Mostly gas, apparently.
Welcome to the club..As I am sure you know well, it is the rail bridge that is the most strategically important, and unfortunately, the hardest to get a solid hit on (because of its structural design).
On a different topic - I thought everyone had put the idea of A10's to Ukr away, for being quite vulnerable to modern AA espically without complete air supremacy, and for logistical issues. But I have heard it again several places recently. I guess the thinking is that in order to make an effective counter-attack Ukr would greatly benefit from some close air support capability and people are searching around for a way to provide that - what do you think would be the most effective way (without starting ww3) to provide that capability (or do you not think it is a priority)?
I personally think the current (apparently) decision to withhold ATACMS is poorly reasoned and that they should be provided. I am usually in the 'wiser heads are somewhat conservative' camp, but the logic of this particular decision to withhold seems ill thought out. I would suggest essentially send them all (or at least half) the US has (which is not vast quantities but certainly enough to make a significant difference far into the Russia rear logistics) and the US military should use just a small part of their extremely huge military budget to get production started of the (already approved but not yet in production) replacement/improved generation going asap.
Ukr has shown excellent targeting using the shorter range version; and while I think we can trust they will not attack targets we forbid (like in Russia proper), I am not sure why we don't consider those possibly valid targets (eg command centers, rail switching points, and ammo dumps within range in Russia) for Ukr. I can imagine not wanting Ukr to hit targets in say Belarus, as that gets more complicated, although in US wars we have quite often 'covertly' (eg everyone on the ground knew we were doing but it was not acknowledged) it hit targets in 3rd party countries like that when we thought it useful. But Russia is the direct enemy invading country and military assets on their soil would seem to me to be perfectly valid targets. I would just want them to be given our best targeting intel (which they seem to be doing) and to be even more careful than the US military typically is to hit exclusively military targets.
Hmmmm . . . . but as far as I know the Antonovsky Railway Bridge is still all fine (unhit) - right?
If they can accurately pelt that bridge they can accurately pelt a train on that side of the river. Can't hide it, can't load heavy equipment in a hurry either. It's likely the Russians will be forced to pull back to the southern side of the river at some point. Then what?Hmmmm . . . . but as far as I know the Antonovsky Railway Bridge is still all fine (unhit) - right?
So, the supply line may have gotten a little narrower, but rail is where it is at for the Russians.