So how did the Russian Flagship explode?

[Litwin]

Their version of the British Neptune ?

 

[Litwin]

Gloriously.

 

[Litwin]

 

[Litwin]

i love this one ))

 

[Litwin]

Ukraine claims they blew it up with cruise missiles. Russia says it was a munitions malfunction. So who is telling the truth?

We know the ship exploded. We know the crew abandoned ship. The question is why.

Did Ukraine take out Russia's Black Sea flagship?

hotair.com

So Russian Cheerleaders and trolls. Which is it? Was the Russian Navy grossly incompetent? Was Ukraine brilliant in being able to target a warship well out of sight?

Russia's most expensive loss in Ukraine. The cruiser Moscow ...​

Meanwhile, according to Forbes, who lists Russian losses in Ukraine, the Moscow ship is worth around $ 750 million.

Russia's most expensive loss in Ukraine. The cruiser Moscow was worth a fortune - GAMINGDEPUTY

… Russia’s most expensive loss in Ukraine. The cruiser Moscow was worth a fortune Read More »

www.gamingdeputy.com

​

Thursday, April 14. Russia's War On Ukraine - Forbes​

https://www.forbes.com › katyasoldak › 2022/04/14 › t...





1 hour ago — Ukraine's military has destroyed the Russian flagship cruiser Moskva, worth $750 million. According to Forbes Ukraine, it is Russia's most ...

 

[Litwin]

We take pride in that and you know this!

 

[Litwin]

 

[Litwin]

 

[Failzero]

First Cruiser sunk in wartime since 1982

 

[SavannahMann]

Why is your avatar the flag of a country that has de facto outlawed homosexuality? Do you really hate gays that much?

Wow. That’s supposed to be my standard? Hmm. Well Russia outlawed homosexuals too. So I guess I’ll go with the least worst option. You know the same way I am supposed to every election when the choice is two steaming piles of shit.

 

[whitehall]

The fact that we really don't know is an indication of the propaganda that passes for information.

 

[Dayton3]

The Soviet/Russian Navy has a long and storied history of incompetence. Their safety standards are historically among the lowest in the world. I agree with those who question the validity of the entire crew being able to evacuate during a cruise missile attack...

A point or two.:

It could've been both Ukrainian brilliance and Russian incompetence.

The Ukrainians manage to hit the Moskva with a couple of small cruise missiles, the missiles set fires, the Russians are utterly incompetent in damage control and eventually the fires get out of control, reach the missile magazines and BOOM!! That's all she wrote. In fact that's the most likely chain of events.

Remember that most navies are not like the U.S. (except possibly the British and Australian Navies). The American Navy after a study of WW2 naval losses showed that most ships are ultimately lost by fire became absolutely fanatical about fighting shipboard fires. Most U.S. navy commanders try to feed as many members of their crew as possible thru the special firefighting course that the Navy runs. Every member of a U.S. Navy crew has well-established firefighting duties whether on a submarine (which catch fire surprisingly often) or a carrier.

 

[Canon Shooter]

A point or two.:

It could've been both Ukrainian brilliance and Russian incompetence.

The Ukrainians manage to hit the Moskva with a couple of small cruise missiles, the missiles set fires, the Russians are utterly incompetent in damage control and eventually the fires get out of control, reach the missile magazines and BOOM!! That's all she wrote. In fact that's the most likely chain of events.

Remember that most navies are not like the U.S. (except possibly the British and Australian Navies). The American Navy after a study of WW2 naval losses showed that most ships are ultimately lost by fire became absolutely fanatical about fighting shipboard fires. Most U.S. navy commanders try to feed as many members of their crew as possible thru the special firefighting course that the Navy runs. Every member of a U.S. Navy crew has well-established firefighting duties whether on a submarine (which catch fire surprisingly often) or a carrier.

I speak from experience: There is nothing more frightening for a US Navy sailor than a shipboard fire at sea...

 

[para bellum]

 

[Mushroom]

Ukraine claims they blew it up with cruise missiles. Russia says it was a munitions malfunction. So who is telling the truth?

We know the ship exploded.

Well. considering the Moxkova is a modern Missile Cruiser with no old style guns, you can pretty much discount the claim it was one of their own missiles as they have tried to claim.

The missiles would have been in a secure location, where the explosion of one (no matter how unlikely) would not have caused the rest to detonate. And her only "deckside armament" is a twin 130mm cannon that fires cartridged projectiles. Not loose bag and powder like a WWII era ship (like the last US battleships). So once again, the odds of one of those going up is remote and would not have done that much damage.

The only cause could be the strike of an external weapon, like Ukraine is claiming. And to be honest, for Russia to even try to say otherwise is rather stupid. It would be like after the Battle of Midway either the Japanese or US claiming that they lost their ships due to an internal accident unrelated to the combat.

All that does is cast even more doubt onto any of the Russian claims before this and after. This is something that Russia still has not learned. That sometime it is just better to "suck it up" and admit that the enemy threw a serious punch. Denying it only brings and of your claims into question among those that are not puppets.

 

[BackAgain]

It go “boom.”

 

[Mushroom]

I speak from experience: There is nothing more frightening for a US Navy sailor than a shipboard fire at sea...

Or any sailor.

The only real solution (most times) is lots of water. Which has it's own issue, as flooding a ship with water, which is commonly known as "sinking".

 

[Canon Shooter]

Or any sailor.

The only real solution (most times) is lots of water. Which has it's own issue, as flooding a ship with water, which is commonly known as "sinking".

It's pretty much impossible to put so much water onto a shipboard fire that sinking becomes a concern...

 

[Mushroom]

It's pretty much impossible to put so much water onto a shipboard fire that sinking becomes a concern

Most times you have a fire along with other damage that compromises the integrity of the hull. And the fire will weaken it even farther.

In other words, the ship is already sinking. And it is a race between bringing in enough water to put out the fire, and at the same time shore up damaged bulkheads, patch holes in the hull, and pump the water back out before one counteracts the other.

The US is lucky in that aspect, as both of our modern ships that were heavily damaged from enemy action in recent decades were damaged at or below the water line. The one with the raging fire over a day was above the water line and only 1 of the 2 missiles detonated. In the other it took three days to get the flooding under control.

But put the USS Stark fire on the USS Cole (or lower the point of impact on the Stark) and we likely would have lost one or the other.

 

[Mushroom]