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.
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
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.
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.