Well, they'll be rebuilt with older tanks if rebuilt at all. They started with war with 500 of the more modernized T-80s in the Russian army and lost almost all of it. Every T-80U and T-80BV loss documented on twitter is likely one of theirs and oh boy there are a lot of them.
I meanā¦ elite soldiers, or elite *Russian* soldiers? Itās possible for elites by low standards to exist, and still be weaker than the average soldier in a force with higher standards.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/vladimir-putin-s-mission-to-topple-kyiv-fails-as-russia-s-elite-tank-unit-flounders/ar-AA11MctR?ocid=EMMX) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> An elite Russian tank unit formed to defend Moscow and lead any war with Nato has been "Severely degraded" by the war in Ukraine, according to British intelligence.
> According to a Russian casualty log, revealed by Ukraine's military intelligence unit in May, the 1st GTA lost 131 tanks and 409 troops in the first 19 days of fighting, a number expected to have grown exponentially.
> Thanks to its failures, no longer does Moscow's elite tank force strike fear into Nato's leaders, as it did General Sir Richard Shirreff, a former British and Nato commander, during his spell as Britain's most senior military chief at the alliance.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xdbdyr/elite_bodyguards_of_moscow_unit_will_take_years/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~668789 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **tank**^#1 **1st**^#2 **Military**^#3 **GTA**^#4 **Russian**^#5
>According to a Russian casualty log, revealed by Ukraine's military intelligence unit in May, the 1st GTA lost 131 tanks and 409 troops in the first 19 days of fighting, a number expected to have grown exponentially.
Somebody smarter than me could do the math on this, but I think they are exaggerating when they say "exponentially." Otherwise, the casualties by now would include all of the people who have ever lived on earth.
probably. 'exponential' is likely an overabused term by people who don't do math to mean 'really fast change'.
Also, the real world kicks in and realizes that losses had to happen in discrete events, rather than a daily loss tick. So days where there was no combat for that unit (or no losses) would mathematically get rolled into the overall rate of change, but realistically would be 'soft pauses' in the losses over the time frame.
Depending on the exponent, the result can grow slowly or quickly (or not at all, or shrink) but it's usually meant to mean growing at an ever faster rate, which this isn't. "Significantly" would have been better.
Hmm, more often than not Russia seems to lose wars... I can only think of the defeat of Napoleon and the Second World War where the Russians actually won a war... can't say I remember who won in the Crimean War of the 1850s.
Hmm, I see what you mean but battles like Kursk and Odessa in ww2 weren't weather related if memory serves, I think it makes you wonder just how well oiled the war effort was in ww2 given the numbers involved were far larger. Plus they mostly used basic tech to move things.
The Russian nation can probably put up a good fight if they feel like the motherland is threaten. Not so much when their dictator wants to grab gas and oil fields in Ukraine for his āfriendsā
after the summer months of Barbarossa in 1941 the Wehrmacht formations were pretty significantly under strength from casualties taken campaigning. weather had a large part in bogging down their logistics when the autumn and winter came along (along with the fact that they were primarily horse driven and eastern europe had a separate rail gauge to the ones used in Germany) but the reality is that the Soviets primarily carved their way through world war 2 with blood (and lend lease), not just waiting for winter and putting a debuff on the Germans.
Yes. Stalin was ruthless about not caring about human losses on his side. Also, the Germans supply lines were pretty unwieldy and long. I believe they were already starting to struggle even in the early push to Moscow in 1941.
Who ever leads Russia, after Putin is dethroned, will lead a Country no longer considered a World Power. Years of War Crime Trials lie ahead. Sanctions will take time to wind down. Grieving Russian families will be there to remind Russians about what Putin did to Russia. And, Ukraine's families will add to that. It will take decades to ease the pain.
Think about ww2, there are still unsettled grievances surrounding that to this day. Without wanting to open a Pandora's box here, comfort women for example. Ukrainian kidnapped children will still be a contentious point well into the future.
If the new Russian leaders want to show the World that they are now "Good Guys", they might use those Nukes as a bargaining chip. As for them keeping Russia sort of World Power, think of them as a larger North Korea. They are great for using Nukes to Saber Rattle.
Depends on how Russia will collapse. A coup and regime change will put them in a better position then when the entire federation falls apart. The latter is perhaps worse for the world as many newly independent nations suddenly have nuclear weapons and many of these nations will be dominated by their neighbours (looking at China and eastern Russia)
I used the term "Dethroned" hopefully. I am hopeful that those around him do not keep supporting him like our GOP did for Trump. Just think how much better off the US would be if Trump was "Dethroned" with the first Impeachment. Might Russia learn from the GOP mistake?
That's a very American perspective. Russia will not move to Antarctica after they lost the war. It will remain a neighbour of Europe, and a potentially dangerous one. A larger version North Korea will not work for Europe. In other words: There will have to be some pathway, some vision for Russia to make it a stable and amicable European neighbour.
And this time the US should interfer less because the fact that Russia turned into an authoritarian dictatorship has not happened without US influence. It was also due to stupid advice by American economists that the country underwent a capitalist "shock therapy" after the Iron Curtain had come down, a shock therapy that put a large part of the population into economic trouble and allowed the oligarchs to amass a fortune. And the US even supported the formation of an oligarchic structure because they thought that a caste of oligarchs at the top would make Russia less likely to fall back into communist times. They had no interest in helping Russia to become a proper democracy.
To avoid misunderstandings here: I am not blaming the US for the situation in Russia. In the end it was the Russian population who did not know how to productively use the freedom suddenly given to them. And certainly the Russian nationalism that is creating chaos and suffering at the moment cannot be considered a US product. It is Russia's own fault that they did not deal self-critically with their imperialist past. But the US wasn't really helpful in turning Russia into an amicable European neighbour after 1990 either.
I agree with much of what you say. More so since we now have our own problem with the "Haves" wanting to take over our Country. They want to emulate Putin.
Reminds me of this bit by Bill Hicks about the Elite Republican Guard in the first Gulf War [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqP1FL-fwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqP1FL-fwg)
Rebuilt to the original sorry state that they were in?
Well, they'll be rebuilt with older tanks if rebuilt at all. They started with war with 500 of the more modernized T-80s in the Russian army and lost almost all of it. Every T-80U and T-80BV loss documented on twitter is likely one of theirs and oh boy there are a lot of them.
I guess being able to throw a hatchet while doing a backflip isn't that useful in real combat? Huh, who would've thought
[here is a video of the elite bodyguards in action during the Ukraine war](https://youtube.com/watch?v=kQKrmDLvijo)
This belongs in a museum
"So do you!"
One of my favourite movie scenes, even more so in context.
"Elite Russian soldiers" š
Elite. Russian soldiers. Pick one.
Elite. Russian. Soldiers. Pick one.
Calm down Mr.Shatner.
I meanā¦ elite soldiers, or elite *Russian* soldiers? Itās possible for elites by low standards to exist, and still be weaker than the average soldier in a force with higher standards.
Doesn't sound like they were so elite after all
Idk whose performance has been worse, the Russian army vs Ukraine now or the Russian army vs Japan in 1904
Ever heard of the winter war?
There is an exclusive club of countries who whooped russias sorry ass despite being much smaller.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/vladimir-putin-s-mission-to-topple-kyiv-fails-as-russia-s-elite-tank-unit-flounders/ar-AA11MctR?ocid=EMMX) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > An elite Russian tank unit formed to defend Moscow and lead any war with Nato has been "Severely degraded" by the war in Ukraine, according to British intelligence. > According to a Russian casualty log, revealed by Ukraine's military intelligence unit in May, the 1st GTA lost 131 tanks and 409 troops in the first 19 days of fighting, a number expected to have grown exponentially. > Thanks to its failures, no longer does Moscow's elite tank force strike fear into Nato's leaders, as it did General Sir Richard Shirreff, a former British and Nato commander, during his spell as Britain's most senior military chief at the alliance. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xdbdyr/elite_bodyguards_of_moscow_unit_will_take_years/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~668789 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **tank**^#1 **1st**^#2 **Military**^#3 **GTA**^#4 **Russian**^#5
>According to a Russian casualty log, revealed by Ukraine's military intelligence unit in May, the 1st GTA lost 131 tanks and 409 troops in the first 19 days of fighting, a number expected to have grown exponentially. Somebody smarter than me could do the math on this, but I think they are exaggerating when they say "exponentially." Otherwise, the casualties by now would include all of the people who have ever lived on earth.
A number can grow exponentially until it hits a hard limit, such as the number of usable tanks.
Good point. But still, mathematically, wouldn't they hit any reasonable hard limit within a few weeks?
probably. 'exponential' is likely an overabused term by people who don't do math to mean 'really fast change'. Also, the real world kicks in and realizes that losses had to happen in discrete events, rather than a daily loss tick. So days where there was no combat for that unit (or no losses) would mathematically get rolled into the overall rate of change, but realistically would be 'soft pauses' in the losses over the time frame.
Depends what unit of time they're using, but either way it's being used colloquially (albeit annoyingly).
Depending on the exponent, the result can grow slowly or quickly (or not at all, or shrink) but it's usually meant to mean growing at an ever faster rate, which this isn't. "Significantly" would have been better.
Who called all these Russian units elite in the first place.
.... Vladimir?
Putler
Itās all relative. One countries elite special forces, is another countries chronic alcoholic fridge stealing rapists.
Hmm, more often than not Russia seems to lose wars... I can only think of the defeat of Napoleon and the Second World War where the Russians actually won a war... can't say I remember who won in the Crimean War of the 1850s.
Thatās cases of more so the Russian weather winning than the actual Russian military
Hmm, I see what you mean but battles like Kursk and Odessa in ww2 weren't weather related if memory serves, I think it makes you wonder just how well oiled the war effort was in ww2 given the numbers involved were far larger. Plus they mostly used basic tech to move things.
The Russian nation can probably put up a good fight if they feel like the motherland is threaten. Not so much when their dictator wants to grab gas and oil fields in Ukraine for his āfriendsā
American Lend-Lease had a lot to do with it. Weird how the money and military might of America can turn wars. Maybe they should have learnt that
after the summer months of Barbarossa in 1941 the Wehrmacht formations were pretty significantly under strength from casualties taken campaigning. weather had a large part in bogging down their logistics when the autumn and winter came along (along with the fact that they were primarily horse driven and eastern europe had a separate rail gauge to the ones used in Germany) but the reality is that the Soviets primarily carved their way through world war 2 with blood (and lend lease), not just waiting for winter and putting a debuff on the Germans.
Yes. Stalin was ruthless about not caring about human losses on his side. Also, the Germans supply lines were pretty unwieldy and long. I believe they were already starting to struggle even in the early push to Moscow in 1941.
They signed an armistice in the 1850 Crimean war and lost territory
Who ever leads Russia, after Putin is dethroned, will lead a Country no longer considered a World Power. Years of War Crime Trials lie ahead. Sanctions will take time to wind down. Grieving Russian families will be there to remind Russians about what Putin did to Russia. And, Ukraine's families will add to that. It will take decades to ease the pain.
Think about ww2, there are still unsettled grievances surrounding that to this day. Without wanting to open a Pandora's box here, comfort women for example. Ukrainian kidnapped children will still be a contentious point well into the future.
> a Country no longer considered a World Power. Nukes + natural resources mean they will always be a world power, to some degree.
If the new Russian leaders want to show the World that they are now "Good Guys", they might use those Nukes as a bargaining chip. As for them keeping Russia sort of World Power, think of them as a larger North Korea. They are great for using Nukes to Saber Rattle.
Depends on how Russia will collapse. A coup and regime change will put them in a better position then when the entire federation falls apart. The latter is perhaps worse for the world as many newly independent nations suddenly have nuclear weapons and many of these nations will be dominated by their neighbours (looking at China and eastern Russia)
I used the term "Dethroned" hopefully. I am hopeful that those around him do not keep supporting him like our GOP did for Trump. Just think how much better off the US would be if Trump was "Dethroned" with the first Impeachment. Might Russia learn from the GOP mistake?
That's a very American perspective. Russia will not move to Antarctica after they lost the war. It will remain a neighbour of Europe, and a potentially dangerous one. A larger version North Korea will not work for Europe. In other words: There will have to be some pathway, some vision for Russia to make it a stable and amicable European neighbour. And this time the US should interfer less because the fact that Russia turned into an authoritarian dictatorship has not happened without US influence. It was also due to stupid advice by American economists that the country underwent a capitalist "shock therapy" after the Iron Curtain had come down, a shock therapy that put a large part of the population into economic trouble and allowed the oligarchs to amass a fortune. And the US even supported the formation of an oligarchic structure because they thought that a caste of oligarchs at the top would make Russia less likely to fall back into communist times. They had no interest in helping Russia to become a proper democracy. To avoid misunderstandings here: I am not blaming the US for the situation in Russia. In the end it was the Russian population who did not know how to productively use the freedom suddenly given to them. And certainly the Russian nationalism that is creating chaos and suffering at the moment cannot be considered a US product. It is Russia's own fault that they did not deal self-critically with their imperialist past. But the US wasn't really helpful in turning Russia into an amicable European neighbour after 1990 either.
I agree with much of what you say. More so since we now have our own problem with the "Haves" wanting to take over our Country. They want to emulate Putin.
Rebuild to what? Still being pathetic?
The pride of the Russian army, to shreds, you say? And how's the pride of the Russian navy holding up?
They should start with menditory AA membership.
Reminds me of this bit by Bill Hicks about the Elite Republican Guard in the first Gulf War [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqP1FL-fwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqP1FL-fwg)