King Leopold the 2nd of Belgium.

described at the time

Hmm… I wonder when these…

Leopold II was the second king of the Belgians from 1865 to 1909, and the founder and sole owner of the Congo Free State from 1885 to 1908.

Oh that’s not too long ago. “Sole owner of the Congo Free State” sounds like a contradiction tbh

Yeah sure, they do, ofc. Hell, the military has literally vehicles that become bridges in case someone else has blown up a bridge.

My point is that I often found in the military that things are ultimately done because they make sense. (And I don’t want a bunch of people here complaining about making their beds, discipline, cleanliness and uniformity does have a purpose.)

I just think these hooks seem be really close to each other and I only found articles talking about charge “pits”, but someone did link a Finnish thing where they said “panoskoukku” so could very well be and I’m not arguing against it anymore.

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.

Instead of sourcing your shit and/or answering my last question, you just can’t do anything else than take it personally.

I wasn’t being a dick. Asking for a source isn’t being a dick.

Just because you imagine me having a complaining or whining voice doesn’t make it so. You’re projecting shit from your consciousness onto me.

If an assertion is made without any proof, it is equally easy to dismiss it. This is literally rhetoric 101. But yes, I know you äidin lil’ kullanmurut get so upset when someone dares to question a thing.

And thats why you’ll stay an introverted socially inept weakling.

“Perättömistä syytöksistä”

Name one. Oh you can’t? What did I accuse you of. You’re the one being insanely dickish here, because you can’t read neutral comments as neutral. Literally the reason Finland sucks is the attitude you’re exemplifying, and also a threat to our democracy. But you would never believe it no matter what, so it’s no use talking about it.

Oh and another “I’m gonna block you”. People who say that never do, because you’re so utterly desperate to see what I think about your message.

Noni.

Eihä se nii vaikiaa ollu löytää jotai lähdettä. Thänks

Is there any info on how the hooks are used, what kind of charges?

Yeah… so you’d agree it would be these hooks you’d use?

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?

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

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.

Yeah I find it deeply annoying to talk to whiny people who get upset when you question something they’ve said. In fact I make it a practice not to be with such people, because they’re usually really emotionally unstable. Usually it’s the less intellectually robust people, and they get mad when you remind them of it.

See what you’ve just told me is you’re repulsed by even the suggestion of “try to rationalise this thought you have”.

Eww.

“Charge PITS.”

But I’m sure that’s just a translation error, right?

Sure you did.

I know, it’s annoying when someone asks for something to make sense when you’ve already decided it’s true no matter if it does or doesn’t make sense.

“Charge PITS”, not “nails” or “hooks”.

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?

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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.