Russia claims to have shot down 674 Ukrainian aircraft: but Ukraine had 212 total

Name: Russia claims to have shot down 674 Ukrainian aircraft: but Ukraine had 212 total
Uploaded: 2026-11-03T18:07:48.048Z
Duration: 4 min 18 s
Channel: Kanal13

Kanal13

103 followers

Nov 3, 2026 #Kanal13 #likekanal13 #subscribekanal13

#Kanal13 #likekanal13 #subscribekanal13 #warinukraine
https://www.youtube.com/user/kanal13az?sub_confirmation=1 - SUBSCRIBE TO US!

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russian forces have allegedly destroyed 674 Ukrainian aircraft . However, this figure significantly exceeds the total number of aircraft Ukraine possessed at the beginning of the war and those received from its international partners.

Forbes reports this. Specifically, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine possessed approximately 130 military aircraft. Another 82 aircraft were donated by foreign partners, and 99 additional aircraft were promised. Therefore, even taking into account all promised deliveries, the total number of aircraft does not approach 674.

Meanwhile, the independent Oryx project, which records military losses using photographic and video evidence, has documented 122 lost Ukrainian aircraft. Forbes notes that significant discrepancies are observed in Russian reports regarding other categories of weapons.

"These discrepancies highlight the difficulty of accurately assessing battlefield casualties, the possibility of deliberate overreporting, and the role of information warfare in shaping perceptions of the conflict," the publication writes.

The largest discrepancies between Russian data and the actual number of Ukrainian weapons relate to artillery and armored vehicles. Specifically, Russia claimed to have destroyed 36,845 Ukrainian artillery pieces—more than 10 times the total number of artillery systems Ukraine possessed throughout the war. Independent observers recorded 1,302 losses.

Moscow also claims to have destroyed 31,467 Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles, while Oryx confirms 5,132 such losses.

Part of the discrepancy between Russia’s claims and Ukraine’s available equipment stems from how a loss is defined. While Oryx distinguishes between equipment that is destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured, Russian figures do not provide this level of detail. This creates ambiguity, particularly since a drone strike against a howitzer’s barrel or a tank’s track can render the equipment temporarily inoperable without permanently destroying it. Such damage can often be repaired relatively quickly, allowing the equipment to return to service. If these temporary losses are reported as destroyed equipment, they could significantly inflate cumulative loss figures. Accurately assessing battlefield damage has also become increasingly difficult with the widespread use of FPV drones. Over the past two years, these drones have been responsible for a substantial share of equipment losses on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield. Since a drone’s video feed cuts off upon impact, operators often use their own judgment to determine whether a target was destroyed, damaged, or merely struck, unless follow-on surveillance is available. Electronic warfare further complicates these assessments, as jamming can cause drones to lose their video feeds during the terminal approach, sometimes before they even strike their targets. Similar challenges arise when assessing aircraft losses. Russian MoD footage of Ukrainian aircraft being destroyed frequently shows strikes against aircraft parked on the ground. Russia also regularly releases footage of missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian airfields and aircraft hangars. However, the destruction of a hangar or other aviation facility does not necessarily mean that an aircraft was inside at the time of the strike. Without follow-on surveillance or other intelligence confirming that an aircraft was present and destroyed, its loss may be inferred rather than verified. If such strikes are counted as destroyed aircraft, they could contribute to the discrepancy between Russia’s reported losses and the number of aircraft available to Ukraine.

Another challenge is the potential for double counting, particularly when multiple strikes are conducted against the same target.

Click here and just subscribe to Kanal13 - https://www.youtube.com/user/kanal13az?sub_confirmation=1

https://www.youtube.com/KANAL13AZ/join
*ATTENTION: If you woul like to contact with US please, write to +49176 75077516 WhatsApp

▌▌►Website: http://kanal13.tv/
http://www.facebook.com/tvkanal13
https://twitter.com/Kanal13Az
https://www.instagram.com/kanal13.az

Click & Subscribe to the main youtube Channel

© KANAL13 [ Azərbaycanın ilk peşəkar internet televiziyası ] The First Internet TV of Azerbaijan

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russian forces have allegedly destroyed 674 Ukrainian aircraft. However, this figure significantly exceeds the total number of aircraft Ukraine possessed at the beginning of the war and those received from its international partners. Forbes reports this. Specifically, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine possessed approximately 130 30 military aircraft. Another 82 aircraft were donated by foreign partners, and 99 additional aircraft were promised. Therefore, even taking into account all promised deliveries, the total number of aircraft does not approach 674. Meanwhile, the independent Oryx project, which records military losses using photographic and video evidence, has documented 122 lost Ukrainian aircraft. Forbes notes that significant discrepancies are observed in Russian reports regarding other categories of weapons. These discrepancies highlight the difficulty of accurately assessing battlefield casualties, the possibility of deliberate overreporting, and the role of information warfare in shaping perceptions of the conflict, the publication writes. The largest discrepancies between Russian data and the actual number of Ukrainian Ukrainian weapons relate to artillery and armored vehicles. Specifically, Russia claimed to have destroyed 36,845 Ukrainian artillery pieces, more than 10 times the total number of artillery systems Ukraine possessed throughout the war. Independent observers recorded 1,302 losses. Moscow also claims to have destroyed 31,467 Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles, while Oryx confirms 5,132 such losses. Part of the discrepancy between Russia's claims and Ukraine's available equipment stems from how a loss is defined. While Oryx distinguishes between equipment that is destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured, Russian figures do not provide this level of detail. This creates ambiguity, particularly since a drone strike against a howitzer's barrel or a tank's track can render the equipment temporarily inoperable without permanently destroying it. Such damage can often be repaired relatively quickly, allowing the equipment to return to service. If these temporary losses are reported as destroyed equipment, they could significantly inflate cumulative loss figures. Accurately assessing battlefield damage has also become increasingly difficult with the widespread use of FPV drones. Over the past two years, these drones have been responsible for a substantial share of equipment losses on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield. Since a drone's video feed cuts off upon impact, operators often use their own judgment to determine whether a target was destroyed, damaged, or merely struck, unless follow-on surveillance is available. Electronic warfare further complicates these assessments, as jamming can cause drones to lose their video feeds during the terminal approach, sometimes before they even strike their targets. Similar challenges arise when assessing aircraft losses. Russian mod footage of Ukrainian aircraft being destroyed frequently shows strikes against aircraft parked on the ground. Russia also regularly releases footage of missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian airfields and aircraft hangars. However, the destruction of a hangar or other aviation facility does not necessarily mean that an aircraft was inside at the time of the strike. Without follow-on surveillance or other intelligence confirming that an aircraft was present and destroyed, its loss may be inferred rather than verified If such strikes are counted as destroyed aircraft, they could contribute to the discrepancy between Russia's reported losses and the number of aircraft available to Ukraine. Another challenge is the potential for double counting, particularly when multiple strikes are conducted against the same target.