A brainless zombies, the Coriolis force and the last question for you

[Dauphin]

Paris will have to rename the Rive Gauche (Left Bank). But it's on the south side, so not sure if that makes it the west or east bank.

[Dinner]

I am ok with crapping on the French.

[BeBMan]

Interesting that the Dambusters are (or were) lauded for decades after the war, but the Russians are called war criminals.

I think aerial bombing (of civilians/civilian infra) was generally kept out of any warcrimes trials at the end of WW2, for several reasons.

One being that all sides did it -- Germany rather early, Allies more mid-late war.

Also the relevant parts of intl law back then were either not considering aerial warfare (many of the early conventions stem from late 19th/early 20th century), or were often not ratified by many when/where they did, or allow for quite some interpretation what constitutes a still legitimate attack when civilians are around.

The latter is still relevant in debates today. But some things would clearly be warcrimes (like deliberate attacks on hospitals for example).

As for floodings IIRC Ukraine also deliberately flooded certain areas in the north last year, which aided their defense in the early war.

Folks could argue that this was a case of justifed military necessity​, as Ukraine was defending against a very imminent and concrete threat in those regions. No idea if the same can be said from the Russian side - being the aggressor - in this case of the Kakhovka Dam, if they destroyed it deliberately​.

Also the flooding was created downstream in Kherson, which was not the target of an Ukrainian offensive at this point. So this seemed to convenient militarily (shorten the front to defend, allowing troops to deploy elsewhere), but not necessary. Then there would be other points to consider, like proportionality, what efforts were made to aid affected areas which would tell us whether the loss of civilian life was calculated with or even intendet etc. etc.

[giblets]

I didn't know army generals take the Coriolis effect into consideration. I learned something today.

[N35t0r]

I think aerial bombing (of civilians/civilian infra) was generally kept out of any warcrimes trials at the end of WW2, for several reasons.

One being that all sides did it -- Germany rather early, Allies more mid-late war.

Also the relevant parts of intl law back then were either not considering aerial warfare (many of the early conventions stem from late 19th/early 20th century), or were often not ratified by many when/where they did, or allow for quite some interpretation what constitutes a still legitimate attack when civilians are around.

The latter is still relevant in debates today. But some things would clearly be warcrimes (like deliberate attacks on hospitals for example).

As for floodings IIRC Ukraine also deliberately flooded certain areas in the north last year, which aided their defense in the early war.

Folks could argue that this was a case of justifed military necessity​, as Ukraine was defending against a very imminent and concrete threat in those regions. No idea if the same can be said from the Russian side - being the aggressor - in this case of the Kakhovka Dam, if they destroyed it deliberately​.

Also the flooding was created downstream in Kherson, which was not the target of an Ukrainian offensive at this point. So this seemed to convenient militarily (shorten the front to defend, allowing troops to deploy elsewhere), but not necessary. Then there would be other points to consider, like proportionality, what efforts were made to aid affected areas which would tell us whether the loss of civilian life was calculated with or even intendet etc. etc.

There's also the question of scal, and objectives.

The reservoirs breached in the dam busters raid had 0.13 and 0.30 km³ of water. The Kakhovka reservoir had 18 km³ (a bit more because of the high level of the reservoir at the time)

The objectives of the dam busters raid was to hinder German industry and tie down labor in the rebuilding effort. The dams generated electricity, and also provided fresh water for steelmaking and to help make rivers and canals navigable through the summer.

The Kakhovka dam was under Russian control, so it wasn't providing electricity to Ukraine. It will not divert Ukrainian labor until it is safely behind the frontline. Just opening the sluice gates to increase the flow downstream would have severely hindered any operations across the river (I think that was the initial idea of the Russians, but by mistake they blew up everything).

[Dauphin]

I didn't know army generals take the Coriolis effect into consideration. I learned something today.

If they didn't artillery would be missing targets.

May explain why the Russians keep hitting civilians targets.

[Bereta_Eder]

Serb don't drink

Is very easy to do

[Serb]

Which side of the river is the right or left bank is entirely dependent on the direction you are looking, not which hemisphere you are in.

The right and left side of any river is ALWAYS decided on which direction its flows, uneducated idiot!
(Or an American, I guess?)​

[PLATO]

Serb has it right on this one "River left always refers to the left side of a river looking downstream. River right always refers to the right side of a river looking downstream"
https://www.boat-ed.com/waterrescue/...g%20downstream.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

[Serb]

There are quite a few rivers in the northern hemisphere that flow north. "By convention" the right or left bank of those rivers are opposite of what Serb insists is "the right bank of ANY river in the northern hemisphere" and "That is fkn LAW!!! A law of physics!!!". If he's going to try to tell us he's gods gift to physics and we're all "imbeciles", he better be right about what he's referencing; and he wasn't.​

Most of the rivers flow from north to south.

And Dniepr river is no exception.
Anyone who planned to destroy the Khakovka dam should knew perfectly that the left (low one, Russian controlled) bank of the river will be flooded much more than the right one (a high one, Ukranian controlled).
And that is what had happened excatly - the Ukranian bank was nearly touched, while the Russian one had disasterous consequences, not to mention that Russian defences on the left bank were just washed away.

[PLATO]

It was a successful tactic by Russia to basically eliminate a chance that any part of the Ukrainian offensive could move through there as well as allowing Russia to redeploy troops to shore up other areas. It is likely that they assessed that they could not hold the dam so they might as well utilize it to slow down the Ukrainians.

[Serb]

But, since you are imbeciles, Westerners, you would continue to deny the obvious. You are really like fkn propaganda zombies without any functioning brains!

Ukranians had fired over 500 shells including 80 HIMARS to the dam since October 2022 and wery proud of that in their social networks. They general Andrei Kovakchuk had confirmed thir HIMARS strikes and hit on the dam to the interview to NY Times at October! He was creaming his pants about that!


Read this, dumb, brainless zombies!

This article at Washington Post is dated by December, 22, 2022!!!

Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.

The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort.
​
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/

That is called a fkng CONFESSION!!!

December 2022

[Serb]

And now anyone of you stuipid brainwashed imbeciles care to explain to me, why would Russians cut-off the water supply to their Crimea by blowing the dam?


ARE YOU THAT KIND OF FKNG IMBECILES?!!!

In your imbecile unverse Russians blow-up their own gas pipes and dams.

A F Idiots!!!

[Serb]

And care to expalin to me, why Ukranians had dropped the water from their upper dams during the Kahovka incident?

I can tell you why - to make a hydro impact to destroy the dam and to make the consequeces of the flooding worse.

A f,king brainless, brainwashed idiots!

[Serb]

I didn't know army generals take the Coriolis effect into consideration. I learned something today.

That's because you are stupid and can't walk and chewing bubblegum at the same time, like 99% of your fellow brainwashed Western zombies.

[Serb]

I didn't know army generals take the Coriolis effect into consideration. I learned something today.

Generals do and the terrorists do, dummy!

[Serb]

It was a successful tactic by Russia to basically eliminate a chance that any part of the Ukrainian offensive could move through there as well as allowing Russia to redeploy troops to shore up other areas. It is likely that they assessed that they could not hold the dam so they might as well utilize it to slow down the Ukrainians.

Unlike Russia, Ukraine has no capability for the amphibious operations (otherwise they would have begging from you for an amphibious equipment instead of tanks and F-16s).

It was Russia who had the capability to cross the Dniepr river and attack Ukranians on the left bank, not the other way around!

That's why Ukranians did it!

They are a motherfking terrorist regime.
Period!

[PLATO]

Sorry cross posted with my post below. It is certainly a possibility, but I think it is unlikely as it would have taken a bit more juice then HIMARS could have produced. The potential attacks I was referring to by Ukraine in that region were not river crossings. They were land attacks from the northeast. What it allowed the Russians to do though, was move troops and shorten lines. With as long as that front is, there are undoubtedly lightly defended areas that needed shoring up. Much more likely imo that Russia blew the damn.

[Serb]

Do you know how wide Dniepr is, an American (a geography imbecile by definition)?!!!

Either do you know any fkn idea where it is?

Could you point it on the map?

Most of your fellow countrymen can't find Russia on the map, not to mention Ukraine!


You are a nation of geographic imbeciles!