Mosvka was not sunk by Ukraine, more likely a torpedo

Evidence for argument follow. To avoid conflicting bias from propaganda I pulled some evidence older than 2021.

Argument based on damage done to USS Cole:
qr.ae...

RIMPAC 2022
More than 6 Harpoons were fired at a target in RIMPAC 2022 before the target had to be forcibly scuttled. A 4,000 ton target is much easier to sink than a 12,000 ton cruiser with active damage control.
www.dvidshub.net...

Moskva construction is far stronger than US frigates:

forums.mudspike.com... g-ships-anti-surface-warfare-discussion-with-dcs-world-2-5-examples/6430

The Sahand was a Vosper Mk 5 frigate (roughly twice the tonnage of the Tarantul-III), and it managed to “survive” three Harpoons, two AGM-123s (GBU-16s with a rocket booster), and a pair of rockeyes. It only sank when the fires set by those weapons reached the magazine.

My own research during the first image released of the listing and smoke plume of the Moskva I used earth.nullschool.net... to review the weather for the attack site and concluded that the lean was to the southeast based on the sun angle and the wind. The currents of the time would have not swung the ship, you can see this all in historical data on that site.

So I propose that the Moskva was torpedoed with the cover story of 2 or maybe 4 Neptunes (Harpoons) sinking her.

But as seen above, that's rather unlikely given numerous reasons. Watertight compartments did exist on the Slava class, there would have been damage control, etc.

Some people suggest the Russians would be declaring this if this were the case but I don't think that fits a measured, mature escalation prioritization. The Russians already are skating on thin ice knowing NATO wants even more provocation, they probably wouldn't try to provoke further when they don't want more direct confrontation etc.

To really hit home how ABSURD it is that 2 500lbs "Neptunes" sunk the Moskva.

A 500lbs laser guided bomb didn't sink the Sabalan, 1/12th the displacement of the Mosvka when the bomb went straight down its smoke stack, blew up in the hull ripping her open and setting her on fire.

If a 500lbs DIRECT HIT can't sink an 1,100 ton ship, 2x 500lbs bombs certainly can't (and as RIMPAC 2022 shows) can't sink a 12,000 ton ship. Naval Architecture just doesn't work like that.

Sabalan Bombing

a reply to: DarthTrader

No, it wasn't a torpedo, either. It was those damn dogs.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: DarthTrader

No, it wasn't a torpedo, either. It was those damn dogs.

Ummm, no.

It was....climate change !!! ....or ....it sunk because it was misgendered !.. Yeah, that's it !!

a reply to: DarthTrader

You're assuming a well trained crew doing damage control. Look at the fires on Miami and Bonhomme Richard to see what happens when crews don't fight fires well. Pictures of Moskva after being hit appeared to show that her defenses weren't even active. If they weren't even running defenses active, there's no reason to believe they were ready to perform damage control from being hit hard by anything, let alone be able to save the ship. The USS Stark was hit by two Exocet missiles, one of which exploded, and only a well trained damage control team saved her.

a reply to: DarthTrader

Active damage control?

The Moskva was supposed to have several functional air defense systems. It didn’t..
I heard only 50 of the required 600 fire extinguishers were in working condition too.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that it’s a miracle the ship didn’t sink all by itself.

a reply to: DarthTrader

My own research shows it's renegade trained military dolphins. Escaped ones at that.

Link

a reply to: DarthTrader

at the time, i heard it was an old soviet p-700 granit
anti-ship cruise missile , with a 1500lb warhead...
after slamming its 15,000lb body into the ship at mach 1.5-2

then the magazine blew

a reply to: cappie

Ukrainian sources said it was a pair of R-360 Neptune missiles. Subsonic, with a 330 pound warhead. Russia said that it was an ammunition explosion, with no missile hits, and it sank in bad weather while being towed. Weather at the time was reportedly fairly calm.

a reply to: Zaphod58

there were alotta reports back then, thats the first one i remembered,
but this is the first i even heard of a ukrainian version r360-neptune

i thought they would have had leftover soviet stuff like
the tu-141's they been using on russian airfields

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: DarthTrader

No, it wasn't a torpedo, either. It was those damn dogs.

More likely they left their damn gas oven on... Ban Gas Ovens right meow!

I mean... it's not entirely unlikely that a Russian sub fired a torpedo at the Moskva. Or that the Moskva itself fired a torpedo which did a 180 and hit the ship. Because their crews and state of the weaponry is probably that bad.

I assume that's what the OP is trying to say.

Either way, the ship sank as a consequence of Russia's own stupidity. It's a win for Ukraine.

a reply to: cappie

Ukraine was a big part of Soviet/Russian weapons systems development. They did over 25% of Soviet research, and almost 20% of their production. In 2012, they were the 4th largest weapons exporter in the world. By 2019, they were down to 12th largest. Their industry is a lot more productive than people think.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DarthTrader

You're assuming a well-trained crew doing damage control. Look at the fires on Miami and Bonhomme Richard to see what happens when crews don't fight fires well. Pictures of Moskva after being hit appeared to show that her defenses weren't even active. If they weren't even running defenses active, there's no reason to believe they were ready to perform damage control from being hit hard by anything, let alone be able to save the ship. The USS Stark was hit by two Exocet missiles, one of which exploded, and only a well trained damage control team saved her.

I second the damage control point. Based on what we have seen of the training, efficiency, and motivation of Russian military personnel, it's HIGHLY likely they were poorly trained, led, or motivated with proper working equipment. They may not have even had the watertight hatches closed. Particularly if any munitions/magazines went off, that could have doomed the ship right there.

originally posted by: SrWingCommander

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DarthTrader

You're assuming a well-trained crew doing damage control. Look at the fires on Miami and Bonhomme Richard to see what happens when crews don't fight fires well. Pictures of Moskva after being hit appeared to show that her defenses weren't even active. If they weren't even running defenses active, there's no reason to believe they were ready to perform damage control from being hit hard by anything, let alone be able to save the ship. The USS Stark was hit by two Exocet missiles, one of which exploded, and only a well trained damage control team saved her.

I second the damage control point. Based on what we have seen of the training, efficiency, and motivation of Russian military personnel, it's HIGHLY likely they were poorly trained, led, or motivated with proper working equipment. They may not have even had the watertight hatches closed. Particularly if any munitions/magazines went off, that could have doomed the ship right there.

The last pictures of the Moskva argue against that point. But regardless, a fire can sometimes overwhelm excellent damage control. That's all a variabile we can't control. What is definitely noticeable is that the damage was near or below the waterline. This is virtually a fact given by the picture evidence.

a reply to: Zaphod58

thats why i said p-700 granit or a tu-141
i dont believe they got the VA-111 Shkva 200 mph torpedo
russia kept that one pretty secret...

i wonder if ukraine has any massive satellite launching rockets left
surprised they didnt load those up with hi explosives for
apartment blocks yet.... they have longer range than hi-mars..

why couldnt ukraine build anything BIGGER?