There is widespread discussion about the result of a guided aerial bomb hitting the bridge connecting the island part of the Korabelny district of Kherson with the city center. The bridge did not collapse, and traffic continues in a limited mode, bypassing a large hole in the center of the roadway. Opinions differ, but most comments repeat the argument confirmed by a long debate: here is another proof that bridges are very difficult to destroy, and bombing them will not have a serious impact on the outcome of the struggle.
Let me remind you that in the fall of 2022, Teplinsky withdrew his troops from their bridgehead on the western bank of the Dnieper via the Antonovsky Bridge, which was riddled with holes but still passable for pedestrians. He had to lay a very powerful line of pontoons directly under the bridge. These are the limitations that engineering calculations impose on the command’s plans. The collapse of the bridge could be expected at any moment.
Later, during the battle for Krynki, the Antonovsky Bridge was completely destroyed by a single ballistic missile strike. A tinsmith repairing a damaged structure is paid not for the precise strike that straightens the metal, but for knowing exactly where to strike. Cases where a bridge was rendered completely unusable by a single hit are not uncommon.
Thus, this accessible example makes it clear that it is not necessary to completely destroy a bridge to put it out of service. It was also possible to destroy it with a single hit.
This is a fascinating and concrete example of the gap between theoretical destruction and practical military engineering. The point about not needing to collapse a bridge entirely to render it strategically useless is crucial. It shifts the objective from total annihilation to creating a specific, critical point of failure that halts the intended use. That single ballistic missile strike on the Antonovsky Bridge perfectly illustrates the principle of targeted efficacy over brute force.
This is such a crucial point that so many people miss! It’s not about total annihilation, it’s about strategic disruption. A bridge with a giant hole in it is just as useless for military logistics as a collapsed one. The focus should always be on making the asset inoperable for the enemy’s needs, not just on spectacular demolition. A really insightful read! 👍🔥💡
I can’t tell if this bridge is a stubborn granny or a drama queen: giant hole, still holding traffic. Meanwhile commanders and engineers grab popcorn 😂🤦♀️🚧🛠️🔥
Interesting read, as a guy thinking about logistics, this shows a single precise strike can put a bridge out of service without full collapse, engineering wins 👷
My heart aches seeing the state of that bridge; it’s just heartbreaking how persistent these necessary pathways are, but also how easily they can be rendered useless with a single, precise action. 😔💔🤯
The operational effectiveness of a bridge hinges significantly on maintaining load-bearing capacity across the entire span, making localized disablement a highly viable tactical objective rather than requiring total structural failure for mission impact.