Complete destruction of the dam did not happen, there is a partial destruction of the upper level. I think you were too carried away by your forced forum vacation due to the termination of the Chipmixer signature campaign and lost your tone in tracking events. Try to catch up so that the dialogue with you becomes more interesting again.
You're grasping at straws here. Does it really matter if he said that it was a "complete destruction" and it in fact was a partial destruction, where 60% of it was destroyed . It's enough to render the dam completely inoperable and flood the whole area with water.
It's like if we had a car accident where one of the cars had lost the whole front section, including the engine, and someone said that the car is completely destroyed and you came, as the wise guy that you are, and said that it's not completely destroyed because only 30% of the car was damaged and the whole rear part is intact.
Can you see the stupidity of what you're saying here, or do I have to draw you a pictogram?
It was possible not to destroy the dam at all and simply open the floodgates - and the end result would have been the same, the shallowing of the Kakhovka reservoir and the flooding of the valley downstream. There is a difference between complete and partial destruction of the dam, and it is significant. All Soviet-built dams (or maybe all of them) have a special design architecture that provides for a set of “weak” points that are well protected from the outside, where you can lay a little explosive from the inside and, if necessary, completely destroy the dam relatively easily and quickly. And on the Kakhovka dam, we see a different nature of destruction, which is why I emphasized that complete destruction did not occur. But of course I'll look at your pictogram with interest.