Kherson is higher than other bank, and in case of complete dam destruction it will be flooded only partially, but the other side will be flooded a lot. However there are not many settlements on the other side and those that are are not as large as Kherson.

Withdrawal was due to inability to 100% protect single bridge, including from potential dam destruction, along with stupid, greedy (and failed) shenanigans with grain deal instead of taking Nikolaev and Odessa to close the question with Ukraine having access to sea and establishing fully controlled naval path without depending on that single bridge.

Also, it is a very unusual fake war, where goals on the ground are unknown and actions of both sides looks having very little sense for conventional war.

It is possible they were also going to attempt a counterflank from Kherson area crossing.

They doing it periodically with the same result - boats are shelled from Russian side and everybody dies. What will make them think that next time things will be different is out of my understanding.

Now state the obvious advantages?

IDK, flat water without high banks is easier to cross?

I don't really see any advantages for anybody.

It also couldbe that gates fall by themselves. Power plant and dum was shelled a lot by Ukrainians, Power plant itself was destroyed long ago, bridge have significant damage too. Gates could fail due to previous damage.

Kherson is higher than other bank, and in case of complete dam destruction it will be flooded only partially, but the other side will be flooded a lot. However there are not many settlements on the other side and those that are are not as large as Kherson.

Withdrawal was due to inability to 100% protect single bridge, including from potential dam destruction, along with stupid, greedy (and failed) shenigans with grain deal instead of taking Nikolaev and Odessa to close the question with Ukraine having access to sea and establishing fully controlled naval path without depending on that single bridge.

Also, it is a very unusual fake war, where goals on the ground are unknown and actions of both sides looks having very little sense for conventional war.

It is possible they were also going to attempt a counterflank from Kherson area crossing.

They doing it periodically with the same result - boats are shelled from Russian side and everybody dies. What will make them think that next time things will be different is out of my understanding.

Now state the obvious advantages?

IDK, flat water without high banks is easier to cross?

I don't really see any advantages for anybody.

It also couldbe that gates fall by themselves. Power plant and dum was shelled a lot by Ukrainians, Power plant itself was destroyed long ago, bridge have significant damage too. Gates could fail due to previous damage.