4 ms·

"due to damage to the hull received during the fire from the detonation of ammunition" The Ministry of Defense didn't clarify whose ammunition it was that expl

"due to damage to the hull received during the fire from the detonation of ammunition" The Ministry of Defense didn't clarify whose ammunition it was that exploded. More seriously that was the flagship of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. That's gotta put the fear of god into the other ship captains.

rich_sasha 4y ago
Seeing as it sank many hours after it first caught fire, I’d imagine it was its own ammunition that caused the big fire (alongside fuel, lubricants etc). What set its own ammunition on fire is the follow-up question. Seems like the Ukrainian missile, though after what we’ve seen, nothing would surprise me.
- Tarragon 4y ago
  Sure, I'll believe that an ammunition fire on the Moskva is what sank it. Hower that fire was caused by... Top contenders are missile and inept crew. Looks like Russia would rather we accept that the crew was inept than it was sun by a Ukrainian made missile
  - dekhn 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causati... note the very first example is a sinking ship
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    "Top contenders are missile and inept crew." It could also be sabotage by a Russian crewmember or foreign infiltrator.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      You forgot the aliens.
      - vba616 4y ago
        Literally in this same thread people are referencing a well-known case of sabotage on an American ship not that long ago. Said to have caused severe damage. On a Russian ship, though, it's as absurd an idea as space aliens? I don't wish to debate hypotheticals, because I generally am not certain about uncertain things. On a meta level, though, I am very curious where other people get their certainty from. I would like to hear more about how you identify paranoid fantasies.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        On a Russian ship currently actively involved in a war that was claimed to have been hit by a missile that stands off-shore way over the horizon yes, sabotage is just as absurd as space aliens.
        vba616 4y ago
        >On a Russian ship currently actively involved in a war that was claimed to have been hit by a missile that stands off-shore way over the horizon yes, sabotage is just as absurd as space aliens. I don't understand what you are saying at all. Sabotage can't happen during a war? Or sabotage can't happen on a ship that wasn't hit by a missile? Or sabotage can't happen on a ship that was hit by a missile? Or sabotage can't happen to Russians at all? Or sabotage by Russians can't happen on one of their ships?
  - netsharc 4y ago
    Someone should remake "The front fell off" video[1] but fitting the context: A Russian reporter interviewing the Russian defense minister. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- lolinder 4y ago
  Any answer besides "Ukrainian missile" is going to be even more embarrassing for Russia. At least a missile strike is enemy action. Any alternative explanation for the sinking of your flagship is just incompetence.
  - mcv 4y ago
    My impression is that Russia is more concerned with not making Ukraine look good than with making themselves look good.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    Fires on ships are very harsh and dangerous environments. The US recently lost an entire carrier while in drydock with the maximum resources available, not even out at sea. Once it gets going, it's extraordinarily difficult to get under control.
    - mrdatawolf 4y ago
      Do you have a source for this? My poor google skills can't find anything after the '67 fire for an American carrier.
      - lolinder 4y ago
        I also had trouble finding anything, but this sibling has a link. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033854
    - driscoll42 4y ago
      To be fair, the ship was considered to be not worth repairing, but did not sink. It could have been repaired. But your point is accurate that it in drydock and it is embarrassing that the fire couldn't be put out sooner.
    - idoh 4y ago
      Any insight as to why fires on ships are hard to control? I hear it and believe. On the other hand I've been inside of military ships before and they are partitioned, with lots of metal doors to section off and contain damage, so I don't understand the difficulty.
- Someone 4y ago
  > Seeing as it sank many hours after it first caught fire I may have missed some info, but I think the jury is still out on that. The Ukrainians announced the sinking a day before the Russians did. At least one of them must have been incorrect, I would guess for propaganda reasons. My money would be on the Russians lying. An Ukrainian lie would be very embarrassing if Russia subsequently invited some journalists over to look at the ship.
monocasa 4y ago
The cruise missile tubes are right there on the deck; I don't doubt they exploded after getting hit with a Neptune or two. Neptunes are only rated to take out 5k tonnage ships, and Moskva is 12k tons. I bet you Moskva's own ordnance exploding after being hit by Ukraine's missiles is what actually killed it. Still a point for Ukraine for sure.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rich_sasha 4y ago

Seeing as it sank many hours after it first caught fire, I’d imagine it was its own ammunition that caused the big fire (alongside fuel, lubricants etc). What set its own ammunition on fire is the follow-up question. Seems like the Ukrainian missile, though after what we’ve seen, nothing would surprise me.

Tarragon 4y ago
Sure, I'll believe that an ammunition fire on the Moskva is what sank it. Hower that fire was caused by... Top contenders are missile and inept crew. Looks like Russia would rather we accept that the crew was inept than it was sun by a Ukrainian made missile
- dekhn 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causati... note the very first example is a sinking ship
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "Top contenders are missile and inept crew." It could also be sabotage by a Russian crewmember or foreign infiltrator.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You forgot the aliens.
    - vba616 4y ago
      Literally in this same thread people are referencing a well-known case of sabotage on an American ship not that long ago. Said to have caused severe damage. On a Russian ship, though, it's as absurd an idea as space aliens? I don't wish to debate hypotheticals, because I generally am not certain about uncertain things. On a meta level, though, I am very curious where other people get their certainty from. I would like to hear more about how you identify paranoid fantasies.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        On a Russian ship currently actively involved in a war that was claimed to have been hit by a missile that stands off-shore way over the horizon yes, sabotage is just as absurd as space aliens.
        vba616 4y ago
        >On a Russian ship currently actively involved in a war that was claimed to have been hit by a missile that stands off-shore way over the horizon yes, sabotage is just as absurd as space aliens. I don't understand what you are saying at all. Sabotage can't happen during a war? Or sabotage can't happen on a ship that wasn't hit by a missile? Or sabotage can't happen on a ship that was hit by a missile? Or sabotage can't happen to Russians at all? Or sabotage by Russians can't happen on one of their ships?
- netsharc 4y ago
  Someone should remake "The front fell off" video[1] but fitting the context: A Russian reporter interviewing the Russian defense minister. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
lolinder 4y ago
Any answer besides "Ukrainian missile" is going to be even more embarrassing for Russia. At least a missile strike is enemy action. Any alternative explanation for the sinking of your flagship is just incompetence.
- mcv 4y ago
  My impression is that Russia is more concerned with not making Ukraine look good than with making themselves look good.
- paulmd 4y ago
  Fires on ships are very harsh and dangerous environments. The US recently lost an entire carrier while in drydock with the maximum resources available, not even out at sea. Once it gets going, it's extraordinarily difficult to get under control.
  - mrdatawolf 4y ago
    Do you have a source for this? My poor google skills can't find anything after the '67 fire for an American carrier.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      I also had trouble finding anything, but this sibling has a link. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033854
  - driscoll42 4y ago
    To be fair, the ship was considered to be not worth repairing, but did not sink. It could have been repaired. But your point is accurate that it in drydock and it is embarrassing that the fire couldn't be put out sooner.
  - idoh 4y ago
    Any insight as to why fires on ships are hard to control? I hear it and believe. On the other hand I've been inside of military ships before and they are partitioned, with lots of metal doors to section off and contain damage, so I don't understand the difficulty.
Someone 4y ago
> Seeing as it sank many hours after it first caught fire I may have missed some info, but I think the jury is still out on that. The Ukrainians announced the sinking a day before the Russians did. At least one of them must have been incorrect, I would guess for propaganda reasons. My money would be on the Russians lying. An Ukrainian lie would be very embarrassing if Russia subsequently invited some journalists over to look at the ship.

monocasa 4y ago

The cruise missile tubes are right there on the deck; I don't doubt they exploded after getting hit with a Neptune or two. Neptunes are only rated to take out 5k tonnage ships, and Moskva is 12k tons. I bet you Moskva's own ordnance exploding after being hit by Ukraine's missiles is what actually killed it. Still a point for Ukraine for sure.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]