FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / MIKES GRIPES /  Ukraine said to sink the Flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet

Ukraine said to sink the Flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet

Started by Mozart27 REPLIES586 VIEWS· 15 Apr 2022, 00:15
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Apr 2022, 00:15
#1
15 Apr 2022, 00:15#1

Now Ukraine seems to have had its revenge. On April 14th Ukrainian officials said they had used Neptune anti-ship missiles to hit the Moskva, a 10,000-tonne Slava-class cruiser which was 60-65 nautical miles (111-120km) south of Odessa. The Moskva, commissioned in 1982, is—or, perhaps, was—the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which has its headquarters in occupied Crimea. It was a “venerable, battle hardened, major surface combatant” which participated in Russian wars in Georgia in 2008 and Syria in 2015, notes Alessio Patalano, a naval expert at King’s College London. “This is one of the most severe naval losses since the Falklands war” of 1982, he adds.

Russia’s defence ministry first acknowledged that the Moskva was “seriously damaged”, claiming that a fire had caused ammunition to detonate, but that the ship stayed afloat—a fact corroborated by the Pentagon. But magazine explosions tend to be devastating. Later it admitted that the Moskva had sunk. A Western official was unable to corroborate Ukraine’s claim, but described it as credible: “I am not aware previously of a fire on board a capital warship, which would lead to the ammunition magazine exploding.”

The strike is rich with symbolism. The ship was built in Mykolaiv, then a Soviet city but now a Ukrainian one which has repelled Russian ground assaults over the past month. It was also one of two warships that attacked Snake Island, west of Crimea, on February 24th, the first day of the war. When it ordered the tiny garrison there to surrender, the alleged reply—“Russian warship, go fuck yourself”—became an icon of national resistance, emblazoned on everything from T-shirts to postage stamps. The Moskva’s apparent loss was “a massively important military event”, said Oleksiy Arestovych, an adviser to Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, on social media. He cast it as the Russian navy’s biggest defeat since the second world war. 

Of particular note was the weapon the Ukrainians used. The Neptune, though modelled on the Russian Kh-35 (or Kayak) anti-ship missile, was designed and built in Ukraine. It is not the first time that Neptune has been fired in anger. Oleksandr Turchynov, a former Ukrainian national security council chief, says that the missile was first used to hit the Admiral Essen, a Russian frigate, on April 3rd. The rockets entered the navy’s inventory only in January this year, after corruption scandals delayed their introduction. That the Moskva was parked so close to Odessa, well within the known range of the Neptune, suggests that Russia might have seriously under-estimated its threat. It is not the only example of home-made kit on the battlefield: local innovations in passive radar and helicopter technologies have also surprised the Russians, says Hanna Shelest, a security expert in Odessa. 

The strike on the Moskva is more than just a symbolic act of revenge or a demonstration of indigenous prowess. It fits a pattern of bold Ukrainian attacks beyond the frontlines, known as deep strikes. On March 29th an ammunition depot in Belgorod, a key staging point in Russia, was blown up. Belgorod is vital to Russia’s effort to build up forces for an attack on the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, now the focus of its war. A day later Ukrainian helicopters reportedly attacked a fuel depot there and, on April 12th, a railway bridge was destroyed. On April 14th Russia said that more Ukrainian helicopters had attacked its Bryansk region, which neighbours Belarus, causing seven injuries.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Apr 2022, 00:22
#2
15 Apr 2022, 00:22#2

If this report in the Economist is true, it’s the biggest embarrassment so far for Russia. It also reminds us of the Falkland’s campaign, where the British navy suffered similar losses.

Traditional navies, traditional tank battalions are incredibly vulnerable. Somewhere along the line we are going to see a major aircraft carrier taken out by remote missiles. That will change the calculus which for 80 years has assumed the primacy of the US fleet.

Sending ships to protect Taiwan for example could be a military disaster. Build that island into a rocket fortress.

SH
sharkbokCaptain23,202 posts
15 Apr 2022, 02:02
#3
15 Apr 2022, 02:02#3

Like Bruce Lee said, it is harder to hit a small moving target than a big target. 
The train of tanks and huge ship and air force carriers could be dinosaurs going extinct.

 Lightweight mobile land missiles with heat seeking technology makes hitting large targets certain. 


PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
15 Apr 2022, 02:05
#4
15 Apr 2022, 02:05#4
I’m convinced the US Airforce is Mach 6 capable. It’s been yonks since the SR71. With advances in technology since then, particularly material science and computing, combined with the the budget US forces have had access too…it’s almost a certainty that what waits in the wings absolutely dwarfs what’s out there today. Carriers are increasing vulnerable and it’s also quite likely that they’re practically redundant anyway. That’s China’s problem really. You can’t copy and modify what isn’t out there for you to copy and modify. If that’s your strategy, then the best you hope for is parity or slightly beyond. As it stands, they’re not on par with the US, and i think that the actual gap in military capability between them and America is far greater they, or we, think it is. All speculation of course.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Apr 2022, 05:18
#5
15 Apr 2022, 05:18#5
Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have battle hardened troops…it’s still a factor.
SE
SebPro2,680 posts
15 Apr 2022, 07:16
#6
15 Apr 2022, 07:16#6
Russian flagship sank – militaryMissile cruiser ‘Moskva’ went down in the Black Sea while being towed to port, the Russian Defense Ministry said

The Russian missile cruiser Moskva, flagship of the Black Sea fleet, sank while being towed into port amid stormy sea conditions, the defense ministry in Moscow said on Thursday. According to the Russian military, the warship’s hull had been damaged by an ammunition explosion, itself caused by a fire on board, on Wednesday. 

Ukrainian officials claimed their forces had struck the vessel with anti-ship missiles. The Pentagon said it could not confirm the claim. A US drone circled above the cruiser on Thursday, monitoring its progress towards Sevastopol.

Read more Fire aboard Russian warship contained – Moscow

“While being towed to the port destination, due to hull damage caused by ammunition detonation sparked by fire, the cruiser Moskva lost stability. In the stormy sea conditions, the ship sank,” the Russian Defense Ministry said on Thursday evening.

The Moskva was reportedly some 90 kilometers south of Odessa on Wednesday when a fire broke out on board. This caused the unspecified ammunition stores to explode and damaged the hull, according to the Russian military. The cruiser’s crew was evacuated by nearby Black Sea Fleet ships, and tugs dispatched to tow the Moskva to Crimea for repairs.

As of Thursday morning, Moscow was saying that explosions on board had stopped and the fire had been extinguished, and that the cruiser was on its way to port for repairs. It was not mentioned again during the regular briefing on military operations in Ukraine later in the day.

Last month, Ukraine claimed to have sunk the Russian patrol vessel Vasily Bykov, however it showed up in Sevastopol unharmed a few days later. Commissioned in 1983 under the name Slava (Glory), the cruiser was equipped with 16 anti-ship missiles, heavy air defenses, as well as torpedoes and heavy guns.

Russia attacked its neighbor in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German and French brokered Minsk Protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.

The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.


SH
sharkbokCaptain23,202 posts
15 Apr 2022, 12:08
#7
15 Apr 2022, 12:08#7

Perhaps Ukraine should just attack Russia, instead of committing too many people to defence. 
That might draw troops out of Ukraine in order to protect Russia


ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
15 Apr 2022, 12:15
#8
15 Apr 2022, 12:15#8

If this report in the Economist is true, it’s the biggest embarrassment so far for Russia. It also reminds us of the Falkland’s campaign, where the British navy suffered similar losses.

Traditional navies, traditional tank battalions are incredibly vulnerable. Somewhere along the line we are going to see a major aircraft carrier taken out by remote missiles. That will change the calculus which for 80 years has assumed the primacy of the US fleet.

Sending ships to protect Taiwan for example could be a military disaster. Build that island into a rocket fortress.

While I agree this is a major coup for the Ukrainian's, it would be unwise to draw parallels with the Falkland's campaign based on one incident.

Firstly we don't know that much details about the sinking of the Moskva at the moment. It was likely hit by a Ukrainian land launched anti ship missile, but we don't know from what range, what the Moskva was doing at the time, or how many ships she was sailing with.

Here is what we know about the British losses in Falklands. The British lost 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, a container ship a landing ship and landing craft. Several other ships where also damaged to various degrees.

Of the ships lost, only 1 of the destroyers (HMS Sheffield) and the container ship (which was a civilian ship co-opted into military service) where lost to Exocet anti ship missiles and these where air launched anti ship missiles launched at likely closer range (30-40KM) than what hit the Moskva. A second destroyer was also significantly damaged by an Exocet missile that put her out of action for the rest of the conflict but from the accounts of the attack it doesn't sound like the destroyer was at significant risk of sinking.

In addition a board of inquiry would later find several major issues with fire fighting equipment, procedures and training that contributed to the sinking of the Sheffield. Its possible had these issues been addressed the Sheffield might not have been lost. 

All other losses and damaged sustained where from more conventional air dropped bombs. That's 1 destroyer, 2 frigates, the landing ship and land landing craft, plus other ships damaged to various degrees by similar attack.

One could argue conventional bombs where actually more of a threat in the Falklands and conventional air dropped bombs have been a naval threat since WWII.

Additional the British Task Force which was sent to the the Falklands was 127 ships in total, so losses sustained where only about 5% of which less than half of those losses where caused by Exocet missiles.

No British carriers was damaged during the Falklands campaign and ultimately the British won the Falklands war on the account of their naval power. So one could just as credibly claim the Falklands demonstrates the strength of naval power.

This is not to say the warships are not vulnerable to land launched anti ship missiles, but there is far from enough evidence to indicate that long range anti ship missiles have rendered naval ships obsolete and extremely vulnerable on the account that the Russian's losing a single cruiser to what looks like a land launched anti ship missile.

Now as for tanks. WOW there boy. The tank has been proclaimed dead numerous times through out history (as far back as 1919) to the point as this stage its like a zombie roaming the battlefield. For example the advent of HEAT rounds in World War II lead many senior members of the American military to declare the tank would be rendered obsolete. Like wise with the advent of anti tank guide missile and attack helicopters, the tank was thought to be going the way of the dinosaur but each time the tank was adapted with counter measures such as ERA (armour) and anti helicopter weapons systems.

Western analysts of been highly critical of the Russian's use of tanks in Ukraine. The Russian's deploy their tanks in Tactical Battalion Groups which operate in somewhat more independent manner but its been noted the TBG lack in infantry. Where as the traditional western use of tanks is more of a combined arms approach where tank and infantry act together (in addition to air cover). There have been examples of poor Russian tactics where they driven straight down roads with no flank protection or no air cover and combined with poor reconnaissance they have been setting themselves up for ambushes and no weapon systems fair well in ambushes.

There is also other factors at play here. The Ukrainian's are only showing video's of their successfully attacks (like wise the Russian's) and their not likely going be showing any cases of Russian tanks successfully fending off attacks or a case of Russian anti tank weapon counter measures working. The Russian's are showing off their own successful attacks but access to them in the west is harder to obtain due to all the restrictions on Russian media.

Again their is numerous photo's of knocked out Russian tanks but what's less certain is how they where knocked out. For example a Russian tank may have run out of fuel, broke down or got stuck in the mud and the crew simply abandoned the tank. The Ukrainian's came along and not knowing if the tank was still operational or not opt to destroy it. We also don't know for example if a Russian or Ukrainian tank that was knocked out was knocked by a tank on the opposing side.

I would also bet my bottom dollar that in general the wests tanks are better with more sophisticated protection systems than the Russian T-72,T-80 and T-90 tanks being used in Ukraine.

I'd also wager the wests tank crew's are better trained and at least the American's and British probably have more combat experience as well.

Finally you have to remember the tank never has and never will be invincible. Yes large numbers of tanks have been destroyed in Ukraine but that's nothing compared to tank losses in World War 2 where for example where the Red Army lost based on some estimates between 87,000 and 96,000 tanks. 



MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Apr 2022, 16:23
#9
15 Apr 2022, 16:23#9

So  Mary, Mary quite contrary…..are you saying that the advent of guided missiles and drones are not a threat to WW2 tactics? Odd that the Russians are building cages around their tank turrets then.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
15 Apr 2022, 18:32
#10
15 Apr 2022, 18:32#10
A nursery rhyme isn't a substitute for a reasoned argument. 
I never said that. The Russian Battalion Tactical Groups s are not actually WW2 tactics, but something that was developed by the Soviets during the cold war.

Guided missiles have been around a while and many countries have developed countermeasures. Some examples.






Note I'm not saying they are 100% effective.
As for drones they are relatively new and may be currently effective, but what happens if the enemy has air superiority or develops anti drone weapons systems fire from the ground to counter them.
There is also been some suggestions that tanks themselves in the future could have a drone operator on board to greatly improve a tanks field of view and situational awareness. 
Point is the tank has been declared dead over and over yet its been adapted to counter the threats that where supposedly to render them obsolete. They may well adapt again.
As for the cages, I would expect them to do very little to help save the tanks.
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
15 Apr 2022, 18:47
#11
15 Apr 2022, 18:47#11
This made me LOL… “Again their is numerous photo's of knocked out Russian tanks but what's less certain is how they where knocked out. For example a Russian tank may have run out of fuel, broke down or got stuck in the mud and the crew simply abandoned the tank. The Ukrainian's came along and not knowing if the tank was still operational or not opt to destroy it. We also don't know for example if a Russian or Ukrainian tank that was knocked out was knocked by a tank on the opposing side.” It’s also possible the driver may have been drunk, abducted by aliens, suffered temporary amnesia and forgotten how to drive his tank, thought “Nah”, stripped vital components out and sold them, had an argument with his crew, eaten by a bear, unqualified and so many more possibilities. Nothing is impossible and we should always account for everything.
ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
15 Apr 2022, 19:50
#12
15 Apr 2022, 19:50#12
Plum not sure why you think what I'm saying is funny.
Russian logistic problems have been well documented and there has been numerous reports of Russian units running out of fuel. There is also being photographic evidence of vehicles that have been badly maintained and the weather and mud restricting Russian vehicles to roads has also been documented. In addition to there being historical precedent for all these issues occurring in conflicts before and perhaps by coincident in the same part of the world.

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
16 Apr 2022, 10:00
#13
16 Apr 2022, 10:00#13
It’s funny because you have a habit of arguing the exception. And it’s alway always pair it with “just because”.
SH
sharkbokCaptain23,202 posts
16 Apr 2022, 10:19
#14
16 Apr 2022, 10:19#14
Plum

Hall Of Fame

8798 posts

Apr 15, 2022, 18:47

This made me LOL…

It’s also possible the driver may have been drunk, abducted by aliens, suffered temporary amnesia and forgotten how to drive his tan

---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

ButtPlug thinks he is being open minded by considering irrational arguements as possibilities. 

Most people consider all the options, but rule out the unlikely ones as just that. 
---

What are the chances of so many Russian tank drivers getting amesia, or forgotten how to drive a tank. It is not as if I wake up one day, and I have forgotten how to drive my car, or get amnesia or get abducted by aliens. A simple creature that is not living in reality ...

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
16 Apr 2022, 11:27
#15
16 Apr 2022, 11:27#15
I've no doubt a lot of Russian tanks have been knocked out by Javelins and NLAW's in addition to drones and that's what accounts for the majority of Russian tank losses. However as I've said there is numerous documented cases since the war began of tanks running out of fuel, getting stuck in the mud and breaking down then being abandon by their crews. In previous wars when this happened crews often destroyed their own tank when they abandon them to prevent their capture and in other cases the tanks where destroyed because the enemy was unaware the tank was being abandoned. In the case of the Ukraine war Russian tanks could also be knocked out by Ukrainian tanks, air strikes or possibly even artillery strikes. Mines and IED's could also be another possibility. As a result all I'm saying is one must be careful when making judgement's about whether the tank is obsolete based on incomplete data.
I use the term just because a lot because people on these forums frequently tend to use post hoc arguments. I.E the climate has always changed naturally therefore the current climate change is natural. 

ButtPlug thinks he is being open minded by considering irrational arguements as possibilities. 

Most people consider all the options, but rule out the unlikely ones as just that. 
---

What are the chances of so many Russian tank drivers getting amesia, or forgotten how to drive a tank. It is not as if I wake up one day, and I have forgotten how to drive my car, or get amnesia or get abducted by aliens. A simple creature that is not living in reality...

He's not actually seriously considering those arguments as possibilities, he's trying to mock me by equating my arguments as having roughly the same level of probability as the reasons he listed. Doesn't bother me though all it does is expose his ignorance of the topic.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
16 Apr 2022, 11:27
#16
16 Apr 2022, 11:27#16

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
16 Apr 2022, 11:59
#17
16 Apr 2022, 11:59#17
No, Stav I’m saying that what you are considering as a factor in your counter argument is a factor, but it’s a small one and not relevant to the argument in general. You should have stuck with infantry support.
SH
sharkbokCaptain23,202 posts
16 Apr 2022, 12:22
#18
16 Apr 2022, 12:22#18

Yes Stav,

ButtPlug cant match your arguments to refute your logic, so he is using sideshow tactics. 
However his belief in alien abductions are well documented on this forum....

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
16 Apr 2022, 12:34
#19
16 Apr 2022, 12:34#19
…and you’re still a dummy. Hilarious that Star had to correct you.
SH
sharkbokCaptain23,202 posts
16 Apr 2022, 13:12
#20
16 Apr 2022, 13:12#20

So you admit you cant match Stav's arguments...case closed....

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
16 Apr 2022, 13:41
#21
16 Apr 2022, 13:41#21

No, Stav

I’m saying that what you are considering as a factor in your counter argument is a factor, but it’s a small one and not relevant to the argument in general.

You should have stuck with infantry support.

No you where attempting to mock me by equating what I was saying with absolutely ridiculous suggestions. You could of worded your original post like your response post to me (I.E I do not think what you said is a significant factor) and we could have a discussion about why you think that is the case but instead you opted to try the take piss.

I also am sticking with infantry support, just that there others factors to be considered as well.




PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
16 Apr 2022, 15:45
#22
16 Apr 2022, 15:45#22
nah, i worded it perfectly. it was intended to mock your argument style. thanks for helping our resident numpty get the sarcasm. he struggles at the best of times. next, we should talk about anti-infantry drones. far as i can tell, that’s the real threat to tanks.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Apr 2022, 16:42
#23
16 Apr 2022, 16:42#23

This from Mary, Mary Quite Contrary:

‘ I've no doubt a lot of Russian tanks have been knocked out by Javelins and NLAW's in addition to drones and that's what accounts for the majority of Russian tank losses’

In other words Javelins have changed the calculus…..just as missiles make large ships much more vulnerable.


Case closed. But why start a long argument debating a point which you then turn around and concede…seriously Mary this was one of your dumber efforts,

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
16 Apr 2022, 17:19
#24
16 Apr 2022, 17:19#24
Plum in fairness to Shark a lot of your genuine arguments are so utterly ridiculous, its makes telling the difference when you're being sarcastic and when you're being serious quite difficult.
 I've no doubt a lot of Russian tanks have been knocked out by Javelins and NLAW's in addition to drones and that's what accounts for the majority of Russian tank losses’

Actually some analysts pointed out that going by video evidence alone the majority of Russian tank losses are due to mud and being abandoned , that's not definitive one is actually a greater issue than the other, but it's an open question at this time. 
In other words Javelins have changed the calculus…..just as missiles make large ships much more vulnerable.

I'll quote the following.
On today's battlefield, supported tank attacks face mass destruction from accurate and lethal antitank guided missiles
Taken from the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command - 1975
Case closed. But why start a long argument debating a point which you then turn around and concede…seriously Mary this was one of your dumber efforts,

LOL of course you would say case closed. You just can't help yourself can you. Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you use the phrase.


AJ
AJHPro3,183 posts
16 Apr 2022, 17:31
#25
16 Apr 2022, 17:31#25

Irrespective of what has taken place thus far it is obvious that the Russia Intelligence mislead Putin and this has been a major set back for the Russian military.

Heads are sure to roll if they have not already.

Sad to see the destruction and loss of life on both sides.

 

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
16 Apr 2022, 17:57
#26
16 Apr 2022, 17:57#26
some kids with a modified drone…pretty scary https://youtu.be/NS1KFmFw2Dw
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Apr 2022, 18:07
#27
16 Apr 2022, 18:07#27

Mary you have now begun quoting me, quoting you……sweet Carolyne, good times never were so good.

SH
sharkbokCaptain23,202 posts
16 Apr 2022, 19:16
#28
16 Apr 2022, 19:16#28



— END OF THREAD —

More from Mikes Gripes