Wasn't there something a while back about the average age of a Ukrainian soldier being 43 -- not particularly old for a politician, say, or a general, but for somebody serving on the front lines practically geriatric? And the government having such a severe manpower shortage that they were starting to draft women and rush them to the front with only two weeks' training?
This is basically what I had in mind when I saw this number. At the risk of disappointing the OP, I am willing to believe that 800,000 is indeed an accurate estimate, but only because the régime has been giving up quality for quantity.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't there something a while back about the average age of a Ukrainian soldier being 43 -- not particularly old for a politician, say, or a general, but for somebody serving on the front lines practically geriatric? And the government having such a severe manpower shortage that they were starting to draft women and rush them to the front with only two weeks' training?
This is basically what I had in mind when I saw this number. At the risk of disappointing the OP, I am willing to believe that 800,000 is indeed an accurate estimate, but only because the régime has been giving up quality for quantity.
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.
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.
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.