Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Edge-]

Wait...so the Moskova or whatever may have had nukes is what I'm getting from this? Seems fishy as hell but like...oh man if Russia lost a few of their nukes in this war on top of everything else that'd be hilarious. Terrifying, but hilarious. Hopefully this is just fun chatter though, because I don't know how comfortable I feel with a few nukes sitting down there just waiting for someone to snatch them up.

[Arrashi]

Wait...so the Moskova or whatever may have had nukes is what I'm getting from this? Seems fishy as hell but like...oh man if Russia lost a few of their nukes in this war on top of everything else that'd be hilarious. Terrifying, but hilarious. Hopefully this is just fun chatter though, because I don't know how comfortable I feel with a few nukes sitting down there just waiting for someone to snatch them up.

I dont think we have any solid evidence, but there are rumors that it could have 2 tactical warheads (probably for Odessa). Guess we gotta monitor radiation in the wrackage area, so if any of them starts leaking we will know.

[Iphie]

Well, the short version is that setting a nuclear warhead on fire will not cause it to go off. You'd probably get some horribly radioactive smoke, and at worst there might be a conventional explosion that scatters nuclear material like a dirty bomb. Triggering the fusion reaction that results in a nuclear explosion requires some pretty precise mechanical actions inside of the warhead that aren't going to just happen by accident.

I know it's unlikely they'd go off from that *if* they were present, but it would still be bad news. In any case, I don't think the russians would be very keen in explaining why their missile boat imitated a dirty bomb.

Wait...so the Moskova or whatever may have had nukes is what I'm getting from this? Seems fishy as hell but like...oh man if Russia lost a few of their nukes in this war on top of everything else that'd be hilarious. Terrifying, but hilarious. Hopefully this is just fun chatter though, because I don't know how comfortable I feel with a few nukes sitting down there just waiting for someone to snatch them up.

Salvaging a boat is not easy, and I don't know how deep it is there. But as I said it's just what I read, I sincerely doubt it but then again it does fit with a rapid abandoning of the ship and disposing it in deeper water.

[Afrospinach]

That structure with the thickest smoke? That's the command tower at the front of the ship. I'm no expert, but I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee(deep breath)eeeeeeeeeeeeeally question anyone who stores their heavy munitions under the captain's chair. Leaving that design flaw (if it exists) aside, if I were firing missiles at an enemy ship with the intent to disable or destroy it, I'd aim at the control tower, for the same reason I go for headshots in FPS games.

The bridge in most warships is redundant. It has visual navigation but other than that all systems are doubled up at least.

They will have a secondary control room called a Combat Information Center (CIC) or Combat Direction Center (CDC) that is usually deep inside the ship itself.

Wait...so the Moskova or whatever may have had nukes is what I'm getting from this? Seems fishy as hell but like...oh man if Russia lost a few of their nukes in this war on top of everything else that'd be hilarious. Terrifying, but hilarious. Hopefully this is just fun chatter though, because I don't know how comfortable I feel with a few nukes sitting down there just waiting for someone to snatch them up.

An alarmingly large number of nukes have been lost at sea.

Hell I think the British RAF let some nukes fly on accident that actually hit the ground in a foreign friendly country. They were not armed but still...

[PhaelixWW]

Man, that sure is a massive storm ready to sink that ship! (sarcasm)

Loving the irony that super rescue tug Shakhter (SB-922) failed to rescues the sinking Russian propaganda war ship..

Keep in mind that these images and video are from at least 5+ hours after the attack, which is said to have occurred at around 1am. Conditions cooooooould have changed in that intervening time. Perhaps.

Or perhaps not, who knows.

Leaving that design flaw (if it exists) aside, if I were firing missiles at an enemy ship with the intent to disable or destroy it, I'd aim at the control tower, for the same reason I go for headshots in FPS games.

I think standard practice is to aim at just above the water line. Aiming at the control tower might take out the captain, but blowing a large hole in the side of the ship at the water line will likely ensure that the entire ship sinks... at least eventually. Trying to hit the command tower would also make the missile easier to spoof with ECM or get shot down.

And finally, the angle that ship is listing when the fire and rescue tugs are just now arriving?

I'm guessing the tugs have been there for a while at that point, because, well...

The flagship is also...I want to say 5 meters lower in the water than it should be. That combination is irrecoverable. There is nothing Shak can do but watch in horror as the Russian flagship goes down in...well not flames, the water put those out, but the plume of smoke with "I am a complete failure" written on it was visible for miles.

...yarp. That.

[Breccia]

The bridge in most warships is redundant.

Maybe? It would certainly make sense. But
a) this is Russian tech we're talking about. The ship was sunk by the Ukrainians tapping it on the shoulder so it turned around. I would not give any backup systems any credit.
b) the captain's probably still in it. That alone makes it a worthwhile target.

I think standard practice is to aim at just above the water line.

Yes but I meant laterally. Like, instead of aiming at the rear or bow of the ship. But this does bring up an interesting point -- as I pointed out, some of the ship's ammo was already on the deck. I don't know where I'd aim below decks with the intent of hitting more missiles or cannon rounds. There's gotta be a storeroom down there, maybe multiple, but I'd have to guess. Bridge tower, by contrast, is the highest point on the ship. Easy mark.

[Edge-]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catastrophi...res_a_missile/

Since we're still on the topic of the Russian navy, I guess this is supposedly a video of that time in 2015 when a Russian warship leaving port accidentally fired a missile.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-10418822.html

Seems legit, and as a bonus it was at a "Navy Day" celebration in Crimea.

Maybe they've been trying to tell us their military isn't so well armed and professional as they've been saying years before the invasion, evne.

[Breccia]

Keep in mind that these images and video are from at least 5+ hours after the attack, which is said to have occurred at around 1am.

But...then the ship would have sunk earlier. Also, didn't Russia claim the ship sunk while it was being towed? So for that to be true, there'd have to have been a storm earlier that made the ship sink faster, but not by 5 hours later when that clearly disconnected Shak is facing the wrong way?

[P for Pancetta]

Ok, I read today a rumour that there were two nuclear warheads onboard, now I'm not taking that *too* seriously but I can only imagine what would happen if those had gone up if it was true (I know, I know, fail safes and stuff, but I'm not putting my faith in those). Dumping the ship under water is suddenly not the worst idea.

Again, I'm not taking it too seriously but not discounting it 100% either. I mean, it would certainly explain why the crew would bail without waiting for support.

This is what I found on the ship in chronological order:

First a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Government/Military said in an interview they had a nice surprise. He got some info during the interview something related to the Moskva, he explained but wouldn't go into details.

It really started when Ukraine officially claimed to have hit the ship with two Neptune missiles moments after said interview.

The ship got severely damaged and required aid.

A vessel showed up and took the pictures/videos of the damaged ship, also a Russian tow boat was at the scene at this time.

The sun goes down the wind picks up and it started raining.

A Ukrainian source claims a secondary explosion happened on the Moskva and the ship has capsized.

Around the same time a vessel in the area begins sending out a lot of SoS and other signals on various frequencies.

After a while this suddenly stops.

Ukraine claims the Moskva has sunk.

It's over midnight now and the next morning:

Russia claims the Moskva had sustained damage but is being towed to port.

US says that what Russia is saying is likely true. at least the damage and towing part, not the source of said damage.

News comes in that a Turkish vessel saved a part of the crew

Ukraine still says the ship has sunk.

Russia says the Moskva has sunk during towing to port.

US says they believe the ship was indeed hit by the Neptune missiles.

Russia shows a video of 50-100ish sailors to prove all crew is still alive.

Family in Russia has questions about their missing relatives serving on the Moskva but their government won't answer their questions.

The question then is what happened to the crew? Did the crew that survived get taken off during the initial rescue, maybe because they were wounded? or did the entire crew stay on the ship while it was being towed and the ones that survived are those that managed to escape the ship as it capsized and sank? In time we'll probably know.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe? It would certainly make sense. But
a) this is Russian tech we're talking about. The ship was sunk by the Ukrainians tapping it on the shoulder so it turned around. I would not give any backup systems any credit.
b) the captain's probably still in it. That alone makes it a worthwhile target.



Yes but I meant laterally. Like, instead of aiming at the rear or bow of the ship. But this does bring up an interesting point -- as I pointed out, some of the ship's ammo was already on the deck. I don't know where I'd aim below decks with the intent of hitting more missiles or cannon rounds. There's gotta be a storeroom down there, maybe multiple, but I'd have to guess. Bridge tower, by contrast, is the highest point on the ship. Easy mark.

You hit it in the middle because if it causes enough damage the ship breaks in two and sinks.

[Canpinter]

Maybe? It would certainly make sense. But
a) this is Russian tech we're talking about. The ship was sunk by the Ukrainians tapping it on the shoulder so it turned around. I would not give any backup systems any credit.
b) the captain's probably still in it. That alone makes it a worthwhile target.



Yes but I meant laterally. Like, instead of aiming at the rear or bow of the ship. But this does bring up an interesting point -- as I pointed out, some of the ship's ammo was already on the deck. I don't know where I'd aim below decks with the intent of hitting more missiles or cannon rounds. There's gotta be a storeroom down there, maybe multiple, but I'd have to guess. Bridge tower, by contrast, is the highest point on the ship. Easy mark.

Usually you just aim for center of mass of the ship because with the distances involved and the speeds of missiles vs a moving target you just want to secure any hit you can.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't know where I'd aim below decks with the intent of hitting more missiles or cannon rounds. There's gotta be a storeroom down there, maybe multiple, but I'd have to guess. Bridge tower, by contrast, is the highest point on the ship. Easy mark.

That's not how it works, as far as I understand it. It may be an "easy mark" when looking at it with the human eye, but it's less so when relying on missile guidance tech, which can be spoofed or jammed. Also, as I mentioned, bringing the missile higher off the hard deck of sea-level opens it up to more easy interception with anti-missile defense systems.

I don't think ASMs ever target something as vague as "munitions storage" because you a) don't necessarily know where the munitions are located, b) you don't know whether there are sufficient munitions remaining to cause a secondary explosion, c) you can't guarantee that secondary explosion even if you do hit the munitions, and d) it's hard to be that precise in the face of modern defenses.

I think the Moskva is more a traditional case of "two shots, center mass", which is the more foolproof method of sinking a hammer-bearing eggshell.

- - - Updated - - -

But...then the ship would have sunk earlier.

If you've ever been in a capsized vessel, you know that ships don't always sink quickly...

In a ship that size, without catastrophic damage, it's going to just take on more water faster than it can be pumped out until the rescuers just basically give up on trying to save it. It can take hours or even days to sink. At a certain point, I'm sure it was more about salvage anything they can remove from the ship and scuttling whatever is left.

Also, didn't Russia claim the ship sunk while it was being towed? So for that to be true, there'd have to have been a storm earlier that made the ship sink faster, but not by 5 hours later when that clearly disconnected Shak is facing the wrong way?

So obviously we take whatever Russia says with a huge grain of salt, but the ship could be considered "sunk" as soon as they've given up on it. The tugs could easily have arrived shortly after the missile strikes, attempted to tow it, failed to keep it from sinking, then hung around for hours into the morning daylight watching over it as it continued the long process of sinking.

[Zaydin]

Well, the short version is that setting a nuclear warhead on fire will not cause it to go off. You'd probably get some horribly radioactive smoke, and at worst there might be a conventional explosion that scatters nuclear material like a dirty bomb. Triggering the fusion reaction that results in a nuclear explosion requires some pretty precise mechanical actions inside of the warhead that aren't going to just happen by accident.

Fission reaction, IIRC, not fusion.

[PhaelixWW]

Usually you just aim for center of mass of the ship because with the distances involved and the speeds of missiles vs a moving target you just want to secure any hit you can.

You hit it in the middle because if it causes enough damage the ship breaks in two and sinks.

Yarp, pretty much these.

[Arrashi]

The question then is what happened to the crew? Did the crew that survived get taken off during the initial rescue, maybe because they were wounded? or did the entire crew stay on the ship while it was being towed and the ones that survived are those that managed to escape the ship as it capsized and sank? In time we'll probably know.

Majority probably burned alive under the deck. Russian navy was reporting that anti-fire measures were critically bad and needed renovations for a while. And seeing that its russian piece of junk they probably didnt had any real escape routes from under the deck.

Keep in mind that we only saw that ship from outside, and just because hull didnt look that bad, it doesnt mean that inside wasnt burned out.

[DarkTZeratul]

Fission reaction, IIRC, not fusion.

You are correct, my mistake.

[Mihalik]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catastrophi...res_a_missile/

Ban finally up.

So here's a quick reminder.

The Russian Navy being utterly incompetent to the point of hilarity and it being an existential threat to itself is a centuries old tradition.

[Breccia]

I think the Moskva is more a traditional case of "two shots, center mass", which is the more foolproof method of sinking a hammer-bearing eggshell.

Usually you just aim for center of mass of the ship because with the distances involved and the speeds of missiles vs a moving target you just want to secure any hit you can.

You hit it in the middle because if it causes enough damage the ship breaks in two and sinks.

I mean, sure, but that smoke is pouring out of the control tower. If they were aiming for center mass, and hit the off-center control tower, that's a lucky crit.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how it works, as far as I understand it. It may be an "easy mark" when looking at it with the human eye, but it's less so when relying on missile guidance tech, which can be spoofed or jammed. Also, as I mentioned, bringing the missile higher off the hard deck of sea-level opens it up to more easy interception with anti-missile defense systems.

I was still talking laterally. For me, the control tower would be a sign saying "aim here" but yes you'd hit at the waterline rather than blow off the top story of a three-story building that might have had fire control redundancies.

I don't think ASMs ever target something as vague as "munitions storage" because you a) don't necessarily know where the munitions are located, b) you don't know whether there are sufficient munitions remaining to cause a secondary explosion, c) you can't guarantee that secondary explosion even if you do hit the munitions, and d) it's hard to be that precise in the face of modern defenses.

Makes sense, and lines up more and more with "was not a random-ass ammo explosion" the Russian cover story, because the damage caused doesn't look like a standard ammo explosion or a nonstandard one either.

[PhaelixWW]

I mean, sure, but that smoke is pouring out of the control tower. If they were aiming for center mass, and hit the off-center control tower, that's a lucky crit.

Well, "center mass" is not the same thing as "center", and that smoke isn't coming from the control tower, it's coming up from the fires that are visibly still burning at the deckline below the control tower. That location is center mass.



Also, in a non-video game, people don't really aim for the head, and a hit to the control tower of a ship wouldn't be a crit.

- - - Updated - - -

For me, the control tower would be a sign saying "aim here" but yes you'd hit at the waterline rather than blow off the top story of a three-story building that might have had fire control redundancies.

Well, in the sense that center mass of a warship is undoubtedly going to be right below the command tower... I guess we're really not in disagreement, then.

- - - Updated - - -

No broken arrow, I guess.

[Breccia]

that smoke isn't coming from the control tower, it's coming up from the fires that are visibly still burning at the deckline below the control tower.

Still talking laterally. But that smoke and those soot marks do tell an ugly story, don't they?

Majority probably burned alive under the deck. Russian navy was reporting that anti-fire measures were critically bad and needed renovations for a while. And seeing that its russian piece of junk they probably didnt had any real escape routes from under the deck.

Keep in mind that we only saw that ship from outside, and just because hull didnt look that bad, it doesnt mean that inside wasnt burned out.

There's enough soot marks on enough vents to believe that, at some point, the fire was raging through most of the center of the ship. Like, at some point, the entire "middle half" of the below decks was filled with oily black smoke -- and likely raging flames. And, yes, quickly and in the dark. There could easily be hundreds of dead bodies and/or skeletons in there. It couldn't have been much better than being in a sinking submarine.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, in the sense that center mass of a warship is undoubtedly going to be right below the command tower... I guess we're really not in disagreement, then.

Not really, no. I've checked several pics and even schematic-like drawings of that ship. The command tower is on the front half, but still pretty close to the center. Quite frankly, with the power of those missiles, the ship might have sunk if it'd only been tagged on the nose.

[Iphie]

- - - Updated - - -

No broken arrow, I guess.

That's a relief, I wasn't taking it too seriously but getting a bit of reassurance is good.