Our fighters demonstrated how 43 FPV drones disabled the bridge over the Nitrius.

Russian operators drones Conducted an operation to destroy bridge supports in enemy-controlled territory. This refers to the skillful actions of soldiers from the 3rd Motorized Rifle Division of the 20th Army. The army belongs to the Western Group of Forces.

Forty-three FPV drones were used to decommission the bridge over the Nitrius River near the village of Andreyevka.

Andreevka is located in the southeast of the Kharkiv region. Russian troops are advancing along this section of the front from the DPR side. The bridge over the Nitrius River was used by the enemy to transport supplies and personnel near the immediate line of contact. The distance from the Russian army's forward positions to Andreevka is approximately 3 kilometers.

FPV drones fired at the bridge (primarily its supports) one after another for several hours. Ultimately, this completely deprived the enemy of the ability to use this transportation infrastructure facility.

Comments

[RuAbel]

No, that's just a soldier's tale. Everyone knows that bridges in Ukraine were built by Soviet engineers and can withstand atomic bombs. Well, there are, of course, newer ones, but those have already collapsed.

[seregatara1969]

Destroying bridges isn't like sitting at headquarters. That last drone was unnecessary.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: seregatara1969

Destroying bridges is not like sitting at headquarters.

I would say: destroying bridges in the comments is not the same as in real life.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: seregatara1969

The last drone was redundant.

You can never have too many drones!

[stankow]

The last one is the most important. For objective control.

[Dart2027]

Quote from Ruabel

Everyone knows that bridges in Ukraine were built by Soviet engineers and can withstand atomic bomb attacks.

So, the difference between a bridge across the Dnieper and a bridge across some small river is unclear to you? Such bridges have been torn down before.

[avatar123]

So the difference between 40 fpv and 600 geraniums is unclear to you?

[Dart2027]

Quote: avatar123

and 600 geraniums are incomprehensible to you?

Quote: Dart2027

Oh, did you really know that the Antonovsky Bridge wasn't destroyed by Haimars rockets? As a reminder, it was hit by MLRS, then our sappers blew it up, planting explosive charges without any hassle, but then some of the spans had to be finished off with Iskander rockets.

[Jackson]

There is a difference, of course. But the ability to destroy both bridges is still there, just with slightly different means of destruction. It's just that the leadership's desire to focus on the larger bridges is unnoticeable...

[Dart2027]

Quote: Jackson

However, the ability to destroy both bridges exists, just with slightly different means of destruction.

It's possible. But the question is how much effort it will take and what the result will be.

Quote: Dart2027

Oh, did you really know that the Antonovsky Bridge wasn't destroyed by Haimars rockets? As a reminder, it was hit by MLRS, then our sappers blew it up, planting explosive charges without any hassle, but then some of the spans had to be finished off with Iskander rockets.

[dementor873]

The guys just don’t have accounts or real estate abroad.

[MstislavHrabr]

I hope they don't end up in prison with General Popov for this feat...

[Montezuma]

Quote: MstislavHrabr

I hope they don't end up in prison with General Popov for this feat...

Even if you write nonsense entirely in capital letters, it still remains nonsense.👎🤮

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Montezuma

If you write nonsense in all capital letters... it still remains nonsense.

Above, two more comments similar in terms of alternative talent are collecting upvotes.
In general, like in the joke: Maybe I’m a fool, but I have my ̶p̶s̶s̶s̶s... a hundred rubles a day.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Then explain why the bridges in Kyiv have been standing for 4 years?

[MstislavHrabr]

Tell me, how many trains were destroyed on the Dnieper bridges during the entire war? Or maybe even one truck carrying weapons was destroyed? What's wrong with that? They don't attack bridges because it's illegal; the Abramovichs' friends don't allow it! And that's why they can punish those who showed independence... So what's so absurd about that? Justify it?

[nik-mazur]

Forty-three FPV drones were used to decommission the bridge over the Nitrius River near the village of Andreyevka.

It seemed like the drone pilots were either betting on the supports or just having fun.
What's interesting is that at the very end the spans were held up for some time practically by the reinforcement alone.

[dementor873]

The guys showed that you can destroy everything without having anything.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: dementor873

you can destroy everything without having anything

Well, I wouldn't say that 43 drones is nothing at all.
Yes, and they can’t destroy everything.

[Rome]

The main question in this story: why was the bridge destroyed by drones? Where is the FAB with the UMPK, or at least the Tornado S? Why is the bridge, which everyone knows about, still intact and functioning without problems?

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Eroma

Where's the FAB with the UMPK, or at least the Tornado S? Why is the bridge everyone knows about still intact and functioning without any problems?

This is just my guess - it's probably too far for the FAB, and the Tornado has such accuracy that it (he) won't hit the bridge.
So, FPV drones. If you calculate how much these 43 drones cost, it's a hefty sum.

[Rome]

3 km from the front line! The UMPK can hit targets much further from the front line. And there are plenty of missiles for such purposes; even Krasnopol could have been used to poke holes, if there had been a will. Judging by the state of the bridge, it's clear there was no intention of destroying it. A total of 43 drones! Kudos to the drone operators. How much cargo crossed this bridge to stop our advance?
These situations are frankly amazing!

[bayard]

Quote: Eroma

In total, 43 drones!

If the drone operators had not only HEAT carrots but also a BP with a penetrating core (a funnel not conical, but hemispherical and slightly larger in diameter), they would have needed two to three times fewer drones for this task. But they hit with what they had. As it is, two or three HEAT carrots and one or two "cores" per pillar. They would have added up.

[kenig1]

The distance from the forward positions of the Russian army to Andreyevka is about 3 kilometers, and the bridge across the river is nearby, so questions arise.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Because there will be a humanitarian catastrophe for the Ukrainians. I don't remember which of the top brass said that.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It's as if the General Staff lives on another planet. They didn't deploy any Geraniums or glide bombs to the target.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The General Staff... did not allocate any Geraniums or glide bombs to the facility.

So, I beg you. The internet is full of stories about our guys bombing bridges with bombs, missiles, and drones using pre-planted explosives. But for those witnessing the holy destruction of bridges, every news story is like the first, and they always churn out the same sparkling jokes, like, "Was that even possible?"
In general, I assume that, most likely, our soldiers destroyed this bridge just for fun with drones, and not because there was no other option.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Over 4 drones for fun? Do you even realize what you're writing here? This is a clear example of a failure of communication.
I've collected 5 minuses, who's even on the site?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

More than 4 dozen drones for fun

Well, and for educational purposes, of course. War can be anything but.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

This is a clear example of a failure in interaction.

No, your comment is an example of jumping to unfounded conclusions based on insufficient information. You have no idea what happened, under what circumstances, or for what reasons, yet you've decided you understand everything. Although, besides your explanation, there are dozens of equally plausible ones.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You're the only one so smart, wasting 4 drones for fun—how could you even think of such a thing? This is a clear failure of communication. Someone at the top clearly went deaf and wasn't receiving signals from below. Deafness should be cured by tribunals. There are too many insane people at all levels.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

You're the only one so smart to waste 4 drones for fun.

Well, why not, just one... Those guys on the video weren't idiots either. And why they did it, you don't know. Which doesn't stop you from drawing cosmic conclusions...

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

This is a clear failure in interaction.

You clearly have a failure to understand that it is not smart to draw conclusions, much less insist on them, without having practically any information.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

There are a lot of insane people at all levels

Yeah, starting with the internet commentators.

[kenig1]

Will we soon hear calls in the media to chip in for drones? For the sake of learning, we can experiment behind the scenes, perhaps converting them into TNT blocks.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: kenig1

For the sake of knowledge, you can experiment in the rear

Contact the fighters who attacked this bridge and explain to them that they are wrong.

[RUSICH]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Over 4 drones for fun? Do you even realize what you're writing here? This is a clear example of a failure of communication.
I've collected 5 minuses, who's even on the site?

You're jumping to conclusions without knowing the situation. Maybe they were testing newbies. And there are plenty of other possible reasons.

[Dart2027]

Quote from: nik-mazur

In general, I assume that, most likely, our soldiers destroyed this bridge just for fun with drones, and not because there was no other option.

Perhaps it was urgent, and at that particular time there were no other means. Or they wanted to destroy the supports specifically, making quick restoration impossible, and they're difficult to hit accurately.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Dart2027

Maybe it was urgent... Or they wanted to destroy the supports themselves.

Yes, there are a dozen perfectly plausible explanations you could come up with. And ultimately, you'll never guess. This is the army, after all. And besides, it's not war, where such twists and turns happen that no science fiction writer could dream up.

[Dart2027]

Quote from: nik-mazur

And besides, it’s not war, where such twists and turns happen that no science fiction writer could ever come up with.

It is truth too.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Were there no other means? Or perhaps a senior officer with a Ukrainian surname in between? Sometimes complex questions have simple answers.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Sometimes difficult questions have simple answers

Don't confuse simple answers with primitive ones.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It's absolutely necessary to look for a Ukrainian surname when the sabotage is obvious. You can't stop it.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It's really necessary to look for a Ukrainian surname.

Yeah, look for a Russian woman in Ukraine. As if her last name matters.

[your1970]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It is really necessary to look for a Ukrainian surname when sabotage obviously. .

Hmm, Vlasov or Hitler – Ukrainian names? Or Trump or Netanyahu?

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It's absolutely necessary to look for a Ukrainian surname when the sabotage is obvious. You can't stop it.

We have a ton of Ukrainian names in the army, just like there are Russian names in the Ukrainian Armed Forces! So what does that mean?

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

the sabotage is obvious.

Or there's an urgent need to disrupt a rotation or isolate a surrounded group. When the air force is slow to arrive, and the FAB and UMPK can miss, there's no artillery nearby, and the ammunition hasn't arrived, and a solution needs to be found quickly, i.e., with available resources. So they gave the drone operators the task.
Bridges of this caliber are regularly destroyed by various weapons, but this is truly the first time this has been done. The high consumption of drones suggests that the troops in this area have plenty of them.
I've written a hundred times about the bridges across the Dnieper—the agreement on them has been in place since the summer of 2022—we're not touching the bridges or Zelensky, NATO isn't blockading Kaliningrad or touching Transnistria. These agreements are still being observed. And every time there's a threat or suspicion that the Clown's bunker will be raided, Kyiv cries out about seizing Transnistria, and NATO cries out about blockading Kaliningrad.
There were similar tacit agreements during WWII regarding the non-use of chemical weapons. Everyone had them, but no one wanted them used on their cities and capitals.

[Dead duck]

When the wait for aviation is long

- it doesn't seem to be the beginning of the 20th century, but everything is somehow old-fashioned and without reference to the "groups" of aviation and artillery.
Even during WWII, the Germans had their own air defense, artillery, and aviation (except for combined arms) in their units.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Deadush

Even during WWII, the Germans had their own air defense, artillery, and aviation in their units.

The Germans, in fact, didn't have their own air force in their ground forces. Moreover, the entire air force was a separate, independent branch of the armed forces and even had its own general staff under the sole command of Göring—only Hitler was above him, which didn't have a good effect on cooperation (the Germans, in general, had rather strange relationships between their staffs, much like the Americans do today).
Unlike the Soviet system of organization, where aviation was part of the front, was directly subordinate to its commander, and acted in the interests of the ground forces.

[bayard]

Quote: Deadush

- it doesn't seem to be the beginning of the 20th century

Just look at how far our aviation is based from the front. How long will it take to process the request, refine the target designation, prepare for takeoff, takeoff, and arrive at the launch site with a FAB, UMPK, or cruise missile? What if the situation requires an immediate response? What if, after an interception, the enemy requests a rotation or reinforcements are supposed to arrive, and specifically across this bridge? And there's very little time to react? The bridge is small, and even a FAB with an UMPK can miss. So, it looks like they used improvised means. The drones are certainly not cheap, but this isn't their intended use. We don't know the details, but the example itself is a new and interesting solution.

[stankow]

Regarding nuclear issues, too. But it's not a treaty, just a simple calculation.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: bayard

Similar tacit agreements existed during WWII regarding the non-use of chemical weapons.

These aren't agreements, but rather an understanding that chemical weapons are a very poor weapon. The experience of World War I demonstrated that poison gases are difficult and capricious to use, highly unreliable, as they depend on wind, humidity, and even terrain, and not particularly effective against a prepared enemy. Basically, they stink a lot, but do little good. Tank wedges, massive bombing raids, and 200 guns per kilometer of front proved far more practical.

[bayard]

Chemical weapons were feared less at the front (soldiers had gas masks) and more against their use in cities. London feared such attacks and warned Germany that if it used chemical weapons, the razors would gas all major German cities. They had places for consultations. The USSR also warned that, with its long-range bombers, it would bomb Berlin and other cities if even one chemical bomb fell on any of our cities. A similar exchange of warnings took place, and guarantees were received that Germany would not use chemical weapons. It seems that such consultations took place in Turkey – a neutral country where all the warring countries had embassies and consulates.
This weapon was terrifying for the civilian population, and if there was a reason, they would have exterminated it down to the last cockroach. Both we and the British had more than just a lot of chemical weapons.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: bayard

London feared such attacks and warned Germany... The USSR also warned... A similar exchange of warnings took place and guarantees were received that Germany would not use chemical weapons.

I know nothing about such agreements, I've never even seen any mention of them. Therefore, I seriously doubt their reality. Especially given the ferocity of the fighting, where the casualties numbered in the millions.
I am inclined to think that chemical weapons were not used because they were useless from a military point of view.

[bayard]

Quote from: nik-mazur

I don’t know anything about such agreements, I haven’t even seen any mention of them.

I know about this from at least several sources, and I've even seen documentaries on the subject a long time ago. They talked specifically about the history of chemical weapons and specifically discussed their non-use in WWII. And, of course, I've read about it in various sources. So it's kind of a well-known fact; they've even written about it on VO and there were forums about it. A long time ago.
The British ultimatum to Hitler played the main role. And British night aviation was flying into Germany as if it were home. So Adolf Aloisovich didn't dare, even though Sarin and Soman had appeared in Germany and were far more advanced than mustard gas.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Sometimes complex questions have simple answers.

Which I have given.

[Dead duck]

Maybe it was urgent, and at that particular time there were no other means

- Apparently, it's "more clear" on the spot. Although, after "debriefings", all sorts of things have happened.
Another thing is, you can build an embankment nearby in a couple of hours, and then ride back and forth as much as you want. But the 3 km to the LBS... it's of dubious value, and you can already cover it with artillery.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If there are 43 drones ready nearby, it will be difficult to create an embankment.

[Montezuma]

Quote from: nik-mazur

It seemed like the drone pilots were either betting on the supports or just having fun.

I assume these drone pilots are already seasoned experts and considered the likelihood of achieving results through a large number of accurate repeat hits, even with FPV drones, to be high. Otherwise, they wouldn't have wasted them. Well done!

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Montezuma

Drone operators... considered the probability of achieving a result through a large number of accurate repeat hits to be high, even with FPV drones.

Yes, but we need to test something that no one has tried yet. As the saying goes: practice is the criterion of truth.

[Montezuma]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Yes, but we need to test something that no one has tried yet. As the saying goes: practice is the criterion of truth.

True, no one has ever tried using lightweight drones for this purpose. The attempt was successful.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Montezuma

The test was successful

It seems to me that it is ambiguous.

[Montezuma]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Quote: Montezuma
The test was successful

It seems to me that it is ambiguous.

It's clear that the objects encountered are varied, and it's not always possible to have such a large number of drones on hand, which are intended, in general, for completely different purposes, but it can be counted as a successful experiment.

P.S. Someone has already managed to give you a minus.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Montezuma

It's not always possible to have such a large number of drones on hand, which are intended, in general, for completely different purposes

This is the main ambiguity. Although the fundamental possibility has been confirmed, of course.

Quote: Montezuma

Someone has already managed to draw a minus for you.

Yes, the witnesses of the holy bridge's destruction are furious.
It's actually nonsense - I used to get my rating down by eight thousand in a couple of days for not having an enthusiastic way of thinking.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote from: nik-mazur

I used to get my rating downgraded by eight thousand in a couple of days for my less than enthusiastic way of thinking.

I haven't received more than -5k for something similar...

[nik-mazur]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

I haven't had more than -5k for something similar.

I have a record of something around ten thousand in about three days.

[Alexey Lantukh]

A strange case of drones being used for other purposes than intended.
Another question arises: Why weren't glide bombs used? Was the Aerospace Forces unwilling to comply with the request?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

Why didn't they use glide bombs?

Most likely because no one asked.

[Montezuma]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

Another question arises: Why weren't glide bombs used? Was the Aerospace Forces unwilling to comply with the request?

Does a gliding bomb have the same high accuracy at a target range of 50-70 kilometers as an FPV drone at a range of three kilometers? Drones hit the bridge supports precisely, destroying several.

[alexoff]

Apparently there are so many drones that there's nowhere to put them. I'm guessing they spent more than my annual salary on them instead of directing artillery or aircraft.

[dementor873]

The cost of a 1-hour flight is 35 dollars, the cost of St. John's wort, carrying 5 kg per 10 km, is 1000 dollars.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: dementor873

The cost of a 1-hour flight is $35,400,000.

The cost of a Su-35 flight is $40,000. Forty-three drones is $43,000. That's about it, if you don't count the bomb and the risk of losing the plane. But the difference isn't that big.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Drones also need to be delivered to the front lines and launched. Ultimately, drones will be more expensive.

[your1970]

Quote: aybolyt678

Quote: dementor873

The cost of a 1-hour flight is $35,400,000.

The cost of a Su-35 flight is $40,000. Forty-three drones is $43,000. That's about it, if you don't count the bomb and the risk of losing the plane. But the difference is not that bigя

Difference great - the risk of losing the plane and the pilot

[alexoff]

But an aircraft can drop dozens of glide bombs on forest belts without any risk, and the damage to the enemy is likely greater than from strikes on logistics. Drones are useless in forest belts, but they are very useful for digging into concrete supports.

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

But an airplane can drop dozens of gliding bombs on forest belts, there is no risk, and the damage to the enemy is probably greater than from strikes on logistics.

That is, you are against aviation destroying enemy fortifications.

[alexoff]

So, you have nothing substantive to say and decided to quietly change the subject? Have you also noticed that you're having trouble with logic?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

So you have nothing substantive to say and you decided to quietly change the topic?

So, I'm still against it. And why am I not surprised?

[alexoff]

So, you've finally moved out? I'm all for air power destroying fortifications and logistics. You're against air power destroying logistics; only fortifications are allowed, everything else is forbidden and impossible?
Are you against drones destroying supplies on the bridge? Do you think supplies can only be destroyed at crossings? Is there any logic to that? Or are you going to write again, "Well, I mean, am I right?" and give yourself a plus sign?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

So, you've finally moved out? I'm all for air power destroying fortifications and logistics.

So, you did move out? First, you were unhappy with the FABs working on a position-by-position basis, then you were in favor.

Quote from alexoff

Are you against drones destroying supplies on the bridge? Do you think that supplies can only be destroyed at crossings?

Says the man who constantly keeps saying, "Why aren't the bridges destroyed?" You're confused; what are you whining about?

[alexoff]

Quote: Dart2027

So, you did move out? First, you were unhappy with the FABs working on a position-by-position basis, then you were in favor.

So, your forest belts are turning into the most important fortifications, bridges are unimportant, but if the soldiers have done some work, then it’s okay?
Tell me, do all your sentences end in questions? / Maybe you have nothing to say and you just don't know anything, like Nick Mazur, the main Socrates here?

Quote: Dart2027

Said the man who constantly asks, "Why aren't the bridges destroyed?"

So, there's no logic in what you're saying. They broke the bridge for show, and what are you accusing me of? Again, where's the logic?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

So, your forest belts are turning into the most important fortifications, bridges are unimportant, but if the soldiers have done some work, then it’s okay?

Well, it’s you who is unhappy that the bridge was destroyed, not me.

Quote from alexoff

Well, that is to say, there is no logic in your words, the bridge was broken for show, and the claims are against me?

So you are still unhappy with the destruction of the bridge.

[alexoff]

Quote: Dart2027

So you are still unhappy with the destruction of the bridge.

So you don't care about military-economic efficiency at all? Am I right? As long as they hit some enemy target, that's all well and good. Drones with RPN grenades on a bridge – great, IRBMs on a barn – even better! So you're completely clueless about modern warfare?

Quote: Dart2027

Well, it’s you who is unhappy that the bridge was destroyed, not me.

That is, if, for example, a barn is hit by all the Strategic Missile Forces, you will also be happy, because the enemy was storing something valuable in the barn?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Dart2027

Are you confused? What are you whining about?

The samurai has no goal, only the path.

[alexoff]

Nikmazur and Dart 2007 have nothing but brilliant leadership and a love for self-upvoting.

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

Nikmazur and Dart 2007 only have

Relax, you destroyed the bridge, there's nothing you can do, no matter how much poison you spray, it won't recover.

Quote: Dart2027

Bridge over the Seim River (Putivl-Sumy route).
Logistics bridge in Akhtyrka.
Bridge over the Vorskla River (Lugovka village, Velikopisarevskaya community).
Bridge in the Miropol community.
Bridge over the Psel River.
The first thing a search engine returns. But those who want to doom everything can't read that.

[alexoff]

What's the cost of a crate of shells? How many bombs will a Sukhoi bomber lay in a sortie? It can cover more than one target, after all.

Quote: dementor873

The cost of St. John's wort, carrying 5 kg per 10 km, is 1000 dollars.

Where does this amount come from? How much does an RPG-7 shot cost?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

Apparently there are so many drones that there is nowhere to put them.

The "everything's bad" sect's witnesses aren't sleeping. You yourselves constantly shout that "bridges aren't being destroyed," but you're still dissatisfied.

[alexoff]

You must explain to the soldiers that this is useless, because instead of a bridge, three crossings will appear at once.

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

After all, instead of a bridge, three crossings will appear at once

It will grow. But these crossings will once again be under attack from cheap and widespread drones, practically at point-blank range, and this will only last for a very short time, and then our forces will eliminate the enemy on this bank.
For the witnesses of the "everything is bad" sect, this is, of course, too difficult.

[alexoff]

For the cult's witnesses, "command doesn't attack bridges because they can't hit them," and for some unknown reason, drones are spent on bridges to later catch vehicles at the crossing, since catching vehicles on the same bridge is somehow too difficult. But for the cult's witnesses, the leadership's logic is generally very short and mutually exclusive, so this isn't surprising.

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

For witnesses of the sect, "command doesn't attack bridges because they can't hit them."

Quote: Dart2027

So the difference between a bridge across the Dnieper and a bridge across some small river is unclear to you?

The logic of those who want to do away with everything is very short and mutually exclusive, nothing surprising.

[alexoff]

A witness to the genius of command, who believes that the boss is always right because there is a difference, and it's always someone else's fault. Let's expand on this thought. I'm ready to fully analyze everything logically. Try to stay on topic, and we'll fully analyze it. I'm even ready to admit my mistakes and ignore the insults. Come on, use your logic; I'm sure you have it.

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

The witness is a genius command that believes that the boss is always right because there is a difference and it is always someone else's fault.

Can you speak Russian?
I have already written about logic.

Quote: Dart2027

The "everything's bad" sect's witnesses aren't sleeping. You yourselves constantly shout that "bridges aren't being destroyed," but you're still dissatisfied.

[alexoff]

Apparently, the particularly gifted Dart2007's command is in charge of the FPV drones, not the soldiers on the ground, who have been destroying bridges within their reach with everything they can from the very beginning. But the commanders' defenders have their own logic: they don't destroy bridges with missiles because it's impossible, and the soldiers are tinkering with whatever they can because, well, what are you dissatisfied with?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

The especially gifted Dart2007 apparently has command over the FPV drones, not the soldiers on the ground, who from the very beginning have been covering the bridges within their reach with everything they could.

That is, you are unhappy that the soldiers destroyed the bridge.

Quote from alexoff

Bridges are not destroyed with missiles because it is impossible

Quote: Dart2027

So, the difference between a bridge across the Dnieper and a bridge across some small river is unclear to you? Such bridges have been torn down before.

[alexoff]

Quote: Dart2027

That is, you are unhappy that the soldiers destroyed the bridge.

So, you essentially have nothing to say? Are you just copying yourself—if you wrote it, it must be true? Well, let me quote myself.

Apparently, the especially gifted Dart2007 has command over the FPV drones, not the soldiers on the ground.

I have nothing to say to you, I told the truth, you are especially gifted

Quote: Dart2027

So, the difference between a bridge across the Dnieper and a bridge across some small river is unclear to you? Such bridges have been torn down before.

What's the difference with the bridges across the Dnieper? That they're not being touched because the soldiers can't reach them?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

So you essentially have nothing to say? You're like a copycat of yourself.

Well, it’s not my fault that you don’t get it.

Quote from alexoff

I have nothing to say to you, I told the truth, you are especially gifted

The especially gifted alexoff (Alexander) apparently has a really hard time coming up with more nonsense, since he's trying to refute me for things I never wrote, even after I asked him to express himself more clearly.

Quote from alexoff

What's the difference with the bridges across the Dnieper?

The fact that they are much larger and were built to different standards.

[alexoff]

Quote: Dart2027

Well, it’s not my fault that you don’t get it.

It dawned on me that you were talking nonsense. Did I understand correctly that that was the goal? Well, good!

Quote: Dart2027

The especially gifted alexoff (Alexander) apparently has a really hard time coming up with more nonsense, since he's trying to refute me for things I never wrote, even after I asked him to express himself more clearly.

The exceptionally gifted Dart2007 has it all figured out. He's proven 100% that he's exceptionally gifted and just talking nonsense, but what can you do? Why cast pearls if you have nothing to say?

Quote: Dart2027

The fact that they are much larger and were built to different standards.

That's why bombs fly at heavily fortified forest belts, and drones at bridges. But if the brass isn't sending bombs and Iskander missiles at bridges (even though an Iskander was enough to collapse a span of what remains of the Antonov Bridge), then that's how it has to be. And drones are needed, too. Because that's the goal. I think we should drop you on the bridge; you'll probably smash through the Preobrazhensky Railway Bridge with your forehead, which was built according to standards and technology that make it impenetrable to anything. It's complicated, so it's impossible to hit. Are you against striking bridges across the Dnieper?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

It dawned on me that

There was nothing to say and you started talking more nonsense.

Quote from alexoff

In a particularly gifted person

alexoff (Alexander) is running out of attempts to say anything intelligent. I noticed.

Quote from alexoff

(although Iskander was enough to collapse the span of the remains of the Antonov Bridge)

Oh, did you really know that the Antonovsky Bridge wasn't destroyed by Haimars rockets? As a reminder, it was hit by MLRS, then our sappers blew it up, planting explosive charges without any hassle, but then some of the spans had to be finished off with Iskander rockets.

Quote from alexoff

and drones on bridges

I already know that any success of the Russian Armed Forces makes you furious, but the bridge was still brought down.

Quote: Dart2027

Bridge over the Seim River (Putivl-Sumy route).
Logistics bridge in Akhtyrka.
Bridge over the Vorskla River (Lugovka village, Velikopisarevskaya community).
Bridge in the Miropol community.
Bridge over the Psel River.
The first thing a search engine returns. But those who want to doom everything can't read that.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Dart2027

You yourself constantly shout that "bridges don't collapse"

And that there are few drones.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

What about the deputy, General Gurulev? He claimed that bridges are indestructible!

[Dinic]

Kartapolov, not Gurulev.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

Kartapolov, not Gurulev. It's as bad as one of two. One is worth the other.

[gsev]

Quote: Dinich

Kartapolov, not Gurulev. It's as bad as one of two. One is worth the other.

Kartapolov is indeed demanding that bridges in Ukraine not be attacked. He's demanding nuclear strikes on Ukrainian cities.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Sobolev is worth both of them. His mere demand to shave is truly significant. After all, glamour, like in the Napoleonic Wars, is unavoidable, based on his convictions.

[Alexey Lantukh]

bridges cannot be destroyed

Compared to large bridges, this is not a bridge, but a small bridge.

[Radik Mukharyamov]

Ours can't destroy this, but for some reason they destroy our bridges and even hit moving locomotives. The bastards, of course, hit civilians, but they still hit.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Radik Mukharyamov

It is impossible for us to destroy this, but for some reason they destroy our bridges.

So how much did they destroy? Just in case, let me remind you – our sappers blew up the Antonovsky Bridge.

[alexoff]

Quite a few, I remember at the beginning of the invasion of Kursk Oblast, they killed three in a couple of days. How many are we in Sumy Oblast?

[Dart2027]

Quote from alexoff

How long have we been in Sumy Oblast?

Bridge over the Seim River (Putivl-Sumy route).
Logistics bridge in Akhtyrka.
Bridge over the Vorskla River (Lugovka village, Velikopisarevskaya community).
Bridge in the Miropol community.
Bridge over the Psel River.
The first thing a search engine returns. But those who want to doom everything can't read that.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Dart2027

The first thing the search engine shows

Add:

About bridges

The Russian Armed Forces significantly complicated the enemy's logistics in New York (Novgorodsky) by striking a bridge near Shcherbinovka.
Russian troops launched a second attack on the railway bridge in Zatoka, Odessa Oblast.
Isolation of the combat zone: a FAB-3000 strike destroyed the bridge over the Dnieper in Kherson.
A FAB-3000 strike destroyed a bridge used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to supply supplies to Konstantinovka.
The Russian Armed Forces destroyed the bridge over the Konka River in Orekhovo, depriving the Ukrainian Armed Forces garrison of transport communications with Zaporizhzhia and Huliaipole.
Russian aircraft destroyed the bridge across the Mokrye Yaly River, which the Ukrainian Armed Forces used to supply the group in Maryinka.
The Russian Armed Forces destroyed a bridge over the Sladkaya River in the Pokrovsky direction of the DPR with a Kh-38 missile.
The Russian Armed Forces destroyed the bridge over which the Ukrainian Armed Forces were delivering reinforcements and ammunition to Pokrovsk.
There are fewer and fewer escape routes: a FAB-3000 missile has destroyed the bridge near the village of Kazachya Loknya.
Russian aircraft destroyed a bridge in the Hulyaipole region of Zaporizhzhia Oblast with a bombing strike.
Russian forces destroyed the bridge across which aid was being sent to the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Artemovsk.
The Russian Armed Forces destroyed a bridge used for supplying Ukrainian Armed Forces groups in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.
The Russian Aerospace Forces destroyed several more important bridges near the front line, which were used to supply the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

This is a quick search on VO about three months ago.
What's funny is that in every thread, the commentators are surprised, as if it's the first time, and come up with the same sparkling jokes, like "what was possible like that?", they are indignant about Apache only now, and, of course, they suffer for the Dnieper bridges.

[Elektronik2000]

You're brilliantly contradicting yourself with this list. It demonstrates how important the destruction of bridges is for disrupting enemy logistics, and that our military understands this perfectly well and can destroy them. But only when these bridges aren't across the Dnieper, meaning they have only tactical, not strategic, significance. Bridges across the Dnieper aren't even being attacked. At all. Which is extremely strange, considering that even a short-term disruption to traffic across a strategic bridge can cause critical damage to the Ukrainian Armed Forces' defenses. It would be understandable if they were even regularly and unsuccessfully attempting to attack them; then it would be obvious that the Russian Armed Forces' capabilities are insufficient. But when these same Russian Armed Forces successfully destroy or damage bridges across any river except the Dnieper, and despite the success of these actions, don't even attempt to replicate this with the Dnieper bridges, you won't be able to rationally explain this.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Elektronik2000

How important is the destruction of bridges for disrupting enemy logistics?

And what exactly is a logistics disruption? Everyone keeps harping on about it, but I get the feeling few can clearly articulate the concept. Incidentally, I've never encountered one from the military themselves—information reports don't count, since they're intended for civilians.

Quote: Elektronik2000

Our military understands this perfectly well

If professional military personnel don't do something, even though they understand it perfectly well, it means you, as an amateur, don't understand something. Seems like a logical conclusion, right?

Quote: Elektronik2000

I won't be able to explain this to you rationally

That's true—it won't work. I've already tried to figure it out. But it turns out that understanding rationality varies. Just like understanding itself. Ultimately, it all boiled down to a mindless, massive downvote.

[Elektronik2000]

It's so curious when people with no answers resort to banal empty talk. You cited a list of bridges destroyed by the Russian Armed Forces. Each of these bridges was destroyed to hinder the movement of troops and ammunition; this is precisely what's called a logistics disruption. Otherwise, the destruction of these bridges would have been pointless, as it would have had no impact on the course of military operations. Is that enough, or will you continue to evade this awkward question with verbal equilibristics?

If professional soldiers don't do something, even though everyone understands it, there's only one reason for it—the absence of an order from command. Once again, you've avoided an awkward question. Twice that's an unsightly trend.

You didn't even attempt to explain why, while the Russian Armed Forces are capable of destroying bridges on other rivers and waterways in Ukraine, the bridges across the Dnieper remain absolutely inviolable. You immediately diverted from the very straightforward question into yet another verbal juggling act. That's why you're being downvoted. Incidentally, I understand you perfectly. For a very large number of people, even the possibility of any conflict between their core beliefs and facts and arguments that contradict them is unbearable. This is precisely the purpose for which the mass propaganda machines of all states have worked and continue to work. Those here who sincerely fail to understand and find no rational explanation for the fact that, on the one hand, the Russian Armed Forces are adept at destroying or damaging any bridges in Ukraine except those across the Dnieper are not agents of the Center for Social and Political Studies (CIPSO seems to have the same taboo topic of bridges as the Russian media, apparently afraid to jinx it :)). We simply don't understand why not only isn't the most powerful realistic means of quickly ending the Second World War with our victory being used, but why isn't even an attempt being made to use it. We may be dismissed as fringe figures and amateurs (though, for example, I'm a trained bridge engineer and believe I have more information about bridge-destroying methods and capabilities than many), but we simply can't find a rational explanation for this astonishing fact, especially given the protracted fighting.

At the same time, even the real fringe figures who, instead of even attempting to damage the bridges across the Dnieper, are calling for the immediate use of tactical nuclear weapons, and even against the EU (well, we see, to avoid further suffering), for some reason don't evoke the same hostility from the "bridge sanctity sect," probably because you, too, understand that this is complete nonsense, while with bridges you have to drown out your own doubts with aggressive hostility.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Elektronik2000

If professional soldiers don't do something, even though everyone understands it, there is only one reason for this - the absence of an order from the command.

And you personally are not only a bridge builder, but also a professional military man, and you know exactly what they can and cannot do?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Dart2027

what they can and can't do

The main question here isn't even that, but rather to what end and by what means. Both must be clearly formulated, supported by figures, and implemented in the form of an operational plan with orders for specific combat missions.
Suggestions like "let's bomb everything to destroy logistics and win quickly" are not popular with the military.

[Dart2027]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Suggestions like "let's bomb everything to destroy logistics and win quickly" are not popular with the military.

But it is used by the "military".

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Elektronik2000

The destruction of each of these bridges was carried out in order to make it difficult to transport troops and ammunition across it; this is what is called a disruption of logistics.

No, this is called combat zone isolation and is carried out within the framework of a specific military operation, when the destruction of bridges is coordinated with other actions.
The military doesn't even know the term "logistics disruption." Unlike armchair strategists, who, admittedly, don't distinguish between a "combat zone" and a "theater of combat operations."

Quote: Elektronik2000

If professional soldiers don't do something, even though everyone understands it, there is only one reason for this - the absence of an order from the command.

Aren't the commanding officers military men? They understand everything, too, but they don't do what you think they should do. And the simplest explanation is that the military's understanding doesn't match yours. Obviously, right?

Quote: Elektronik2000

You didn't even try to explain why.

I told you I've already tried, and more than once. Nobody cares.
If you're interested, you can search the comments; I'm too lazy to repeat myself. Especially since I already know how it ends.

Quote: Elektronik2000

I understand you perfectly, by the way. For a very large number of people, even the possibility of any conflict between their inner convictions and facts and arguments that contradict them is unbearable.

You don’t understand at all – I don’t have any conflicts.
By the way, your wording suits you perfectly.

Quote: Elektronik2000

The Russian Armed Forces are excellent at destroying or damaging any bridges in Ukraine, except for those across the Dnieper... we sincerely do not understand why not only is the most powerful of the real means of quickly ending the SVO with our victory not being used

Because it's not the most powerful, or perhaps even a non-option? It seems like a simple fact, all things considered, but because it contradicts your beliefs, you studiously ignore it to avoid internal conflict—so to speak, "silencing your own doubts with aggressive rejection."

Quote: Elektronik2000

That's why you're getting downvoted.

No, downvotes are given for ideological reasons—for an unenthusiastic outlook, for example. Or for diverging from the general line of the turbo-patriotic party of all-shit-suckers.

[Wratch]

The other day, Solovyov was yelling like crazy, waving his leg, and demanding that the bridges over the Dnieper be destroyed. He was shouting that everything needed for this was in place, and that it wasn't a lie. Even though he'd said it a month ago, and then shouted again, that it was impossible. That's how opinions change, the only reason why...

[Sobol]

Quote from Wratch

The other day, Solovyov was yelling like crazy, waving his leg, and demanding that the bridges over the Dnieper be destroyed. He was shouting that everything needed for this was in place, and that it wasn't a lie. Even though he'd said it a month ago, and then shouted again, that it was impossible. That's how opinions change, the only reason why...

Solovyov has been shouting about this and more for a long time. But the bosses don't listen. Is this humanism, businessism, stupidity, or just plain betrayal? That is the question.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

I'm a bridge builder by training. There are no indestructible bridges for Russian weapons.

[Ravik]

In principle, nothing eternal exists.
The main thing is that there is a desire to destroy the bridges...

[sir Garry]

The Dnieper River and its bridges are nearby. That would require about 100 drones... and 20 years... Maybe we could use something nuclear?

[aybolyt678]

Quote: sirGarry

Maybe I should hit him with something nuclear???

We won't wait... the doctrine doesn't allow it. Let them kill our citizens, let them burn our oil industry, there's no threat to the state, we can't use nuclear weapons. Someone should at least propose a petition to expand the possibilities for using nuclear weapons.

[Victor Alien]

A 3-ton bomb wouldn't hit or knock out the bridge supports, no way?! And even 10 of those that could hit the same spot wouldn't be able to do anything to the bridge?! And here, apparently, the soldiers are tired of waiting for a separate order from the Air Force or artillery. I suppose they could have adapted a drone with a 152mm shell. Apparently, crane-wing bombers can't do that either?! Apparently, everything really depends on specific commanders at specific points. And not those higher up, but those closest to the soldiers.

[your1970]

Quote: Victor Alien

A 3-ton bomb wouldn't hit the bridge supports and wouldn't be able to knock them out, would it?! And even 10 of those bombs that could hit the same spot wouldn't be able to do anything to the bridge at all?!

It was easy to get into "I Serve the Soviet Union" - but not in reality.

Quote: Victor Alien

Yes, I think they could also adapt a drone with a suspended 152 mm projectile.

7 kg of explosives with a total weight of 45 kg.
Do you know many drones that can lift such a weight and deliver it?

[alexoff]

Quote: your1970

It was easy to get into "I Serve the Soviet Union" - but not in reality.

In reality, you can't throw a bomb at a bridge, you can throw it into a forest belt as much as you like, but a bomb hits a bridge so poorly that they're not launched over long distances, otherwise there would be shame and war.

[sir Garry]

Quote: Alexey Koshkarov

There are no indestructible bridges for Russian weapons.

Balm for my ears!

[Sayno]

Poor Russian people
What's going on that we have to blow up the bridge like this?????

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sayno

What's going on that makes it necessary to blow up the bridge like this?

Were the drone drivers bored?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In your opinion, all they do there is have fun. They have nothing better to do than waste their ammunition.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

In your opinion, all they do there is have fun.

You said that. I didn't say that.

[Alexander_K]

Not long ago, a video was posted here of a drone flying into the entrance hall of a panel building, and the entrance collapsed. I'm guessing that drone was larger; one of it would have been enough to cover this bridge. And if they figure out how to combine the UMPK glide bomb with the Geranium, any stationary object across Ukraine could be reduced to rubble.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Alexander_K

If they figure out how to mix the UMPK glide bomb with Geranium

The idea isn't hard to come by. But how to actually combine a bomb weighing at least one and a half tons with a Geranium that weighs a hundred kilos... that's the problem.

[Alexander_K]

How do you actually mix a bomb weighing at least one and a half tons and Geranium?

This can be solved by calculations or in practice. Solutions include increasing the UMPK's wing area, a fairing for the bomb, etc. A similar approach to the AN-2 Kukuruznik would be used to reduce costs: wide wings for the bomb, even a hang glider, a regular Geranium on top, and a high-speed launch from a pickup truck or a heavy-duty vehicle. There are many solutions, if only there were a willingness.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Alexander_K

Solutions include increasing the UMPK wing area, the bomb fairing, etc., similar to the AN-2 Kukuruznik.

It’s possible, but it won’t be Geranium at all, but something like V-1.
Again, the problems with large drones aren't just technical, but also operational and tactical – they're more difficult to transport and launch, and they're more vulnerable to air defenses, despite the fact that there will be fewer of them than Geraniums anyway. And if we improve their survivability through speed and ultra-low altitude, we'll have a fully-fledged cruise missile.
Simple scaling rarely works.

[Alexander_K]

Even if that's the case, the question remains: will it work or not? This can only be tested in practice. A large wing doesn't mean it's expensive. And most importantly, if all these issues can be resolved, the undertaking will be worth it. I cited aerial bombs and the UMPK as examples because there are many of them and their shelf life expires. You could simply scale up the Geranium itself by increasing the explosive content by orders of magnitude. Well, you could also add a propellant accelerator. The cost would remain low.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Alexander_K

This can only be verified in practice.

In fact, preliminary calculations have been used for a long time, even for nuclear weapons. And calculating the effectiveness of such a super-heavy Geranium is no problem at all. I don't think anyone hasn't considered it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The question is actually complicated. I thought the T-72 could destroy a building with one or three shots. Experience has shown that the full complement of ammunition may not be enough. Even a 152mm self-propelled gun can sometimes be insufficient to bring down a house or a building. You have to bring out a 203mm gun, like they did during the assault on Berlin.

[Raw238]

Half the comments are complete nonsense! Fabs, rockets, geraniums... what else have we forgotten? How much do 43 of the cheapest FPV drones cost (I don't think they were slapping on expensive ones)? And how much does a FAB-500 with a UPMK cost? And how much do Geraniums cost? And how much does an hour of flight in a Su-34 cost, with the risk of losing both the aircraft and the pilot? (Any flight is a risk!) For those who don't get it, add the cost of a FAB-500 with a UPMK. I won't even mention Kalipers and Iskanders... But the most important thing is how much of this stuff is needed to guarantee the destruction of both the canvas and four supports! The only answer is 43 FPV drones.

[nepunamemuk]

While 43 drones are being sent out, you can lose more than one drone operator.

[Alexander_K]

How much does an hour of flight on a Su-34 cost, with the risk of losing both the aircraft and the pilot?

And how much are the lives of the soldiers who will be killed by weapons and ammunition transported across this bridge worth? Of course, we need to calculate the cost and effectiveness of using weapons. It's foolish to just bombard barns with Oreshnik, but the whole country is chipping in for FPV. It's the primary weapon in this war, and it can be used more effectively: for assault, for control and surveillance, and even against other FPVs. They save lives like nothing else.

[Festus]

Who said: "Material existence determines consciousness"?
In the case of bridges, it seems to be the other way around... ;-)

[DBR]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Yes, there are a dozen perfectly plausible explanations you could come up with. And ultimately, you'll never guess. This is the army, after all. And besides, it's not war, where such twists and turns happen that no science fiction writer could dream up.

In Tehran, one of the capital's main bridges was destroyed by Israeli shelling:
The bridge connected Tehran with the northern regions. It is considered one of the most complex engineering structures in Iran.
They're completely wild there in Israel – they don't know about the Russian General Staff's innovative strategy for air strikes, which says that hitting bridges is useless, impractical, and even impossible...
By the way, the destruction of bridges is a standard US doctrine for destabilizing supply logistics, which was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia.

[your1970]

Quote: DBR

Quote from: nik-mazur

Yes, there are a dozen perfectly plausible explanations you could come up with. And ultimately, you'll never guess. This is the army, after all. And besides, it's not war, where such twists and turns happen that no science fiction writer could dream up.

In Tehran, one of the capital's main bridges was destroyed by Israeli shelling:
The bridge connected Tehran with the northern regions. It is considered one of the most complex engineering structures in Iran.
They're completely wild there in Israel – they don't know about the Russian General Staff's innovative strategy for air strikes, which says that hitting bridges is useless, impractical, and even impossible...
By the way, the destruction of bridges is a standard US doctrine for destabilizing supply logistics, which was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia.

Until now, the US has not attacked countries that have any decent air defense.

[Dart2027]

Quote: DBR

By the way, the destruction of bridges is a standard US doctrine for destabilizing supply logistics, which was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia.

And that the air defense of Iran and Yugoslavia was supported by the entire NATO intelligence service?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: DBR

Destroying bridges is standard US doctrine for destabilizing supply logistics, as was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia.

I can't say anything about Yugoslavia - there was no ground operation there, no one sent any help from outside, and it's somehow unclear why NATO was attacking the bridges.
But in Iraq, the Americans, it seems, were unaware that the destruction of bridges is a mandatory doctrine, and not only did they not attack the bridges, but, on the contrary, they captured and guarded them:

Abrams tanks blocked Baghdad's central bridge, thus taking control of the Iraqi capital's main street.

This is from the news at the time.
And these are illustrations. And there are plenty of such photos. But there are few of those of destroyed bridges. Meanwhile, of the thirteen bridges in Baghdad, three were destroyed, not by the Americans, but... unexpectedly... by truck bombs.
This is such a ̶d̶o̶c̶t̶r̶i̶n̶a... an oil painting that doesn't quite fit into the simple and understandable little world of armchair strategists.

[Severe_gopher]

Until now, the US has not attacked countries that have any decent air defense.

Your idea is clear!
And is the USA "it"?
Or is everything here "illiterate"?

[Ivan Kuzmich]

The bridge is built. Well done!

But the infantry will pass through it without getting their feet wet.
And among our Bandera brothers there will be a smart head on how to restore the bridge with minimal losses, so that at least passenger vehicles can drive across it for the transfer of manpower, and ammunition
For example, I would bring two trucks of crushed stone to the lowland to reduce the steepness of the climb (but without a real picture of the bridge, solving the problem from afar may not be easy)
The key word for me is WOULD

[DBR]

Quote: your1970

Until now, the US has not attacked countries that have any decent air defense.

Any decent air defense system can't withstand a massive attack. Israel is a case in point. I think the Chongar Bridge, for example, was effectively covered and yet still destroyed. It surprises me why we don't retaliate by destroying bridges on enemy territory en masse.

[squid]

Did they agree to all this?! We're not touching the bridges!

[Vladimirsky]

So, what a bridge. A bridge over a dry river. However, 20 meters away, the embankment across it is visible in the photo. It's more like a bridge over a puddle.

[aleks.29ru]

A good way to utilize FPVs. They could have stopped 43 vehicles on this bridge.

[mad-max78]

Satisfied with the flaming asses of the guards.

[Dart2027]

Quote from: mad-max78

Satisfied with the flaming asses of the guards.

Those who are in for the doom of all are the most enraged, so much so that they choke on bile from anger.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In fact, the most harmful comrades try to prevent the problem from being solved, not to mention even prevent it from being seen. It's comparable to working for the enemy.

[red_fear]

Kyiv's airports are open, European politicians come here as if they were at home, eating in restaurants, picking up Ukrainian prostitutes, nightclubs are open, there's a Ukrainian parliament, not a single Ukrainian politician or security official has been blown up in their apartment building, they're not afraid of anything. Is this war?

[Silba]

Apparently, to avoid destroying the bridges across the Dnieper, the guys aren't being given powerful concrete-breaking weapons. They had to use dozens of UAVs, which would have easily hit the vehicles trying to cross. Although, the division commander should have a more powerful weapon in his arsenal. In any case, praise and honor to our guys, they do this more often!