Think another way. How many explosives can you afford to carry in your truck without being detected at the checkpoint? Are you sure it wouldn't fit in that boat?
Nope, if you slow the vid down you not only see the explosion starts whilst the truck is still completely intact but that it also comes from below or to the side.
The wave you're seeing is 1: not a boat, amd 2: not under the span which bore the brunt of the explosion
Also, other angles clearly show the flame front originates on the road surface, not below.
You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
It wasn't a boat
>You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
correct
The wave you're seeing is 1: not a boat, amd 2: not under the span which bore the brunt of the explosion
Also, other angles clearly show the flame front originates on the road surface, not below.
You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
It wasn't a boat
And so why did the flame front not spill over the sides of the road, but rather originate on the road surface, like they would if it was a VBIED truck?
12 months ago
Anonymous
the flash is caught on tape in a few frames with the truck still intact.
I don't think the damage pattern is consistent with that. Standoff greatly reduces the effects of blast, read up on the difference between tamped and untamed charges in bridge demolition. The boat would have to be huge to do any meaningful damage. At which point the Russians would have noticed. It was probably a missile.
>deflagration type explosion with visible flamefront in videos >flamefront begins on top of road surface and propagates upwards then outwards >no vortexes of flames coming up around the bridge as they would if the explosion was from the waterline >water visible in videos, not a giant wavefront of water being pushed out due to exploding boat
your theory is weak
It wasnt a truck bomb either though. The explosion was located between the two trucks on the road. The truck that was farther away had alread begun to climb up to the suspended span part of the bridge, but the damaged part is clearly a good distance away from that.
Literally way too small for the explosion size. It was a massive fuel explosion that barely damaged the bridge, but just enough to make some of the sections cleanly collapse and render it unusable without heavy designated equipment that can't be pulled up and would still leave it out of service for months anyways.
You started off by saying something that is irrelevant and retarded. I'd tell you to look shit up but it's above your head by miles, there's a reason why nukes are airburst.
But literally speaking no, the bridge was barely broken (in multiple segments) which the pier's would obfuscate if the explosion was below the bridge.
The explosion was ontop of the bridge. It didn't go "up and around" the bridge, the bridge wasn't evaporated to allow the fireball to form the way it did, it started ontop and spread evenly.
Oh stop, and don't post the screencap showing the 'boat' under the bridge just before the explosion. This was a wave. You see identical white formations under the bridge before the explosion, and especially at the end of the video, a few more 'boats' are formed on the water surface and disappear
At least three spans of the bridge have been lifted and dislodged from their pillar sockets. This can only happen when lifting power comes from beneath, There is no damage to the upper side of the roads pavement . If it was an explosion on top, there would be craters and destruction on the top sucface, but the spans would stay in place.
The amount of ammonium nitrate that would fit into that tiny RC boat besides the engine and the fuel tank and the radio equipment would barely be able to crack the asphalt of the road above it, much less blow up the train way up above it too.
That would actually be possible. The latest StarLink satellite dishes can maintain satellite contact even in very adverse conditions, like on a moving boat so they could control it that way. SapceX has taken to transmitting the video feed of the rocket booster landings on their robot drone ships with their own StarLink system, and it doesnt cut out any linger when the booster lands.
>The U.K. is giving unmanned underwater vehicles to Ukraine and training Ukrainian personnel in Britain to use them to clear their coastline of mines. >Six autonomous minehunting vehicles will be sent to the country to help detect Russian mines in the waters off its coast.
https://seapowermagazine.org/uk-donating-undersea-minehunter-drones-to-help-ukraine-clear-coastline/
I work with these things. They can't carry any kind of payload at all.
What's stopping a probe being strapped with explosive?
[...]
I'm sure they are happy with the end results
The drone itself only weighs about a hundred pounds. It would take an order of magnitude more than that in explosives to do that shit to a bridge.
It's about as laughable as saying they blew it up with a moped.
they blew one of the vertical pier supports which made the rest collapse. Behold the angle of the central section of collapsed bridge. The lack of significant surface damage everywhere else confirms this. When blasts happen constraints redirect the energy; even a piece of plywood and tape is enough to direct a blast into steel. If this was a surface blast there would be significant scorching on the mostly undamaged lanes and the asphalt in the water. If this was an underwater blast the central pier supports wouldn't be there holding the drooping sections up at all. This was shaped charges or borehole drilled charges on one of the vertical cylinders of the pier only. BTW to destroy a bridge like this from the surface you would need about 32,000 blocks of C4 spread evenly on cut lines. With boreholes in the vertical pier you could do it with a couple backpacks worth of stuff. Vertical piers are supported internally by a welded rebar web; they're quite fancy but when the concrete is gone they don't hold weight and they sag quickly. Picrel is whats inside piers.
t. 12 years as cbt eng and now commercial blaster, 16yrs working w explosives daily
Le expert, 16 years of experience at garden gnomestein's Extreme Anal Blasting Company >here's my 500 page theory on the subject, you must trust the science I am a respected professional
Conscripted Ukrainian farmer turned sapper, after 3 months of training >just fill a truck with dynamite, bribe the checkpoint guards to let it through
unfortunately for your story, the vertical pier supports are clearly visible, present, and seemingly undamaged in the videos. also the blast comes from above the road bridge, not below it, not on it.
A truck explosion, even with just slow burning explosion like fertilizer, would increase the moment point live load pressure, especially on the middle of the spans enough to cause collapse. Once concrete under tensile pressure even begins to deflect slightly it's all ogre.
Plus the coincidence of specifically a fuel train loaded, being passing in the adjacent bridge. Probably determined when the truck should be set off. As you construct in sequences, you can destruct in sequences and cause chained problems.
Which is why it was the concrete spans targeted rather than the suspensed steel, which tensile strength could absorb soft fertilizer explosions
overall the attack seems to be only a partial success. They just poked the bear. The burning train didn't do anything, it didn't damage the road bridge or the train bridge.
In a western country not driven by absolute ego and cope, that bridge would definitively be considered "taken out" or at least something you don't want to drive a train with several hundred tonnes of cargo over due to the load bearing materials being weakened by excessive heat exposure. It would be locked down pending the complete replacement of any compromised sections and a new safety inspection.
In Russia, train bridge is fine. Just an unfortunate accident when 3 weeks down the line the bridge collapses with a train on it and takes out several sections
>Which is why it was the concrete spans targeted rather than the suspensed steel, which tensile strength could absorb soft fertilizer explosions
Insightful^
Concrete is used because it is cheaper than steel. It is not otherwise superior and the reinforcement strategies necessary to make it work are supporting (pun of course intended) evidence.
Bridges built with war aforethought would be more like military bridging which also (see WWII bridging in Europe) stands the test time. If steel is damaged torch out the problem and replace it.
So instead of a truck carrying a bomb it was a semi-submersible which went under the bridge and shot upward delivering the blow?
Extra points for bringing out the mentally challenged.
It's possible the railway was the target, but that the missile resolved its final approach and chose the roadway for some reason. The train itself may have been the intended target. It was loaded with fuel and moving at about 5 kph or so, which would have made it ideal to enhance the damage. The sensors & software analyzing the approach might have prioritized the road as the "more favorable" target and optimized the explosion for the road rather than the rail. But, it also seems it may have detonated at the height of the rail. When you watch the explosion light off, the train & rail light up like the heat flash from a nuke. The train appears to have been set on fire by the incidental heat. The water & roadbed would also have helped reflect the explosion back up. It's the same reason nukes have much more effect with an air burst rather than exploding when they contact the ground, this is just a smaller version of the same effect.
The railcarts were carrying jetfuel, something else caused that damage. The bridge was pre-wired with thermite demo charges.
I mean just look at the sparks.
And the Twin Towers were also pre-wired with several hundred tons of C4 and thermite. Please stop posting on the topic. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Put the complete image. Digital images are normally processed to remove noise, that extra brightness could be simply effect of the post processing, the last tells the exact moment when the CCD sensor was completely saturated.
i assume the idea was that if russians checked the truck it looks like a legit fertiliser shipment.
only underneath the top layer on AN prills, its mixed with diesel and shredded metal chaff
The underside is pretty damn clean, little to no soot or explosive residue, truck bomb is the easiest scenario to happen here.
Whoever inspected that truck is definitely dead now.
wow anons, would you look at that. top of road surface covered in signs of combustion. underside totally clean. turns out schizoposters were wrong and it wasnt a boat
course it fits the anfo truck theory. the explosion we saw is pretty clearly not a high explosive, due to the giant deflagration. but it was also powerful and destructive, which fits the profile of anfo, a "medium" explosive.
Fits with the ANFO truck theory
[...]
As far as I've seen, the train remains.
>Fits with the ANFO truck theory
Yet I've seen videos of ANFO with far better damage, they probably didn't get enough explosive booster to set off the ANFO+Al without containment.
It stands to reason that an aluminum box truck would let most of the energy escape upwards and to the sides instead of into the bridge. Path of least resistance is up and out rather than down through the chassis and concrete.
maybe it was a legitimate truck just carrying fertilizer that the Ukrainians planted a smaller charge within
12 months ago
Anonymous
You have to do a little extra preparation to Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer to get it to blow as far as I know. Just sticking a detonator in it wouldn't do the job.
12 months ago
Anonymous
on the other hand if some governmental agency can put whatever they want in a truck why even bother with this
12 months ago
Anonymous
i assume the idea was that if russians checked the truck it looks like a legit fertiliser shipment.
only underneath the top layer on AN prills, its mixed with diesel and shredded metal chaff
12 months ago
Anonymous
Then they could've put anything under the top layer. I do think your theory is compelling though
12 months ago
Anonymous
No, AN detonations dont make those sparks of incandescent metal and aluminum burning. This explosion looks like AN+Fuel+Al and or quite some incendiary load. Definetly not an accidental admixture.
>Yet I've seen videos of ANFO with far better damage, they probably didn't get enough explosive booster to set off the ANFO+Al without containment.
If it was put together by SBU in enemy territory, they'd have used what they could get.
overall the attack seems to be only a partial success. They just poked the bear. The burning train didn't do anything, it didn't damage the road bridge or the train bridge.
>overall the attack seems to be only a partial success
It let the world laugh at Putin on his birthday, which may have been the main point.
Would have been nice to completely shut down the bridge but if the trains stop rolling once the cameras leave, that will do too.
Just stating it again because obviously it needs repeating for people like
It's possible the railway was the target, but that the missile resolved its final approach and chose the roadway for some reason. The train itself may have been the intended target. It was loaded with fuel and moving at about 5 kph or so, which would have made it ideal to enhance the damage. The sensors & software analyzing the approach might have prioritized the road as the "more favorable" target and optimized the explosion for the road rather than the rail. But, it also seems it may have detonated at the height of the rail. When you watch the explosion light off, the train & rail light up like the heat flash from a nuke. The train appears to have been set on fire by the incidental heat. The water & roadbed would also have helped reflect the explosion back up. It's the same reason nukes have much more effect with an air burst rather than exploding when they contact the ground, this is just a smaller version of the same effect.
It was a truck filled with multiple tons of explosives, not a missile. The Ukrainians do not have anything with the range or yield to cause such an explosion.
An airburst munition wouldn't do this unless the bridge was made out of paper mache. Not to mention that the Ukies don't have anything big enough and with enough range.
you're gonna need a bigger boat.
Think another way. How many explosives can you afford to carry in your truck without being detected at the checkpoint? Are you sure it wouldn't fit in that boat?
blowing it up at the checkpoint would be sub optimal but not a total loss.
one the size of a truck
tell me about the black kayak
Looks like a self propelled semi-submersible (SPSS). Cartels use them to traffic cocaine
Seconded.
But what do the kids call them on the street?
who would win: the whole puccian black sea fleet or one little swimmyboi
>explosion happened on the top side of the bridge
nah
it was a carbomb or a rocket
No, it was from below.
Nope, if you slow the vid down you not only see the explosion starts whilst the truck is still completely intact but that it also comes from below or to the side.
>comes from below
Debunked
It was a drone boat
The wave you're seeing is 1: not a boat, amd 2: not under the span which bore the brunt of the explosion
Also, other angles clearly show the flame front originates on the road surface, not below.
You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
It wasn't a boat
>You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
correct
I think that's just a wave bro. Everyone is freaking out, I think it was just a couple of uke tbms.
looks more like it was that truck
Except the explosion comes from several spans away from that? Retard.
small square, large square is bow wave
And so why did the flame front not spill over the sides of the road, but rather originate on the road surface, like they would if it was a VBIED truck?
the flash is caught on tape in a few frames with the truck still intact.
>originate on the road surface
it didn't
I don't think the damage pattern is consistent with that. Standoff greatly reduces the effects of blast, read up on the difference between tamped and untamed charges in bridge demolition. The boat would have to be huge to do any meaningful damage. At which point the Russians would have noticed. It was probably a missile.
>It was a drone boat
No. It was not. You're too stupid to be on the Internet. Go away.
a wave hit it
a wave hit it?
Ever see what a seriously fat woman can do in a pool? One dive by LaQueefa and you have a storm surge of unstoppable foulness and power.
No. From:
No "boat" anywhere near the origin point.
Why have the dolphins betrayed RUSSIA?
Fucking HATO with their gay AQUAMAN! This means WAR!
This picture is hilarious considering Sevastopol itself doesn't even have proper anti-air defences.
It will be eben more hilarious when the bridge drops.
>pictured
>russian dreams and fantasy
this explains why the cope is that it was a suicide truck.
this looks like a 5-year-old's drawing of war make
believe
>deflagration type explosion with visible flamefront in videos
>flamefront begins on top of road surface and propagates upwards then outwards
>no vortexes of flames coming up around the bridge as they would if the explosion was from the waterline
>water visible in videos, not a giant wavefront of water being pushed out due to exploding boat
your theory is weak
It wasnt a truck bomb either though. The explosion was located between the two trucks on the road. The truck that was farther away had alread begun to climb up to the suspended span part of the bridge, but the damaged part is clearly a good distance away from that.
Literally way too small for the explosion size. It was a massive fuel explosion that barely damaged the bridge, but just enough to make some of the sections cleanly collapse and render it unusable without heavy designated equipment that can't be pulled up and would still leave it out of service for months anyways.
Water is incompressible, so force of the explosion would be directed upwards towards the bridge
Might not need as much explosive.
Also, such a tiny boat can easily povide enough lift for 500-1000 kg
You started off by saying something that is irrelevant and retarded. I'd tell you to look shit up but it's above your head by miles, there's a reason why nukes are airburst.
But literally speaking no, the bridge was barely broken (in multiple segments) which the pier's would obfuscate if the explosion was below the bridge.
The explosion was ontop of the bridge. It didn't go "up and around" the bridge, the bridge wasn't evaporated to allow the fireball to form the way it did, it started ontop and spread evenly.
>saying something that is irrelevant and retarded
Take a hard look in the mirror.
Oh stop, and don't post the screencap showing the 'boat' under the bridge just before the explosion. This was a wave. You see identical white formations under the bridge before the explosion, and especially at the end of the video, a few more 'boats' are formed on the water surface and disappear
Give it to me straight guys, is 4chan right?
Yes. This is a nothing burger. Everything is fine and Putin will probably carpet bomb Keev in retaliation.
Its 6:22pm they got less than 2 hours before their next xope
What makes a Newzealander to shill for ru**morons.
oceaniafags are mentally ill
At least three spans of the bridge have been lifted and dislodged from their pillar sockets. This can only happen when lifting power comes from beneath, There is no damage to the upper side of the roads pavement . If it was an explosion on top, there would be craters and destruction on the top sucface, but the spans would stay in place.
I bet it was filled with ammonium nitrate, of which Ukraine has plenty as an agricultural country.
reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/xmdz8l/ru_pov_video_of_the_drone_suicide_boat_that/
reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/xkhoz1/ru_pov_on_the_shore_of_sevastopol_washed_up_an/
The amount of ammonium nitrate that would fit into that tiny RC boat besides the engine and the fuel tank and the radio equipment would barely be able to crack the asphalt of the road above it, much less blow up the train way up above it too.
They used bigger boat. Small one was test run/recon to probe defenses.
That would actually be possible. The latest StarLink satellite dishes can maintain satellite contact even in very adverse conditions, like on a moving boat so they could control it that way. SapceX has taken to transmitting the video feed of the rocket booster landings on their robot drone ships with their own StarLink system, and it doesnt cut out any linger when the booster lands.
No one with an important target would use ammonium nitrate when military explosives exist and they have the whole EUsian catalog to enjoy.
How big is this thing? it only looks about 15 feet long
It looks to me as if they used at least two of these
What the fuck schizo shit are you retards talking about
Special military operation warfare and tactics
>The U.K. is giving unmanned underwater vehicles to Ukraine and training Ukrainian personnel in Britain to use them to clear their coastline of mines.
>Six autonomous minehunting vehicles will be sent to the country to help detect Russian mines in the waters off its coast.
https://seapowermagazine.org/uk-donating-undersea-minehunter-drones-to-help-ukraine-clear-coastline/
It was one of these
But those are just probes, OP's boat is an explosive device.
What's stopping a probe being strapped with explosive?
I'm sure they are happy with the end results
Bongs and Americans armed the Ukies expecting them not to improvise from their NATO plan and now their BTFO their expectations.
I work with these things. They can't carry any kind of payload at all.
The drone itself only weighs about a hundred pounds. It would take an order of magnitude more than that in explosives to do that shit to a bridge.
It's about as laughable as saying they blew it up with a moped.
they blew one of the vertical pier supports which made the rest collapse. Behold the angle of the central section of collapsed bridge. The lack of significant surface damage everywhere else confirms this. When blasts happen constraints redirect the energy; even a piece of plywood and tape is enough to direct a blast into steel. If this was a surface blast there would be significant scorching on the mostly undamaged lanes and the asphalt in the water. If this was an underwater blast the central pier supports wouldn't be there holding the drooping sections up at all. This was shaped charges or borehole drilled charges on one of the vertical cylinders of the pier only. BTW to destroy a bridge like this from the surface you would need about 32,000 blocks of C4 spread evenly on cut lines. With boreholes in the vertical pier you could do it with a couple backpacks worth of stuff. Vertical piers are supported internally by a welded rebar web; they're quite fancy but when the concrete is gone they don't hold weight and they sag quickly. Picrel is whats inside piers.
t. 12 years as cbt eng and now commercial blaster, 16yrs working w explosives daily
good post
Thanks for the expertise anon
How does 12 years of cock and ball torture engineering make you an expert on building demolition ?
anyway, good post
Le expert, 16 years of experience at garden gnomestein's Extreme Anal Blasting Company
>here's my 500 page theory on the subject, you must trust the science I am a respected professional
Conscripted Ukrainian farmer turned sapper, after 3 months of training
>just fill a truck with dynamite, bribe the checkpoint guards to let it through
then who was driver
unfortunately for your story, the vertical pier supports are clearly visible, present, and seemingly undamaged in the videos. also the blast comes from above the road bridge, not below it, not on it.
where are all the sparks coming from
thermite charges, the bridge was prewired to make Ukrainians look like terrorists.
This is a FSB operation.
A truck explosion, even with just slow burning explosion like fertilizer, would increase the moment point live load pressure, especially on the middle of the spans enough to cause collapse. Once concrete under tensile pressure even begins to deflect slightly it's all ogre.
Plus the coincidence of specifically a fuel train loaded, being passing in the adjacent bridge. Probably determined when the truck should be set off. As you construct in sequences, you can destruct in sequences and cause chained problems.
Which is why it was the concrete spans targeted rather than the suspensed steel, which tensile strength could absorb soft fertilizer explosions
overall the attack seems to be only a partial success. They just poked the bear. The burning train didn't do anything, it didn't damage the road bridge or the train bridge.
In a western country not driven by absolute ego and cope, that bridge would definitively be considered "taken out" or at least something you don't want to drive a train with several hundred tonnes of cargo over due to the load bearing materials being weakened by excessive heat exposure. It would be locked down pending the complete replacement of any compromised sections and a new safety inspection.
In Russia, train bridge is fine. Just an unfortunate accident when 3 weeks down the line the bridge collapses with a train on it and takes out several sections
>Which is why it was the concrete spans targeted rather than the suspensed steel, which tensile strength could absorb soft fertilizer explosions
Insightful^
Concrete is used because it is cheaper than steel. It is not otherwise superior and the reinforcement strategies necessary to make it work are supporting (pun of course intended) evidence.
Bridges built with war aforethought would be more like military bridging which also (see WWII bridging in Europe) stands the test time. If steel is damaged torch out the problem and replace it.
It was Rupert Murdoch's stealth ship.
>Bong agencies and Bond villains cooperate in helping Ukraine
So instead of a truck carrying a bomb it was a semi-submersible which went under the bridge and shot upward delivering the blow?
Extra points for bringing out the mentally challenged.
My question is why bother bombing out the roadway and not the railway? Russians transport EVERYTHING by rail, that would make more sense.
It's possible the railway was the target, but that the missile resolved its final approach and chose the roadway for some reason. The train itself may have been the intended target. It was loaded with fuel and moving at about 5 kph or so, which would have made it ideal to enhance the damage. The sensors & software analyzing the approach might have prioritized the road as the "more favorable" target and optimized the explosion for the road rather than the rail. But, it also seems it may have detonated at the height of the rail. When you watch the explosion light off, the train & rail light up like the heat flash from a nuke. The train appears to have been set on fire by the incidental heat. The water & roadbed would also have helped reflect the explosion back up. It's the same reason nukes have much more effect with an air burst rather than exploding when they contact the ground, this is just a smaller version of the same effect.
there was no missile
>inb4 single frame of video is white
yeah, rolling shutter + recording of a screen + low framerate exacerbating rolling shutter.
The railcarts were carrying jetfuel, something else caused that damage. The bridge was pre-wired with thermite demo charges.
I mean just look at the sparks.
And the Twin Towers were also pre-wired with several hundred tons of C4 and thermite. Please stop posting on the topic. You have no idea what you're talking about.
It's funny seeing the Ukrainians using terrorist tactics, first with Dugin and now this, while calling Russia a terrorist state.
No
Also the cops inspected the truck and waved it through.
They're russian tho. Incompetence is expected
yeah because it wasn't the truck. see
the blast originates above the road.
circle where the blast is coming from
nuclear airblast?
I wasn't going to dignify this with a response, but I really want you to know that I'm disappointed in you anon.
I will alleviate your pain by letting you know it was a joke?
Put the complete image. Digital images are normally processed to remove noise, that extra brightness could be simply effect of the post processing, the last tells the exact moment when the CCD sensor was completely saturated.
also, rolling shutter.
The only inspecting they did was on the rubles being put in their hands.
maybe their ADE 651 bomb detector was broken
Or the guards were simply paid off.
stop shelling apartments and city centres
>terrorism is how you make an explosion and not what you explode
You are a usefull idiot
The underside is pretty damn clean, little to no soot or explosive residue, truck bomb is the easiest scenario to happen here.
Whoever inspected that truck is definitely dead now.
time to stop coping and tune down the damage control. everything closest to epicenter is underwater.
wow anons, would you look at that. top of road surface covered in signs of combustion. underside totally clean. turns out schizoposters were wrong and it wasnt a boat
>it didn't damage the road bridge
uhh... anon?
the train didn't damage the road bridge, the result would have been the same had the train not been there.
Considering the truck was about as far from the train as it could be, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the primary target.
It blocked half the rail lines for the better part of the day. that is if they've even cleared it off yet
Very good photos anon.
The explosion looked very big but the damage by pressure isn't that big
Fits with the ANFO truck theory
As far as I've seen, the train remains.
course it fits the anfo truck theory. the explosion we saw is pretty clearly not a high explosive, due to the giant deflagration. but it was also powerful and destructive, which fits the profile of anfo, a "medium" explosive.
>Fits with the ANFO truck theory
Yet I've seen videos of ANFO with far better damage, they probably didn't get enough explosive booster to set off the ANFO+Al without containment.
It stands to reason that an aluminum box truck would let most of the energy escape upwards and to the sides instead of into the bridge. Path of least resistance is up and out rather than down through the chassis and concrete.
coukld have had a bad ratio of ammonium nitrate to fuel. too much fuel and yo uget a slower wavefront - i.e more deflagration, a "lower" explosive.
maybe it was a legitimate truck just carrying fertilizer that the Ukrainians planted a smaller charge within
You have to do a little extra preparation to Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer to get it to blow as far as I know. Just sticking a detonator in it wouldn't do the job.
on the other hand if some governmental agency can put whatever they want in a truck why even bother with this
i assume the idea was that if russians checked the truck it looks like a legit fertiliser shipment.
only underneath the top layer on AN prills, its mixed with diesel and shredded metal chaff
Then they could've put anything under the top layer. I do think your theory is compelling though
No, AN detonations dont make those sparks of incandescent metal and aluminum burning. This explosion looks like AN+Fuel+Al and or quite some incendiary load. Definetly not an accidental admixture.
>Yet I've seen videos of ANFO with far better damage, they probably didn't get enough explosive booster to set off the ANFO+Al without containment.
If it was put together by SBU in enemy territory, they'd have used what they could get.
>overall the attack seems to be only a partial success
It let the world laugh at Putin on his birthday, which may have been the main point.
Would have been nice to completely shut down the bridge but if the trains stop rolling once the cameras leave, that will do too.
Just stating it again because obviously it needs repeating for people like
It was a truck filled with multiple tons of explosives, not a missile. The Ukrainians do not have anything with the range or yield to cause such an explosion.
The bridge is fine, there is no damage. They'll have it fixed in a week or two.
https://streamable.com/bfhbb3
It wasn't a fucking drone boat jesus christ.
What the fuck is this? Someone taking a video of video on someone else's phone with their own phone? Also, fake.
That video seems to show two missiles but I only see one major explosion here
Maybe the truck was was carrying something flammable which burst when hit by a missile?
could have at least TRIED to make sure the arches were the right distance from the explosion
the missiles in the video come from the north east side of the bridge which is the direction where Ukraine is
fake like this video (Im too lazy to remove the audio and upload the webm)
yeah, that also *cmos sensor
OP here. I am now convinced it wasn't a boat. It was either the truck or some rocket that exploded in the air. Damn! I was so damn sure it was a boat!
An airburst munition wouldn't do this unless the bridge was made out of paper mache. Not to mention that the Ukies don't have anything big enough and with enough range.
would a drone boat of that size even carry enough explosive to do the damage we saw?