Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[RoadAmerica]

What strategic reserve?

In a matter of weeks , if not days, there ain't gonna be no more Murica strategic reserve

What is new?

Murica cutting off own nose to spite the face in a brilliant Murican ploy conceived and executed by Nuland and menagerie of clowns and apes and Sleepy dotarding imbecile Joe

Are you ok?
Maybe seek professional help

 

[Hack-Hook]

That were underwater and overwater explosions. That caused less damages. The water absorb much of explosion energy.

sorry but you are completely wrong on that the water far notorious in transferring explosion shock-waves than air as its a lot denser, an explosion that have just thrown you away on the water , inside the water would have crush you .

When the fire burned for hours then the bridge steel structures are damaged beyond repair.

depend on how and where it burn , test it make a building like slab of concrete and make a fire inside it for 4 hours , then make a concrete slab and make a fire over it for 4 hours and see the difference of damage for yourself

 

[jhungary]

the problem is the road bridge actually didn't get completely destroyed if you consider that section of the bridge at 6 section it only damaged section 1-3-5 that were in contact with each other it didn't destroyed section 2-4-6 that were alongside it but had no contact with it and those section were just 1m away .
now the rail-road bridge it was 40-50m away and as you distance yourself from explosion the amount of energy you receive reduced by the power of 3 it mean at 40m you receive 64 time less energy than what you receive at 10m and at 50m you receive 125 time less energy than 10m also remain the question of that the railroad bridge is a lot stronger than the car bridge
then my question why an explosion that could not dislodge a plate that was only 1m away from the section it was on could made serious damage to a more robust structure 50m away

It did NOT need to be completely destroy.......If that happen, it only mean it suffered worse, it does not mean it did not suffer failure now.

On the other hand, you quite obviously do not know how radius blast damage work. First of all, you don't even know where the origin of the explosion is, secondly, a blast that big, 40 -50 meters is not really a matter, again, I am suspecting a 2000lb bombs or equivalent, that have a blast damage of 600 meters, so no, it set 50 meters away would not have any different.

And finally, just because the rail bridge did not felt it does not mean it took no damage. As I explained before, the heat damage is added ON TOP of the blast damage, which mean whatever the rail bridge suffered is going to be more than that road bridge and I would say if that bring down the road bridge, it would have been catastrophic, now unless Russia build that road bridge with crap material and shit engineering and that rail bridge on best material and detailed engineer calculation, the damage would be applies to the same loading to BOTH bridge, and just because it did not collapse, now, that does not mean it is not damaged beyond repair.

Now, I will say that one final time, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DAMAGE WERE DONE TO THE BRIDGE. As i said many times before, you have to see and inspect the bridge to know, but judging from the damages done to the other bridge and by a logical deduction, that bridge is gone, it will not be able to fix in just a few days. You can't lay a concrete or metal slab on top of it and call it fixed, I for one will not be willing to drive over that and bet my life on it if you know what I mean, I mean if you want to do that, that's up to you.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1578747952234799104

 

[sammuel]

Whoever did it had probably calculated how much dynamic was necessary to cause irreversible damage.

I agree it was well calculated.

Also this particular spot of the explosion , right before the bridge arches , on the Ukrainian side , must have carefully been chosen.

Not a bridge export , maybe someone can explain why they choose this particular spot before the arches ?



~

 

[jhungary]

on that i believe you are wrong , the burning happened on top of the bridge so the heat was taken away from the bridge not like a building which act like furnace

Whatever you say.......

Sure, Heat cannot radiate, and cannot be conducted with metal.

I mean, sure, there are only one way to suffer heat damage. Please do go ahead.

I agree it was well calculated.

Also this particular spot of the explosion , right before the bridge arches , on the Ukrainian side , must have carefully been chosen.

Not a bridge export , maybe someone can explain why they choose this particular spot before the arches ?



~

Load bearing issue,

We were taught in Ranger School if you want to bring down a bridge, you put explosive on the pillar, you do that if and when you need to denied your enemy to use it to attack you, it was done in a defensive manner, if you want to disable a bridge, you put bombs in between two pylons. You do that so your enemy cannot use it, you do this in offensive manner.

That's a load and momentum thing, if you attack and cut off the middle part of the bridge, you have 2 unhindged section instead of one jointed section, that will seriously weaken the bridge, and if you want it to bring down completely, you put c4 on their load bearing pillars. But then it will take time to mine the bridge, it is most likely done in defensive operation.

 

[Paul2]

The paradox of war on at the current stage now, if you are on the Ukrainian side, is that you have lower chance to die going into frontal assaults than to sit in trenches. The highest risk mission is doing recon/logistics in the greyzone. Russians do have drones too. Lingering within their arty reach will eventually attract a strike.

 

[Hack-Hook]

On the other hand, you quite obviously do not know how radius blast damage work. First of all, you don't even know where the origin of the explosion is, secondly, a blast that big, 40 -50 meters is not really a matter, again, I am suspecting a 2000lb bombs or equivalent, that have a blast damage of 600 meters, so no, it set 50 meters away would not have any different.

isn't it reduced cubed according to distance ? yes or no?
Isn't physiques law universal ? yes or no ?
does not it matter haw far you are from point blank the amount of damage you receive? yes or no ?
do you really believe it don't matter if the fire is on top of a armed concrete slab or it under under the slab ? yes or no?

and at last do you guys really are taught a blast under water damage you far less than a blast above water ?

Whatever you say.......

Sure, Heat cannot radiate, and cannot be conducted with metal.

I mean, sure, there are only one way to suffer heat damage. Please do go ahead.

you see it can , but which one is hotter burn 1 ton of fuel in a furnace or throw it on the ground in open and the burn it ?

 

[Viet]

sorry but you are completely wrong on that the water far notorious in transferring explosion shock-waves than air as its a lot denser, an explosion that have just thrown you away on the water , inside the water would have crush you .

depend on how and where it burn , test it make a building like slab of concrete and make a fire inside it for 4 hours , then make a concrete slab and make a fire over it for 4 hours and see the difference of damage for yourself

Diesel fuel can cause flame temperature of max 2,000C. 1h burn thru is enough to cause every steel concrete structure to collapse.

 

[jhungary]

isn't it reduced cubed according to distance ? yes or no?
Isn't physiques law universal ? yes or no ?
does not it matter haw far you are from point blank the amount of damage you receive? yes or no ?
do you really believe it don't matter if the fire is on top of a armed concrete slab or it under under the slab ? yes or no?

and at last do you guys really are taught a blast under water damage you far less than a blast above water ?

That's BS argument, because both you and I know nothing about how extensive the damage is. Which mean all of the above question are Yes and No at the same time, because we don't know where the origin of the blast. You are assuming it is on the road bridge side, we don't know. Unless you know something, I don't

And underwater blast did a different damage than ground blast. Underwater blast usually uses pressure to attack structural integrity, while ground blast are both pressure and explosive. Take an artillery shell as an example. when it attack a ground position, the explosive blast itself will done damage, but more are done to the concussion. On the other hand physic dictate any physical force will be dissipated in the water, which make blast damage done to a very limited area, but the pressure wave will not. Which mean the concussion damage remain.

 

[PakFactor]

Are you ok?
Maybe seek professional help

Ignore that idiot. The Chinese were short of talented trolls, so they picked that fool from the countryside.

 

[aziqbal]

A futile last ditch attempt. ISIS also used truck bombs but eventually lost Raqqa and Fallujah. Russia has 4 times Ukraine's population (pre war numbers). Ukraine cannot win.

meanwhile Chinese already Surender on behalf of Russia to the West

 

[kingQamaR]

my question do you knew it can't take the weight of the car also its intact if its up there it can be fixed and strengthened
if they close the bridge it don't mean it can't take the weight of car , it mean it need inspection before they determine it can be used again or not

From the footage I’ve seen , that bridge won’t be usable for a while. The roadway is hanging down in the water and the rail bridge looks like it’s not safe to use anymore either. The fire could weaken it further and cause it to collapse!

 

[ZeGerman]

Russia has finally entered the next phase of its war.

200-300k fresh troops will be injected. While even western media has reported that ukraines gone thru its regulars loong ago and is throwing any ukie it picks up on the street at gunpoint jnto the meat grinder

Fakenews 1.
Zelenski even canceled the autumn draft

And nobody is being dragged into service at gunpoint.

Russia is patiently organizing is forces for a massive attack that will break ukie necks.

Fakenews 2.
They are instead rushing troops in to plug the gaps.
On to fakenews 3. Troop amount was higher.
When only 90k Russian mobolized, it was easy for the ukies to mass forces against them, limit thinning out their forces , and predicting Russian movements.

Now the exhausted ukies will face a massive wave from many different fronts that will absolutely overwhelm and crush them

Morale is sky high and they just captured alot of material from the russians. Far from exhausted..just watch further gains shortly.

Ukies are throwing everything they have to force a political outcome before Russia mobilizes. By trying to show Russia is losing, and with terror attacks. This is to turn the Russians against putin and the government.

This is a fantasy. Putins approval rating is still astronomical, Russians are overwhelmingly supportive of their government and military mission, and are now royally pissed off and demanding overwhelming response

Support for war is slowly dropping.

I will enjoy the tears of our resident clowns and fake generals when the Russian offensive absolutely crushes your spirits and propaganda harder then the Russians crushed the 2 previous aggresive european armies that threatened Russia’s national survival

Sure buddy. With your shitposts…

 

[Viet]

I agree it was well calculated.

Also this particular spot of the explosion , right before the bridge arches , on the Ukrainian side , must have carefully been chosen.

Not a bridge export , maybe someone can explain why they choose this particular spot before the arches ?



~

Probably the weakest point of the bridge. This blast is the best news of the week. The days of russian troops at Kherson are numbered.