[Goose]

Any particular reason to think ATACMS can destroy the bridge when current armaments like storm shadow have not? I'd assumed the combo of jamming and air defense, combined with limited ammo to waste in an unsuccessful attack with storm shadow  was the reason it is still standing. Is it a difference in capability or simply of numbers?

The ATACMS is a ballistic missile with a speed of Mach 3 while the Storm Shadow is a cruise missile. That means it takes the Storm Shadow a significantly longer time in flight which can make it easier to detect. Russia has LOTS of air defense in south Kherson and in Crimea. They have some experience in shooting down cruise missiles. They are like low-flying airplanes but they can't execute a missile avoidance maneuvers. The jamming can also affect cruise missiles more because their INS has to navigate longer, increasing it's error. ATACMS can rely on it's INS to a much greater degree because it's speed will reduce the time for errors to accumulate.

The interception of a ballistic missile is just harder than a cruise missile (if you have adequate resources to detect either). I am assuming the Russian forces defending the bridge have little if any experience against ballistic targets. If done "right", Ukraine can give them difficult geometry to deal with. It can also be a complete surprise if the launch happens before the delivery to Ukraine is announced. The Russians make lots of claims regarding their capabilities that often turn out to be vast overstatements. I am betting that is the case here.

[Goose]

Any particular reason to think ATACMS can destroy the bridge when current armaments like storm shadow have not? I'd assumed the combo of jamming and air defense, combined with limited ammo to waste in an unsuccessful attack with storm shadow  was the reason it is still standing. Is it a difference in capability or simply of numbers?

The ATACMS is a ballistic missile with a speed of Mach 3 while the Storm Shadow is a cruise missile. That means it takes the Storm Shadow a significantly longer time in flight which can make it easier to detect. Russia has LOTS of air defense in south Kherson and in Crimea. They have some experience in shooting down cruise missiles. They are like low-flying airplanes but they can't execute a missile avoidance maneuvers. The jamming can also affect cruise missiles more because their INS has to navigate longer, increasing it's error. ATACMS can rely on it's INS to a much greater degree because it's speed will reduce the time for errors to accumulate.

The interception of a ballistic missile is just harder than a cruise missile (if you have adequate resources to detect either). I am assuming the Russian forces defending the bridge have little if any experience against ballistic targets. If done "right", Ukraine can give them difficult geometry to deal with. It can also be a complete surprise if the launch happens before the delivery to Ukraine is announced. The Russians make lots of claims regarding their capabilities that often turn out to be vast overstatements. I am betting that is the case here.