Scrutable

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:00 pm

Anyway, I think we can all conclude we aren't looking at carelessly discarded cigarettes here. We're talking cigars, at a minimum, and big ones at that.

The SF explanation certainly holds less water than it might of yesterday...

Could there have been an SF element in painting/designating the targets?

Also, I'm a bit confused - have there been 2 separate incidents in Crimea or am I muddling up names.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:09 am

Could there have been an SF element in painting/designating the targets?

Unlikely as the location of the installations at the airbase would have been well known from satellite images. So they wouldn't have needed someone to designate a target. But I guess its possible.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:09 am

Also, I'm a bit confused - have there been 2 separate incidents in Crimea or am I muddling up names.

One incident is being referred to with the name of the airbase (Saki or Saky) and the name of the nearby town (Novofedorvika).

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:09 am

Could there have been an SF element in painting/designating the targets?

Also, I'm a bit confused - have there been 2 separate incidents in Crimea or am I muddling up names.

There was also a munitions dump 175km from Ukrainian-controlled territory

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/stat ... 16W0TwisXg

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:09 am

Could there have been an SF element in painting/designating the targets?

Also, I'm a bit confused - have there been 2 separate incidents in Crimea or am I muddling up names.

One big incident we're all talking about, which is the airbase at Novofederovka, which is near the town of Saky.

However, there are other notable long range strikes behind the lines - Novooleksiivka, and Chongar. The latter is on the edge of Crimea.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:04 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:00 pm

Anyway, I think we can all conclude we aren't looking at carelessly discarded cigarettes here. We're talking cigars, at a minimum, and big ones at that.

The SF explanation certainly holds less water than it might of yesterday...

Ukraine will want Russia to believe it was SF, though, as that means the Russians will need vastly more security in their operational rear, and that pulls infantry from the front lines.

We can't completely rule out a role for SF, it isn't completely impossible that the missiles needed guidance, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.

Those craters, incidentally, are on the order of twenty five metres across. I've seen a chart of crater size compared to munition, and even 2000lb bombs come in at less than twenty. Half tonne warheads sound about right in this context.

One possibility - particularly given the rather oily looking nature of the explosions and the flash-fireball sequence - is that these were thermobaric warheads. I know these were intended as an option for Hrim-2, but we still don't know if it was Hrim-2.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:25 pm

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:04 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:00 pm

Anyway, I think we can all conclude we aren't looking at carelessly discarded cigarettes here. We're talking cigars, at a minimum, and big ones at that.

The SF explanation certainly holds less water than it might of yesterday...

Ukraine will want Russia to believe it was SF, though, as that means the Russians will need vastly more security in their operational rear, and that pulls infantry from the front lines.

We can't completely rule out a role for SF, it isn't completely impossible that the missiles needed guidance, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.

Those craters, incidentally, are on the order of twenty five metres across. I've seen a chart of crater size compared to munition, and even 2000lb bombs come in at less than twenty. Half tonne warheads sound about right in this context.

One possibility - particularly given the rather oily looking nature of the explosions and the flash-fireball sequence - is that these were thermobaric warheads. I know these were intended as an option for Hrim-2, but we still don't know if it was Hrim-2.

Would thremobaric warheads leave such craters? It seems surprising to me as a complete non expert

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:38 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:25 pm

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:04 am

The SF explanation certainly holds less water than it might of yesterday...

Ukraine will want Russia to believe it was SF, though, as that means the Russians will need vastly more security in their operational rear, and that pulls infantry from the front lines.

We can't completely rule out a role for SF, it isn't completely impossible that the missiles needed guidance, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.

Those craters, incidentally, are on the order of twenty five metres across. I've seen a chart of crater size compared to munition, and even 2000lb bombs come in at less than twenty. Half tonne warheads sound about right in this context.

One possibility - particularly given the rather oily looking nature of the explosions and the flash-fireball sequence - is that these were thermobaric warheads. I know these were intended as an option for Hrim-2, but we still don't know if it was Hrim-2.

Would thremobaric warheads leave such craters? It seems surprising to me as a complete non expert

They can, because they produce a powerful shockwave. The fireball is just leftover fuel that didn't have the right stochiometry to be fully consumed in the detonation.

Thread from someone arguing in favour of special forces interpretation. I don't think I agree, but he makes some good points and important to keep an open mind.

His argument is that SOF could have placed charges on the ammo stores.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:01 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:38 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:25 pm

Ukraine will want Russia to believe it was SF, though, as that means the Russians will need vastly more security in their operational rear, and that pulls infantry from the front lines.

We can't completely rule out a role for SF, it isn't completely impossible that the missiles needed guidance, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely.

Those craters, incidentally, are on the order of twenty five metres across. I've seen a chart of crater size compared to munition, and even 2000lb bombs come in at less than twenty. Half tonne warheads sound about right in this context.

One possibility - particularly given the rather oily looking nature of the explosions and the flash-fireball sequence - is that these were thermobaric warheads. I know these were intended as an option for Hrim-2, but we still don't know if it was Hrim-2.

Would thremobaric warheads leave such craters? It seems surprising to me as a complete non expert

They can, because they produce a powerful shockwave. The fireball is just leftover fuel that didn't have the right stochiometry to be fully consumed in the detonation.

What I was thinking was that Hiroshima, or even Trinity didn't really produce craters

The Hiroshima bomb was air burst, so that the blast wave would be less intense at ground zero and more widely spread. Hence no crater. Wikipedia says it was 1800 to 2000 feet altitude.

basementer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:43 pm

The Hiroshima bomb was air burst, so that the blast wave would be less intense at ground zero and more widely spread. Hence no crater. Wikipedia says it was 1800 to 2000 feet altitude.

Which is why I also mentioned Trinity.

And a thremobaric weapon would be an airburst if it worked as designed.

But I guess a combination of fuel air and an impact would make sense

So now of course I'm thinking of the video of the two "simultaneous" explosions where three frames show the left fireball, then a faint but much larger yellow flash to its right, then the right fireball.

Reading about fuel air weapons in Wikipedia it describes a now-obsolete Vietnam era US weapon CBU-72 which contained three 100lb fuel-air submunitions and was seen as very effective against "aircraft parked in the open". Those were intended to burst open at about 30 ft and release a fuel cloud about 60ft across.

Very tempting to try to reconcile that with what we saw but of course it could still be something else entirely.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:49 pm

basementer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:43 pm

The Hiroshima bomb was air burst, so that the blast wave would be less intense at ground zero and more widely spread. Hence no crater. Wikipedia says it was 1800 to 2000 feet altitude.

Which is why I also mentioned Trinity.

Trinity was on top of a tower, which significantly reduces the crater compared to directly on the ground or slightly buried.

Tallboys and Grand Slam earthquake bombs also didn't have to leave much in the way of craters, as they were designed to be able to explode deep enough that they didn't waste energy throwing debris, but instead dug caverns to undermine structures, and sent shock waves out to damage structures. They could be set to explode at more shallow depths though for attacking surface structures like rail yards and airfields.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:36 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:49 pm

basementer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:43 pm

The Hiroshima bomb was air burst, so that the blast wave would be less intense at ground zero and more widely spread. Hence no crater. Wikipedia says it was 1800 to 2000 feet altitude.

Which is why I also mentioned Trinity.

Trinity was on top of a tower, which significantly reduces the crater compared to directly on the ground or slightly buried.

Tallboys and Grand Slam earthquake bombs also didn't have to leave much in the way of craters, as they were designed to be able to explode deep enough that they didn't waste energy throwing debris, but instead dug caverns to undermine structures, and sent shock waves out to damage structures. They could be set to explode at more shallow depths though for attacking surface structures like rail yards and airfields.

Exactly, but a thremobaric weapon should ALSO be an airburst weapon unless you were using it against a bunker or tunnel complex. Especially if you are trying to damage aircraft.

https://twitter.com/TDF_UA/status/15577 ... kENyUrGk8A

Ukraine is good on the social media trolling of Russia

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:02 pm

Thread from someone arguing in favour of special forces interpretation. I don't think I agree, but he makes some good points and important to keep an open mind.

His argument is that SOF could have placed charges on the ammo stores.

On the point that no missiles appear in the video. Ballistic missiles are very fast in their terminal phase. I can’t find any stats for a Hrim-2. But if it was travelling at, say, 2500 kmh, would we expect to see it in a video? Especially if the video was taken on a mobile phone or a security camera.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:52 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:02 pm

Thread from someone arguing in favour of special forces interpretation. I don't think I agree, but he makes some good points and important to keep an open mind.

His argument is that SOF could have placed charges on the ammo stores.

On the point that no missiles appear in the video. Ballistic missiles are very fast in their terminal phase. I can’t find any stats for a Hrim-2. But if it was travelling at, say, 2500 kmh, would we expect to see it in a video? Especially if the video was taken on a mobile phone or a security camera.

I've not seen any signs of ballistic missiles in previous strikes conducted with them. Cruise missiles, yes, but not things like Iskanders, which is the closest comparable missile to either Hrim-2 or ATACMS.

A ballistic missile would be coming in fast, a kilometre or two every second. I think it's quite possible ballistics could have come in without being seen.

I'm open to the idea that the craters and blasts could be ammunition stores detonating, but they seem too consistent in both fireball shape/size and crater size. Inferring too much from crater size isn't ideal, as, as discussed above, we don't know the burst height. On the other hand if we're looking at something just a little bigger than the maximum crater size in optimum conditions for a 2000lb Mk84 bomb, with its 429kg bursting charge, we're looking at a big blast either way.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:02 pm

So now of course I'm thinking of the video of the two "simultaneous" explosions where three frames show the left fireball, then a faint but much larger yellow flash to its right, then the right fireball.

Reading about fuel air weapons in Wikipedia it describes a now-obsolete Vietnam era US weapon CBU-72 which contained three 100lb fuel-air submunitions and was seen as very effective against "aircraft parked in the open". Those were intended to burst open at about 30 ft and release a fuel cloud about 60ft across.

Very tempting to try to reconcile that with what we saw but of course it could still be something else entirely.

It really does just look like a thermobaric. If they were thermobarics of that size, then personnel operating in that particular area wouldn't have had particularly good survival chances. Thermobarics are very effective - and extremely unpleasant - weapons.

On the evening of the day Novofedorivka got schwacked, there were reports of blasts in Belarus, specifically, Zyabrovka, an airbase used by the Russians. I - and a lot of much more knowledgeable people than me - was quite sceptical, as the only evidence was an indistinct flash on an indistinct horizon. That's understandable for a real event, of course - it isn't safe to operate too openly filming that sort of thing.

But it turns out something did happen. There's scorch marks on the satellite. Nothing close to Novofedorivka in scope, but still something.

Could be partisans, hard to say. A lot of Belarusians oppose Lukashenko and the de-facto Russian occupation he has both enabled and depends upon. Many are fighting for Ukraine right now. It could even be Ukraine hitting back at the base from which attacks are launched on Ukraine, which they are perfectly entitled to do, of course. Whoever is behind it - and it could be an accident, of course - putting pressure on Lukashenko could create a lot of difficulties for the Russians. With their troops in Ukraine, if Belarus rises against Lukashenko, he's toast.

And western powers need to be ready to act if something of that nature does happen, even though it remains quite unlikely at the moment.

Nova Kakhovka. Bridge doesn't look very happy.



I'd say that nearest girder is no longer girding. Looks like the tension cables have all failed at this end, too.

And this was before further strikes, as seen here.

Looks like air defence stopped some of them, but only some of them.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:24 am

Nova Kakhovka. Bridge doesn't look very happy.



I'd say that nearest girder is no longer girding. Looks like the tension cables have all failed at this end, too.

And this was before further strikes, as seen here.

Looks like air defence stopped some of them, but only some of them.

Mixed my bridges up. The damage pictured is Nova Kakhovka. The arrivals in the video are at the Antonivsky bridge.

Much clearer footage here. Definitely a number of rockets get through to the bridge. Unclear to what extent interceptor detonating corresponds with successful interception. At least one interceptor detonates only for a hit on the bridge to follow moments later.

It looks like the same part of the same span we've seem damaged before has been hit again.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:56 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:24 am

Nova Kakhovka. Bridge doesn't look very happy.



I'd say that nearest girder is no longer girding. Looks like the tension cables have all failed at this end, too.

And this was before further strikes, as seen here.

Looks like air defence stopped some of them, but only some of them.

Mixed my bridges up. The damage pictured is Nova Kakhovka. The arrivals in the video are at the Antonivsky bridge.

Much clearer footage here. Definitely a number of rockets get through to the bridge. Unclear to what extent interceptor detonating corresponds with successful interception. At least one interceptor detonates only for a hit on the bridge to follow moments later.

It looks like the same part of the same span we've seem damaged before has been hit again.

four tweet thread on this

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/155 ... 4ApadDMwGg

TLDR - Thomas is arguing that these were basically fired on a preset course with a preset bursting time - not even a proximity fuse*.



*Dan Kaszeta is adamant that "fuze" is the correct spelling even in the UK but I refuse to believe him on THAT.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:43 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:56 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:24 am

Nova Kakhovka. Bridge doesn't look very happy.



I'd say that nearest girder is no longer girding. Looks like the tension cables have all failed at this end, too.

And this was before further strikes, as seen here.

Looks like air defence stopped some of them, but only some of them.

Mixed my bridges up. The damage pictured is Nova Kakhovka. The arrivals in the video are at the Antonivsky bridge.

Much clearer footage here. Definitely a number of rockets get through to the bridge. Unclear to what extent interceptor detonating corresponds with successful interception. At least one interceptor detonates only for a hit on the bridge to follow moments later.

It looks like the same part of the same span we've seem damaged before has been hit again.

four tweet thread on this

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/155 ... 4ApadDMwGg

TLDR - Thomas is arguing that these were basically fired on a preset course with a preset bursting time - not even a proximity fuse*.



*Dan Kaszeta is adamant that "fuze" is the correct spelling even in the UK but I refuse to believe him on THAT.

Chambers agrees with you