Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February 2022, the conflict has left a staggering toll on Russian forces, with Ukrainian defenders continuing to push back against Moscow’s aggression.
According to data from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as of 25 January 2025, the scale of Russian losses has been immense, reflecting the resilience of Ukrainian resistance.
The human toll underscores the intensity and prolonged nature of the conflict, now entering its 35th month. Russia has also suffered massive equipment losses. Ukrainian forces have destroyed or captured:
- 9,859 tanks,
- 20,545 armoured fighting vehicles
- 22,309 artillery systems and 1,263 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS).
- 1,050 anti-aircraft warfare systems
The skies have also been costly for Russia, with Ukrainian defenders bringing down 369 planes and 331 helicopters since the start of the war. Meanwhile, 23,213 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been shot down, an increase of 51 within the last day.
Russian naval forces have also faced setbacks, losing 28 warships and boats, including the once-flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva. Ukrainian forces have even destroyed a Russian submarine, further highlighting the vulnerabilities of the Russian military.
In addition, Ukraine has intercepted and neutralised more than 3,053 cruise missiles, reflecting the country’s growing capability to counter aerial and missile threats.
Many of the destroyed Russian tanks and armoured vehicles, abandoned in retreat, have been turned into scrap metal or repurposed as exhibits, symbolic of Ukraine’s resistance. For instance, some of these wrecked machines have been displayed in Ukrainian cities, while others have been dismantled by locals in liberated regions.
The sheer scale of Russia’s losses serves as a reminder of the cost of its aggression. It also highlights Ukraine’s determination to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
With NATO allies continuing to provide military support, including weaponry and training, Ukraine remains resolute in its efforts to repel Russian advances and maintain its independence.
Correction (28 January 2025):
In a previous version of this article, “Russia estimated to have lost almost 10,000 tanks in Ukraine,” we incorrectly referred to the combined figure of Russian personnel killed and injured as solely representing those killed. The correct figure, as reported by the Ukrainian General Staff, refers to total “combat losses,” which include personnel killed, injured, captured, missing, and AWOL. We apologise for the error and any confusion caused.
— The UK Defence Journal Editorial Team
With the greatest respect to Lisa, one has to be careful with propaganda figures on losses produced by either side. Many believe that the open source organisation Oryx is the most accurate, as it only counts photographically confirmed losses. In January 2025 Oryx had visually confirmed 3,673 Russian tank losses, however this is likely to be an underestimate
Not going to argue on numbers but the photos of emptying storage areas and the fact T55/62 are appearing on the battlefield draw your own conclusions!
Even 3,673 tanks destroyed is a real on-goal in military demilitarization!
Finding in-service numbers for T72 tanks isn’t easy but I found an article on Military Watch Magazine website written at the beginning of 2023 suggesting that there were about 10,000 T72 / T90 available to the Russians, including older reserve variants. If they are starting to bring out T55/62 tanks and the Oryx conservative estimate is 3,673 tanks lost then 10,000 is starting to look like a high side estimate rather than a wild over estimate… Estimates with so limited real data are more like guesstimates to be honest. Oryx numbers should more correctly say confirmed losses and as such… Read more »
It’s a massive over-estimate. Go and have a look at Covert Cabal on Youtube, Highmarsed and Jompy on Twitter. They’ve been working on counts of Russian equipment of all types from before the war all the way through to the last few months using satellite data. A lot of the IR/Military think tanks had to adjust their numbers following their initial releases of data…because it turns out none of them had actually been counting Russian kit for years, instead they’d be circulating figures between themselves and taking them as read…we know this because when they released their figures a lot… Read more »
some OSINT reports im seeing say russiaonly has 3517 tanks remaining, but only 279 are considered combat-ready.
Just to add…. If we do some maths…. 3,300 tanks in Russian Main force at start of war (i.e. the highest figure) 500 tanks parked at Repair sites and main factory (also a conservative estimate) in 2022 6,100 tanks in storage in 2022 (also conservative) You get 9,900 tanks in total (remember not all of these are recoverable) at the start of the war… Oryx currently lists the following: 2,642 – Tanks Destroyed 534 – Tanks Captured Basically 3,200 Russian tanks that are total losses… There are also 377 abandoned and 157 badly damaged on the list, some, if not… Read more »
isn’t there an issue with the T-64 Engine, in it that Russia cannot manufacture them any more?
Maybe. But I’ll be willing to bet that they still keep a large number of assets in reserve. Nowadays older platforms are simply used for demolition of fortifications, nothing requiring the modern optics of newer platforms, hence the recommissioning of the T-55s and 62s seems fair. Again, as daft as the Russians are, they probably won’t put all their eggs into the basket that is this conflict, otherwise they’d open themselves up to invasion from others, potentially even China.
We know what they have in storage and repair bases…. They’re not holding anything in reserve. The only reason they haven’t re-activated T-64 and T-72 Ural and T-72A is because they’re too far gone, and in T-64’s case because parts aren’t available (it was only built in Kharkiv, Ukraine). In 3 years of war, with T-55 and 62 being dragged out they haven’t even attempted to pull those models out of close packed outside storage/dumping grounds to make an assessment of their repairability…which points to them being utterly derelict. Bottom line is they have a mixed bag of c2,000 tanks… Read more »
The joke might be on us as most countries scrap their old stocks whereas Russia might be using them to scrap our advanced munitions, AKA Javelins etc. Imagine the West throwing it’s supplies into a war only for China, North Korea and Iran to kick off suddenly when we wasted weaponry on 60’s Russian tanks.
FPV have totally changed that calculus…
So, no, Oryx is not considered the most “accurate source for loss numbers.” It is in fact acknowledged as being, by default, in accurate. What it is is a very accurate “floor.” I.e. Oryx is considered a very good source for “Russia has lost more than x number of y equipment, and ukraine has lost more than z number of w type.” That’s because requiring open source, visually identifable, loss data means that, by default, a lot of losses do not get counted. A tank that can’t be identified as Russian or Ukrainian? Not counted. A tank that is destroyed… Read more »
Just for anyones info…. There are 5 outfits that count armour losses that are worth attention… Oryx – Probably the most popular and well respected. Regular updates on X from Jakub Jankovsky who is the lead at present. Also Oryx website (only the Ukraine stuff is still updated) Warspotting – Not as well known, but as well respected, they work with and alongside Oryx but collect subtly different info including unit and geolocation if possible, actually have an even more ‘harsh’ methodology than Oryx, these guys produce the numbers that are the ‘absolute floor’ of Russian losses…on X and own… Read more »
not enough.
I think that’s the estimate of total casualties, including injured and captured as well as killed. You need to do a quick check and correction if you don’t want to get criticism for publishing incorrect information.
Russia started this war with the aim of demilitarising Ukraine and showing off its own military prowess, it’s achieved the opposite. It has demilitarised itself while turning Ukraine into one of the most fearsome fighting forces in the free world.
Well done Vlad, still the master of 4 D chess I see.
Jim, it also exposed the over rating of Russian military, by western Intel. All these huge expenditures on extreme Nato military when the huge Russian military can not beat a 2nd rate Ukraine army. The scares of Russia marching west wards to take all of Europe is fear mongering (and laughable) for more spending on Nato. Another over rated force are Iran and their proxies, Israel easily defeated them with advanced US weapons. China on the other hand refuses to fight, they will wait, and wait, and wait.
I agree that we massively overestimated Russia, and they did as well….they’re not a conventional threat to NATO, except in a quick ‘gray zone’ operation like interfering in the Baltics where NATO may struggle to react. But….we forget how large Ukraine’s Army and reserves were….Ukraine had vast numbers of tanks, artillery, IFV at the start of the war, with more in storage. They also had colossal reserves of ammunition, with 800,000 men who had been in the military and served in the ATO (Donetsk/Luhansk) active combat areas over the 8 years before the war started….no other European nation was in… Read more »
The Ukrainians have proved themselves to be highly resourceful and incredibly resilient. It’s very humbling to see them stand up for themselves like that. We’re fortunate to have them (as well as other countries like the Poles, Finns and Swedes) as allies.
Even 3,673 tanks destroyed is a real on-goal in military demilitarization!
And here we are reducing our tank numbers yet again the artillery has already taken a big hit what’s next
Bit inaccurate this report, the exact figure of 820,000 personal comes from a Ukrainian report, but it states “combat losses” not “dead” and it’s not clear what it means by combat losses, but probably an Estimate of total dead, injuried, captured, missing, AWOL etc. most estimates are around 200,000 to 250,000 dead and 500,000-600,000 injured.
Russia did not have those figures even in its entire arsenal of tanks and APCs in 2022 at the start of the invasion, it would not have even 6,000 active tanks and about 14,000 APCs, it is true that they have put into service a few thousand more but still those figures are pure Ukrainian propaganda, I thought that the Russians were the only ones who lied with the figures but I see that these numbers are not far behind, mp of those who have published them do not believe them, on the other hand, far from all the tanks… Read more »
What is also really interesting is the impact of learning in Ukraine on CCS specifically the operational patient care pathways (medical care) ..which essentially are totally different from what the west has been use to. It’s worth noting the British army is particularly weak now in its CCS as its medical services got hit in the CCS cuts of 2015. But the key takeaways from Ukraine are conventional war creates mass casualties due to artillery and 70% of casualties are artillery. This is very different from the asymmetrical warfare the west has been fighting..asymmetrical warfare creates a few casualties at… Read more »
I’m guessing CCS is an NHS acronym? I’ve never heard it used in the army. Critical Care Something? I’d add a few things: 1) Role one is already post evacuation. It’s still considered Pre Hospital Emergency Care, but it’s usually in a Battalion or Brigade rear Echlon (depending on the Role 1). Sometimes a PHTT can be pitched forwards from a Medical Regiment, but those still tend to be in a Battalion rear, very rarely they end up in a Squadron Rear. But any patient that arrives in a Role 1 will have had a Case-Evac from point of wounding… Read more »
Very interesting, yes the cold chain issues are going to be huge in the pre hospital care pre role one environment. Carrying blood on your case vac vehicle is easier..interestingly I’ve seen some work in the US around using whole blood 0 for pre hospital care, European systems tend to used packed red cells and also carry plasma for a mixed product transfusion…but from what I have read the whole blood transfusion seems to be the way forward for trauma care especially out of hospital as it seems to both have simpler logistics/cold chain as well as the fact studies… Read more »
I find “Pre-Hospital Care” to be a really unhelpful term in the military context because it covers so much, from a fully stocked MERT helicopter through to your BCD Trained bloke with a tourniquet, so while I’m sure the US uses whole Blood, I don’t know how far forwards they push it. I think there might be some effort to push whole blood further forward to Role 1, but again, the issue we’re seeing in ukraine is that just getting casualties to the Role 1 is a challenge, which means that you need more further forward organic with the units.… Read more »
(Yes that was a bit of a rant, but being in the NHS I hope you think it’s at least interesting, hopefully I didn’t ramble too much on things that are too obvious).
Perhaps, what does need re-evaluating is the expectation that helicopters will be available to do the medical.
In Afghan, Iraq and perhaps including Mali our helicopters have operated in a relatively benign environment. Ukraine is a completely different kettle of fish. Where there’s both GBAD and a significant air threat. How likely would we be able to maintain the golden hour if we faced such threats?
It doesn’t. The RAMC (or I guess now RAMS) has a unit structure build around ground evacuation. Point of wounding ->Casevac by unit to -> Battalion Role 1 -> Medivac by Ambulance to -> Brigade Role 1+/Role 2 -> Medivac by ground or air assets to-> Role 3 in the divisional or corps rear (or RFA Argus)-> Stratevac by airlift to -> Role 4 in the UK. In a warfighting, as opposed to a coin counter insurgency, the RAMS would just revert to it’s actual orbated evacuation chain, instead of Helicoptering casualties directly from point of wounding to the Role… Read more »
I am thinking about the role the Chinook and its medivac teams did during Afghan and how that work in the future. Where the medivac team could do limited surgery on the wounded whilst in the Chinook. In a lot of respects they provided a better service than the US Army Pedros, as the team included a doctor along with a trauma team, rather than a battlefield medic. Which I’d put down to having more cabin space on a Chinook than a Blackhawk. My concerns are how will the Role 1 casevac be carried out? As if we’re facing someone… Read more »
Okay so let’s take a big step back: The MERT Teams on Chinook where never intended as a integral piece of RAMS doctrine. MERT on Chinook was basically an ad hoc adaptation by the army to the situation it found itself in in Afghan. It’s a great service, and nobody would turn their nose up at it, but nobody in the Army ever believed that we’d be landing Chinooks to pick up casualties from the Point of Wounding in a Peer-Conflict. The evacuation chain I described is the Pre-Afghan evacuation chain. It’s what the Army planned to use in the… Read more »
(Also fun side note: Due to IRC rules, the MERT Chinooks never had red crosses painted on them. Because once registered with the IRC a vehicle can only ever be used for medical purposes. So no moving ammunition or troops. Because the Armed Forces knew that Chinook based MERT was a temporary luxury and that they’d want to use the Chinooks for other purposes later, they never registered them. Meaning that A) MERT Chinooks technically where improvised CASEVAC platforms not dedicated MEDIVAC platforms (which I find hilarious to think about) and B) like most CASEVAC platforms they where perfectly legitimate… Read more »
Is it 828,470 killed and injured. Still a huge number but killed would mean multiplies of that also injured and Russia at this point would be out of the war.
US estimate is around 200k killed and 600k injured. Going by those factors 828k killed would mean 5m also injured.
Not sure how they are counting.
But we have to temper this news with the fact that Russia has two large tank production plants, which also repair and refurbish older types.
It is estimated about 15 t90M tanks are rolled out each month and about 80 older models repaired/refurbished per month.
In comparsion: 148 CH3 over 5 years = 2.4 per month
The counter to that is that Russia is rolling out T90’s as fast as it humanly can, screw the long term industrial plan, because it needs them at the Front.
The UK is looking at sustaining the production run as long as possible to avoid famine and drought procurement resulting in a closed factory once the order is completed.
In the end, once all other tanks from storage are used up by end 2025 \2026 by some sources, all that can be left is tanks in new production – which is T-90s only…
russians wont be able to keep up with their production verses losses from fpv and artillery
And they are already swapping over to other vehicles to compensate
As for the state of our own tank production… roll eyes…
Yeah, it may be the best option for UKR to keep fighting until the attrition bites Russia – assuming UKR can hold out.
I don’t see why sound industrial strategy should make anyone roll their eyes.
Those plants are able to do this because after the war started the Kremlin passed a law requiring banks to loan money at cheap rates to industries involved in war production. Effectively using people’s savings to finance the war effort. With inflation at 9.5% and the interest rates at over 20%, there are the conditions for a banking crisis in Russia. The national bank has even had to make public statements saying that savers won’t be stopped from accessing their accounts in the event of banking runs…
Just needs a trigger to set off a collapse.
Let’s hope that economic collapse happens soon…
The lists like above are estimated total combat losses done by visual sightings in combat, geolocation and plotted on many viewable maps, OSINT
russians are now starting to struggle and changing tactics due to the high number of losses via FPV drones and artillery
2025 \ 2026 may be the end of russian armour period!
We can argue over the exact numbers, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a lot. Yet we still seem to think 148 CH3 is enough. I tend to think not.
SR, Absolutely no-one thinks that 148 CR3s is a lot, ie two armoured regiments in the field force. But the army only has the manpower for two armoured regiments, and hence the FS Orbat is for just that.
One word. Propaganda. Believe Oryx, disbelieve everything else.
Oryx is a floor, not an accurate count.
True, but it is indicative of how things are playing out.
Russian/North Korean losses 24 Feb 2022–26 Jan 2025:
~830,190 personnel
9868 tanks
20549 APVs
22323 artillery systems
1263 MLRS
1050 air defence systems
369 aircraft
331 helicopters
23253 UAVs
3053 cruise missiles
28 ships/boats
1 submarine
35124 vehicles
3715 special equipment
Russian losses today per 26/01/25 reported by the Ukrainian General Staff.
+1720 men
+9 tanks
+4 AFVs
+14 artillery systems
More important than loss of equipment,& tanks is that Russian economy is in serious trouble. Interest rates at 21%, and businesses near bankruptcy. Russian oil is not thru to India or Europe by back doors.
Russia is fast running out of money to keep the war going. Russian only hope is a miracle maybe from China.
With Russia evidently losing all its men and equipment on the retreat, and economic collapse in “two more weeks”, can someone justify all this clamour for increased military spending at home?
Luke, We don’t just have Russia to think about although they are the closest and most belligerent threat nation. It is Russia that has waged aggressive war in Europe on a west-leaning democracy, and has waged hybrid war in western Europe including the UK. They aspire, some say, to seize Moldova and also reconquer the Baltic nations if they suspect NATO would only weakly respond. Our conventional armed forces are hollowed out with a 2.3% of GDP spend, particulalry as nuclear programmes are so costly. In places our conventional forces lack credibilty to conduct peer-peer warfighting (for more than a… Read more »
China, Iran, N Korea & Russia remains a real danger despite continual predictions it’s about to implode. Our forces dropped below minimun peacetime levels many years ago. What we can guarantee is that next time we need them, we’ll have far too few of most things.
Disarmament just allows unfettered aggresion by others.
Is it safe to say that Russia is already at its limit of producing and refurbishing tanks, and it isn’t enough to replace their ongoing losses? Deploying tanks is admittedly risky with all those drones and AT systems, but most attacks are based on infantry infiltration tactics with air and artillery support. But there is clearly a tank shortage already, and it’s only going to get worse.
so just propoganda then
if it goes on like this the ukrainian’s are going to run out of russian troops to kill, and have to do what the american’s did in vietnam, start killing them all over again