08-31-2025, 07:49 AM
(08-30-2025, 04:10 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-30-2025, 01:36 PM)M T Wrote: I suspect another Russian General might take a high dive.I doubt that was the reason. IMO it was following a "normal" Soviet practice of storing enough mines in the superstructure/underneath bridges to both a) mine the approach roads of the bridge if ordered and b) destroy the bridge if necessary. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/29/world/ukr...rones-intl
It seems Russian troops thought it was a good idea to stash a load of mines under bridges, presumably to hide them from surveillance. Ooops.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/30/world/vid...sia-digvid
This article seems to confirm that interpretation.
I believe you are correct. Russian doctrine must require that potential routes of withdrawl must be prepared, bridges and other choke points mined in case it becomes necessary to destroy them. I believe the Russians will never forget Operation Barberossa. Of course almost any competent military would want to be in position to be able to limit an agressor by destroying access routes. While geographic barriers may not be as important as they once were, they are still important to some extent.
