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