Talk:Russian cruiser Moskva/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Built for sea as well as air superiority

"The Slava class cruisers are built for air superiority and they have no land-attack missiles."

The 16 Vulcan anti-ship missiles had been installed from the beginning.

So better:

Slava class cruisers are built for both air and sea superiority, and have no land-attack missiles.

--115.69.29.10 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and added. CAVincent (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

file:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg

File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Крейсер "Москва" тоне.jpg -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FQlEjIoXwAYLYpS.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian ministry of Defense: commander of Navy admiral Nikolay Evmenov and command of Black Sea navy met with crew of Moskva cruiser in Sevastopol.

Video shows about 50 sailor in first row, and some sailors in the 2nd row (max: 50)

No word on the remaining sailors

Russian Translation from video: The cruiser's officers, midshipmen & sailors will continue to serve in the Navy, the Navy chief said. He added that the Moskva cruiser's crew recruits would be discharged according to the law between May & June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967f:da30:bd6b:7061:3e32:3476 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Atmaca missile was cause of Russian cruiser Moskva sinking

The Ukrainian authorities deliberately lied about the use of R-360 Neptune as main source of attack, so as not to disclose militarily strategic information that they had purchased and received supplies of Turkish anti-ship cruise missiles Atmaca. The Turks were so impudent that they even sent a ship to assess the damage done to Moskva by Atmaca shortly before it sank, as if it were a training target of the Turkish Navy. 78.154.13.180 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this theory load of bulldust. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am the source. This is enough. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter. I inform the moderators here so that they know exactly what the truth is. Russia warned Turkey yesterday that it would destroy its entire fleet next time if their ship was destroyed by an Atmaca missile. Moreover, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been informed with a new note that this destruction will be carried out with the use of tactical nuclear warheads. And by the way, are you a moderator or what? The use of the Ukrainian flag here by a moderator would be quite inappropriate. We are talking about a Russian ship ... I will not be surprised if you work for Ukrainian intelligence. This is an absurd situation. 78.154.13.180 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The theories of a random IP user are not acceptable Wikipedia content. All information must be sourced to an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Flag ship history inconsistency

This article currently says "she replaced the Kynda-class cruiser Admiral Golovko as the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet." - however Soviet cruiser Admiral Golovko says "The vessel acted as the flagship for the Black Sea Fleet until replaced by Project 1134B Berkut B warship Kerch in 1997.", linking to Russian cruiser Kerch. Which is it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Some editor at Admiral Golovko page likely misunderstood source's wording. "Admiral Golovko was recommissioned from reserve in 1995 to serve as the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, and by mid-1997 the Black Sea Fleet flag had reportedly transferred from the 'Kara' class Kerch. By early 2001 Golovko began a refit at Sevastopol, following the designation of the Moskva (ex-Slava) as the Black Sea Fleet flagship in April 2000."[1] Kerch -> Admiral Golovko -> Moskva is the correct order. Centaur271188 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: Thanks, perhaps you could update Soviet cruiser Admiral Golovko accordingly? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Yes, I did. [2] Centaur271188 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Storm

Do we have any independent data about the stormy weather while the cruiser was being towed? There are tweets like this, saying about 14 knots, but a more reliable source would be preferable. --Jmk (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jmk that report appears to be credible. There were reports of choppy waters on 13. On 14 the weather had stablized. But the Russian spin had already latched on to the storm theory by then. Some of the analysts had pointed this during the interviews. Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@665788/historic this is historical wheather data from the west coast of Rumania, light wind. I read a rapport of light wind and rain, but can't find it again. So aprox. 50-100 nm from where the Moscow the was hit weather was better than average - so the russian take on the weather seems to be "more propaganda" than fact. 5.186.126.139 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Moskva was a cruiser; the biggest type of naval ship short of an aircraft carrier, and the biggest ship in the Black Sea. Cruisers do not sink because of rough weather. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

They do if they are floundering. 2001:2F8:1F:355:ED61:45EB:684:EC83 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean foundering?It is possible that stability was so severely compromised by damage that even mild weather would cause further downflooding and sinking 2A00:23C6:150A:201:59AC:8E6C:33DC:A945 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

do you have a source on this? 69.127.80.46 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)