Is this really the kind of damage an air defence missile can do to the ground?

  1. Rule 4: What's disallowed - Violating the following rules may result in a permaban; do NOT submit footage of: aftermath, assassinations, executions, explosives disposal, violent protests, training, narco footage, police action, w/commercials edited in, military exercises or military parades, abandoned, Electronic Warfare (Exception if shown taking down military hardware), captured or destroyed equipment/machinery (unless in the process of being abandoned, captured or destroyed), Obituaries or of soldiers posing for the camera (unless in an album) -

  2. 220lb+ can leave a big hole exactly like this. Don't forget that nearly all current anti aircraft missiles work by getting as close as possible before detonating its proximity fused war head or in the case of an actualhit the instant contact fuse would trigger war head, the damage is done by the missile fragmentation. So it's usually packed with metal balls or cubes of metal, designed to shred the aircraft or missile its been targeted at. In the case of Russia launching S300's as ground attack missiles there is a similar pattern, the biggest difference is that the ground targets Russia aimed at were concrete and steel targets.

  3. The AA getting as close to the target as possible before blowing up means it must be a seeking missile which means it shouldnt light the fuze unless it detects the target and ground shouldnt be a target… correct me if im wrong

  4. The missile struck an industrial weighing scale, which was used to weigh grain trucks. You take your measurement, subtract the truck's known weight, and you now know how much grain you have for sale. The scale's mechanism is mostly underground, and I imagine there's a lot of open space there, similar to a cellar or a short tunnel. I'd guess that after the missile struck, the scale collapsed in on itself, creating the appearance of a large crater. But I could be wrong.

  5. scales don't have underground services, they are all above ground and you drive onto a ramp to get on them, all the electronics are in an above ground terminal box for maintenance access

  6. Ours is above ground where I work, with built-up ramps to get on and off. To your point, it's mostly empty space beneath them, besides the supports.

  7. According to the internet an S300 has anywhere between 220 to 315 lbs of high explosives in the warhead.

  8. That's a lot actually... a 155mm shell has like 23.8 lb according to google and I know they can make some large holes. I guess it probably could be then.

  9. I think the s300 only has a warhead size of 220 to 315 lbs, so probably only half of that is actually explosive the rest is most likely a fragmentation sleeve or preformed fragments

  10. It was allegedly already hollow under the rails for trucks to dump grain. So the crater may have been partially already there.

  11. I think theres been a few interesting takeaways that people have brought up that give more credence to the claim that it was more likely to be a stray S300 missile than not:

  12. 4: that missile had a full solid rocket engine with more propellant than the warhead weights. The one that impacted in poland was most certainly empty since it flew and those engines burn out completely. Plus possibly other stuff exploding there as well. So no good reference.

  13. Ukraine offered their data, but as of today when Zelensky was speaking no country wanted to investigate it together.

  14. Love all the randoms in here with all the buzz words to make themselves sound all official and what not. How about we wait to hear what actual experts have to say when their investigation is finished before all becoming explosion experts ourselves huh?

  15. I don’t understand this discussion or why this is even as big of a deal as it is. I don’t think this was some strategic target Russia wanted to hit and felt kicking off WW3 was worth it. Regardless of who actually is responsible, if you go firing shit off everywhere some of it is bound to end up where it wasn’t intended.

  16. Yo they are shooting ALL MANNER of shit in Ukraine. They just sent Hawk SAM missiles from the 1960’s. There’s no freaking telling what kind of stuff they are firing. Typically there are forensic experts called WITT-CEXE (pronounced Sexy lol) that can determine type, course, etc etc of a missile, artillery, mine, et al and it doesn’t exactly work all the time, but it also usually involves some pretty detailed investigative work.

  17. This was supposedly a grain cleaning facility. Look up grain elevator explosions. Grain dust, in the right air ratio is more potent then a perfect stoich gasoline ratio when you get sparks flying.

  18. Definitely looked more like a buried bomb from ww2 that detonated. But I'm just another fucking idiot so don't listen to me lol

  19. To add to what everyone else is sayin, silos are known for being volatile. Slightly flammable fine particulates build up in them and they can easily be set ablaze by just a spark. Plenty of videos out there of farm accidents involving silos that didnt get proper maintenance resulting in fireballs.

  20. When you want to put off WW 3 until you and your doners can pull all of your money out of the stock market, then yes of course it can.

  21. I don’t think anyone should really be splitting hairs over the origins of the missile(s). If it’s a Ukrainian SAM it was only in the air at all to intercept a Russian missile being aimed dangerously close to the Polish border. Aimed at civilian targets. Russia shouldn’t get a free pass on this one.

  22. There was no detonation. Look at the tires of trailer and tractor. They're intact. Explosion make thousands of degree Celsius temperature and burn everything. Also no shrapnel damage. I'm sure, if this crater was made by explosion, there would be no trailer nor tractor. It was heavy part with high speed hit the ground. It was part of the rocket or rocket itself. But without detonation.

  23. When an anti-aircraft missile gets close to the target the proximity fuse should detonate the warhead. If the missile can't hit the target and the range to the target is increasing the self -destruct mechanism should detonate the warhead. If both of those fail an S-300 could actually make a large crater like that. It is still Russia's fault though for the incident and they should pay for damages and for the wrong full death of the Polish people.

  24. That could trigger Artikel 5. But its unlikely. I dont think NATO leaders are willing to start WW3 about it. (but as this conflict has shown: predictions can be really wrong)

  25. The Russian used the S300 as surface to surface missiles and they made similar damages so if it was a Ukrainian S300 (which they have) then yes and certain marking (parts number) will be Russian.

  26. Is it possible that it really was an accident by Russia and NATO are happy to play along and say they aren't 100% sure who fired it to avoid being drawn into the conflict.

  27. Here are the specs for s300 missiles : "The original warhead weighed 100 kg (220 lb), intermediate warheads weighed 133 kg (293 lb), and the latest warhead weighs 143 kg (315 lb). All are equipped with a proximity fuse and contact fuse. The missiles themselves weigh between 1,450 and 1,800 kg (3,200 and 3,970 lb). Missiles are catapulted clear of the launching tubes before their rocket motor fires, and can accelerate at up to 100 g (1 km/s2). They launch straight upwards and then tip over towards their target, removing the need to aim the missiles before launch. The missiles are steered with a combination of control fins and thrust vectoring vanes. The sections below give exact specifications of the radar and missiles in the different S-300 versions. Since the S-300PM, most vehicles are interchangeable across variations"

  28. If it was Kh-555/101 with 400-450kg of warhead that trailer would be blown to tiny bits. Check out pictures of how much damage can cruise missile really do. Parts found also suggest S-300 missile.

  29. Does anyone here actually know what an air defense missile is capable of? Or what a cruise missile crater even looks like?

  30. NATO did not start this. What Russian lies have you been told. NATO is not even fighting yet. Giving some hand me down weapons? Yes. Fighting full force? Not even close.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed