I just don’t think the Moskva sinking should be an example for anything, least of all the vulnerability of ships to Anti-Ship missiles.
Other things had bigger impacts. The ridiculous design leaving the missiles exposed above the deck, the lack of proper fire fighting, the claims of cabling strung through water tight doors preventing sealing, their getting distracted by a Bayraktar, the inability to tow it to port swiftly, the bad weather blinding them, one could go on and on…
But well researched and well written jargon free article otherwise. I enjoyed it.
It didn’t stand a chance because the captain was outsmarted by a Ukrainian drone and had his full attention on the drone while two anti-ship missiles hit his blind side.
Classic fix and flank.
The Ukrainian radar was also only able to provide a solution for the missile due to the low and dense cloud cover, basically extending their range beyond the horizon. Was a shot they could only attempt in those conditions.
The crew being Russian probably didn’t help.
Not nearly enough crew training in damage control, not following the watertight conditions required in a combat zone, a poor design of the ship itself, probably a fair number of other contributing factors…
Wasn’t that thing basically just fit for service on the paper, but in reality was basically begging to be sunk because various defensive systems were down and the ships damage and firefighting crew was inadequatly equiped?
What to expect from a navy which operates an aircraft carrier being more of an enviromental risk than a risk to the enemy. This clown gang bought us classics such as the Kursk incident or losing their entire Pacific fleet command because they stuffed the plane full of shopping goods and fucked up the cargo management.
Do you want the list in alphabetical or numerical order?
Refreshing writing. Thanks for posting this good read.
Because it was designed, built and manned by ruskis.
(skip to 5:22 if you just want to get the skinny on the Moskva)
Basically, it was Admiral Kuznetsov levels of seaworthy. It had a ton of problems that were identified the last time it was being overhauled but they rubber stamped it and declared it fit for combat. Among the problems was that only one of its CIWS guns was operational, the rest having been sacrificed for spare parts, and even then the radar that controlled the gun had to be kept powered off otherwise it would interfere with the ship’s radio.
They probably didn’t even know they were under attack until they got hit.
11 comments
because it’s underwater that’s why
I just don’t think the Moskva sinking should be an example for anything, least of all the vulnerability of ships to Anti-Ship missiles.
Other things had bigger impacts. The ridiculous design leaving the missiles exposed above the deck, the lack of proper fire fighting, the claims of cabling strung through water tight doors preventing sealing, their getting distracted by a Bayraktar, the inability to tow it to port swiftly, the bad weather blinding them, one could go on and on…
But well researched and well written jargon free article otherwise. I enjoyed it.
It didn’t stand a chance because the captain was outsmarted by a Ukrainian drone and had his full attention on the drone while two anti-ship missiles hit his blind side.
Classic fix and flank.
The Ukrainian radar was also only able to provide a solution for the missile due to the low and dense cloud cover, basically extending their range beyond the horizon. Was a shot they could only attempt in those conditions.
The crew being Russian probably didn’t help.
Not nearly enough crew training in damage control, not following the watertight conditions required in a combat zone, a poor design of the ship itself, probably a fair number of other contributing factors…
Wasn’t that thing basically just fit for service on the paper, but in reality was basically begging to be sunk because various defensive systems were down and the ships damage and firefighting crew was inadequatly equiped?
What to expect from a navy which operates an aircraft carrier being more of an enviromental risk than a risk to the enemy. This clown gang bought us classics such as the Kursk incident or losing their entire Pacific fleet command because they stuffed the plane full of shopping goods and fucked up the cargo management.
Do you want the list in alphabetical or numerical order?
Refreshing writing. Thanks for posting this good read.
Because it was designed, built and manned by ruskis.
Lazerpig does a deep dive on the sinking of the Moskva and hoo boy is it a doozy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEtlMSCiCI
(skip to 5:22 if you just want to get the skinny on the Moskva)
Basically, it was Admiral Kuznetsov levels of seaworthy. It had a ton of problems that were identified the last time it was being overhauled but they rubber stamped it and declared it fit for combat. Among the problems was that only one of its CIWS guns was operational, the rest having been sacrificed for spare parts, and even then the radar that controlled the gun had to be kept powered off otherwise it would interfere with the ship’s radio.
They probably didn’t even know they were under attack until they got hit.