Doomed Moskva Russia warship is 'seen
burning in satellite image' after Ukraine
missile strike 'killed ALL 510 aboard'
Putin's Black Sea flagship
Daily Mail (UK),
by
Jack Wright
&
Chris Jewers
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
4/16/2022 11:53:37 AM
Satellite images show the pride of Putin's Black Sea Fleet burning while other vessels are scrambled to rescue those onboard before it sank after it was struck by Ukrainian missiles in an attack which Kyiv has claimed killed all 510 crew on-board including its captain. Radar satellite imagery of the northern Black Sea on April 13 appears to pinpoint the Soviet-era Moskva warship, which Ukraine said was struck by two Neptune cruise missiles fired by one of its batteries near the port city of Odesa. Other vessels are also seen in attendance, with reports suggesting they are rescue vessels.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Ashley Brenton 4/16/2022 12:13:44 PM (No. 1130225)
https://youtu.be/q-aY9aP7kX8
That is the only footage of the Moskva going down, so far as I can find now.
The entire aft section of the ship is completely shredded. But you can tell by looking that the entire crew wasn't killed. Many of them were, but not all.
A pretty good day's work, considering.
14 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Catfur27 4/16/2022 12:29:52 PM (No. 1130254)
...why do I think the U.S. and Euro militaries are just sitting back ...and watching.... and taking notes ....as the Ukies test out different technologies and weapon systems against the Russkies....
14 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 4/16/2022 12:38:45 PM (No. 1130261)
One report from Indian news source yesterday was that a Turkish ship had rescued 54 crew from the ship, and that there were something like 485 (IIRC) on board at the time. Seems unlikely that zero would have survived, but the water is cold and even surviving the initial sinking does not give one much survival time in the water due to hypothermia.
I think the "510" number is a theoretical manning number, which may not reflect the actual crew on board at the time.
10 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
thomthomp 4/16/2022 12:42:00 PM (No. 1130264)
#2, maybe the Europeans are, but our military is too busy indoctrinating the troops on transgenderism to pay much attention to our potential enemies
..
...or to the job of protecting the country that they supposedly exist for.
25 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 4/16/2022 12:54:24 PM (No. 1130275)
Re #1, looking a still photos of the Moskva and that video, it is not the same ship.
Examples:
1. None of the highly distinctive four twin rocket launchers are visible in the video. This is a big deal, these rocket launchers are an extremely distinctive feature of this class of ship.
2. The bow deck section forward of the superstructure (forecastle) of the ship in the video is much longer than the Moskva.
3. The Moskva's helipad is at the extreme stern, with a prominent white circle painted to identify it. The sinking ship has the helipad well forward of the stern area, with some equipment (depth charge racks?) at the extreme stern, and the helipad is painted with a white square, not a circle.
4. Multiple reports on the Moskva are of a large fire, and the ship capsizing and sinking. This ship is not significantly on fire, and did not capsize.
I believe that the video is a fake, and shows some other ship sinking. If anyone wants to ID the fake, I'd look at what film of the British or Argentine ships sinking in the Falklands war are out there, available to be mistitled and put out by some faker.
14 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Birddog 4/16/2022 12:55:38 PM (No. 1130277)
That's the bow that is shredded..."The Pointy end"...as we sailors say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzGqp3R4Mx4&t=308s
2 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Ashley Brenton 4/16/2022 1:42:21 PM (No. 1130313)
My bad. That isn't Moskva.
Hard to believe nobody recorded it going down or hasn't uploaded it yet.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
JrSample 4/16/2022 2:11:19 PM (No. 1130333)
The initial Russian exclamation was extremely comical; that it wasn't hit by an enemy missile, it just caught fire and exploded on its' own. Their admission would be worse, that the loss was due to Russian naval incompetence and cowardice rather than enemy action. The Russians are know congenital liars, but their lies are usually self-serving and intended to protect their image. This lie makes them look even more bungling and inept than before. Now, it is apparent that their Navy is just as ineffective as their bogged-down Army. Then, they announced that they were going to escalate their air attacks on Kiev in retaliation, not explaining how it could be the fault of the Ukrainians if the Russian warship just blew up and sank by itself, according to the original Russian government story.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 4/16/2022 2:11:55 PM (No. 1130334)
Russia media reported the Moskva was hit and went down. Did they really say that? If so, I would guess it really did happen. Or is somebody CLAIMING Russia said that when they never said anything at all?
I'm guessing Ukraine blew the Moskva out of the water.
Fascinating that Russia invested so heavily in their military sacrificing the rest of their economy, and really has little to show for it. Russian corruption, I guess. It was just a way for greedy unscrupulous people to line their pockets, gain power, and nothing else. Corruption is the same all over the world, and Russia is just like everyone else. Nothing special.
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Krause 4/16/2022 2:40:57 PM (No. 1130354)
Putin is just as big a F-up as Biden is.
6 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 4/16/2022 3:07:06 PM (No. 1130371)
How many years before large surface ships are no longer very useful in warfare? Moden missiles seem too much like above water torpedoes. Have large warships become easy targets for modern missile systems?
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Tet Vet 68 4/16/2022 3:33:46 PM (No. 1130383)
#5 is correct this video not the Moskva. It is most likely file footage of a missile test against an old obsolete target ship. My best guess an old US cruiser 1950's vintage. The superstructure is very different than the Moskva.
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 4/16/2022 4:06:02 PM (No. 1130391)
I went back and checked, and apparently this attack occurred at night. That would probably be a good reason that there doesn't seem to be any video of the burning or sinking. It may well have been sunk by the time the sun came up, making photo evidence difficult to obtain.
Plus.....who would be wandering into a sea battle at night? I suspect that uninvolved ships and aircraft were staying away to avoid getting mistaken for combatants by one side or the other and fired upon.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 4/16/2022 4:30:50 PM (No. 1130401)
In Ukraine Putin is repeating the same mistakes Nicholas II made in picking a fight with Japan in 1904: underestimating the opponent and refusing to retreat and make peace when things didn't go as planned. It only went from bad to worse for Nicholas, and we all know how it ended for him. Putin is following the same path to destruction.
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 4/16/2022 4:40:14 PM (No. 1130407)
Excellent question, #11. The USN has been working dilligently on anti-missile systems to protect against these ainti-ship missiles.
For example: the US fields the Sea Sparrow, Phalanx, and the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile. All are intended to knock down various classes of anti-ship missiles. Sea Sparrow is more for the larger Soviet antiship missiles, like the ones that the Moskva carried, the SS-N-12 Sandbox, a very large missile, presumably easier to hit than the smaller missiles. Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is a shorter range system, intended to destroy the smaller anti-ship missiles like the French Exocet used to sink several British ships in the Falklands War, or this Neptune missile that the Ukrainians have developed. Those smaller targets are harder to knock down because they are small targets moving fast.
The Phalanx is a 20mm Gatling-typemulti-barrle cannon system with multiple target sensors, radar and optical, to detect small, fast moving targets and "hose them down" with an extremely dense stream of 3/4" diameter bullets, all automatically reacting to targets when in "automatic" mode, as it would be in combat. These are useable inside about 1 mile range.
The Russians have a sort of a copy of the Phalanx, but the actual quality of their sensors and guidance systems is questionable - maybe good, maybe not. And - were these systems activated and operational? A lot of the Russian Navy's equipment is reported to be outdated and non-operational for lack of spare parts or skilled repairmen. All skilled technicians in the USN are senior enlisted sailors. In the Russian Navy, all technical jobs are done by officers, of which there a far fewer on a given ship.
Some international military commentators say that the Russian system leads to chronic problems with advanced weapons systems not working well in the field due to lack of skilled operators and maintenance technicians.
And - the old WW2 bane of ships, the submarine, is still a serious problem, too. Advanced torpedoes are far more capable than WW2 class torpedoes were. Whether Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) methods have developed enough to effectively counter modern submarine attacks isn't clear, and there are multiple technical tiers of both submarines and ASW technology, depending on the country.
10-15 years ago, US ASW capability was very, very good. Today, with all the dedicated shipboard ASW aircraft in the USN retired except helos, I wonder how capable we still are in this arena. We seem to mostly depend on patrol aircraft like the P8 Poseidon, basically a Boeing 737 set up to carry ASW sensors and attack weapons. How capable is it? They claim great capability. But have politics and affirmative action, plus ever-shrinking budgets crippled that capability, too? Unknown.
In WW2, huge numbers of ships were sunk on all sides, and even greater numbers built. Around 3500 merchant ships and 175 military ships were sunk just in the North Atlantic in WW2. Huge numbers also in the Pacific War. No modern navy has anywhere near the numbers of capital ships that countries had in that war, not even close.
Back to the original question: Whether surface combatant ships are obsoleted entirely by modern anti-ship missiles remains to be seen. There are seemingly capable protective systems in place. How effective they will be is as yet not fully known.
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
voxpopuli 4/16/2022 5:02:37 PM (No. 1130421)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva#/media/File:Russian_cruiser_Moskva.jpg
that is a picture of the Moskva..
looks NOTHING like that video of SOMETHING sinking in reply #1
bow and stern are completely different and i'm sure everything in between..
it's almost like you can't trust the MSM....
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
DVC 4/16/2022 5:20:11 PM (No. 1130443)
Re 316....MSM had nothing to do with the YouTube video.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)