The Kerch Bridge Thread
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 301 Likes
on
138 Posts
The red circle thing is just a wave
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Devon
Age: 59
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That "wave" looks split by a stem, and for the video before hand, there is no similar "wave" which suggests it is not a "wave". Whether the boat is the cause of the explosion, I concur that the main blast appears to be in the channel next over from where the ? "Wave" is. If so, then it was an unfortunate experience for the boat in that channel,
Was the blast from above or below the deck? if below deck, it is either from the piles, and then it would reasonably expected that major damage would occur to the piles, no photos yet suggest that occurred. That would be from sabotage, or, of course a cigarette problem with prepared self destruct mechanisms.... which would be an own goal. If from below and not from a pile, it is from a..... boat/mine torpedo, take your pick. It is shallow water, most of those have issues.
What is not in question is the importance of Kerch is reinforced in the Russian's minds, and the bridge is at risk at this time, as it has been for a while. Necessity being the mother of invention, there are numerous ways to range the bridge, it is essentially untenable to have a presence in Crimea predicated on a ready target-able asset. The main take home from this is that the design of the bridge was sensitive to blast. That gives specific aiming points to target on the decks for the smaller payload munitions. The railway shows that it is not happy with a flammable load that gets a match anywhere near by. How long until the timing of train crossings gives good intel on putting drone missiles into the trains. Overall, it is a prime target and that is a problem to trying to hold the illegally annexed territory of Crimea.
Last edited by fdr; 9th Oct 2022 at 03:24. Reason: Correction
Early onset pareidolia 
pareidolia - the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern
not so earlyThe situation if it was a truck detonation is still problematic for Vlad.
The truck is coming across from the Russian end with a bomb on board, and has been through security according to Russian video. The driver of the truck is Russian, from the Kuban Oblast which is, the east end of the straits. 47% of the locals have Ukrainian as their primary language. Assuming he is completely innocent as a victim, he has to pick up a load and not know what it is, and then take it along a route that can be guessed at but the timing is up to his planning, so detonation has to be by a remote means, and that means either a position transponder, or an observation of the truck for the whole of it's journey, the detonation being triggered by some car behind. If they know what they are working with, then they also know that they are likely to be contained by the damage that the truck does when it goes off. Cell phone cover is good enough to track a truck there? An Uber truck?
The bridge by any means is vulnerable to a group that is intent to remove it's utility to Vlad. Ukraine can find a number of methods to range to the bridge, nothing that they have done so far suggests lack of imagination.
Could this be a false flag? Maybe, the outcome probably surprised everyone involved. Either way, the bridge appears to be a little sensitive to being messed with. The long term problem remains, it is not reliable for supply to Crimea, and that is the main thing. Previously, getting enough range out of a Tosca-U or similar didn't have an expectation of doing much damage on arrival. Right now, there is every indication that there are parts of the bridge that are sensitive to impact. The roadway is one thing; the railway is very exposed to an attack. If the local intel is good enough to track a truck on the bridge, it is going to be tracking trains. Russia still has a supply problem, that is easily fixed by their moving back to Russia.
Last edited by fdr; 9th Oct 2022 at 05:51.
Re the road bridge :
Personally I'm still minded towards the bomb-boat explanation. The under-bridge photo linked above is, in my opinion, looking at this wrong. Here is a helpful Maxar shot, taken from the north (NE) with the westbound (towards Crimea) side of the road closest to us. The shipping channel and high bridge is to the right. The wind at the time was blowing from the bottom of the Maxar picture towards the top of the maxar picture.
First observe that there has only been only one explosion and it took place where the sooting is on the surviving bridge deck.
Second if you look at the videos that blast is not just white homogenous smoke of a pure explosive, instead it is streaked with heterogenous coloured matter that indicates that something was mixed in it. Either an enhancer such as aluminium, and/or a jet slug such as copper, or perhaps both. It is hard to be sure what as the CCTV images are low quality. It was the spray from those particles that splashed at high velocity through the rail tank-wagons both penetrating the tank walls and setting fire to the now-leaking fuel cargo.
Third understand how that road bridge failed. That span was lifted upwards by a blast below it. The net thrust of the blast was slightly inboard of the longitudinal axis and has flipped the span slightly towards outboard so that when it landed back down it is flipped slightly northwards and displaced off its origninal bearing points. There is some evidence in the below-bridge picture that there is a hole in the piece of the bridge deck that was just above water level - I am not sure if that is happenstance or if that is a molten penetrator from an upwards-firing shaped charge. We would need close-up photos of the broken span-end to be sure either way. But irrespective that span lifted and failed into two pieces, then fell back. As it lifted it pulled the section to its right (towards the high-bridge / shipping channel) towards it i.e. the right-hand end of that section moved leftwards. That right hand end is an expansion joint segment and so it simply pulled away cleanly and fell off its support points and fell in the water without the span breaking in two - it has dropped into the water because its left hand end has been dispaced laterally (outboard). If you look to the left a couple more segments you see that a third section was similarly pulled off its bearers and has fallen at one end, but because it has only received a longitudinal pull and no lateral pull, the leftmost end has not fallen into the water. Instead it is most likely resting on the pile cap.Again this is where an expansion joint is located.
Fourth, the below-bridge shows very little sooting or other evidence of damage on the visible section of its right-side pile cap and pier. That indicates this was a directional explosion. I find it hard to imagine an ATACM warhead of 500kg punching through the bridge deck, exploding below, and doing so in such a way as to cleanly directionally explode backwards along its rocket motor axis. It seems to me much more likely that this was a c.1,000kg device carried by a bomb-boat that was shaped so as to blast predominantly upwards.
Fifth, there is no evidence I can discern as to which direction the bomb-boat would have conducted its final approach from. The most likely direction is from the Sea of Azov, but there is no evidence either way. Irrespective that is also not evidence that the general approach would have been from that direction - if anything the more likely oute would have been a hooked entrance from the seawards side.
Sixth. The SAM systems didn't go off. And if the Ukraine had ATACMs they would have had more than one and used them simultaneously so as to saturate the SAM defences. And they would definitely have targetted the rail bridge.
BUT - if better evidence comes to light then I'm sure we will hear about it. The above is my best opinion based on the evidence I can see in the public data.
Personally I'm still minded towards the bomb-boat explanation. The under-bridge photo linked above is, in my opinion, looking at this wrong. Here is a helpful Maxar shot, taken from the north (NE) with the westbound (towards Crimea) side of the road closest to us. The shipping channel and high bridge is to the right. The wind at the time was blowing from the bottom of the Maxar picture towards the top of the maxar picture.
First observe that there has only been only one explosion and it took place where the sooting is on the surviving bridge deck.
Second if you look at the videos that blast is not just white homogenous smoke of a pure explosive, instead it is streaked with heterogenous coloured matter that indicates that something was mixed in it. Either an enhancer such as aluminium, and/or a jet slug such as copper, or perhaps both. It is hard to be sure what as the CCTV images are low quality. It was the spray from those particles that splashed at high velocity through the rail tank-wagons both penetrating the tank walls and setting fire to the now-leaking fuel cargo.
Third understand how that road bridge failed. That span was lifted upwards by a blast below it. The net thrust of the blast was slightly inboard of the longitudinal axis and has flipped the span slightly towards outboard so that when it landed back down it is flipped slightly northwards and displaced off its origninal bearing points. There is some evidence in the below-bridge picture that there is a hole in the piece of the bridge deck that was just above water level - I am not sure if that is happenstance or if that is a molten penetrator from an upwards-firing shaped charge. We would need close-up photos of the broken span-end to be sure either way. But irrespective that span lifted and failed into two pieces, then fell back. As it lifted it pulled the section to its right (towards the high-bridge / shipping channel) towards it i.e. the right-hand end of that section moved leftwards. That right hand end is an expansion joint segment and so it simply pulled away cleanly and fell off its support points and fell in the water without the span breaking in two - it has dropped into the water because its left hand end has been dispaced laterally (outboard). If you look to the left a couple more segments you see that a third section was similarly pulled off its bearers and has fallen at one end, but because it has only received a longitudinal pull and no lateral pull, the leftmost end has not fallen into the water. Instead it is most likely resting on the pile cap.Again this is where an expansion joint is located.
Fourth, the below-bridge shows very little sooting or other evidence of damage on the visible section of its right-side pile cap and pier. That indicates this was a directional explosion. I find it hard to imagine an ATACM warhead of 500kg punching through the bridge deck, exploding below, and doing so in such a way as to cleanly directionally explode backwards along its rocket motor axis. It seems to me much more likely that this was a c.1,000kg device carried by a bomb-boat that was shaped so as to blast predominantly upwards.
Fifth, there is no evidence I can discern as to which direction the bomb-boat would have conducted its final approach from. The most likely direction is from the Sea of Azov, but there is no evidence either way. Irrespective that is also not evidence that the general approach would have been from that direction - if anything the more likely oute would have been a hooked entrance from the seawards side.
Sixth. The SAM systems didn't go off. And if the Ukraine had ATACMs they would have had more than one and used them simultaneously so as to saturate the SAM defences. And they would definitely have targetted the rail bridge.
BUT - if better evidence comes to light then I'm sure we will hear about it. The above is my best opinion based on the evidence I can see in the public data.
Last edited by petit plateau; 9th Oct 2022 at 07:43.
Tabs please !
Not sure if anyone has already posted this. Suffice to say, the rail bridge looks in need of some attention
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/statu...tjbINj_aA&s=19
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/statu...tjbINj_aA&s=19
I checked the videao again step by step.
What we see in the picture is just a bow wave. You can see that a small wave forms behind the pillar of the bridge as well at the left border of the circle, due to water being displaced by some fast boat passing by. The swell is coming from the right. What we see might be the bow wave of a boat driving at an angle from the right into the next bridge field. There is no actual boat to be seen, just its waves.
The delicate thing is that this boat must have come geografically from Russia or at least from 100% Russian controlled territory and then 150km across the whole Azov Sea.
Fascinating.
What we see in the picture is just a bow wave. You can see that a small wave forms behind the pillar of the bridge as well at the left border of the circle, due to water being displaced by some fast boat passing by. The swell is coming from the right. What we see might be the bow wave of a boat driving at an angle from the right into the next bridge field. There is no actual boat to be seen, just its waves.
The delicate thing is that this boat must have come geografically from Russia or at least from 100% Russian controlled territory and then 150km across the whole Azov Sea.
Fascinating.
Personally I am only commenting on stuff that is very public domain, and most Western observers seem to be taking the same approach. The Russians will have better info than we do, and they are just as capable of thinking through the implications. It has been very obvious since that UUV washed ashore that stuff was going on, but most of us were very cautious about what we said at that time since we did not wish to say anything about the future that wasn't a statement of the blindingly obvious, for fear of giving hints. Commenting on blindingly obvious historical events is less of a problem in that respect.
I mean they might not be the brightest bulbs on the planet but they are ON SITE. If it was a boat they will find it PHYSICALLY. They will determine chemically what explosives have been used and how the bomb was designed. Guys, even if they are militarily failing in an epic way currently, Russia has flown to space and they still have quite good scientists. Let's not totally underestimate them.
Last edited by henra; 9th Oct 2022 at 09:17. Reason: Fair comment regarding put down of innocent other Countries
I checked the videao again step by step.
What we see in the picture is just a bow wave. You can see that a small wave forms behind the pillar of the bridge as well at the left border of the circle, due to water being displaced by some fast boat passing by. The swell is coming from the right. What we see might be the bow wave of a boat driving at an angle from the right into the next bridge field. There is no actual boat to be seen, just its waves.
The delicate thing is that this boat must have come geografically from Russia or at least from 100% Russian controlled territory and then 150km across the whole Azov Sea.
Fascinating.
What we see in the picture is just a bow wave. You can see that a small wave forms behind the pillar of the bridge as well at the left border of the circle, due to water being displaced by some fast boat passing by. The swell is coming from the right. What we see might be the bow wave of a boat driving at an angle from the right into the next bridge field. There is no actual boat to be seen, just its waves.
The delicate thing is that this boat must have come geografically from Russia or at least from 100% Russian controlled territory and then 150km across the whole Azov Sea.
Fascinating.
Re the road bridge :
Personally I'm still minded towards the bomb-boat explanation. The under-bridge photo linked above is, in my opinion, looking at this wrong. Here is a helpful Maxar shot, taken from the north (NE) with the westbound (towards Crimea) side of the road closest to us. The shipping channel and high bridge is to the right. The wind at the time was blowing from the bottom of the Maxar picture towards the top of the maxar picture.
First observe that there has only been only one explosion and it took place where the sooting is on the surviving bridge deck.
Second if you look at the videos that blast is not just white homogenous smoke of a pure explosive, instead it is streaked with heterogenous coloured matter that indicates that something was mixed in it. Either an enhancer such as aluminium, and/or a jet slug such as copper, or perhaps both. It is hard to be sure what as the CCTV images are low quality. It was the spray from those particles that splashed at high velocity through the rail tank-wagons both penetrating the tank walls and setting fire to the now-leaking fuel cargo.
Third understand how that road bridge failed. That span was lifted upwards by a blast below it. The net thrust of the blast was slightly inboard of the longitudinal axis and has flipped the span slightly towards outboard so that when it landed back down it is flipped slightly northwards and displaced off its origninal bearing points. There is some evidence in the below-bridge picture that there is a hole in the piece of the bridge deck that was just above water level - I am not sure if that is happenstance or if that is a molten penetrator from an upwards-firing shaped charge. We would need close-up photos of the broken span-end to be sure either way. But irrespective that span lifted and failed into two pieces, then fell back. As it lifted it pulled the section to its right (towards the high-bridge / shipping channel) towards it i.e. the right-hand end of that section moved leftwards. That right hand end is an expansion joint segment and so it simply pulled away cleanly and fell off its support points and fell in the water without the span breaking in two - it has dropped into the water because its left hand end has been dispaced laterally (outboard). If you look to the left a couple more segments you see that a third section was similarly pulled off its bearers and has fallen at one end, but because it has only received a longitudinal pull and no lateral pull, the leftmost end has not fallen into the water. Instead it is most likely resting on the pile cap.Again this is where an expansion joint is located.
Fourth, the below-bridge shows very little sooting or other evidence of damage on the visible section of its right-side pile cap and pier. That indicates this was a directional explosion. I find it hard to imagine an ATACM warhead of 500kg punching through the bridge deck, exploding below, and doing so in such a way as to cleanly directionally explode backwards along its rocket motor axis. It seems to me much more likely that this was a c.1,000kg device carried by a bomb-boat that was shaped so as to blast predominantly upwards.
Fifth, there is no evidence I can discern as to which direction the bomb-boat would have conducted its final approach from. The most likely direction is from the Sea of Azov, but there is no evidence either way. Irrespective that is also not evidence that the general approach would have been from that direction - if anything the more likely oute would have been a hooked entrance from the seawards side.
Sixth. The SAM systems didn't go off. And if the Ukraine had ATACMs they would have had more than one and used them simultaneously so as to saturate the SAM defences. And they would definitely have targetted the rail bridge.
BUT - if better evidence comes to light then I'm sure we will hear about it. The above is my best opinion based on the evidence I can see in the public data.
Personally I'm still minded towards the bomb-boat explanation. The under-bridge photo linked above is, in my opinion, looking at this wrong. Here is a helpful Maxar shot, taken from the north (NE) with the westbound (towards Crimea) side of the road closest to us. The shipping channel and high bridge is to the right. The wind at the time was blowing from the bottom of the Maxar picture towards the top of the maxar picture.
First observe that there has only been only one explosion and it took place where the sooting is on the surviving bridge deck.
Second if you look at the videos that blast is not just white homogenous smoke of a pure explosive, instead it is streaked with heterogenous coloured matter that indicates that something was mixed in it. Either an enhancer such as aluminium, and/or a jet slug such as copper, or perhaps both. It is hard to be sure what as the CCTV images are low quality. It was the spray from those particles that splashed at high velocity through the rail tank-wagons both penetrating the tank walls and setting fire to the now-leaking fuel cargo.
Third understand how that road bridge failed. That span was lifted upwards by a blast below it. The net thrust of the blast was slightly inboard of the longitudinal axis and has flipped the span slightly towards outboard so that when it landed back down it is flipped slightly northwards and displaced off its origninal bearing points. There is some evidence in the below-bridge picture that there is a hole in the piece of the bridge deck that was just above water level - I am not sure if that is happenstance or if that is a molten penetrator from an upwards-firing shaped charge. We would need close-up photos of the broken span-end to be sure either way. But irrespective that span lifted and failed into two pieces, then fell back. As it lifted it pulled the section to its right (towards the high-bridge / shipping channel) towards it i.e. the right-hand end of that section moved leftwards. That right hand end is an expansion joint segment and so it simply pulled away cleanly and fell off its support points and fell in the water without the span breaking in two - it has dropped into the water because its left hand end has been dispaced laterally (outboard). If you look to the left a couple more segments you see that a third section was similarly pulled off its bearers and has fallen at one end, but because it has only received a longitudinal pull and no lateral pull, the leftmost end has not fallen into the water. Instead it is most likely resting on the pile cap.Again this is where an expansion joint is located.
Fourth, the below-bridge shows very little sooting or other evidence of damage on the visible section of its right-side pile cap and pier. That indicates this was a directional explosion. I find it hard to imagine an ATACM warhead of 500kg punching through the bridge deck, exploding below, and doing so in such a way as to cleanly directionally explode backwards along its rocket motor axis. It seems to me much more likely that this was a c.1,000kg device carried by a bomb-boat that was shaped so as to blast predominantly upwards.
Fifth, there is no evidence I can discern as to which direction the bomb-boat would have conducted its final approach from. The most likely direction is from the Sea of Azov, but there is no evidence either way. Irrespective that is also not evidence that the general approach would have been from that direction - if anything the more likely oute would have been a hooked entrance from the seawards side.
Sixth. The SAM systems didn't go off. And if the Ukraine had ATACMs they would have had more than one and used them simultaneously so as to saturate the SAM defences. And they would definitely have targetted the rail bridge.
BUT - if better evidence comes to light then I'm sure we will hear about it. The above is my best opinion based on the evidence I can see in the public data.
The direction of approach if by sea, the risk of discovery on approach from any side would make it pretty odd to hook back after surviving access to the bridge structure. Might have been an issue with fireships of old, (ask the Spanglish) but a powered boat?
On the question of are we helping brand X with their investigation... anything that has a time delay, and which suggests that Russia has issues with Pukin is helpful to the Ukrainians.
A time delay so where there is domestic support involved, they are able to get their sandals on and scarper, (they can blend in with the Russian recruits who are being donated all terrain, all weather arctic/desert/tropical sandals.... ). Any analysis that highlights natives are restless is beneficial for Ukraine. Putin has a major problem within his own turf, and he has to sort that out, and that needs all of the forces that he has left after his efforts to gift Russian equipment and more citizens to Ukraine, while removing the offensive capability of Russia. Commenting on the expected reaction of Russia is not helpful to Russia, it might save lives in Ukraine, but by now, they are getting well trained on the methods of Vladamort, an attack on Zaphorizhia that just killed 17 civilians, at a non-military target was expected behavior, and it is still a war crime.
About time Russian G-2 went to spec savers so that they can recognize a military target instead of stacking up their war crimes.
You don't win a fight by hitting the defenceless civilians, didn't work against Russia so can't fathom why they continue wasting their ammunition in perpetrating war crimes that harden the resolve of the Ukrainians and make it easier for the rest of the world to be disgusted with them to the extent that the support for Ukraine grows by every act of dishonor by Russia. Was ever thus.
Henra: ???C'mon. I mean they might not be the brightest bulbs on the planet but they are ON SITE. If it was a boat they will find it PHYSICALLY. They will determine chemically what explosives have been used and how the bomb was designed. Guys, even if they are militarily failing in an epic way currently, Russia has flown to space and they still have quite good scientists. Let's not mistake them for Africa.
The Russians of course didn't get the Moscow apartment bombing report, done by Russians, for Russians, against Russians that was blamed on Chechnya, done so well. They didn't get the facts right for the shoot down of MI-017 by their teams in the donbas, that took others of an international investigation to get right.
P.S.: as of today, Russia is complaining that Ukraine conducted a terrorist act with the Crimea Bridge... Irony is apparently not a concept that translates into Russian. Its supposed to; Irony: ирония. Seems to be a color more than a concept related to causation. like "Goldy": золотой, Silvery: серебристый. But, the Hague confirms today that they are investigating 34,000 suspected war crimes committed by Russia since February 24 2022. That is getting to be a record. We should start a new wikipedia page on Russian criminal actions, the war crime volume. The dead deserve that at least.
Last edited by fdr; 9th Oct 2022 at 10:13. Reason: P.S.
There is an incline up to the arched section. Only relevant as there may have been an issue with weights and speed here before the explosion. Just trying to figure why the fuel train had stopped right there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,894
Received 2,834 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,894
Received 2,834 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
I still think a boat detonated under the left span where the blackening is on the top decks, lifted it into the air and split it in two, The lifting then pulled the right span from its expansion joint and dropped that into the sea, the sheared left span then falling back and also dropping into the sea.