To: GonzoII
I'm not normally a blood-thirsty fellow, but: WHY - if they can slam ONE missile into a ship's hull - don't they slam TWO in, just to make sure that it sinks as quickly as possible, with all hands aboard?
Regards,
6 posted on
05/06/2022 4:49:44 AM PDT by
alexander_busek
(Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
To: alexander_busek
“if they can slam ONE missile into a ship’s hull - don’t they slam TWO in?”
Shoot and scoot.
L
7 posted on
05/06/2022 4:50:38 AM PDT by
Lurker
(Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
To: alexander_busek
One of them might gave been intercepted.
They might not have many missiles and that target might not have been worth two of them. I suspect amphibious ships have highest priority.
One hit is a mission kill and the vessel is likely to be out of the war which is the important thing.
All sorts of possible reasons.
8 posted on
05/06/2022 4:56:09 AM PDT by
buwaya
(Strategic imperatives )
To: alexander_busek
I suspect it’s because Ukraine would prefer to retain more anti-ship missiles than Russian has ships.
14 posted on
05/06/2022 5:04:46 AM PDT by
norwaypinesavage
(Capitalism is what happens when you leave people alone.)
To: alexander_busek
It’s better propaganda for your side to have a burning ship in all the morning edition for days.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson