I stand corrected looking deeper into the numbers , but yours are wrong as well
The original source I pulled up had a ridiculously low number of rotary which is why I said Russia was closing in on those lose numbers,
More looking shows around 10000 total almost 4000 aircraft and almost 6000 helicopters
But as you know those loses are much more nuanced, from what I can find less than 300 were lost to sams, and many of the aircraft were lost to accidents
Additionally most aircraft were low and slow close air support prop planes, and the helicopters were in armored helicopters.
That was a different time with different aircraft and systems so the comparison is actually pretty difficult to make but would agree it was bad.
Interesting that those loses went down when Nixon got rid of terrible Rules of engagement, allowed bombing of sams sites(manned by Russians by many accounts), bombed Hanoi and mined and attacked the harbor there.
Much was said of ho chi min trail for supplies, but the major supplier of weapons was Soviet Union through the harbor and for many years there was a fear that killing Russians there would lead to WW3. Fact is after Soviet ships were hit the result was strongly worded letter from them.
Interesting topic but not really relevant a bit like talking German loses during ww2
If as you say russia has air supremacy why have Russian aircraft not ventured over Ukrainian air space and ka-52 fleet suffered 30-50% loses.
Your point I think I am inferring is that a NATO led air Champaign would be a slaughter I will disagree with
As to thunder runs…, I am a follower of Hodges and his comments and don’t recall him saying anything like that in fact quite the opposite
Russian defense plans and mostly extensive minefields were and are a major problem. Kharkiv was a success primarily because russia had no prepared defenses, and though many predicted a repeat of Kharkiv, without sufficient airpower to quickly eliminate threats primarily from russian artillery attacking forces trying to negotiate the minefields the advance was going to have to be slow, attritional, and methodical.
That is bearing fruit now, russian forces have been severely attrited esp artillery, air defense and logistical support
Russian lines of defense have been crossed and the question remains what do the Russians have to man those remaining built defense lines.
Time will tell, but mobilizing an additional 500000 indicates things are not going as planned
Will the russian forces crack like In Kharkiv or do a massive withdrawal as in kherson is yet to be determined.
The observation I will make is that this russian “SMO” against a relatively small Ukrainian force with also relatively small amount of western supplies weapons as compared to the full force of a NATO response to a russian invasion does not give a good look to Russian capacities and capabilities
Again we will see
You have your facts wrong down to a minor detail, including such insignificant as the fate of USAF personnel who have attacked the Soviet ship in Vietnam. Four were court martialled in Philippines and three only escaped conviction on procedural grounds, wing commander (a Colonel) was dishonorably discharged.
And I can go on and on.
Also the aircraft aren’t much more survivable against AD compared to Vietnam era nowadays, but ADs are exponentially more advanced and much better in killing aircraft now.
USAF doesn’t have experience in dealing with high end defences that aren’t of 1950s vintage and poorly organized on top of that as was the case in the Gulf War.
Regarding Hodges you probably missed something. According to him, the Ukrainians had to be in Crimea long time ago. He is starting to turn on the dime right now, but he is on record claiming exactly what I have told. It is only now that he has started to tell that the lack or air support is the problem and how everybody is not serious about victory by not giving Ukrainians enough.
Regarding the rest, like the loss of 50% Ka-52s, attrition of Russian artillery and AD - none of it is based on anything but media propaganda.
And once again, check out what air superiority is. Hint: it doesn’t mean the ability of air assets to operate with impunity, it means diminishing the enemy’s ability to do so.
Check out the comments of the Ukrainian air command. They admit to being shot down every other time once they get into the air deep inside their territory. AWACS supported Mig-31s take them out from 170 miles away. F-16 and AMRAAMS won’t change it. I have no doubt that USAF could have performed better, but the idea that they can seriously challenge the Russian air superiority in this exact area has about as much merit as Petraeus’s and Hodge’s fairy tales about “thunder runs”.
Regarding Harkov “success” the reason was in a fact that a battalion worth of regulars and a few thousand rebels were sitting on a huge territory, where the Ukrainians committed about 6 brigades to dislodge them. They forced them into retreat in the end, but some of the brigades took up to 70% casualties to artillery and helicopters while they were at it.
A good PR value, but nothing to write home in terms of military success.
Regarding mobilizing additional forces and the overall Russian performance in the campaign you are once again allowing propagandists to do a thinking for you.
Russia came last year with a force of 90,000 supported by the equal number of local rebels.
The very reasonable expectation was that Ze-clown is going to fold and accept particularly modest demands, like to let Donbas and Lugansk go and pledge to abstain from NATO.
It was close but NATO derailed the negotiations by promising to bring Russia down with sanctions and organize a revolution to oust Putin.
Ze-clown believed them and declared a total war where he had a chance to get away with minor spankling.
Maybe NATO expected that Russia is going to back away from it, but the challenge was accepted.
That was exactly when NATO de-facto lost.
Regarding small Ukrainian force, they bragged to have raised a 1,200,000 army last year. It was maybe a lie, but they certainly had 900,000.
That Russia did is to shorten the front and turn it into a war of attrition with the idea to minimize own casualties and to maximize it for the enemy.
And given that the conservative objectives don’t make sense anymore, it absolutely make sense to expand forces to control more territory because it is now about inflicting the total defeat on Ze-clown.