5 ms·
It's not clear whether it truly was destroyed by Russian airstrikes. The plane was based on the Gostomel airport, which got captured by the Russian airborn forc
by fuoqi 5y ago
It's not clear whether it truly was destroyed by Russian airstrikes. The plane was based on the Gostomel airport, which got captured by the Russian airborn forces in the early days of the invasion. The news of destruction begun after the Ukrainian forces tried to retake the airport.
- Kelteseth 5y agoLooks destroyed to me: https://img.pr0gramm.com/2022/03/04/1d4413a6ea3e5d8a.jpg https://img.pr0gramm.com/2022/03/04/1d4413a6ea3e5d8a.jpg Edit: I misread your comment...
- fuoqi 5y agoWhat? Where did I say that it was not destroyed? My point is that it's quite possible that it was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery strikes which supported counter-attack on the Gostomel airport.
- qeternity 5y agoI think most people would consider it destroyed by Russia, even if it were Ukrainian artillery that actually struck.
- dtech 5y agoDestroyed due to the Russian invasion would be better then.
- unmole 5y agoSure, but saying destroyed by Russian airstrikes like the article would be inaccurate.
- efdee 5y agoIn the way that you don't die from a bullet, but rather from your body's reaction to the abrupt entering of that bullet in its perimeter.
- unmole 5y agoSaying it happened as a result of the Russian invasion is accurate, saying it happened because of Russian airstrikes is not.
- Aeolun 5y agoAssuming it was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery, which is very much still in question.
- unmole 5y agoIt could have been destroyed by Russian infantry for all we know. But that's still not a Russian airstrike.
- efdee 5y agoIf you agree it is a result of the Russian invasion, you can't say it's not a result of Russian airstrikes. Maybe not a direct result in the sense that a Russian rocket destroyed it (although there's no reason to rule that out at this point), but definitely as an indirect result. No invasion, no destroyed An-225. No Russian airstrike, no destroyed An-225.
- unmole 5y ago> If you agree it is a result of the Russian invasion, you can't say it's not a result of Russian airstrikes. Airstrike has a specific meaning. From what I understand Russian attack on the airport was primarily an assault by airborne infantry. It's entirely possible that the Antonov was destroyed by a Russian munition. It still doesn't mean it was a result of a Russian airstrike.
- samatman 5y agoThe formal cause of the destruction is the Russian invasion, the efficient cause might be Ukrainian artillery, or it might be Russian airstrikes, as the article indicates. It's a useful distinction, and I wager most people would consider the efficient cause to be the appropriate cause in a sentence like "object destroyed by causal subject". Otherwise we end up with difficulty parsing "Russian MiG destroyed by Russia", are we saying it's all Russia's fault, or that Russian forces shot their own jet?
- Kelteseth 5y agoOh, I misread your comment :(
- ulfw 5y agoWell that's nice. I am sure there wouldn't have been a nice for any kind of Ukrainian weaponry, let alone artillery strikes if Russia didn't forcefully capture said airfield in the first place.
- Aeolun 5y agoI’d heard it was under maintenance, but from the looks of it it needs a serious overhaul. More seriously. Damn. I hadn’t had any non hedged confirmation of the destruction before :( this kind of settles it.
- seba_dos1 5y agoDo you have a source? A comment in another thread here[0] says: > Ukraine says the An-225 was destroyed on the 26th. And their artillery strike came on the 27th. In any case, it's Russia who attacked, so it's not like whose shelling actually reached the plane is very important when it comes to responsibility. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552930
- albertopv 5y agoThis is a minor issue. Title may be misleading, I don't know how things went, but Russia started the war that caused plane destruction.
- trhway 5y agoOn this image it is clear that shell or missile which killed Mria came from the left https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screen-Shot-2022-02-28-at-10.08.56-PM.jpg.webp https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screen-Sho... That is North direction. Right toward the Russian forces which at the time had made that huge advance through Chernobyl toward Kiev. The trace in the pavement points to a large and fast shell or missile. Ukrainians are using up to 203mm which looks too small for that trace in the pavement. Also making that long trace in concrete pavement suggests low angle which for artillery would mean relatively close position - bringing large caliber like 203mm that close is usually not done, as well as you don't bring such your strategic artillery assets into position where enemy's tanks would be rushing right into your back. Such low angle is indicative of missile, cruise (not ballistic) or air launched. Cruise missile like Russian Kaliber would make bigger bang, so most probably it was an aircraft launched air-to-ground missile. Edit: downvoting without clear technical counter-arguments - i take it such people just don't like where the technical analysis leads to while not able to provide their own technical analysis :)
- coolspot 5y agoYour pucture is rotated. Here is the place: https://goo.gl/maps/kPKyJVTkDoFyWZD47 https://goo.gl/maps/kPKyJVTkDoFyWZD47 It looks like the south part of the hangar was damaged.
- trhway 5y agoYes, the south part of hangar is damaged. That the missile came from the left (North) on the image i posted is obvious by the pattern of blast effects and the trace in pavement the missile made - it is very clear that the right end of the trace is deeper visually and by the blast effects geometry. The missile pierced the hangar roof - it is thin metal sheet not affecting anything - either where it was microsecond later damaged by the blast or where you see the hole over the tail of the plane on my original link as well as here https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/4/4/5/85445_an225damage2_861443.jpg https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/4/4/5... The missile struck pavement ~30m from hangar, the hangar is ~30m high and the roof is damaged to the point about ~30m from the edge. The missile came at low angle, so it could have come through the area there the roof was damaged by the blast (that gives minimum angle for the missile - by the 60m to 30m ratio - of a bit under 30 degree), and the hole over the plane's tail gives the low angle which is also a good candidate.
- risyachka 5y ago100% of everything destroyed is only ruski fault.
- dr-detroit 5y ago