Dirlebanger
55 posts


No matter how many times I see her like this, she always takes my breath away. Kenzaki Tsurugi, please become my wife!

Rifle@sigma_joker
🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
English

@Goring_Lithium @CorporalGumball @HistoryLegends_ And if you think these examples are outdated, compare the situation with the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq, which was (again) the attacking side, lost as much or even less than the defending (and significantly weaker) Iran
English

@1emon_soup @CorporalGumball @HistoryLegends_ maybe you should remember that a 100 years passed, from those battles.
+ Cherry picking
i can also say -
Battle of Longewala(1971) <200 vs 2000 + tanks and air.
English

A ratio of 🇷🇺 2.4 : 1 🇺🇦 ? This is ridiculous. Dutch intelligence is not that intelligent... Everything points towards a ratio of around 1 : 1.
By the way, I'm working on Version 2.0 of the UkraineWarLosses project. Stay tuned for updated casualty figures.
Mike Eckel@Mike_Eckel
Dutch military intelligence estimate on Ukraine war casualties since 2022: _ Russia: 1.2 million permanent losses (incl. more than 500,000 dead) _ Ukraine: about 500,000 permanent losses _ Trend lines are bad for Ukraine: "it is unable or barely able to replenish the losses."
English

@Goring_Lithium @CorporalGumball @HistoryLegends_ It is... not?
That's true that the casualty ratio can vary widely. I chose these battles because the previous commenter emphasized the positional warfare.
P.S. Germany, which was the attacking side in WW1, suffered slightly fewer casualties compared to the Allies
English

@HistoryLegends_ On the offensive you tend to take more casualties than on the defensive (especially in an attritional war like the Russo Ukranian war) not to mention Russia has significantly more manpower on the field than Ukraine, so a ratio like that sounds about right to me
English

This is what a teddy bear is for me

B1‐517🚬🫦@battle_droid517
I tweaked it a bit. Yeah, the side double pouch really was trash😭
English

























