That’s largely myth. Russia in WWII certainly sustained huge casualties. But their offensive operations, especially later in the war, we’re certainly not human wave attacks with 80% casualty rates. That wasn’t how they conducted operations in Afghanistan. They did emphasize combined arms, and maneuver warfare. But yes, they have been willing to lose large numbers. Dictators can afford to do that. But it doesn’t always help. Remember, Patton’s adage, it’s not about dying for your country, it’s about making the other poor bastard die for his.
In the end, Ukraine doesn’t really need to drive Russia out of all of their territory. They just need to hang on and make Russia suffer huge casualties trying to advance. They can afford to lose some ground. Putin won’t be around forever.
IAE, here’s an interesting article about decision centric warfare and the lessons from the conflict.
The Biden administration’s decision to send Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine is being heralded as a sign that the United States and its Western allies will back Kyiv’s efforts to retake Russian…
thehill.com
i don’t think 130 modern tanks is likely to make a huge difference. It can help in local battles. It can blunt Russia’s offensive. But I note that the US has 2500 M1 in service and another 3700 in strategic reserve. they'll need a thousand to really make a difference. Plus another 1000 Leopards. That would fuck Russia up. In truth we need to supply them a lot more advanced weaponry and the training to go with it. Training could be done in Poland. They need to use Poland as basically a supply, refitting and training base. And not just for the tanks, but for everything.