The Russian missile cruiser Moskva, which was over 600 feet long and more than 12,000 tons, was the biggest warship by tonnage to sink during conflict since World War II. As the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, it carried symbolic significance in addition to its military role, and its demise recalled great naval battles of the past that are remembered as turning points.

The last time Russia lost a flagship in wartime was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, when Japan sank the battleship Prince Suvorov during the battle of Tsushima that secured Russia’s defeat. Here’s a look at other major sinkings in 20th-century history:

World War II: the Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi
The Yamato and its sister ship, the Musashi, were the biggest and most heavily armed battleships ever built, and both were sunk by U.S. attacks in the final year of World War II. The Yamato was over 70,000 tons when fully loaded and more than 800 feet long. The ship’s name means “Japan,” giving its demise added symbolism, just as that of Moskva, Russian for “Moscow.”

The Yamato was sunk on April 7, 1945, while sailing from the Japanese mainland toward the southern island of Okinawa on a desperate mission to defend the island from American invasion. Japan’s air force had already been decimated, giving American dive bombers and torpedo-launching aircraft freedom to attack Japanese ships with little opposition.

More than a dozen torpedoes and bombs from American aircraft crippled the Yamato, and it sank rapidly, killing most of its crew of over 3,000. Four Japanese destroyers and a light cruiser were also sunk. The Musashi was sunk by American aircraft in the Philippines six months earlier during the battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in World War II.

The Yamato’s sinking marked the end of the last major naval battle in the Pacific. Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war ended four months later.

World War II: the German battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz
Germany’s Bismarck and Tirpitz were sister battleships and the largest used by a European nation in World War II, weighing over 50,000 tons at full load. The Bismarck was given the role of attacking supply convoys heading to Europe from America, but it only survived one operation.

British warships damaged the Bismarck near Iceland on May 24, 1941, and the ship sank after being crippled by other British ships and aircraft during a three-day chase that followed. Around 2,000 crew members died. The Tirpitz was sunk by British bombers while in port in Norway in November 1944, without playing a major role in the war.

Falklands War: the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano
The Moskva was slightly larger than the General Belgrano, previously the largest warship to sink during conflict since World War II. The General Belgrano was sunk on May 2, 1982, during the Falklands War, when the U.K. repelled an attempt by Argentina to seize the British-controlled islands in the southern Atlantic.

A British submarine hit the General Belgrano with two torpedoes, sinking the ship and killing more than 300 sailors. The attack was controversial because it occurred outside the 200-nautical-mile exclusion zone for Argentinian ships imposed by the U.K. around the Falklands, but it ensured British naval dominance for the remainder of the conflict.

In contrast to the air attacks and torpedoes used in earlier battles, Ukrainian officials say Neptune cruise missiles were responsible for the Moskva’s demise. Russia hasn’t given a detailed account of what happened. Dozens of ships smaller than the Moskva have been severely damaged or sunk by guided missiles since World War II, including the Iranian frigate Sahand, which sank after being hit by U.S. cruise missiles in 1988.

Write to Alastair Gale at alastair.gale@wsj.com

LINK: https://www.wsj.com/articles/r...-battles-11650021090

The First Rank Captain of 'Moskva', launched as 'Slava', went down with the ship.

Probably a wise choice, given the likely outcome of surviving to get Putain's 'welcome home'.

I've seen photos of Russia retaliation bombing of the missile sites.

I hope someone can get them more of some type of anti ship weaponry.

If this sinking of the russian flag ship was due to a accidential fire then why is it being reported that all of the russian fleet being removed from the area????? .................................... drill sgt.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Abundance of caution. Tidal issues. You know they will come up with some Russki BS.

Naval opinion from a sorta naval guy lol. Given the state of Russian ground forces it seems likely the Russian Navy is in a similar and probably worse material and training condition.

Fire fighting and damage control on a warship takes a high priority in training terms. Their fleet is unlikely to be well trained in these areas which makes any hit a huge problem. Add in the likelihood that vital systems needed to fight fires take a lot of maintenance to keep operational it is very likely that once the missile hit started a fire the ship was doomed.

Hence removing the rest of the missile sponges from being in range of ASM (anti ship missiles).

Wise move considering this is and will continue to be a ground war.

quote:

Wise move considering this is and will continue to be a ground war.

Yep, but those vessels have apparently been providing fire and other support for Russian attacks on Mariupol and other coastal objectives. Scuttlebutt on the internutz is that the other vessels have been driven 80 miles off of the coastline, which leads me to hope that the Black Sea Fleet isn't much more than a collection of targets right now.

Here's hoping they find some of those Russian mines that are apparently floating around at random in those waters.

So it did sink? Where is the video evidence, leaked or otherwise?

Did the crew survive or go down with the ship? Evidence?

I am skeptical of claims on both sides and those with agenda's, either Russian or Ukrainian in this conflict.

Admittedly I have not been following it except checking in here on occasion.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
So it did sink? Where is the video evidence, leaked or otherwise?

Did the crew survive or go down with the ship? Evidence?

I am skeptical of claims on both sides and those with agenda's, either Russian or Ukrainian in this conflict.

Admittedly I have not been following it except checking in here on occasion.

I don't trust EITHER the Ukrainians or the Ruskies. However, I have concluded the Ukrainians DID sink the ship.

The Ruskies admitted it was on fire and the crew was evac'd. The Ruskies later admitted the ship went down in 'heavy weather,' but all the crew was safely evac'd. This isn't a credible scenario to me. IF the ship suffered a magazine explosion, there most certainly would have been casualties, and "all the crew" would NOT have been evacuated. And, before they admitted it sank, they said the 'entire crew' was evacuated. From what I've read, NO ship's crew evacuates the ship until they determine it cannot be saved. The crew of the USS Cole (bombed in Yemen in 2000) did not evac. They fought to save the ship, after evacuating the injured and probably the useless (maybe some crew that had no damage control skills, such as intel, liaison folks, etc). So, if the ship was just damaged, the Ruskies would not have evacuated the entire crew. The Ruskies later said it sank in 'heavy weather.' That is very convenient, especially since I was expecting some such hogwash to explain away the sinking (confirmation bias on my part, maybe?).

Well, maybe the Ruskies' story is true, but I think it MUCH more likely they got caught with their pants down and the Ukrainians got in a lucky shot. The Ruskies would not admit their flagship was sunk so easily, and I would expect just such as BS story from them. I generally don't trust the Ukrainians, either, as BOTH sides are waging a full-out propaganda campaign. But, combining both sides of the story, I think the truth becomes evident.

Of course, I wasn't there, and accidents DO happen (like the US amphib carrier that burned in San Diego. . .).

quote:

(like the US amphib carrier that burned in San Diego.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wasn't that sabotage?

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
So it did sink? Where is the video evidence, leaked or otherwise?

Did the crew survive or go down with the ship? Evidence?

I am skeptical of claims on both sides and those with agenda's, either Russian or Ukrainian in this conflict.

Admittedly I have not been following it except checking in here on occasion.

Ukraine says they hit it with a Javeling and sunk it. Russia said the fire was simply an accident and has been contained, crew has been evacuated, and that they are considering options for towing it back to port.

The truth is likely in the middle, but it sounds like the Moskva is out of commission for a while either way. The Russians have moved other ships out of the immediate area as well, so another small win for Ukraine regardless of what actually happened to the ship.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:

Ukraine says they hit it with a Javeling and sunk it. Russia said the fire was simply an accident and has been contained, crew has been evacuated, and that they are considering options for towing it back to port.

The truth is likely in the middle, but it sounds like the Moskva is out of commission for a while either way. The Russians have moved other ships out of the immediate area as well, so another small win for Ukraine regardless of what actually happened to the ship.

It sank. Even Russia has admitted as much. It's not out of commission for just a while. It's finished for good. Kaput.

quote:

Ukraine says they hit it with a Javeling

What is a "Javeling"??? I read it was a Ukranian Neptune missile.

Shirley would enjoy seeing exactly where the hole is, and how it looks.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Abundance of caution. Tidal issues. You know they will come up with some Russki BS.

Plus, you know, storms and kraken and shit. And since while we can't know for sure what happened, we CAN know for sure that the Russians are lying about it because "it sank during a storm" and there was no storm according to satellite footage. Now whether it was a magazine explosion, cruise missile, sabotage or what, we don't know for sure yet. We do know that the Russians bombed the crap out of locations the Ukranians say the missiles were launched from so . . . And we know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is now a LONG way from the coast when it wasn't before this alleged attack.

I would be interested in knowing what, if any, NATO assets were in the area "monitoring" the situation. This is in international waters, right?

The Turks report rescuing 54 crew from the ship which then turned over and sank. The Captain First Rank, boss of the 'Moskva née Slava' went down with it. There is no mention of any other crew - out of around 510 or so.

Going down with the ship was probably a wise move by a man who must have been caught between a rock and a VERY hard place. Can you imagine what might have happened to him back in Mother Russia?

This, from Ankara -

Quote -

ANKARA
A Turkish ship evacuated 54 personnel onboard the Russian Black Sea Fleet flagship cruiser Moskva, which was reportedly hit by Ukraine, Lithuania’s Defense Minister said Thursday.
The Russian cruiser sent out a distress call at night, Arvydas Anusauskas said on Facebook.
"At 1.14 a.m., the cruiser lay on its side, and after half an hour, all the electricity went out. From 2 a.m., the Turkish ship evacuated 54 sailors from the cruiser, and at about 3 a.m., Turkiye and Romania reported that the ship had completely sunk. The related loss of Russian personnel is still unknown, although there were 485 crew on board (66 of them officers)," Anusauskas said.
Late Wednesday, Maksym Marchenko, the head of Ukraine’s Odessa Regional Military Administration, said on Telegram that the Moskva was hit with two Neptune anti-ship missiles.
"Neptune missiles guarding the Black Sea caused very serious damage to the Russian ship. Glory to Ukraine!" he said in his post.
He also claimed there were an estimated 510 crew members on board.
Russia’s Defense Ministry said Thursday that a fire had broken out on the ship and was extinguished.
"The source of the fire on the cruiser Moskva is localized. There is no open burning. Ammunition explosions stopped," the ministry said in a statement.
It said the cruiser remained afloat, its main missile armament was not damaged, and measures were being taken to tow the vessel to the port.
Later in the day, the Defense Ministry said the Moskva had sunk in a storm during towing after suffering damage to its hull from the fire.

End quote.

Soooooooooo, almost 500 crew, including 56 or 66 officers, of which 54 have been accounted for... In the West we would judge a 10% loss of personnel in a vessel of that size as a major tragedy. By way of contrast, it would seem that a 10% survival rate is a matter of congratulations for the sovs.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
Ukraine says they hit it with a Javeling and sunk it.

That would be "Javelin" and, no, Ukraine claims they hit it with two Neptune shore-based anti-ship missiles.

Javelins are terrific weapons, but I imagine a ship that size would shrug them off--unless they got a lucky hit or three.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
... it sounds like the Moskva is out of commission for a while either way.

A long while. Russia reports she sank while under tow.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
Shirley would enjoy seeing exactly where the hole is, and how it looks.

Didn't even have to be a hole or holes. The explosions, whatever their causes, could've simply sprung enough seams to let water in at a rate exceeding their pumps' capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by drill sgt:
If this sinking of the Russian flag ship was due to a accidental fire then why is it being reported that all of the russian fleet being removed from the area????? .................................... drill sgt.

People on shore are alleged to have boxes of matches...

The Russian claim that the fires were out is hogwash. The Neptune carries three times as much fuel as the Exocet, and it was the fuel from the Exocets that did the huge amounts of damage to HMS Sheffield, the Atlantic Conveyor, HMS Glamorgan, and USS Stark.

I think Moskva turned molatov cocktail, then it turned turtle.

I'll also point out to the Russians that if they've pulled their ships 80 miles off the coast, all they've bought is response time. They're only 1/3 of the way to the max range for the Neptune.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

(like the US amphib carrier that burned in San Diego.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wasn't that sabotage?

Sabotage, at first.

HOWEVER, the fire took the ship due to (from what I've read; mostly here on the Forum) massive bungling, incompetence, and VERY bad implementation of damage control by both the skeleton crew on board and the land-based fire units.

Fire is one of a ship's worst enemies, and all (competent) navies train extensively on firefighting. It wouldn't surprise me too much if this was a case where there was a small fire that grew to become uncontrollable due to incompetence. I tend to believe the missile theory, though. . .