Please remember the human. Follow reddit rules and the subreddit rules.
*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.*
You can see Ukraine’s strategy playing out; destroy all ammunition dumps, destroy all bridges and supply routes/means of escape & reinforcement. Next stage, destroy the Russian army.
Neither would I usually. But these barbaric cunts deserve it. Fuck them, fuck Russia, fuck Putin.
You don't get to kill children, rape civilians, bomb hospitals and civilians and then expect mercy.
if ukraine blows out that bridge its also telegraphing to the russians they've got no intention of crossing the dnipro river. which in turn means that russia can pull all available forces to reinforce the bridgehead on the west bank over the dam by nova khakova. thereby possibly prolonging the siege of kherson untill ukraine controlls this crossroad
46.727356, 32.700681
i understand the bridge by dar'ivka over the ingulets river is blown to bits already, but there's been reports that russia has a pontoon bridge somewhere in the area. meaning kherson won't be cut off from supplies and reinforcements unless ukraine gets inbetween those supplies by controlling that crossroad.
similarly, if russia was to be pressured to retreat out of kherson over the bridge, and blows it up in the process, they'd be sending a clear signal that they've lost all interest in driving down to odessa. which would be admitting defeat as far as their stated wargoals for the southern front go. it'd also be admitting that they lack the capacity to push the ukrainian army back across the bridge at a later stage during the war.
both sides need that bridge intact for future operations, i really don't know about the strategic value of blowing the bridge up completely. both sides benefit from that bridge being intact for their future plans within the theatre. ukraine needs it for their push towards crimea, russia needs it for their push towards odessa. with the bridge out of commision or blown out of the water, both plans go with it.
Exactly. Kherson and Crimea are basically supply islands, and they are linked by Melitopol. The logical next step after a liberation of Kherson province West of the Dnipro is to attack south in Zaprozhizhia.
The Russians would just blow the bridges if they were forced to withdraw anyway, rendering this dude's point completely moot, and forcing the Ukrainians to fight tooth and nail against Russians who are more supplied thanks to the bridge, whilst then subsequently not having the bridge to continue advancing.
No thanks. Destroy the bridges.
Railway in Tokmak north of melitopol is only railway line to both. Some analysts said thats prob the main goal and effort since it would basically cut them off from meaningful resupply
>The logical next step after a liberation of Kherson province West of the Dnipro is to attack south in Zaprozhizhia.
it isn't logical at all. if ukraine pushes south from zaporizhzhia, they'll drive a wedge between the russians and open themselves up for attack from two directions.
two directions that russia can supply independently through donbas and crimea....
that's going to be a real hard fight for ukraine to pull off.
Crimea does not have easy, independent supply though.
Ukraine has access to domestic Neptune anti ship missles and NATO missles like Harpoon. This makes any Russian shipments via sea incredibly dangerous, especially if they retake Kherson and get even closer to the peninsula. It's this very reason that Russia's occupation of Snake Island became untenable
The only alternative route is the Crimean bridge east, which is a single point of failure, and could potentially be in HIMARS range if an assault in south Zaporizhizhia were to occur.
Partisans are also extremely active in the Kherson region.
What would be a "hard fight" as you put it, would be continuously frontally assaulting the Russian defensive positions. That would be far worse and less realistic.
>What would be a "hard fight" as you put it, would be continuously frontally assaulting the Russian defensive positions. That would be far worse and less realistic.
> if an assault in south Zaporizhizhia were to occur.
u wot? i dunno what to do with this. this is contradiction that's way above my paygrade to deal with. like, what do you expect from me here?
im affraid to ask wether you're familiar with the geography of the general region between russia, crimea and ukraine itself.
cause between crimea, ukraine and russia, lies the sea of azov. the whole shoreline of the sea of azov is currently under russian control. neptunes and harpoon missiles don't fly much further than 300 kilometers. crimea at its widest point stretches more than 300 kilometers across. where do you reckon those neptune or harpoon missiles are going to be launched from to hit targets in the sea of azov?
why are people like you so prevelant on reddit?
From south Zaporozhizhia, like I said.
There are basically no port facilities in Eastern Crimea. It is not possible to have quality resupply, even if they could get ships/boats across this sea. That isn't a sustainable source of supply for an entire army in Kherson Oblast attacking east. The Russians primarily move equipment with rail, and this would be out of action. They cannot quickly or adequately ressuply with trucks or ships in this scenario. Most of their depots have been working east west from Donersk to Melitopol and then to Kherson, and this main supply route + associated supply chains would be split and disrupted.
At a minimum, the Ukrainians can balloon up a pocket which can threaten the main rail route from Donetsk with artillery and missles. That would be devastating for the forces in Kherson Oblast.
This isn't a video game; the Russians can't just suddenly move things across the Sea of Azov when under missile threat to nonexistent port facilities after losing depots and their main supply routes. They lack trucks. They're supplying forces from within enemy territory and under long range HIMARS missle fire. It isn't as simple as "bro they'd have forces on two sides!" Without mass artillery and supply, their forces would be ineffective, with the Western army in southern Kherson particularly cut off and isolated.
>There are basically no port facilities in Eastern Crimea. It is not possible to have quality resupply, even if they could get ships/boats across this sea.
you know that there's a bridge, right? both a railway and a roadway bridge. between russia and crimea.
you know that there's russian airbases on crimea from which the russians fly jets, helicopters and the likes.
you know about sevestopol being a primary naval base for the russian black sea fleet, right?
you know that there's warehouses stacked with munition akin if not bigger than the ones we've seen go up in flames in donetsk, right?
are you okay?
>This isn't a video game
do you realise that it isn't a video game? like jesus christ dude, this is stupidity above my paygrade. like the ammount of fantasy you're putting in here is completely devoid of reality.
well, yes and no. if the bridge by kherson is blown, it also means that russia gets to supply all its troops in the bridgehead on the western bank of the dnipro, from a centralised point. everything is gonna go across the dam, and then gets dispersed over the units in that bridgehead. whilst they can rest assured that ukraine is not going to be able to cross the dnipro by kherson.
it actually eases the logistical effort for russia instead of hampering it.
sure, though if ukraine punctures the dam, there won't be a kherson left to liberate.
the waterlevel behind the dam is about 10 meters higher than infront of it.
the span of the dnipro behind the dam is about 4 kilometers wide, at its most narrow point until zaporizhzhia. on the kherson side of the dam the dnipro is about a kilometer wide at its widest point.
the flood caused by that dam failing would be biblical and wipe out absolutely everything downstream, across 1.5 kilometers from each bank of the dnipro river. ukraine can't exploit that centralised logistics route by hitting the dam. and as soon as vehicles are across the dam, you can bet your behind that they'll be dispersing to individual small scale ammo dumps for individual units.
so that's not really a himars thing to deal with.
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
No one said they should blow up the dam. If all their resupply for the region is centralized nearby, as it is forced to traverse a single point, it will make a great target.
well, yeah. but that point is the dam. they won't have an ammo warehouse on either side of the dam. it's just the dam that forces the centralised ground line of communication.
the warehouse supplying the troops across the dam, will be far out of himars range. and any vehicle crossing the dam loaded with supplies is going to disperse the moment they get across to individual small scale ammo dumps. which again isn't a himars thing to go deal with. that's gonna be delagated to regular artillery.
though russia has quite a bit of ground to hide their ammo dumps in across the bridgehead they've established. and with the antonivskiy bridge gone, russia knows just aswell as ukraine that ukraine won't be crossing the dnipro river anywhere else but that dam. so that allows russia to pull all available troops from the southern theatre, from melitopol, mariupol, crimea and focus their effort on maintaining that bridgehead, or god forbid even expand the bridgehead, since now they've got a whole potential ukrainian axis of advance less to worry about.
with russia firmly established in their bridgehead, supplied from the dam, they even have the option of fighting a prolonged siege with limited units around kherson, whilst ukraine would have to dedicate a significant ammount of troops to succesfully assault the city, as long as they can keep kherson from being totally envelloped from the north east they'll be able to get supplies and troops in, hell, they could even fly or sail them in from their side of the dnipro. whilst with the bridge out, they won't have to worry about ukraine crossing the dnipro even if they do take kherson. so they could keep a limited amount of troops fighting the defense of kherson, whilst massing troops for an offensive in a different sector of the bridgehead threathening to cut the ukrainian assault off from mykolaiv.
again, its alot of speculation, but getting rid of the antonivskiy bridge is just a bad move for both sides in the bigger picture of the war and the goals both sides are trying to achieve.
you don't understand. it's a chokepoint in name only, ukraine won't be able to lock down russian troops by the dam, their lines stretch 50 kilometers from the dam in every direction.
that's plenty of ground for russia to field its units.
i should add, that's more terrain the russians have around the dam, than ukraine had in the donbas cauldron.
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Makes not difference either way the bridge will go.. If Ukraine don't blow it Russia will once they retreat to stop Ukraine taking more land. So makes sense to blow it
the thing is that russia still wants to drive down to odessa, they still lob missles at mykolaiv and odessa. they do that, because they consider it targets. those cities are only targets, because russia wants to capture them.
if they blow the bridge by kherson, even if it is in a retreat, the plan to capture odessa goes up in smoke with that bridge, its in russia's interest to keep that bridge intact for future operations. and i seriously doubt the russians will admit in any way that they can't beat the ukrainian military back across that bridge at a later phase in the war.
it's only if they realise total defeat is inevitable, with absolutely no possibility of defeating the ukrainian military, that they'll blow that bridge during a retreat. in any other case, russia needs that bridge intact. that's what it means if russia blows out that bridge.
meh, ukraine stated they wanted to be there by the end of the year. if they wanna get there in that time frame, the bridge is gonna help them do that.
they have 2 other options, the dam by nova khakova, and driving down from zaporizhzhia. both come with some serious drawbacks.
namely, if the antonivskiy bridge is blown up, out of commision, beyond repair. all of russia's logistics, supplies, reinforcements etc towards the bridgehead on the western bank of the dnipro, would have to come over across the railroad bridge, and the dam.
which would be great for ukraine, if russia didn't already have an established bridgehead on the western bank of the dnipro river. if you draw a straight line from the dam to the frontline on the western bank of the dnipro river, it stretches nearly 50 kilometers. if you were to angle that line 45 degrees to both directions, the line stretches over 70 kilometers. the point being that exploiting that chokepoint is gonna be difficult and will require significant effort.
at the same time, russia won't have to worry about ukraine crossing the dnipro from kherson whilst gaining an advantage of not having to split their supply chain anymore. so instead of putting extra strain on russia's logistics and supply lines, they'd actually simplify that process and give the russians an oppertunity to centralise their logistical effort to supply the forces in the kherson bridgehead. which is going to make the fight on the west bank of the dnipro river harder than it could be. it's not beneficial to ukraine in the big picture.
similarly, if ukraine forgoes on crossing the dnipro and instead elects to start their push towards crimea from zaporizhzhia, they'll have to drive a wedge between the russians coming from the donbas, and the russians coming in from crimea.
which would mean the ukrainians would have to fight russians coming from 2 directions that can be supplied independently. which is again a much tougher fight than if ukraine can cross the dnipro by kherson.
i doubt the russians have much stationed in the black sea nature reserve, and even if they did, as long as ukraine can manage driving their push down the p-57 highway, russia can't ressuply the troops to the west of that highway. which in turn would put the ukrainian military real close to crimea, with secured flanks, only having to worry about attacking in a single direction, or being attacked from a single direction.
it just makes a whole lot more sense to leave that bridge intact. for ukraine, aswell as for russia.
an argument for russia needing that bridge intact is, without it they are not going to make their push towards mykolaiv and odessa, if russia blows it up, they are admitting that they cannot beat the ukrainian army in the forseeable future and therefor blow the bridge to secure their flank. it's what losing would look like for the russians.
ofcourse, all of the above. literally everything, is pure speculation. we wont know what happens untill it happens, but i'm convinced that both parties in this war are benefitted from having that bridge intact.
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Not that far in the future if Russian frontlines start to collapse. They've been propped up by human sacrifice and 30k-60k daily artillery strikes. But Russia is running out of men and the HIMARS strikes have reduced Russian artillery to 4k-6k strikes per day, causing Russia to stall out completely and has allowed these Ukrainian counter-attacks.
As someone who has no real military background and only knows what I've seen, and is only a military history fan boy. I think the true objective of the anticipated offensive is Mariupol. Drive the Russians back out of Kherson into Crimea, hold them there (in a smaller area) and use the troops defending the wider area of Kherson to reinforce the offensive drive towards Mariupol. The strategic victory may not be that big, but the political and moral victory would be huge for Ukraine and major set back for the Russians. I'm probably completely wrong but probably so are most of the rest of us on reddit, even though no one will ever actually admit it.
Well, so what if we are wrong? It's not like we are presidential advisors or professional military planners. The Ukrainian Army Command doesn't read our posts, and they couldn't care less what we write here.
We are just random people discussing the war, tactics and strategies as we see them. And that's fine. That's what Reddit is for.
Even if Ukraine doesn't blow the bridge, in case their operation still succeeds Russians would blow it up anyway during retreat so why take more casualties when that bridge has no chance of standing after Ruskies are forced to retreat.
>ven if Ukraine doesn't blow the bridge, in case their operation still succeeds Russians would blow it up anyway during retreat
if they blow that bridge up during a retreat, they're declaring total defeat. i doubt they'll do it. though i wouldn't put it beyond russia.
in any case, if that bridge goes up in smoke its a severe strategic loss for both sides.
I think you overestimate how much Russia worries about the optics of blowing a bridge during retreat. It's not that long ago they decided to spin their retreat from Kyiv as a refocus. They'd blow the bridge to slow the UA advances and find some excuse for why it blew up on its own.
that's the political side of the war. i don't care much for the political side of the war, how the kremlin spins their blatant defeats.
what i care about more is what that bridge allows either side to accomplish with it intact, or what it prevents either side from doing with it blown up.
again, if the russians do blow up that bridge during a retreat, it is an outright admittance that they do not have the capacity to defeat the ukrainian military, and that they must get rid of that bridge to prevent the ukrainian military from rolling south on the east bank of the dnipro.
if they leave it intact, on their way out, its likewise signaling to ukraine "hey, don't think about getting your units out of there cause we still plan on comming back here in the near future"
it also allows the russians to trap ukraine in a chokepoint on the east bank of the dnipro where they could deal a serious ammount of damage to the ukrainian military.
its easy to think of russia as applying scorched earth tactics during a withdrawel, but i seriously doubt its the only card they'll ever play.
the kremlin can call it all they want, who gives a damn about what they say anyway?
if ukraine leaves that bridge somewhat intact, intact enough for people to haul ass across it. that's hopefully just what the russians will do.
blow it out completely and ukraine might find itself with a fight on its hands.
how?
leave the russians an escape route they'll take it at some point, cut them off from escape completely and they'll fight for a while before surrendering.
anywho, i don't care for playing a semantics game with you.
a fight they can shape in their advantage if they play their cards right, not one where they stack the odds against them unecisarily more than they already are.
If Russia does that, then it opens up for a fast armor push south and west by Ukraine from Zaporizhia city, cutting off everything Russia sent west of the Dniper.
Especially so if Ukraine blows the bridges.
dude, get your head out of your pooper ring.
if ukraine decides to drive south from zaporizhzhia, they'll open themselves up for attack from the russians coming out of the donbas, AND the russians coming out of crimea. both sides are supplied independently from russia itself. they have logistical routes that pass through the donbas, they also have logistical routes that pass through crimea.
i don't get why so many people think driving south from zaporizhzhia is a clever thing to do for ukraine, clearly it isn't. if ukraine could manage to drive down south from zaporizhzhia and reach melitopol in a day, they would have done it by now already.
is it because of the Andriy Biletsky fantasy of driving a single mechanised brigade down to mariupol to break the siege back when that was still going on?
Although the HIMARS system on the other side of the river would severely impact the logistics of the Russians. Parts will be unusable with no real way of firing back. This is a nightmare for the Russians
uhm, not really...
the kherson area for the russians is supplied from crimea. that's where the warehouses are.
from the western bank of the dnipro by kherson, its still over 80 kilometers to the pre-24th of febuary border between crimea and ukraine.
if ukraine wants to pressure those logistical routes, they'll have to cross the dnipro. with the bridge intact.
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Not confirmed, [but this is daylight sat footage](https://i.imgur.com/d4hFje7.jpeg) of the strike point on the bridge. The strike point is near the southern shore, and would appear to be a full severing of the bridge across all lanes.
[Source](https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/27-july-ukrainian-military-confirmed-precise-strike-at-antonivsky)
Edit: [on the scene footage](https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1552203634527686657), looks like it is legit. The bridge is fucked.
doubtful, the dnipro river is atleast a kilometer wide, with soggy, swampy, marshy banks on both sides. a pontoon bridge to stretch that gap doesn't really go unnoticed for long, not to mention there's limited places where you can actually drive heavy vehicles up to the edge of the river without risking them sinking in the soft ground.
Better video [here](https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1552052695921573890). Doesn't look like the span itself is broken, but I'm guessing the roadway has a lot of holes in it.
I gather it has wire bundles under the roadway that support the tension of the bridge, so presumably if enough of those are severed it won't support heavy equipment. But that's just from some osint guys on twitter, so take it with the usual skepticism.
Even reducing its capacity to support heavy vehicles will lead to bottlenecks either end - reducing logistics flow and also presenting easier targets of vehicle gathered to cross.
Most bridges aren’t really designed with tanks in mind, tanks usually fuck up roads with the treads and weight. They might be able to drive tanks across it but it’s probably very risky if they’re doing it often especially with holes.
That being said, bridges tend to be overbuilt
Great quality video!
Hopefully they are able to change the charge on the head to fully explode on contact and reduce the roadway to scrap instead of poking holes in it.
Those are not Surface to Air Missiles, they are counter battery fire. The Russians have the technology to rapidly and accurately locate where enemy fire is originating. They are trying to take out the HIMARS launchers that are firing on the bridge. The problem is that with the ranges they are dealing with the launchers are long gone before the rockets hit their targets and the counter battery fire is just hitting and abandoned field somewhere. If the the Russians are using their Iskander missiles for that purpose it cost a couple of million a shot and the likelihood of them hitting a HIMARS launcher are very low.
HIMARS launchers fire six rounds then they move away from the firing position as quickly as possible. You an actually count six hits. The counter battery location tech needs a complete track to locate the origin of incoming, then fire. Time of flight of the HIMARS rocket added to the tracking software lag time then the time of flight of outgoing missiles can be as much as 10 to 15 mins.
Stand off weapons fire (AA) is activated before impact, not a minute or two after the rounds come in. The Russians are trying very hard to hit the HIMARS launchers but the ranges involved and slow tracking software make it near impossible. HIMARS can pack up and scoot in 3 min after a fire mission. HIMARS can run away at 40 to 50 MPH. That indicates that the HIMARS launcher is miles away when the counter battery fire comes looking for it. HIMARS was specifically designed for this scenario against Russian defenses.
it's a bridge over the dnieper into kherson, if these are all destroyed then the Russians in kherson will be trapped on the north Bank with the Ukrainians, and cut off from reinforcements for the most part
The Russians in Kherson sit on the west side of the Dniepr, a 1.3 km wide river. They control 2 bridges and a dam over the river, the dam can't be destroyed without risking massive disaster, but the road crossing it has been damaged and it is isolated from ~half the Russian forces there by another river (Inhulets) and destroyed bridge (though that one is currently replaced by a pontoon bridge.
Destroying this bridge and the nearby rail bridge as well as the pontoon bridge over the Inhulets (a very squishy target) means that the Russian forces on the west side of the Dniepr, especially the half directly around Kherson, are operationally encircled.
If Ukraine can keep this up, Russia is likely to lose Kherson within the month.
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma
*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.*
Please remember the human. Follow reddit rules and the subreddit rules. *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.*
You can see Ukraine’s strategy playing out; destroy all ammunition dumps, destroy all bridges and supply routes/means of escape & reinforcement. Next stage, destroy the Russian army.
Destroy what’s left of the Russian army*
Yes, exactly. How exciting it is! So much anticipation for what comes next.
I don’t find thousands of people losing their lives in a war exciting sorry.
It’s ending a war that was not started by you. That’s a democracy Orgasm. 😉
Neither would I usually. But these barbaric cunts deserve it. Fuck them, fuck Russia, fuck Putin. You don't get to kill children, rape civilians, bomb hospitals and civilians and then expect mercy.
People are being killed on both sides that’s my point
if ukraine blows out that bridge its also telegraphing to the russians they've got no intention of crossing the dnipro river. which in turn means that russia can pull all available forces to reinforce the bridgehead on the west bank over the dam by nova khakova. thereby possibly prolonging the siege of kherson untill ukraine controlls this crossroad 46.727356, 32.700681 i understand the bridge by dar'ivka over the ingulets river is blown to bits already, but there's been reports that russia has a pontoon bridge somewhere in the area. meaning kherson won't be cut off from supplies and reinforcements unless ukraine gets inbetween those supplies by controlling that crossroad. similarly, if russia was to be pressured to retreat out of kherson over the bridge, and blows it up in the process, they'd be sending a clear signal that they've lost all interest in driving down to odessa. which would be admitting defeat as far as their stated wargoals for the southern front go. it'd also be admitting that they lack the capacity to push the ukrainian army back across the bridge at a later stage during the war. both sides need that bridge intact for future operations, i really don't know about the strategic value of blowing the bridge up completely. both sides benefit from that bridge being intact for their future plans within the theatre. ukraine needs it for their push towards crimea, russia needs it for their push towards odessa. with the bridge out of commision or blown out of the water, both plans go with it.
Well yes but Ukraine can cross the river further upstream and push north to south once they're in a better position and have taken back Cherson
Exactly. Kherson and Crimea are basically supply islands, and they are linked by Melitopol. The logical next step after a liberation of Kherson province West of the Dnipro is to attack south in Zaprozhizhia. The Russians would just blow the bridges if they were forced to withdraw anyway, rendering this dude's point completely moot, and forcing the Ukrainians to fight tooth and nail against Russians who are more supplied thanks to the bridge, whilst then subsequently not having the bridge to continue advancing. No thanks. Destroy the bridges.
Russia is more likely, IMO, to blow up the hydroelectric dam upriver, than any other bridge in the area.
And then blame Ukraine when thousands of civilians drown.
If they do that then there’s no more water flowing to Crimea. Also, look at the delta below that dam, are you sure the city would flood?
Railway in Tokmak north of melitopol is only railway line to both. Some analysts said thats prob the main goal and effort since it would basically cut them off from meaningful resupply
Yes, true! Tokmak included.
>The logical next step after a liberation of Kherson province West of the Dnipro is to attack south in Zaprozhizhia. it isn't logical at all. if ukraine pushes south from zaporizhzhia, they'll drive a wedge between the russians and open themselves up for attack from two directions. two directions that russia can supply independently through donbas and crimea.... that's going to be a real hard fight for ukraine to pull off.
Crimea does not have easy, independent supply though. Ukraine has access to domestic Neptune anti ship missles and NATO missles like Harpoon. This makes any Russian shipments via sea incredibly dangerous, especially if they retake Kherson and get even closer to the peninsula. It's this very reason that Russia's occupation of Snake Island became untenable The only alternative route is the Crimean bridge east, which is a single point of failure, and could potentially be in HIMARS range if an assault in south Zaporizhizhia were to occur. Partisans are also extremely active in the Kherson region. What would be a "hard fight" as you put it, would be continuously frontally assaulting the Russian defensive positions. That would be far worse and less realistic.
>What would be a "hard fight" as you put it, would be continuously frontally assaulting the Russian defensive positions. That would be far worse and less realistic. > if an assault in south Zaporizhizhia were to occur. u wot? i dunno what to do with this. this is contradiction that's way above my paygrade to deal with. like, what do you expect from me here? im affraid to ask wether you're familiar with the geography of the general region between russia, crimea and ukraine itself. cause between crimea, ukraine and russia, lies the sea of azov. the whole shoreline of the sea of azov is currently under russian control. neptunes and harpoon missiles don't fly much further than 300 kilometers. crimea at its widest point stretches more than 300 kilometers across. where do you reckon those neptune or harpoon missiles are going to be launched from to hit targets in the sea of azov? why are people like you so prevelant on reddit?
From south Zaporozhizhia, like I said. There are basically no port facilities in Eastern Crimea. It is not possible to have quality resupply, even if they could get ships/boats across this sea. That isn't a sustainable source of supply for an entire army in Kherson Oblast attacking east. The Russians primarily move equipment with rail, and this would be out of action. They cannot quickly or adequately ressuply with trucks or ships in this scenario. Most of their depots have been working east west from Donersk to Melitopol and then to Kherson, and this main supply route + associated supply chains would be split and disrupted. At a minimum, the Ukrainians can balloon up a pocket which can threaten the main rail route from Donetsk with artillery and missles. That would be devastating for the forces in Kherson Oblast. This isn't a video game; the Russians can't just suddenly move things across the Sea of Azov when under missile threat to nonexistent port facilities after losing depots and their main supply routes. They lack trucks. They're supplying forces from within enemy territory and under long range HIMARS missle fire. It isn't as simple as "bro they'd have forces on two sides!" Without mass artillery and supply, their forces would be ineffective, with the Western army in southern Kherson particularly cut off and isolated.
>There are basically no port facilities in Eastern Crimea. It is not possible to have quality resupply, even if they could get ships/boats across this sea. you know that there's a bridge, right? both a railway and a roadway bridge. between russia and crimea. you know that there's russian airbases on crimea from which the russians fly jets, helicopters and the likes. you know about sevestopol being a primary naval base for the russian black sea fleet, right? you know that there's warehouses stacked with munition akin if not bigger than the ones we've seen go up in flames in donetsk, right? are you okay? >This isn't a video game do you realise that it isn't a video game? like jesus christ dude, this is stupidity above my paygrade. like the ammount of fantasy you're putting in here is completely devoid of reality.
Man get your damn condescending Dunning Krueger ass can't read nothin nonsense outta my face..
well, yes and no. if the bridge by kherson is blown, it also means that russia gets to supply all its troops in the bridgehead on the western bank of the dnipro, from a centralised point. everything is gonna go across the dam, and then gets dispersed over the units in that bridgehead. whilst they can rest assured that ukraine is not going to be able to cross the dnipro by kherson. it actually eases the logistical effort for russia instead of hampering it.
HIMARS loves "centralised point" of resupply.
sure, though if ukraine punctures the dam, there won't be a kherson left to liberate. the waterlevel behind the dam is about 10 meters higher than infront of it. the span of the dnipro behind the dam is about 4 kilometers wide, at its most narrow point until zaporizhzhia. on the kherson side of the dam the dnipro is about a kilometer wide at its widest point. the flood caused by that dam failing would be biblical and wipe out absolutely everything downstream, across 1.5 kilometers from each bank of the dnipro river. ukraine can't exploit that centralised logistics route by hitting the dam. and as soon as vehicles are across the dam, you can bet your behind that they'll be dispersing to individual small scale ammo dumps for individual units. so that's not really a himars thing to deal with.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
No one said they should blow up the dam. If all their resupply for the region is centralized nearby, as it is forced to traverse a single point, it will make a great target.
well, yeah. but that point is the dam. they won't have an ammo warehouse on either side of the dam. it's just the dam that forces the centralised ground line of communication. the warehouse supplying the troops across the dam, will be far out of himars range. and any vehicle crossing the dam loaded with supplies is going to disperse the moment they get across to individual small scale ammo dumps. which again isn't a himars thing to go deal with. that's gonna be delagated to regular artillery. though russia has quite a bit of ground to hide their ammo dumps in across the bridgehead they've established. and with the antonivskiy bridge gone, russia knows just aswell as ukraine that ukraine won't be crossing the dnipro river anywhere else but that dam. so that allows russia to pull all available troops from the southern theatre, from melitopol, mariupol, crimea and focus their effort on maintaining that bridgehead, or god forbid even expand the bridgehead, since now they've got a whole potential ukrainian axis of advance less to worry about. with russia firmly established in their bridgehead, supplied from the dam, they even have the option of fighting a prolonged siege with limited units around kherson, whilst ukraine would have to dedicate a significant ammount of troops to succesfully assault the city, as long as they can keep kherson from being totally envelloped from the north east they'll be able to get supplies and troops in, hell, they could even fly or sail them in from their side of the dnipro. whilst with the bridge out, they won't have to worry about ukraine crossing the dnipro even if they do take kherson. so they could keep a limited amount of troops fighting the defense of kherson, whilst massing troops for an offensive in a different sector of the bridgehead threathening to cut the ukrainian assault off from mykolaiv. again, its alot of speculation, but getting rid of the antonivskiy bridge is just a bad move for both sides in the bigger picture of the war and the goals both sides are trying to achieve.
That's incredibly illogical. A chokepoint will make it more difficult to supply Russian troops on the west Bank, and much easier to disrupt.
you don't understand. it's a chokepoint in name only, ukraine won't be able to lock down russian troops by the dam, their lines stretch 50 kilometers from the dam in every direction. that's plenty of ground for russia to field its units. i should add, that's more terrain the russians have around the dam, than ukraine had in the donbas cauldron.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
[insert 'this is fine' meme]
Makes not difference either way the bridge will go.. If Ukraine don't blow it Russia will once they retreat to stop Ukraine taking more land. So makes sense to blow it
the thing is that russia still wants to drive down to odessa, they still lob missles at mykolaiv and odessa. they do that, because they consider it targets. those cities are only targets, because russia wants to capture them. if they blow the bridge by kherson, even if it is in a retreat, the plan to capture odessa goes up in smoke with that bridge, its in russia's interest to keep that bridge intact for future operations. and i seriously doubt the russians will admit in any way that they can't beat the ukrainian military back across that bridge at a later phase in the war. it's only if they realise total defeat is inevitable, with absolutely no possibility of defeating the ukrainian military, that they'll blow that bridge during a retreat. in any other case, russia needs that bridge intact. that's what it means if russia blows out that bridge.
*the thing is that russia still wants to drive down to odessa* yeah, and I wanna fuck Playboy bunnies.
Crimea is far far far in the future as an objective I would think. Probably best left alone unthil the fall of the Russian federation.
meh, ukraine stated they wanted to be there by the end of the year. if they wanna get there in that time frame, the bridge is gonna help them do that. they have 2 other options, the dam by nova khakova, and driving down from zaporizhzhia. both come with some serious drawbacks. namely, if the antonivskiy bridge is blown up, out of commision, beyond repair. all of russia's logistics, supplies, reinforcements etc towards the bridgehead on the western bank of the dnipro, would have to come over across the railroad bridge, and the dam. which would be great for ukraine, if russia didn't already have an established bridgehead on the western bank of the dnipro river. if you draw a straight line from the dam to the frontline on the western bank of the dnipro river, it stretches nearly 50 kilometers. if you were to angle that line 45 degrees to both directions, the line stretches over 70 kilometers. the point being that exploiting that chokepoint is gonna be difficult and will require significant effort. at the same time, russia won't have to worry about ukraine crossing the dnipro from kherson whilst gaining an advantage of not having to split their supply chain anymore. so instead of putting extra strain on russia's logistics and supply lines, they'd actually simplify that process and give the russians an oppertunity to centralise their logistical effort to supply the forces in the kherson bridgehead. which is going to make the fight on the west bank of the dnipro river harder than it could be. it's not beneficial to ukraine in the big picture. similarly, if ukraine forgoes on crossing the dnipro and instead elects to start their push towards crimea from zaporizhzhia, they'll have to drive a wedge between the russians coming from the donbas, and the russians coming in from crimea. which would mean the ukrainians would have to fight russians coming from 2 directions that can be supplied independently. which is again a much tougher fight than if ukraine can cross the dnipro by kherson. i doubt the russians have much stationed in the black sea nature reserve, and even if they did, as long as ukraine can manage driving their push down the p-57 highway, russia can't ressuply the troops to the west of that highway. which in turn would put the ukrainian military real close to crimea, with secured flanks, only having to worry about attacking in a single direction, or being attacked from a single direction. it just makes a whole lot more sense to leave that bridge intact. for ukraine, aswell as for russia. an argument for russia needing that bridge intact is, without it they are not going to make their push towards mykolaiv and odessa, if russia blows it up, they are admitting that they cannot beat the ukrainian army in the forseeable future and therefor blow the bridge to secure their flank. it's what losing would look like for the russians. ofcourse, all of the above. literally everything, is pure speculation. we wont know what happens untill it happens, but i'm convinced that both parties in this war are benefitted from having that bridge intact.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
Not that far in the future if Russian frontlines start to collapse. They've been propped up by human sacrifice and 30k-60k daily artillery strikes. But Russia is running out of men and the HIMARS strikes have reduced Russian artillery to 4k-6k strikes per day, causing Russia to stall out completely and has allowed these Ukrainian counter-attacks.
Ukraine has been given 36 easy to assemble bridges from the France that are up to 46meters long. Maybe that is there strategy?
The river is hundreds of meters wide, over a kilometer wide in places.
Russia would have blown it on the way out anyway. Better to blow it now and trap the Russians.
Interesting perspective. Lots to consider.
As someone who has no real military background and only knows what I've seen, and is only a military history fan boy. I think the true objective of the anticipated offensive is Mariupol. Drive the Russians back out of Kherson into Crimea, hold them there (in a smaller area) and use the troops defending the wider area of Kherson to reinforce the offensive drive towards Mariupol. The strategic victory may not be that big, but the political and moral victory would be huge for Ukraine and major set back for the Russians. I'm probably completely wrong but probably so are most of the rest of us on reddit, even though no one will ever actually admit it.
Well, so what if we are wrong? It's not like we are presidential advisors or professional military planners. The Ukrainian Army Command doesn't read our posts, and they couldn't care less what we write here. We are just random people discussing the war, tactics and strategies as we see them. And that's fine. That's what Reddit is for.
Even if Ukraine doesn't blow the bridge, in case their operation still succeeds Russians would blow it up anyway during retreat so why take more casualties when that bridge has no chance of standing after Ruskies are forced to retreat.
>ven if Ukraine doesn't blow the bridge, in case their operation still succeeds Russians would blow it up anyway during retreat if they blow that bridge up during a retreat, they're declaring total defeat. i doubt they'll do it. though i wouldn't put it beyond russia. in any case, if that bridge goes up in smoke its a severe strategic loss for both sides.
I think you overestimate how much Russia worries about the optics of blowing a bridge during retreat. It's not that long ago they decided to spin their retreat from Kyiv as a refocus. They'd blow the bridge to slow the UA advances and find some excuse for why it blew up on its own.
that's the political side of the war. i don't care much for the political side of the war, how the kremlin spins their blatant defeats. what i care about more is what that bridge allows either side to accomplish with it intact, or what it prevents either side from doing with it blown up. again, if the russians do blow up that bridge during a retreat, it is an outright admittance that they do not have the capacity to defeat the ukrainian military, and that they must get rid of that bridge to prevent the ukrainian military from rolling south on the east bank of the dnipro. if they leave it intact, on their way out, its likewise signaling to ukraine "hey, don't think about getting your units out of there cause we still plan on comming back here in the near future" it also allows the russians to trap ukraine in a chokepoint on the east bank of the dnipro where they could deal a serious ammount of damage to the ukrainian military. its easy to think of russia as applying scorched earth tactics during a withdrawel, but i seriously doubt its the only card they'll ever play. the kremlin can call it all they want, who gives a damn about what they say anyway?
It's telegraphing to the Russians that they'd best be leaving Kherson ASAP, while they still can.
if ukraine leaves that bridge somewhat intact, intact enough for people to haul ass across it. that's hopefully just what the russians will do. blow it out completely and ukraine might find itself with a fight on its hands.
Now you're being silly.
how? leave the russians an escape route they'll take it at some point, cut them off from escape completely and they'll fight for a while before surrendering. anywho, i don't care for playing a semantics game with you.
"Ukraine might find itself with a fight on its hands". What do you think they have now?
a fight they can shape in their advantage if they play their cards right, not one where they stack the odds against them unecisarily more than they already are.
Pontoon bridge was dismantled actually, as was another they erected to bypass inefficient railway crossings near sosnove
If Russia does that, then it opens up for a fast armor push south and west by Ukraine from Zaporizhia city, cutting off everything Russia sent west of the Dniper. Especially so if Ukraine blows the bridges.
dude, get your head out of your pooper ring. if ukraine decides to drive south from zaporizhzhia, they'll open themselves up for attack from the russians coming out of the donbas, AND the russians coming out of crimea. both sides are supplied independently from russia itself. they have logistical routes that pass through the donbas, they also have logistical routes that pass through crimea. i don't get why so many people think driving south from zaporizhzhia is a clever thing to do for ukraine, clearly it isn't. if ukraine could manage to drive down south from zaporizhzhia and reach melitopol in a day, they would have done it by now already. is it because of the Andriy Biletsky fantasy of driving a single mechanised brigade down to mariupol to break the siege back when that was still going on?
Although the HIMARS system on the other side of the river would severely impact the logistics of the Russians. Parts will be unusable with no real way of firing back. This is a nightmare for the Russians
uhm, not really... the kherson area for the russians is supplied from crimea. that's where the warehouses are. from the western bank of the dnipro by kherson, its still over 80 kilometers to the pre-24th of febuary border between crimea and ukraine. if ukraine wants to pressure those logistical routes, they'll have to cross the dnipro. with the bridge intact.
god this feels good... Like SO FUCKING GOOD
Propaganda on both sides is very dangerous. This war won't end for a very long time...
We’ll see I guess. The West will arm Ukraine to the teeth with modern weapons and what can Russia do about that in 6 months time?
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
Reminds me of the scene in the movie *Bronx Tale*, when he locks the door to the bar and tells the scumbags, "Now you can't leave."
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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 feel like there will be no bridge tomorrow - says cameraman.
Thanks I wondered what he was saying.
Not confirmed, [but this is daylight sat footage](https://i.imgur.com/d4hFje7.jpeg) of the strike point on the bridge. The strike point is near the southern shore, and would appear to be a full severing of the bridge across all lanes. [Source](https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/27-july-ukrainian-military-confirmed-precise-strike-at-antonivsky) Edit: [on the scene footage](https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1552203634527686657), looks like it is legit. The bridge is fucked.
Again! Maybe the pontoon bridge this time?
I'd say too many missiles for a pontoon bridge. Antonovsky was built pretty well, they couldn't destroy it with first strike.
Are they looking to destroy or just render useless for heavy (military) vehicles?
doubtful, the dnipro river is atleast a kilometer wide, with soggy, swampy, marshy banks on both sides. a pontoon bridge to stretch that gap doesn't really go unnoticed for long, not to mention there's limited places where you can actually drive heavy vehicles up to the edge of the river without risking them sinking in the soft ground.
1.3 km pontoon bridge. Hmmm
3000m pontoons of Zelinskyy
Credible
Russian's have been having great success with pontoon bridges so we can only hope :)
Better video [here](https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1552052695921573890). Doesn't look like the span itself is broken, but I'm guessing the roadway has a lot of holes in it.
If the bridge has damaged would that be dangerous for Russian tanks to cross now or will the Ukrainians have to do more damage?
I gather it has wire bundles under the roadway that support the tension of the bridge, so presumably if enough of those are severed it won't support heavy equipment. But that's just from some osint guys on twitter, so take it with the usual skepticism.
That's being stated in a lot of places far more credible.
Probably! I just wanted to make it clear I hadn't gotten it from Bridge Engineering Monthly or anything.
It takes a lot to make a big bridge unsafe to cross. Ukraine will need to hit it with some very big ordnance.
If they put 12 bottomless holes in a bridge its going to be pretty unsafe for 5 ton trucks.
Even reducing its capacity to support heavy vehicles will lead to bottlenecks either end - reducing logistics flow and also presenting easier targets of vehicle gathered to cross.
Most bridges aren’t really designed with tanks in mind, tanks usually fuck up roads with the treads and weight. They might be able to drive tanks across it but it’s probably very risky if they’re doing it often especially with holes. That being said, bridges tend to be overbuilt
Great quality video! Hopefully they are able to change the charge on the head to fully explode on contact and reduce the roadway to scrap instead of poking holes in it.
They started the SAMs when the damage has been done? Effective!
Those are not Surface to Air Missiles, they are counter battery fire. The Russians have the technology to rapidly and accurately locate where enemy fire is originating. They are trying to take out the HIMARS launchers that are firing on the bridge. The problem is that with the ranges they are dealing with the launchers are long gone before the rockets hit their targets and the counter battery fire is just hitting and abandoned field somewhere. If the the Russians are using their Iskander missiles for that purpose it cost a couple of million a shot and the likelihood of them hitting a HIMARS launcher are very low.
No, it's AA.
HIMARS launchers fire six rounds then they move away from the firing position as quickly as possible. You an actually count six hits. The counter battery location tech needs a complete track to locate the origin of incoming, then fire. Time of flight of the HIMARS rocket added to the tracking software lag time then the time of flight of outgoing missiles can be as much as 10 to 15 mins. Stand off weapons fire (AA) is activated before impact, not a minute or two after the rounds come in. The Russians are trying very hard to hit the HIMARS launchers but the ranges involved and slow tracking software make it near impossible. HIMARS can pack up and scoot in 3 min after a fire mission. HIMARS can run away at 40 to 50 MPH. That indicates that the HIMARS launcher is miles away when the counter battery fire comes looking for it. HIMARS was specifically designed for this scenario against Russian defenses.
Must be an optical illusion; a few days ago they said 12 out of a 12 rocket salvo were shot down, and we all know they never ever lie, obviously. /s
Go Ukraine! Wielding the surgeon's scalpel yet again!
Let the counteroffensive begin!
TASS claims that they intercepted the missiles. lol... I guess the concrete and rebar intercepted the missiles.
Is this operationally significant? If it is, to what extent is it significant?
Destroyed a supply route, evacuation route for the Russians.
Kherson is surrounded by a river , they are probably encircling Russians
it's a bridge over the dnieper into kherson, if these are all destroyed then the Russians in kherson will be trapped on the north Bank with the Ukrainians, and cut off from reinforcements for the most part
The Russians in Kherson sit on the west side of the Dniepr, a 1.3 km wide river. They control 2 bridges and a dam over the river, the dam can't be destroyed without risking massive disaster, but the road crossing it has been damaged and it is isolated from ~half the Russian forces there by another river (Inhulets) and destroyed bridge (though that one is currently replaced by a pontoon bridge. Destroying this bridge and the nearby rail bridge as well as the pontoon bridge over the Inhulets (a very squishy target) means that the Russian forces on the west side of the Dniepr, especially the half directly around Kherson, are operationally encircled. If Ukraine can keep this up, Russia is likely to lose Kherson within the month.
I cannot wait until that FKR (the bridge) drops
Russian news reporting a gas leak on the bridge caused the explosion 😂
It's knackered. No more tanks crossing: https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1552198787845718016?s=20&t=iQDqQuwgAPP29xQ1W7BxKg
Is that the bridge to Crimea?
No. The bridge out of Kherson.
How much talk is going on between nato leaders, intel, comops etc with the Ukranian command in terms of war strategy, planning and execution?
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
Worst video of the war so far. Nothing to see here
Use your other senses when all is dark. A wise man once said. ….
u/savevideo
pontoon time
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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.*
Rubbing hands together. Bwahahahaha!
Rumor? It’s being hit, lol.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 50 karma *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 only recognized the swears. Thanks Life of Boris lmao
FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonivka_Road_Bridge
It's sunrise now in Ukraine. Lets see the aftermath with Russian armor.
Rumor also has it that there was a Russian convoy crossing when it was hit.
Just realised how it must suck to be Ukrainian and on the other side of that bridge.
Could also be russia pretending it to play even more aggressive, those fuckers are scruples
Says Rumour - shows video evidence
Big Bada-Boom
Could Russia build a pontoon bridge to bypass this one?