More evidence the Moskva sinking doesnt add up.

[DarthTrader]

Yes it literally does

PPP doesn't have anything to do with "demand for a currency on the foreign markets", that's why losers like to use it to make their shitholes look better lololol.

 

[justoffal]

It was hit in the engine compartment area as evidenced by the pics. Which is a very non lethal area (but is a mission kill so one of the best areas to hit for that reason.)

Right...a hit that would be nearly impossible for a missile.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it literally does

Not even close, russtard.

 

[Mushroom]

The Neptune/Harpoon is just a 500lbs warhead. It can be a mission kill but it is incredibly unlikely it can actually sink a ship (read the discussions on the cited blog).

Even a 1500lbs torpedo has a hard time sinking an arleigh burke because the damage Shockwave and bubble collapse is over only 50 foot diameter.

Why are you trying to compare a torpedo which impacts under the waterline, with a missile that impacts above the waterline?

However, in the Falklands war the ARA General Belgrano was sunk by two 850 pound torpedoes. Going down in around 35 minutes.

 

[Mushroom]

Right...a hit that would be nearly impossible for a missile.

Not really.

Depending on the missile, they will hit various areas of a ship.

More basic "off the shelf" ones (Silkworm, Exocet) tend to hit amidships, as that is normally the largest and easiest part of a ship to hit.

More advanced ones tend to aim for the bow or stern. This is because a bow hit can cripple a ship, and even in the worst case scenario greatly decreases their speed. In best case, do enough damage it can no longer move, or rip off a bow causing it to sink.

Hitting the rear is good for other reasons. That is normally where the engine room is, as well as the controls for the rudder. It can knock out the engines (which can cause sinking as those also operate the main pumps), or leave it unable to control it's direction (Bismarck).

 

[BackAgain]

Stupid Putin bot says,

More evidence the Moskva sinking doesnt add up.​

But, reality sinks his wet dream.

 

[para bellum]

I saw a picture of them loading the S-300's in the Moskva, I looked for it but can't find it again. There are some not very good schematics online. The below deck spaces are humongous. You can see the S300's from the machinery space. It's a very open layout. A fire in the machinery space can travel a long way.

There was no central firefighting system on the ship, that would have been done if they had done the planned refit.

Moskva was a parade ship- what systems did exist probably had about 20 layers of paint slopped over, so it's not a stretch to imagine nothing actually worked, but it looked pretty.

Manned by conscripts with very little training, and damage control? What's that?

The pictures we have see were obviously taken some hours before she sank, so who knows what kind of explosions may have happened later?

The ship is not unstable in the pictures- so they abandoned it prematurely, but maybe they knew they could not fight the fire and the risk of the weapons exploding caused the Captain to make the decision.

The Stark was 4,000 tons, and took 2 exocets in about the same place. She also listed way over to port, but the crew fought the fires and didn't abandon the ship.

Difference is the crew response, not the tonnage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are you trying to compare a torpedo which impacts under the waterline, with a missile that impacts above the waterline?

However, in the Falklands war the ARA General Belgrano was sunk by two 850 pound torpedoes. Going down in around 35 minutes.

Because he's an idiot.
And Putin pays him.