Why Data Suggests Russia's Killed To Wounded Casualties Are Higher Than Normal

Analysts calculating Russian casualty rates in Ukraine are hampered by lack of data from the Russian military. This is, to some degree, because Russia prefers not to release such information which worries its populace and makes it look bad. But it is also because they just don't know, through poor record keeping, indifference, fear of officers being criticized by higher-ups and the fog of war. 

What is emerging is that Russian wounded to killed ratios are not normal because the lack of adequate medical care, the lack of transport to aid stations or hospitals and the lack of adequate unit protection for the wounded awaiting evacuation makes it likely that wounded soldiers whose lives could have been saved are dying of their injuries. JL 

Shashank Joshi reports in The Economist:

The average war since 1816 has seen 50 battlefield deaths a day. Russia’s war in Ukraine is much bloodier. Bill Burns, the director of the CIA, Richard Moore, the chief of Mi6, and Mikk Marran, the head of Estonia’s foreign intelligence service, have all said that around 15,000 Russians have died since February 24th—an average of more than 100 per day. In the first & second world wars, three soldiers were wounded for every one killed. The Russian ratio is three to one but it's probably risen as artillery, which wounds through shrapnel, has come to play a dominant role. How heavy are Russian casualties in Ukraine, and how do we know? It depends greatly on the assumptions one makes about wounded-to-killed ratios in war, which in turn hinges on military medicine and the evolution of tactics over the invasion.

 

In the first & second world wars, roughly three soldiers were wounded for every one killed. That soared over the 20th century, as @tanishafaza's research shows. But the Russian ratio is lower: three to one, according to

@CIA

director Bill Burns last week. Other estimates posit a higher wounded to killed ratio. It's probably risen as artillery, which wounds through shrapnel, has come to play a dominant role. But high ratios that mean even modest numbers of deaths can equate to enormous casualties overall.

 

For more on wounded to killed ratios, see the work of the

@dupuyinstitute

, which draws on historical data.

@tanishafazal

's excellent paper points out: "because of improvements in military medicine, the same conflict that produced 1,200 fatalities in 1860 is likely to have produced 800 fatalities in 1980". But relatively more wounded.

"The problem with higher range KIA counts is that you quickly develop input/output problems. There are more casualties than could feasibly be involved in the fight...certain numbers become implausible"

 

And now we have another US casualty estimate, which reinforces my point that Bill Burns’ public figure of 15,000 Russians killed & 60,000 casualties overall was chosen from the *lower* end of the US spectrum. Biden administration officials told House lawmakers today in a classified briefing that 75,000+ Russians have been killed or wounded during the ongoing war in Ukraine.

 

In Vietnam the ratio was roughly 6 to 1 (300k+ WIA to 56k KIA). However the US had total air supremacy & fixed network of aid stations/hospitals. RU does not control sky and we are not seeing vids of many medevacs so I’ll figure lower end ratio. A wounded soldier typically needs aid with an hour or risk of death often increases. Without air medevacs, it would be tough to get trauma aid within an hour. Most of the road ambushed we’ve seen vids of likely produced very high KIA ratio for example

 

The average war since 1816 has seen around 50 battlefield deaths a day. Russia’s war in Ukraine is much bloodier. In recent days Bill Burns, the director of the cia, Richard Moore, the chief of mi6, and Mikk Marran, the head of Estonia’s foreign intelligence service, have all said that around 15,000 Russians have died since February 24th—an average rate of more than 100 per day. Ukrainian officials say that, recently, their own casualty rate has been similar, and at times much worse. “My expectation is that the war will exceed the deadliness of other large non-world war European wars, like the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War,” says Paul Poast of the University of Chicago. But how are casualty figures estimated?

Military casualties are divided into two main categories: killed in action (kia) and wounded in action (wia), some of whom die later. Those who are captured and taken as prisoners-of-war and those who go missing are counted separately. Some estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine cover only army personnel. Others include forces from the Rosgvardiya (national guard), fsb (the main successor to the kgb) and other non-army regulars, like the vdv airborne forces that were decimated in the first phase of the conflict. And some take in fighters from Russian-backed militias in the Luhansk and Donetsk people’s republics—a pair of puppet governments in eastern Ukraine—which have conscripted large numbers of local residents. These, alongside Russian mercenaries, have done much of the hard fighting in recent months.