General losses are seven times higher than to be expected.

We now seem to be up to seven Russian generals killed in action during the first month of their invasion of Ukraine.  I  have read multiple places that there are an estimated 20 generals involved in the theater but I have seen no source for that number and have no idea whether that is true.  If so, they would have lost 35% of their generals in one month of fighting.

Losing seven generals sounds excessive but given that we don't seem to be certain how many generals are actually involved, is there another way of estimating the relevance of this attrition?  Is it as bad as it seems?

In World War II, ignoring suicides and transportation accidents and the likes, the US lost 22 generals (or naval equivalents) in combat conditions.  In total, there were some 1,110 serving generals during the war.  I cannot find an estimate of how many generals there are currently in the Russian army.

However, we can translate this into a rate metric.  World War II lasted 45 months for the US.  We had 13.5 million men under arms in all theaters of war around the globe.  We lost a general to hostile action every two months of the war.  

Russia has lost seven in a single month.  They are losing generals at a rate fourteen times greater than the US did in World War II.  

OK.  That does seem significant.