How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[TOG]

Also it looks like the railing on the far side of rail bridge is missing. Similarly there was some comparison of satelite images before and after the strike and it looked like on some part the bridge got narrower. The truck bomb was unlikely to do this. The rail cars don't Look like they exploded. It is next to burning rail car so maybe it is cased by heat. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, sross112 said:

The Hrim-2 theory is possible but the problem I see with that is a lack of any kind of video evidence 12 hours later. Just in the CCTV room from what we could see there were at least 18 cameras on the bridge. To not have any glimpse of anything is possible but doesn't seem probable. Then looking at the 20 defense initiatives to protect the bridge you would think there would be something somewhere that would have detected an incoming missile. 

There's still no video evidence of Hrim-2, or anything else for that matter, having hit Saki.  It was also covered by multiple air defense systems that didn't react to not one but FOUR missiles.  No new information since then and that was months ago.  So that's not a reason to discount Hrim-2 here.

Steve

[chrisl]

49 minutes ago, Doc844 said:

Wow, that took some effort to catch up and what a time to do it, just as the kerch bridge gets smacked.  However although I'm liking all the theories of what did it, everyone has overlooked the main reason for all major russian mishaps in this war.

The extremely dangerous and explody act of smoking.  The smokers done it again, dropped his fag in the truck, rolled under the seat, set fire to highly flammable cheap chinese foam padding which then caused 152mm ammo to explode and blew up the bridge.  Case solved, call me Sherlock not Shirley.

So the whole problem with the Russian debacle is the fault of Philip Morris and RJR.  

[Letter from Prague]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's still no video evidence of Hrim-2, or anything else for that matter, having hit Saki.  It was also covered by multiple air defense systems that didn't react to not one but FOUR missiles.  No new information since then and that was months ago.  So that's not a reason to discount Hrim-2 here.

Steve

Yeah, they even tried to use AD against GMLRS. With not much success I think, but they tried.

In Saky, the strike was proceeded by a HARM campaign which would explain it. But here, I don't think that happened. Unless they specifically picked this part of the bridge because of AD blindspot or something - I think there were reports of Ukraine drones "probing" Crimea.

Unless the Russian AD is just terrible against ballistic missiles. Do we have any data on how it deals with e.g. Tochka-U or how it deals with similar missiles in Ukrainian hands? I hear about lot of interceptions but I don't know how much is cruise missiles and how much is ballistic.

[Bulletpoint]

22 minutes ago, TOG said:

Hi, 

Another guy from Poland, have on forum for years, usually only Reading, been following the thread since around March, usually few pages behind. 

Best place to get current info, reasonable opinions, experts on details etc. 

Helped me calm down in stressful beginning of this war and pass hope to some friends. 

First time I managed to find something of interest, some of you may have seen it but I think it was not posted. 

 

The second video shows explosion in slow motion.

 

Looks fake to me. How is a surveilance camera able to capture a detonation of explosives in slow motion? It happens extremely fast. How many FPS is that camera running?

And even if it did run super-high FPS, it wouldn't just capture a general glare - it would show a smaller fireball at the point of detonation, just before it expanded...

[Blazing 88's]

15 hours ago, chrisl said:

Dashcam video.  (edit: probably fake?)

The replies have key frames pulled out as stills

I swear I hear the sound of a missile just before impact no??

The comments have some saying it's fake video??

Edited October 8, 2022 by Blazing 88's

[TOG]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Looks fake to me. How is a surveilance camera able to capture a detonation of explosives in slow motion? It happens extremely fast. How many FPS is that camera running?

And even if it did run super-high FPS, it wouldn't just capture a general glare - it would show a smaller fireball at the point of detonation, just before it expanded...

I think it is just a slower and zoomed in version of the video from monitoring office. 

Explosion seems to start from Upper right corner but it May be becouse of camera refresh thing. 

[Bulletpoint]

Just now, TOG said:

I think it is just a slower and zoomed in version of the video from monitoring office. 

Explosion seems to start from Upper right corner but it May be becouse of camera refresh thing. 

But there wouldn't be two whole frames showing a growing glare before the explosion appeared. It doesn't matter if you slow the video down... there simply wouldn't be any frames containing the info.

I think it's a video where they paused the frame just before the explosion, doubled it in software, then added a lighting effect to those two frames.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Hrim-2 is ballistic missile, it have to attack from the top, but here we've seen something exploded slightly aside and under the bridge, like cruise missile. Also one woman from the village near Kerch, wrote she drunk a coffee at 6:00 and as if seen two missiles, which flew on very low altitude. If this is not a fib, that this could be cruise missles atatck and... what air defense doing? 

The arguments against a cruise missile are the same here as they were at Saki.  Range would require a remote launch from see, well within Russian controlled waters, the warheads aren't all that big, and it would be very difficult to hit thin vertical surfaces (piers).  The visual evidence also shows evidence of a top hit.

I'm confident enough to rule out cruise missile.

Steve

[Bulletpoint]

Another way of looking at it is to ask - where would that general glare be coming from? If it's from an explosion that takes place in the air above the bridge, the point source would be visible, not just a general glare. If it's below the bridge, the light would not be visible at all, because the bridge would block it.

The only way it would make sense would be for  the source of the explosion to be in the air above the bridge, but so high that it would be outside the frame. And then the explosion would need to be absolutely enormous to destroy the bridge.

[Battlefront.com]

Truck bomb theory... as I stated a few pages ago, I think it is very unlikely for a lot of reasons.  However, if Russia did it themselves as a false flag attack then many of the logistical issues go away.  HOWEVER, I don't think they'd do it.  It puts the entire war effort into a death spiral.  No, they would do something like blow up a government building in Sevastopol or something else like that. 

The point of a false flag attack is to lay blame on your enemy in order to gain more room for action.  Russia doesn't really need to do this for any particular reason.  They're already at war with Ukraine and they are beyond the ability of getting world opinion to shift against Ukraine.  If they are looking for some sort of excuse to use a tac nuke, for example, they would just do it.

Steve

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

 

The entire goddamn Black Sea Fleet. 

[sburke]

Ukrainian Parliament recognizes Japanese sovereignty over Kuril Islands, disputed with Russia (msn.com)

[akd]

1 hour ago, TOG said:

I think it is just a slower and zoomed in version of the video from monitoring office. 

Explosion seems to start from Upper right corner but it May be becouse of camera refresh thing. 

The full version had the first sign of flash as just a partial bar at the bottom of the screen (camera refresh artifact), but that is cropped out here. I'm thinking this is just more of an artifact of how the image updates or something.  There is no way the initial explosion was out of the frame there.

Edited October 8, 2022 by akd

[akd]

Seems they forgot eye holes for their Sarmat mascot outfit.

 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

But there wouldn't be two whole frames showing a growing glare before the explosion appeared. It doesn't matter if you slow the video down... there simply wouldn't be any frames containing the info.

I think it's a video where they paused the frame just before the explosion, doubled it in software, then added a lighting effect to those two frames.

Yes. The original shows the bottom ~20% of the lines in the frame saturated when the explosion starts.  It's entirely possible for the truck to be intact in the first half of the frame scan (and show that way in the frame) while it's turned into very small parts as the last 20% of the frame is read out.   

The frame rate and shutter speed aren't terrible for a night-video - the motion is pretty smooth and objects aren't rippled from the line scan.  It could be as high as 15 fps - we could work it out backward if someone knows the speed limit on the bridge and the road dashed line marking standards.  If we call it 10 fps then there's at least ~120 ms (maybe 220 ms?) where the camera is totally saturated in the original video before the fireball diminishes.  And it's complicated by aliasing with the frame rate and compression of the phone used to record the video from the computer monitor.

[Kinophile]

RAILWAY.       X Airburst 

     ||.                     X  or Airburst (more likely) 

     ||.             ROAD 1.    ROAD 2.

     ||                   ||.              ||

~~||~~~~~~~~||~~~~~~~||~~~~ water

 

1. Railway is still in place 

2. Road 1 still in place

3. Road 2 broken AND PUSHED OFF

 

So, 

- Railway not directly impacted.  Light guard rails are blown off but a shockwave from exploding railway tank explains that. 

- Road 1 not directly impacted. It's scorched but surface is still intact. Structure took a downward hit but is structurally configured to absorb downward force. Blast centerpoint was far enough away (ie high enough) and possibly enough off the road axis that significant  blast missed the road span itself. 

- Road 2 possibly directly impacted BUT: (A) it's broken in two similar positions and lies in similar arrangement, (B) it's pushed off its piers, the spans are not structured to survive that type of twisting deformation (from direct force and sudden change in dead load configuration). So Road 2 took downward angled force, that shoved it laterally away, sheering the connection to its purr.  Not the steel pinning themselves -  they still stand up, so probably the concrete /steel of the span was ripped through by the pins as it moved sideways, away from the blast center.  Once off the pier centers the span folded and broke from its own weight (not impacts) and also the current catching it and shoving it back against its own piers.

This was no truck bomb, is my thinking. 

A missile (maybe two, if they blew perfectly simultaneously). 

@Battlefront.com

I think the missing piece of info that will explain/refute various ideas will be when we see the Road 2 spans that are currently submerged, Esp the part adjacent to the large scorch mark on Road 1.

 

 

[Kinophile]

13 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Yes. The original shows the bottom ~20% of the lines in the frame saturated when the explosion starts.  It's entirely possible for the truck to be intact in the first half of the frame scan (and show that way in the frame) while it's turned into very small parts as the last 20% of the frame is read out.   

The frame rate and shutter speed aren't terrible for a night-video - the motion is pretty smooth and objects aren't rippled from the line scan.  It could be as high as 15 fps - we could work it out backward if someone knows the speed limit on the bridge and the road dashed line marking standards.  If we call it 10 fps then there's at least ~120 ms (maybe 220 ms?) where the camera is totally saturated in the original video before the fireball diminishes.  And it's complicated by aliasing with the frame rate and compression of the phone used to record the video from the computer monitor.

I've done shoots where we used  CCTV footage as part of the narrative. We manually adjust the camera's framerate to visually match CCTV,  so we go to 15 fps (very choppy, gas station/pawn shop type)  or 20fps (smooth, but still less than the classic 24fps of film). 

But proper modern, high grade CCTV can now be 36-48fps. It just comes down to storage capacity and priorities.  I do know that some large scale national infrastructure in Europe has some good CCTV quality. 

I don't view that video mentioned above as fake. . 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Kinophile

[chrisl]

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

RAILWAY.       X Airburst 

     ||.                     X  or Airburst (more likely) 

     ||.             ROAD 1.    ROAD 2.

     ||                   ||.              ||

~~||~~~~~~~~||~~~~~~~||~~~~ water

 

1. Railway is still in place 

2. Road 1 still in place

3. Road 2 broken AND PUSHED OFF

 

So, 

- Railway not directly impacted.  Light guard rails are blown off but a shockwave from exploding railway tank explains that. 

- Road 1 not directly impacted. It's scorched but surface is still intact. Structure took a downward hit but is structurally configured to absorb downward force. Blast centerpoint was far enough away (ie high enough) and possibly enough off the road axis that significant  blast missed the road span itself. 

 

- Road 2 possibly directly impacted BUT: (A) it's broken in two similar positions and lies in similar arrangement, (B) it's pushed off its piers, the spans are not structured to survive that type of twisting deformation (from direct force and sudden change in dead load configuration). So Road 2 took downward angled force, that shoved it laterally away, sheering the connection to its purr.  Not the steel pinning themselves -  they still stand up, so probably the concrete /steel of the span was ripped through by the pins as it moved sideways, away from the blast center.  Once off the pier centers the span folded and broke from its own weight (not impacts) and also the current catching it and shoving it back against its own piers.

This was no truck bomb, is my thinking. 

A missile (maybe two, if they blew perfectly simultaneously). 

@Battlefront.com

I think the missing piece of info that will explain/refute various ideas will be when we see the Road 2 spans that are currently submerged, Esp the part adjacent to the large scorch mark on Road 1.

 

 

 

We've seen part of that, and it has a big hole in it right at the waterline.  It looks like it could be in the righthand lane, but it would be good to see from the road surface side.

[akd]

10 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

RAILWAY.       X Airburst 

     ||.                     X  or Airburst (more likely) 

     ||.             ROAD 1.    ROAD 2.

     ||                   ||.              ||

~~||~~~~~~~~||~~~~~~~||~~~~ water

 

1. Railway is still in place 

2. Road 1 still in place

3. Road 2 broken AND PUSHED OFF

 

So, 

- Railway not directly impacted.  Light guard rails are blown off but a shockwave from exploding railway tank explains that. 

- Road 1 not directly impacted. It's scorched but surface is still intact. Structure took a downward hit but is structurally configured to absorb downward force. Blast centerpoint was far enough away (ie high enough) and possibly enough off the road axis that significant  blast missed the road span itself. 

 

- Road 2 possibly directly impacted BUT: (A) it's broken in two similar positions and lies in similar arrangement, (B) it's pushed off its piers, the spans are not structured to survive that type of twisting deformation (from direct force and sudden change in dead load configuration). So Road 2 took downward angled force, that shoved it laterally away, sheering the connection to its purr.  Not the steel pinning themselves -  they still stand up, so probably the concrete /steel of the span was ripped through by the pins as it moved sideways, away from the blast center.  Once off the pier centers the span folded and broke from its own weight (not impacts) and also the current catching it and shoving it back against its own piers.

This was no truck bomb, is my thinking. 

A missile (maybe two, if they blew perfectly simultaneously). 

@Battlefront.com

I think the missing piece of info that will explain/refute various ideas will be when we see the Road 2 spans that are currently submerged, Esp the part adjacent to the large scorch mark on Road 1.

 

 

 

You can see part of it here: 

The other breaks are clean and at joints, not from separate explosions.  All evidence points to a single explosion happening on the road surface in the middle of this span.  Airburst of a warhead would just diminish the damage done.

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I've done shoots where we used  CCTV footage as part of the narrative. We manually adjust the camera's framerate to visually match CCTV,  so we go to 15 fps (very choppy, gas station/pawn shop type)  or 20fps (smooth, but still less than the classic 24fps of film). 

But proper modern, high grade CCTV can now be 36-48fps. It just comes down to storage capacity and priorities.  I do know that some large scale national infrastructure in Europe has some good CCTV quality. 

It's got to have a lot of compression to do that - I take a lot of incompressible video data at 2kx2kx8 bit x 15 fps and that uses half of a GigE pipe for one monochrome camera and spinning drives can't generally keep up with sustained recording - we have to use SSDs to avoid losing frames.

The video looking along the bridge very well could be higher than 10 fps frame rate - the frame to frame motion is pretty small for the vehicles, and the resolution is pretty chunky. 

[FancyCat]

 

 

 

[Offshoot]

4 hours ago, akd said:

Top-scorched.

Bottom not so much

Is it curious though that the collapsed sections of bridge, which were presumably closer to the explosion, are not so scorched? The white road markings are even still visible on them. I wonder how much of that scorching came from fuel from the train.

[Kinophile]

45 minutes ago, akd said:

You can see part of it here: 

The other breaks are clean and at joints, not from separate explosions.  All evidence points to a single explosion happening on the road surface in the middle of this span.  Airburst of a warhead would just diminish the damage done.

Hmmm. 

A single explosion at the road surface, in the middle of a span? That shouldnt push the whole span sidewayss, off its pinning. It should just rip a lot of steel apart and fracture/break the rebar support beams. 

To push the whole span sideways requires an enormous amount of force, and needs to come from a direction non-perpendicular to the surface. 

A blast favouring one side of the span (eg above one lane as you mention)  might do it. But it's a big ask... 

[Kinophile]

53 minutes ago, chrisl said:

It's got to have a lot of compression to do that - I take a lot of incompressible video data at 2kx2kx8 bit x 15 fps and that uses half of a GigE pipe for one monochrome camera and spinning drives can't generally keep up with sustained recording - we have to use SSDs to avoid losing frames.

The video looking along the bridge very well could be higher than 10 fps frame rate - the frame to frame motion is pretty small for the vehicles, and the resolution is pretty chunky. 

Very true. I can't imagine HDDs keeping up with modern data throughputs of 2k, even at 15ps, for a usefully reliable timeframe. 

I'm curious what you mean by "incompressible" video.  All digital video is fundamentally compressible so are you operating according to external, end user delivery requirements/parameters? 

Don't want to come across as snarky, just genuinely interested. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Kinophile