Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.
Edit: Source for the sceptics
The deep demolition, which became a central element in Finnish post-war demolition tactics, and especially the development of readiness to counter surprise attacks that emerged as a threat scenario in the 1960s, received significant support immediately after the wars. The decision concerning structural demolition preparations for bridges was made on January 15, 1946. These preparations meant building charge wells, charge chambers, charge pipes, and charge hooks. Authorities responsible for constructing bridges were required to include the aforementioned structures in their plans, which significantly improved the readiness to destroy the bridges.
If it was not possible to place the charge space inside the abutment or pier, charge hooks could be embedded in the supports during the casting phase, to which the charges could then be attached.
I’m pretty sure that all bridges in Poland are designed to be easily blown up.
Plenty of bridges built in Sweden during the cold war has the openings in the foundation for the same purpose.
That sounds a lot more efficient. Just hanging the explosives isn’t going to direct the energy very well.
someone elsewhere in the thread mentioned that this is the requirement, and the hooks are an “if not possible” compromise
Here’s a nearby railroad bridge with an opening left for the explosives instead of hooks. Different bridges use different methods.
Thats the same design the bridges here in Austria/Vienna over the Danube have; cold war planning was to delay while our military retreats into the mountains, the plains were thought to be indefensible. Looking at Ukraine will have changed a lot of minds regarding defense planning.
Not necessarily. Drones can level a position or terrorize civilians, but you can’t securely hold that position or occupy territory with them. For now, there is no replacement in that job - your infantry and armor are still doing that work.
Having been in Tyrol many times, I feel claustrophobic retreating into the mountains. It’s basically a funnel. How is it more defendable in modern warfare tactics?
deleted by creator
Could as well be a bridge in Germany.
I always thought that’s where the shock absorbers are placed to distribute shock (duh) and load.
Turns out the place where the shock absorber goes is also the place the „shock distributor“ works best from 😈
Maybe that’s the point? You need to be able to blow the bridge, but you don’t want some asshole to be able to make some homemade explosive to blow it just because they feel like it
We still have furrows with ca. 1 meter cement blocks all over the place in Switzerland. They are usually full of shrubs and valuable ecological niches. Also a great defence against Panzers.
I thought you had exploding roads.
*bridges
I’ve read it described as “bridges, tunnels, roads and airstrips”. It makes sense to diversify.
I have heard the same thing about semiconductor factories in Taiwan. Don’t know if it’s true or urban legend.
They’re 100% going scorched earth if China manages to make landfall
They’ll literally put the world to a post-apocalyptic state, we can’t get new chips for any electronics in quantity for a good half decade or more.
I wouldn’t say post-apocalyptic. Yes, we won’t have access to performant new chips anymore, but most critical infrastructure doesn’t need performant new chips. It would be a rough period, for sure, but not apocalyptic
And if worst came to worst, the military/government could requisition consumer equipment, or less critical business equipment
Wouldn’t surprise me - their chip foundries are the most robust defense they have. If they were gone, Taiwan would be “just another Island that will cause you loads of headache internationally and because of a nearly guaranteed resistance - and you expended a lot of resources for it on top”
Isn’t that a swiss thing as well?
Yeah cold war logic was paranoid. Nuclear bunkers in essentially every building built during the cold war, highway segements were built with fighter jet landing capabilities. And yeah I believe many bridges have explosive “capabilities”.
I call that pragmatic, not paranoid.
Sometimes paranoia is pragmatic
Ehhh when you’re an officially neutral nation with immense financial power surrounded by West Germany, France, Austria (also neutral), and Italy. And you’re on good terms and deeply financially intertwined with NATO.
I feel like having people in your population be homeless and die of lack of medical treatment is a bigger priority than inflating the already massive military budget and capability.
yeah its like if your only neighbor is the usa you don’t need to worry about any invasions or anything. and I mean moreso if its germany who has never in their history been violent.
You say that like Switzerland simply sat back and watched everyone else fight. Switzerland was only able to stay neutral because they were able to repel invasions extremely effectively. If they got conquered, they wouldn’t be able to remain neutral. Switzerland’s continued neutrality hinges on them being able to effectively defend their borders. Basically, they need to force any potential invaders to do the math and go “nah, it’s actually not worth invading. The benefits we would get aren’t going to outweigh the losses…”
Can you truly be neutral if you can’t defend yourself on your own? Switzerland made sure they can STAY neutral if the nazis try something again
It’s better to have a plan and not have to use it than the other way around.
Norway as well
Cold-War era strategic Autobahn segments in West Germany had covered shafts at regular intervals.
Rumors had it that they were supposed to be fitted with small tactical nukes in the case the Sowjet tanks were on the verge of crossing the border…Edit:
Found the relevant Wikipedia article (only in German, though…):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra-PaketThere were also plans to bury nuclear landmines stuffed with chickens across Germany.
Britain: Some of you will be reduced to nuclear ash, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
While reading that I thought they intended to make mounds akin to the ones made by megapodes (sort of chicken-like), but now I understand why people have mistaken a declassified data for an April Fools
I never expected to read the term “chicken powered nuclear bomb” in a serious Wikipedia article. Yet here we go!
BTW, I think we have left the mildly interesting context by now… :-)
Today I learned something new, and it was completely insane. Thank you.
Thank you for that link. Now I’m surprised I haven’t seen it used in a meme yet.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
But why? More kaboom isn’t always better in mines. Especially not in infrastructure you have to repair after the war.
Most of northern and central Germany was seen as a complete loss in any way.
There where hundreds of French tactical nuclear missiles pointed, not at Warsaw Pact countries, but at Germany, to bring the Soviet advance to a halt before it could reach the French border.
German Tornado fighter jets would have been outfitted with nuclear weapons to drop them - you probably guessed it - on German soil.
There would not have been an “after the war” for Germany.
Welcome to the insane logic of nuclear warfare!It is called MAD, after all.
Could you give me a source for this?
Preferably a Finnish one. Not by language (although am Finnish so not an issue) but like a reliable source in Finland documenting that’s what they’re for?
I know we do have lots of infra designed “in case of Russian attack”, mainly the direction of roads on the eastern border, but I’d like to read up on this blowing bridges shit.
The sapper units train how to blow up every bridge in their deployment area. Sauce: was in one
So did you do it by hanging shit off the walls or actually putting explosives into structures?
Everything I find about the defensive strategy talks about “charge pits” and “cavities”, can’t find a single reference to hanging or hooks.
As a dapper you’d use whatever means at your disposal, but as a defensive strategy you’re doing with time, why wouldn’t you actually make pits to put rhe explosives in? I’m sure as a sapper you understand how much more effective it is to have an explosive surrounded by the structure instead of just vaguely close to it, so that a majority of the explosive force actually goes into whatever you’re blowing up instead of harakoille. Right?
Directional charges are a thing
Bigger bridges have … crawlspaces you can set stuff in
Yeah… so you’d agree it would be these hooks you’d use?
Yep, directed charge hung on there and you’re good
Directed charges still should be attached to something, because of Newton’s third law.
Or I’m just super ignorant of the type of charge you’re imagining. Please, elaborate.
I’m not sure if this is something you’ll find an official source for as FDF isn’t known for openly sharing information regarding national defence.
However, you can find plenty of discussion about it online and for example on this video it’s mentioned around the 1:25 mark.
Yeah but I don’t see those hooks as being related. You don’t really need hooks like that to blow a bridge and that’s a small underpass of a regular road. You could cave that with a few sticks of TNT. And drilling them into the wall is much more efficient than hanging them off the wall.
I just suspect these hooks are just remnants of building it, and not for any specific purpose. Don’t really care if I’m wrong but I won’t be dissuaded unless someone actually proves it properly.
Drilling is slow. Efficiency isn’t the point here, speed is.
This isn’t exactly a regular road either but highway number four which leads straight to Helsinki.
You can see these same hooks on the support pillars of most bridges as well. Once you start paying attention to it you can’t really unsee it.
Yeah I’ve seen them as I’ve driven Turku-Hki highway 1 and the old nr 1 as well.
For me it’d be much more believable if we we’re talking about eastern cities. The road infra around the eastern border, no matter how clearly designed against an invasion from the East, was not talked about for decades. But they’ve since loosened the policy.
I understand the logic. I just don’t buy into it. I understand I can be wrong but eh, until further evidence is presented this is my opinion.
Drilling is slow, yes, but explosives not in a structure just hanging on a hook outside are very much not efficient at destroying the structure. So if that’s the case, you’d pre-drill holes for explosives. Which they apparently do do in the East.
I do find confirmation of plans to destroy the bridges, but the words used are “charge pits” or panostustila/panostusaukko in Finnish.
I just can’t believe it’d be silly hooks like that so close. That to me seems just like the steel that’s strengthening the concrete.
It’s the military. I think they have enough kaboom to raze a bridge even without drilling
It’s the military. I was there, and remember everything usually being done as efficiently as possible. What would you get by hanging explosives on the walls? A big boom which isn’t even guaranteed to take down the bridge unless you use an excessive amount, whereas with the so called “charge pits”, you only need a few sticks of dynamite or an equivalent amount of a modern explosive.
Why do they call them “charge pits” if they’re actually just nails you hang explosives from? And why go through the trouble of hanging them ouf of something when they’re gonna be practically identically efficient from the ground?
Idk man, I just don’t accept these mutu-based posts. (That’s “mutu” as in “musta tuntuu” as in “well I feel like this is so”.)
It might be they are for them, but I’m not going to believe it, because they don’t seem to be “pits” of any sort.
And drilling them into the wall is much more efficient than hanging them off the wall.
You cannot do this for a tactical retreat, which these kinds of slowing tactics require, they need to divert armored columns within minutes of the advances. I don’t have a source on if that’s what the hooks are specifically for, but I can think of nothing else that would aid a rapid demo more, that wouldn’t also be prone to problems.
Two soldiers with charges they taped or roped together ahead of time can throw them in line across the hooks in under a minute and get out. Large, overkill charges and in a relatively enclosed space wouldn’t deflect into the sky like laying them on the surface. KISS.
they taped or roped together
Why not tape them to the bridge too?
I feel like driving out to the bridge would take longer than drilling a hole (with the benefit of maximizing destructive power).
Why not tape them to the bridge too?
Go get a baby. I guess something else that weighs similar would also work, but the awkwardness of a baby conveys the right level of fuss you would take with individual charges, and grab a roll of duct tape, then find a concrete wall of some kind and see how much tape you need to stick that baby to a rough old dirty concrete wall.
(Do not detonate the baby.)
However, of you drill, you don’t need the volume of a baby, just a few of sticks of c4.
Just take a look at how buildings are demolished, they drill holes. It’s the best way to destroy a building. Why would the Finns be silly and not do that. If it’s so important one could pre drill those holes, limiting time.
Why would the Finns be silly and not do that.
If it was not possible to place the charge space inside the abutment or pier, charge hooks could be embedded in the supports during the casting phase, to which the charges could then be attached.
The point is that you could do that, with a roll of gorilla tape.
The point isn’t it’s more awkward to do and takes longer, the point is that the explosive force delivered to the bridge would be the same. (Actually slightly more with a gorilla tape covered explosive as it would marginally increase the forces on the bridge compared to just hanging ones.)
If you put an explosive inside the bridge, the force delivered to the structure is several times more. Thus it would make sense to have “pits” to out explosives into, not just hooks to hang them off of.
I stopped caring and blocked your annoying ass
but I can think of nothing else that would aid a rapid demo more, that wouldn’t also be prone to problems
Literally drilled holes? I googled this a bit and they call them “charge pits”. I find it weird they’d call them “pits” if they’re just rebar they hang explosives off of.
You don’t decide to blow a bridge willy-nilly, and they need to have explosives anyway, and since the bridges are blown in advance, I don’t think they’d be in the middle of a tactical retreat.
Blowing up bridges with methods you decide during peacetime is strategy, not tactics.
I struggle to understand why you oppose this so much. You already confirmed that they indeed leave charge pits on bridges for the exact same reason. Why don’t you want to accept that these hooks serve the same purpose, but they’re used when a charge pit is inconvenient - like on the support pillars in the middle?
I just got back from a 100 km trip, and I paid extra attention to this. These hooks were on every single bridge pillar I saw. There are charge pits at each end and hooks on the support pillars. It’s not rebar either, but prefabricated hooks that are clearly put there for a purpose.
I’m really tempted to just email Destia and ask for a confirmation but I feel like asking stuff like that might sound a bit suspicious so I hesitate.
I’m not opposed in any way. I just don’t personally believe it. I think OP is full of bullshit, as a lot of people are.
I couldn’t even recall the amount of “facts” people throw around and then get super mad when someone points out their “facts” don’t make sense at all.
These hooks were on every single bridge pillar I saw
Yep. All around Finland.
All the talk of the defensive strategies (that we’ve had since the Winter War) only speak of these being applied to the eastern part of Finland. And you can even look at a map to see the roads round there mainly going in the same way and there not being lots of roads joining them. It’s all part of their defensive strategy. Shutting off infra from where an attack would come from.
But what is the fucking point in supposedly being ready to blow up a bridge in Forssa? Tell me the strategic advantage any enemy would have with it?
I’m really tempted to just email Destia and ask for a confirmation but I feel like asking stuff like that might sound a bit suspicious so I hesitate.
Go ahead if it bothers you so but yeah unless they confirm it or you make even a remotely rational explanation to them, I’m not buying it. Why does me not personally believing in something bug you so? If you need No proof to assert it, I need No proof to assert the negative of the same assertion.
Keskeisen aseman suomalaisessa sodanjälkeisessä suluttamistaktiikassa saanut syvä suluttaminen ja etenkin 1960-luvulla uhkakuviin nousseen yllätyshyökkäyksen torjuntavalmiuden kehittäminen saivat merkittävän tuen heti sotien jälkeen. Siltoja koskeva päätös rakenteellisista suluttamisvalmisteluista tehtiin 15.1.1946. Niillä tarkoitettiin panoskaivojen, panoskomeroiden, panosputkien ja panoskoukkujen rakentamista. Siltoja rakennuttavat viranomaiset velvoitettiin sisällyttämään suunnitelmiin edellä mainitut rakenteet, joiden ansiosta siltojen hävittämisvalmius parani oleellisesti.
Mikäli panostilan sijoittaminen maa- tai välituen sisälle ei ollut mahdollista, tukiin voitiin valamisvaiheessa sijoittaa panoskoukkuja, joihin panokset voitiin kiinnittää.
strategy, not tactics.
When do we start talking about logistics?
Well this entire discussion is about military logistics?
I don’t have the energy to try to take this hill from someone who has watched too many movies or Hearts of Iron IV to even take this realistically, you get to live this day.
I’m a supply core undersergeant, so I literally went through lists of military equipment when I was serving. Never saw anything related to using antitank mines for improvisational demolition charges.
Just admit you don’t have any reason. You can’t rationalise it, but despite the overwhelming lack of evidence and logic, you still believe it. This is why Finland (or rather Finns) suck.
Blowing bridges isn’t something you do when you’re doing a tactical retreat. Blowing up bridges is something you do strategically. Guess you can’t tell the difference, both synonyms to you?
You are deeply, deeply repulsive to try to chat with, I hope you have friends in real life.
deleted by creator
I mean its also very much usable for other stuff like hanging up temporary cables and hoses and in practice its probably used for things like that more often.
I genuinely just think it’s the construction crew just bending the rebar that they had as extra when building it, instead of spending time cutting these off to make it look nice.
As in they needed like x meters of rebar so they used x +0.5m to make sure there is enough, and in the end just couldn’t be arsed to cutt off the extra, sand it down, paint over it, etc.
Nobody on earth is “just bending” rebar instead of cutting it off. It’s difficult as fuck to bend rebar and only takes about eight seconds to cut a piece off.
Sure. But also, no-one is blowing bridges by hanging explosives inside instead of drilling them into the structure.
For 28 years, the bridge carried traffic and goods, including timber from the Soviet Union, until replaced by the present concrete structure. Pits for demolition charges are visible in the piles. These cavities could be filled with explosives in order to blow the bridge to smithereens should this ever have become necessary.
https://sotatie.fi/en/battlegrouds-trail/site-descriptions/mohko-village
But usually exposed rebar is considerd a fault because it can lead to corrosion and failure of the building.
And you would cut the rebar to length before pouring the beton.
I should’ve thought so as well but unless you can come up with better reasoning or source for these being for bombs, I still find it more probable. I’m not saying it’s a good explanation, but it’s more probable to me.
Anything I found was discussing “charge pits” and I can’t imagine any explosive you’d want to hang on the outside of what you’re demolishing with that sort of frequency.
I’m not saying it’s not true, but I’m not convinced.
Exposed rebar is a big nono in construction. It lets water in which causes rusting and eventually chunks of concrete start falling off.
I should’ve thought so as well but unless you can come up with better reasoning or source for these being for bombs, I still find it more probable. I’m not saying it’s a good explanation, but it’s more probable to me.
Anything I found was discussing “charge pits” and I can’t imagine any explosive you’d want to hang on the outside of what you’re demolishing with that sort of frequency.
I’m not saying it’s not true, but I’m not convinced.
As a pioneer I’m quite certain that the explosive you’re supposed to hang from there is just a plain anti-tank mine or few. It’s basically just a 10kg chunk of TNT - even has a handle.
Yeah, it does. And it’s also designed so that it takes 10 kilograms of pressure to detonate. Are you gonna rig up sideways launchers for each? Perhaps there already are remote detonators that you just replace the normal weight switch with.
But still. I don’t buy it. First off why hang them so frequently, and do all the texts speak of charge PITS instead of “charge hooks”?
It just doesn’t make sense to me and I just think OP has heard it from someone in real life and decided to believe it and is now spreading it here.
Unless someone can actually show these are for explosives, I just don’t buy it.
Cutting rebar is much easier than bending it, especially upwards and in a proper curve.
Also, those hooks immensely complicate the concrete framework. (If they were done during the initial pour)
So it’s pretty unlikely that they are leftovers from construction.
Cold war paranoia is the likeliest reason.I appreciate the input from a building perspective and I’ll buy that, sure, I don’t know shit about pouring concrete.
Cold war paranoia is the likeliest reason.
I still haven’t had any rational reason for these to be for bombs. It’s just much more effective to have bombs actually in the structure instead of just hanging on it. Imagine trying to blow a safe. Would you do it just by leaning an explosive on it and wishing for the best? Nah. You’d at least try to attach it to the lock somehow.
And every article I can find on bombing bridges in Finland talks about “charge pits”, not “a line of hooks well hang explosives off of”. So I just don’t buy these being military in any way. Not convinced.
More often? Once you do use them to blow up the bridge then there’s no bridge or hooks.
Exactly :)
Similarly in South Korea as well, there are a bunch of overpasses that are just filled with rocks to drop in case they need to deny the roads against an invasion.
Same for tunnels in Germany
Ah, I think it’s for hanging Christmas lights.
*Soviet Union
Russia since the 1990’s
anti-fascist forces
Convenient for saboteurs also. No worry about that?
Their only possible enemy is one that wants to advance in large numbers, the plan is to retreat, slow the enemy and block access as much as possible, repeat and draw back again. All the while Finnish soldiers and snipers pop out of the snow and repeatedly mash their ultimates and slow time and head-shot every enemy that approaches.
Edit: I am summarily blocking you pasty-white armchair hearts of iron players who think you understand every possible layer of Finnish military doctrine and strategy and want to argue about something neither of us are experts on. Please go take a goddamn walk and make some friends.
I was surprised when i learned Finland was an Axis power during WWII. Then when i learned why i wasn’t.
Yeah turns out if one side wants to massively genocide you and the other side has a weird creepy hard on for you you’ll put up with a lot. Even that wasn’t enough to last the whole war though.
