How Did A Russian Cruiser Sink in 2022?

[@jimmyjames8736]

Ukraine..."we sank a Russian ship" Russia..."no we blew it up by accident". Is claiming that you incompetently burned and sank your own ship actually less embarrassing than admitting that the ship was lost to enemy action?

[@steriskyline4470]

Yeah, burning ships seems to be a common error these days, remember that time the most expensive ship ever under construction burned out of control? In America.

[@Tuck-Shop]

Where's the Russian aircraft carrier with added crane?

[@ianbutler1983]

Yes, we were not sunk, we lost the ship through ineptitude.

[@JoshuaTootell]

USS Bonhomme Richard: embarrassing USS Cole: not embarrassing

[@markmaki4460]

@@steriskyline4470 Consolation hugs

[@TruckingShooter]

It didn't sink it is on a special military operation... it's off joining the imperial Russian repair ship Kamchatka looking for Japanese torpedo boats.

[@ccoder4953]

No, it got reassigned to the submarine fleet.

[@tylerjackson4168]

@@ccoder4953 ..Just like Bismarck and Yamato.

[@columbuscynic9252]

Kamchatka. *Awesome* reference. I have never been able to look at a map where Madagascar is pictured without giggling.

[@saintfelician4life]

Do you see torpedo boats? There’s about 8 coming in from all directions.

[@ccoder4953]

@@columbuscynic9252 Yeah, after seeing BlueJay's video on that, it's hard to look at the Russian navy in quite the same way. Here's the video, in case you missed it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6uqoqNph5mArpY

[@mmmikeyyy]

The fact that the rest of the fleet scampered to the south of the Black Sea after the sinking gives credence to the Ukrainian version of events. Unless for some reason Russian ships are less prone to accidentally catching fire when they're at a greater distance from the Ukrainian coastline. Also, someone noted in a video that the captain of the Moskva could be recognized in the group of survivors attending the ceremony. He showed the captain's official picture (front view) side by side with that of one of the attendees (different angle, lighting, etc). Could be the same person, but maybe not...

[@zeroone8800]

The Moskva was providing long range air defense to the fleet. They were they only ship in the fleet with that capability. Without the Moskva, the fleet needed to either increase their distance from Ukrainian controlled shoreline or go to land based cover. This would have been true no matter why the ship sank. But of course, it sank because it was struck by missiles.

[@oldesertguy9616]

To be argumentative, there could have been confusion as to what was happening, causing them to err on the side of caution by distancing themselves from the area. Just a thought.

[@keithmoore5306]

Moskva was the fleet air defender she gets lost they move farther out due to caution the Russians ain't stupid they know full well what they're firing has the range to be fired from well outside of that halfass copy's range!!

[@keithmoore5306]

@@zeroone8800 according to a pack of known corrupt liars!!!

[@frankmoreau8847]

@@keithmoore5306 If not by Ukraine, it was sunk because the crew was woefully trained and woefully equipped to deal with a fire on board. In one scenario she was sunk as an act of war, in the other she was sunk because the officers and crew were as well trained and organized as the Keystone Cops.

[@Ihasanart]

Considering all the radars on the Moskva when she was hit were turned off/stowed and in neutral unpowered positions (and her 360 radars are short range only, the drones that are rumores to have been distracting it was at least 50km away, more than 20km out of range of those 360 radars) and the AK-630's and OSA-M's require manual usage with no auto engagement mode, she sank quite easily from incompetence. One thing we're likely to never be able to know is whether her air defense systems were capable of actually working, all of her refits post 1990 were basically never carried out as all the refit programs were given to companies that had no capability to carry them out and just got the contracts from graft and corruption so all her refit funds were embezzled. The Neptune doesn't actually perform a pop-up terminal mode, but dives shallow instead, it cruises at 15m above the wave tops and its terminal mode brings its altitude down to 5m above the wavetops.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Sounds a bit similiar to one of the engagement options for the SAAB Rb15 iirc

[@ghansu]

@@SonsOfLorgar Truely same thing with rbs 15. Sea scimming missile is almost impossible to see on the radar because earth aint flat and those radars cant see that low over horizon. Maybe optical sensors were scanning a drone or something but that is also unlickely because those thermals are made to scan horizon all the time. My bet is that crew was drunk and didnt give a fk.

[@thisconnectd]

Yup it's like USS stark and hms Sheffield. The shop not defending itself

[@redbovine]

My feeling is that after more than a month on station the crew go complacent with false blips in rougher seas. They ignored the warning thinking it was wave reflection.

[@speed150mph]

Can you provide sources for the info on the radar systems? Best I can tell, the Top steer and top pair radars are very powerful sets, with the ranges able to go out to hundreds of kilometres. I will say though, you are correct about the refits. She had at least one refit in 2009, but it appears it was more concerned with repairing or maintaining the ships hull or machinery rather then upgrading or maintaining the weapons or sensors.

[@minarchist1776]

Damage control has always been a significant weak point in the Russian navy. As well Russia hasn't had the extensive experience that we had in WW II continually upgrading ship designs to make them better able to handle being damaged. A further note. The way Russians do things is incredibly top down. During Desert Shield, Desert Storm and Desert Saber I was standing watch as OOD (Underway) while only a LTJG. Several years before that a Russian fleet had paid a courtesy visit to Norfolk. Scuttlebutt that circulated through our fleet was that: On each Russian ship the CO and the XO were the only officers standing the OOD (Underway) watches. They radioed in to the Admiral in their flag ship when they relieved one another. To say that this arrangement would make the CO and XO less efficient at performing other tasks would be a significant understatement. On any ship in the US Navy that conducts flight operations one will see several fire fighting stations scattered around the perimeter of the flight deck set up and ready to go in order to apply AFFF (preferred extinguishing agent for class B fires) on a moment's notice. Those people who toured the Russian ships didn't see anything equivalent to that. When asked about it the response the Russians gave was that their pilots were very good and never crashed.

[@Bellthorian]

I 100% agree, the Russian Army is the same way. Take a platoon of Infantry the LT serves the role of Platoon Leader/Platoon Sgt/Squad Leader by himself. They don't have a professional NCO core which means their army performs poorly in the field. Even in WW2 they didn't really "Beat" the Germans they simply swarmed them under in human waves and waves of tanks. It didn't matter if their units were poorly trained and poorly led, when you outnumber the enemy 100-1 it doesn't matter.

[@speed150mph]

All true. Reading and listening to us navy guys who toured Slava class cruisers when relations were good between the US and Russia. They said the lack of compartmentalization in the ship was astonishing. Also about the top down command structure. The russians use a lot of conscripts who don’t spend much time in the navy. They don’t want to waste time and money training guys who won’t be there long enough to implement the training. And these guys aren’t invested enough to pay attention to their training. They just want to put in the bare minimum to get by and get out. The Russians therefore don’t have the level of trust in their enlisted, NCOs and junior officers. This is why the submarine forces went heavy on automation, and why they rely on the career officers to literally do all the thinking onboard the ship.

[@victorwaddell6530]

Thank you for your service , Sir . I was an Operations Specialist from 1985 - 1995 , sailing on USS Sellers DDG 11 and USS Antietam CG 54 . I am a Graduate of Operations Specialist A School and the AEGIS Combat Weapons School . Most of the line officers I served with were decent officers , but there were a few arrogant duds that we held in disrespect . One night in the Persian Gulf I was Quad S in CIC . The OOD ordered the helmsman to make course 180° from course ordered by FID ( USS Carl Vinson ) to follow 2,000 yards astern . I attempted to correct him , nothing the message sent , received , and recognized by him and the JOOD , and noted the tactical signals in the logbook . The dumbass OOD told me that his ' seaman's eyes ' told him that I wrong , despite the fact that I was using the SPY 1radar , IFF system , and radio comms as trained . In the end , the OOD was disqualified , demoted to JOOD for a while , and I continued to command my watch team in CIC . In short , Petty Officers and NCOs are the backbone of Western Militaries .

[@minarchist1776]

@@victorwaddell6530 Yep. That's the way things are done. I learned to have a healthy respect for people who had been working in their ratings for years. Of course it helped that my Dad had retired out of the Navy as a senior chief. :-)

[@54blewis]

He’s right russian pilots never crashes,they just have catastrophic landings…

[@thedausthed]

Due to the S-300 "Top dome" targeting radar pointing aft (which is the stowed position) in the final images of the ship, it is unlikely that it was being distracted (the S-300 is the first thing you would target with). So most likely thing is that either the radar could not detect the missiles or the search radar was not operating.

[@dwwolf4636]

S300 and OSA have a minimum engagement height....

[@thedausthed]

@@dwwolf4636 But if you are flying drones at it then they would be above those heights and pretty far away.

[@klacklery]

@@dwwolf4636 minimum engagement height or not, you're in a war zone/"special engagement", I imagine you'd still have a defensive posture and would have things in operation

[@davidknowles2491]

@@klacklery Unless the crew were so convinced that the Ukrainians didn't have sea skimming missiles that they just weren't prepared for them. Also do we know how up to date Moskva's electronic warfare suite was compared to modern standards? Could they genuinely not have seen them because the missiles were flying too low for the radar systems to track?

[@NSP31415]

I remember reading that some drones had been lost in the area in the days before the sinking. Could it be that they where used to measure the actual performance of the radars and find any malfunctioning equipment before the attack?

[@iowa61]

The battleship NEW JERSEY was designed, built, and operated based on the certainty it would indeed get hit hard in combat and not just stay on the surface, but absorbe the damage and maintain combat effectiveness. In addition, in the US Navy, Damage Control doctrine is as much a part of ship survival and effectiveness as any structural design element.

[@ajcampbellconstruction6504]

You are correct. My grandfather worked on the New Jersey and Wisconsin from start to finish - was on the layout and survey crew (ie read the prints and layout all the steel and structure elements for construction) as he worked at the Philadelphia navel yard for 15 years or so. He always said those ships were one of a kind and build to withstand almost anything.

[@LongTran-em6hc]

Damage control is also an important part of Russian Navy, or any Navy for that matter. It's just that they are so incompetent.

[@kittyyuki1537]

The Iowa-class are designed to withstand hits from their originally planned armament of 16"/45 calibers (They ended up with the much more powerful 16"/50 calibers with no change in armor). So its definitely not slouch.

[@saltydawg896]

@@LongTran-em6hc Russian Damage Control is hampered by their poor Maintained Condition. Look at the Buckhead wrong, you bust a hole in it

[@camojoe83]

A similarly crewed Iowa class would have sunk just the same. Magazine explosion and lack of mitigation is the end of any ship.

[@RReese08]

From what I understand, the Moskva's sinking was the result of several factors, some of which have been noted below such as poor ship design, poor equipment maintenance, etc. I read that the Neptunes hit the Moskva at 5:53 pm local time, which is about sunset and I presume was also dinnertime for the crew. Maybe it was also the time period for a shift change for the command staff and general crew. With all that going on, and maybe the ship's captain dining with his staff and thus probably not to be interrupted, it was a perfect storm of circumstances that the Ukrainians knew they could exploit to the fatal disadvantage of the Moskva. If the ship went down because of an accident, that would be one thing. But when the Black Sea Fleet retreated father away from the Ukraine coast and subsequent Russian attacks on several cities in the country - including reportedly the Lusk factory where the Neptunes are made - that indicates something else. Nobody retaliates because one of their own is destroyed by self-inflicted accident, unless they're spiteful monsters - which the Russians are proving to be on the battlefield. I therefore vote that the Moskva was done in by missile attack. Maybe the two strikes weren't enough to be fatal, but a combination of flawed command structure, poor training and equipment performance, inadequate damage control, among other things, helped finish the job the two missiles started.

[@ericyork5696]

Given the issues we have seen with the Russian land forces, I find it believable that the Russian naval forces have similar proficiency issues that prevented them from detecting the missiles and effectively controlling the damage.

[@dwwolf4636]

Fire fighting is a specialty for them not a whole crew affair. Best hypothesis is one or two Neptunes hit below the Ak630 ammo storage which is also just above the main engineering control room ( which also coordinates the fire fighting ).

[@alexsandrkerensky7457]

Funny how the issues not affecting anyone in mariupol!

[@danlewellyn6734]

or sailing in a straight line....

[@Hardcase_Kara]

@@alexsandrkerensky7457 Funny how it'd held out for so long despite heavy attack by the Russians since it's close proximity to Russian logistics but the city has yet to fully fall as of this moment.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

@@Hardcase_Kara TBF, sieges are basically always slow, drawn-out affairs, even without the defense having the additional advantage of fighting in an urban area.

[@J_Halcyon]

6:52 A note about ARA General Belgrano: She began life as USS Phoenix (CL-46), survived the attack at Pearl Harbor and earned 11 battle stars during her service in the Pacific theatre of WWII before being sold to Argentina in 1951.

[@TeamDoc312]

I'm glad I read the comments first! You beat me to this little tidbit. Cheers

[@philrowan4637]

Built in Camden, NJ.

[@arizonaexplorations4013]

What is the official stand on Atlantic Conveyor? She launched a flight of Harriers and was carrying the marine assault helicopters when she went down. Shouldn’t she be considered an escort carrier? That would make her the largest ship sunk in anger since WWII.

[@Axterix13]

@@arizonaexplorations4013 They didn't give her any weapons, nor modify her, so I wouldn't consider her a warship, nor an escort carrier. But she is a bigger ship, and was sunk in a military operation.

[@EdMcF1]

@@arizonaexplorations4013 She was a merchantman, in the British Merchant Navy, captained by a Merchant Navy captain. She was not flying a White Ensign. She was used as a 'zinc' anode, sacrificed to save the carriers.

[@gustavderkits8433]

There are some videos on KZbin showing sailors on a different ship, but with similar crew profiles (lots of conscripts) with sailors not at battle stations, milling around half-dressed during a drill. Crew training and discipline may have had a lot to do with the sinking. Task saturation might explain the failure to detect the Neptune. The Ukrainians knew the ship and Russian capabilities very well and the attack took maximum benefit of human system weaknesses.

[@mrb692]

Yeah, but how many videos of there are US sailors in the Pacific just relaxing on board their ships when they’re not actually in danger? I’d be cautious of thinking that any video represents actual combat conditions, unless it was extremely obvious.

[@blazer9144]

this is for both you and @thedaus maybe there was malfunction with the radar I mean these radars have been around for a while I think a equipment failure would be the most likely option and even being the most likely out of quiet a few other scenarios pretty still pretty rare of a possibility

[@meldroc]

I'd say this is pretty likely. The Russian military isn't known to spend lots of money on training their crews or maintaining their ships. Along with the crew being caught with their pants down, there's also the possibility their radars or other gear may have just plain broken down. Welp, that's what happens when Russian defense money gets spent on megayachts instead of warships.

[@richardgreen1383]

As an Aviator with a deployed ASW squadron aboard the USS Randolph in 1966 and on my first deployment at sea, I remember distinctly the training. As a Aviator, when the klaxon went off, I was to be in one of two places, the Junior Officer (JO) bunk room right below the port (left) catapult or in the Squadron Ready Room. We had 30 seconds before they started closing hatches and if you were in between, you got an opportunity to explain why. The senior JO in the bunk room called roster and then called the ready room with the names of those present. At the thirty second mark every watertight hatch was closed. It took us several days to get it right. Until then we did it over, and over, and over. Landing the flight was similar. Our target was 30 seconds between aircraft landings. Most flights were five, four ASW aircraft and one area control aircraft (the first one with the big dome on top). We landed, raised the hook and taxied clear of the landing area folding our wings as we went. The first day the average was 60 seconds from landing to clearing the landing area. So we got to do it over and over and over. When we got all five down in less than two minutes, we were trained. The only way you know what to do in an emergency, is to train, and train, and train and train until it becomes second nature. You need to be able to react by instinct letting memory and muscle memory act without having to think about the steps. If you are thinking about the steps, you are too late. The U.S. Nave learned that lesson the hard way in the early days of WWII. We lost men and ships. Bull Halsey was a tough taskmaster in the Pacific, but he saved ships and lives. Some of you may see a big E on the superstructure of a U.S. ship. That is the excellence award. A team comes out and springs exercises on you. You are not competing against other ships, you are competing against the standard.

[@BoleDaPole]

That was sent out by Russia on purpose so that they're enemies think that there Navy is weak or ill-prepared. It's President Putin playing 4d chess while the west is stuck trying to figure out the game of checkers The Ukes just did Vlad a favor as Moskva was simply a status symbol and didn't really have much strategic value in the grand scale of things.

[@Bellthorian]

I toured the Marshal Ustinov when she visited Norfolk in 1989 and the one thing that I noticed right away was how large the compartments were. They were three to four times larger than the average compartment on a US ship. Less subdivision in compartments means damage control is going to be a lot harder in my opinion.

[@mitchconner2021]

What is Russian damage control? Lol

[@ComradeFury]

Another important detail is that none of the air defences looked to be operational in the photo, the SA-8 launchers aren't exposed and the S-300 launcher doors aren't open meaning if it was struck by a missile they didn't even detect it

[@keithmoore5306]

those doors are automatic only open for about 6 seconds during firing and then close!!

[@williamzk9083]

-I agree with the 'they didn't even detect it' theory. The Neptune missile is small, less than 50cm in diameter (width of an economy airline seat) and would have been stealthy. The Ukrainian engineers might not have had the facilities and knowledge to get a 4000:1 reduction in radar cross section like the US could get on an F-35 they could easily get up to 400:1. CIOS/BIOS documents on WW2 German mast head stealth (snorkel) showed that their Jaumann absorbers combined with Ferrite absorbers could get 100:1 reductions. -To make radar antenna stealthy you use a phased array and angle it downward or upward at say 45 degrees. This deflects the radar away. You use the phasing to ensure the beam points forward. -The ancient 1960s AK-630 30mm guns hardly qualify as CIWS. They don't have integrated radar so that the target and round can track and incoming missile from the same antenna (to eliminate alignment issues) and correct aim.

[@yanniskouretas8688]

I'd like to add from my experience as an active service NCO (Hellenic Air Force) . Although Slava's AD suite seems impressive , nowadays it is not . Sure the S300 Grumble is a formidable long range AD system capable to intercept both air targets and ballistic missiles up to 90 km and 70k ft (I've served in our S300 unit for 7 years), but the SA-8 Gecko (OSA) is not . It is an old SORAD (short range AD) system from the 60-70's . Both systems have limited to no low alt anti-missile capabilities . That leaves just the Gatling CWIS guns but those are unknown to me ...

[@jamesbass4154]

Best definition I ever heard of a cruiser: Largest ship capable of independent fleet action that can be built in reasonable numbers.

[@SmokeyBCN]

in modern naval doctrine the line is getting very blurred to the point that it is right now simply a size distinction. Chinese Type 055 destroyer is longer and heavier than a Ticonderoga but PLAN considers them no different in role to their other classes in service. In any case, Moskva has put to bed the naive practice of independent fleet action in an active combat theatre.

[@jamesharding3459]

In my mind, it's a role distinction. A cruiser is a warship built for independent power projection, anything smaller is a destroyer/frigate/corvette/etc., anything larger is a capital ship.

[@guaposneeze]

The definitions of "cruiser" vs "destroyer" etc. are pretty arbitrary, and vary by time and navy. But the most reliable modern definition for the US is pretty much, "destroyer" = "a warship." "cruiser" = "a warship. But the only way to get Congress to pay for it was to make it sound strong." "frigate" = "a warship. But the only way to get Congress to pay for it was to make it sound cheap."

[@alltat]

@@guaposneeze Historically, a destroyer is a warship primarily designed to fight something other than warships. That something can be torpedo boats, submarines, aircraft, or whatever.

[@Axterix13]

@@alltat Torpedo boats are warships, as are submarines. But yeah, the term destroyer itself is what is left from the original name that described its function: torpedo boat destroyer. And, of course, they took on additional roles over time, like anti-submarine. They also picked up torpedoes of their own, which were there to let them hurt bigger warships, as many a ship in Iron Bottom Sound can attest to. I'd define them more as "designed to escort and protect other ships", the screening and scouting elements of a battle line (as well as merchant escorting), at least as far as the navies with bigger ships go. And these days, well, that's what frigates are as well, though generally smaller, trading off some AA and shore support potential, while keeping a strong anti-submarine focus. What evolved from the corvettes and destroyer escorts of WW2.

[@christianvalentin5344]

The theory of drones distracting the Moskva’s air defenses does have a little precedent: the USS Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner was largely due to operator error, but at that time the cruiser was in a gun battle with Iranian gunboats. One can easily see the radar operators on Moskva getting too focused on the drones and missing the Neptunes coming in.

[@aabbccdd320]

why drones weren't just shot down?

[@bluemarlin8138]

The Vincennes shootdown of the Iranian airliner was also largely a result of the Stark incident. The Exocets that hit the Stark had been fired from an Iraqi Dassault Falcon, a civilian aircraft converted to fire missiles. The Stark didn’t shoot it down or go on high alert because it believed the aircraft was civilian. The Vincennes’s crew certainly had this in their minds.

[@felixcat9318]

The reason that the entire crew of the Moskva were so focussed on the drones to the exclusion of everything else was because the first drone carried an under slung load of a looted Ukrainian civilian's washing machine and the second drone had an under slung looted television set...

[@null2470]

The Iranian civilian transport was also off schedule, and there may have been confusion between its civilian transponder code with a military transponder code at the airport it departed from. All of it can be somewhat explained within contexts, except when we gave the captain a medal. That's just vile in my opinion.

[@leopardone2386]

Time to watch the evening news with battleship New Jersey. I'll put the kettle on guys.

[@jonathanjuillerat9831]

Two sugars and a splash of milk please

[@garypowell9071]

I've seen some DCS simulations that showed the incoming missiles being shot down EXCEPT when a 3-6 ft. sea state was factored in. The assumption was that the incoming missiles were lost or overlooked until too late in the radar clutter resulting from the sea state. Also, there is supposition that Russian poor damage control played a role. Russians lack an "all hands" damage control approach like on US and UK ships. In addition, I've seen speculation that the Russian "top down" command and control structure may have played a role. If the captain was distracted by the drones, he could have suffered from information overload and not reacted to, the missiles in time. I've also seen reports that there was a USN P-8 patrolling in the same area, possibly providing targeting info, and contributing to the info overload. This is all speculation of course, but it makes for something for us armchair admirals to kick around.

[@Plumbump]

One important factor is also a conscript vs volunteer force.

[@johnbockelie3899]

They were celebrating the mutiny on the battleship Potemkin.

[@TheSportCompact]

Was it the Grim Reapers KZbin channel you saw it on? That's where I saw the same things happen. It was interesting to watch that the sea state mattered like that.

[@TheAtomicSpoon]

Not using an all hands damage control method was one of the bigger reasons the IJN lost ships so easily in WW2 as well, the USN did some absolutely heroic ship saves with their damage control, while even completely manageable situations would sink IJN ships all day.

[@michaelsommers2356]

All the pictures I have seen of the ship after it was hit show the sea to be dead calm. Russia is just lying about the sea state.

[@aland7236]

Given the way that Russia has been handling their invasion of Ukraine so far, I'd be curious if the defense systems were even active.

[@jamesricker3997]

It looks like she was operating with a reduced crew, so odds are pretty good those systems were not active or even in a functional state

[@Makoto778]

From what I've heard there seemed to be an information overload, due to a distraction (a Bayraktar TB2 drone) and the need to report threats up the chain of command before taking action. Very likely that the whole chain of command got overloaded with info and took too long to respond. Same chain of command issues probably also lead to terrible damage control efforts (ie "there is a fire" message goes through 5 people without anyone actually fighting the fire.)

[@Wulfman46]

The invasion is pretty much going as planned. What we dont know is the losses.

[@pomonabill220]

They probably ran out of extension cords too....

[@emiliodesalvo7024]

I was reading in the Stories of the Cold War blog that for the Soviet Navy in the '70s/'80s the operational stance was: "if it's not switched on it cannot break."

[@pawelkrupowicz2539]

Ukraine was not a "satellite state" of the Soviet Union. It was a part of the Soviet Union, one if the most important soviet republics in fact, that together constituted a Soviet Union.

[@mjouwbuis]

Some even argue that Russia would have been the sattelite state if the government wouldn't have been seated there. In reality each Soviet republic had its own strong points. Sattellite states would have been the 'independent' Eastern European countries that had to align themselves towards the Soviet Union.

[@abbottshaull9831]

Calling Belorussia and Ukraine 'Satellite States' is correct to the point that both had seats at the U.N. even though they were part of the Soviet Union. One of few legacy items to come out of WWII and the U.N. creation. Stalin wanted both to have Veto power with the Security Council, but still won by having three General Assembly seats. Which is two more seats than another Country had in the U.N.

[@fodderfortynine8706]

I think you did a fantastic job of fulfilling your obligations as an historian in the face of bewildering Russian incompetence. This sinking makes no sense , much like the war in which it has happened. Nicely done, as always.

[@johndododoe1411]

The war makes historical sense. Russia was playing big power chess and decided to severely punish / attack the chess square near themselves as western alliances were slowly moving closer across the board, with a few more countries switching sides every 10 years. It could be argued if that viewpoint was correct, but it seems to be their reason for war.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

So we left with either the possibility that one of the largest surface combatants in the world was sunk by a homemade Ukrainian missile; or that Russian sailors are so incompetent that a basic shipboard ammo fire sank the ship. Russia should have just admitted to getting hit by missiles, much less embarrassing.

[@jimmyboredom3519]

Yeah. Doesn't matter how it sank. Fact is, it sank, which exposes russias military weakness

[@Someone-wj1lf]

Large nations very often get slapped time to time by smaller rivals, it’s nothing too embarrassing. But Moscow is alone they are trying to avoid giving the impression to the west that Ukraine can win, which would motivate more help, they’re, despite their actions, in a tough spot.

[@SianaGearz]

Don't look down at Ukraine's domestic weapon tech, it used to be the main military industry in Soviet Union, with old factories remaining at reduced capacity, and it has top notch engineering education as well. Most things Russia can do, Ukraine could potentially do one better. The big problem that Ukraine has been facing is that they simply don't have the money to scale up manufacturing.

[@Someone-wj1lf]

@@SianaGearz Ukraine never had the economy to maintain a modern high tech arsenal in any truely sizeable capacity. They’re still stuck with a lot of old Soviet gear. The odd thing is, the Russians seem to be using just that too, granted it’s alongside more modern stuff. Russia has gone through program after program of military reorganisation and modernisation after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine has had troubles to. Edit : some fixes

[@tomsmith3045]

"Homemade"? Ukraine is a high tech country. When's the last time the Russians were on the winning side of a naval battle? A quick google search points back to the 1770's with Turkey.

[@jamesbarca7229]

For those who aren't aware, Moskva (Москва in Cyrillic) is Russian for Moscow.

[@stanleyromanowski9816]

Listening to some former U.S. Navy analysts, it is alleged that the Russian Navy is severely lacking in damage control training, and water tight compartmentalization.

[@williamzk9083]

During the period of glasnost British sailors were sometimes invited on board Russian ships and they were flabbergasted by the lack of compartmentalization.

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@williamzk9083 You can see it yourself on a video where CNN went on a tour of the ship about 7 years ago. The missile launcher interiors are cavernous and would pose major problems in the event of a fire or flooding.

[@steveread6843]

I saw at least two separate analyses of the Slava cruisers that noted damage control would be a challenge due to "flammable" materials being used for construction. I'm not exactly sure what "flammable" would reference. Based on the photos from the wreck, it appears that the ship was indeed gutted below decks by fire. If weapons below decks cooked off, then there's not much there to salvage. Because these were built in the Ukraine, it seems like the Ukrainians may have had some knowledge of particular weaknesses inherent in these ships. As far as I know, they still possessed the unfinished hull and had a reference for targeting vulnerable spots.

[@williamzk9083]

@@steveread6843 I would imagine the issue would be the insulation used on cabling. It should be LS0H (low smoke zero halogen). MIMS cable (the best) or flame resistant rubbers. Carefully chosen paints and wood varnishes as well as fittings.

[@steveread6843]

@@williamzk9083 Ah so. That makes perfect sense. Perhaps insulating materials as well. It seemed an important item to note as I saw the same observation from two separate sources that were not particularly recent. Apparently something that was well known about the Slavas and never addressed. Seems a strange attitude to build that particular weakness into your system.

[@briannicholas2757]

PS: never ever underestimate how terribly trained Russian soldiers and sailors are. And how poorly maintained their equipment is.

[@Spaatz77]

Bingo. Considering how poorly the Russian land forces are doing I think you nailed it. To wit: 1) Yes, comrade, Ukraine should last about 8 minutes after we invade. 2) Make sure you pack your dress uniform for that victory parade we will enjoy in Kyiv. 3) But, you told us this was a training mission. OK, I quit. 4) Gasoline? We needed gasoline???!!! 5) Oh, they could never hit our great, invincible ship. Vat, me vorry? Boom. Inept much?

[@alexsandrkerensky7457]

So poorly that mariupol is all but lost to russian forces

[@Wulfman46]

An how you now this. War propaganda.

[@thisconnectd]

I guess USS stark and Sheffield also had that

[@Spaatz77]

@@thisconnectd Quite possibly something like my number 5. But, certainly not as bad as 1 thru 4.

[@ExUSSailor]

Also, the presence of a P-8 Poseiden from NAS Sigonella on station over the Black Sea at the time was surely not just a coincedence. It was almost certainly relaying intel on the position of the Moskva to the Ukrainians.

[@gilde915]

yup ..you could guide them in via gps and go hot at the least possible momment....maybe even avoid top down attack...just a straight approach to minimize reaction time

[@studinthemaking]

The US navy relayed info to the RN to help sink the bismarck.

[@gilde915]

@@studinthemaking recon works, we know...and how does this relate to bismark?

[@colincampbell817]

Wonder if the drones were able to give mid course guidance and targetting. But if you look at the close in missile systems - they were not even deployed so perhaps not operational or the crew was unaware of any potential threat.

[@willw8011]

The US Military or British military always have a P8 in the Black Sea. The US Military said the P8 did not have any part in the sinking or attack. Ukraine has access to civilian satellite services. The Russian ship was previously shelling the Odessa area and the Ukrainians were constantly tracking it.

[@stanbrow]

Thank you. I was wishing for a good analysis of this. Must say, you were not where I expected this to come from, but of course you are highly qualified to provide accurate information on this.

[@mandelorean6243]

Extremely refreshing ... SURPRISINGLY refreshing to here non propaganda, non news coverage of this. From a familiar voice at that

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Great video. One thing to note about the Moskva. I am sure you are all familiar with the term "Turret Farm" from the early part of the 20th century? Well, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that the Moskva is jam-packed with Missiles, Rockets, and gun ammunition from bow to stern. Imagine a hit with a 200 KG Semi Armour piercing warhead traveling at high subsonic speed striking and then detonating inside the hull or superstructure of the Moskva, comparable to tossing a lit Zippo lighter into a room full of explosive fumes and other explosive material plus Missile propellants and warheads. A damage control nightmare.

[@tomtrenter3208]

It wouldn't need to be a semi armor piercing round but an ordinary HE common would suffice.

[@iffn]

About the comment at 6:10 In 1987, the USS Stark got hit by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles. As far as I'm aware, the CIWS was not armed. Also, British Navy ships got hit during the Falklands war. So it doesn't sound unreasonable that missiles got through the air defense of a ship with questionable maintenance and crew morale. Especially if the crew did not expect such an attack.

[@zeroone8800]

1. Did any of the British ships have CIWS? 2. History is replete with examples of warfare changing in small conflicts, but the major powers dismissing the possibility of it happening in a major conflict or to them. The next great war proves that warfare has changed. It is yet to be seen how vulnerable American surface ships are to anti-ship missiles.

[@mstevens113]

The British ships did not have cwis systems which is significant. Some had pretty obsolete radar and missiles as well. Hardly surprisingly the Royal Navy adopted cwis following the war.

[@davidknowles2491]

@@mstevens113 HMS Coventry has 2 20mm Oerlikons and 2 chaff launchers I think.

[@wolfhalupka8992]

@@zeroone8800 negative. CIWS only came into service after the losses to Royal Navy ships due to Exocet strikes happened. in those days, the long range Sea Dart of the Type 42s wasn't able to defend against sea skimming missiles. rather, they were supposed to defend against aircraft against an open sky.

[@arizonaexplorations4013]

In the Gulf War one of the battleships was targeted and fired on by the Iraqis. The missile missed and was shot down by the British with a missile. Edit: Just double checked the official navy website. The silkworm actually passed above the USS Missouri’s stern. The missile was only shot down after it had missed. Had the missile been on target, it would have hit somewhere on the stern and would not have been intercepted. The second was destroyed 700 yards in front of Missouri’s bow. So it is very possible for missiles to get through.

[@rocketguardian2001]

See when you hit a ship with a big explody thing, and it has big explosive thingies on deck, it usually blows up, which is sometimes followed by sinking.

[@Bellthorian]

I heard from senior people when I was in the Navy that the Russian Navy does not do damage control like we did and the main reason they have so many redundant weapon systems and radars is that their crews are not trained to fix things at sea. They have a lot of conscripts and not professional sailors so their capabilities are a fraction of what our are. I believe it to be true, the USS Stark a ship 1/3 the size of the Moskva was hit with two exocet missiles that had slightly larger warheads and her crew was able to save her. The Moskva was lost do to poor training, material condition of the ship and incompetence.

[@dmitry.s315]

In Russian DOD statement it was just a minor popping sound, followed by small smoke, followed by cruiser gaining negative buoyancy for a reason that is a state secret. With 1 man lost.

[@NikovK]

You see comrade, cruiser remain afloat through secret anti-gravity device we conceal from western spies. One of the vacuum tubes in this device had a fault when Ukrainian housefly got inside of control box. We have shot the man responsible and this will not happen again.

[@ianbutler1983]

SOunds like Bagdad Bob.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

The Russian MOD is a circus. It prints the memes by existing.

[@kilianortmann9979]

AFAIK the Neptune can cruise at 10-15 meters and skims at 4-6 meters in the final phase. That puts it below the minimum engagement altitude for the S-300 (20-25m) and likely the Gecko as well (around 10m), so 2/3 of Moskva's impressive air defense are useless already. With only the AK 630 able to engage at say 2500m maximum effective range the reaction time is around 10 seconds best case. Additionally the AK 630 is not a self contained CIWS, it needs external fire control radars, potentially that induces a delay, or they were all looking at the drones.

[@philgardocki5294]

By my estimate, the Neptune travels about 50 feet above the water line, and so only becomes visible to radar at about 9.5 miles. From there to impact is about 50 seconds.

[@philgardocki5294]

Ah, I did not know that the AK 630 was not a self contained CIWS. That readily explains why it did not take the shot.

[@esenel92]

As you mention in the last part, 2 neptune missiles wouldn't have been able to sink NJ and shouldn't have been able to get through moskva's defenses. But, it's said it was hit by 2 missiles, not that 2 were fired at it. The launchers apparently hold 4 missiles, so I'm guessing they probably fired all 4 of them, because it's really a do or die situation. And apparently they are supposed to operate with multiple vehicles carrying up to 24 missiles in launchers. So worst case they could have fired 24 and 2 got through if the "2 missiles hit Moskva" statement is true. With an opportunity like this, I doubt that if I'd have 1 launch vehicle with 4 missiles, I'd choose to fire only 2 and lose the element of surprise just to preserve 2 missiles.

[@hhuodod2209]

I think the Americans sunk the ship lol. 🙃

[@scottl9660]

I’ve seen the box launchers for 4 and 2 missiles since the sinking.

[@trisjack82]

@N Fels yeah but there’s nothing else with much meaningful firepower left in the Black Sea after Moskva there’s like two guided missile frigates and two older frigates at most

[@EssaBee]

This is a key point hat was missed by most commenters. If the Moskva was close enough to shore for a nepune strike, and the Ukranian military felt it had a good enough opportunity to attaack, it would have gone all out and fired enough missiles to ensure at least a hit. Firing 8-10 missiles with 2 connecting is not out of question here...

[@EssaBee]

@N Fels There are no other ships in the black sea fleet that pose any threat to the land forces of the Ukraine. And the Moskva was also the biggest threat to air forces. So taking it out completely changes the balance of power in the entire operating theatre (black sea).

[@jayss10]

I suspect the lack of damage control training, discipline onboard the vessel, and I'd even be willing to say weapons systems training, along with lack of maintence is actually what sunk her. Even two of those missiles shouldn't have sunk her (we obviously have video of her afloat long after the attack). The crew basically sunk their own vessel.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

I wonder if the simple reason for the Neptune possibly striking the Moskva was because the Russian ESM and ECM were not designed to react to a Russian Radar frequency and attack profile that was not a Harpoon?

[@dwwolf4636]

Supposedly the Neptunes radar seeker was upgraded by the Ukrainians ..who knows what band it uses.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

You'd think the Soviets/Russians would've designed their ships' defenses to react to their own missiles as well as the Americans' - if nothing else, to defend against an accidental launch or a ship going rogue.

[@chrisf4268]

So you are saying that the Russians hit their own ship? 😂😂😂😂😂🤣

[@jacquesblaque7728]

@@chrisf4268 "Friendly fire" happens in the fog of war. Can't rule that out.

[@dougearnest7590]

@@vikkimcdonough6153 - For that to happen, the Russians/Soviets would be admitting that such things were possible.

[@d.l.hemmingway3758]

One thing I've learned since the Falkland Island War is that modern military ships are not as heavily armored as their Second World War and Great War counter parts were. The Moscova was also hit by a salvo of anti-ship missiles right where it would count the most and it seems in that area were some of the ship's loaded missile launchers.

[@piedpiper1172]

Well, less passively armored relative to current era anti ship weapons. Rather than steel plates of incredible thickness, armor is now active. A modern ship’s “armor” against missiles is interception. Of course, that only works if the system is turned on, appropriately crewed, maintained, and, in the case of high corruption organizations, even installed.

[@Ealsante]

There's no point in having armour anymore these days. Thick steel has a chance of stopping a 16 in shell, but it's not going to do anything against a missile that's going at double the speed with ten times the warhead.

[@tomsmith3045]

@@Ealsante :) warhead on an average anti-ship missile is a little more powerful than the secondary guns, 5", on a battleship. Something like 1/20th of the energy of the main guns. We don't have armor anymore because we don't have much of a steel industry anymore, but we do have lots of companies making missiles. We don't have battleships anymore because carrier task forces, with aircraft, do a better job. Single un-armored warships without air cover are targets, not warships.

[@technewsfortechnoobs]

What I love more than anything though is that UKRAINE declared the wreckage sight as one of their own "underwater cultural heritage sites". Way to go Ukraine! :)

[@Ridliman]

I watched a video about a battle in 2008 between a Russian corvette and a Georgian cutter ( search for "Russian-Georgian naval clash. South Ossetia war (2008)"). The video was recorded by a sailor inside the engine room in the middle of the battle. That video showed HOW BAD is the handling by the sailors. They were all half-naked (maybe the cooling systems didn't work) no one looks like they know what they were doing, some of them were just staring at the controls without doing anything, some were with their hands on their hips looking at what the others were doing or not doing. Later a couple of veteran sailors came and used a "very Russian method" to solve the problems in the console. After the battle we could see the interior and exterior of the ship, we could see cables in the middle of the corridors, materials not stored properly, and in the exterior the railings were totally destroyed, and not by the cutter but because of the lack of maintenance. Much later in the port, they were trying to fold the anti-air missile launcher that looks broken down or at least had issues. If we extrapolate that and add 14 years of kleptocracy we can imagine how fast the crew response was and in what kind of state the equipment was. Maybe in the Black Sea Flagship the state was better than the corvette in said video but still not 100% for sure.

[@awuma]

All true, but there's also an interesting comment by an ex-US Navy guy that such behaviour in the engine room is not unusual.

[@Ridliman]

@@awuma I saw one like that too. But I don't need an ex-navy to realize that this behavior isn't the correct one in a ship in combat. They looked like a group of friends looking without looking at a broken-down engine of a car in the middle of nowwhere without knowing what to do, and knowing that they are losing time of their first trip to Las Vegas.

[@timsmith1125]

Served on guided missile destroyers (Adams and Forest Sherman classes) during the Cold War era, so cruisers are not part of my experiences in the Navy. However, I wonder how well trained the crew was on damage control and fire fighting. Add some of the other factors mentioned in previous comments and it’s a recipe for some really bad things.

[@davidmurphy563]

The tug was on the scene way too quickly. That suggests it was part of the fleet, which suggests that vessels losing power was a common occurrence which suggests it wasn't well maintained. Also, fire control isn't like on Nato ships, only specialists do it plus the compartments aren't divided which would be unthinkable in the West. I'm going to guess that the radar, missile systems and guns all were non-functional and the crew hadn't been trained and drilled. The best way to evaluate the Russian military is to assume the worst.

[@tails0420ify]

@Robdog 1 I'm surprised they don't have tugsubs. Submarines to tow the boats in secret. When they're ready to move the tugsubs surface , the boat then lowers it's anchors to attach to the submarines on each side. Once secure off they go and the subs return underwater. lol They gotta maintain appearances right?

[@nathans3022]

Source in Ukraine says 3 Neptune missiles fired from 1 battery. Supported by a member of the Moskva's crew's family who spoke to western media. From that same source they forced the conscripts who had no fire fighting training to try and do damage control which failed. The Moskva's defense system was partially offline. Their medium range OSA missile system was offline. S300 system was online but, Neptune hugs the water so S300 system didn't see it till it was too close. Their CIWS AK-630 system did in fact engage the missiles however, the Neptune missiles have an armored cone designed to deflect the AP rounds Russia uses so 2 of the 3 made it into the ship. 1 was destroyed. What you see is what you see. Also, Ukraine's Slava class cruiser is still afloat in Mykolayiv. They had been keeping it "maintained" till 2019, but beyond that.. it hasn't been touched.

[@zeroone8800]

I wonder if Ukraine used their Slava class and it's drawings/plans to plan the attack.

[@johanfredin5153]

Can you please provide some source for this?

[@DarkStarPast]

need source please

[@ackattacker]

I don’t see how a radar guided missive could possibly have an armored cone of any sort, never mind one that can defeat 30mm rounds which can penetrate 2 inches of steel easily.

[@johndododoe1411]

@@ackattacker The radome could be outside the armor, and the guidance can switch to basic dead heading when radar is lost.

[@Masada1911]

Ryan is going to throw so much shade on the Russian Navy. It’s going to be hilarious

[@Supahmatt1]

russia has a Navy?

[@satagaming9144]

@@Supahmatt1 had lmao

[@Supahmatt1]

@@satagaming9144 thanks for clarifying i was confused for a bit there

[@evensgrey]

Even the Ticonderoga class cruisers aren't REALLY cruisers. They're only about 2/3 the displacement of the Zumwalt class destroyers. The Ticonderogas were originally going to be a destroyer class, but it was argued that when they upgraded the fleet command facilities in the design it was argued that they were simply too capable as flag ships to be destroyers.

[@M167A1]

It doesn't matter how capable your ship is if you can't put the fire out, too much stuff that goes boom.

[@johnshepherd8687]

I have been aboard one of Moskva's sister ships, the Marshal Ustinov, when she visited Norfolk in 1990. Russian ships are generally very heavily armed for their displacement which makes them as vulnerable as the first two classes of British Battlecruisers at Jutland. Hit the forward section and it will go up like the Hood or Arizona. If you look at the video you can see two entry holes on the side of the ship which would indicate missile strikes. I have no doubt that ship took two missile hits. Given the performance of the Russian military in general it very likely the Russian Navy is poorly trained in operations and damage control. It would not surprise if the sensor suite was not really mission capable because of poor maintenance. A note on ship sizes. If you notice the last Adams class DDG was DDG-46 and the first Ticonderoga Class cruiser was CG -47. That is because the first ships were ordered as destroyers but the Navy was going to have a hard time selling a billion dollar destroyer so they reclassified them as cruisers before the first ships were laid down. The Zumwalts are really cruisers in my opinion. They displace more tonnage the our first Dreadnought battleships, the South Carolina Class and are almost as big as the Des Moines The Belgrano is the ex USS Phoenix which was a treaty cruiser of 10k tons.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

If Moskva went Hood, wouldn't it be in a lot more pieces?

[@johnshepherd8687]

@@vikkimcdonough6153 if she is missing the forward part of ship then she went Hood but I see two missile strikes midships

[@trisjack82]

After refits the belgrano displaced 12700tons

[@johnshepherd8687]

@@trisjack82 Rather overweight.

[@18robsmith]

Why weren't the radars active when being buzzed by potentially unfriendly drones? Any sensible crew being buzzed would at least wake up the radar just to make sure there was nothing dangerous lurking out there. How I think the story went: Crew card games are suddenly interrupted by a couple of missiles hitting. "Ooo that was a surprise, what do we do now". Missile strikes light a couple of fires in/near ammunition piles. Ammunition cooks off. "Oh ***** we're in big trouble now, better get out of here, call in sea-side rescue". Sea-side rescue arrives and take ship under tow., while trying to fight the fires. Ship decides to put the fires out by sinking. "Boy was it rough (in the dingy) last night".

[@Deadeye313]

Ukraine brought her into this world and now took her out of it. Poetic.

[@F-Man]

Been waiting for you guys to tackle this one 😁

[@mikecimerian6913]

Possibly, victory intoxication could have led this Russian crew to lower their guard and they were caught with their pants down. Intitiave was on the attacker's side, they chose the moment for one big score. A Slava cruiser is more at home on the high seas than supporting shore operations. Both sides operate mobile land based littoral defense batteries. Ukrainians only needed a few silent launchers in hardened pens and to scramble them on command. Battlefield FoF monitoring may have saturated their response ability as you suggest.

[@maxkronader5225]

The Slavas were intended to be a less technologically difficult backup to the Kirov Class nuclear powered battlecruisers in case the Kirovs didn't pan out. As it turned out both classes seemed to be at least somewhat satisfactory since they made four Kirovs and three Slavas.

[@Georgejoseph74]

Tx u for a simple in-depth video.pl Keep us updated..👍🏻👍🏻

[@Marus1233]

The Moskva simply got promoted, became a submarine and started a special underwater operation. Everything according to plan comrades. Nothing to talk about.

[@steriskyline4470]

My god these copy paste comments are so boring.

[@asmo1313]

"moskva is a slava class cruiser" correction: "was"

[@jeffcamp481]

I seen some simulation like those that Gary Powell mentioned! A drone used as a decoy and 3-6 foot seas, two missiles fired a Slavs class didn’t see them coming! One simulation with a top notch crew factored in would take several more missiles to swamp its defenses. This didn’t take a lower quality crew in a ship with questionable maintenance. They had video from a comparable Russian ship in the Georgia conflict. This show while under fire the Russian discipline was very bad, posing a question of Russian naval discipline in general!

[@arcticwulf5796]

User fatique might be also a significant contributor. If you watch a radar screen for the 49th day. You might to be as ready to deploy the manually activated countermeasures in the critical 2 minute window you yourself have to react. Plus Russian navy is very top dependent so it might have taken many seconds more to verify from above if measures would be allowed to be taken.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

Lazerpig has an excellent video on this.

[@John-q5p9m]

Simplest idea is that their systems were not operational at the time, or, considering having a missile fired at them has absolutely never happened, they didn't know what to do even if the systems were up and running. Additionally, their systems were probably garbage from the start and wouldn't have the resolution or sensitivity to even find the missile in the first place.

[@MaunoMato99]

Rumors that goes around is that AA was taken out by drones first with unguided munitions then hit by the Neptune missiles. Another rumor is that the ship's AA and Radar was offline as it was in the middle of the night which is weird as it's specialized for AA and anti-ship. Either way, both sound more feasible than a simple fire taking out the whole ship even if the ammo detonated. There was also big holes in several locations in the hull which doesn't match up with just the ammo detonating.

[@Trapster99]

Hum. Yes, two missiles, or even one missile hit can do devastating damage to any ship. However, Moskva had 16 of her largest missiles stored on the OUTSIDE of her hull in diagonal launch tubes. During WWII, the US navy gave up the practice of storing major ordinance on the OUTSIDE of the hull. It was deemed to be flawed thinking and too risky for the ship. There is a good chance that an Atlanta Class cruiser was destroyed when her torpedo tubes, stored on the outside of the ship, were hit and exploded. Bad idea to carry missiles on the outside of your warship.

[@FinnishDragon]

That is a good point. One should also remember that while the Japanese Long Lance torpedoes were very devastating against enemy ship they were very vulnerable if they were on board when the enemy attacked against the ship. That was the reason when the Japanese warships were attacked by enemy airplanes they jettisoned those torpedoes.

[@sgtbrendan289]

That was one of my first thoughts when I heard about this. The Sandboxes are effectively standoff 'armor' for the superstructure (hey if it works for tanks, it should work for cruisers, right? :P ) But the design of this class was to attack US carriers. The Soviets expected them to close, fire the Sandboxes and then hightail it away. They expected the missle tubes to be empty whenever the ship came under attack and hat is why their main defense radars aim aft, because that was their primary expected threat vector.

[@Trapster99]

@@sgtbrendan289 Bendan, I could not have said it better. Yes, Slava, designed in the 1970's had but one purpose: Kill an American aircraft carrier. I laughed at your suggestion that the Sandboxes were supposed to work as 'spaced armor'. Of course, that is exactly what they were supposed to do. Back in the 1970's. It made sense back then. Do not build the Carrier, instead, build the Carrier Killer. Much has changed in the 40+ years. One more relic of the Soviet Era destroyed in this war.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

Exterior missile storage being bad is kind of counterintuitive - at a first glance, you'd think it'd be better to keep the ordnance on the outside, to minimize the damage from an accidental explosion and avoid having to cut holes in the armor for the weaponry. Until you realize that ordnance outside the hull is so much _more_ likely to explode (due primarily to people shooting at you) than ordnance inside it that it more than negates that theoretical advantage.

[@Trapster99]

@@vikkimcdonough6153 The US Navy stores its missiles on vertical launch tubes. They look like boxes. The are located along the CENTER mass of the ship. Well protected, and with an exceptional fire-suppression system. 1970's technology, with 1970's doctrine, facing modern threats. Yeah, that will fail.

[@MrWolfriver]

This was super informative. Thanks for creating the vid.

[@ralphjackson2518]

I'm gonna have to dig for sources, but the hydraulics for the AK 130s use ethanol, and it looks like the hit was on or near the 130. In addition to that while the Russian sequence of events has changed several times they were rather consistent about there being an ammo explosion, which might also have been the CWIS.

[@M167A1]

Doesn't really matter how capable your ship is if you mess up the damage control after you get hit, lots of things to go boom.

[@robertlitman2661]

I find it hard to believe that any Russian ship uses ethanol for hydraulics. And if it did, that would explain why it didn’t work when they needed it, as it would have certainly been drunk and replaced with urine.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

@@robertlitman2661 Hmm, but how much ethanol would need to get replaced by urine before this replacement process stops, and how would the final ratio affect performance of the hydraulics?

[@tomtrenter3208]

@@robertlitman2661 Ivan loves to use 100% pure grain alcohol for hydraulic systems. It doesn't freeze or increase viscosity with cold. The United States used grain alcohol to fuel torpedoes till the mid 1950's. Even the much criticized Mk 14 was in service till the early 1970's. If you've ever heard the term "torpedo juice" being used, medicinally of course, by sailors with access to torpedoes.

[@Lucas12v]

@@robertlitman2661 I know that there was at least one Soviet aircraft that used ethanol as hydraulic fluid. Just FYI

[@wimahlers]

I so often told them not to smoke in the missile room ... alas ....

[@Cragified]

Moskva only had 1 air intercept radar with a 180 degree field of view for the S-300s. If it was inoperable or targeting another threat it might not have seen the incoming Neptunes. However, the photo before her sinking show the radar array still pointed aft in her normal transit condition which makes me think it was inoperable or the lower resolution search radars never saw the Neptunes. The short range OSA-Ms are actually incapable of targeting the Neptunes in their wave top cruise and in the photos of her sinking you can see the launch rail arms aren't deployed so either were restowed or again never activated. And the AK-630s are honestly more of a close in anti-air system then a PDW system and would have only had 6 seconds to engage the Neptunes if they were detected by their MR-123 fire control radar and the system was enabled and not in safe mode.

[@mandelorean6243]

The most knowledgeable comment lacking replies

[@Reactordrone]

What makes you think their 3d search radar only has a 180° field of view?

[@Cragified]

@@Reactordrone Read what I wrote, then read what you wrote, then realize you didn't pick up on important details and made some assumptions. Hint: Search radar is not targeting (fire-control) radar, those are two different things.

[@Reactordrone]

@@Cragified In that case why continue to target a lower threat when you can see a higher threat coming in? If they'd had S-300s in the air targeting a drone they could just stop tracking for those missiles and switch to the neptune threat. Somewhat moot point though as the top dome radar was stowed in the rear facing position.

[@georgerockwell-z3c]

Very balanced, objective assessment of the situation. Thank you

[@headmonkeyboy]

Guys Im telling you, it was Japanese Torpedo Boats that got Moskva * sheepish grin *

[@edevans5991]

Long Lance was a hell of a weapon.

[@SnowmanTF2]

or the Kamchatka still out their looking for Japanese Torpedo Boats, still making trouble for Russian fleet commanders.

[@Grimmwoldds]

STFU Kamchatka, I've had enough of you.

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

Nah after a case we're half crew experienced spontaneous human combustion cause intensive fires 🔥 . Unfortunately the primary response to fire 🔥 was opening the hulls screen doors and the moskva sank. Which is as credible explanations coming out of Russian DOD

[@johnbuchman4854]

I WARNED you! But did you listen?!? --Kamchatka

[@americanpatriot2422]

Outstanding video and presentation

[@brucechapa6958]

So if a Neptune missile hit the New Jersey armored belt or armored citadel, would it do more than damage the paint?

[@Tuck-Shop]

Yes. It would a make a hole and a bang. It would cause some flooding if it hits below the waterline and start fires regardless of location but the worst problem would be it would scare the crap out of the museum staff. A wartime New Jersey would fare better with disciplined crew and damage control. The Neptune missile was designed to sink modern splinter armoured ships with a displacement up to 12.5k tonnes. A massive and heavily armoured Iowa class ship would survive a hit or two.

Multiple enlisted men with brooms would had to come on deck and sweep them missile fragments into the ocean. That’s about it.

[@SkyChady]

The only thing a Neptune missile would have done to USS New Jersey is make the captain order one of his sailors to sweep the debris and repaint where it impact. These missiles do not have the penetrating power to punch through BB armored belt, they're designed for modern ships with light armor.

[@NixodCreations]

Probably not. But it could do some serious damage to other areas of the ship by blowing off electronics, damaging the superstructure, and starting a large fire, all of which could render the battleship combat ineffective.

[@NikovK]

There's plenty of superstructure that could be torn away and tearing apart the funnels could actually impact the ship's speed. You could make a mess of things above the waterline, even large fires. However the protected spaces remain protected. She would take a lot of Harpoonskis. The P-500s the Slava carried, however, was a 1000kg or 350 kiloton warhead, fired in salvoes of eight and flying at Mach 4-5.

[@31dknight]

Great video from the battleship.

[@thedausthed]

Two Anti ship missiles hit the hull just forward of the funnels, taking out the engines and the main damage control station. Then fire or shrapnel set off some of the missiles in the starboard S-300 battery just aft of the funnels, lifting the deck up and cracking the hull.

[@robertstone9988]

How you know? Just curious

[@thedausthed]

@@robertstone9988 There is an OK quality photo of the Moskva that shows damage to the port side forward of the funnel (and what looks like a hole in the hull), the forward part of the starboard side S-300 battery missing (looks like the deck is gone), the aft section of the port side S-300 battery (and deck) lifted up, leading to black line on the port side of the hull that looks like a crack. I am assuming that it was 2 anti ship missiles due to the damage being consistent with a hit from such a weapon (vs say a torpedo or mine) and because that number of missiles is what was reported (and I see no evidence in the photo to doubt that).

[@wsswetghg8791]

@@thedausthed google pics again and see them on big display. S-300 is shiny and in pristine condition. The ship simply burned out from end to end. A S-300 missile carries 130kg of TNT, and if one goes off in a drum of 8, then the rest of drum will go off too. It's 8+ tons of TNT, it'd split the ship in half.

[@wingracer1614]

@@wsswetghg8791 Most military high explosives don't detonate from a fire, they just burn REALLY intensely.

[@meldroc]

@@wingracer1614 That and the fuel/propellant from the missiles must have burned spectacularly. If you look at those photos, there's a big crack in the hull close to them, along with the soot showing smoke coming out of the portholes. I'm betting the missiles cooked off. Didn't explode, but probably made such an intense cookoff fire it looks like it made that crack in the hull and warped the deck.

[@diedampfbrasse98]

I have my doubts that the Moskva had all its defense and desaster response systems even online/operational at the time. Its very common for russian military equipment to be in a low readiness state, and thats in addition to poor crew readiness. Even if they actually realised the threat coming their way (another thing I doubt) they might not have had the capability to respond as intented by the design.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

The Russians are also very hubristic about Ukraine. I bet they also did not think they could pull such a thing off. Perfect storm of events for a special submarine promotion operation. They sure as shit backed off and got really salty about it after, though.

[@christosvoskresye]

Its weight exceeded its buoyant force -- that's how it sank. It's too early to say anything more than that. It is pure speculation to say that it was maintained much like The Sullivans.

[@ExHyperion]

Fans of the Russian armed forces always point out the fact that their cruisers carry twice as many missiles as American ships. They never consider the fact that twice the missiles means twice the explosives sitting on deck

[@dawsonfradin9071]

"How Did A Russian Cruiser Sink in 2022?" Pretty easily apparently

[@kevinpresley3136]

What a awesome video.Lots of great info.Thank you for the presentation.I look forward to the update video.

[@mathewkelly9968]

Personally I think both versions happened the Ukrainians hit her with a couple of Anti ship missiles probably not fatally though , but they did cause damage and start a fire that raged out of control that then cooked off one or more of the cruise missiles which was fatal .

[@johnheigis83]

"Minute... Men... Women... Kids... Elders..." Neighborhood incident management... Comprehensive contingencies management... "Mustering" to resolve crucial issues... Thusly... Basic human survival... You're on the right path... To bring "civil defense" back on line... In a 21st century context... Our secondary manual backup system... Outstanding!

[@edwardmeade]

I'm putting my money on the missile(s) hitting an engine room which started an uncontrolled fire fed by a ruptured fuel line. Soviet/Russian firefighting system design and fire control doctrine are well known to be poor by western naval standards. Back in August 1974 the Kashin class missile destroyer Отважный (Otvazhny) had a missile misfire in a magazine. There was insufficient water available to the magazine allowing the warheads to cook off, blowing the bow off and resulting in the loss of the ship and 24 sailors. On the Moskva, there is blackening everywhere amidships which is consistent with a jet fuel fire in an oxygen starved environment but little visible external damage. That said, the high heat in the confined interior of a burning engine room of a ship in still relatively cold water could have resulting in thermal shock cracking of the hull plating. ALL navies do a poor job of maintaining hull framing in inaccessible parts of ships. Given that this is a 50-year old ship funded by a kleptocracy that's known for cutting corners...well. The Russians blamed the weather. The weather at the time the picture was taken was not that bad but if the hull strength was significantly compromised (or the weather was worse after the picture was taken) it's possible that hull cracking led to uncontrollable flooding.

[@motlow1465]

No mention of the big crack the in the side of the hull or did i miss that part?

[@jeffhoward9186]

Either way, it appears that they failed basic damage control.

[@Niinsa62]

Very informative video, thanks a bunch!

[@robertdonnell8114]

Yes, I do, if you look at the one photograph, you will see that the long range Grumble missile vertical launch tube doors are not open. These are huge and could be seen from the side/rear if the system had been activated thus it was not switched on. Next, the short range Gecko radar on top of the aircraft hanger is in the stowed (aft facing) position. If it had been activated it would have been facing the side that the missiles came from. Next the portholes have smudge from an internal fire, from high the loss of life it must have spread very quickly, this suggests a missile strike more than a simple fire. Ships with Damage Control teams can burn for days and stay afloat. I am guessing that the Russian Navy has DC procedures and that the fires spread so fast that the water-tight door were never closed.

[@keithmoore5306]

those tube doors open fire the missile and immediately close automatically!! the only way a picture wold see them open is within 3 to 5 seconds of either side of the firing sequence!!

[@Simon-ho6ly]

there is also some fairly strong evidence there are minimal water tight compartments in these ships for cost saving reasons, its pretty likely too that what few watertight doors they had, were not even closed

[@berges104]

why would they close the water-tight doors? fire isn't water. 😂 I have not done any DC drills in 12 years, I know if I got activated, it would take months to get my fellow reservists to a professional level. I am sure the Russians would take longer.

[@keithmoore5306]

@@berges104 normally watertight doors will also contain a fires spread!! it'd also contain the run off water from fighting the fire!!

[@Simon-ho6ly]

@@berges104 Tbh i could see that logic in place in the russian crew, not closing watertight doors because its fire not water, and just letting the smoke and fumes fill the ship.. though if they were targeting and watching drones with any level of concern for the safety of a ship they should ahve been in a material condition where those doors were closed anyway...

[@SuperStormfury]

Love how you're sat next to the phalanx. Great video!

[@reecedrystek2992]

Well first, it doesn't matter how many air defense missiles you have on board if you don't have the sensors to hit anything. Also, the fact that Russia doesn't operate battle groups means the Moskva was likely all alone when attacked and from the ground war I think it is safe to say that the ship crew training was lacking. Only having one ship of the type in the Black sea means the crew likely didn't have a lot of training hours and the Ship likely lacked maintenance, as being deployed takes a toll on both machine and crew. Lastly, as you said the second Kirov Class I believe is Nakimov has been in drydock/retrofit for a decade and a Russian Aircraft Carrier Strike group usually consists of only 4 ships with one being an Ocean tug because it is more likely that a ship will sink like Kursk, catch fire like Kuznetzov or need to be towed back to drydock than the crew actually doing any training. Don't get me wrong the US navy has accidents too, but nothing like the frequent catastrophic failures of the Russian Navy.

[@bryanmcdermott4204]

Thank you for this breakdown.

[@thesuit4820]

Well, according to the Russian DOD, gross incompetence. Ah, repeated gross incompetence... It wasn't just the fire, also the towing.

[@PringleMan5]

This. This is how I reinforce my suspicion it actually was missiles. Russia never, EVER, paints its military in a bad light. They can lose a helo in clear blue skies and they will tell the people it was bad weather. So, if they decided to say that the crew could not contain it, that means that something even worse happened. I mean, they could have said that they decided to scuttle it because it was too expensive to tow and repair and it would have had a better vibe to it. But the crew are humans and they might talk, so they had to go with something that was plausibly true. The reality is probably something like the missiles struck, ignited ammo and caused secondary explosions. The crew could not get to the affected areas because of the fires, and as a result significant flooding resulted in the ship sinking. The Russian statement does not necessarily have to be false in order for the Ukranian statement to be true.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

Every Special Accident Operation be like "The Russian Smooker" meme. >Smooks in magazine because no one cleans up there anyway >Says he started a hydraulic grease fire because captain sold the ship's heaters [wanted fire source for next cigarette in reality] >*Flicks butt onto unexploded Neptune* >*Goes to get more Cigarettes from Ivan the smuggler* >Has stripped all the unnecessary copper from the ship for carton money >"I could really use another cigarette" >Has smooked next to the Belgorod fuel supplies. >Trades secrets for smoky treats >Has put out cigarette on Shoigu's wood >Cause of all Russian forest fires

[@meldroc]

Thank you Ryan, this was awesome!

[@Phos9]

The grim reapers KZbin channel recreated the attack in DCS, and for what it’s worth, the DCS simulated slava class didn’t fire geckos at the neptunes during a storm. Speculation was that the rain and choppy sea conditions created too much noise for the radar to acquire them before they were in CIWS range.

[@tomtrenter3208]

DCS is a video game, not the real world! I don't know who Grim Reaper is but the videos he post show very poor weapons management techniques.

[@jth877]

Those videos are questionable. The English guy spouted off some Russian weapon capabilities that were far from accurate. He seems to have a love affair with Russian ships. 🤮

[@Phos9]

@@tomtrenter3208 That's why I included the "for what it's worth". As simulated, it can't fire SAMs at a neptune during a storm.

[@jasnix]

RGM-84 are a sea skimming missile, and depending on the model or settings does a waterline or pop up attack.

[@danielseelye6005]

Reportedly, before the missiles hit, the Captain of the _Moskva_ saw an apparition on the sea. Upon raising his binoculars, he confirmed it was a Russian ship named _Kamchatka_ and felt an icy chill down his spine. As the _Moskva_ was slipping beneath the waves, the Captain was heard swearing loudly and throwing every binocular he had at the apparition in rage.

[@prof_kaos9341]

As noted, cold war era cruisers were tasked to co-ordinate air defence. Moscova should've been very safe from air attack having long, medium & short range systems. DCS simulated the attack. The long range S-300 & the medium range OSA are not really for sea skimming missiles.The simulation showed the OSA (AA missiles) deploy but not fire in a light swell (losing radar lock?) leaving the AK-630 point defence which could miss, limited to a 30-40 seconds burst before needing relaoding. Neptune launchers carry up to 4 missiles, a full salvo or the reported drone firing low level decoys could expend the AK-630's ammo, leaving the ship defenceless. The rumoured presence of nuclear weapons on board may have encouraged this mission to remove the threat, if real. Nukes or not it's an impressive victory totally shifting the naval balance of power.

[@richardbest5385]

Why is there a tradition of the capt always going down with the ship. Would it better to survive and fight another day

[@M167A1]

It's a reference to the considerable powers the captain has over his ship and crew. When the ship is lost it's his responsibility. Having said that it's also acceptable if he's the last one off the ship.

[@Grimmwoldds]

I've known captains who would do that. If their men died on board, they'll ride that sumbitch to the bottom(esp if by staying on board they can move people off and minimize danger to survivors).

[@alphacentary]

In the modern era this is true, but if I were the Russian captain of that ship I might choose going down with the ship over magically disappearing.

[@richardbest5385]

I felt bad for the Capt of the USS Indianapolis who was basically made a scapegoat. I think he ended committing sucide later on and finally the navy clear him

[@alphacentary]

@@richardbest5385 Oh yeah the way that man was railroaded was a massive mistake. It should not have happened.

[@haydengalloway5177]

I like how in the middle of his talk the camera man is like "aight i'm out" and walks away with the camera.

[@tomtrenter3208]

Soviet design, soviet hardware, soviet built, soviet conscripts/ slaves) manned, soviet training, soviet maintained topped off with old age. Also if you look at her armament is spread all over the place along with multiple magazines carrying some very large rounds it's no wonder she was a fire hazard. She could be hit almost anywhere and it could be fatal. and finally, Ivan has never been well known for damage control. Just look at their past.

[@anareel4562]

Do you see torpedo boats?

[@alanstevens1296]

How deep is the water at the sinking location? I can't seem to find the answer.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

Two things I'd to know is did the Moskva sink in Ukrainian waters or international waters and how deep is the water where it went down?

[@Chris_In_Texas]

As an engineer I like numbers, so I have a few here. Moskva = 611' length x 68' beam x 28' draft and displacement of approx 11,500 tons, has four gas turbines with 121,000 HP and top speed of 32 knots and has a crew of about 485. The yacht Dilbar owned (formerly owned) by Russian Billionaire and Oligarch Alisher Usmanov, which has now been seized in Germany. Dilbar = 511' length x 84' beam x 20' draft and displacement of 1,230 tons, has 6 diesel electric engines with 41,000 HP and top speed of 23 knots and has a crew of 96 with 40 additional guests. Dilbar is the largest yacht by volume, not length at almost 16,000 gross tons (1 ton is 100 cubic feet in volume, its not a weight measurement here), has approx 41,000 sq feet (3,800 sq m) of guest / owner space, not including any crew space, kitchens or engine room etc. She cost about $800 million USD, and costs between $50-80M per year to run. Amazing how much lighter Dilbar is vs Moskva for roughly the same size. She (Dilbar) has a steel hull and aluminum superstructure. I guess armor / guns / ammo weights a lot. I can't find any volume info on Moskva, but I would assume that she is much smaller than Dilbar in gross tonnage.

[@DonaldMcKay3768]

As a naval architect I should comment on this: the "Register tons" that are defined as 100 cubic feet are a measure of capacity used for commercial ships (as a basis for harbor taxes, for example). The displacement used for warships is a measure of weight that is essentially the same as buoyancy. Having said that, I'm a little skeptical about the numbers cited here. If the Moskva was really the dimensions quoted, she should have been quite a bit heavier than 11,500 tons. To demonstrate: Length * Beam* draft * typical cruiser prismatic * midship section coefficient = underwater, buoyant volume. That's 611*68*28*0.60*0.85 = 593,305 cubic feet. One cubic foot of salt water displaces almost exactly 35 long tons -- so close naval architects have been using that number in calculations. So, 593305/35 = 16,952 long tons (2240 lb each, that's the standard Navy displacement ton in the pre-metric age). The numbers don't make sense. 17,000 tons is really big for any cruiser and especially for a Russian cruiser where it's traditional to pack in lots of bang per ton. Maybe there's a conversion problem from metric units? Or might be the draft includes a sonar dome or propellers below the keel? Or the length is overall length including bow overhang? You have to use waterline dimensions to get the volume displacement to work out. A demonstration that "Comparative Naval Architecture" is an art that people spend years learning!

[@kwzieleniewski]

@@DonaldMcKay3768 Polish Wiki cites Russian book with waterline length of 170 m (180,6 m = 612 ft is overall) and 11 300 t displacement at full load (not deep load). In metric units and with those parameters of 0.65 and 0.85 we get 170 m x 20.8 m x 8.4 m x 0.65 x 0.85 x 1,025 t/m3 ~= 16 800 t (metric tonnes of displacement). But it still necessitates smaller coefficients or we have 50% discrepancy. > One cubic foot of salt water displaces almost exactly 35 long tons It's the other way round (as correctly in calculations): 35 cu ft per long ton.

[@DonaldMcKay3768]

@@kwzieleniewski Thanks for responding. Yes, I goofed on the text even though the computation was right -- 35 cubic feet of salt water per ton. Actually I don't think the error is quite as bad as 50%. All big warships have to be very fine especially forward to reduce the size of the bow wave. I've looked into series data that shows optimum prismatic for resistance at the 20 to 30 knot range for big ships is about 0.55. Oddly enough, Iowa class battleships have one of the nicest hulls for speed, with a prismatic below 0.6 -- maybe about .58 I think? Ryan should know this, it's in the Garzke book. (I met Mr. Garzke at a naval architecture conference in the 80's). I doubt a Russian designer would use a prismatic as high as .65. It's not feasible to use prismatics as low as .55 because then you have a hull so fine that you can't use most of it for big stuff like missile launchers or guns. So if we recompute the numbers using the metric dimensions you provided but 0.60 instead of .65, we get: 170*20.8*8.4*0.60*0.85 = 15148 cubic meters. Multiply by 1.026 to get metric tons (many European designers use 1.025 but that's rounded, the actual density is closer to 1.026) and you get a displacement of 15,542 tonnes. Still not 11,700. But the error is "only" 32%. Soviet designers never made their coefficients public. kwzieleniewski has guessed, I'm sure correctly, that the Moskva's coefficients are smaller than the typical numbers I cited. It's also common to cite "navigational draft" to the tip of the propellers. For an American WW II cruiser, this would be the same as hull draft but US cruisers usually had 4 screws until well after WW II. Wiki says Slava had only 2, but 130,000 shp, meaning each propeller will need to be big enough to go below the baseline to prevent cavitation.

[@vburke1]

It's entirely reasonable that the Moskva just simply couldn't see the Neptunes flying that low. That's one reason Tomahawks were designed to fly so low, they couldn't be separated from the ground clutter garbage. It's also entirely possible the Moskva was simply set up to see then current Harpoon behavior and just never updated for the Neptunes, probably because the money wasn't available and they never expected to be facing them. Whatever the reason, that was a damn near perfect shot right to the Moskvas engineering spaces. It's not necessary to catastrophically hole the hull if you wreck engineering. No power for damage control and, barring the availability of other ships to support, the outcome is inevitable.

[@Ystadcop]

I get the impression that this chap actually knows what he is talking about. So rare in all the present war fog.

[@alexius23]

As far as sunk Warships…the Royal Navy lost destroyers to Exocets in the Falkland War

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

Missile is probably as advanced as that. The ship was supposed to be so much more than Sheffield or Atlantic Conveyor.

[@M167A1]

@@ABrit-bt6ce doesn't matter how advanced it is if you don't use it right.

[@alexius23]

@@M167A1 that is indeed crucial