Anna malyar just said this : right now there are 42k women in the AFU. 5k of them serve on the frontline, of them 107 are KIA/WIA.
from this, we can extrapolate rest of the ukie attrition rate.
attrition rate for women in AFU frontline duty would be 1/50, according to malyar
lets double it because government officials are likely to bullshit, then we get 1/25th. we don't account for sex here because shell fragments are not sexist.
now, lets assume 1 million of people on the frontline. with attrition rate of 1/25, it would be 40000 kia/wia
official number of women in AFU is 42k
basically meaning, 1/8th of them are on the frontline
if we double that rate for men (because, well, men are probably more likely to serve on the frontline), we can say that 1/4th serve on the frontline, which is pretty normal tooth-to-tail ration.
meaning, 250k on the actual frontline, if we assume that 1 million of people serve in the AFU.
therefore, if we apply attrition rate for the frontline duty as 1/25, we get .... 10k people kia/wia
which means... it's just like in the thug shaker central leaks.
your logic is questionable but 10k casualties sounds perfectly realistic
There’s too many assumptions here for me to be thrilled. the front lines have changed a lot, the situation has been radically different during different time periods for the war, there are definitely some casualties outside the front line, I think men are closer to 5 times more likely to serve on the front…
I know that there's many assumptions, butt still : it's way too weird that if we apply (sort of) reasonable assumptions we get figures close to the leaked numbers.
You lost credibility, and me, when you started including assumptions without analysis or counterfactuals.
> discussing credibility of random anon on PrepHole
are you on krokodil?
no, i AM the krokodil!
1. It loses all value when you pull numbers from your ass and randomly double your numbers
2. Ukraine already admitted how many soldiers were killed. Between 10-13K after 10 months of fighting. We're at 15 months, so likely a minimum of 15-19.5K dead.
3. Assuming the Ukies have a 5-to-1 wounded-to-killed ratio (pretty standard for battlefield estimation) That's around 100,000 military casualties over 15 months.
Your post ends in a seven, so if we multiply that by 7, we get 70k
The coronation of King Charles III of the United Kingdom is currently ongoing so we'll have to multiply that by 3 as well, which makes 210k
Today is the 6th of May, so if we multiply 5 by 6 we get 30, and if we multiply 210k then we get 6.3 million
You forgot the garden gnomelensky Integer. It's actually 6.3 gorillion.
Wow. An entire room full of waifu.
of which probably all have PTSD and would murder you in your sleep during one of their night terror flashback.
Ar least Mexican bitches ain't the only fat bitches.
Casualties happen in war.
How many of those are actually pregnancies?
An Ukrainian woman could be raped early in the war, have a kid and already have a second rape impregnation under her belt.
Ask me how I know you’re ESL.
>from this, we can extrapolate rest of the ukie attrition rate
That's not how these things work
ok, fine. your proposals?
>we don't account for sex here because shell fragments are not sexist
I don't really want to argue, but consider that there probably is some sort of sex bias. Unconsciously, men will will attempt to protect women on the frontline, when and where possible. Not trying to say it's sexism, just natural instinct. There probably is a small adjustment for women being slightly less likely to become a casualty than men at a statistics level once you get a large enough sample. In all the small ways, men will flinch toward protecting women when the bullets start incoming. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that instinct might be even stronger amongst brothers and sisters serving together.
The other (similar) adjustment is that serving on the frontline does not equate to manual, CQC trench clearing. "Serving on the frontline" has a lot of support positions that don't expose you to direct fire. There may be a skew of women serving in critical combat roles but they are still more protected y the nature of their job. Drone operator or (support) vehicle driver, for examples. Something that doesn't require immense physical strength to haul gear into a trench and face-to-face someone with a bayonet or grenade. I'm literally trying not to be sexist here; it's just as important for someone who is serving to fill out a role that free someone else up for more dangerous missions. Smart command officers task people to the jobs that best enhance unit efficiency based upon all factors across physical fitness and specialty training.
As others have pointed out, there may be flaws in your assumptions, but it's still a reasonably credible attempt given what information is immediately available. If/as more info turns up, this is a model more likely to be adjusted to account for that rather than thrown out and start again from scratch.
>we don't account for sex here because shell fragments are not sexist.
There's frontline and frontline. I would presume that the men directly engaged in combat in the frontline suffer a higher casualty rate than other positions that are also considered frontline.