HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Current Events > Russia, Central Asia, and The Caucasus > Ukrainian Crisis

Notices and Announcements

Ukrainian Crisis Discuss the unfolding crisis in Ukraine.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 02 Aug 14, 06:54
Vaeltaja's Avatar
Vaeltaja Vaeltaja is offline
Lieutenant General
Finland
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: -
Posts: 3,416
Vaeltaja has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker_gb View Post
Su-25 was there.
You have made this claim repeatedly. What evidence do you actually have to support it?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02 Aug 14, 07:03
Metryll's Avatar
Metryll Metryll is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toulon, France
Posts: 7,301
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker_gb View Post
I said that in my post already.
Su-25 can go well above 10000m.
No, you said :

"Su-25 can go on 10000 m without problems but also without good part of armament."

Sukhoi state otherwise.

Quote:
Su-25 was there. Nobody said it actually shot down liner.
If 'nobody' state it actually not shot down the liner why 'nobody' stated about the Su 25 in first instance if not as a possible cause ?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02 Aug 14, 15:37
Crimean's Avatar
Crimean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MH17 and Aircraft Crash Investigation Expertise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
Actually that claim of gun usage is more than a bit ridiculous - see for example:
That is some real mighty piloting from SU-25 in that case. Especially when flying in a way that makes it possible for that alleged SU 25 to shoot at the cockpit (and not hitting the rest of the fuselage) from both sides while staying non-detected for the Russian radar (which readily detected objects close to MH17) and while flying several thousand of feet above the ceiling of the aircraft...
Real irony is that Russian radar data is really already disproving this theory - FYI to use gun an aircraft would need to get close, real close, especially if trying to land a precise shot. So you have option that Haisenko doesn't have a clue what he is talking about - which BTW debunks the whole gun firing theory. Or that Russian radar is incapable of detecting SU 25 flying next to the airliner - which BTW debunks the whole gun firing theory - unless of course the radar is selectively picking up the SU 25 when it is preferable for it to do so from the Russian perspective...
So with the current evidence there is really no reason what so ever to belive the 'gunfire' theory. Nor is there really much of a reason to believe 'air to air missile theory' - especially with the 'SU 25 claim' as it can only carry heat seeking missiles that would have homed into the engines and not to the cockpit.
First, a number of posters on this forum have taken serious issues with the preliminary indications from the OSCE lead investigator, and from one German former airlines pilot. I suggest a little bit of deference should be given to the OSCE investigator given OSCE reports are being given deference in every other aspect - if you don't like or agree with one part of what they are saying, that is cherry picking and it is going to take sources and evidence or personal experience to trump what the appointed experts are saying, and smiley faced icons and perjoratives do not constitute sources or evidence. So please try to stick with relevant argument, evidence, sources, or cite your personal expertise (i.e. "I am/was a pilot...I have been part of an aircraft crash investigation). I have briefly controlled some craft but am not a qualified pilot, and I have worked on one accident investigation team but foul play was not suspected.
The BBC interviewees indicated they saw two additional, smaller planes. One older interview with a rebel fighter indicated tactical fighters had been drafting commercial planes to provide protective cover. The Russian report indicated two additional planes. While none of that proves two additional planes, it is evidence in support of that theory. Two planes can shoot from two directions at the same time.
There are segments of fuselage with a very tight consistent pattern of similarly sized holes that could arguably have been 30mm. One one side the skin of the plane is invariably bending inward around the holes...on the other side, at each hole the skin bends out. It is very hard to imagine shrapnel doing anything like that whereas it certainly looks like something a machine gun burst would do.
There is no reason to assume these theoretical planes had warheads on them. They can briefly climb to the necessary altitude.
These are tactical/ground support fighters. They are exceptionally maneuverable. In the event of an extremely classified mission presumably only the best pilots would have been selected.
If MH17 were hit with machine gun bursts from other aircraft...that does not mean it was not additionally hit by a surface to air missile as well.
If I were a desperate madman attempting a provocation of this magnitude, and I understand the ramifications if anyone tied this act to me, I would be concerned with ensuring that 777 was as completely destroyed as possible to destroy the evidence, and to ensure nobody survived to tell the tale.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/support...attack/5394324
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02 Aug 14, 16:32
Vaeltaja's Avatar
Vaeltaja Vaeltaja is offline
Lieutenant General
Finland
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: -
Posts: 3,416
Vaeltaja has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimean View Post
The BBC interviewees indicated they saw two additional, smaller planes. One older interview with a rebel fighter indicated tactical fighters had been drafting commercial planes to provide protective cover. The Russian report indicated two additional planes. While none of that proves two additional planes, it is evidence in support of that theory. Two planes can shoot from two directions at the same time.
Except the Russian radar which readily and easily detected something right next to the impact of the MH17 after the impact had occurred didn't see any sign of Ukrainian aircraft prior to the incident. So does the Russian radar detect Ukrainian aircraft only when it is convenient for the Russian theories to do so? But not when they ought to have been detected had they actually been engaging the airliner?

Quote:
There are segments of fuselage with a very tight consistent pattern of similarly sized holes that could arguably have been 30mm.
No. They found even according to the site you referred to just "shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes" - not 'arguably 30mm holes'. Those are very, very different things. First one 'almost machine gun like holes' is an opinion - 'arguably 30mm holes' is a blatant lie.

Quote:
One one side the skin of the plane is invariably bending inward around the holes...on the other side, at each hole the skin bends out. It is very hard to imagine shrapnel doing anything like that whereas it certainly looks like something a machine gun burst would do.
Actually it was a single plate in which holes where projecting inwards as well as outwards meaning that for that 'machine gun theory' to be true the aircraft would had to have been shot from both sides.

Quote:
There is no reason to assume these theoretical planes had warheads on them. They can briefly climb to the necessary altitude.
These are tactical/ground support fighters. They are exceptionally maneuverable. In the event of an extremely classified mission presumably only the best pilots would have been selected.
Su-25 is ground support aircraft. It is not a fighter. If the physical limitations of the aircraft performance prevent it from operating at that altitude it really doesn't matter what kind of pilots there would have been.

Quote:
If MH17 were hit with machine gun bursts from other aircraft...
There is really nothing to support that argument.


Also FYI 'globalresearch' is not exactly the most reliable of sources. It is actually run by one of the RT's long standing pet 'experts' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky - but if that is all you have then.. well.. too bad.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02 Aug 14, 20:43
Crimean's Avatar
Crimean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MH17 and Aircraft Crash Investigation Expertise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
Except the Russian radar which readily and easily detected something right next to the impact of the MH17 after the impact had occurred didn't see any sign of Ukrainian aircraft prior to the incident. So does the Russian radar detect Ukrainian aircraft only when it is convenient for the Russian theories to do so? But not when they ought to have been detected had they actually been engaging the airliner?
Here is what the Russians said, which is that they did see something...
"According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, Russian air data records indicate that a Ukrainian Su-25 warplane might have been flying towards the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane on the day when it crashed in eastern Ukraine. http://en.itar-tass.com/world/742307 Upon what do you base your claim that the Russians did not detect anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
No. They found even according to the site you referred to just "shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes" - not 'arguably 30mm holes'. Those are very, very different things. First one 'almost machine gun like holes' is an opinion - 'arguably 30mm holes' is a blatant lie.
I trust you are calling the German pilot a liar...and not me. That is another bold assertion but the man cited did in fact say 30mm holes in his report...perhaps you didn't bother to read this stuff before commenting?
"Entry And Exit holes from bullets in the area of the Cockpit. This is not speculation, but analysis of clear facts: the cockpit
shows clear evidence of bullet holes. You can see the entry holes and
some exit points. The edges of the bullet holes are bent inwards,
these are much smaller and round in shape. A 30mm calibre. The exit holes are less well formed and the edges are torn outwards.
Furthermore it is visible that the exit holes have torn the double
aluminium skin and bent them outwards. That is to say, splinters from
inside the cockpit blew through the outside of the cabin. The open
rivets have also been bent outwards….There is only one conclusion one can make, and that is that this: the aircraft was not hit by a missile." http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/07/...ir-force-jets/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
Su-25 is ground support aircraft. It is not a fighter. If the physical limitations of the aircraft performance prevent it from operating at that altitude it really doesn't matter what kind of pilots there would have been.
There is really nothing to support that argument.
"Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Department of the Russian Army General Staff, said at a news conference that the Su-25 attack plane can fly at altitudes of up to 10 km. It is armed with P-60 air-to-air missiles that can hit targets at a distance of up to 12 km and reliably within 5 km. Russian military experts support the version that Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25 attack plane." http://en.itar-tass.com/world/742307
"The service ceiling is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft... The absolute ceiling, also known as coffin corner, is the highest altitude at which an aircraft can sustain level flight, which means the altitude at which the thrust of the engines at full power is equal to the total drag at minimum drag speed. In other words, it is the altitude where maximum thrust available equals minimum thrust required, so the altitude where the maximum sustained (with no decreasing airspeed) rate of climb is zero." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aircraft%29
[/QUOTE]There is really nothing to support that argument.[/QUOTE]
It would appear there is in fact quite a bit to support that argument. Certainly the OSCE is unwilling to be as dismissive as all that...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiXjXmZ3NYg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
Also FYI 'globalresearch' is not exactly the most reliable of sources. It is actually run by one of the RT's long standing pet 'experts' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky - but if that is all you have then.. well.. too bad.
"Centre for Research on Globalization / Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is a registered non-profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/about
"In 2001, Chossudovsky founded the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), located in Montreal, Canada, becoming its editor and director."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

And now we have some more facts to work with, and the facts continue to support the possibility that MH17 was gunned down by a military plane or planes.
At the same time, even if it were hit by SU-25 cannons, that does not necessarily mean it was not additionally hit by a surface to air or air to air missile. For whatever reason, some people feel strongly about the air to air theory - it has not gone away by virtue of some glaring fact, and these people are far closer to the situation than the rest of us
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #21  
Old 03 Aug 14, 02:08
Vaeltaja's Avatar
Vaeltaja Vaeltaja is offline
Lieutenant General
Finland
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: -
Posts: 3,416
Vaeltaja has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimean View Post
Here is what the Russians said, which is that they did see something...
"According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, Russian air data records indicate that a Ukrainian Su-25 warplane might have been flying towards the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane on the day when it crashed in eastern Ukraine. http://en.itar-tass.com/world/742307 Upon what do you base your claim that the Russians did not detect anything?
Shockingly when the radar data was shown it only showed a radar target appearing next to the impact site AFTER the impact. Which means it could very well have been just debris from the aircraft. It didn't show 'a SU-25'. It showed a radar contact without transponder (i.e. secondary radar) which the Russian authorities immediately classified as an aircraft and determined it as being 'Su-25'. Without actually knowing what it was. So Russians detected something but it is still unknown if it was even an aircraft or just debris from the impact. Also for the aircraft to be able to engage the target from the direction indicated to produce the results implied it would have need to approach the target from the front of it - yet the Russian radar is unable to detect such an approach - how odd...

Quote:
I trust you are calling the German pilot a liar...and not me. That is another bold assertion but the man cited did in fact say 30mm holes in his report...perhaps you didn't bother to read this stuff before commenting?
You mean this: "These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile"?

Have you ever heard of the thing called geometry? Try to figure out an angle at which an aircraft would have need to attack that with a cannon to provide 'round and clean' holes to the aircraft fuselage (even more so for the nose section). Now figure out how it managed to do it from both sides (since the examples he shows seems to show entry and exit holes) when the target target is flying faster than what Su-25 can fly in a good day.

Second rather important fact is that the person giving his 'expert opinion' has never actually even seen the wreck and makes his claims all based on image of it. Furthermore the expert apparently doesn't realize that the sole 'round and clean' holes in the image he cites as his sources are the holes for the rivets that were used to hold the contraption together.

And even then he never states that it was 'assuredly' 30 mm. That again is your own work. Something which shouldn't have been difficult for you to realize.

Quote:
"Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Department of the Russian Army General Staff, said at a news conference that the Su-25 attack plane can fly at altitudes of up to 10 km. It is armed with P-60 air-to-air missiles that can hit targets at a distance of up to 12 km and reliably within 5 km. Russian military experts support the version that Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25 attack plane." http://en.itar-tass.com/world/742307
"The service ceiling is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft... The absolute ceiling, also known as coffin corner, is the highest altitude at which an aircraft can sustain level flight, which means the altitude at which the thrust of the engines at full power is equal to the total drag at minimum drag speed. In other words, it is the altitude where maximum thrust available equals minimum thrust required, so the altitude where the maximum sustained (with no decreasing airspeed) rate of climb is zero." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aircraft%29
http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/20...ot-down-a-777/

Quote:
It would appear there is in fact quite a bit to support that argument. Certainly the OSCE is unwilling to be as dismissive as all that...
OSCE observed commented "There has been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked - it almost looks like machine gun fire". In no point did he say that it would have been machine gun fire. So what you claimed to be the OSCE opinion doesn't exactly appear to be so.

Quote:
And now we have some more facts to work with, and the facts continue to support the possibility that MH17 was gunned down by a military plane or planes.
At the same time, even if it were hit by SU-25 cannons, that does not necessarily mean it was not additionally hit by a surface to air or air to air missile. For whatever reason, some people feel strongly about the air to air theory - it has not gone away by virtue of some glaring fact, and these people are far closer to the situation than the rest of us
Only missiles Su-25 can pack for such a 'job' would have been infrared homing air to air missiles. Which surprisingly home to the engines - not to the cockpit. Furthermore their yields are small and would only be expected to knock out an engine from an airliner. Yet MH17 came down pretty much immediately after being hit - which wouldn't have been the case had just the engine (or even both of the engines) been taken out.

From the site i linked earlier:
In 1988, an R-60 was fired at a BAe-125 in Botswana. The BAe-125 being a sort of Limey Lear jet, which weighs a mere 25,000lbs; this aircraft is 20 times smaller than a 777 by mass. The BAe-125 was inconvenienced by the R-60, which knocked one of its engines off, but it wasn’t shot down; it landed without further incident.

In short R-60 simply can't do what you seem to be insisting that it could do.

And you really, really do not fire surface to air missile into the region with friendly aircraft. So having both is not really possible. And the facts still do not support the gunfire theory, just read it up.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03 Aug 14, 05:29
Metryll's Avatar
Metryll Metryll is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toulon, France
Posts: 7,301
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimean View Post
I trust you are calling the German pilot a liar...and not me.
Have you read him ?

http://www.anderweltonline.com/wisse...alaysian-mh17/

Have you considered that even though being a pilot does not qualify him as accident/military expert ?

Quote:
That is another bold assertion but the man cited did in fact say 30mm holes in his report...perhaps you didn't bother to read this stuff before commenting?
Not a report but a blog entry. But since you argue about reading let's have a look on the "Supplement, 2014-08-01:" at bottom of the page :

"Time and again it is stated that the SU 25 has a maximum flight altitude of 7,000 meters and that’s why this jet couldn’t be able to bring down MH 017. Seeking for an answer on Wikipedia – this statement will be confirmed. If you go to the trouble of broadening your knowledge by questioning a specialist book, you’ll get completely different information: the maximum flight altitude of the SU 25 is 14,600 meters. Check here: http://www.fliegerweb.com/militaer/flugzeuge/lexikon.php?show=lexikon-50"

Sukhoi, the Su 25 constructor state a service ceiling of 7.000 m that is the altitude at which the aircraft can still be used for its planned use, here combat.

"Until beginning of july 2014 Wikipedia gave the maximum flight altitude for the SU 25 with “ca. 10.000 Meters”. As well in the english version as in the german one. Now one finds it “corrected” to 7.000 meters. In the Wikipedia discussions-forum roared up an intensive discussion about the correct value."

No it is the reverse. Until July 21st, Wikipedia entry shown 7.000 m. It was then 'corrected' and unwind several time until someone finally put the Sukhoi site in a foot note. Anyone can check this by looking at the edit history and using a June entry : as for 30th June ceiling was 7 km. French wiki show the same 'corrections' than its English version.

"The handbook “Flugzeuge der Welt” by W. Green (1984), a standard work which essentially quotes the facts of the military “Janes Manuals” (also used to be NATO reference), already 1984 determined the maximum flight altitude of SU 25 (SU 25 MK, export version) with 10,670 meters (page 208 f.). The performance of the SU 25 has been upgraded since that time."

Yes maximum ceiling not service ceiling.

"Here a link to the statement of a canadian OSCE-participant, who observed evidence on parts of the wreckage, that the aircraft had been hit by rounds of heavy machine-gun-fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76PG9RQStFU#t=470"

Problem : A Su 25 carry no machine gun, only a 30 mm canon. Later use explosive round, not the former for those readers who'll ask themselves about the difference.

Quote:
"Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Department of the Russian Army General Staff, said at a news conference that the Su-25 attack plane can fly at altitudes of up to 10 km.
Yes fly, not combat.

Quote:
It is armed with P-60 air-to-air missiles that can hit targets at a distance of up to 12 km and reliably within 5 km.
R-60 is an IR missile that seek engines and none of those of MH-17 display no damage done by a such a kind of missile. Would have been the case, news would have been reported as soon that inquiry on crash site begun.

Quote:
Russian military experts support the version that Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25 attack plane." http://en.itar-tass.com/world/742307
And USA state that a SA-11 shot down the liner. This is why an inquiry is needed to establish the truth as much as possible.

Quote:
"The service ceiling is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft... ...
Say it all or close. In order to reach its absolute ceiling from service ceiling an aircraft need to maintain a climb rate over zero, meaning that pitch come closer and closer to vertical. Thus a firing Su 25 would have hit the B 777 either from below or upside but not from side. Aircrafts are not cars, they evolve themselves around the 3 axis.

Quote:
And now we have some more facts to work with, and the facts continue to support the possibility that MH17 was gunned down by a military plane or planes.
Which new facts ?

Quote:
At the same time, even if it were hit by SU-25 cannons, that does not necessarily mean it was not additionally hit by a surface to air or air to air missile. For whatever reason, some people feel strongly about the air to air theory - it has not gone away by virtue of some glaring fact, and these people are far closer to the situation than the rest of us
Over 7.000 m a Su 25 cannot carry any missile. In fact it cannot carry any external weapons.

Last edited by Metryll; 03 Aug 14 at 05:40..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04 Aug 14, 15:34
Vaeltaja's Avatar
Vaeltaja Vaeltaja is offline
Lieutenant General
Finland
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: -
Posts: 3,416
Vaeltaja has disabled reputation
Worth checking out:

http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05 Aug 14, 06:12
BigDog's Avatar
BigDog BigDog is offline
Brigadier General
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) 
 
Real Name: Jim Olliff
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tuskegee, AL
Posts: 2,278
BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200] BigDog is walking in the light [200]
"gunfire quote"

I know in the video I watched that had the "machine-gun fire" quote from the OSCE observer showed a piece of I think the cockpit that DID look like it had been hit by "machine-gun" fire. Actually it looked like it had been hit several times by .30 caliber (7.62) fire NOT 30mm and this was not skin that everyone keeps analyzing. My guess would be that someone on the ground shot that section for some reason. I have not seen a picture of this area outside of that video.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05 Aug 14, 09:21
Metryll's Avatar
Metryll Metryll is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toulon, France
Posts: 7,301
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDog View Post
I know in the video I watched that had the "machine-gun fire" quote from the OSCE observer showed a piece of I think the cockpit that DID look like it had been hit by "machine-gun" fire. Actually it looked like it had been hit several times by .30 caliber (7.62) fire NOT 30mm and this was not skin that everyone keeps analyzing. My guess would be that someone on the ground shot that section for some reason. I have not seen a picture of this area outside of that video.
It 's a possibilty. Su 25 canon has a rate of fire of 2.8000 rpm. Say 3.000 rpm yeld one round every 0.2s. At 900 km/h the B 777 flew 5m ahead in this lapse of time.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06 Aug 14, 13:17
Crimean's Avatar
Crimean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Double Standards

Quote:
Originally Posted by amvas View Post
Nope, their logic is the next: "If Russia supports separatists, it's responsible for all tehy are doing"
I also don't completely deny version, that it could be fault of rebels. But possibility of this scanario is about 5-10% maximum. But western mass-media tells about this the fault of rebels as a fact even not waiting for official investication conclusions.
Now we are speaking about possibilities.
As I have already said, Ukrainians had MUCH more possibilities to knock down this poor airliner than rebels. And Russian mass-media are speaking in absolutely in another key about this. Western mass-media are much more flat.
"If the roles were reversed, and it was Americans who had shot down a plane, would the same standard be enforced?

The answer is no. This is not a hypothetical question. It actually happened on July 4, 1988 in a very similar tragedy to MH17. The US Navy warship U.S.S. Vincennes – operating inside Iranian territorial waters – blew Iran Air Flight 655 out of the air, killing all 290 people on board. The U.S. claimed the ship had mistaken the Iranian airplane for a F-14 fighter jet.

The difference, of course, is that the U.S. warship was inside Iranian waters and blew apart the Iranian plane inside Iranian airspace. The U.S. was not defending itself against Iran, because Iran never attacked the United States or bombed civilians inside the country. As opposed to the Ukrainian rebels, who could have legitimately mistaken the Malaysia Airways plane for a Ukrainian military plane like those that have carried out massacres through aerial assault on their people.

After the attack on the Iran Air flight, actor-in-chief Ronald Reagan proclaimed to “deeply regret any loss of life.” However, he went on to say it was not actually the fault of the Americans because “the course of the Iranian civilian airliner was such that it was headed directly for the U.S.S. Vincennes.” This turned out not to be true. “”When the aircraft failed to heed repeated warnings, the Vincennes followed standard orders and … procedures … firing to protect itself against possible attack.”

Vice President George H.W. Bush was more direct when he famously stated: “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are.”

Of course, many skeptics such as Noam Chomsky have pointed out that “the circumstances were suspicious, to say the least.” David Carlson, the commander of a second ship nearby at the time, has said that the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 was the “horrifying climax to Captain [William C.] Rogers aggressiveness.”

But, as long as the U.S. government declares it was an accident, this is to be accepted without question. And further, it absolves them of any responsibility. If any proof was needed of this, the entire crew was later awarded combat action ribbons, with Rogers receiving a special Commendation Medal from Reagan."
"Obama’s objectives are clear in his combative accusations and implications about Russian responsibility for the Malaysia Airways tragedy. He wants to exploit the opportunity to score a public relations victory and isolate the Russian government while building support by for the coup government in Ukraine that his administration helped to seize power. This Kiev government has received at least tacit approval of the U.S. government to engage in military operations against citizens who do not recognize the legitimacy of the new government and resorted to armed resistance.

What Obama is doing is a fraud. He is deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the East Ukranian resistance, the Ukranian army’s actions in the area, and the involvement of Russia to cause further harm to the Russian government and the cause of those who oppose the U.S.-backed coup."
http://www.mintpressnews.com/obamas-...ragedy/194887/
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06 Aug 14, 15:55
amvas's Avatar
amvas amvas is online now
RKKA in World War II Forum CO
Russia
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Real Name: Alex
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 5,654
amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimean View Post
"If the roles were reversed, and it was Americans who had shot down a plane, would the same standard be enforced?

The answer is no. This is not a hypothetical question. It actually happened on July 4, 1988 in a very similar tragedy to MH17. The US Navy warship U.S.S. Vincennes – operating inside Iranian territorial waters – blew Iran Air Flight 655 out of the air, killing all 290 people on board. The U.S. claimed the ship had mistaken the Iranian airplane for a F-14 fighter jet.
...
Yep, I know this story quite well. .But that case was a tragic mistake.

The most reliable version for myself is that Ukrainians knocked down that poor MH17 with purpose. The most possible scenario - missile attack of Su-25 with followed gunfire. But this is only version.
__________________
If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06 Aug 14, 16:05
hawker_gb's Avatar
hawker_gb hawker_gb is offline
Colonel
Croatia
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Split
Posts: 1,879
hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99] hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99] hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99] hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99] hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99] hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99] hawker_gb is on the path to success [1-99]
Some more news about liner:

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140...-by-30-mm.html

The Malaysian Boeing plane that crashed in eastern Ukraine in mid-July, could have been brought down by an air-to-air missile and a cannon of the Su-25 fighter that had been “shadowing it,” The New Straits Times reported on Wednesday citing experts.
Experts believe that MH17 flight was shot down by an air-to-air missile fired from the fighter that later finished it off with a burst of 30mm cannon fire, the newspaper has reported.
According to the experts, if this hypothesis is true, it would explain the bullet holes in some sections of MH17’s fuselage.
“Some showed blast patterns consistent with shrapnel from a proximity-fused weapon while some showed the more precise grouping consistent with that of cannon fire. We’re analyzing this,” said one of the sources, adding that a detailed analysis of the pieces of the jetliner is needed to corroborate this emerging theory.
__________________
Fortess fortuan adiuvat
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06 Aug 14, 16:14
amvas's Avatar
amvas amvas is online now
RKKA in World War II Forum CO
Russia
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Real Name: Alex
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 5,654
amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200] amvas is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker_gb View Post
Yes, just this version I expected many days ago.
__________________
If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06 Aug 14, 17:05
Metryll's Avatar
Metryll Metryll is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toulon, France
Posts: 7,301
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500] Metryll is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker_gb View Post
Some more news about liner:

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140...-by-30-mm.html

The Malaysian Boeing plane that crashed in eastern Ukraine in mid-July, could have been brought down by an air-to-air missile and a cannon of the Su-25 fighter that had been “shadowing it,” The New Straits Times reported on Wednesday citing experts.
Experts believe that MH17 flight was shot down by an air-to-air missile fired from the fighter that later finished it off with a burst of 30mm cannon fire, the newspaper has reported.
According to the experts, if this hypothesis is true, it would explain the bullet holes in some sections of MH17’s fuselage.
“Some showed blast patterns consistent with shrapnel from a proximity-fused weapon while some showed the more precise grouping consistent with that of cannon fire. We’re analyzing this,” said one of the sources, adding that a detailed analysis of the pieces of the jetliner is needed to corroborate this emerging theory.
How a Su 25 can fire a missile at an altitude it can reach only after having jettison it ?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:57.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.