Apparently, Ukrainian drones pushed through and started a chain reaction.
Explosions reportedly continued for hours, and authorities evacuated nearby settlements. Initial reports indicate that the site, previously protected by one of Russia’s densest air defense networks, suffered catastrophic damage.
I’m pretty sure competent militaries store their munitions in networks of dozens if not hundreds of earthen bunkers per site, specifically so shit like this can’t happen.
264 kilotons is a fuckload of bombs.
Competent ones, I think they do.
Possible explanations:
-
yet another time, someone had set money aside for personal use, consequently the bunkers had doors made of plywood or roofing tin :)
-
arrival of drones was timed to match the loading / unloading of an ammunition train (that’s when even competent militaries have to bring their stuff out)
!fuckcars@lemmy.world breaks down the door
In their infinite wisdom they apparently stored a bunch of ammunitions out in the open.
Russia has a long history of open storage at these sites. They also lost a ton of bunkers a few months ago at other sites. So they likely did not have much of an option, and they chose open store it at their “best defended” base.
I personally would bet that site was overstocked as it was likely the primary ammo dump by default. All of the newly manufactured missiles and shells going there directly from the factories.
It could hold that much, but according to Ukraine it was 105000 tons that exploded. Huge success though.
Assuming I’m looking at the right thing on google maps, it does seem to be a lot of earthen bunkers with berms separating them. There are also quite a few free standing buildings scattered around.
I looked at Hawthorne Army Depot (US) to compare, and that one is a lot less dense, but it’s absolutely gigantic.
I guess we don’t have an accurate source on what percentage of munitions his was.
If you think of the fill percentage, I think that’s too optimistic, since they’re in a war. There is constant demand. However, even 50% would be an extremely big amount, and relieve Ukrainians from a lot of pressure (last year, when a similar thing happened in Toropets, it had effects on the front within weeks). This time, from the videos I saw, there was enough to keep detonating for a long time.
Whatever the fill percentage and loss percentage, the site is closed for a long time - if something remains, it cannot be reached, it has to be examined and re-certified. But more likely, very little will remain.
In the coming days, satellite photos will tell what the situation is.
I assume that bunkers protect you from a chain reaction, but that at some point the explosion is big enough that a chain reaction is exactly what you get.
This definitely seems like it would have been big enough to cause a chain reaction (and/or big enough to show that a chain reaction happened). If so, I wonder what fraction of bunkers exploded. I’m glad we live in an age of civilian satellites, so it’s probably just a matter of time before we get to see the damage for ourselves.
Can we have links to more reputable, known news sites please? Never heard of that one. Here’s the BBC.
Russia’s military blamed the blast on ammunition which had detonated after the storage building caught fire due to a “violation of safety requirements”.
Huh, I suppose maybe a drone-sized violation?
Have seen euromaidanpress articles before, I think they’re legit if not a bit sensationalist and obviously very pro-Ukraine.
And of course Russia blames a smoooooking incident. There’s this one Russian guy who just smokes everywhere he shouldn’t. Munition storages, aviation bases, flagship Moskva…
Sensationalism is the kind of red flags I run away from… Obviously the BBC have their own political slant, but I’m aware of it and can correct for that. Same when I read an article from something like Fox “News”.
But if you give me some unknown site of which I don’t know the background and more importantly, who’s funding it, then it’s useless to me and I’ll just add it to the bunch of misinformation machines I run into everyday.
I think it’s more that the British Press in general is pretty political, heavy on the spin and hence one of the least trusted in Europe by the locals themselves.
When it comes to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine - which is very politically and geostrategically significant for the UK government - the level and direction of the bias of the BBC is no different from the Euromaidan Press hence for those who think the latter is not a “serious source”, the former is also not a “serious source”.
Mind you, on different subjects which are not related to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (such as the Israeli Genocide in Gaza) I fully expect the Euromaidan Press is often less biased (on this specific example, significantly so) than the BBC.
Just because the BBC is posh doesn’t mean they’re honest (in fact from my own experience living in the UK, posh more often than not means fake. manipulative and dishonest)
Hi, I’m a left wing rather than right wing idiot. The BBC has proved itself an unreliable source plenty of times. They’re beholden to political influence (see today’s story about one of their staff not being allowed to talk about heat pumps because it’s a “political issue”)
This fucking rules. Eat poo, Shittin.
Must have been one hell of a fireworks show, good hunting finding the next one.
Slava Ukraini
oh look they picked a new pope already
