Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,382
- Location
- ST4
Who the hell goes up their for a smoke?
I think the next few weeks in Russia week be very interesting
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,646
I suppose its possible, it is really puzzling.
It looks like the roadway has lifted and in doing so torn itself away from the more distant break, it has then landed to the side and broken. But the video and burn marks look like they were above the road. The explosion is very flamy and I do wonder if it was a fuel/air weapon, but I'm not convinced the vacumn from one would be strong enough to lift the deck.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,467
- Location
- Macclesfield
lol, well he would wouldn't he
Actually, looking at the scorch marks on the road, it probably was a truck, weird that could do so much damage.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I would guess there is an open latticework structure between and aside the rail tracks to save weight in the bridge itself, so a blast on the train could somewhat dissipate downwards through such a none solid surface.
But I am just musing as to how it may have been implemented to show the results the limited public photographic coverage is showing.
Ahh, wait, sorry, the device you envisage is something that consumes a vast amount of air in its detonation and burning and creates a vacuum from that rapid consumption?
Last edited:
I would argue against the prevailing view on here that it was EFP explosives, a precision missile strike, thermobaric bomb, special forces rigging the bridge, drone boats or similar high tech operation.
The first reason is the explosion itself. All of the above produce "clean" explosions where all of the reactive part of the bomb is consumed and you are left with smoke and inert debris. This explosion looks far dirtier. When the flash dims you see burning debris raining down. It looks very similar to an ammo depot exploding. For example this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJvcVM6jvE
The burning debris is likely propellant from tank/artillery shells, missiles, mortars, incendiary rounds, packaging and so on.
This entirely makes sense for an improvised truck bomb. There are huge quantities of these munitions moving through Crimea on their way to the front line. With the professionalism displayed by the Russian Army it doesn't stretch credulity that several pallets of these could make their way onto a truck especially if the bomber took a job related to logistics.
The second is the damage caused. Images of the underside of the bridge show it to be clean of charring or obvious blast damage. The piers are all intact and undamaged.
Look at the guard rails on the bridge. These are torn off or bent outwards. It is especially noticeable that they are completely missing on one span of the still intact side. This shows the blast must have occurred on top of the deck. If the explosion had taken place beneath the bridge deck the guard rail would have been shielded from damage by the deck.
I would speculate a truck bomb of several tons at least detonated on top of the deck. The blast wave travelled out in all directions. Up into the sky, horizontally outwards tearing off the guard rails and leaving the visible charring, and also downwards. The downwards force would act to bend the bridge deck into a banana shape which also puts the ends of the deck section under huge tension. (imagine holding up two pencils with a string tied between them then get someone to push down on the middle of the string. You feel the pencils being pulled towards the centre)
As all the deck sections are fixed together the force is transferred along until the weakest points are revealed or the blast runs out of power. This explains why in two places sections separated without signs of explosions. They were torn off by tension generated at the explosion site.
As for who orchestrated the attack I wouldn't like to speculate!
The first reason is the explosion itself. All of the above produce "clean" explosions where all of the reactive part of the bomb is consumed and you are left with smoke and inert debris. This explosion looks far dirtier. When the flash dims you see burning debris raining down. It looks very similar to an ammo depot exploding. For example this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJvcVM6jvE
The burning debris is likely propellant from tank/artillery shells, missiles, mortars, incendiary rounds, packaging and so on.
This entirely makes sense for an improvised truck bomb. There are huge quantities of these munitions moving through Crimea on their way to the front line. With the professionalism displayed by the Russian Army it doesn't stretch credulity that several pallets of these could make their way onto a truck especially if the bomber took a job related to logistics.
The second is the damage caused. Images of the underside of the bridge show it to be clean of charring or obvious blast damage. The piers are all intact and undamaged.
Look at the guard rails on the bridge. These are torn off or bent outwards. It is especially noticeable that they are completely missing on one span of the still intact side. This shows the blast must have occurred on top of the deck. If the explosion had taken place beneath the bridge deck the guard rail would have been shielded from damage by the deck.
I would speculate a truck bomb of several tons at least detonated on top of the deck. The blast wave travelled out in all directions. Up into the sky, horizontally outwards tearing off the guard rails and leaving the visible charring, and also downwards. The downwards force would act to bend the bridge deck into a banana shape which also puts the ends of the deck section under huge tension. (imagine holding up two pencils with a string tied between them then get someone to push down on the middle of the string. You feel the pencils being pulled towards the centre)
As all the deck sections are fixed together the force is transferred along until the weakest points are revealed or the blast runs out of power. This explains why in two places sections separated without signs of explosions. They were torn off by tension generated at the explosion site.
As for who orchestrated the attack I wouldn't like to speculate!
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
maybe they are burning excessive gas?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,830
No, I expected Russia to put up a better show. Their performance has been shocking.
I didn't expect all of Ukraine to fall, due to the volume of declared support, but expected it to be much more difficult for them.
I certainly didn't expect Russia to be on the back foot. It's looking like they will lose all their gains, and it's possible crimea could go, too.
Well yes, probably Russia.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,467
- Location
- Macclesfield
A couple of tons of HE could easily have been hidden towards the front of the trucks load, I saw a vid of it being 'inspected', they just opened the back door and looked inside, then shut it again. No sniffer dogs used. I'm guessing the driver was not aware of what he was carrying and the bomb was remotely detonated. It could have been observed from some distance and if the contents had been discovered it would have been detonated where it was being looked at. It wasn't - so lucky for the saboteurs they watched it move across the bridge until it was close to the train and pushed the button*. Sharpnel would easily have penetrated the fuel train and set it ablaze.
*possible the saboteurs had help in the form of real-time satellite imagery without the need for someone on the end of a telescope...
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,646
Yes, a thermobaric weapon. Fourstar above maybe right though, I've been reasonably near high explosive bombs when they've been dropped and they don't at all look like the explosion on the bridge, which does look like a lot of the ammo dump explosion footage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,382
- Location
- ST4
Not strictly Ukraine, but...
Certainly could be using partitions or full cargoes of 'civilian' trucks to make up for Ukraine's anti-logistical strikes (+Russian corruption/incompetence) and as crude attempt to maintain OPSEC they've stupidly blamed it on it being a truck bomb.
The wave certainly looks odd but without more footage it's impossible to determine whether it is normal.
What you can however see is that the wave is not in the section of the bridge where explosion takes place. When the smoke clears you can see the guard rail intact on the span where the wave occurs but on the span where the explosion takes place and the deck collapses the guard rail is torn off.
Second half of this vid shows the security cam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-juPsPG6FE
Second half of this vid shows the aftermath on the bridge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RtpdQblrRY
My problem with the HIMARS theory is that Ukraine has more than one rocket, so why did they only launch one, why not multiple to make sure it collapsed totally
That certainly sounds plausible too. The burning debris could be whatever the explosives were hidden among.
ATACMS or Neptune missile?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
To still give Russia an escape route? I guess only Ukraine and Russia know exactly what happened and if it was a missile it probably suits Russia to say it was a lorry bomb.
- Status