First sinking of a military ship since the Belgrano in the falklands war

Who do you believe? Interesting question when you consider Russia on paper to be one of the biggest and most well trained nations in the world.
Only last week a Russian Military drone was shot down and they found a Canon DSLR camera fitted into it, with the fabric of the drone looking like it was compiled by a model shop!
This week we are to believe the MOSKVA missile Cruiser was sunk by a Ukranian land to ship missile.
I would favour incompetence on board that led to the sinking, it seems to be indemic in all its Forces, so badly trained and not fit for purpose or am I wrong?. Their Military generally it appears to me, do not appear to have the appetite for this unecessary war against their fellow Slavs.
This is Reuters take on the sinking, the last sinking of a military cruiser since the Falklands War:

Russia has confirmed the Moskva missile cruiser, the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, has sunk while being towed to port following what it said was a fire and explosions involving ammunition stowed onboard.

Ukraine says the Moskva's fate was sealed by a missile strike launched by its forces from the coast which ripped open the hulking Soviet-era ship's hull. Russia's defence ministry has not confirmed that version of events. Reuters is unable to verify either side's assertions.

Here's what we do know, and what the sinking means (and does not mean) for Russia's battle-readiness:

WHAT CAPABILITIES DOES THE SINKING DEPRIVE RUSSIA OF?

Russia has powerful air defence systems deployed in Crimea, which it seized from Ukraine in 2014, but the Moskva was able to provide long-range and mobile air defence protection for the entire Black Sea Fleet and was a floating command and control centre. Its loss potentially leaves the fleet more exposed, particularly on longer range missions west of Crimea.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CREW?

The ship had a crew of around 500 sailors who Russia said were successfully evacuated to other ships before being returned to their home port of Sevastopol in Crimea on Friday. Ukraine has suggested there are likely to have been fatalities, but Russia has not said anything on the subject yet.

Make your own minds up, bearing in mind proporganda works two ways when sides clash!!

Maybe it’s a combination of what both sides are saying.

Ukraine launched a missile that landed a lucky strike straight to the ammunition magazine of the cruiser.

Maybe we can isolate the only underlying confirmable fact...the ship is on the bottom of the sea. Isn't this really the only thing that matters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssgross

Isn't this really the only thing that matters?

---

Yup!!

Certainly is, but be nice to know how successful the UK and U.S. hardware was doing in operational circumstances for the future.....................................what happens when you corner an injured animal? As sure as dark after daylight he will use is only option!

The ship had 16 cruise missile launching tubes. Did any of those cruise missiles have nuclear warheads?
Was the ship nuclear or conventionally powered?

Has the Glomar Explorer passed through the Dardanelles yet?

Not sure whether its in International waters.
The last Royal Navy Diver Lt Cmdr "Buster"Lionel Kenneth Phillip Crabb, OBE, GM, known as was a Royal Navy frogman who vanished during a reconnaissance mission for MI6 underneath a Soviet cruiser berthed at Portsmouth Dockyard in 1956.
His headless body was found soon after!!
So glad my diving days are over as I bet there are things on there they don't want the west to know about.................particulary the double flushing toilet or the nuclear bread maker:lol:

The ship was in a war zone and it does make one question what state of alert the ship was in. Was anyone onboard watching the radar screens? Were the watertight doors shut? Was everyone wearing anti-flash kit?

Those of us old enough to remember the "Cold War" will remember that the standard Soviet response to bad news was, initially, to deny everything but with President Putin's Russia it is like the old Soviet response "on steroids" when things don't go to plan.

US news states that two Neptune missiles were fired at the Russian ship from land base launchers

I meant my last comment tongue in cheek from the perspective of those fighting on the ground. All these other questions are of course good and valuable, but from this perspective (and the question of distinguishing fact from propaganda), they are what we always called S.E.P. (somebody else's problem).

Really hard to tell what is going on in this war. I don't trust either side very much. The Russians the least. I expect that the ship was indeed hit by two Ukranian missiles as they claim. The Russians then screwed up the damage control and lost the ship due to that. Either way, it's a valid Ukrainian claim on sinking the ship. This ship was central to protecting the other Russian ships in the area so its loss is a severe one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Really hard to tell what is going on in this war. I don't trust either side very much. The Russians the least. I expect that the ship was indeed hit by two Ukranian missiles as they claim. The Russians then screwed up the damage control and lost the ship due to that. Either way, it's a valid Ukrainian claim on sinking the ship. This ship was central to protecting the other Russian ships in the area so its loss is a severe one.

---

Yep, plus the fact that the following day the Russians attacked the factories near Kviv, where it claimed the missiles that supposedly didn't hit the ship were made :lol:

Again it looks a superb engagement by the Ukrainians, using that drone to distract the Russians and launch 6 Neptune's to attack from the opposite direction, with likely at least 2 of the 6 finding the target.
Its a shame that the Ukraine AF have likely not got the air assets left to take advantage of the very big hole that is now in the Russian fleet air defense with the loss of the Moskva.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

The ship had 16 cruise missile launching tubes. Did any of those cruise missiles have nuclear warheads?
Was the ship nuclear or conventionally powered?

---

The missile tubes on the Moskva were not for cruise missiles, they were for Vulkan anti-ship missiles. The Moskva wasn't really designed for ship to shore attack, but ship to ship.
It was conventionally powered, and ironically it was built in a Ukraine shipyard 40 years ago.

An important point reported by France 24, who were discussing this issue. If the ship sunk due to a fire on board that was not caused by a missile strike; why did the Russians move all the other ships away from the coast!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

I expect that the ship was indeed hit by two Ukranian missiles as they claim. The Russians then screwed up the damage control and lost the ship due to that.

---

Probably the most likely scenario. I did wonder if there had been a fire onboard before the ship got hit by missiles. If there had been a fire onboard the ship could have been more vulnerable.

It's interesting, I believe the Neptune missile is a relatively old anti ship missile, with a simple radar seeker, akin to the early block Harpoon missile.

It's fired in the direction of its target and at a pre designated range, the radar turns on and simply locks onto the biggest target it can see...

The Russians probably thought it was stationed sufficiently far from the coast that the Ukrainians couldn't accurately enough target the ship, RAF and USAF RC135's and other NATO assets, might have been a tad 'indiscreet' and given the Ukrainians a very accurate patch of Black Sea that they might want to send a few missiles into..

Here's the thing re the Russian Navy, it's been widely known since the 1960's that their Warships are absolute death traps, unlike say the Royal and US Navies, we're everyone is trained in fire fighting, Russian ships have very few trained personnel, even less equipment and it's poorly maintained.

Add to that, refits over 40 years have seen holes cut into watertight bulkheads and cabling passed through (I kid you not), I have it on good authority that's standard practice in Russian Navy...

All in all floating coffins for their crews...

Like the rest of the Russian Armed forces, impressive on paper, but in reality, little better than useless....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

It's interesting, I believe the Neptune missile is a relatively old anti ship missile, with a simple radar seeker, akin to the early block Harpoon missile.

---

It's only been in service for barely 12 months!

Whilst it's based on an older Soviet design (Kh-35) the Ukranians have redesigned it with a substantially increased range and modern and vastly improved electronics, and were very clever in keeping quiet about the results of its testing in the years after Russia's annexation of Crimea, which clearly hastened its development.

Thanks for the clarification. While they can increase range by swapping out/ modifying the engine and adding additional fuel, I would think the electronic modifications are probably limited.

Perhaps limited to increasing the radars range, slightly, maybe changing the missiles attack profile.

Incorporating significant 'new' features like ignoring decoys or selecting specific targets would be considerably more difficult and add a whole level of very expensive and highly specialised engineering..

I don't think they could do this in the 2014 to now timescale, without very significant Foreign assistance.

Like everyone, I look at the approaching May 9th with a degree of discomfort. Putin will want to make a major announcement of 'victory' by then and will consider it a line in the sand.

He will hopefully settle for a land corridor to the Crimea and start winding down the the war, a deeply unpalatable outcome, but possibly the best we can hope for...

Or, he will go 'all in' I don't even want to think what that might look like!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Thanks for the clarification. While they can increase range by swapping out/ modifying the engine and adding additional fuel, I would think the electronic modifications are probably limited.

Perhaps limited to increasing the radars range, slightly, maybe changing the missiles attack profile.

Incorporating significant 'new' features like ignoring decoys or selecting specific targets would be considerably more difficult and add a whole level of very expensive and highly specialised engineering..

I don't think they could do this in the 2014 to now timescale, without very significant Foreign assistance.

---

Its one of the things Ukraine has plenty of knowledge and expertise in. An lot of the former Soviet arms factories and design bureau's were in the Ukraine, and since Russia's annexing of Crimea, Ukraine have cut off all support and supply to Russia for stuff that Russia was still relying on Ukraine for. And not just electronics, as Russia had no indigenous marine gas turbine design and manufacture, for all its Naval fleets, it all this came for the Ukraine, and so post Crimea annexation, has had to start that from scratch!
In fact the electronic's industry in Ukraine is such that many European car makers had turned to Ukraine in recent years for supply of electronic components and wiring looms, including Ford, Porsche & BMW, such that these firms have had to invoke production line shutdowns due to stoppage of parts coming out of Ukraine since the start of the war.

OK............if one believes they did indeed launch a missile or two at the ship, we are led to believe that they had the best of the best on that ship as their main C&C centre in the Black Sea,.
All our NATO ships have the Phalanx CIWS "sea-wiz" fitted which is a close-in weapon system for defence against incoming threats such as small boats, surface torpedoes, anti-ship missiles.
Did something fail or did they not have it fitted??

One wonders whether Leading Seaman Gugarin in the galley had to run up top and chuck a bag full of silver foil as their Chaf repellant as missile warnings went off :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

OK............if one believes they did indeed launch a missile or two at the ship, we are led to believe that they had the best of the best on that ship as their main C&C centre in the Black Sea,.
All our NATO ships have the Phalanx CIWS "sea-wiz" fitted which is a close-in weapon system for defence against incoming threats such as small boats, surface torpedoes, anti-ship missiles.
Did something fail or did they not have it fitted??

---

Mosckva supposedly had 6 x AK-630 CIWS fitted, so one does wonder how well trained (or not) the Russian Navy really is, or how good its CIWS system really is, or the combination of both?
I think it's becoming clear, that the Russian 'best of the best' isn't really that much cop. How many of the 500 crew are short term conscripts and how many are regular trained Navy? The Russian Navy is supposed to have suffered the most in the post-USSR brake-up, and perhaps the fate of the Moskva shows this up. Isn't there a rumour going around that the Black Sea Fleet Admiral has since been arrested by the FSB?

I think the key here really is targeting, the Ukrainians were obviously given very accurate targeting information.

A friend of a friend did his full 25 years in the Navy and actually visited several Russian warships during the 90's, when we were all friends...

His verdict, absolute death traps and a total horror show. He's the guy who alerted me to big holes cut through bulkheads with cables loosely fed through, virtually no firefighting equipment etc...

That was over 20 years ago, so you can imagine how bad it is now!

As I believe the Turks have closed off the entrance to the Black Sea to Russian Warships, the Russians can't replace her with a replacement Maritime C4 asset either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

I think the key here really is targeting, the Ukrainians were obviously given very accurate targeting information.

---

Very likely.

If they are still in the system from the '70s, their conscripts are in for two years. As I understand it, they were grouped in "classes" for the four half-years of their service. They got a really quick military indoctrination and went right out to the fleet, where they begin on-the-job training for their specialty. By that system they didn't have a cadre' of retained petty officers so the oldest class at any moment served as their enlisted leaders.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

A friend of a friend did his full 25 years in the Navy and actually visited several Russian warships during the 90's, when we were all friends...

His verdict, absolute death traps and a total horror show. He's the guy who alerted me to big holes cut through bulkheads with cables loosely fed through, virtually no firefighting equipment etc...

That was over 20 years ago, so you can imagine how bad it is now!

---

It was an old ship as well, from launch date to sinking, it was only 1 year younger than the Belgrano was at the time of its sinking in the Falklands War....:eek:

Although the Moskva spent nearly 8 years (1990-1998) undergoing a refit in the Ukraine shipyard she had been built at.

There are now photos and a short video clip - not much doubt of the cause.

If it has been plastering innocent areas in the cities of Odesa and Mariopol on the south side of Ukraine with its varied weaponry, it deserves to be at the bottom of the sea IMHO.

Nothing worse than shelling civilian areas with nothing to do with defence and a complete waste of life.

On top of all this their tally of Generals being taken out is unbelievable.
Today yet another top Commander Colonel Ivan Grishin of Russia's 49th Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, is reported to have been the latest high-ranking officer to have been killed in a massive blow to Moscow on the 16th. He is said to have been killed in the Russian border town of Smolensk on Saturday.

If this keeps up, he'll need to sit down and talk peace with compromise on land, which is what he has always wanted, in a corridor down the south east side of Ukraine with access to his own yacht in the Black Sea. Soon he will have no experienced leaders left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

It was an old ship

---

Yes, an old ship will always be an old ship no matter how many refits it's had and how much new kit has been put on it. The Russian navy could have replaced it with a new ship years ago that was more efficient, needed less crew and perhaps had greater fire power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

If it has been plastering innocent areas in the cities of Odesa and Mariopol on the south side of Ukraine with its varied weaponry, it deserves to be at the bottom of the sea IMHO.
...snip...

---

My understanding is that Moskva was air defence for the ballistic and cruise missile armed ships, and command and control with it's sensor suite.

Having said that Russia has run thru all of it's available modern missiles, and probably won't have the ability to produce sufficient restock to engage
in offensive opperations for several years.

When Russia accepted 91 of their latest ship launched missiles in 2019 at the height of their re armament campaign - and they've launched some 1500+ of them at $800,000 each....

Even I can do that math...

Looking at the news this morning, the Russians are going all out to grab as much of the east as they can.

They will probably want to declare Operations over on May 9th and declare a Victory, so we can expect Putin to pull every possible brutal means out of the box as the clocks ticking....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Looking at the news this morning, the Russians are going all out to grab as much of the east as they can.

They will probably want to declare Operations over on May 9th and declare a Victory, so we can expect Putin to pull every possible brutal means out of the box as the clocks ticking....

---

Back in beginning of Feb on another forum, I posted this map, which I said I think this is probably their target to occupy. I thought they would strike a pincer from Crimea in the south and up the east side of the River Dnipro to Dnipro, and down from the north around Kharkiv and cut off the Ukraine forces in the east and Donbas......

Attachment 125656

After they bizarre false start and push on Kyiv etc as well as stalled effort in the south, I think they will now consolidate and do close to this prediction now.
If the Russians have dropped the bridges over the Dnipro early, it will be difficult for the Ukrainians to reinforce and supply their forces in the east, and avoid them getting cut-off.

Interesting, slightly speculative, link:

Sinking of the Moskva: Damage Assessment - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Back in beginning of Feb on another forum, I posted this map, which I said I think this is probably their target to occupy. I thought they would strike a pincer from Crimea in the south and up the east side of the River Dnipro to Dnipro, and down from the north around Kharkiv and cut off the Ukraine forces in the east and Donbas......

Attachment 125656

After they bizarre false start and push on Kyiv etc as well as stalled effort in the south, I think they will now consolidate and do close to this prediction now.
If the Russians have dropped the bridges over the Dnipro early, it will be difficult for the Ukrainians to reinforce and supply their forces in the east, and avoid them getting cut-off.

---

You may be correct but I do not believe that any Ukrainian will accept any sort of "peace-deal" that involves Russia retaining any Ukrainian territory that it has seized, including Crimea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

You may be correct but I do not believe that any Ukrainian will accept any sort of "peace-deal" that involves Russia retaining any Ukrainian territory that it has seized, including Crimea.

---

Absolutely, and I think the Russian behavior and wanton destructions and murdering of civilians has likely hardened even some of the Russian speaking Ukrainian's to be now against the Russians and any occupation, bar the few that have have already joined forces with the Russians in the very beginning.

Ukraine have to try and hold out for another 2-3 weeks in the east, until beyond May 9th, as that clearly is a red line for Pootin because of the symbolic nature of the date.

It makes infinite sense to give him what he has always wanted which is a safe working corridor down the eastern side from Crimea to Russia so he can resupply his fleet more easily and of course his yacht. That at least would save so much more unecessary civilian deaths.
Downside now is of course Turkey have restricted their movement through the straights...........interesting times!!;)

Sink the yacht. Eliminate the need. Done. :madsmile:

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

It makes infinite sense to give him what he has always wanted which is a safe working corridor down the eastern side from Crimea to Russia so he can resupply his fleet more easily and of course his yacht. That at least would save so much more unecessary civilian deaths.

---

Most of his fleet was originally built in the Ukraine shipyards in Mykolaiv, and he's already lost his Black Sea Fleet flagship to the very people that built it, and they'd be delighted to have an opportunity to sink the rest of it as well. I can't see Ukraine ever now accepting being demiliterised or anything, as they are hardly ever going believe anything the Kremlin promise or say again, and nor will anyone else most likely.

Bob,
Half the population don't know he even has one......................over inflated ego maniac, spending their money, as an un-elected President, ruling by fear, all alone as an ex KGB monkey, with 007 believes and tendencies.........a dreamer, using insulting words like Nazism to justify his mistakes and kill his own people!!:madsmile:

I feel sorry for the families on either side of this conflict seeing loved ones die from stupid, arrogant leadership. The Moskva commander did the worst things in battle, first is repeatly doing the same thing over and over again thus becoming predictable, second is under estimating your enemy to get at you. Thirdly, is the failure of the crew to seal the water tight doors on the ship when entering a combat zone. There is clear evidence of this not taking place due the burn marks from the fires coming out the port holes on the port side. As Admiral Beatty said in the Battle of Jutland, "There seems to be something wrong with our fleet today."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

It makes infinite sense to give him what he has always wanted which is a safe working corridor down the eastern side from Crimea to Russia so he can resupply his fleet more easily and of course his yacht. That at least would save so much more unecessary civilian deaths.
Downside now is of course Turkey have restricted their movement through the straights...........interesting times!!;)

---

No Ukrainian would ever accept it.

History has shown that when one attempts to appease dictators by giving them a "little bit of what they want" they tend to have a nasty habit of coming back for more a little later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

It makes infinite sense to give him what he has always wanted

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

That at least would save so much more unecessary civilian deaths.

---

{redacted words}
https://www.historyhit.com/sudetenland/
https://www.theholocaustexplained.or...e-sudetenland/

Totally take that on board and the views, but of course, where were we all when he took Crimea..................he was left to establish his Navy base and assets, and is simply building on the access to it from Russia. We never said boo to the goose!!

If "we" wanted to rattle the Lions cage, we should get Ukraine signed up to NATO ASAP and then see what happens, otherwise what you say will inevitably happen, he will not stop, until he has ALL of the old states back under his control. Ukraine appears to have delayed joining, but clearly not all their fault they had to meet certain criteria and sadly it didn't happen in the last 8 years.
There are so many countries literally at the same crucial point!
Strong leadership from FREE countries is what is needed, but this is hell of a subject matter to get right, when you have a mindless thug in charge who cares not about Russian or Slav lives.

hopefully the first of many Russian ships providing artificial reefs!

If Ukraine had been a member of NATO prior to February of this year I do not believe that it would have made any difference in stopping President Putin invading. If Russia were to be successful in it's invasion of Ukraine, all the former Warsaw Pact countries that are now members of NATO are likely to be at the top of President Putin's "shopping list" and that is one of the reasons why I believe that it is imperative that he is stopped in Ukraine.

The case of Russia seizing Crimea in 2014 illustrates my previous post perfectly about dictators "wanting more". To us in the UK it would feel something like France seizing Devon and then stationing half the French fleet at Devonport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

where were we all when he took Crimea.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

If "we" wanted to rattle the Lions cage,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Strong leadership from FREE countries is what is needed

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

get Ukraine signed up to NATO ASAP and then see what happens

---

I yanked out the above not to debate it...lest we run afoul of our no politics rules - but I did want to point out the key differences between the present events, and the Sudetenland/Crimea analogy that is so obvious. Certainly history tells us appeasing dictators doesn't work. Ok. So where to from there?
The first, and maybe only thing relevant to point out is that that Hitler met little to no real resistance in his first real military conquests. Not that Poland didn't try to fight, but it was all over almost as soon as it started, making the movement west possible.
So, here is the question to distinguish today from then. What may have happened if Poland put up a real fight on their own...say like Ukraine is now? and stagnated the German attempts at invasion and conquest, caught with no way out and no real way forward? Would there have been any need for any later involvement from Britain? the US? Likely not.
One could argue that Poland may have been prevented with a strong stance at the meetings in Munich, and likewise one could argue that today's invasion of Ukraine could have been prevented with a strong stance at Crimea. Certainly valid arguments, but I think they are irrelevant, because the parallel stops with how the initial invasion is going. What is happening in Ukraine is nothing like the Blitzkrieg in Poland. No politics, just facts.

Beatty actually said "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".
Also the real cause as to why was documented a few years ago with surveys of the wrecks it was poor munitions storage and open fire doors as the fleet had been prepped for a full scale surface engagement thus crammed extra shells and cordite into the lower levels so yes they did blow up quite well.

Its good to see the Ukranians taking out that ship as it posed a real threat but also the response from Snake Isl to that ship "Go eff yourself" Putins a gangster in fact the biggest one in the world actually a bit worrying is China's stance on this as well as India.
Whether Putin will lob nukes or chemical/bio weapons remains to be seen but it is a concern the west must consider, I saw somewhere on the net that a country is sending T-72 tanks to them plus a 100-200 Abrams tanks but crew training on the latter type will take time, though time is in short supply for Ukraine.
I know one thing all the soviet troops who went on air saying how they were duped/conscripted into this Special exercise and spoke out against the invasion need not bother going home to Russia as the KGB will most certainly make sure they don't take another breath.
Such is the sad state of affairs in Europe at present.

As you say without getting into Politics.........the whole thing is a bag of nails, which if the new weaponry supplied by the West works, and works well.................the cornered wounded animal will go even further to keep face!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssgross

So, here is the question to distinguish today from then. What may have happened if Poland put up a real fight on their own...say like Ukraine is now? and stagnated the German attempts at invasion and conquest, caught with no way out and no real way forward? Would there have been any need for any later involvement from Britain? the US? Likely not.
One could argue that Poland may have been prevented with a strong stance at the meetings in Munich, and likewise one could argue that today's invasion of Ukraine could have been prevented with a strong stance at Crimea. Certainly valid arguments, but I think they are irrelevant, because the parallel stops with how the initial invasion is going. What is happening in Ukraine is nothing like the Blitzkrieg in Poland. No politics, just facts.

---

Poland fought valiantly. Their big problem was that their military was hopelessly antiquated. Observers noted that besides being inferior to their German opponents, their interceptor aircraft lacked any form of organized command and control system. In many cases they literally sat on their airfields waiting until they were attacked before they took off to defend themselves because there was no early warning system in place. While being complimentary of their pilots, Lindbergh noted the lack of central control when he visited just before the breakout.

And that oft referred to horse-based cavalry charge that they executed against tanks? It could actually have succeeded with good command and control. They actually did what cavalry is supposed to do: they broke through the front line on the flanks and swept through the rear area wreaking havoc. They just couldn't coordinate the relief effort that was required against a highly coordinated opponent.

Bob

Cinders-- Duly noted. I just wanted to keep it a bit cleaner. I did see documentary on the battle which surfaced several years ago especially the tests that were done to indicate that possible flash fire through the ships when hit. When I saw the Moskov burning it reminded me of that documentary, granted the Moskov did not have cordite and shells parked on the desks but the water tight doors were certainly opened and a flash fire ran through the open areas of the ship. If the ship was properly secured for battle and water tight doors dogged down, the loss of life and the ship would have been significantly less. If I remember correctly one of the other British battle cruisers was hit in the Battle of Jutland and did not sink as one of the Chief Petty Officers insisted the munitions be properly stored and secured during the battle. It is amazing how history sometimes repeats itself.

Interesting factual read on the whole thing:

Turbulent Times: Ukraine: from the horse’s mouth | Turbulent Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Poland fought valiantly.

---

Certainly they did. But my point was it was over very quickly, with a decisive victory for the Germans, which is the exact opposite of what we see in Ukraine today. I'm just saying that the analogy stops with Sudetenland/Crimea, and does not continue to Poland/Ukraine.

Comparisons with Poland, 1939, are not really useful. The poles made many errors in planning and were certainly outclassed in regards to much equipment but the country was surrounded on 3 sides by enemies, 2 of which invaded the country 17 days apart (the invasion by the red army was no peaceful intervention), and Poland believed it had a treaty guarantee underpinning its sovereignty. Moreover, the 1939 blitzkrieg legend is more myth than fact. Regardless, the German and Soviet victory was decisive but poland held out for 5 brutal weeks, losing some 80,000 military dead and 100,000+ civilians killed. One of the best, most comprehensive english language treatments of the Polish campaign is Roger Moorhouse's Poland 1939. It is an excellent start to the correction necessary.
Crimea, on the other hand, was a completely different context, as was the original war in eastern Ukraine. Most importantly for this discussion, there was no unified front supporting a hard line with Russia. In addition, Ukraine has spent 8 years studying and fixing many of the problems that hindered an effective response to the start of the war with Russia (in 2014--they don't see a break in hostilities). 'The west' helped in that period but we should not overstate our diplomatic, economic, or military assistance. The measures Ukraine has taken are not well described in the English language material. Deterrence is a tricky business, to put it lightly, and any use of historical analogies is more likely to result in miscalculation than success.