Russian Navy Confirms Severe Damage to Black Sea Flagship, Cruiser Moskva, Crew Abandoned Ship

Russian Navy Cruiser [i]Moskva[/i]. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

The Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship has suffered major damage and the crew has abandoned the ship, state media said late Tuesday in reports following Ukrainian claims of hitting the ship with a missile strike.

The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed the mishap on RTS [i]Moskva[/i] (121), a ship in the country’s Black Sea Fleet, according to state-run outlet TASS.

[quote]The crew of the [i]Moskva[/i], the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, was severely damaged and the crew abandoned ship, the Russian Defense Ministry told TASS.

A fire broke out on the ship, causing ammunition to detonate, according to TASS. State media did not elaborate on the cause of the fire.

Ukrainian officials claimed that shore-based anti-ship guided missiles hit [i]Moskva[/i] which had been operating from the Black Sea Fleet’s headquarters in Sevastopol, Crimea.[/quote]

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship

Forbes is reporting [i]Moskva[/i] later sank, but there's no confirmation of that at this time.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@beckyromero If you want to go back to WW2, do we need to discuss how it started in the Pacific. With a carrier strike force a long way from home. And both sides used carriers to project that aggressive power to where it was needed. The other power in that war that had aircraft carriers was Britain. And while they were effective (helping to sink the Bismark for instance) they were prime targets even then.
But weapons of war have progressed. Guided Missiles, mid air refuelling drones and so much more. I stand by my original statements. That modern carriers are a way to project force , usually on a lesser opponent, well away from your home soil. In a fair fight of equals they are a juicy fat target and too expensive to lose.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

While Admiral Yamamoto recognized the power of aircraft carriers, many in the Japanese Navy did not. They felt the final battle against the Americans would be a battleship battle close to the Japanese home islands.

Of course until December 10, 1941, no battleship/battlecruiser had ever been sunk at sea by carrier or land-based aircraft. What happened off Malaya that morning was a horrible wake-up call to the Allies. Force Z had sailed without air cover and the crews of [i]Prince of Wale[/i]s and [i]Repulse[/i] paid for that fateful decision with their lives.

[quote]In a fair fight of equals they are a juicy fat target and too expensive to lose.[/quote]

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
[i]- Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, USN[/i]

walabby · 61-69, M

@whowasthatmaskedman Totally agree. Loitering torpedoes will make Carriers even more vulnerable. Autonomous munitions will totally change warfare. Switchblade 600's costing only a few thousand dollars can take out a $5 million tank with little risk to the operator.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@walabby Really what modern weapons do is change assymetrical warefare in the very manner you describe. The bottom line as Russia is demonstrating is that it can be horrendously expensive to put even modern armour and large capital equipment into a field while there is a determined man with a modern piece of ordinance in play. Even a "mercinary" outfit, the modern equivalent of the Flying Tigers in China could make the Ukraine impossible to secure. It only takes a few hundred special forces well supplied to tie down a whole army.😷

RedBaron · M

[@northwestern] So is assymetrical warefare where you pull cookware out of your butt and use it against the enemy? Or do you actually mean ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE and don't know how to verify the spelling? Google is your friend.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@RedBaron Thank you so much for correcting my typo(s). Pardon me while I die of shame. Thank goodness you have enough time in your busy day for correct me on such an important point. I suppose I should be grateful you didnt spot the spelling error in Mercenary as well..😷

KiwiBird · 36-40, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@KiwiBird I made the mistakes and I will wear them, usually without comment. He caught me at a bad moment.😷

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@KiwiBird I have seen only a handful of supermarkets that restrict items in the express checkout to ’12 items or fewer’

Most say ’12 items or less’... and it fills me with a terrible, black, rage!

If you need to measure, it’s less
If you need to count, it’s fewer

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@newjaninev2 And again we ignore the REAL issue of the ignorant customer with a trolley load who goes through the express lane with 50 or more articles and doesnt get challenged on it. Let alone the firing squad they so richly deserve..😷

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@whowasthatmaskedman Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put 😀

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@newjaninev2 Split infinitives anyone?😷

WandererTony · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 they consume less space to write "less" since "fewer" does not have fewer no of alphabets. 😀

RedBaron · M

@whowasthatmaskedman Assymetrical warefare was more fun.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@whowasthatmaskedman [quote]Split infinitives[/quote]

At this point ‘to boldly go’ reliably brings in a plethora of Star Trek fans 😂