582
Most bridges here do, and often when one needs to be demolished and rebuilt, the military blows it up just for practice.
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
582 points (99.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
25445 readers
944 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
https://sotatie.fi/en/battlegrouds-trail/site-descriptions/mohko-village
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.
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.
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.
More often? Once you do use them to blow up the bridge then there's no bridge or hooks.
Exactly :)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?