Sunday evening (probably Monday UK time) The Economist published an article called “How heavy are Russian casualties in Ukraine?” It is here (but not fully available if you do not have a subscription): How heavy are Russian casualties in Ukraine? | The Economist.
The Dupuy Institute was name-checked in the article and the author gave us a shout out on twitter (@sashj). We do appreciate that.Â
Still, it does look like the article was heavily influenced or even inspired by my post on 22 July in the section on casualties that started more than half-way down the 7,000+ word post:Â
Casualties: William Burns, the Director of the CIA, on 20 July and Mi-6 in the UK are both now putting Russian dead in this war at 15,000. Lots of other people have published much higher figures. Still, this is in line with what I was pointing out a while back: The Ukrainian casualty claims are inflated – part 1 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org).Â
On the other hand, he was not so brave as to pick up on the theme presented in the second half of my paragraph:
Glad to see a little reality is starting to creep back into the estimates. I am surprised that any professional historian and defense analyst let themselves get sucked into the higher figures. Overestimation of enemy casualties is kind of a constant in military history.
I guess these types of statements make people uncomfortable.
Here is series of somewhat related posts on the issue of overclaiming:
The 728th Fighter Regiment on 16 July 1943 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)
Soviet versus German kill claims at Kursk | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)
So What Was Driving the Soviet Kill Claims? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org).
This issue is further discussed in my soon-to-be published book Aces at Kursk. I do look at the records of individual aces.
The Economist article then goes into a discussion on wounded-to-killed ratios. I will post more on that later when I get in the right mood to (I do have a book I am supposed to be finishing).
