It’s 300 thousand at best

  • ComradeSalad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    43 seems pretty average for a full mobilization in war time. Standing volunteer armies are usually limited to 18-30, but when it’s all hands on deck, extending the age to 50 is pretty normal. For example a lot of the armies in WW2 were a lot older then people realize, with a lot of 35-55 year olds. Plus you can still drive a supply truck, be a field hospital orderly, or man an anti aircraft battery perfectly fine at 45-60, so a lot of older personnel are allocated to support roles.

    • OrnluWolfjarl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, an average of 43 is woefully old for any time’s standard. I don’t know where you are getting your data, but Red Army during WW2 had an average age of 24-25 (according to Erich Wollenberg’s The Red Army), and the US army was 26. Most armies keep their mobilized to under-40s. Just because some older guys can be assigned to support duties doesn’t mean they are conscripted in mass numbers. That’s not how statistics work.

      43 means you have chewed through your 18-40 year olds. It means that, at best your army has as many 18-40 year olds as it has 41-80 year olds. An average of 43 means that for every 18 year old in the army, there’s an 80 year old as well. Obviously that’s not the case. But it illustrates that the average Ukrainian fighter is between 30-50, which means most of the 18-30 year old males are either dead or wounded and incapable to fight.

      • ComradeSalad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That’s why averages are horrible ways to analyze group makeup and demographic information. Medians are by far more relevant, as averages commonly skew upward.