Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Nilgiri]

I have zero knowledge when it comes to ships let alone military ones. Still, I don't understand exactly how fire can lead to sinking. How is fire capable of damaging the thick metal hull of a ship?

Steel (strongest most commonplace metal around these days incl for ships) loses strength (and other useful material properties) with prolonged exposure/contact to high temperature.

Fires can provide just that (starting at around 300 deg C and ranging all the way up to 1600+ deg C depending on fuel and oxygen)

Steels also melt at around 1400+ deg C (complete loss of solid properties and full geometric collapse etc).

Even concerning just loss of strength alone, there are several weak points of any steel structure (attachment points, load bearing points etc) that are under various design loads intensity/concentration compared to the "average" of the design.

These will plastically deform first (causing quick or eventual failure of one type in the area or other areas given importance of geometric retention in the design).... or fail/rupture all together (causing the more pronounced "brittle" failure known to most).

Illustrative examples:

For even "fire resistant" steels (regd. the effect on plastic deformation initiation):

Stiffness (resistance to elastic deformation):

@MisterLike @Anmdt et al.

It is very important to have mitigation (firewalls, bulkheads, immediate fire suppression etc) on warships and anything else vital that harness steel extensively in their design.

This is part of the shift in warships to better design philosophy of having all flammable systems (like missiles) well contained within the superstructure of a warship (i.e VLS etc) rather than what Moskva had with them arranged on the sides (in a more "easy" + "cheap" conversion of ship mass to firepower) and more easily penetrated and detonated.

The role of the ship was quite different (a cold war carrier hunter) like heavily loaded revolver with little up to date commensurate protection (past its AAW for the flotilla at large).

It (with support ships of flotilla) would ideally be already deployed in open sea and more "unknown" by NATO forces in cold war (continuation) with assets (continued) USSR would have (hypothetically) developed and deployed for this (unlike how its gone with Russia).

@Anmdt has brought up salient points on the modernisation efforts being inadequate, especially for the more static goalkeeping + CnC use it seems to have found in black sea for this campaign. It was well out of its depth (for its optimal use) literally...the raw power level was grossly misapplied ...but largely out of little choice.

@Joe Shearer @Paro et al.

@Baron Vladimir Harkonnen nice to see you scouting around for some "spice".

 

[I_Love_F16]

A 2nd shipment of TB2s to Ukraine in 2 days!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1515071127428612097

If this is indeed a delivery of TB2's it means they have no more tb2's left in their inventory. They pretty much all got destroyed.

 

[Gary]

Leopard 1a5? Very outdated even against T72

Actually 105mm gun M60 scored some kills against Iraqi T-72 and Israeli Merkava 1s also armed with 105mm gun killed Syrian T-72s in Bekka valley. The same L7 gun also used in the Leopard 1A5.

Maybe the latest T-72/80/90 series are immune to the 105mm gun, but if shot close enough maybe Ukraine tankers would have a chance. The situational awareness inside those Soviet design tanks are awful.

I suppose the sale will also come with newer 105mm APFSDS design. This M1060A3 APFSDS is reported able to punch through 500 mm RHA at 60° at 2000m, not bad at all especially if combat are close enough. I read somewhere that tank engagement in real life often starts at around 600-800m.

 

[HTurk]

If this is indeed a delivery of TB2's it means they have no more tb2's left in their inventory. They pretty much all got destroyed.

We don't know actually. It could be the delivery of Polish TB2s, it could be spare parts, ammunition or even the delivery of different kind of drones procured by the Ukrainian government...

 

[Manomed]

If this is indeed a delivery of TB2's it means they have no more tb2's left in their inventory. They pretty much all got destroyed.

It might be ammunition delivery

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1514962896798851077

According to information published by the "National Post" website on April 11, 2022, The Canadian Government has announced a new aid of $500 million to provide military equipment and armored vehicles to Ukraine, including LAV 8x8 and Roshel Senator APC 4x4 Armored Personnel Carrier vehicles.

@DAVEBLOGGINS @Ted Barnes et al.

 

[Stuka]

If this is indeed a delivery of TB2's it means they have no more tb2's left in their inventory. They pretty much all got destroyed.

I dont really now.
But certain things seem weird.

Sometimes its the Antonov-12BK (20Ton Payload) or the Antonov-124 (120 Ton Payload)
So I am not really sure if they care about efficiency but it could be that :

An-124 > TB2s
An-12 > Roketsan MAM-L

---

This Antonov-124 was at the Istanbul Grande Airport for some reason and then flew to unusual Polish Airport (Katowice)

---

This Antonov-12 flew from Uzhhorod (UDJ) to Istanbul (IST)
Direct flight from Ukraine to Turkey !!!

Than to Burgas, Bulgaria

Motor Sich Airlines is the Operator which it could be Engines for Turkish Defence Products.

 

[Dmitry]

Incredible fact. A piece of the Holy Cross (the greatest Christian relic) was kept on the cruiser Moscwa.
But this piece didn't save it.

Christian relic, a True Cross piece, to be kept at Russia’s Black Sea fleet flagship

The relic is a wood chip only several millimeters long embedded into a 19th century metal cross

tass.com

 

[Gary]

Incredible fact. A piece of the Holy Cross was kept on the cruiser Moscwa.
But this piece didn't save it.

Christian relic, a True Cross piece, to be kept at Russia’s Black Sea fleet flagship

The relic is a wood chip only several millimeters long embedded into a 19th century metal cross

tass.com

They never expect the ship to sink.

 

[Gary]

It might be ammunition delivery

Maybe related to this.

Battle of Donbas: A Massive Tank War Could Decide Ukraine's Fate

Russia and Ukraine appear to be in the final stages of preparation to fight the Battle of Donbas. It could be an epic tank battle.

www.19fortyfive.com

Ukraine will need to destroy as many tanks using MAM-Ls as possible. 800-1000 tanks are reportedly amassed by Russia in Donbass.

 

[Ryder]

Ukrainians in a first sunk a ship by using a drone as a decoy.

One for the history books in warfare. Also devised a new tactic in sinking warships.

 

[Ryder]

Armchair warlord on twitter who is a full blown pro russian poster is in cope mode lmaoo

 

[Nilgiri]

Some folks in have good taste in 80s classic movies:

More wolverines evidence showed up

 

[Era_shield]

Satellite Image Pinpoints Russian Cruiser Moskva As She Burned


Analysis of radar satellite imagery has revealed the location of the Moskva soon after she was reportedly hit by 2 missiles. The Russian Navy cruiser was the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet and is a symbolic as well as naval loss for Russia.

(continues here)

 

[Nilgiri]

Well well, treasure hunt is on the menu boys!

Half expecting some dude with a fedora hat and a whip to join a salvage expedition to black sea soon.

Or maybe the large bosom lady is more in tune for these times....

 

[Stuka]

C-5 !

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1515143217670500358

 

[Joe Shearer]

Steel (strongest most commonplace metal around these days incl for ships) loses strength (and other useful material properties) with prolonged exposure/contact to high temperature.

Fires can provide just that (starting at around 300 deg C and ranging all the way up to 1600+ deg C depending on fuel and oxygen)

Steels also melt at around 1400+ deg C (complete loss of solid properties and full geometric collapse etc).

Even concerning just loss of strength alone, there are several weak points of any steel structure (attachment points, load bearing points etc) that are under various design loads intensity/concentration compared to the "average" of the design.

These will plastically deform first (causing quick or eventual failure of one type in the area or other areas given importance of geometric retention in the design).... or fail/rupture all together (causing the more pronounced "brittle" failure known to most).

Illustrative examples:

For even "fire resistant" steels (regd. the effect on plastic deformation initiation):

Stiffness (resistance to elastic deformation):

@MisterLike @Anmdt et al.

It is very important to have mitigation (firewalls, bulkheads, immediate fire suppression etc) on warships and anything else vital that harness steel extensively in their design.

This is part of the shift in warships to better design philosophy of having all flammable systems (like missiles) well contained within the superstructure of a warship (i.e VLS etc) rather than what Moskva had with them arranged on the sides (in a more "easy" + "cheap" conversion of ship mass to firepower) and more easily penetrated and detonated.

The role of the ship was quite different (a cold war carrier hunter) like heavily loaded revolver with little up to date commensurate protection (past its AAW for the flotilla at large).

It (with support ships of flotilla) would ideally be already deployed in open sea and more "unknown" by NATO forces in cold war (continuation) with assets (continued) USSR would have (hypothetically) developed and deployed for this (unlike how its gone with Russia).

@Anmdt has brought up salient points on the modernisation efforts being inadequate, especially for the more static goalkeeping + CnC use it seems to have found in black sea for this campaign. It was well out of its depth (for its optimal use) literally...the raw power level was grossly misapplied ...but largely out of little choice.

@Joe Shearer @Paro et al.

@Baron Vladimir Harkonnen nice to see you scouting around for some "spice".

There is more to it than that. Warships are no longer built entirely of steel. One common substitute for steel, especially above the centre of gravity, is aluminium. Aluminium degrades rapidly in heat, and avoiding the ill effects of build-up of high heat is almost impossible for aluminium structures.

 

[Nilgiri]

There is more to it than that. Warships are no longer built entirely of steel. One common substitute for steel, especially above the centre of gravity, is aluminium. Aluminium degrades rapidly in heat, and avoiding the ill effects of build-up of high heat is almost impossible for aluminium structures.

Indeed, I was using all steel construction as the "best" case scenario here (survivability etc given its superior strength and overall material properties). Moskva would be of that traditional generation as well.

Everything doubly and triply applies etc for aluminium being used in significant parts or even the superstructure basis...not sure if any hulls are made (at this relative size class i.e frigates, destroyers, cruisers etc.) out of Al alloy, @Anmdt would be in better position to know


Useful reference for interested members regd steel vs aluminium in warships:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.7036&rep=rep1&type=pdf

By the by, and freakishly coincidentally.... acquaintance of mine served on USS Belknap (mentioned in this paper a few times given its aluminium superstructure and accident's effect on it as case study)

Seeing what happened with Moskva, he told me this earlier:

Part of me has a slight twinge of sorrow seeing that particular ship go down because we (Belknap) and then-Slava were together at Malta in 1989 for the Presidential Summit.

A nice looking ship then and we had some limited exchanges on board each ship.

Obviously none of either crew is still in service.

Now both ships are reefs.

In closing - good shooting Ukrainians!!

 

[Lool]

If this is indeed a delivery of TB2's it means they have no more tb2's left in their inventory. They pretty much all got destroyed.

Or maybe they are preparing a large number of TB2s for an all-out offensive

Rumors indicate that Ukraine is planning an all-out offensive in kherson in the near future now that the Russian air cover; i-e, Moskva is gone. This would require TB2s in large numbers operating on several fronts at the same time to ensure that the russians dont have the opportunity to regroup and set up a defensive line within the city

Again, this isnt a certainity but a possibility no more; since, if all of Ukraine's TB2s got shot down, Russia would immediately show pictures of its wreckage to the media since the TB2 practically humiliated all of Russian air defences (apart from the S400), all of Russian tanks and APCs, and Electronic warfare vehicles

Rn, thanks to TB2, most of Russian defence exports would be thrown to the dustbin. Certainly, the Russians would love to reverse that

 

[Xenon54]

If this is indeed a delivery of TB2's it means they have no more tb2's left in their inventory. They pretty much all got destroyed.

35 TB2's? We would have picture of shot down drones then wouldnt we?
I say its munition resupply and spareparts.