Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
i am so happy I have nothing to do with Twitter, Facebook or any other like social media crap ......
 
M

Mojo Navigator

Junior Audioholic
I have discovered Russia's military strategy:

"Man's highest joy is in victory: to conquer one's enemies; to pursue them; to deprive them of their possessions; to make their beloved weep; to ride on their horses; and to embrace their wives and daughters."
Genghis Khan


It's no surprise that the Mongols subjugated the Kievan Rus in the 13th Century and afterwards the Russians adopted Genghis' war strategy. Not to disregard the deliberate impregnation of all subjugated women. Many Russians carry his DNA to this very day.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Tonight, I was reminded, no exposed and taught is a better descriptor about Finland, a nation of 4million being invaded by USSR with 180 million way back when and now called Winter War, 1939.

Winter War - Wikipedia

First excursion by Russia Finland cleaned their clocks. Russia regrouped and sent in 1/2 million troops.

Now Russia is threatening Finland or other parts of Europe if they join NATO. Putlin needs to read more history books. :eek:
Perhaps the Russians have forgotten the origin of the term "Molotov cocktail"?

>>>The name "Molotov cocktail" (Molotovin koktaili) originated during the 1939 Winter War as a Finnish pejorative eponym.<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The present situation reminds me of what Kissinger said in his PhD thesis in 1954:

>>>IN the first pages of A World Restored, Kissinger confronted abstractly the 1938 debacle at Munich, in which the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a progressive reformer who sought peace in order to concentrate on Britain's domestic problems, allowed Hitler to occupy the Bohemian borderlands of Czechoslovakia.
Those ages which in retrospect seem most peaceful were least in search of peace.... Whenever peace -- conceived as the avoidance of war -- has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community.. . .

"'Appeasement,'" Kissinger concluded, "is the result of an inability to come to grips with a policy of unlimited objectives." A few pages later, for good measure, he added,

Coalitions against revolutions have usually come about only at the end of a long series of betrayals ... for the powers which represent legitimacy ... cannot "know" that their antagonist is not amenable to "reason" until he has demonstrated [that he is not].... And he will not have demonstrated it until the international system is already overturned.<<<
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
The present situation reminds me of what Kissinger said in his PhD thesis in 1954:

>>>IN the first pages of A World Restored, Kissinger confronted abstractly the 1938 debacle at Munich, in which the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a progressive reformer who sought peace in order to concentrate on Britain's domestic problems, allowed Hitler to occupy the Bohemian borderlands of Czechoslovakia.
Much to close too a reminder of today visa vi Russia & China. Reminds me of the old adage, "When a tolerant culture is confronted by an intolerant culture, the latter usually wins".

As in the 1930s, the Chamberlain gov't was focused on domestic issues and intentionally, or not, ignored the international threat. Hitler could have been stopped many times but the easiest opportunity was in March 1936 when he denounced the Locarno Pact and retook the Rhineland valley. The German army was weak at that time but France and the UK did effectively nothing. Two years later, Austria and Czechoslovakia were absorbed.

We in the West are focused on our smartphones and secondary issues while the real threats rise.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Various OSINT sources are buzzing about this reported missile strike on the Russian missile cruiser Moskva, but I have not seen any verification yet. I believe there are (were?) only three Slava-class cruisers in operation.

There were earlier reports (second link below) that all three had been in the region in an effort to counter the U.S. navy.

>>>If the strike is confirmed, it would suggest that Ukraine's anti-ship missile inventory is capable of penetrating heavy air defenses. Among Soviet-era vessels, Moskva is the hardest of targets, possessing three fire-control radars, two search radars, two heavy antiaircraft cannons, six 30mm CIWS cannons, 20 short-range surface-to-air missiles and 64 long-range air defense missiles.<<<


>>>Three Russian guided-missile cruisers have been arrayed across the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea to counter three NATO carrier strike groups, causing concern in the Pentagon, a U.S. defense official told USNI News on Tuesday.

As of Monday, the three Slava-class cruisers were operating in and around the Aegean Sea – RTS Moskva (121) in the Black Sea, RTS Marshal Ustinov (055) south of Italy and RFS Varyag (011) off the coast of Syria, near Russia’s naval base in Tartus.<<<

 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Various OSINT sources are buzzing about this reported missile strike on the Russian missile cruiser Moskva, but I have not seen any verification yet. I believe there are (were?) only three Slava-class cruisers in operation.

There were earlier reports (second link below) that all three had been in the region in an effort to counter the U.S. navy.

>>>If the strike is confirmed, it would suggest that Ukraine's anti-ship missile inventory is capable of penetrating heavy air defenses. Among Soviet-era vessels, Moskva is the hardest of targets, possessing three fire-control radars, two search radars, two heavy antiaircraft cannons, six 30mm CIWS cannons, 20 short-range surface-to-air missiles and 64 long-range air defense missiles.<<<


>>>Three Russian guided-missile cruisers have been arrayed across the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea to counter three NATO carrier strike groups, causing concern in the Pentagon, a U.S. defense official told USNI News on Tuesday.

As of Monday, the three Slava-class cruisers were operating in and around the Aegean Sea – RTS Moskva (121) in the Black Sea, RTS Marshal Ustinov (055) south of Italy and RFS Varyag (011) off the coast of Syria, near Russia’s naval base in Tartus.<<<

It's too bad Russia chose the path - well, the path the kleptocrats chose - she's on when the USSR dissolved. At the time, it seemed like we were reaching "the end of history", as Francis Fukuyama optimistically - and incorrectly - put it.

When Marshal Ustinov visited Halifax in 1993, they opened her up to the public for tours, although we only got to look around the upper decks. She looked quite intimidating from afar, bristling with guns and missile launchers. But, up close, I could see how crudely built she was - welds were of inconsistent quality and not a straight line to be seen. I guess "fit and finish" was a foreign concept. That said, I had no reason to believe she wasn't as deadly as she appeared.

Russian Warships Dock In Canada For First Time In 51 Years | AP News

Even though Russia isn't presently a shining example of sound fiscal management, in 1993, she was an utter basket case. Our government paid for the fuel she needed for her trip. The public was asked to donate care packages (toothpaste/brushes, shampoo, razors, chocolate, etc) for the Russian crewmembers when they came to tour the ship.

A guy I know actually took a couple of the crew home and treated them to a BBQ, then took them for a walkaround tour. They were walking past a seedy bar, when the Russians became gob-smacked by the row of Harley Davidsons parked outside. My friend had to stop the guys from sitting on them for photos - they were Hells Angels' bikes.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
It's too bad Russia chose the path - well, the path the kleptocrats chose - she's on when the USSR dissolved. At the time, it seemed like we were reaching "the end of history", as Francis Fukuyama optimistically - and incorrectly - put it.

When Marshal Ustinov visited Halifax in 1993, they opened her up to the public for tours, although we only got to look around the upper decks. She looked quite intimidating from afar, bristling with guns and missile launchers. But, up close, I could see how crudely built she was - welds were of inconsistent quality and not a straight line to be seen. I guess "fit and finish" was a foreign concept. That said, I had no reason to believe she wasn't as deadly as she appeared.

Russian Warships Dock In Canada For First Time In 51 Years | AP News

Even though Russia isn't presently a shining example of sound fiscal management, in 1993, she was an utter basket case. Our government paid for the fuel she needed for her trip. The public was asked to donate care packages (toothpaste/brushes, shampoo, razors, chocolate, etc) for the Russian crewmembers when they came to tour the ship.

A guy I know actually took a couple of the crew home and treated them to a BBQ, then took them for a walkaround tour. They were walking past a seedy bar, when the Russians became gob-smacked by the row of Harley Davidsons parked outside. My friend had to stop the guys from sitting on them for photos - they were Hells Angels' bikes.
My initial impression is that the Slava class cruisers themselves are fairly crude, but the anti-ship missiles appear to be fairly sophisticated.

>>>[T]he P-1000 Vulkan has been a part of Russia’s effort to modernize its navy’s missile capabilities. The P-1000 Vulkan features titanium armor and parts, instead of the heavier steel components comprising its predecessor. . . . The P-1000 Vulkan is launched in a salvo, where one missile acts as a scout to discriminate targets, and can prioritize the largest ship in a fleet. The scout seeker missile flies at an altitude between 5000-7000m to identify targets, while the other three maintain mid-level altitude. All four missiles in the salvo then go silent and lower to about 10-40 meters above sea-level to avoid radar detection. Once they reach the radar horizon, the missiles lock on to their targets and attack.<<<


The one (operational?) Russian aircraft carrier seems to be notorious for being a floating (at least so far) breakdown looking for a place to happen. The U.S. navy was apparently more concerned about it sinking than about it attacking anything.

>>>In any case, Admiral Kuznetsov isn't likely to survive past the 2020s—when the Kremlin is expected to retire her. Until then, there’s little doubt the U.S. and its allies will keep a close eye, in case the aging flattop becomes a hazard to herself, her crew and anyone nearby.<<<


Here's a quote from the article linked to in the above link:

>>[W]hen Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, sailed for Syria well over a year ago, a source close to the U.S. Navy told me that the American Sixth Fleet was on hand in case of an emergency. What kind of emergency? “The Kuznetsov might sink.”<<<


The Daily Beast article (2017) is also somewhat interesting, and discusses the corruption in Russia:

>>>In 2011, Transparency International’s Bribe Paying Index ranked Russia as the worst in the world for perceived likeliness for palm-greasing. About 16 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product—$300 billion out of $1.5 trillion—is frittered away annually in corruption schemes.

It seems highly likely, then, that Russia’s military modernization program will similarly devolve into a racket. . . .

. . . Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s security services . . . agrees that military modernizatsiia is a convenient cover for greasing the palms of Russia’s already surfeited officer class. “Efforts to build a million-man army and massive new procurement programs seem to be mechanisms to keep generals in work and transfer tax money to the defense-industrial sector and corrupt managers and middlemen rather than having any bearing on Russia’s genuine security needs,” Galeotti said, citing as the most pressing security need, the rise of a domestic ultra-nationalist far right—which has taken to riots and pogroms against migrant workers in recent months—and a more muscular China. <<<

The conclusions of the Daily Beast article are, however, not especially prescient:

>>>All of this suggests that the more immediate threat that a re-energized and revanchist Russia poses to the West isn’t advancing armies or aerial assaults but a sophisticated combination of hard and soft power plays that have become something of a Putinist stock-in-trade. These will include new trade wars, cyber attacks, acts of espionage, energy blackmails, and a more updated version of what the KGB used to term “active measures,” that is, the spreading of misinformation and propaganda, designed to make Russia’s enemies—chiefly Washington and Brussels—look bad. So while Russia’s military strives toward great-power worthiness unto 2020, Moscow’s old hostilities will be dealt with using familiar old methods.<<<
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Various OSINT sources are buzzing about this reported missile strike on the Russian missile cruiser Moskva, but I have not seen any verification yet. I believe there are (were?) only three Slava-class cruisers in operation.
The latest word from CNN says that Ukraine claims to have hit the Moskva with two anti-ship cruise missiles. They further claim that subsequent fires detonated ammunition stored on the ship, the crew has evacuated, and the ship has overturned and is sinking. Russia admits only that "fire on board the ship led the crew to evacuate … and that the ship is significantly damaged but remains afloat."

The Washington Post reports:
Russia said its top warship in the Black Sea sustained significant damage from a fire that detonated ammunition on board — while Ukraine continued to claim that it struck and sank the ship in a cruise missile attack. As conflicting reports swirled about the fate of Russia’s flagship — the missile cruiser Moskva — analysts said the episode could boost the morale of beleaguered Ukrainian forces and deal a symbolic blow to Russia as the invasion stretches into its 50th day.

The Pentagon said at least one major explosion “caused extensive damage to the ship,” but it said the Moskva “remains afloat.” A spokesman could not confirm or rule out Ukraine’s claims that it struck the ship with a Neptune anti-ship cruise missile and that bad weather and “a powerful explosion of ammunition” then caused the ship to start sinking. Russia acknowledged significant damage to the ship but said the fire was extinguished and the crew evacuated.
Any ship where internal ammunition magazines explode, and the ship capsizes is having a very bad day. Perhaps it's last day.
When Marshal Ustinov visited Halifax in 1993, they opened her up to the public for tours, although we only got to look around the upper decks. She looked quite intimidating from afar, bristling with guns and missile launchers. But, up close, I could see how crudely built she was - welds were of inconsistent quality and not a straight line to be seen. I guess "fit and finish" was a foreign concept. That said, I had no reason to believe she wasn't as deadly as she appeared.
If this matters, the Russian Navy would not be the first navy to emphasize a ship's striking power over it's ability to survive damage and overall sea-worthy-ness.
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
The Russian Navy would not be the first navy to emphasize a ship's striking power over it's ability to survive damage and overall sea-worthy-ness.
I didn't mean to imply that she was poorly built or that the lack of attention to detail in assembly contributed to any practical deficiency. The T-34 tank and AK-47 are famous (infamous?) for their crude assembly and fit n' finish. Nevertheless, they were very effective for their intended purposes.

The battlecruisers of WW1 were certainly infamous for being armed as battleships, but with the armour thickness of cruisers, in order to gain a speed advantage. Some of them paid dearly for that compromise.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
The battlecruisers of WW1 were certainly infamous for being armed as battleships, but with the armour thickness of cruisers, in order to gain a speed advantage. Some of them paid dearly for that compromise.
There were a lot of issues the British faced that day. Lax safety standards for handling powder didn’t help anything. The lyddite bursters in their AP shells were too sensitive to impact (later replaced by shellite in Greenboy shells post-Jutland), putting the Brits at a disadvantage. Of course, their German counterparts were expected to fight in a battle line, and were armored appropriately as well…
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
There were a lot of issues the British faced that day. Lax safety standards for handling powder didn’t help anything. The lyddite bursters in their AP shells were too sensitive to impact (later replaced by shellite in Greenboy shells post-Jutland), putting the Brits at a disadvantage. Of course, their German counterparts were expected to fight in a battle line, and were armored appropriately as well…
All too true. One of the best overall battleships of its time, before the Missouri Class, was the The Bismarck. The Germans thought of just about everything in its design, tradeoffs of armour for speed, number of 15 inch guns, etc. How was she sunk? A lucky stern torpedo shot from a Swordfish torpedo bi plane, which was considered obsolete at the time, jammed one of the rudders. The Bismarck could not help but steam around in circles until the rest of the British Navy showed up to finish her off. The Swordfish, although consider obsolete in 1939 served with great distinction during the war. Nothing against the Brits, but in war, luck is a factor.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I didn't mean to imply that she was poorly built or that the lack of attention to detail in assembly contributed to any practical deficiency.
Right. And I didn't mean to imply that. I simply quoted your comment because it was an easy way to make my next comment.

More recent reports suggested that the Moskva was still afloat, under way (with it's own power or towed?) to Sevastopol. However, the latest CNN news report says (4:39 pm Eastern time) that Russia now admits the Moskva has indeed sunk, but never mentions the cruise missile attack.
"During the towing of the cruiser Moskva to the port of destination, the ship lost its stability due to hull damage received during a fire from the detonation of ammunition. In the conditions of stormy seas, the ship sank," the statement said, according to TASS.
Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
All too true. One of the best overall battleships of its time, before the Missouri Class, was the The Bismarck. The Germans thought of just about everything in its design, tradeoffs of armour for speed, number of 15 inch guns, etc. How was she sunk? A lucky stern torpedo shot from a Swordfish torpedo bi plane, which was considered obsolete at the time, jammed one of the rudders. The Bismarck could not help but steam around in circles until the rest of the British Navy showed up to finish her off. The Swordfish, although consider obsolete in 1939 served with great distinction during the war. Nothing against the Brits, but in war, luck is a factor.
It certainly helped the British that the Bismarck was one ship with no air cover, against the massed strength of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force (Both the torpedo planes on the RN carrier and the search planes that located the Bismark were RAF).

By 1941, the Royal Navy still hadn't learned the lesson that warships were sitting ducks if they were without their own air cover, but within range of enemy air forces. Two days after Pearl Harbor, they lost two modern battleships off Malaya because some boneheaded admiral was arrogant enough to believe his ships could withstand air attack.

During the Falkland's Island War this was demonstrated all over again, but with cruise missiles instead of airplanes. Similar results.

The Brits would certainly correct us – it's the Royal Navy, not the British Navy ;).
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
The damaged Russian flagship posted about above has sunk. Good riddance.

From live reporting by New York Times.


>>>
April 14, 2022, 4:06 p.m. ET

Michael Schwirtz
Reporting from Ukraine

The Russian Defense Ministry says its naval flagship Moskva has sunk in the Black Sea while being towed in a storm. Ukraine had claimed it hit the cruiser with a missile strike. Moscow denied the ship had been hit by missiles, but acknowledged it was on fire.
<<<
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Yes, the Moskva has sunk. The missiles that did the job were built in the Ukraine. Good work Ukrainians. Russia falsely claims the ammo spontaneously detonated. Either way they look incompetent and stupid.

Their are unconfirmed reports in the UK, that Russian claims no sailors died are false. The reports state that 300 to 500 Russian sailors may have been killed.
It is highly unlikely that their were no casualties if the ship was damaged enough to sink being towed back to port.

Comments in the UK are hilarious, especially the ones replying to obvious Russian Bots.

This is going to be hard for Putler and cronies to explain to the Russian people. All it will take is 20 to 30% of the population to turn on him and he will have a serious problem on his hands.

This is a laugh out loud serious set back for the Russians.

This is a loss of a major naval asset. Good work Ukraine.

This is a great comment.

"Good news Comrades, the fire on the Moskva has been extinguished."





This is the sort of event that can turn the tide of a war. The Russians now truly look like the fools they are!
 
Last edited:
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
All too true. One of the best overall battleships of its time, before the Missouri Class, was the The Bismarck. The Germans thought of just about everything in its design, tradeoffs of armour for speed, number of 15 inch guns, etc. How was she sunk? A lucky stern torpedo shot from a Swordfish torpedo bi plane, which was considered obsolete at the time, jammed one of the rudders. The Bismarck could not help but steam around in circles until the rest of the British Navy showed up to finish her off. The Swordfish, although consider obsolete in 1939 served with great distinction during the war. Nothing against the Brits, but in war, luck is a factor.
Have you ever read the full story of the Bismarck? It’s a comedy of errors and unfortunate events for both the RN and the Germans. For example, Hood and Prince of Wales were initially in a strong position, set to cross the German T, and an expected intercept time / position that would have a rising sun behind them, which would have made optical range finding more difficult. They also had destroyer escorts, which could have been quite useful in an engagement. Then contact was lost… Hood and POW had to race to intercept, leaving the destroyers behind, and essentially reversing the desired positions. Naturally the British cruisers that had been shadowing the Bismarck showed up for the battle…and did absolutely nothing.

Then of course, there was the matter of the lucky torpedo hit, made possible by the German admiral sending a long radio message, believing his tail was already in the ringer when the British had lost contact again. Naturally the British initially screwed up locating the Bismarck for a bit after that, and had nothing in position that could effectively engage except aircraft. So what do they do? Try and torpedo a RN cruiser in a (thankfully failed) friendly fire incident.o_O

Re: the Bismarck’s design, there was good and bad. It essentially utilized a spaced array armor system, which was a slightly beefed up version of what was on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. While it was extremely difficult to put a shell in its machinery and magazine spaces due to the layout, there were potential vulnerabilities due to the main armored deck sitting so low in the ship. IIRC, the British got their hands on some design details after Bismarck was sunk and a few crew members were rescued with it. Their remarks weren’t particularly flattering, and noted that it would be especially vulnerable to semi-armor piercing munitions. While these would fail to penetrate the main armor deck, the shock would likely create major problems for gun mounts, machinery, etc. Indeed, a piddly 500 pound GP bomb successfully penetrated down to the main armored deck on (I believe) Gneisenau, and the resulting detonation made a small hole in the armored deck, and sent a shower of splinters below. Not exactly what you’d expect on a ~30,000 ton warship.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top