Putin is an overt enemy of individual liberty and represents the antithesis of conservatism.
So I suspect that FR isn't quite as divided as one might think at first glance.Posted on 04/23/2022 7:51:04 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
Putin has launched a major salvage operation to the wreck of the downed Black Sea Fleet flagship to secure military secrets including coding devices, unexploded missiles, and possibly even attempt to bring the bodies of dead sailors back home, naval experts have claimed.
An eight-ship salvage flotilla including Kommuna, the world's oldest active warship, and submarine has been sent to the site of the sunken Moskva 80 miles off the coast of Odessa from Sevastopol, the large naval base in Russia-annexed Crimea, according to a report by Forbes.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It doesn’t really matter what I think
***Cool. Sumthin we can agree on.
All my comments on Moskva in particular, were made AFTER I read less known sources like The Warzone.
I never proffered the reason for the Explosion and Fire on Moskva, only that there was one. There was plenty of evidence to support that.
Emma Helfrich believes the Ukrainian reports of (apparently two) Neptune missiles striking Moskva, but she does so well into the second half of the article AFTER all the Facts and Background needed to understand the SUBJECT of the article, while noting disagreement about Russian reports. It is a more responsible way to report news, inform first, speculate second.
Glomar to the rescue
Most modern warships still have steel hulls. The Moskva did.
Some newer ships, rather notoriously, had aluminum superstructures, which proved to be a bad idea (Falklands).
The real problem with really old ships is poor compartmentalisation, to limit flooding, and poor damage control.
Then there is armor, which might have saved the Moskva. Its gone out of fashion. This recovery ship though, being a Naval Auxiliary, is almost certainly not armored either.
The conclusions that Navy Patriot stated in post#62 are very, very close to mine and what I have posted concerning this incident. Daily Mail and other sources like this sensationalize these stories rather then present them in a competent, technical and realistic assessment from a military/combat perspective. Some of the sources you want to see are likely not accessible to you and very detailed and reliable. Most of what you get in the news is 10-20% fact and the rest is conjecture.
We don’t believe that read post#62.
Instead of criticizing a source, my request is for you guys to provide sources that both sides can agree on as relatively reliable when it comes to facts.
Most of the Putinista crowd was going with the “Moskva wasn’t hit by antiship missiles, it was Russian incompetence which sank it” until recently. The thing to keep in mind was that Russia admitted it sank.
Some of the corollary info was very telling, such as the other ships in the area leaving due to being in range of antiship missiles.
More targets. Fire when Ready, Gridley...
Sailors’ families seek answers about Russian ship sinking
By The Associated Press Updated 14 hrs ago,
April 22, 2022, 8:34 PM
It took the Russian military over a week to acknowledge that one serviceman died and two dozen others were missing after one of its flagship cruisers sank in the Black Sea, reportedly the result of a Ukrainian missiles strike.
The acknowledgment happened after families started searching desperately for their sons who, they said, served on the ship and did not come home.
Now relatives are posing sharp questions about Russia’s initial statement that the entire crew was evacuated. Russia’s Defense Ministry said Friday in a terse announcement that one crew member died and 27 went missing after a fire damaged the flagship Moskva cruiser last week, while 396 others were evacuated.
I have something to compare it too and the technical expertise/experience in the subject matter which is why we criticize it. That ship was hit and I believe from all that have read and seen reported that it was destroyed by a secondary explosion of the liquid propellent in the Vulkan AS missiles because there must have been a fire source which was not properly put out.
This would be in a similar fashion that the Japanese air craft carrier Taiho was destroyed in The Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944. The carrier sustained damage in a torpedo attack from the US sub Albacore. The damage was successfully controlled from a operational standpoint (as they thought)and the ship resumed action. They had a aviation fuel leak caused by the torpedo attack which showed up when they resumed action. The ventilation system was turned on to dissipate the fumes but in turn caused a massive exlplosion which led to the scuttling of the Taiho.
I had to look that one up.
Daily Mail... not reliable.
In both cases the initial damage was caused by enemy action. The initial reports from muh Russia were that it was just a fire, not enemy action, which caused the trouble.
Idiots will sink themselves in that old crap and next blame Ukrainian Nazis, CIA, NWO, Schwab, Gates and the Reptilians.
I never said the missile attack was fake. But the Daily Mail is still a shitty source even if they get 10-20% right. I would never use it for my job nor academic research.
However it is still conceivable that a fire in the forward missile section of this ship could have happened. Especially with liquid fueled missiles. There are numerous examples throughout modern naval history of ships being destroyed by magazine explosions that were non-action related. Here are a few examples: USS Maine, HMS Vanguard, IJN Mutsu, IJN Kawachi, IJN Tsukuba, HMS Glatton, ITAL Leonardo Da Vinci and several others. Pyrotechnics on ships is a tricky craft in engineering and is till has it’s issues today.
Thats what ive been reading. Muskova is in approximately 450 ft f water.
Ukraine: “Hey, lookit! More targets”
Ukraine: “Hey, lookit! More targets”
One of the tells in this instance was how fast the Ukes claimed that they had sunk the ship with AntiShip Missiles. It was before the Rukes even admitted the ship was sunk.
A secondary, less reliable tell, was that Russian ships in the area moved AWAY from the wreck rather than towards it, because they were in missile range.
Notably from that MonkeyWerx page, at 15:18 in the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmUbx6Dxrrg
Russia is blaming NATO for the sinking of the Muskva. Now, why would that be if it was their own incompetence which sunk it?
So I suspect that FR isn't quite as divided as one might think at first glance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.