Comments
MidnightPale3220 t1_j83vmph wrote
I agree about presentation, but as regards obviousness of correlation, in war, it is a tendency for sides involved to inflate other side's losses.
So a correlation between what Ukrainian officials say, and some other independent source is actually a good sign of trustworthiness of that conflict side's data, which is not necessarily true for a country in war.
6548996 t1_j83wd8n wrote
I see what you’re saying - but it doesn’t really show anything beyond a quite vague correlation at best. OP furthermore states that the ratio has increased from 30:1 to an estimated 70:1 , which could hint at Ukraine exaggerating the casualties if you’d assume a linear correlation.
MidnightPale3220 t1_j840x9w wrote
Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Russia has trouble with replacement officer count, especially since it drafted a huge number of conscripts in a very short time, for which they have mostly provided minimal training. To me the increase in ratio actually corresponds to what I would expect when reading about situation on front lines.
Tamer_ OP t1_j84n7g5 wrote
Russian tactics have changed dramatically and officers in particular have gotten increasingly more afraid of getting killed by leading from the front and being in HIMARS range. You can literally tell when HIMARS strikes hit officer concentrations (HQ buildings mostly) by the peaks in July and August.
More specifically, for the last few months (at least on some 50km of front line), Russian troops are sent (~10 at a time) on mindless assaults to locate Ukrainian positions and relay the information to artillery. They repeat the operation once artillery need more targets or to validate if the last shelling was effective.
All of this is widely reported by Russian troops on the ground.
Tamer_ OP t1_j84ku92 wrote
It's useful because of disinformation and claims to disinformation/propaganda.
The data shows what we should expect, yes, and when copious amount of bullshit is flung all over the place, I find it important to validate the information available.
It's also useful to show the effect of changing Russian and Ukrainian tactics (and to prove that those tactics have a real effect).
Wankeyyyy t1_j840ig5 wrote
How much of this is bull and how much of it is real? I’d like to see the data
400 officers dead in on day sounds absolutely ridiculous
Tamer_ OP t1_j84m7fx wrote
The number of officers per day is the left axis, it peaked at 32 on March 6. The right axis, and white line, is tracking the number of troops "eliminated" by the AFU (their definition has never been clarified AFAIK, but it's widely understood not to include wounded).
As for the data, you can download/export the data presented in the visualization by hovering above the graph and 3 dots will appear on the top-right corner. You can export that data from there.
If you want my own data, this is the spreadsheet I keep: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JSPEJpjMMTyAh5NaEVbRB_GEXgrjAFjFpeN3_myLKTc/edit#gid=1132162938
If you want the full breakdown of officer ranks, Twitter user @KilledInUkraine and team is the authority on the subject: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_bpIqkzD88hlSpA-PDZenSQGNnVnxz3lwYHKViSyuUc/edit#gid=1361265165
Tamer_ OP t1_j83rr7x wrote
The dashboard linked is produced by @ragnarbjartur, but I'm the one who collected the officers's date of death.
Here's a visualization for the first 7 months.
It takes at least 5 months to get 90%+ of the data for a particular time period, by my estimate.
The troops:officer killed ratio was approximately 30:1 during the first month of the invasion and about 50:1 during the 6-7 months that followed. I'm also using known publication date of officer death that's not showing in the dashboard to make those estimates. I suspect the ratio increased to ~70:1 or perhaps even higher after the Kherson evacuation.
6548996 t1_j83uxh4 wrote
No offense, but the data is neither beautifully displayed nor insightful. Isn’t it already obvious that they would correlate? Or, what are we supposed to take from the data?