5 ms·

So which reflects worse on Russia's military? If it was sunk by an accidental fire on board, or if it was sunk by a Ukrainian missile attack? Either way it se

by mark-r 4y ago

So which reflects worse on Russia's military? If it was sunk by an accidental fire on board, or if it was sunk by a Ukrainian missile attack? Either way it seems like a huge loss for them.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Remember Russia's Kursk submarine accident? Where the biggest and most dangerous nuclear submarine in the world sank because of faulty welds on a training torpedo that leaked gas and caused the explosion of the torpedo compartment, causing the submarine to sink and the death of everyone on board because Russia refused to admit the accident and refused help from western partners? Yeah.
dimitar 4y ago
It's either defeat by Ukraine or Kursk 2. And they seem to prefer the latter, even though this is likely to be even worse given that the Moskva has five times the number of crew members. It's easy to see why they spin it this way if you watch at least one program of Vremya or similar Russian "news" or read Putin's article on Ukraine from last year. They don't consider Ukraine a 'real' country, and Ukrainians as normal people. The supremacism, bigotry and entitlement to Ukraine is mind blowing, and unfortunately quite a number of Russians agree. So it will always be the West's fault, or an accident but they will never admit to a defeat by Ukrainians as it will challenge their supremacist views. I expect next they will claim that it wasn't a Neptun missile, but maybe a British Harpoon, or why not even a CIA sabotage operation. And they cannot help themselves not to provoke and draw in Western countries that wouldn't care less about Eastern Europe. This type of thinking is already playing out on Russian TV where the failure of Russia to capture Kiev in three days is explained by Western arms and training even they were already known before the declaration of the "Special Military Operation". It gives me hope that supremacists, bigots and bullies lose because they underestimate their opponents.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  Russian state TV are losing their minds over the loss of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1514766062771875851 https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/151476606277187585...
  - bitcharmer 4y ago
    I loved that: "what are we waging right now? Oh yes, a special military operation" :)
- jrapdx3 4y ago
  > ...they underestimate their opponents. And at the same time overestimate their own capabilities. Both history and life experience teach us that more often than not failure is an outcome of inadequate self-observation. Imagined prowess based on mistaken assumptions is so often the source of defeat even more than losing to a genuinely superior adversary. It's the difference between arrogant blindness and courage under fire, the first is a dishonest prelude to failure, the second affirms reality and probability of success.
MrDisposable 4y ago
I think the missile attack is much worse. They just lost 1) a flagship, 2) named "Moskva", 3) to a country with no navy, and 4) no airforce capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. Bonus points: 1) parallels with Tsushima, and 2) the fact that this was the "russian warship" from the meme, and that it went precisely where it was told.
- shmerl 4y ago
  Both are pretty bad. Navy which flagships blow up becasue of poor maintenance is a laughing stock, especially when it's not even capable of building a new one.
- mlindner 4y ago
  I'll also add for one more piece of irony that the "Moskva" used to be called the "Slava", and was built in Mykolaiv in Ukraine (when it was part of the Soviet Union). In fact Russia as a country now has no shipyards capable of building anything larger than frigates, so this missile cruiser is actually something beyond the technology of Russia to produce right now. All of the Soviet Union's (and Russia's) aircraft carriers were in fact built in Mykolaiv as well for example. Their main class of Aircraft Carrier in the cold war was the "Kiev" (Kyiv) class.
  - yread 4y ago
    And the engines were built in Zaporozhie also in Ukraine. Just like smoking Kuznetsov's engines.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Well, a lot of Soviet military, naval and aerospace tech that's now used by Russia was developed and built in what is now Ukraine. They had many top design bureaus there. Which is why Russia felt cheated for having an independent Ukraine that's not a Russian puppet state as it meant the loss of highly important defense supply chains.
    - sofixa 4y ago
sharpneli 4y ago
Missile attack. On paper the Russian missile defense systems should be able to easily defeat 2 missiles like the neptune. Their CIWS etc are pretty good. On paper. Accidental fire on board is a freak accident that’s not replicatable. Missile attack means that someone has either competely lied about their capabilities or has corrupted and sold the self defense systems. Or both. The latter means Russian ships in general are now a way easier targets and hence smaller threats. Hence Russia has every incentive to hide this.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Their CIWS etc are pretty good Source please?
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. However, I feel that CIWS is mostly defensive security theatre. How often are do they actually work in the real world? The number of attacks on vessels carrying CIWS are so small. As a result, CIWS hardly get any real world practice. Events would be studied by military and manuf., then software updates made. As a counterpoint: Think how many cruise missiles have been fired in the last 50 years -- lots(!). There are plenty of case studies for military and manuf. to improve software. (I assume this is also how anti-missile systems are improved, like the US Patriot system.) FYI about this ship (Moskva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva Says CIWS system is: AK-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 See section "Service history" for some *highly* speculative writing!
    - yread 4y ago
      This destroyer destroyed a few missiles fired on it and it has CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off...
      - throwaway2037 4y ago
blihp 4y ago
Either way, the Russian military leadership looks incompetent. I would think that it would be more important to Ukraine from a morale standpoint if the missile attack was the cause. To take out the flagship of the Russian fleet with a weapon of Ukrainian design that hadn't previously been proven in battle... that's big. I would expect morale to be a key concern for them given the punishment they're enduring to get these victories.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >the Russian military leadership looks incompetent Maybe because ... it actually is.

by mark-r 4y ago

So which reflects worse on Russia's military? If it was sunk by an accidental fire on board, or if it was sunk by a Ukrainian missile attack? Either way it seems like a huge loss for them.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

Remember Russia's Kursk submarine accident? Where the biggest and most dangerous nuclear submarine in the world sank because of faulty welds on a training torpedo that leaked gas and caused the explosion of the torpedo compartment, causing the submarine to sink and the death of everyone on board because Russia refused to admit the accident and refused help from western partners? Yeah.

dimitar 4y ago

It's either defeat by Ukraine or Kursk 2. And they seem to prefer the latter, even though this is likely to be even worse given that the Moskva has five times the number of crew members. It's easy to see why they spin it this way if you watch at least one program of Vremya or similar Russian "news" or read Putin's article on Ukraine from last year. They don't consider Ukraine a 'real' country, and Ukrainians as normal people. The supremacism, bigotry and entitlement to Ukraine is mind blowing, and unfortunately quite a number of Russians agree. So it will always be the West's fault, or an accident but they will never admit to a defeat by Ukrainians as it will challenge their supremacist views. I expect next they will claim that it wasn't a Neptun missile, but maybe a British Harpoon, or why not even a CIA sabotage operation. And they cannot help themselves not to provoke and draw in Western countries that wouldn't care less about Eastern Europe. This type of thinking is already playing out on Russian TV where the failure of Russia to capture Kiev in three days is explained by Western arms and training even they were already known before the declaration of the "Special Military Operation". It gives me hope that supremacists, bigots and bullies lose because they underestimate their opponents.

jacobolus 4y ago
Russian state TV are losing their minds over the loss of the Moskva: https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1514766062771875851 https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/151476606277187585...
- bitcharmer 4y ago
  I loved that: "what are we waging right now? Oh yes, a special military operation" :)
jrapdx3 4y ago
> ...they underestimate their opponents. And at the same time overestimate their own capabilities. Both history and life experience teach us that more often than not failure is an outcome of inadequate self-observation. Imagined prowess based on mistaken assumptions is so often the source of defeat even more than losing to a genuinely superior adversary. It's the difference between arrogant blindness and courage under fire, the first is a dishonest prelude to failure, the second affirms reality and probability of success.

MrDisposable 4y ago

I think the missile attack is much worse. They just lost 1) a flagship, 2) named "Moskva", 3) to a country with no navy, and 4) no airforce capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. Bonus points: 1) parallels with Tsushima, and 2) the fact that this was the "russian warship" from the meme, and that it went precisely where it was told.

shmerl 4y ago
Both are pretty bad. Navy which flagships blow up becasue of poor maintenance is a laughing stock, especially when it's not even capable of building a new one.
mlindner 4y ago
I'll also add for one more piece of irony that the "Moskva" used to be called the "Slava", and was built in Mykolaiv in Ukraine (when it was part of the Soviet Union). In fact Russia as a country now has no shipyards capable of building anything larger than frigates, so this missile cruiser is actually something beyond the technology of Russia to produce right now. All of the Soviet Union's (and Russia's) aircraft carriers were in fact built in Mykolaiv as well for example. Their main class of Aircraft Carrier in the cold war was the "Kiev" (Kyiv) class.
- yread 4y ago
  And the engines were built in Zaporozhie also in Ukraine. Just like smoking Kuznetsov's engines.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Well, a lot of Soviet military, naval and aerospace tech that's now used by Russia was developed and built in what is now Ukraine. They had many top design bureaus there. Which is why Russia felt cheated for having an independent Ukraine that's not a Russian puppet state as it meant the loss of highly important defense supply chains.
  - sofixa 4y ago

sharpneli 4y ago

Missile attack. On paper the Russian missile defense systems should be able to easily defeat 2 missiles like the neptune. Their CIWS etc are pretty good. On paper. Accidental fire on board is a freak accident that’s not replicatable. Missile attack means that someone has either competely lied about their capabilities or has corrupted and sold the self defense systems. Or both. The latter means Russian ships in general are now a way easier targets and hence smaller threats. Hence Russia has every incentive to hide this.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Their CIWS etc are pretty good Source please?
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. However, I feel that CIWS is mostly defensive security theatre. How often are do they actually work in the real world? The number of attacks on vessels carrying CIWS are so small. As a result, CIWS hardly get any real world practice. Events would be studied by military and manuf., then software updates made. As a counterpoint: Think how many cruise missiles have been fired in the last 50 years -- lots(!). There are plenty of case studies for military and manuf. to improve software. (I assume this is also how anti-missile systems are improved, like the US Patriot system.) FYI about this ship (Moskva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva Says CIWS system is: AK-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 See section "Service history" for some *highly* speculative writing!
  - yread 4y ago
    This destroyer destroyed a few missiles fired on it and it has CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off...
    - throwaway2037 4y ago

blihp 4y ago

Either way, the Russian military leadership looks incompetent. I would think that it would be more important to Ukraine from a morale standpoint if the missile attack was the cause. To take out the flagship of the Russian fleet with a weapon of Ukrainian design that hadn't previously been proven in battle... that's big. I would expect morale to be a key concern for them given the punishment they're enduring to get these victories.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>the Russian military leadership looks incompetent Maybe because ... it actually is.