I was reading about the multi-layered missile defence capabilities supposedly employed on the Moskva. Either Ukraine launched their entire stockpile of cruise missles at the ship to score two hits or Russian military hardware is held together by gaffa tape and myth. I'm thinking the latter.
I heard it was Stormy Sea's (although that might be a stage name) too, something about double entry with some typhoon toys below the water line and made all the Russian seamen get hot below decks and someone blew a load in the ammunition stores.....
Why does this have a 'we're not retreating, our victories are just getting progressively closer to home' vibe...
Talk was that Ukraine used a drone as a distraction over the Black Sea, having previously tested on response from ships to this action in other cases. While that was happening they launched subsonic missiles from the coast at relatively short range scoring 2 direct hits, and resulting in catastrophic knock on explosions from the ammunition onboard. The poor weather was also no coincidence, it was chosen to increase the chances of a successful attack. Remaining ships seem to have moved further away from the Ukrainian coast which would (albeit in a fairly small way) seem to back up this version of events.
TBH whoever came up with that BS is a total idiot. I mean yeah it would probably hurt egoes to accept they've lost a full on warship, but to use the excuse that it sank due to the sea is even more embarrassing. In fact surely it would be the only modern destroyer ever sank by just the sea? As you can probably tell I know F all about warships but I know they're supposed to be all but unsinkable by mother nature. Even when she's having her period.
Unless you put a ruddy great big hole or two in them, then if they're close enough to the water line the sea state does have an influence
Oh yeah but the way they're down playing any Ukrainian slap they got by just saying it sunk in rough seas is beyond daft. Must've been a wicked hit too, because they have flood doors and ballasts to keep them afloat even with severe damage. I mean ****, even cruise ships have that. So that must have been one hell of a shot tbf.
Yeah, but cruise ships don't have ammunition racks, and no amount water-tight doors are gunna help if you hit one of those.
...and yet the Costa Concordia still sank. A big enough hole in the right [wrong] place and any ship will sink. Irrespective of measures designed to prevent it.
Rustam Minnekayev has now been quoted by state news as saying taking the south of Ukraine would give access to Transinistra, again saying Russian speakers have had their rights violated. More made up nonsense to fit their aggressive narrative.
Think back to all the talk of NATO threatening Russia just by countries near Russia being members. Now think, if NATO really aimed to invade Russia, right now they could just roll in, given that the entire force of the Russian army is tied up failing so badly against a smaller neighbour. But NATO doesn't, because it has no desire, interest, intention, plan or reason to try and invade Russia.
The worry is that now they know everyone knows their conventional threat is limited the only sabre they have left to rattle is their nukes.
NATO doesn't, because NATO is a defensive alliance and, by dint of it's defining principles, has no right to invade.
Apparently a couple of explosions in Transinistra. It sounds like it was actually a couple of transmitters the Russians use to broadcast across Ukraine. No casualties by the sounds of it thankfully.
