You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter feedmpenzaandhewillscore
- Start date
grunge
Well-Known Member
Well Mossi, the mere fact that they have been hitting all other supply routes and ammo dumps wherever possible as reported by the guys on here on a weekly basis. And the fact that they have tried to destroy the bridge and it was repaired pretty quickly. Leads me to assume that they have decided they can't fully destroy it with the ordnance that they have. It's a reasonable conclusion is it not??
Why leave it standing if you could destroy it. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
While it Makes no sense to you, maybe it makes sense to the military strategists?.
Simple fact is they have proven they can hit it. They have proven they can shut it down with the damage they can and have inflicted. now every time Ukraine attacks anywhere near that bridge it’s shut down to traffic, showing Russia is fearful of it being hit and do feel Ukrainian forces can indeed hit it at will. While Russia has also sent a lot of air defence to the area to protect the bridge. Thats air defence not protecting other areas. The mere threat of it disrupts the bridge and takes resources to protect it.
Maybe to take it out of action permanently isn’t actually the best use of the hardware it would take to do it? There is no 1 missile hit that can do it. It would take lots of hits. Just look at the bridge in Kherson. Loads of small hits to stop it being useful.
If it took 20/30/40 long range missiles to take it out of action permanently that’s 20/30/40 other targets that can’t be hit. Ukraine need to be careful with the ammo they have as it is limited.
Last edited:
grunge
Well-Known Member
Well Ukrainian forces will have to sever that land bridge to take back Crimea so no they couldn’t use that.They can still retreat back to Russia over land can they not?? Crimea is linked to Russia via the strip of land they invaded and have held since 2022.
cleavers
Moderator
Can't imagine anyone is surprised by that ? It's their waters.I see Turkey has stopped UK Minehunters passing through the Bosphorus to be given as gifts to Ukraine.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,004
I'm not.Can't imagine anyone is surprised by that ? It's their waters.
Did the Civil Service check with Turkey before sending them? Probably not judging by how useless our Civil Service actually is.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,866
Maybe to take it out of action permanently isn’t actually the best use of the hardware it would take to do it? There is no 1 missile hit that can do it. It would take lots of hits. Just look at the bridge in Kherson. Loads of small hits to stop it being useful.
If it took 20/30/40 long range missiles to take it out of action permanently that’s 20/30/40 other targets that can’t be hit. Ukraine need to be careful with the ammo they have as it is limited.
Bingo. They don't have the number of missiles ie capability to take it out. Which is what I have said several times.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,866
They said they were letting no military shipping through from either side.Can't imagine anyone is surprised by that ? It's their waters.
grunge
Well-Known Member
Bingo. They don't have the number of missiles ie capability to take it out. Which is what I have said several times.
You are mistaking ability with the will to do it.
They have the ability. Just not the will at this time for what ever reason.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,866
You just said they might not have the ability ie not enough missiles?You are mistaking ability with the will to do it.
They have the ability. Just not the will at this time for what ever reason.
cleavers
Moderator
Yet you started off your argument by saying they couldn't hit the bridge, clearly if they can hit a much smaller ship in port (both stationary), they can hit a bridge.Bingo. They don't have the number of missiles ie capability to take it out. Which is what I have said several times.
All most people have said all along is they choose not to hit for now, the reasons for that are unknown to us, but wasting weapons on a "vanity" target would be pointless, and wasteful, and it wouldn't prevent re-supply, just hinder it, so militarily it's currently not that important.