Ukrainian Armoured vehicle Flattens car. The facts.

I believe this to be the same incident from a different angle. There was a firefight going on only yards from where the car was run over.
It would appear the Armoured vehicle flattened the Car to protect his ground soldiers involved in the firefight with Russian Saboteurs.

1:20 mark is where the car gets flattened. Watch it all for context.
Warning. Violence and death...probably.

Truck of Russian saboteurs stopped by Ukrainian ground forces

Original Video.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Violence and death...probably.

From what I saw the guy was extracted from the vehicle alive.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Violence and death...probably.

From what I saw the guy was extracted from the vehicle alive.

It was a woman.

I was specifically talking about the fate of the saboteurs...if you had cared to watch the video.

If you do get around to watching the video you can see the white Van and Russian Saboteurs truck behind it. Same incident.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
It was a woman.

Oof, looked like a dude.

I was specifically talking about the fate of the saboteurs...if you had cared to watch the video.

I watched it earlier, who you were referring to wasn't clear.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

It would appear the Armoured vehicle flattened the Car to protect his ground soldiers involved in the firefight with Russian Saboteurs.

Sure . If the car contained Russian military .
One other thing , that was a Ukranian anti-tank or anti-aircraft vehicle .
I don't think it would be involved in a firefight with enemy infantry .
People are too small and fast moving to get a good lock on them .

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Soloprotocol

It would appear the Armoured vehicle flattened the Car to protect his ground soldiers involved in the firefight with Russian Saboteurs.

Sure . If the car contained Russian military .
One other thing , that was a Ukranian anti-tank or anti-aircraft vehicle .
I don't think it would be involved in a firefight with enemy infantry .

ONE, Watch the video I posted. ffs, how hard is this?.

TWO, the Driver of the Ukrainian Armoured Vehicle wouldn't know who was driving the car. He was providing cover for the ground troops to his right and behind him. He did his job.

I said in my op that it's a Ukrainian vehicle. WATCH THE VIDEO.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
It was a woman.

Oof, looked like a dude.

I was specifically talking about the fate of the saboteurs...if you had cared to watch the video.

I watched it earlier, who you were referring to wasn't clear.

It's perfectly clear I was talking about the guy who bails from the top of the truck before being riddled with bullets before the coup de grace. Couldn't be any clearer, tbh

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Soloprotocol

It would appear the Armoured vehicle flattened the Car to protect his ground soldiers involved in the firefight with Russian Saboteurs.

Sure . If the car contained Russian military .
One other thing , that was a Ukranian anti-tank or anti-aircraft vehicle .
I don't think it would be involved in a firefight with enemy infantry .

ONE, Watch the video I posted. ffs, how hard is this?.

TWO, the Driver of the Ukrainian Armoured Vehicle would know who was driving the car. He was providing cover for the ground troops. He did his job.

I said in my op that it's a Ukrainian vehicle. WATCH THE VIDEO.

Who actually made the vehicle. And what evidence to you have who was actually driving / operating the vehicle?

We may never know the full story now due to propaganda from all sides and opinionated biased posters.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
It's perfectly clear I was talking about the guy who bails from the top of the truck before being riddled with bullets before the coup de grace. Couldn't be any clearer, tbh

If it was perfectly clear I wouldn't have thought you were referring to the person in the vehicle that got ran over.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Soloprotocol

It would appear the Armoured vehicle flattened the Car to protect his ground soldiers involved in the firefight with Russian Saboteurs.

Sure . If the car contained Russian military .
One other thing , that was a Ukranian anti-tank or anti-aircraft vehicle .
I don't think it would be involved in a firefight with enemy infantry .

ONE, Watch the video I posted. ffs, how hard is this?.

TWO, the Driver of the Ukrainian Armoured Vehicle would know who was driving the car. He was providing cover for the ground troops. He did his job.

I said in my op that it's a Ukrainian vehicle. WATCH THE VIDEO.

Who actually made the vehicle. And what evidence to you have who was actually driving / operating the vehicle?

We may never know the full story now due to propaganda from all sides and opinionated biased posters.

I give #ing in. Watch the firefight video.

In fact. Don't bother. Refresh and move onto another page.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
It's perfectly clear I was talking about the guy who bails from the top of the truck before being riddled with bullets before the coup de grace. Couldn't be any clearer, tbh

If it was perfectly clear I wouldn't have thought you were referring to the person in the vehicle that got ran over.

You didn't think for a minute I was warning about the guy being riddled with bullets?. I find it very hard to believe you watched the video at all.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
You didn't think for a minute I was warning about the guy being riddled with bullets?. I find it very hard to believe you watched the video at all.

Nope. You twice mentioned the car and in the second paragraph the car is the sole subject.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
You didn't think for a minute I was warning about the guy being riddled with bullets?. I find it very hard to believe you watched the video at all.

Nope. You twice mentioned the car and in the second paragraph the car is the sole subject.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I just can't follow your logic.

A firefight is ongoing. I am driving a armored tracked vehicle. I turn away from the main fighting as I pass by. I drive up on a car that is on the other side of the road for no apparent reason. No one is even using that car for cover.

Now how exactly is the act of driving onto that car any advantage to anyone? No one is shooting from it. You could damage a track and become more vounerable to the enemy nearby as you now have to get out and fix it.

No, it was not on purpose. The driver was destracted by the shooting and lost control of the tracked vehicle on wet pavement while going too fast. Tracks going high speed on wet pavement don't work well at all.

Driving accident caused by road conditions and distracted driver.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Yup, the car is the subject.

A Chicago news anchor quit because ABC was using the existence of video to make stories Top-Tier Breaking News.

That's what this single car-smash incident reminds me of. Without the video, would anyone care?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I just can't follow your logic.

A firefight is ongoing. I am driving a armored tracked vehicle. I turn away from the main fighting as I pass by. I drive up on a car that is on the other side of the road for no apparent reason. No one is even using that car for cover.

Now how exactly is the act of driving onto that car any advantage to anyone? No one is shooting from it. You could damage a track and become more vounerable to the enemy nearby as you now have to get out and fix it.

No, it was not on purpose. The driver was destracted by the shooting and lost control of the tracked vehicle on wet pavement while going too fast. Tracks going high speed on wet pavement don't work well at all.

Driving accident caused by road conditions and distracted driver.

Let me make it a bit clearer for you then.
Thomaski the Tank engine saw the firefight, Thomaski the tank engine then see car coming at speedski from opposite direction.

Thomaski has a split second to make decision. You know. Because of war and stuff. He decides I flatten Carski.

Why?. Because he has no clue who might be in it or what their motives could be?.

It was a deliberate action. He was providing cover for the bootski's on the groundski doing the mopping upski.

Do you follow now?.

What a crazy desperate made up post lol.
Entertaining though.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Yup, the car is the subject.

The bigger picture is the run up to the car flattening. As far as I'm aware nobody else has put the video of the Car being run over into context.

The claims here and elsewhere are is it was just a mindless act of violence.

I have proven without a shadow of a doubt a close-quarters firefight between Russian and Ukrainians was going on not 75 yards behind the car flattening incident.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

No. I do not. That driver needs a ticket for driving too fast for conditions and distracted driving.

Uninvolved civilian vehicles need to be expected in urban warfare. By your logic, he should have flattened every building within sight as they could have enemy snipers in them.

The truck that was the center of firefight had come from the same direction as the tracked vehicle. The car was coming from the other way. How could it have been involved in supporting the truck chase and fire fight?

The other videos show the curve in this part of the road that also contributed to the loss of control of the tracked vehicle. Form the angle your video presents, the road looks straight, it is not.

Again, accident caused by road conditions and distracted driver.