely valuable to Russia's war effort. I'm really curious about what the recovery rate for both sides looks like.
it’s all over war twitter by now and literal MSM front page news (reuters, NYT, etc) so i wouldn’t worry too much about it; plus there’s a pretty good chance it’s either well done fakes, US psyop for the oncoming offensive, or whatever
I'm withholding any judgement except to laugh at Vatniks trying to edit the casualty figures and claim they only lost 8 helicopters.
Only thing I will promise you is this not a military-internal document. This is too slick to be military Death-by-powerpoint; most of the slides have the wrong information density. It should either be a million figures crammed together into a unreadable mess, or one fact per page/map. The weather map is only one that I'd believe came from the US military. Maybe the force training graph, but the middle part is far, far too useful.
(OTOH: Its been a long time since I've needed to endure the finest slides highschoolers can produce. They may have updated templates.)
If real, I think this is something given to brief... like Sweden's Parlement, and probably created by a non-uniformed entity.
Last edited: