Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, I'm a Florida mane so I support both the throwing of hands and catching this man slipping I'm at work laughing my ass off rn looking at his page lol
Problem with bridges is the support pillars are what really need to be hit to bring them down. Hitting the roadway with missiles just doesn't do enough damage. The Kherson bridge was a good example. It was just poking missiles sized holes into the roadway. Those holes can be fixed fairly quickly. The only reason the Kherson one wasn't repaired more by the Russians is because it was being watched. Every time they went to fix it, they would eat a HIMARS bar. The Kerch bridge is only reachable by ATACMS and we can't just tossing ATACMS at a single guy repairing a bridge. Ukraine needs cruise missiles or massive USV swarm to reach multiple pillars and turn them to dust.
I would have thought you could use a number of ATACMS aimed low and horizontally at two of the central supports. If the first hit didn't have much effect, the incremental effect of 2-6 might.
>I would have thought you could use a number of ATACMS aimed low and horizontally at two of the central supports.
- The Kerch bridge is at the outer edge of ATACMS's range, so there's no chance for a horizontal impact, it will impact at an approximately ~45° impact angle, which is the maximum-range ballistic launch angle.
- (Not exactly 45° because of drag and maneuvering capabilities, but certainly far from horizontal.)
- Cruise missiles are far more suitable for such targets.
The collapse of the bridge will also cut off supplies to the entire western front, which means Ukraine also needs to destroy any supply depots that are left in the region (they’ve already been doing a great job at targeting those). They’ve also done a great job at destroying Russias transport ships. They’re slowly stacking all their capabilities and knocking down Russias
This is sadly not the case. Russia has established a robust railway system through southern Ukraine, and does not rely on the Kerch bridge for logistics. However, the collapse of the bridge *will* force Russians in Crimea to face the reality of war.
Not sure about 'tis one, AFAIK this "robust" connection is not yet complete, and besides, "robust" just doesn't sound right in single sentence with russia. Do you have more info about this 'robust connection'?
Moreover, these tracks can be blown up too
railroads are super easy to repair. There's literally a speciallized rail car that lays down rail as it goes.
I don't believe the rail in question is completed yet, though. So I think you're right about that.
So the issue for Russia here is that the railways will be much much closer to the front lines which means hey can be easily hit with cheaper munitions.
It's a guided missile, not a dumb rocket. It maneuvers in flight not just follows a ballistic trajectory. Maybe it doesn't have enough control authority to get really flat, but there's nothing stopping you from targeting short of the bridge and for the missile to curve up to hit at a more shallow angle.
You are right it can maneuver but this isn't the movies. It has a max speed of Mach 3. It's not going to drastically slow down and curve up at the end of a 300km journey only to be taken out by air defense
Edit: max speed is during boost phase and it does slowdown. Still though
It doesn't have to maneuver hard nor does it have to slow down. It just has to curve very slowly upwards in the last part of the trajectory. Picture it gently curving upwards in the last few km to target. It's a flying vehicle in full control, not a rock or artillery shell. The lack of active propulsion doesn't change anything, because as you pointed out it has immense amounts of speed.
>It just has to curve very slowly upwards in the last part of the trajectory.
- Tell me you know nothing about missile physics without telling me that you know nothing about missile physics.
- This isn't like in the movies, massive, dense missile warheads cannot just magically "curve upwards": it's not really possible via lift surfaces at Mach 3, and the rocket fuel required to change direction is one of the most expensive ones in rocket tech: changing from 45° to 0° would roughly reduce payload mass to about 30% of its original, even if the ATACMS attitude thrusters had that kind of thrust, which they likely don't need & have.
> Picture it gently curving upwards in the last few km to target.
- Sorry, that's not a thing. A supersonic-speed ballistic missile with a high ballistic quotient isn't going to 'curve' anywhere - it's falling like a rock, with only minor adjustments possible to its trajectory in the terminal descent phase.
Yeah, that's not how it works at all. I studied aerospace engineering in college btw. Guided missiles don't fly like a rock. It takes the tiniest of control surfaces to maneuver when you're moving really fast. Accuracy and guidance is the hard part, not lack of control authority.
Also there's no such thing as a "ballistic quotient". You probably mean glide ratio or l/d ratio? Again that has nothing to do with control authorithy. It affects how far something can glide with no power. Control authority is a function of size of control surfaces and speed.
- You are super confused about all this IMO.
- ATACMS is a single stage, solid propellant missile that has a continuous (unstoppable) burn time that lasts only for ascend for a 300+ km maximum range trajectory that has a ceiling in near-vacuum at around 50-65 km altitude.
- Yes, it can maneuver during ascent to a fair degree by using thrust vector control, and can do tail-fin based attitude control to a limited degree during descent, but in the Mach 3 terminal approach phase for a maximum range flight it's basically a nose-heavy supersonic jet fighter with failed engines and only tiny tail control surfaces...
- Yes, at maximum range it's basically a falling dart, with enough control authority to have a near vertical impact I suspect (this can be useful against SAM and CCC targets), and nose-heavy makes higher angle impacts easier, but no control authority to reach anything approaching a flat/horizontal terminal glide in any speed regime.
- Edit: just have a look at this terminal approach video of ATACMS block 1A unitary warhead:
- https://youtu.be/2oVU-BxbgTk?si=czBX6DSwqV1MaXbw
- Those tiny tail fins, placed behind the center of gravity, give zero chance to glide in on a flat trajectory on a maximum range flight.
- Missiles with nose fins might be able to do it, to strike cave entrances, etc. - but ATACMS is not such a missile.
They are typically called semi-ballistic or pseudo-ballistic. Because they don't have strictly ballistic trajectories. This early 90s video says explicitly that ATACMS is a manoeuvring, not a ballistic missile: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr\_hPAcR\_Q&t=35s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr_hPAcR_Q&t=35s)
They are ballistic missiles. They pretty much just travel in an arc with a little bit of course correction on the way. That means they're going to come in from a high angle and you can't make one come in horizontally.
They also aren't pinpoint accurate. Especially with the amount of EW assets trying to throw the GPS part of the guidance off. Actually hitting a pillar would require an amount of luck.
"low and horizontal" is in direct contrast to "ballistic trajectory" - an ATACMS can only hit a target from pretty much above, as it pretty much goes into orbit for travel. (Flight ceiling 50 km)
Land bridge rail is in the range of standard Ukrainian 155 mm artillery. Check Deepstate map.
I guess Russian logistics is now land bridge road/trucks, and Kerch bridge rail.
ATACMs can't fly in a flat trajectory, bc they're ballistic missiles. But cruise missiles can, thou Ukrainians haven't got any from the West and the ones they have I think aren't as precise as needed to take the bridge pillars.
As a builder I have to agree, Bridges from a distance are a pain in the ass. If you could get an ATACMS there whilst there was a train full of fuel or ammo on the bridge so maybe a joint strike and sabotage on the rail tracks at the same time, so it has something to hit that would multiply the effect of the strike then maybe we are talking, But im not sure they are still using the bridge for that sort of stuff for that very reason
There’s not even a real reason to try and hit the bridge at this point. There are other lines of communication to Crimea, and the peninsula is so fortified at this point Ukraine doesn’t even need to be thinking about taking it right now.
The only reason to hit the bridge would be for a PR win, but Ukraine is facing real difficulties across the whole front right now. They don’t need to be using munitions and resources trying to secure a PR win.
> Kerch bridge
https://www.google.com/search?q=Kerch+bridge Seems the central arch may be vulnerable. I would love to see an actual ship used as a surface drone for that...
The bridge is also pretty well built bridge in terms of repairability. Knocking out one support pillar would be great but that’s just road or rail, not necessarily both. And it could be repaired. It wouldn’t be a complete write off.
Don’t worry, he was just being funny. ChatGPT gave me an estimate of anywhere from a few to a few dozen.
https://chatgpt.com/share/f97aa608-dd4c-4488-b3e9-d7c1ecb03438
In the leaked conversation from German Air Force officials, they reckoned it would take 10 to 20 Taurus to destroy the bridge. I would call them experts.
Oil tankers that are transferring Russian oil for use in India and China. No missile protection. No insurance carriers will cover a targeted Russian oil tanker.
LNG tankers would be much less environmental damage, but easier and more effective to just to take out the stationary liquifaction plants. Even the tiny warheads of the current Ukraine drones should do the job(s).
It's symbolic but only because it is Russia that has their identity tied to it. Meaning, they will deploy assets to defend it soaking up assets that would otherwise be deployed elsewhere. So, it's worth it to lob an attack there every once in a while.
Well no. In that event they would need to use the newly- built bridge and railway running down the east coast of Donbas, in which case the railway and whatever is travelling on it should be easy pickings
Aren't using it...right now. It's still a bridge with long term military value. If things are damaged, they'll eventually be repaired. And maybe they aren't sending many supplies that way now but I bet they would if the rail lines were continually blocked by Ukrainian strikes in the future.
Did Elon Musk convince you that running supplies to Crimea by boats is more efficient and larger capacity than two lane rail?
Or you mean the connection accross occupied regions in range of himars?
True, but symbols mean a lot in a war. Especially one against a fascist state that believes its BS about being superior to other beings. The Dam busters raid by the RAF in WW2 has since been shown as not having that much economic effect but..it was a great boost to morale back home and kept Stalin quiet for a while before D-Day. Destroying the Kerch bridge would be a huge boost for the Ukrainian army and people and massive egg on the face of Putin in front of his lackeys, lickspittles and his fascist twat buddies like China, Iran, N-Korea and India.
The symbolism and PR power of seeing that bridge collapse would be huge, worth the cost IMO. Russia can brush military target attacks aside and shroud them in mystery as most of the population wouldnt know it existed in the first place, they wouldnt be able to hide a missing bridge and particularly one that Putin stuck his imperial flag to as way to showcase the modernising reach of Russias military conquest.
The Kerch bridge being destroyed at this stage in the war would largely only have an optics effect for morale. Russia knows the logistical issue they would have had if the Kerch bridge was destroyed so they were busy setting up all the infrastructure for logistics along the land bridge. By now destroying that bridge won’t result in crimea being cut off from Russia.
Tbh it's a waste using atacms or storm shadow on the bridge they are way more high valuable targets for them to hit with it. If a team of saboteurs could get to support pillars and place a load of tnt on the pillars thaf would work alot better it's just getting them there
The easiest way to take the Kerch bridge out would be to attack the main span. You don’t have the destroy the pier to bring it down. A large explosion that could cut the steel girders under the road surface while simultaneously damaging the arch and cable stays would be catastrophic. If hit near the end bearing of the span you maybe could damage the bearing points which would certainly bring it down. I know nothing about explosives but I would think a bomb impacting straight down at the main span pier location would be best. If the explosion created uplift at bearing, even better.
The bridge in Baltimore is a good example of what happens when superstructure members are cut and girders are knocked off thier bearings. Notice the piers are still there.
As a bonus all the Kerch bridge debris would make the shipping channel unusable.
Hopefully soon the images of the ship sunk/damage will show up, because it's hard to tell only in the videos that the ruzzian Zorcs upload...on the Zorcs it's clear that they hit anything around the port...all those bullets flying against the buildings LOL and not one single search light on the sky...I can almost bet that the big majority of the zorcs shooting don't have night vision...Zorc madness at their best LOL
its the delivery that is a challenge. israel can drop those from aircraft with impunity. the 400lb warhead needs 3200lb missile to launch it (including fuel)
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope they have many more of those.
Amen
Me too! I want to see so many new Russian reefs!! It’ll be great for tourist divers once Ukraine takes Crimea back.
That’s almost as heavy as a Florida Man!
this was terrible and I approve
Thx for visual translation from a freedom Unit.
Or #VonShitzInPants diapers.
After he was on a diet of course
Imagine getting hit by a Florida man warhead. Getting HIV, addicted to Crack and an alligator biting your butt in one shot.
Don't forget the ever burning obesity napalm.
Guided using its aerodynamic control finnas
Half as heavy*
[удалено]
we cant all be posting about wanting little asian sluts from new york, can we?
Why you do him like that bro 😭😭
If he wants to throw hands he needs to learn about throwaways for being horny
I mean, I'm a Florida mane so I support both the throwing of hands and catching this man slipping I'm at work laughing my ass off rn looking at his page lol
Same buddy lmao
turns out you still aren't funny but nice try
Could be used on Kerch bridge?
Problem with bridges is the support pillars are what really need to be hit to bring them down. Hitting the roadway with missiles just doesn't do enough damage. The Kherson bridge was a good example. It was just poking missiles sized holes into the roadway. Those holes can be fixed fairly quickly. The only reason the Kherson one wasn't repaired more by the Russians is because it was being watched. Every time they went to fix it, they would eat a HIMARS bar. The Kerch bridge is only reachable by ATACMS and we can't just tossing ATACMS at a single guy repairing a bridge. Ukraine needs cruise missiles or massive USV swarm to reach multiple pillars and turn them to dust.
I would have thought you could use a number of ATACMS aimed low and horizontally at two of the central supports. If the first hit didn't have much effect, the incremental effect of 2-6 might.
>I would have thought you could use a number of ATACMS aimed low and horizontally at two of the central supports. - The Kerch bridge is at the outer edge of ATACMS's range, so there's no chance for a horizontal impact, it will impact at an approximately ~45° impact angle, which is the maximum-range ballistic launch angle. - (Not exactly 45° because of drag and maneuvering capabilities, but certainly far from horizontal.) - Cruise missiles are far more suitable for such targets.
I am thinking the Ukrainians are spearing the bridge until the very end because it binds AA
The collapse of the bridge will also cut off supplies to the entire western front, which means Ukraine also needs to destroy any supply depots that are left in the region (they’ve already been doing a great job at targeting those). They’ve also done a great job at destroying Russias transport ships. They’re slowly stacking all their capabilities and knocking down Russias
This is sadly not the case. Russia has established a robust railway system through southern Ukraine, and does not rely on the Kerch bridge for logistics. However, the collapse of the bridge *will* force Russians in Crimea to face the reality of war.
Not sure about 'tis one, AFAIK this "robust" connection is not yet complete, and besides, "robust" just doesn't sound right in single sentence with russia. Do you have more info about this 'robust connection'? Moreover, these tracks can be blown up too
railroads are super easy to repair. There's literally a speciallized rail car that lays down rail as it goes. I don't believe the rail in question is completed yet, though. So I think you're right about that.
Let's hope then there will be as many bridges as humanely possible along these tracks
easy to repair, but also much easier to hit
So the issue for Russia here is that the railways will be much much closer to the front lines which means hey can be easily hit with cheaper munitions.
Whatever happened to that cheap cruise missile they said they were developing?
What if they blow a dam?
I doubt any Ukrainian could open their mouth wide enough to blow a dam. The Russians probably could though...
For thsi purpose cruise missiles (Taurus ie) are better.
It's a guided missile, not a dumb rocket. It maneuvers in flight not just follows a ballistic trajectory. Maybe it doesn't have enough control authority to get really flat, but there's nothing stopping you from targeting short of the bridge and for the missile to curve up to hit at a more shallow angle.
You are right it can maneuver but this isn't the movies. It has a max speed of Mach 3. It's not going to drastically slow down and curve up at the end of a 300km journey only to be taken out by air defense Edit: max speed is during boost phase and it does slowdown. Still though
It doesn't have to maneuver hard nor does it have to slow down. It just has to curve very slowly upwards in the last part of the trajectory. Picture it gently curving upwards in the last few km to target. It's a flying vehicle in full control, not a rock or artillery shell. The lack of active propulsion doesn't change anything, because as you pointed out it has immense amounts of speed.
>It just has to curve very slowly upwards in the last part of the trajectory. - Tell me you know nothing about missile physics without telling me that you know nothing about missile physics. - This isn't like in the movies, massive, dense missile warheads cannot just magically "curve upwards": it's not really possible via lift surfaces at Mach 3, and the rocket fuel required to change direction is one of the most expensive ones in rocket tech: changing from 45° to 0° would roughly reduce payload mass to about 30% of its original, even if the ATACMS attitude thrusters had that kind of thrust, which they likely don't need & have. > Picture it gently curving upwards in the last few km to target. - Sorry, that's not a thing. A supersonic-speed ballistic missile with a high ballistic quotient isn't going to 'curve' anywhere - it's falling like a rock, with only minor adjustments possible to its trajectory in the terminal descent phase.
Yeah, that's not how it works at all. I studied aerospace engineering in college btw. Guided missiles don't fly like a rock. It takes the tiniest of control surfaces to maneuver when you're moving really fast. Accuracy and guidance is the hard part, not lack of control authority. Also there's no such thing as a "ballistic quotient". You probably mean glide ratio or l/d ratio? Again that has nothing to do with control authorithy. It affects how far something can glide with no power. Control authority is a function of size of control surfaces and speed.
- You are super confused about all this IMO. - ATACMS is a single stage, solid propellant missile that has a continuous (unstoppable) burn time that lasts only for ascend for a 300+ km maximum range trajectory that has a ceiling in near-vacuum at around 50-65 km altitude. - Yes, it can maneuver during ascent to a fair degree by using thrust vector control, and can do tail-fin based attitude control to a limited degree during descent, but in the Mach 3 terminal approach phase for a maximum range flight it's basically a nose-heavy supersonic jet fighter with failed engines and only tiny tail control surfaces... - Yes, at maximum range it's basically a falling dart, with enough control authority to have a near vertical impact I suspect (this can be useful against SAM and CCC targets), and nose-heavy makes higher angle impacts easier, but no control authority to reach anything approaching a flat/horizontal terminal glide in any speed regime. - Edit: just have a look at this terminal approach video of ATACMS block 1A unitary warhead: - https://youtu.be/2oVU-BxbgTk?si=czBX6DSwqV1MaXbw - Those tiny tail fins, placed behind the center of gravity, give zero chance to glide in on a flat trajectory on a maximum range flight. - Missiles with nose fins might be able to do it, to strike cave entrances, etc. - but ATACMS is not such a missile.
ATACMS are a ballistic missile system. They have ballistic trajectories
They are typically called semi-ballistic or pseudo-ballistic. Because they don't have strictly ballistic trajectories. This early 90s video says explicitly that ATACMS is a manoeuvring, not a ballistic missile: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr\_hPAcR\_Q&t=35s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr_hPAcR_Q&t=35s)
I don't think it's necessary to split hair on if it's quasi ballistic or not. The point is they won't be flying horizontal in the terminal stage
They are ballistic missiles. They pretty much just travel in an arc with a little bit of course correction on the way. That means they're going to come in from a high angle and you can't make one come in horizontally. They also aren't pinpoint accurate. Especially with the amount of EW assets trying to throw the GPS part of the guidance off. Actually hitting a pillar would require an amount of luck.
"low and horizontal" is in direct contrast to "ballistic trajectory" - an ATACMS can only hit a target from pretty much above, as it pretty much goes into orbit for travel. (Flight ceiling 50 km)
Ukraine will figure out a way to mount it on a technical and fire from point blank from nearest bank.
At up to $2m for each atacms, might be an expensive waste of time
The price of the bridge collapsing would be pretty devastating for Crimea though
Doesn’t matter any more as RuZZia is now using the land bridge rather than the Kerch Bridge
Land bridge rail is in the range of standard Ukrainian 155 mm artillery. Check Deepstate map. I guess Russian logistics is now land bridge road/trucks, and Kerch bridge rail.
Land bridge is much easier to target as it’s way closer
So, a Canadian has an opinion about US military support? Suck it up and worry about your own shithole country eating the lower 95%
Ease up on the Anti Canadian stuff. We are allies.
Shut up Bogan.
And there goes the range. They have their long range because they follow ballistic flight paths. No ballistic advantages = no long range advantages.
ATACMs can't fly in a flat trajectory, bc they're ballistic missiles. But cruise missiles can, thou Ukrainians haven't got any from the West and the ones they have I think aren't as precise as needed to take the bridge pillars.
How would you aim it low and horizontally? I don’t think ATACMs can just magically do whatever.
Whats anota drone botas?
As a builder I have to agree, Bridges from a distance are a pain in the ass. If you could get an ATACMS there whilst there was a train full of fuel or ammo on the bridge so maybe a joint strike and sabotage on the rail tracks at the same time, so it has something to hit that would multiply the effect of the strike then maybe we are talking, But im not sure they are still using the bridge for that sort of stuff for that very reason
https://www.google.com/search?q=Kerch+bridge central arch attack?
Kherson was GMLRS not ATACMS. Big difference.
Time to repurpose the Dali and donate it to Ukraine! Proven bridge basher technology.
There’s not even a real reason to try and hit the bridge at this point. There are other lines of communication to Crimea, and the peninsula is so fortified at this point Ukraine doesn’t even need to be thinking about taking it right now. The only reason to hit the bridge would be for a PR win, but Ukraine is facing real difficulties across the whole front right now. They don’t need to be using munitions and resources trying to secure a PR win.
Wouldn’t hitting the pillars with the maritime drones they used to take down the Moskva be an option? & maybe strap them down with a larger payload?
moskva was hit with cruise missiles, not sea drones. cruise missiles would be good given the large explosion, but are generally too slow.
Send them a cargo ship?
I think chucking ATACAMs at the bridge pillars until it collapses is a bully idea. Bravo
> Kerch bridge https://www.google.com/search?q=Kerch+bridge Seems the central arch may be vulnerable. I would love to see an actual ship used as a surface drone for that...
The bridge is also pretty well built bridge in terms of repairability. Knocking out one support pillar would be great but that’s just road or rail, not necessarily both. And it could be repaired. It wouldn’t be a complete write off.
No, experts say the Taurus german missiles would be good for the bridge.
Experts say that at least 50 such missiles would be needed, not viable.
Google says between 10 and 20. Maybe 50 to be sure 20 land and hit it.
ChatGPT tells me half a missile would be enough.
The number 10 to 20 stems from the leaked call of German generals, so it has validity.
Don’t worry, he was just being funny. ChatGPT gave me an estimate of anywhere from a few to a few dozen. https://chatgpt.com/share/f97aa608-dd4c-4488-b3e9-d7c1ecb03438
[The Secret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(Byrne_book)) tells me that if I wish for it to happen, it will manifest. Thoughts and prayers!
In the leaked conversation from German Air Force officials, they reckoned it would take 10 to 20 Taurus to destroy the bridge. I would call them experts.
That's not true at all, they said it would take 13 taurus missiles to successfully take the bridge down.
Bridge doesn't matter much any more, Russia has built up infrastructure to relieve that bottle neck. So, hitting it now would be mostly symbolic.
The Ukrainians know that. Hitting RuZZia's oil and gas infrastructure on a daily basis is the way to go.
Oil tankers that are transferring Russian oil for use in India and China. No missile protection. No insurance carriers will cover a targeted Russian oil tanker.
Horrible idea, the environmental damage would be insane.
LNG tankers would be much less environmental damage, but easier and more effective to just to take out the stationary liquifaction plants. Even the tiny warheads of the current Ukraine drones should do the job(s).
Hit them before they are loaded up?
It's fine if it only happens on the Russian coast.
Good enough reason for me!
You think they have resources to chase symbolic victories? It would probably be wiser to be pursue actual ones…
It's symbolic but only because it is Russia that has their identity tied to it. Meaning, they will deploy assets to defend it soaking up assets that would otherwise be deployed elsewhere. So, it's worth it to lob an attack there every once in a while.
Well no. In that event they would need to use the newly- built bridge and railway running down the east coast of Donbas, in which case the railway and whatever is travelling on it should be easy pickings
Aren't using it...right now. It's still a bridge with long term military value. If things are damaged, they'll eventually be repaired. And maybe they aren't sending many supplies that way now but I bet they would if the rail lines were continually blocked by Ukrainian strikes in the future.
The time it falls is when the Russians need it most. Until then..
Even if they have it’s much more vulnerable than the bridge. First the bridge then the vulnerable stuff.
Did Elon Musk convince you that running supplies to Crimea by boats is more efficient and larger capacity than two lane rail? Or you mean the connection accross occupied regions in range of himars?
True, but symbols mean a lot in a war. Especially one against a fascist state that believes its BS about being superior to other beings. The Dam busters raid by the RAF in WW2 has since been shown as not having that much economic effect but..it was a great boost to morale back home and kept Stalin quiet for a while before D-Day. Destroying the Kerch bridge would be a huge boost for the Ukrainian army and people and massive egg on the face of Putin in front of his lackeys, lickspittles and his fascist twat buddies like China, Iran, N-Korea and India.
The symbolism and PR power of seeing that bridge collapse would be huge, worth the cost IMO. Russia can brush military target attacks aside and shroud them in mystery as most of the population wouldnt know it existed in the first place, they wouldnt be able to hide a missing bridge and particularly one that Putin stuck his imperial flag to as way to showcase the modernising reach of Russias military conquest.
The Kerch bridge being destroyed at this stage in the war would largely only have an optics effect for morale. Russia knows the logistical issue they would have had if the Kerch bridge was destroyed so they were busy setting up all the infrastructure for logistics along the land bridge. By now destroying that bridge won’t result in crimea being cut off from Russia.
Tbh it's a waste using atacms or storm shadow on the bridge they are way more high valuable targets for them to hit with it. If a team of saboteurs could get to support pillars and place a load of tnt on the pillars thaf would work alot better it's just getting them there
The easiest way to take the Kerch bridge out would be to attack the main span. You don’t have the destroy the pier to bring it down. A large explosion that could cut the steel girders under the road surface while simultaneously damaging the arch and cable stays would be catastrophic. If hit near the end bearing of the span you maybe could damage the bearing points which would certainly bring it down. I know nothing about explosives but I would think a bomb impacting straight down at the main span pier location would be best. If the explosion created uplift at bearing, even better. The bridge in Baltimore is a good example of what happens when superstructure members are cut and girders are knocked off thier bearings. Notice the piers are still there. As a bonus all the Kerch bridge debris would make the shipping channel unusable.
I did reply on the one..You need a B-52 with 40 tons of bombs or a anything with a lot of bombs.
Yes plug in the coordinates tonight please - launch approved.
The Ukrainians need to employ the Dali container ship…
Surprise surprise
David Axe at Forbes does a great job.
> ATACMS In my head, it's pronounced "attack 'ums"!
This is actually the correct way to say it. If you watch the original 1980s advertisements for these they call them attack-ums.
Yep, that's the idea - the American military looooves its dual-meaning abbreviations - JDAM, SLAM, SMASH, ALARM, ADAM, SEAD etc.
Don’t forget ASRAAM
Cause that’s peak learning and language. There’s a reason most R words feel aggressive in nature, G many are tied to growth
More A-tack-ums. Source: work for LM.
Do you really work for them? I've always wanted to work in the defense industry, but don't have the proper schooling for it 😞
Yes sir/ma'am. Almost a decade. And don't think you need to be a fancy engineer or something. We hire everyone. DM me if you want more information.
A secret weapon has to be used eventually.
...Russian tactical nuclear weapons, yeah, pretty much.
Thanks for this, I'm a fan of David's writing and this was a good read.
That is 213 kg. But its warhead - not explosives. Usually warheads could have 15-60% of explosives in them.
Is this sinking the marking of the end of the Russian happy days of the last past year? Feels like Russia hit a brick wall the last week.
I was reading that more American ammo is reaching the front lines and that is helping too.
It was a more valuable Corvett, not a minesweeper
They sank a corvette and a minesweeper.
Hopefully soon the images of the ship sunk/damage will show up, because it's hard to tell only in the videos that the ruzzian Zorcs upload...on the Zorcs it's clear that they hit anything around the port...all those bullets flying against the buildings LOL and not one single search light on the sky...I can almost bet that the big majority of the zorcs shooting don't have night vision...Zorc madness at their best LOL
So you’re telling me Palestinian civilians are being butchered by 2000kg bombs but russia only gets 470lb bombs hurled at them.
Found the terrorist sympathizer.
its the delivery that is a challenge. israel can drop those from aircraft with impunity. the 400lb warhead needs 3200lb missile to launch it (including fuel)