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.
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.