Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[mainiac]

Presumably if the US didn't get involved in WW2 for whatever reason the Soviets would have ended up taking pretty much all of Europe, if at a much greater cost.

While the Soviet manpower contribution to WWII was greater, half the tanks and heavy guns and 80% of the planes were pointed west.  I'd hardly say Soviet victory was certain when the Germans had more population in non-occupied areas and industrial production.

[Beznogim]

A straight up mockery of the idea that an SU-25 shot down the plane.

The first is that the Ukrainian air force shot the Boeing 777 down itself, using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89

Radar footage showed, that Boeing 777 did slow its speed for some reason.

and furthermore the Su-25 is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page.

Technical characteristics of Su-25 on official Ukrainian site
The line there - "Практический потолок, м 7000-10000" (Practical height limit, m 7000-10000)
10000m is about 33000 foot

[Guardian G.I.]

Presumably if the US didn't get involved in WW2 for whatever reason the Soviets would have ended up taking pretty much all of Europe, if at a much greater cost.

While the Soviet manpower contribution to WWII was greater, half the tanks and heavy guns and 80% of the planes were pointed west.  I'd hardly say Soviet victory was certain when the Germans had more population in non-occupied areas and industrial production.

If you're talking about German military deployment, I should note that from the very first days of Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union, the majority of German forces were deployed on the Eastern Front.

[Dutchling]

Yeah I didn't think anyone would have doubted the Soviet contribution to the war, but I guess not.

Still, wasn't Stalingrad pretty damn close? It's not hard to imagine the Nazis winning without the Soviets having (western) Allied support.

[TD1]

Dutchling is a german.

His name is a code.

It stands for "Deutschland"

[Reelya]

No, it wasn't a "close battle" by any stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

The Germans got some dudes into the city, they were surrounded, Hitler refused to let them try and escape. They stuck it out until they were starving and had no ammo, then they surrendered en masse to the Soviet forces.

I think you might be overestimating the amount of Western support the Soviets were getting in 1942.

By 1943 Soviet forces outnumbered Germans on the Eastern front by 2:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29

[GrizzlyAdamz]

-though, it's easy to pass judgement on the captain in hindsight.
I'd wager shooting down the civilian craft was based heavily on the price of the captain's ship and ironically being 'safe rather than sorry' from his selfish perspective.
So, was it criminal? Yeah, he gave the order to murder those civilians in spite of (at least) some contradictory evidence. In Iranian waters no less.
But I wouldn't say 'shooting down a civilian plane' was in his terrorist mission planner; only 'being a prick and harassing Iranians just outside their waters'.

He might not have known about the specifics of the plane's situation, but that doesn't mean he should have been there. Besides, the crew should have known the plane to be civilian.

At the moment of the attack, the ship was more than 3 miles within iranian waters. Officially, it was coming to aid tankers being harassed by iranian forces. Tankers that later reported no harrasment, or even didn't exist.

As for the mission, we'll never know. Logs and such are classified. Just for that day, btw.


Then again, the us was practically at war with iran. They blew up half their fleet not long after.

The wiki entry suggests the guy engaged Iranian gunboats outside Iranian waters and then kept pursuing them when they retreated into them, (not supposed to do that, but I get the impression from old '50s anti-war movies it happened all the time).

Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago".

This seems more plausible than the Vincennes being ordered into Iranian territorial waters for the purpose of downing a civilian airliner, if that is what designating it as a terrorist act alleges.

Russia is playing a dangerous game with conspiracy theories. Very dangerous.

They keep forgetting the rebels tweeted about downing a 'transport' plane.

[Dutchling]

Ah, okay. Recently saw some Russian mini-documentary about the Eastern front and it never really depicted the Russians as being in an advantageous position prior to that.

I think you might be overestimating the amount of Western support the Soviets were getting in 1942.

Because I specifically stated Western support would only have been meaningful if the situation was very close o.O?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Meanwhile

Pentagon says heavy caliber, multiple launch rockets from Russia to Ukrainian separatists is imminent, "potentially today"

When will this sad comedy end? When one of the sides will declare an official war?

[Reelya]

It's not hard to imagine the Nazis winning without the Soviets having (western) Allied support.

^ You wrote this. Which implies that the western support tipped the balance. My reply was: it wasn't that close. The Russians mobilized twice the manpower as the German did on the Eastern Front. It was 3 million to 5 million at the start of Stalingrad, and 3 million to 6 million by the end.

about 2/3rds of the German forces were on the Eastern Front, so even with no Western powers to guard against, Russia still had more dudes.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line

[10ebbor10]

-though, it's easy to pass judgement on the captain in hindsight.
I'd wager shooting down the civilian craft was based heavily on the price of the captain's ship and ironically being 'safe rather than sorry' from his selfish perspective.
So, was it criminal? Yeah, he gave the order to murder those civilians in spite of (at least) some contradictory evidence. In Iranian waters no less.
But I wouldn't say 'shooting down a civilian plane' was in his terrorist mission planner; only 'being a prick and harassing Iranians just outside their waters'.

He might not have known about the specifics of the plane's situation, but that doesn't mean he should have been there. Besides, the crew should have known the plane to be civilian.
At the moment of the attack, the ship was more than 3 miles within iranian waters. Officially, it was coming to aid tankers being harassed by iranian forces. Tankers that later reported no harrasment, or even didn't exist.

As for the mission, we'll never know. Logs and such are classified. Just for that day, btw.

Then again, the us was practically at war with iran. They blew up half their fleet not long after.

The wiki entry suggests the guy engaged Iranian gunboats outside Iranian waters and then kept pursuing them when they retreated into them, (not supposed to do that, but I get the impression from old '50s anti-war movies it happened all the time).

Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago".

This seems more plausible than the Vincennes being ordered into Iranian territorial waters for the purpose of downing a civilian airliner, if that is what designating it as a terrorist act alleges.

The Vincennes was out of Iranian waters when the fire exchange between it's helicopters (in Iranian airspace), and the Iranian boats (in Iranian waters) occurred. Following that, the Vincennes moved into Iranian waters in order to be able to open fire.


Terrorist action is just a criminal act involving unlawful use of force.  Gross negligence can be considered enough to count suffice for that. Anyway, this is what Iran thinks about it. They do have a point.

According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.[34](§4.52–4.54)

In particular, Iran expressed skepticism about claims of mis-identification, noting that the Vincennes had advanced Aegis radar that correctly tracked the flight and its Mode III beacon; two other U.S. warships in the area, Sides and Montgomery, identified the aircraft as civilian; and the flight was well within a recognized international air corridor. It also noted that the crew of the Vincennes was trained to handle simultaneous attacks by hundreds of enemy aircraft.[34](§4.50) Iran found it more plausible that the Vincennes "hankered for an opportunity to show its stuff".[34](§4.52)

According to Iran, the U.S. had previously issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) warning aircraft that they were at risk of "defensive measures" if they had not been cleared from a regional airport and if they came within 5 nautical miles (9.3 km) of a warship at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet (610 m). IR 655 had been cleared from a regional airport and was well outside those limits when it was attacked.[34](§4.62)

Even if the aircraft had been an Iranian F-14, Iran argued, the U.S. would have had no right to shoot it down. The aircraft was flying within Iranian airspace and did not follow a path that could be considered an attack profile, nor did it illuminate the Vincennes with radar.[34](§4.60–4.61) During the incident, the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters,[34](§4.65) and was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched its missles.[34](§1.27) Regardless of any mistakes made by the crew, the U.S. was fully responsible for the actions of its warship under international law.[34](§4.56)

Iran pointed out that in the past "the United States has steadfastly condemned the shooting down of aircraft, whether civil or military, by the armed forces of another State" and cited El Al Flight 402, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 and Korean Air Lines Flight 007, among other incidents.[34](§4.66–4.70) Iran also noted that when Iraq attacked the USS Stark, United States found Iraq fully responsible on the grounds that the Iraqi pilot "knew or should have known" that he was attacking a U.S. warship.[34](§4.49)

Inside Iran, this shoot-down was perceived as a purposeful attack by United States, signalling that US was about to enter direct war against Iran on the side of Iraq

[Reelya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line

I agree they got assitance, but most of that was post-Stalingrad. The first 6 months of 1942 wouldn't have proportionally been that much. USA only join the war in Dec 1941, and it took time to gear up production and build ships to get stuff over. Plus, the Soviets had trouble actually getting any supply into Stalingrad because the Luftwaffe blew everything up, and crippled the shipping routes. But they still won.

EDIT: I'm reading up on the figures form 1942 shipments, and they got a fair bit of gear sent, about equal from England and USA that year, but still dwarfed by production numbers of things like the T34 tank, and local fighter/bomber production. Since 94% of the support was from USA, but it wasn't so skewed in 1942 between England/USA, I'd say that really geared up later on towards the end of the war.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

snip
The Vincennes was out of Iranian waters when the fire exchange between it's helicopters (in Iranian airspace), and the Iranian boats (in Iranian waters) occurred. Following that, the Vincennes moved into Iranian waters in order to be able to open fire.


Terrorist action is just a criminal act involving unlawful use of force.  Gross negligence can be considered enough to count suffice for that. Anyway, this is what Iran thinks about it. They do have a point.
snip

Mm, if that's the definition of terrorism, every violent crime everywhere is a terrorist act. Most definitions include 'in the pursuit of political aims' or something along those lines.
Supposedly they tried issuing radio warnings, 10 of them, 7 on military frequencies & 3 on civilian, and the airbus pilots likely thought they were for someone else.
It does seem rather grossly criminally negligent, so in addition to the reparations the US paid, I'd've probably wanted to see the captain or his superior found guilty of something, but I'm no expert on the case. I sure as shit wouldn't have given him a medal for his performance.

[Guardian G.I.]

Two interesting pieces from Aviation Week.

An overview of the Buk system and why it's design lends itself to this sort of accident.

A straight up mockery of the idea that an SU-25 shot down the plane.

The first is that the Ukrainian air force shot the Boeing 777 down itself, using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89, and furthermore the Su-25 is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page. As for the R-60, the 3 kg warhead's ability to assure a kill on a large aircraft with highly redundant systems is dubious at best.

An original model of Su-25 from 1978 can't reach the height of 10000 meters. Ukraine has a modification of Su-25 in service, Su-25M1, whose service ceiling is reportedly 10000 meters. However, I can't find other sources citing the technical characteristics of Su-25M1. The official website of the factory which modernizes original Su-25s into Su-25M1s has no information on the plane's service ceiling. The website claims that modernized Su-25s can fly on international aviation routes, though.