Help support TMP

"Antiship Missile Lessons from Sinking of the Moskva" Topic

18 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Link

Top-Rated Ruleset


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Workbench Article

Painting the Biker from Hell

Sam shows how to paint a vehicle, starting with silver and gold.

Current Poll

Featured Book Review

821 hits since 5 May 2022
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TMP logo


Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian05 May 2022 5:25 p.m. PST

The missile attack that sank the Russian Navy's Slava-class cruiser reveals that missiles with more precision, longer range, and smaller warheads cause far more damage than most models estimated.

Proceedings/USNI: link

Thresher0105 May 2022 5:42 p.m. PST

Excellent points.

Another one is sheer shock damage from such fast moving weapons. Frequently, sensors and other electronics may be damaged or destroyed by that as well.

Oberlindes Sol LIC Supporting Member of TMP05 May 2022 8:10 p.m. PST

I recall some consternation arising out of a similar event in the South Atlantic 40 years ago.

SBminisguy05 May 2022 8:59 p.m. PST

Here's another one – if you shared Intel that helped sink another nation's flagship…don't brag about it, eh??

Striker06 May 2022 2:16 a.m. PST

+1 Oberlindes.

SB – that's not how it's done nowadays. All about bragging.

How many ship strikes by missiles (outside of tests) have there been since say 1975? I wonder how much actual "in real life and not from defense contractors" data is there on the effects. From the few I know of they've all been pretty catastrophic.

hindsTMP Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2022 6:48 a.m. PST


I don't understand your comment about admitting to shared intelligence. Not like the U.S. / NATO / etc. support of Ukraine is a secret, right?

SBminisguy06 May 2022 7:34 a.m. PST

I don't understand your comment about admitting to shared intelligence. Not like the U.S. / NATO / etc. support of Ukraine is a secret, right?

There's a difference between quietly helping and bragging. Why would you empower an adversary with knowledge of your actions and capabilities like this, and blur the line between supporting Ukraine and being an active belligerent? This current US admin's chest beating is as dangerous as it is stupid.

soledad06 May 2022 9:24 a.m. PST

IF the US helped Ukraine with targeting data I believe they should keep their mouth shut. As previously stated it can be seen as if US is actively participate in the war.

Help Ukraine but shut the fxxk up. Knowing you are helping should be enough reward for true professionals. Not bragging.

hindsTMP Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2022 9:26 a.m. PST


Come to think of it, has the U.S. Administration admitted to providing targeting information? I just googled the topic, and came up with this, which implies that it's leaked information.

U.S. administration officials have not publicly confirmed American intelligence helped Ukraine to hit the missile cruiser on April 13, before it sunk the next day. But unnamed American officials told NBC News that Ukraine had asked the U.S. about a ship sailing to the south of Odesa.

Heedless Horseman06 May 2022 10:49 a.m. PST

Does no-one remember the WW2 posters? Loose Lips…

OSCS7406 May 2022 11:46 a.m. PST

Concerning the number of missiles needed to sink a vessel. "The number of hits is significantly less than the number predicted by this common rule of thumb—". The US could revise its data. I always thought it was more important to get a mission kill than to sink the ship.

Prince Alberts Revenge06 May 2022 8:05 p.m. PST

I wonder what Bill Burns' role, if any, is in the transparency of American assistance. Burns was a proponent of proactively declassifying and releasing intelligence on Russian "false flag" operations in Ukraine prior to the war.

Biden recently held a meeting with Avril Haines, Burns and Lloyd Austin regarding his disappointment of the information leaks regarding US intel assistance, however if Burns is behind it, I have faith…he seems to know Putin and his thought process well and seems to know how to wage the information war against Russia.

Dn Jackson Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2022 3:18 a.m. PST

Why would you empower an adversary with knowledge of your actions and capabilities like this, and blur the line between supporting Ukraine and being an active belligerent?"

Perhaps has a warning to the Chicoms? 'Mess with Taiwan and you'll get the same treatment.'

As for ships sunk by missiles I can only think of a couple of conflicts off the top of my head; Falklands, Libya 1986, and Iran.

Dragon Gunner07 May 2022 6:36 a.m. PST

"The number of hits is significantly less than the number predicted"

I think we need to add in the "Russian Factor" It might be enough to just set a Russian ship on fire or cause some flooding. I believe the Moskva could have been saved with better damage control.

" All about bragging."

It serves two purposes. The first is future arms sales, "Look at that Russian stuff it is pure garbage I need to purchase from the USA…" The second purpose is to give China the heebie jeebies about a Taiwan adventure…

I think missile attacks will either work or they will be shot down with impunity. The question is does the USA have adequate defense systems in place?

Heedless Horseman08 May 2022 8:52 p.m. PST

At present time… Russia will not say… and Ukraine would be stupid to say… whether missiles were a 'barrage'… with some taken down… or just the two.
Comments from sources seem to show Moskva not on 'high' defensive alert. Rather stupid.
But… rather doubt that ANY ship… even IF tasked and on Alert for defence… would stop all missiles… in a barrage.

LostPict Supporting Member of TMP09 May 2022 7:11 p.m. PST

It's possible that the radars were down for temporary maintenance. (Navy's secure their radars when a man goes aloft.) Also possible that they radars were secured as a result of damage control procedures when they lost power or are designed to return to stowage position when power or hydraulics were lost. Curious how those critters are designed.

When it comes to missiles it only takes one leaker if it hits in the right spot. Unlike a Battlegroup, Moskva was apparently operating by herself without a layered air defense with a bunch of sister vessels and air assets. We may never know what happened if the bridge and CIC teams did not survive.

Personal logo javelin98 Supporting Member of TMP10 May 2022 10:28 a.m. PST

I can only conclude that the Moskva wasn't in a battle-ready state, because it was equipped with six independent 30mm CIWS systems (similar to the US Navy's Phalanx defense system). Each of those turrets, if it had line of sight to incoming missiles, should have engaged the missiles automatically. Perhaps they did and were just unable to hit, but that seems unlikely, since at least four of them could be brought to bear on any approach vector other than directly astern.

SBminisguy10 May 2022 10:31 a.m. PST

I can only conclude that the Moskva wasn't in a battle-ready state

Good conclusion, they were probably not at GQ and assumed they were safe from attack.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.