Dwarden 1125 Posted October 5, 2016 it's not just bad for the loss of life and theirs families (in dozens cases parents+kids or multi-generations were on board too, so wiping whole gene-tree) there was novelist, senator and not to mention 6 delegated members for conference agaisnt AIDS (HIV) ... 'rebels' use of high altitude capable AAA was major mistake especially in area where it was known that both civilian and military airplanes overlap it was just question of time when tragedy happens over-equipping guerrillas always ends badly ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted October 5, 2016 Hey, Russia likes to play with our nerves ? (BBC) Nato jets scrambled as Russian bombers fly south : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37562499 Looks like good ol' cold war... Two Norwegian F16, two British Tornadoes, two French Rafales, two Spanish F16, a whole airshow.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted October 5, 2016 Including the two times that they tried to present two separate "satellite images" of the SU-25 that were so obviously (read: poorly) photoshopped. Destroying the unit in some field means leaving physical evidence that it was there and theoretically a prime suspect. To eliminate themselves as suspects and blame the Ukrainians the rebels/Russians needed it gone altogether. I suppose the ripped apart and burned wreckage is much worse evidence than video of intact vehicle. Descent amount of explosives and you'll hardly find out what type of vehicle had it been. Especially when it comes to slightly armored Buk chassis. I think there was also a lot of panic reaction on the rebel and russian side after they realized what they had done. The unit needed to be removed from the area as fast as possible, simply burning it in a field would still have left evidence, and also a coloumn of smoke is noticable in its own rigth. And we still can´t be sure that it was a Rebel crew that operated the vehicle. Going by the fact that you need some advanced training to operate such a vehicle, it seems possible that the operators where "on vacation". From what I've seen there was no panic. Also smoke was a common thing during that time - it was a warzone. BTW Buk missile leaves a large smoke trace but... by the magical coincidence the pics of it appeared much later after the tragedy. Despite the fact that almost everybody have the cameras on the phones there. But nevermind, since the very beginning evil Russians were set as the culprits and this was largely approved in Europe. Okay, I'll keep calm and carry on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archbishop lazarus 24 Posted October 6, 2016 'rebels' use of high altitude capable AAA was major mistake What use you are talking about? Nothing proves that they used it! Then what about the other 2 pro-junta AD units in the area, and an additional maintenance base, full with SOUs? For me, it seems you deliberately "forget" about them, and just trying to accuse russians just because it is a trend in the west! Maybe indeed they did it, but the chance is not higher than that pro-junta units were the offenders! There you go. The area was full of pro-junta units! All armed with Buk-M1, and not just a single SOU, but complete divisions, with the required KP and SOC, and several SOUs and PZUs all present! http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=569 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted October 6, 2016 please give me break and do not troll our forums with propaganda ... the high-leaders of 'rebels' in the area were bragging on social networks about 'yet another Ukraine transport/military' plane shot down at high altitude you can even find transcripts of them totally panicking in moment they started to find civilian corpses and luggage and yes it was at the moment the flight 'vanished' from civilian flight control radars ... that the rebels used BUK before in range days to weeks to shoot multiple UKR airplanes in several km altitude is also not known to you ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Jimmy 272 Posted October 6, 2016 that the rebels used BUK before in range days to weeks to shoot multiple UKR airplanes in several km altitude is also not known to you ? Yep. If I remember correctly, they even downed couple planes in the same day as they downed the civilian plane. Horrible thing to even allow civilian planes fly in that kind of airspace. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted October 6, 2016 It is actually very common for commercial airlines to stick to their fuel efficient routes, even if there is war down below. Usually the conflicting parties are not in the possession of heavy AA, and if they are, they are not stupid enough to use it against everything in the sky. An assumption, that misfired very catastrophically in this instance... But yeah, as much as some people in here are trying to absolve Russia and the Separatists from any guilt, the fact remains that the rebels themselves have bragged about downing a plane at the time the airliner was shot down. And they did that with a Buk that was most likely supplied by Russia. Remember, that just a month or so before that the rebels had serious problems because they were constantly attacked by Ukrainian planes? And voila, suddenly the rebels were in possession of very capable anti air equipment and the Ukrainians started to loose planes... Wonder where they found that equipment..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanya 97 Posted October 6, 2016 that the rebels used BUK before in range days to weeks to shoot multiple UKR airplanes in several km altitude is also not known to you ? They had only this http://codename-it.livejournal.com/286584.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted October 6, 2016 They had only this http://codename-it.livejournal.com/286584.html The SA-13 in it's latest operational version (outside of Russia who have a limited number of newer vehicles) the SA-13 Strela-10M3 and regardless of even the newest missiles has an engagement ceiling of 3500 meters at a maximum range of 5000 meters. A number of Ukrainian aircraft that were shot down were flying higher than that, MH17 was flying at at almost three times the maximum engagement ceiling of the SA-13. They had other more capable systems or they wouldn't have been able to shoot down many of the aircraft that they actually shot down. It's a short range and low altitude system and you'd need to deploy (which includes capturing intact from the Ukrainians and having personnel among a rag tag fighting force of insurgents trained to use them) a lot of them to cover the entire rebel area where all over the Ukrainian air force was suddenly losing a lot of aircraft flying out of nowhere. Combat Air Support is low-mid level, transports and airliners don't fly that low and so can't have been engaged with the SA-13. Or they had gotten one or more far more capable systems that covered a large area and could engage targets at all altitudes where military aircraft can fly ... but that probably makes too much sense. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanya 97 Posted October 7, 2016 The SA-13 in it's latest operational version (outside of Russia who have a limited number of newer vehicles) the SA-13 Strela-10M3 and regardless of even the newest missiles has an engagement ceiling of 3500 meters at a maximum range of 5000 meters. A number of Ukrainian aircraft that were shot down were flying higher than that, MH17 was flying at at almost three times the maximum engagement ceiling of the SA-13. They had other more capable systems or they wouldn't have been able to shoot down many of the aircraft that they actually shot down. It's a short range and low altitude system and you'd need to deploy (which includes capturing intact from the Ukrainians and having personnel among a rag tag fighting force of insurgents trained to use them) a lot of them to cover the entire rebel area where all over the Ukrainian air force was suddenly losing a lot of aircraft flying out of nowhere. Combat Air Support is low-mid level, transports and airliners don't fly that low and so can't have been engaged with the SA-13. Or they had gotten one or more far more capable systems that covered a large area and could engage targets at all altitudes where military aircraft can fly ... but that probably makes too much sense. Where is the evidence that those aircraft were shot down on the inaccessible heights? https://youtu.be/bd-XQN51zYQ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted October 7, 2016 Where is the evidence that those aircraft were shot down on the inaccessible heights? https://youtu.be/bd-XQN51zYQ What is that video supposed to show us? Yeah that is a SU-25 ground attacker. Those will be flying low by definition. The transport planes Ukraine lost were surely flying at a much higher altitude. Remember how the Russians claimed that the civilian airliner was shot down by one of those slow and low flying bricks? And how some people here actually bought into that crap? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanya 97 Posted October 7, 2016 The transport planes Ukraine lost were surely flying at a much higher altitude. Remember how the Russians claimed that the civilian airliner was shot down by one of those slow and low flying bricks? And how some people here actually bought into that crap? those plane was shot down at an altitude of 700-900 m in the city of Lugansk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted October 7, 2016 Where is the evidence that those aircraft were shot down on the inaccessible heights? https://youtu.be/bd-XQN51zYQ You were the one that said that the rebels only had access to the SA-13, a system not capable an aircraft flying at the height that MH17 was flying at or some of the other Ukrainian air force losses around that time. From Wikipedia: On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) near Izvaryne was shot down. Almost three kilometers higher than the ceiling of an SA-13. Three days prior to MH17 and according to the rebels themselves by using a BUK system that you are saying they didn't have? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archbishop lazarus 24 Posted October 7, 2016 please give me break and do not troll our forums with propaganda ... Yes, also you should not troll this forum with pro-junta propaganda... Then tell me, why the hell there were 3 (THREE) pro-junta Buk divisions in the area? Neither DNR or LNR had ANY aircraft! Then why THREE full Buk divisions? Why such strong air defense? Maybe shooting down pigeons who are constatnly shitting on their soldiers? And why one division was relocated to the launch zone, presented by Almaz-Antey, exactly when MH17 was shot down? Anyway. Most ukrainian aircrafts were downed with Strelas. Not with "Buk". Hell, you are exactly like soviets! For them, every german tank was a "Tiger" and every SPG "Ferdinand". For you, every AA missile is a "Buk". And Im not even asking you of differentiating a PZU and a SOU... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archbishop lazarus 24 Posted October 7, 2016 that the rebels used BUK before in range days to weeks to shoot multiple UKR airplanes in several km altitude is also not known to you ? But lets see those "multiple" planes shot down by your "Buks" Here are the list of losses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_aircraft_losses_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis First, we can immediately exclude helicopters from the list, due to their low altitude. All shot down by Strelas, Iglas, and AA guns. Same with Su-25s. So, remaining are 2 MiG-29s, 1 Su-24, 1 IL-76, 1 An-26 and one An-30. This latter was shot down, surprise surprise, by Strela/Igla. Same with the IL-76. So, we have 2 MiG-29s 1 Su-24 and one An-26. The two 29s and the 24 was almost certainly shot down again by Strelas/Iglas because they were performing ground attacks from low altitude. In the end, there is the An-26. So much about your "multiple" planes at high alt. EDIT: And there is entirely possible that the An-26 was again shot down by Igla... The Antonov was definitely not flying at 6500 meters, as the ukrainians lied... http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted October 7, 2016 e.g. i wrote nothing about number of BUK(s) used by rebels so stop 'trying' to pretend i wrote something i didn't e.g. i'm not on either side so stop claim i'm writing pro-whatever something ... shall i go on ? as i said nicely before, do not spam here with the propaganda ... this is last warning ... @archbishop lazarus etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archbishop lazarus 24 Posted October 7, 2016 What propaganda you are talking about? Most, if not all ukrainian aircraft were downed by Strelas/Iglas. FACT Three full Buk divisions in the area when MH17 was downed. FACT Absolutely no straight evidence against EITHER side. FACT Propaganda would be if I'd try to provide false information about one side in favor of the other. I didnt do that. Maybe that Im not automatically condemning russia, DNR, LNR, which is a trend in the west, is a propaganda for you? Check back what I wrote: its 50-50% for either side, because both had motives for doing it! (oh yes, maybe its also a propaganda that I even dare to say this, instead of accepting the "truth" coming from the western mainstream media, which "isnt biased", and "never lies"?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanya 97 Posted October 8, 2016 The militia could have a "BUK", but it was mashins of Ukrainian troops, because the People's Republic of Donetsk militia captured in late June, a military unit of air defense, in whose territory was the anti-aircraft missile systems "Buk". That is, it does not supply from Russia. That is Ukrainian Nazis knew that the separatists have quite a powerful weapon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted October 8, 2016 I'd remind about this photo, claimed to be taken in 2014. Osa-AKM air defence system in the separatists' hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted October 8, 2016 Am I the only one who imagines some people here standing with their fingers in their ears singing lalala whenever someone mentions that the rebels themselves bragged about shooting down another plane when the civilian passenger liner was shot down? Oh and BTW, FACT 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted October 8, 2016 Rebels themselves bragged about many mercenaries from Poland and Croatia been killed in a number of battles. Some claimed that they faced even regular troops of Polish army who had been on vacations in Ukraine. Well, should we believe them this time also? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted October 8, 2016 Rebels themselves bragged about many mercenaries from Poland and Croatia been killed in a number of battles. Some claimed that they faced even regular troops of Polish army who had been on vacations in Ukraine. Well, should we believe them this time also? Did they remove these messages shortly after it hit the news worldwide like after the downing of the Ukrainian aircraft MH17? Was there a frenzy of cellphone calls attempting damage control afterwards? Let me guess, the next theory that one of you will bring up is that the social media accounts were hacked by the SBU to put that up there right? This thread shows typical Russian government protocol. Spreads as many theories as possible. When caught lying or twisting facts so heavily that it basically amounts to lying too they ignore their exposed falsehood and come up with some more nonsense or focus on some barely related topic that can't be refuted outright. Not that I blame any of you. When virtually every media outlet in your country is government owned and operated to spread misinformation to keep the siege mentality intact and the people docile out of fear of the big bad outside world that is always against poor little Russia and the few remaining independent media outlets are harassed, locked up and/or murdered I can understand that there is little alternative to the government's flood of misinformation. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanya 97 Posted October 8, 2016 Let me guess, the next theory that one of you will bring up is that the social media accounts were hacked by the SBU to put that up there right? In what social networks was that message? If this is Vkontakte, then there should be nothing to hack, just need to create a fake account . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted October 8, 2016 Did they remove these messages shortly after it hit the news worldwide like after the downing of the Ukrainian aircraft MH17? Was there a frenzy of cellphone calls attempting damage control afterwards? Maybe. I don't track such kind of messages about hordes of western mercs, NATO troops 'on vacations' or Abrams tank been knock out in recent battle. Let me guess, the next theory that one of you will bring up is that the social media accounts were hacked by the SBU to put that up there right? Nope. To be correct the amount of accounts and groups that belong to people who really and actively participate in that war is rather small. Others are just a junk or fakes. This thread shows typical Russian government protocol. Spreads as many theories as possible. When caught lying or twisting facts so heavily that it basically amounts to lying too they ignore their exposed falsehood and come up with some more nonsense or focus on some barely related topic that can't be refuted outright. If the variety of opinions before the end of investigation is the "government protocol" for you then it means that there is a real freedom of speech in Russia, my dear latent totalitarism fan :) Not that I blame any of you. When virtually every media outlet in your country is government owned and operated to spread misinformation to keep the siege mentality intact and the people docile out of fear of the big bad outside world that is always against poor little Russia and the few remaining independent media outlets are harassed, locked up and/or murdered I can understand that there is little alternative to the government's flood of misinformation. Oh yes and we drink vodka every day. Please stop spreading such ignorant piece of propaganda, even me had posted some links on large media outlets owned by US companies which do work without any problems and translate pro-US views (google Hearst-Shkulev group, RBK, Echo of Moscow, Kommersant etc.). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites