The War in the Ukraine

[Sinnavuuty]

This is why there is redundancy to these bridges, I suggested 10 with 5 in reserve, but you phrase this suggestion as through Ukrainian efforts has no cost to them as well. The Ukrainians are 40km away from most of these positions and are out of reach of conventional artillery, this leaves them with guided systems, which can be counterattacked. If one of those rockets hits a section it can be restored quickly, just float another one in its place, rely on the other 9 until it's fixed.

Unlike the Antonovsky bridge that has a more reinforced structure, these blocks that you are proposing to bequeath to the crossing system would not require so many attacks to disable, in addition, they are in the range of Ukrainian artillery, the biggest example of this is the FIRMS data:

Look at the distance from the Russian GLOCs that Ukraine is attacking. Incidentally, these are the areas that the Russian MoD uses to describe reports of various Himars intercepted, that is, range is not an issue for Ukraine. It was never a problem for Ukraine because since they received the Himars, they have been attacking Russian munitions depots in Kherson ever since, it would simply be to redirect targets to the Dnieper which would be even less ranged.

Ukrainians have to consider that attacking the bridge exposes their launchers and their aircraft, what if the launcher gets counterstriked?

By any chance, are the Russians managing to neutralize the launchers being used against Kherson? I have seen claims of Himars losses by the Russian MoD, but no visual confirmation capable of making this verification, because they are videos and photos with such a bad quality that you can't even say that it was a Himars system, besides, they still continue to use the Himars in Kherson attacking the Russian GLOCs in the rear.

what if aircraft get shot down?

This is quite possible, but the use of the aircraft would only take place in specific cases, this case of withdrawal is quite possible or in the case of a logistical reinforcement in the crossing to reinforce the fronts of the right bank, which would in reality be losing aircraft, but I doubt they would do a suicide mission, it would be a job with drones and artillery too, not only does it depend on aircraft, the biggest example is the reality itself in Kherson where Ukraine relies heavily on accurate artillery to attack ammunition depots in the rear, on the bridges of the Dnieper among other places of logistical military use.

is it worth trying if the Russian can just drag another section within a day hours?

A caster can be deployed in less than 3 minutes. Do you really want to make these comparisons?

is it worth disabling 7 of the 10 if the Russian can still continue using the other 3?

Ukraine can disable all 10 if needed, as I said, neutralizing these structures would be even easier to neutralize the Antonovsky bridge, so in any army in the world you don't build these bridges when you're in enemy range, but you still ignore it.

A missile is a rocket engine and a guidance system, a pontoon bridge section is welded steel plates with some hinges, who loses more when it comes to mutual destruction?

And the transport of it? Wouldn't there be a logistical effort to assemble and fit the structures? Can all this be done under the action of enemy artillery? Do you know why they don't build these structures when you're in enemy range?

But either way as an argumentative point its irrelevant because everything said about it also applies to the current Antonovsky bridge as well.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. It will be applied like the Antonovsky Bridge was applied making it unusable, it would be even easier than the Antonovsky Bridge.

To consider potential temporary bridges useless and unworkable because of possible risk of neutralization is to also argue the Antonovsky bridge is useless, yet it was used and greatly enhanced Russian position on the west bank.

I never said that temporary bridges are useless. The fact is that creating them for the purpose of supplying the army on the other bank while still at the direct risk of enemy artillery is a good plan to want to wipe out your entire army on the other bank, leaving them trapped still within range artillery and now without logistical support in the crossings due to the neutralization of these hoisted bridges. Bridges are only built when such a condition is obtained by conquering the regions that prevent the enemy from carrying out observed fires in the selected places, here on the contrary, the Russians are only retreating day after day, losing these regions. Also, the Antonovsky bridge is already basically useless for logistical purpose, as I've previously posted the source claiming this I won't repost, but other members have already posted the Dnieper crossing with ferries.
Want more examples?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Read it.

Even one pontoon bridge, in addition/place of current ferry would greatly enhance the current Russian position. If you accept this fact you also have to accept that there's considerable benefit to multiple redundant crossings.

Here you said something right. After the construction of bridges, pontoon bridges continue to be used, supplementing them, but I have already said in what condition this is possible and under the action of enemy artillery it is simply wrong. So the Russian position on the right bank is untenable, but if you don't want to accept that fact, we agree to disagree. But you still haven't answered my previous questions.

I got tired of it.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

What are the prospect of Russia blow the dam themselves to drown the defenders should they want to retake Kherson?

Much easier to destroy the bridges

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Few observation, and interesting events:
1. announcement doesn't mean that they will do it as they said. Or saying anything about timeline.
2. As it looks like the biggest/best part of the Ukrainan army is on the west bank of Dnieper.
3. Russia ordering ballistic missiles from Iran - if we can trust the news sources
4. Russia up to this point of time didn't hit the critical railway maintanace infrastructure, including maintanace depot, bridge and railway repair equipment.
5. Russia didn't attacked up to this point the bridges crossing the Dnieper
6. Russia didn't attacked the 720 kV power distribution system.


So, let summ it up.

point 2,3,4 and five means with plenty of chep Iranian missiles and drones Russia can disable the railway network AND the Dnieper crossing, means traping best of the Ukrainan Army on the west bank, and cut the supply of the east military group.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

Want more examples?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Read it.

Here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590458485904658433

 

[baykalov]

There is a lot of speculation in both Russian and Ukrainian social networks about the withdrawal of the Russians from Kherson.

I repeat - this is speculation. According to some, there is a backroom deal between the US and Russia to withdraw the Russians from Kherson and freeze the conflict over the winter. Some Ukrainians wonder why the Russians are quietly retreating and withdrawing all equipment and personnel without loss. This is impossible without coordination with the West, Sullivan recently visited Zelensky in Kiev and more reports have started appearing in the Western media about possible negotiations. HIMARS are under full control of the Americans and they choose the targets, which is why there is no shelling of crossings, pontoons and columns on the Dnieper River.

What do you think, is there a grain of truth in these speculations!?

To add that U.S. General Mark Milley says tonight it will it could take Russia "weeks" to pull troops out of Kherson, but "early indicators are that they are doing what they say they are doing."

CNN: US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staf, Gen. Mark Milley, said there may be a window of opportunity to negotiate an end to the conflict if and when the front lines stabilize during winter.

“When there’s an opportunity to negotiate when peace can be achieved, seize it,” Milley said. “Seize the moment.”

But if negotiations never materialized or failed, Milley said the US would continue to arm Ukraine, even as an outright military victory for either side looks increasingly unlikely.

“There has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably in the true sense of the word may be not achievable through military means, and therefore you need to turn to other means.”

“I believe they’re doing it in order to preserve their force, to re-establish defensive lines south of the river, but that remains to be seen,” Milley said. “Right now, the early indicators are they’re doing what they say they’re doing and we’re seeing those early indicators.”

 

[Tam]

ATGM used to knock a communications tower? I have seen the Russians use ATGMs on non tank targets, but this takes the cake. A lot of communication infrastructure in poorer and less developed countries are often by Huawei or ZTE.

 

[Atomicfrog]

What are the prospect of Russia blow the dam themselves to drown the defenders should they want to retake Kherson?

They loss water supply to Crimea. One of their first objective of the war was to gain water supply to crimea... so it would be insanely dumb.

 

[SampanViking]

Take a quick look at the broad options.

To really secure Kherson and the Russian presence on the West/North Bank of the Dnieper, it would require a defensive line starting beyond Nykoliave and stretching along to Krivoy Rog. To be really secure, you would want to to extend all the way back to Zaphorisia, to also protect the NPP.

This gives you a very long front facing into the Central and Western Ukrainian Heartland and potentially very vulnerable also from the East if Russia does not also control the territory of Zaphorisia on the East Side of the Dnieper.
To be totally honest, I would; were I commander of Russian forces, want to have control all the way up to Dniepro as well. Again here it is very risky just to hold the West bank with the East bank hostile.

It has been my long held view that a building a long extended front line in the West, before securing large amounts of Ukrainian held territory in the South and East would be reckless.
Obviously, I had hoped that Russia would be able to keep its Bridgehead to able to expand it later under more realistic conditions for doing so, but if it potential risk/cost of doing so is too great, then very sadly it needs to be abandoned for the time being.

If the Russians are indeed withdrawing, then all the problems that the River has caused the Russians becomes a Ukrainian problem. I could see Kherson being a ghost town, to risky for the Ukrainians to hold against unassailable Russian Artillery Emplacements on the South/East banks.

To my mind a new front against Sumy or Chernihiv would make more sense by drawing off much of the Ukrainian forces concentrated in the Donbass, which would allow the Russian forces already on these fronts to push forward again. We have sen this numerous times over recent weeks, and a major draw down to protect the Northern Borders would make a big push on the South very effective.

 

[Tam]

Krasnopol kill on a Maxxpro? Either we are seeing more of these or didn't pay enough attention to the Krasnopols.

 

[Phead128]

I repeat - this is speculation. According to some, there is a backroom deal between the US and Russia to withdraw the Russians from Kherson and freeze the conflict over the winter. Some Ukrainians wonder why the Russians are quietly retreating and withdrawing all equipment and personnel without loss. This is impossible without coordination with the West, Sullivan recently visited Zelensky in Kiev and more reports have started appearing in the Western media about possible negotiations. HIMARS are under full control of the Americans and they choose the targets, which is why there is no shelling of crossings, pontoons and columns on the Dnieper River.

I agree on the backdoor negotiations. This is a "goodwill gesture" to give Ukraine a face-saving "win" before it ultimately accepts an Unequal treaty on Russian terms, namely formal recognition of DNR/LNR/Crimea and a neutrality stance. The problem of this strategy is if you cede one inch, the Ukrainians will demand one mile, which explains Zelensky demanding the entirety of territory taken since Feb 21st to be returned. I wouldn't be surprised if more territory is ceded by Russia as a "goodwill gesture" as part of negotiations. The core of S.M.O. has always been Donestk/Luhansk, the other territories in Kherson/Zapo are nice-to-have, captured at little cost, and entirely tradeable on negotiation table.