Strange that everything Russia looses is not a big deal.
Everywhere else a loss of a large missilecruiser that acts Flagship would be a disaster.
Imagine the US loosing a Tic cruiser under the invasion of Iraq.
The USS Cole is an Arleigh Burke AEGIS class cruiser.
The US doesn't lose ships because it picks enemies that are damaged by ten years of economic sanctions before they send in the cruise missiles and air power to take them down.
Imagine a terrorist group like Al Quada managing to attack that?
Normally only the Israelis are allowed to kill US sailors like that.
1. Try to fight with arguments not with insults, you are very good with insults, but that is hardly a compliment.
Well I can't give you a firm slap like I would when a woman gets hysterical and starts to say very very stupid traitorous things she would probably want to be slapped for if she still had her senses.
2. So Moskva wasn't damaged, and put out of action? That is ukr nazi propaganda? No sorry, that is a fact.
The Moskva was damaged and may have sunk in a storm while under tow.... nazi propaganda is that they had something to do with it, which you accepted as true immediately... look at your post above... you talk about losses of US ships to enemy action...
Even if Ukr wasn't hit her, and i believe they did, this is a disaster for the Russian navy.
Of course you believe you snake in the grass traitor...
But if you like fairytales keep dreaming that Moskva now is shelling Oddesa and that RuN is doing a good job. After all, they didn't lose their air carrier in this war ...jet, and we all know how many air carriers USN lost in ww2....
You talk about fairy tales and suggest the Kuznetsov is next... Zelensky will be pleased.
3. So we have agreed that the Argentinian navy from 1980 was stronger than the Ukrainian navy in 2022. but jet brits didn't lose any crucial naval ships.
Yes, it was a walk in the park for the British... they didn't lose a single ship... except they lost lots of ships actually.
4. Ship that you mentioned that the brits did lose was the Atlantic conveyor. That was a CIVILIAN CARGO ship. Do you really try to compare the loss of a civilian cargo ship with losing a cruiser? Notwithstanding the huge difference in potential of the Argentinian and Ukrainian navies? Yes, fairytales are for you buddy...maybe in them that cargo ship was a critical ship of the British Navy (not their Carriers, or nuclear submarines but cargo ship).
Yeah, the Sheffield and the Coventry destroyers, the Ardent and the Antelope frigates, and the Sir Galahad landing ship as well as the Atlantic Conveyer transport ship... so half a dozen ships sunk in a war that took a couple of weeks.
Keeping in mind the Sheffield was considered well armed with Sea Wolf SAMs...
The general amount of insults and bs that you are using suggests that you are really lacking in arguments, so the best that you have is to claim that I am paid troll?
Doing it for money or doing it because you are a
.... I thought suggesting it was for money was the most flattering, but you are objecting to that... OK.
So Garry boy, enjoy in your dreamland in which all who are capable to see, are blind and all keep dreaming about Emperor's new cloth that only the wise can see, and all others are paid trolls.
PS. And try to behave like an adult....
You think wars can be fought with no losses at all and you accuse me of living in dream land.
So far the explaination is a fire broke out on a ship in a storm and it sank under tow and because of this Russia is useless, Putin should be fired and Zelensky wins because you think they destroyed the ship with anti ship missiles... because that is what Kiev claims happened.
The fact that you believe what they say proves me right.
US ships were hit once with Exocet 30 years ago iirc, and that was a frigate, not a cruiser, and they saved that ship. And in that situation, US ship wasn't at war.
Wasn't during a storm though...
Super Etendard was one of the most successful antiship aircraft in recent history. You may not like it, but his carries were good. He did job for which it was made, in real wars.
Against ships equipped with Exocet but totally unable to defend themselves from their own missiles... the armament of the Royal Navy ships of the period was pathetic... they were lucky HATO wasn't supplying missiles to Argentina because they would have had it if they had more missiles.
Well even Russians confirmed that ship was damaged, that she had internal explosions dangerous enough to force the evacuation of the crew.
Even the Russians... only a traitor would doubt them as a source of information about what happened.
The crew are more important than the ship... how many crew would you like to see dead trying to save that old tub?
Whatever was the cause of them, hostile attack or internal explosion, the result is the same, huge loss for RuN, loss of asset (flag ship not by accident), and reputation.
Yeah, because fires and storms never sink ships ever.
Russians are not even near to building anything similar in potential and size of the Slava class.
The Slava has Fort-M missiles with a range of about 120km at best, and Vulcan missiles with inferior performance to the already in service Onyx and vastly inferior to the Zircon. It also has 6 Ak-630 turrets and 20 odd SA-8 equivalent missiles, both of which have been replaced in navy ships by Kashtan and Kortik (naval Pantsir and SA-15 respectively... but not on the Moskva...).
Their new Corvettes have better missiles in slightly fewer number.... their new heavy frigates are better armed to be honest, and their new destroyers even more so most likely.
Yes Vietnam is was a nightmare for the US and is something you trolls rather want to forget. The Vietnamese was regarded as primitive beings by the US but the reality is that they were beaten to a pulp by a Third World country. You can try and forget this all you want, but it happened. Interestingly that war was also based on a lie (Gulf of Tonkin incident) but a more recent example was the War on Iraq (WMD lie) but there are plenty more samples - failure to learn from history is a fatal mistake. >>
Indeed wars based on lies compound the costs because they are unneccessary. Vietnam paid a terrible price to essentially rid themselves from white european colonial powers... France and then the US... and they still suffer today from UXO and the effects of agent orange and other chemicals introduced to their environment.
Oh, great, she is outdated, so actually, this is great that the Russian navy lost it...
No. It sounds like an accident compounded by a storm... no point crying about it... it is only a ship.
No point crying about the F-117 the Serbs shot down either, except the money spent on stealth appears to be largely wasted... confirmed by reduction in F-35 orders and resumption of F-15 production.
And yes in open sea against real navy, there they will show how great they are, here in Black See, in their own backyard... meh not a good place to prove yourself worthy ...
To operate outside the Black Sea it would need a serious upgrade which would cost money and then more money to build a new flagship for the BSF.
Seems to me they got things just right using a ship that would be obsolete in the Northern or Pacific Fleets, but is just fine as it is in the Black Sea.
Now I will see walls of explanations how losing a cruiser:
1) is not some big issue, she was outdated anyway
2) how Russia could defeat the NATO navy without Moskva easier
3) How I am just paid troll because I am upset
4) how the Russian navy, Russian ships, and leadership are the best in the world
5) how I am coward
6) How the USA lost many cruisers in WW2 and many machineguns in WW1, so losing Moskva isn big deal.
Your lack of understanding how dangerous fire is on a ship and how effective storms are at sinking ships makes me think you know nothing at all about the sea or navies.
More succesful then Slavac class thats for sure. I do not blame ships, they are great...
Lament for the weapons used by countries who respect life and do not rush to war, but those who make those weapons celebrate if they never need to be used.
USS Cole was a destroyer in the navy that had dozens of them, and dozens of more important ships. And she wasn't lost. Moscow was a cruiser in the navy that have just a few of them she WAS one of the biggest and most important ship in that navy. And Moscon is lost. That is a small difference.
So **** the dead on the USS Cole their lives were meaningless because the ship wasn't bigger.
An obsolete ship anywhere but the Black Sea means Russia needs to fire Putin and surrender because Zelensky said his nazis had something to do with the damage and obviously he called up the storm himself personally...
Yes USA had an incident in Carrier with cca 150 Kia and a damaged air carrier. But that carrier, one of the dozens they had, was not lost. Moscow is lost. That is a small difference. And what ffs that have to do with today's events? That was 50-60 years ago.
Yeah, just keep crying... Moskvas loss means Russia is shit and weak and stupid and the Russian navy are idiots and morons and losers... wa wa wa...
Then you learn that you have built an inefficient and incompetent SYSTEM and that you will always have "shit happens" unless you start changing that system and the values upon which that system was built.
The Russian navy is UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION in shits happens they have 10% of USN number of ships, and their activities are probably less than 1% of USN activities. But they have had more disasters than all other navies jointly in last 30 years.
Like I said... traitor. It wasn't fire or storm it was the entire Russian naval system from teh ground up that creates bad luck... moron.
RIP to the lost sailor, i am afraid that many of them were lost in this brilliant action of the Russian navy.
cry
Now you mention the crew... your fake tears will go well on CNN and BBC and Fox News... you can be their new Russian Navy expert and tell them all about how screwed the Russian Navy is...
this ship's role was to hunt and kill us aircraft carriers. I think it shouldnt be part of black sea fleet
They wanted a flag ship for the Black Sea... depending on the situation it might operate in the Black Sea or maybe in the Med so it was ideal for that without an upgrade that would be needed to operate it with the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet... it would be too big for the Caspian sea floatilla or the Baltic Fleet.
If they did upgrade it they would still have the problem of needing a flagship for the Black Sea able to operate in the Med when needed which makes the solution they chose quite elegant and sensible.
It says the weather was stormy. Detecting a sea skimming missile has never been easy and never will be.. especially in high sea states.
Sea skimming missiles can't fly as low in high sea states... one contact with a wave and it is over so if there are 5m waves then it would need to fly at 15 metres or more to avoid not making it to the target.
They evacuated the crew and they are saying it was a fire that led to some ammo catching fire but was brought under control.
Sinking under tow in a storm is actually a normal thing to happen...
Disaster?
No.
No effect at all on the current conflict... with its ancient missiles the Orcs had better air defence systems than it had.
Then what hope does the Russian navy have against NATO missiles?
There is no evidence at all that any missiles were involved and HATO has rather more to fear from Russian and Soviet missiles than Russian ships have to fear of HATO missiles.
If a US AWACS was seen in the area prior (if not saying its true)
Russia should use any means to sink USS Harry S Truman and her escorts. A blow like that would make Western people actually think about their capabilities.
There is no evidence at all that the Orcs were involved.
Honestly I have been skeptical that any surface ship can survive an attack from multiple antiship missiles. In the history of ashm's surface ships have not done great against them.
To be fair the British air defence of their ships in the 1980s was abysmal... even in the 1980s the Soviet ships had various systems to defend from anti ship missiles.
This ships missiles predate SA-15 and SA-11 but it still would have taken out subsonic sea skimmers easily enough.
So basically the Russian navy is doomed if they get attacked. Good to hear. What's the point of them having SAMs then?
It will be on the BBC and CNN... the entire Russian Navy is already sunk have you not heard... the ghost of kiev has a row boat and an RPG-7.
Ukraine has only limited ability to launch AshMs, and they have limited range. If this ship was hit by missiles. then its operational negligence.
If... the biggest word in the English language.
It is funny that Russia is so weak and its navy is so weak too yet HATO will not set one foot inside the Ukraine and help their nazi buddies... why are they so scared?
Finland and Sweden joining HATO will drain more euros into the US military industrial complex, but it wont make HATO any safer, it will just justify the production of a lot more tactical nuclear warheads.
It is pretty clear the split between Russia and the west is due... this will be good for Russia because the west thinks the only good Russian is a dead Russian and they are doing everything they can to make that happen... except actually risking their own skin of course.
The quicker the Russians butcher these nazis the better.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
