(April 15, 2022 at 12:45 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's actually pretty rare for a big ship to go down quick, missile or not (or go down at all).  Some ships have taken so much damage they been reported sunk multiple times in a single battle by the enemy.  The ability to tow or salvage a hull shouldn't be taken as an indication that it hadn't suffered extensive damage.  In other news, the russians claim to have retaliated against a factory that made anti ship missiles, and made a big deal about it.  Obviously just coincidental.  

I do like the squall thing, though.  It'd have to be a squall, wouldn't it, since nobody else noticed the deluge what sunk the persian fleet that night.

A better comparison might be our own recent naval mishaps.  We've had ships get hit by missiles and even collide, too.  Didn't lose the boats.  I don't recall there being much pushback to the notion that incompetence was the ultimate cause in each case - but I guess that only applies to us forces.  

TLDR, the russian navy's problems aren't new or novel.  They pumped their subs and ignored their surface fleet.  Did the ukrainians hit that ship?  It's highly likely.  Would it have gone down, even so, if it were any other comparable ship in any other (allegedly) comparable force?  Highly unlikely.

Golden BBs do sometimes happen, as @abaris alluded to when he mentioned Hood, but that wasn't the case here, as they had time to rig a tow -- implying at least one damage-control party being aboard. If Ukrainian claims of hitting it with two Neptunes are true, the ship took two 330-lb warheads aboard -- and it's only armored against splinters/fragments, so I don't know how likely or unlikely its later survival may have been.

Regarding the weather, my understanding is that the last few days have been stormy in the area. A magazine explosion almost certainly would have holed the hull and made it vulnerable to the weather.

(April 15, 2022 at 1:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Golden BBs do sometimes happen, as @abaris alluded to when he mentioned Hood, but that wasn't the case here, as they had time to rig a tow -- implying at least one damage-control party being aboard. If Ukrainian claims of hitting it with two Neptunes are true, the ship took two 330-lb warheads aboard -- and it's only armored against splinters/fragments, so I don't know how likely or unlikely its later survival may have been.

The Stark took two exocets.  In that case, the first missile failed to trigger, but a fire did break out (rocket fuel)..then the second hit leaving a massive hole in the ship.  She served for another decade.  A quick summary for the peanut gallery.

I wouldn't detract from the actions of the captain and crew that then accounted for the ship being saved by suggesting that the outcome was entirely predictable - a routine operation - but it does provide a near direct counterpoint to whatever happened to the moskva. I'd even go so far as to all it another example of lessons not learned by russian forces as observers. As you dive into the details, history may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.

At work.

Read an article that said;

1) Drones had been used to create large amounts of 'False positives' distracting the defense systems before two missiles were thrown from a hidden launch site.

2) One of the hits and cause fir thd fires/damage was dus to the 'Exposed' deck missile launcher taking a strike.

Others may know more etc.

Cheers.

(April 15, 2022 at 1:40 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 15, 2022 at 1:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Golden BBs do sometimes happen, as @abaris alluded to when he mentioned Hood, but that wasn't the case here, as they had time to rig a tow -- implying at least one damage-control party being aboard. If Ukrainian claims of hitting it with two Neptunes are true, the ship took two 330-lb warheads aboard -- and it's only armored against splinters/fragments, so I don't know how likely or unlikely its later survival may have been.

The Stark took two exocets.  In that case, the first missile failed to trigger, but a fire did break out (rocket fuel)..then the second hit leaving a massive hole in the ship.  She served for another decade.  A quick summary for the peanut gallery.

I wouldn't detract from the actions of the captain and crew that then accounted for the ship being saved by suggesting that the outcome was entirely predictable - a routine operation - but it does provide a near direct counterpoint to whatever happened to the moskva.  I'd even go so far as to all it another example of lessons not learned by russian forces as observers.  As you dive into the details, history may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.

There's no predicting any of it. Both the Stark and Samuel B Roberts (1988, not 1944) benefitted from the USN's emphasis on damage control, dearly-bought in the Pacific in WWII -- which the Russians could and perhaps should have studied?

But yeah, where the incoming hits, and who it kills, matters. For instance, IJN Kaga was sunk at Midway by four bombs in large part because the second bomb not only hit a hot hangar with full fuel lines, but also because it wiped out the forward damage-control party, meaning those fires spread uncontrollably. Lucky hit.

it appears the Moskva was hit during fairly rough weather.  rough seas can greatly decrease the survival chances of ships that suffered loss of watertightness.   I suspect even a ship of her size with good damage control might struggle to survive if the sea is rough enough.

regarding damage control,  the russian navy follow the same approach to damage control that the imperial Japanese navy used.   Damage control is considered a technical specialty to be handled by specialist commissioned officers and warrant officers.   Most of the crew do not participate except as grunt man power.   This probably stem from the same military cultural limitation that caused the russian army to not pursue a corp of long serving NCOs.

Soviet warships tend to adopt layouts that would be considered unacceptable for damage resistance perspective by western navies. For example, the entire S-300 surface to air missile battery on the larger kirov class are actually housed in one single giant compartment in the hull, and not internally compartmentalized for flooding abs damage resistance.   This makes these vessels rather vulnerable to internal flooding, especially in rough seas where free surface effect in large compartment can quickly rob the ship of stability.

I'm still looking around for total casualties. The Ukrainians are saying anywhere from 452 to 496 of the ship's crew of 510 died in the attack and subsequent sinking, but I can't find any good sources. When and how they died will probably give some insight into what actually killed the ship.

(April 15, 2022 at 1:23 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

I guess too subtle for.most here....

It cracked me up.....

It' s my latest phone wallpaper...