Not a satire.
Also this:
Posted on 04/14/2022 7:57:48 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
WHAT WAS ITS HISTORY?
The warship was launched as the Slava from a shipyard in Mykolaiv in what was then the Soviet republic of Ukraine in July 1979, according to open-source intelligence firm Janes. Commissioned in late December 1982, it was 611.5 feet (186 meters) long. It was designed to carry a crew of 476 with an additional 62 officers.
The Slava served as the flagship of the Soviet fleet in the Black Sea. It carried both surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, deck guns, torpedoes and mortars. It also had a helicopter deck.
During the Cold War, it also carried nuclear weapons. In 1989, under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, U.S. and Soviet scientists took part in a joint test abroad the Slava in the Black Sea to measure the emission of neutrons and gamma rays from a nuclear warhead on a cruise missile.
In late 1989, the Slava was supposed to host a meeting off Malta between Gorbachev and then-President George H.W. Bush, but gale force winds prompted the Soviet-hosted side of the talks to be held instead on the docked cruiser Maxim Gorky.
FROM SLAVA TO MOSKVA
The Slava underwent repairs from 1990-1999. During that time, the Soviet Union collapsed, an independent Ukraine emerged and Russia’s economy foundered. Finally overhauled and rechristened the Moskva, the ship hosted both President Vladimir Putin and then-Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi during a 2003 visit to Sardinia.
“Thank God, our cruisers can still go on their own, our planes and missiles can fly,” Putin said at the time.
Putin’s later comments at the La Maddalena naval base show how much has changed. He described the Moskva’s presence as a sign that “the level of trust between Russia and the NATO countries is rising.” NATO’s eastward expansion and Russian security were among the reasons Putin cited
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Aha, you’re already here. What is your assessment of this?
Very likely scenario. The only one that makes sense.
Naval warfare is brutal Always has been. Many men die in a flash.
Ukrainian Missiles ? Could be .
Russian engineering or ordnance failure ? Could be.
Some kind of combo of the two? Could be.
If U attacked while the R’s where in the midst of a snafu of their own making, then luck was with them.
If it was the U missiles, I would guess the U’s had some assistance , probably in the EW dept .
It could provide (limited) radar and SAM coverage for other vessels.
The landing ship was destroyed at Berdyansk. There is extensive video from several angles of a very large fire aboard, and sat pictures of the ship sunk at the pier.
We are watching a war in near real time. That is interesting for many reasons. There is the fog of war problem, but it turns out that modern tech can burn through quite a lot of it. Your attitude is interesting though, concerning information acknowledged by both sides, which would have been indisputable even hundreds of years ago. Is there a third side able to speak with authority?
That particular ship had lots of ordnance on deck. Those huge SSMs in thin canisters. The rocket fuel alone would have been devastating if ignited. It was an eggshell armed with hammers.
Up to late in WW2 submarines were used for “mundane chores”, such as transporting agents and refugees, resupplying guerrilas, rescuing airmen, fleet scouting, scouting beaches, etc and etc. By late 1944 Japanese marus had become scarce and there were plenty of spare US submarines.
It’s good to see that the Russians lost a guided missile cruiser that they were using to launch cruise missiles against Ukrainian city’s killing hundreds of civilians in the process.
I have No sympathy for the Russian Navy personnel that were lost.Nor am I unhappy that the Ukrainians were finally able to put a serious hurt on their enemies.
So let me get your story straight.
you are saying that
1. Moskva - a capital ship, the flag ship of the Black sea fleet - catches fires “accidently”
2. the sailors are unable to put it out
3. these sailors - trained personnel mind you - “send out distress signals”
4. the Ukrainians “saw an opportunity”
5. the ship then sank
that’s your story?
Missile ships have that.
Now you’re telling me that this flag ship of the Black sea fleet somehow caught on fire “accidently” and the sailors didn’t know how to put it out, so it sank?
The 2014 ukranian deep state installed by obama and co will sacrifice as many unwashed Ukrainians as needed to replace putin with a puppet and deep state in a box. We agree he is evil, but what about a leader picked by obama and co today?
For now putins evil is fairly confined, as a nationalist. His replacement? Um.. not likely.
“We also paid a price. Our lost boats dot the map in the seas around Japan.”
The USN skimped on testing the early torpedoes, which failed more often than they succeeded. Our WWI torpedoes were much better!
This is one reason why I support funding our military at every opportunity. By being cheap, the Allies and the US Navy lost thousands of lives.
The city of Odessa provided plenty of cover for the units that fired the Neptunes. Odessa is now on fake Tsar Pooty's shit list and better prepare for bombings and invasion.......
Unlikely that it caught on fire accidentally.
Point is though that a hit by even a relatively small missile could perforate those thin missile tubes and set off their contents. Warheads on these Neptun missiles are just 330 lb.
Lies are coming from both sides. That is the nature of war. While a healthy caution is justified, outright cynicism is not. After initial Russian success, the Ukrainians are clearly getting the better of the Russians. Anyone denying this is not being honest with the facts.
In regard to the sinking of the Moskva, what is more likely:
1) It was struck by Ukrainian missiles while sailing in a war zone in range of known anti-ship missal batteries; or
2) After many years of operations, a fire of unknown cause broke out completely unrelated to any efforts by the Ukrainians to attack the ship and which the crew was unable to put out?
While the latter is possible, the former is much more likely. While you are cynical of the Ukrainian explanation, where is your cynicism of the much more implausible Russian explanation?
Including the alleged missile attack on the landing ship at Berdyansk.
And what makes you doubt that the Ukrainians did indeed strike the landing ship? The Ukrainians have know anti-ship missal capabilities. Do Russian ships have some fatal flaw that just causes them to catch fire while operating in war zones?
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.