[_kbh_]

> You're deliberately omitting the fact that he says "Much of the Russian military" and "one of those" in a single sentence and presume that he only speaks about submarines, whereas much of the military is still much of it, including submarines.

Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.

But the ground forces has been completely destroyed they have lost some many vehicles, including tanks that they have started using tanks that they don't even produce anymore.

I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.

> What period of time are these numbers for?

Upto march this year, as it says on the document if you read it.

> The mentioned leak data also suggest Ukraine would likely exhaust their air defense systems by the end of May [1]. Do you trust this intelligence estimate as well as the KIA numbers?

Yes, which is why the west needed to and has been focusing on supplying Ukraine with air defence, which they have been doing.

[ghostwriter]

> Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.

He didn't say parts of it, he said much of their military.

> But the ground forces has been completely destroyed

You've mentioned 35.5k-43.5k KIA losses for Russia up to March this year. Are you suggesting that these numbers comprise the complete ground forces?

> I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.

I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all. If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time? Is it the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?

[_kbh_]

> He didn't say parts of it, he said much of their military.

He was clearly talking about there overall armed forces, but you seemingly want to interpret his words in a very narrow view.

> You've mentioned 35.5k-43.5k KIA losses for Russia up to March this year. Are you suggesting that these numbers comprise the complete ground forces?

35.4k-43.5k KIA is like ~130k-~160k casualties, thats a huge lose, for any army.

But no, my assessment of the state of the Russian ground forces is more based around their use of equipment and their equipment losses.

The losses are staggering you should see them for yourself.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

> I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all.

But it's not being used as artillery its being used as tank. Indirect fire its not a bad idea but as a tank its going to melt in the face of anything at or never then a T64.

> If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time?

Well for one its crew is different to anything the Russian forces use now because it doesn't have a auto loader, its a cannon is too weak to really take on anything newer then it.

> Is that the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?

No but T55's have been spotted getting moved around so theres hope yet.