Part it's related to Ukraine losing access (at least with certain) to certain classes of weapons and the other is Russia transitioning from old artillery (long and medium range spam) to glide bombs and some shorter range artillery. They're still losing an absurd amount of people once they started to run low in armor.

Without trenches that takes time to build those glide bombs are too dangerous to recover terrain.

>>64319388
The answer is basically no. You generally can't judge that through loss statistics alone.

>>64319423
>Without trenches that takes time to build those glide bombs are too dangerous to recover terrain.
could you expand on this and explain why?
>>64319440
but what would these statistics indicative of, and what are other important statistics outside of loss statistics?

>>64320002
yet even at an accelerated pace, the losses per km2 gained is unsustainable for russia

>>64319446
>but what would these statistics indicative of
Not much. Operations research is nice but war is not a field friendly to data science assumptions. You'd be better off reading some history and geography books.

>>64320002
>6 months of advances around Pokrovsk turned into collapsing death traps for mobiks
>the Sumy pocket holding on only because they're throwing men to their deaths to stall the Ukranian advance
Yeah.

>>64320002
>yet the pace at which they take ground is holding steady
It's not, though. They've in fact been losing ground for the last several weeks, ever since the Ukrainians decided to counterattack both in the North (crossing into Kursk yet again btw) and cut off the northern Pokrovsk pincer into multiple cauldrons. Oh, and part of the "drecreasing" casualties is form them being less visible, with a lot of them recently being caused by the ukrainians throwing long-range drone attacks into russian reinforcement columns behind the lines as the zigger are desperately trying to rush troops down to Pokrovsk to break out their encircled units.