Depends on the explosive and what’s blown up next to it – some is touchier than others. On ships they kept the propellant for bag guns separate from the shells, and back before they started incorporating it into patches on the ends of the bags, the black powder used to detonate the main propellant charge was stored in yet another magazine.
To piggyback on what others have said … some of the videos of Russian ammo dumps / storage areas being destroyed by Ukrainian efforts show ongoing, rolling explosions, with some projectiles shooting out of the main conflagration. This is an indication of the initial strike causing secondary explosions among the ammo.
Doesn’t always happen, but when it does, it’s amazingly gratifying.
This particular discussion reminds me of the sorry Marine on Saipan during WW2 who chucked a satchel charge through a firing slit in a pill box, not knowing that it was the main Japanese ammo dump left on the island. I’ve seen stills, and I think I’ve seen film footage, but the explosion could be seen on Mars. Enclosed space, so virtually all at once.
Brave Marine in my book.
I’m not familiar with the story.
Did you say “sorry Marine” because he didn’t survive?
As in “He’s sorry he did that.”
For one side, anyway. For the other it’s pretty vexing.
Who’s side was he on?
Did he survive?
Maybe I’m slow, but I gotta know.
US Marine with a satchel charge. Ran on top of a big-ass “pill box” and lobbed it in. Made a crater you could drop Little Rock in. The Marine did not survive. Zero remains.
Brave indeed.
Probably saved a lot of allied lives on that island.
Thanks for the story.
For more reading, use the terms sympathetic detonation and simultaneous detonation. The basic way to reduce these happenings uses explosive quantity distance calculations. You seperate stacks of ammo of certain types from other stacks by a minimum distance. If you have the time/equipment in a field situation, you’d construct barriers between the stacks to reduce explosive spread by [my favorite q-d term] high speed low angle fragments. The Russians aren’t very observant of these distances. This is related to their lack of material handling equipment - they load/off load everything by hand labor. Having to drag a hundred pound projectile a 1/4 mile down the railroad siding to a new stack and then repeating that a few hundred more times is exhausting. And they have huge quantities of ammo and few trucks.
If Russia has to mobilize in ANY numbers beyond what they have now to defeat (relatively) tiny little Ukraine, then they have absolutely zero hope of defeating NATO on a conventional battlefield. At this point, I’m not even sure they could seriously inconvenience NATO if the conflict stays conventional.
NATO could use Russia for practice I suppose.
Aren’t they, though?
Every military on earth is going to school on this conflict and taking copious notes…
And more than notes. NATO is analyzing captured Russian equipment and I’m sure Russia is doing the same and/or sharing with Iran/China/DPRK.
I think a similar letter was reported a few months ago. I think the knowledgeable people tbat signed it is important. Three former ambassadors to Ukraine worked there and understand the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
It’s alarming that once again the White House may block the transfer of MiGs. Slovakia was reported to be prepared to send its MiG-29s to Ukraine. It may not happen.
I can’t imagine a stronger ally to support. Russia is vulnerable right now. Important bridges are knocked out and a lot of Russia’s munitions destroyed. A couple dozen Migs could make the difference in retaking Kherson.
I hope the strategic opportunity isn’t wasted.
Cite 19 retired generals and ex-officials urge US to increase arms supplies to Ukraine | US foreign policy | The Guardian
Ukraine preparations for a counter offensive in Kherson are very impressive. Russia will have problems resupplying its forces in Kherson.
Cite Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 16 | Institute for the Study of War
I mean, it IS the second largest country in Europe after Russia by square miles (roughly the states of California + Washington) and 7th in population. At the start of the war, questions of effectiveness (and budget) aside, they had the third largest standing military in Europe after Russia and Turkey. Let’s not undersell them TOO heavily - they weren’t Estonia. That Russia apparently considered them pushovers proved to be a risky and grave mistake.
However I think the assorted debates we have had in the past on this board about how NATO would fare against a Russian attack have probably been answered. Russia in it’s pre-war state would likely have gotten broken pretty quickly. Their offensive capacity wasn’t nothing, but it was a lot less potent than many feared. And after this dustup, it is definitely crippled in the short run. Defensively I think a fully mobilized Russia would be a lot more dangerous of a quagmire. But, yeah - NATO as a whole has little to be scared of in terms of a massive invasion.
Russia continues to shoot itself in the foot.
There’s several more tweets. This problem dates back to 1990’s.
They should aim higher.
I understood that reference - Cpt. America