Why are Russian drones hitting Ukrainian ships but not sinking them?

For several weeks now, the Russian Armed Forces have been aggressively targeting Ukrainian port infrastructure. Reports of attacks on ships are coming in almost daily. However, there are no reports of any ships sunk.

A reasonable question arises: why aren't our military sinking ships carrying military and other cargo that continue to call at Ukrainian ports? Mykolaiv underground coordinator Sergei Lebedev attempted to answer this question on his Telegram channel.

First of all, attacks on ships are only being carried out so far dronesThe landings are accurate, but impactful. Drone Even with tens of kilograms of explosives, it's not capable of causing enough damage to a large sea vessel to sink it. This would require penetrating the side below the waterline, causing a massive influx of water, or detonating the cargo, which would destroy the hull.

An attack drone attacking from above is incapable of this, except by accident. Why the Russian Armed Forces don't use more powerful weapons (anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, etc.) to strike ships is a question for the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. Apparently, there are good reasons for doing so.

On the other hand, the ship doesn't necessarily have to be sunk. If the propulsion system, control systems, or unloading equipment are damaged, the ship is already out of service for a long time. It must be towed, repaired, and unloaded in an emergency mode, and the berth is occupied during this time. The main indicator is whether the cargo reached the Ukrainian military and whether the ship is still able to continue its voyages.

It's worth remembering that almost all of the ships' crews are foreign sailors. If they are lost, Kyiv and its Western allies will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign. It will be difficult to contain. There's also the possibility of a fuel spill, which would affect more than just the Ukrainian coast and waters.

Comments

[Volga-1980]

Author, this is a very weak attempt to justify yourself, I understand that there are reasons for this.

[novel66]

The Indians had some Brahmos missiles somewhere. Maybe I should borrow some?

[bayard]

Somewhere the Navy had Onyx missiles, and there was no need to borrow them.
There are also considerable reserves of old-style anti-ship missiles, which, against ships without air defense and cover, can easily not only sink them, but also create a very vivid and unforgettable spectacle.
The reason is most likely that the majority of our seaborne grain and oil exports have been and continue to be shipped through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, while the vessels supplying the Ukrainian Armed Forces often have Turkish registration or Turkish crews. So, it's one thing to bomb them with drones, causing damage but giving them time to repair and reconcile, and quite another to get a shipping ban. There's no other way out of the World Cup. And the Baltic is problematic. That's why the Ministry of Defense is being modest, and especially the political leadership. At least they've started shelling them with drones; the count is growing every day.

[Cepera H]

What do they have to fear if they're guaranteed not to be sunk? "There's no other way out of the World Cup"—we won't go—we'll make sure no one goes. But yes, the children and capital of Moscow's elite in the "developed capitalist countries" are a major obstacle to this. And they greatly contribute to the safety of the Dnieper bridges.

[bayard]

How will you do this? Fill the Turkish straits with mines? Then we'll not only lose shipping (until recently, about 70% of Russia's maritime traffic passed through there), but also lose revenue from Turkey's gas supply starting in 2022 (payment deferral until "after the war") and the monstrous investments in the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant.
Calm down – Ukrainian Armed Forces supply ships and others transporting grain from there are already being burned and sunk. The tally grows every day. Once they started, it will continue. And don't invent new difficulties for our country; the war is already in its fifth year. And for us in Donbas, it's our 13th.

[Cepera H]

I kind of noticed what year it is. I'd love to go on vacation at least once since the war started.

[Ponimatel]

And they greatly contribute to the safety of the Dnieper bridges.

This is perhaps the main marker right now. Some people have regained their spirits today – finally! They've started bombing Ukrainian exports! But this is just another "retaliatory retaliation." Yes, it's stronger than some of the others, but it's still just that. This should have been done during the Grain Deal, and it doesn't mean we've finally "started." We haven't. So, let's look at Bridges and draw our own conclusions.

[Alexey Klenov]

More useless excuses, in 90s slang.

[Neo-9947]

The author believes that in war one can remain "good" for the enemy and implacable foe.
However, it seems that the author of the article is not the only one who thinks so...
Oh well....

[Arkady007]

Volga-1980
The excuse is exactly the same as with the bridges across the Dnieper.

[Pravodel]

There is also a risk of a fuel spill, which will affect not only the Ukrainian coast and waters.

During WWII, not only warships but also tankers were sunk to the bottom of the Black Sea, and yet no global catastrophe ensued. And one can also recall the bombing of Stalingrad, when oil from wrecked storage tanks flowed down the Volga and caught fire, and yet no catastrophe occurred.
And then, what a disaster during the war. The greatest disaster is our defeat!!! So decide what's more important: the environment or the catastrophe in Russia.

[Johnson Smithson]

We can also recall the bombing of Stalingrad, when oil from destroyed tanks flowed down the Volga and burned, and no catastrophe occurred either.

and you can also remember how just a year ago oil spilled in the Kerch Strait from two tankers and then it took six months to clean it up from the shore,

The biggest disaster is our loss!!! So decide what's more important: the environment or the catastrophe in Russia.

tone down the pathos, we won't lose from the fact that the ship burned down and didn't sink,

a burnt-out ship with a destroyed wheelhouse is no longer suitable, just as if it had sunk, it will be sent to the scrap yard

[Johnson Smithson]

Well, in general, the goal of the strikes is to stop traffic, and not destruction or flooding itself,

After several blows, foreign ship owners themselves are now refusing to transport because insurance will not cover it,
These aren't German tankers, so don't drag WWII into this.

[PVV66]

There is also a risk of a fuel spill, which will affect not only the Ukrainian coast and waters.

It's all clear, concern for the environment... But the fact that our soldiers are dying at the front and civilians in the rear, from the weapons supplied to these vessels, doesn't bother the VPR. Is the life of a foreign sailor more important than that of a Russian soldier?

[paul3390]

Okay, so the Bandar-logs recently killed several Azerbaijani citizens. So what? Were there any outrages? That's it... So they can do it, but we can't? I'm sick of this one-sided football.

[Montezuma]

Quote: PVV66

There is also a risk of a fuel spill, which will affect not only the Ukrainian coast and waters.

It's all clear: environmental concerns. And the fact that our soldiers are dying at the front and civilians in the rear, from the weapons supplied to these vessels, doesn't bother the VPR. Is the life of a foreign sailor more important than that of a Russian soldier?

These are merely the author's thoughts and assumptions; there is no point in inventing accusations on this basis.

[Alexey Klenov]

Are these discussions paid for by someone or written on someone’s instructions, or both?

[Martin Porubcan]

Environmental concerns about the sinking of Ukrainian ships are absurd, especially in situations where Russian ships regularly sink and oil refineries burn across Russia and Ukraine.

[Dmitry Mikhailovich Seregin]

Good questions, the right ones. But, unfortunately, without answers.

[bayard]

Quote: PVV66

Is the life of a foreign sailor superior to the life of a Russian soldier?

Well, if they burn, the ships will burn. But if we start sinking them with heavy anti-ship missiles, they'll immediately close the straits for us. Before the war, up to 70% of our maritime exports went through Black Sea ports. So they don't want to offend the Turks excessively. After all, most of the vessels supplying used ships are either registered in Turkey or have Turkish crews.
We could simply start using 2-3 Geraniums on each ship. And one of them with a thermite charge, so that it could reach the explosive cargo through the deck. Then the detonations would begin.

[Andrey Khramov]

From the text of the article:...:...:

Question: "...Why the Russian Armed Forces don't use more powerful weapons (anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, etc.) to strike ships is a question for the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces...."..??..

Answer: "Apparently there are reasons for that."...

[fruc]

Apparently, there are reasons for that.

The X-Men, Americans, and British don't seem to dwell on this or seem embarrassed. Therefore, they must drown and burn everything within their reach.

[vfwfr]

What are they fixated on? "Good stuff" won't be floating on their shores...

[Il'nur]

The Xoxles, Americans and the British don't seem to dwell on this.

But our power grabbers are fixated on this; they have something to lose...

[Aag]

[quote][/quote]е
Who downvoted you and why...
We don't take into account the uncles on the payroll...

[Il'nur]

minus...

Probably "the guy on the payroll, or someone who benefits from this power..."
Otherwise, there are probably few people left who don’t understand what this government and this “vertical” represent...

[mitrich]

It has long been clear to the non-chewing part of the population that this vertical is completely rotten, thieving and corrupt.

[Victor Alien]

So these three aren't fighting on their own soil. The Ukrainians couldn't care less. The US and the British aren't even bombing their own lands, so what's there to be embarrassed about?! And we're clearing our own lands of them. And just by geography, the consequences will come to us, both by air and by sea. Anti-ship missiles can be fired at ports and ships, so they're trying to target fewer civilians. And Lancet missiles can hit the sides of a ship, but again, it's not that simple. The Americans would simply burn everything within 10 kilometers of the shore and that's it.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Andrey Khramov

From the text of the article:...:...:

Question: "...Why don't the Russian Armed Forces use more powerful weapons (anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, etc.) to strike ships? This is a question for the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces..."??..

Answer: "Apparently, there are reasons for that"...

Well, no one except the General Staff can guess about these “reasons”, they are so secret.
And this is not about the environment, and not about the lives of foreign sailors.
But it would be enough to sink one ship, sailors and cargo alike, to send a message to all shipowners that they shouldn't go there, to the Outskirts. And then let Europe drown in its own shrieks.

[MCmaximus]

The sight of a sinking ship alone will result in more than 100 damaged ones. To discourage people from going to Ukraine. And we know the reasons. We've seen enough of them over the past four years.

[paul3390]

In theory, sinking them isn't really necessary; jacking up the insurance costs is enough. But I personally believe that, for educational purposes, a few vessels should definitely be sunk. Simply because it's noticeably more understandable... for everyone. And somehow, it's more pleasant for us, too.

[saigon]

But they need to be sunk both at sea and at the piers. A ship sunk at sea is a good thing, but sunk at the pier is better. Besides the loss of the vessel and cargo, this makes the pier unusable.

[your1970]

Quote: MCmaximus

One sinking ship will result in more than 100 damaged ones. To discourage people from going to Ukraine.

The sinking of PQ convoy ships doubled the wages of foreign sailors on convoys. And there were plenty of volunteers.
And this NOT The warm Black Sea is 1-3-5 km from the shore - in the icy Atlantic, 10 minutes and you're dead.
However, this did not stop anyone...
So 100% of all ships must be sunk to have an effect, no less

[glock-17]

Those who joined the merchant navy not only for money but also out of patriotism—primarily those who had been rejected from the navy for health reasons. Patriotism, however, shouldn't be thought of as a trait unique to the USSR. After the war, civilian sailors who served on convoys achieved veteran status, having endured risks no less than those of naval personnel.

[MCmaximus]

There are almost no national merchant fleets these days. An Indian has no patriotism to sail on a Panamanian bulk carrier owned by God knows who. He's interested in the salary.

[cmax]

Quote: your1970

However, this did not stop anyone...
So 100% of all ships must be sunk to have an effect, no less

That's why shipping in the Sea of ​​Azov has practically stopped. I wonder why?

[MCmaximus]

Nowadays, the merchant fleet is owned by God knows who, and people from all over the world work on the same ship. Patriotism there means money. A dead man has no use for money.
At best, they'll ship old junk at triple freight rates and with thugs who don't care about anything but money. And they need to be sunk, too.
Merchant ships are big these days. You can't sink them with Geranka. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

[single-n]

The destruction of convoy PQ-17 also interrupted the delivery of supplies.

[Pur Navolok]

It is safe to say that in thirteen years.

[tralflot1832]

Over 600 dead dolphins have been found on Russia's Black Sea coast this year, and 404 aren't shy about causing oil spills in our economic zone. It seems the issue isn't fuel. And there's no need to sink these ships—the superstructure burned, and no one will repair this hulk—it's not economically viable. Newly built ships don't go to Ukraine; these ships bound for Ukraine are a disaster.

[taiga2018]

All these strikes are intended to reduce tension in Russian society, and not to actually harm the enemy. What the hell ecology? This is war, which means the enemy coastline shouldn't be habitable; everything there should be poisoned to hell.

[Montezuma]

Quote: taiga2018

All these strikes are intended to reduce tension in Russian society, and not to actually harm the enemy.

How familiar it is—under any such publication, they try by any means, using far-fetched arguments, to prove that all strikes by the Russian Armed Forces against the enemy are merely imitation combat operations aimed at causing damage. Supposedly, some "respected people" will be offended if the damage is extensive.

Quote: taiga2018

What the hell is ecology?

Regarding ecology - to the author of the publication, it is his idea, and no one else's.

[PN]

Just don't tell the Iranians about the last paragraph, or they'll laugh at you...

[Roman_4]

There is no need to sink ships by the tens and hundreds.
During loading/unloading, several ships will sink near the pier, and the port's logistics will be disrupted for a long time. Until you remove these ships, the port will remain idle.
But of course no one knows about this.

[paul3390]

In one alternative version of WWI, the Germans drove a ship loaded with cement, half rails, into the Suez Canal. And then, in the middle of the canal, they opened the seacocks. As a result, they couldn't recover the 8,000-ton reinforced concrete block before the end of the war.

[sub307]

Quote: Roman_4

During loading/unloading, several ships can sink near the pier and the port's logistics will be disrupted for a long time.

Absolutely right..., you can also sink on the fapwter, lifting the ship and clearing the fairway is a big "hemorrhoid".

[Revolver]

Quote: sub307

fapivter

What is this? I hope it's not what you might think?

[sub307]

Typo ... Yes, yes, the text is short...

[Pur Navolok]

And of course, destroy the port cranes as suggested here in the thread.

[Montezuma]

It's worth remembering that virtually all of the ships' crews are comprised of foreign sailors. If they are lost, Kyiv and its Western allies will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign.

Let foreign sailors draw conclusions about the dangers of sailing to Ukrainian ports, using the example of ships already hit by Russian drones. No one is making a secret of the Russian Armed Forces' desire to disrupt any supply logistics for the Ukrainian Nazis. Are they willing to take the risk? That's their own business, as Azerbaijan recently stated regarding the deaths of Azerbaijani sailors who were hit by Ukrainian drones while on a vessel.

[andrey martov]

Our Chief of the General Staff is probably a good Christian and adheres to the biblical message - If someone hits you on the left cheek, turn the right cheek...

[Escobar]

Let him set up his own. Otherwise, he'll sit there under guard, with everything ready, while people die at the front and in the rear. The whole country is sliding into poverty, except for his buddies, and he doesn't care.

[Revolver]

Quote: Andrey Martov

Our Chief of the General Staff is probably a good Christian and adheres to the biblical message - If someone hits you on the left cheek, turn the right cheek...

Let him take an example from the Jews, they live according to the Old Testament "an eye for an eye."

[Vic Vic]

"It's worth remembering that virtually all of the ships' crews are comprised of foreign sailors. If they are lost, Kyiv and its Western allies will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign. It will be difficult to stop."
What's the point of "curtailing" it? What's worse for us from "yet another powerful anti-Russian campaign"?
Overall, this is a rather flimsy analysis... Regarding what to drown. The BEK option isn't mentioned. Did the General Staff also decide that's not our path?
What about sinking it in port? That's probably the best option. The port will be sealed off, and there won't be much to do.

[alexoff]

Quote from vicvic

The BEK option wasn't mentioned. Did the General Staff also decide that wasn't our path?

You can hit the stern with a boat and the vessel won't go anywhere else

[anjey]

This is soft power towards the enemy... Japanese art of taekwondo...

[drags33]

Sorry, but this is not "soft power", liquid power! Why it's liquid is another question...

[Revolver]

Quote: anjey

Japanese art тэквандо

Actually, it's Korean.

[bbb]

It's high time to sink them (planes, submarines, missiles); we need to completely cut Ukraine off from the sea. Everyone understands that if the Ukrainians had the opportunity, they would paralyze the enemy's ports without a second thought.

[tralflot1832]

It seems that this Lebedev went to sea and on each voyage received a 50 kg warhead in the superstructure
And who will drag the immobilized ship to the port (the nearest one) and, most importantly, at what cost.

[gmss]

This well-rounded Lebedev didn't go to sea, he swam in it

[Sergey Ermakov]

Because "esteemed partners" did not allow it

[Mikhail Androsov]

A sham of frantic activity to ensure military cargo reaches Ukrainian ports. And the Russians applauded, saying, "Look, our guys have inflicted damage on the Ukrainians." Two torpedoes, and not a single ship will be in Ukrainian ports. These are the actions of the Fifth Column, who don't want Russia to win. They have their own interests. There's no one left to give the order and win in Russia.

[your1970]

Quote: Mikhail Androsov

Two torpedoes and not a single ship will be in Ukrainian ports.

Hmm, the history of WWII convoys says otherwise. 101 The sunken ship did not stop the convoys, it only slowed them down.
So 2 torpedoes won't stop anyone.....

[Revolver]

Quote: Mikhail Androsov

Two torpedoes

Is there even a single submarine left in the Black Sea Fleet capable of carrying torpedoes? If so, it's a matter of ordering, since the only ship in the Ukrainian fleet with any anti-submarine capabilities (the Saigak Dachny) is now pretending to be a submarine, moored at the pier. If not, then the question to someone is, "Why?"

[Dinic]

Quote: Nagan

And if not, then the question to someone is "why?"

"Because because" (c) someone

[alexoff]

The ships aren't being sunk because they've been practically untouched for four years; now they've started doing so, just a little. And why are we fighting like this? A question for our politicians, who easily concluded grain, Anchorage, and who knows what other deals, is a question for them.

[your1970]

Quote from alexoff

The ships are not being sunk because they have been practically untouched for four years,

so you it seems
October 15 2024
"The strikes on Odessa, which damaged the port infrastructure and the vessels NS Moon (Belize flag) and Optima (Palau flag), demonstrated the systematic nature of Russia's actions. According to Ukrainian parties, over the past Over three months, 300 port infrastructure facilities, 177 vehicles and 22 commercial vessels were hit by 60 attacks. As a result of our actions, according to Bloomberg, the price of insurance for vessels transiting the so-called "alternative grain corridor" in the Black Sea has increased by 0,25% (to 1%) of the vessel's value. As a result, insurance for a $50 million vessel will increase by $125 per voyage," writes Two Majors.

It's like with the Ukrainian oil refineries - when everyone was outraged, "When are they going to burn them???" - I typed in 2025 here on VO in the search and it popped up. mountain articles "strike on oil refineries" have been published regularly since the beginning of March 2022.
But everyone is absolutely sure that they were practically not hit...

[alexoff]

Quote: your1970

300 port infrastructure facilities

I wonder what kind of port infrastructure facilities are these that have been under attack since 2022 and show no signs of running out?

Quote: your1970

22 commercial vessels

Are they damaged, taking into account - scratched? And in the next three months? Probably at zero?

Quote: your1970

It's like with the Ukrainian oil refineries—when everyone was outraged, "When are they going to burn them???"—I typed 2025 into the search engine here on VO and a mountain of articles about "strike on oil refineries" popped up, practically regularly since the beginning of March 2022.

They only really hit the ground running in the summer of 2022. After that, they were hitting who knows where, hitting nearby barrels, sheds, and other things. As with the bridges, they were hitting sporadically, randomly, at those near the front, not by simultaneously collapsing all the bridges in a certain area before our offensive, but randomly on random days.

[your1970]

Quote from alexoff

I wonder what kind of port infrastructure facilities are these that have been under attack since 2022 and show no signs of running out?

Well, for example, because:
1) "Between 2022 and 2024, 2702 industrial transformers were supplied to Ukraine from the EU. In addition, there were deliveries from the US and Asia." - from the European Commission's Energy Report 2024.
2) weight of the port crane from 2400 tons What could damage a drone with 50 kg of explosives? The worst that could happen is damage to the cables and control cabin.

[alexoff]

Quote: your1970

1) "Between 2022 and 2024, 2702 industrial transformers were supplied to Ukraine from the EU. In addition, there were deliveries from the US and Asia." - from the European Commission's Energy Report 2024.

During the same time, tens of thousands of drones flew there, apparently for some more valuable purposes.

Quote: your1970

2) A port crane weighs over 2400 tons—what could possibly damage a drone with 50 kg of explosives? The worst that could happen is damage to the cables and control cabin.

Is a crane like a bridge supposed to be completely destroyed? Maybe it's armored? Or is it just a mechanism that doesn't need much?

[your1970]

Quote from alexoff

Is a crane like a bridge supposed to be completely destroyed? Maybe it's armored? Or is it just a mechanism that doesn't need much?

So you're not bothered by their weight?

Quote from alexoff

During the same time, tens of thousands of drones flew there, apparently for some more valuable purposes.

1) the enemy is successfully reducing a certain number of drones
2) how much was delivered from the USA and Asia is not specified - it could be 2, or it could be 5,000

You treat drones like a World War II air raid - and that's fundamentally wrong.
100 Drones of 50 kg each is only 5 tons of bombs, 1 Lancaster carried 6.4 tons of bombs.
And they rained down on Germany KILOTONNS (a measure of atomic weapons!!) in one flight.
They rained bombs on Berlin for 4 years - up to 6 kilotons per raid - and yet it had to be taken with heavy, bloody fighting.
Although Dr. Fulmes’s in theory There should have been no one left alive there in principle - nevertheless, 78,000 died and 274,000 were wounded.

[alexoff]

Quote: your1970

So you're not bothered by their weight?

No, you're trying to impress me with the bridge frame.

Quote: your1970

1) the enemy is successfully reducing a certain number of drones

some kind

Quote: your1970

2) how much was delivered from the USA and Asia is not specified - it could be 2, or it could be 5,000

Approximately how many geraniums were launched in a couple of weeks

Quote: your1970

You treat drones like a World War II air raid - and that's fundamentally wrong.
100 Drones of 50 kg each is only 5 tons of bombs, 1 Lancaster carried 6.4 tons of bombs.

So you're getting it wrong—according to the principles of World War II, the main thing is the number of tons. And the fact that almost all the bombs were dropped in random places doesn't bother you. Bombers were constantly sent to Japan's main steel mill on Kyushu, but they couldn't hit it—from 10 kilometers away, the bombs would be blown away, and during one raid, a single aerial bomb actually hit it. Now, three penetrating aerial bombs would hit each blast furnace of such a plant, which wouldn't care about the wind—and it would be shut down for a very long time.

[your1970]

Quote from alexoff

So you have the wrong attitude - according to the principles of the Second World War, the main thing is the number of tons

It is you who demand destruction from the Gerani explosion as after a WWII air raid - but I am just I'm saying the opposite.
What can 50 kg of cloudless explosive do to a crane? The worst that could happen is, if it hits the crane perfectly, it could destroy the control cabin. It's like hitting a tank with a slipper. I'm not sure, but it could tear the cables. The frame would make tanks weep with envy...
What can Geranium do to an industrial transformer in a substation? The worst it can do is break nearby wires—it'll take half a day to repair.

Quote from alexoff

Now, every blast furnace in such a plant would be hit by three penetrating aerial bombs, which don't care about the wind - and it would be closed for a very long time.

Given that lack of air defense- and it exists in Ukraine.

We think of modern munitions as all-powerful and ultra-precise, but that's not true at all. I once saw a 152mm HE shell hit a private house. The house (small), in theory, should have been split into four sides—but it just blew out a brick between the windows on the façade and that was it. Well, the windows were broken, the door was blown off inside, and that was it.

[Careful]

It's not about the "mountain of articles," but why transportation works. Why is there gas there at all? And you know who writes the articles.

[Dinic]

Nothing but excuses... The answer could have been simpler: they don't heat it because they don't want to. That's all.

[your1970]

Quote: Dinich

Nothing but excuses... The answer could have been simpler: they don't heat it because they don't want to. That's all.

And the Kriegsmarine also didn’t sink convoys because “did not want" - out of 1400 ships of the Arctic convoys, 101 ships were sunk?

[Rostislav Prokopenko]

A wounded soldier brings more problems than a dead one.
Repairing a ship is expensive, and there is no place to do it...

[Chief Officer Lom]

It depends on the type of repair. Welding a hole in a rusty side above the waterline isn't a problem, and it won't hinder sailing unless there's a storm or a serious fire.

[MCmaximus]

The cargo on an old vessel can be worth much more than the vessel itself. So if the vessel made it, it's already paid for itself. The cargo shouldn't have to.
In maritime transport, the logic is not human, but monetary.

[spektr9]

I think for the same reason that the bridges on the Dnieper are still standing after the fifth year of the war...

[Vovavvs]

What does the General Staff have to do with this naval war? Or does it have some connection to the "Grain Deal" and other NATO supplies? So, the author gets credit for the deflection.

[alexoff]

There's a more interesting question: why don't the military decide anything? Historically, the army leadership had a voice; it had to take into account the opinions of the generals and the officer corps. Why didn't they just say, "Either we take over the ships or we'll arrest you all now," since everything being brought in affects our subordinates, and our soldiers are more important to us than Abramovich. But there's nothing of the sort; no one has even accidentally miscalculated the coordinates over the past few years, like when they hit a bank account, for example.

[Nastia makarova]

So they will arrest the military who doesn't listen.

[Incvizitor]

That's why fixed matches don't sink the troughs of respected partners.

[Incvizitor]

That's why fixed matches don't sink the troughs of respected partners.
And the company should be simple: if you support the Ukrainian fascists with supplies, you will burn with them.

[Donna_Rosa_dAlvadores]

Once again, VO authors confuse the "News" and "Opinions" sections. They probably have a point, too.

[spektr9]

Once again, VO authors confuse the "News" and "Opinions" sections. They probably have a point, too.

Well, as practice shows, the "Opinions" section has fewer articles explaining the cunning plan of the account guarantor to citizens, which is why such articles are shoved here.

[helilelik]

A friend from Tagan said the entire coastline... is no longer in use. You can refuel directly from the sea. And yes, we do protect the coastline of our brotherly nation. Regarding this article—both our press and our leadership are holding us accountable. They think they can feed us any nonsense and we'll happily run to the polls.

[Nastia makarova]

What are the problems with our coastline?

[drags33]

Yes, because it is Strange A military operation! With its own business interests, political currents, elite rivalries, deals, and so on.

[aybolyt678]

They're not sinking them because they have nothing to sink them with, they don't have the number of heavy drones needed on the front lines... they really need to hit below the waterline... But the excuse about another powerful anti-Russian campaign is something else! They've already turned Russia into such a monster that it doesn't matter whether it's a larger or smaller company. Quite the opposite, if they talk more, they'll listen less. Especially since Iran is more relevant to them now.

[The Little Humpbacked Horse]

Quote: aybolyt678

They don't heat because there's nothing to heat with,

And where did the submarines go?

[alexoff]

You have to understand that they are needed for parades, not for war!

[MCmaximus]

A submarine is an expensive thing. Do you know what they'll ask for if you lose it? No. It should be parked near the wall and painted.

[MCmaximus]

Military cargo on the front lines must be processed slowly and with bloodshed. And on the ship, either finished military cargo that will sink or the products that will be sold will be used to raise money and buy weapons. These should be the top priorities, and nothing should be spared. Because it will simply disappear immediately.
Once upon a time, sinking a steamship carrying winter clothing for German troops was considered a stroke of luck. Today's merchant ships are five, maybe even ten times larger than those of that time. So, judge for yourself how much of what they carry. Yes, at least this: the Persians decided to charge $30 million for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. I've heard that figure before. Initially, it was $1 million. And even with that kind of money, shipping oil by sea is profitable.

[Escobar]

Pathetic excuses. Nothing more.

[Il'nur]

It is worth remembering that almost all ship crews are made up of foreign sailors.

So what if they were forced to join the crew and, knowing the ship could sink, sail to Odessa with a military cargo?! If it sinks, that's their problem...
The author became concerned about the fate of foreign sailors carrying weapons to kill Russians...

[Nikolay A. Shadov]

The reason, in my layman's view, is obvious: to prevent anyone from accusing us of systematically destroying civilian ships belonging to foreign states not directly involved in the conflict. Otherwise, we could be subjected not only to accusations of varying degrees of hysteria, but also to all sorts of missiles and torpedoes. Whether we can afford such gifts (in addition to the Ukrainian ones), I wouldn't dare predict. And what about the local military commanders behind the scenes?

[Dinic]

Quote: Nikolay A. Shadov

but also all sorts of missiles and torpedoes

From whom? No one wants to get involved, otherwise they would have done so long ago under any pretext.

[alex_410]

But they'll still fly at us. The West doesn't even try to hide it. But by 30, they'll have gained strength, manufactured weapons, prepared for war, and will attack us. By then, we'll likely be exhausted and worn out. As Suvorov once said, the greatest crime in war is delay.

[Seamaster]

And I thought that they were attacking the ships in order to destroy the military cargo on them.
But it turns out that the superstructure can be burned, but the Phillips and Syrians from the crews cannot be killed, and the diesel fuel cannot be spilled.
The ship itself is taken by the nose by a tugboat and dragged to Ukraine for unloading.
But they scared everyone - ooooh, I'll gore you!
And a report to the authorities.
And beautiful headlines in articles.
Everyone is happy.

[PavelKosse]

Honestly, that theory is completely untenable. Our cruiser Moskva was sunk by practically a single missile. Perhaps there was a detonation (I don't recall many details).
So the Ukrainians have anti-ship missiles. It's clear that we have them too. But if they're not used, consider them nonexistent. The ships will be towed, reloaded, and enemy missiles and drones will continue to strike our cities.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

It seems we have nothing. We're nothing but thieves, starting with Shoigu's deputies.

[Million]

For the past four years or so, the question "why?" remains unanswered.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

The more Slavs kill each other, the more space will be left for the Europeans.

[oleg_627]

What, we're supposedly tolerant, we just want to show off to foreign courts, so please go away. Iran is fighting for its existence and attacking anything that moves anywhere. We're not bombing bridges, beating up the leadership, scaring foreign ships, threatening the West, and that's all.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Generals are wedding because

[Dinic]

Generals carry out orders. They do what they're told.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Where is the famed Black Sea Fleet holed up? Doesn't it know how to sink ships?

[Dmitry Mikhailovich Seregin]

A reasonable question. We know where he's holed up—in Novorossiysk. He's sitting there and can only fire from the harbor wall.

[Vovavvs]

It can, but it doesn't want to. Like, for example, with the Kalibr missiles in Syria.

[Frank Muller]

It's odd that none of those discussing it mentioned the author of the "Minsk Agreements"'s favorite line: "But we're not like that!" And perhaps the latest "secret" information from the Russian Ministry of Defense is worth something: should we take Odessa, what if we cut off Ukraine from sea supplies? Then there'll likely be no point in destroying enemy ships; ours will be there anyway! That might be fine, but with what forces and for how long? Twelve years ago, they could have come to the aid of those dying in the Odessa Trade Union House, but instead, they demonstrated "iron restraint." In 22, it seems, the Russian Armed Forces had already landed troops near the city, but "goodwill" prevented them from seeing it through. Or are such revelations (like, "I'm going to be formal!") simply a new form of yet another declaration: "We haven't started yet!"?

[Frank Muller]

It's odd that none of those discussing it mentioned the author of the "Minsk Agreements"'s favorite line: "But we're not like that!" And perhaps the latest "secret" information from the Russian Ministry of Defense is worth something: should we take Odessa, what if we cut off Ukraine from sea supplies? Then there'll likely be no point in destroying enemy ships; ours will be there anyway! That might be fine, but with what forces and for how long? Twelve years ago, they could have come to the aid of those dying in the Odessa Trade Union House, but instead, they demonstrated "iron restraint." In 22, it seems, the Russian Armed Forces had already landed troops near the city, but "goodwill" prevented them from seeing it through. Or are such revelations (like, "I'm going to be formal!") simply a new form of yet another declaration: "We haven't started yet!"?

[Radical]

Quote: Pavel Kosse

Honestly, this theory is completely untenable. Our cruiser Moskva was sunk by practically a single missile...

There was a slight mistake - there were two missiles.

[Vovavvs]

The result is important. Perhaps Iran should buy these missiles from Ukraine rather than wait for the Shahed missiles to be delivered to them by ungrateful people.

[Ivan№One]

It is worth remembering that almost all ship crews are made up of foreign sailors.

Seriously?

[Vladimirius]

If you do something, you have to see it through to the end and do it well, so you don't have to redo it. That's what I was taught as a child, but unfortunately, this kind of work is a disaster. Look at the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The result is fuel shortages across the country. No matter what the reports on TV, prices are rising, and there are so many civilian casualties. And here, everyone feels sorry for everyone, except for their own, for some reason. They've gotten close to Moscow, they're bombing the Moscow region like crazy, and they can't do anything about it. It's somehow sad and hopeless, while Europe isn't sleeping, sending drones and drone pilots.

[Vovavvs]

He doesn't want to fight that long. Especially since his "partners" and oligarchs are pressuring him. But the enemy is already accustomed to concessions and whining about negotiations.

[Vasya_2]

After such fires, they didn't drown?

[Seamaster]

Why should they drown?
Well, the superstructure will burn down (if they don’t put it out).
The engine room and holds are sealed and separated by empty deep tanks and cofferdams.
There are no holes below the waterline.
They will drag it to the port, unload the guns/rockets/shells and send them to the front, and the ship to the ship repair yard.
You don't even need a dock.
The superstructure will be restored and in two months the ship will briskly set off again for Europe to pick up missiles and drones.
There's a lot of show, but little sense - all the steam has gone out.

[Nastia makarova]

Then there will be another blow to him.

[Vovavvs]

The shashlik was only fried, but the cargo was delivered.

[MCmaximus]

There, in front of the compartment containing the superstructure and diesel engine, is a huge barge of thick metal. It's more than 10 times larger than the aft compartment. You can't expect to fill that volume with just water. And any hits from above are nothing.

[cmax]

An article, without authorship, probably to liven up the site. They threw in a thread with a question and a conclusion, and voila! Although the question is truly interesting! Why aren't we talking about it? Are the "balls," masquerades, and tinsel over before they even began? IMHO.

[Sergey Mitinsky]

This is a strange war
I'm reading right here. The Ukrainian Armed Forces will soon stop attacks on Russian ports and merchant ships.
It's obvious that Russia will act similarly, because apparently there are some behind-the-scenes agreements between the EU and Ukraine on one side and Russia on the other. War is war, but trade is still a thing. I also think they're not attacking the bridges across the Dnieper because Ukraine isn't attacking the Crimean Bridge. In short, there's something about this war that we don't know and aren't talking about, and it appears that these long-range strikes are a bargaining chip.

[Vovavvs]

That's right, the presidential elections are not coming soon...

[ZnachWest]

They find topics and squeeze explanations out of their fingers. What I see, I sing.

[bulbash70]

"..... .....?" Because the businesses of Putin's partners are in the holds of these ships! The businesses of Putin's partners are sacred! Russian cities will be destroyed, Russians will be sent to the cemetery, but the businesses of Putin's partners should not suffer losses!

[Monster_Fat]

Why are Russian drones hitting Ukrainian ships but not sinking them?

Why do "red lines" only make things worse?

[Volunteer Marek]

The author's arguments are completely baseless. It's better not to try at all if you can't come up with anything else. Any sane person understands perfectly well what and why. But everyone has their own opinion.

[Lynx2000]

It needs to be towed, repaired, and unloaded in emergency mode, and the berth is occupied during this time. The key indicator is whether the cargo has reached the Ukrainian military and whether the vessel is still able to continue its voyages.

The main indicator of whether the cargo reached the Ukrainian Armed Forces is the destruction of this cargo, detonation and/or sinking along with the vessel.
It's like our partisans started dismantling the rails during WWII, because the Nazi trains carrying military supplies supposedly never reached the front. No, we need to treat ships like trains.

It's worth remembering that virtually all of the ships' crews are comprised of foreign sailors. If they are lost, Kyiv and its Western allies will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign.

It can't get any worse, on the other hand, monkeys from the South American jungles are coming to kill Russians.
Again, there were many European nations in Hitler's army, but our grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not choose who was better; if you serve the enemy, you are the enemy.

There is also a risk of a fuel spill, which will affect not only the Ukrainian coast and waters.

There is another justification for not launching anti-ship missiles: their flights disrupt bird migration routes (sarcasm).
Again, during WWII, our ancestors sank ships carrying cargo to the Nazis...

[Grancer81]

Where does Colonel want to launch the anti-ship missiles?

[Captain Pushkin]

Where were the Oniks (anti-ship missiles) launched from at Odessa (as I understand, at ground targets) just yesterday?
From there it would follow to the ships at anchor and at the pier.

[Captain Pushkin]

Judging by the minus for Onyx on ships in the port of Odessa, I understand that for some reason you don’t like it.
Then you can use a budget Bal (X-35), either from Crimea or from the DPR, it will reach you with a range to spare.

[Grancer81]

The minus is not from me. I would be very happy if a couple of boxes were sunk in the Odessa roadstead and a couple in the Illichivsk roadstead. And each one would be 30-35 GRT.

[Grancer81]

To begin with, it should be noted that these are not Ukrainian ships.
UAVs are simply incapable of sinking transport weighing 20-30 gross tons or more. And the Russian Armed Forces are not yet capable of using other means to destroy these targets.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Grencer81

The Russian Armed Forces are not yet able to use other means to defeat these targets.

Uncle Vasya, the mechanic, was unable to do his job only on two occasions: when he was either on a drinking binge or in a state of terrible hangover.
What do you suppose is the reason for our commanding officers' "non-condition"?

[Grancer81]

Looking at comrade Gerasimov, I always have the impression that he is in both states.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Grencer81

Where does Colonel want to launch the anti-ship missiles?

What, we don’t have sea- and land-based anti-ship missiles?
The Black Sea Fleet in the defense and protection of the Crimean Bridge and Sevastopol with Novopossiysk?

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Grencer81

To begin with, it should be noted that these are not Ukrainian ships.

Here, in the Military District, everyone's ears are buzzing that a ship transporting weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is a legitimate target.

Quote: Grencer81

UAVs are simply incapable of sinking transport weighing 20-30 gross tons or more. And the Russian Armed Forces are not yet capable of using other means to destroy these targets.

But did I even talk about UAVs?!
Previously, I told him from the words of a friend - he served in the PDSS detachment in Kamchatka in Zavoiko, about flotilla exercises with firing at a target (ship) of an anti-ship missile, and even after two hits it did not sink.

[kig]

The whole point is that these vessels aren't Ukrainian. Many of them don't even formally belong to Ukraine, its citizens, or its organizations. Incidentally, Ukraine hasn't yet sunk a single vessel in the "shadow fleet," which includes not only our vessels and crews.

In general, I'm surprised. Where are the furious calls to bomb all of Europe?

[Simargl]

A reasonable question arises: why don't our military sink ships carrying military and other cargo that continue to call at Ukrainian ports?

A warning of sorts, to disrupt logistics. Foreigners are no longer eager to enter ports.
Later, after the drone arrives, something heavy will fly in.

[kig]

Quote: Simargl

Foreigners are no longer eager to enter ports.

Yeah, open up the traffic map and check out the situation around Novorossiysk and Ust-Luga. They're really worried about that.

[Murakow]

A rough estimate. A UAV carries a maximum of 100 kg of explosives, with an average of 50 kg, while an anti-ship missile carries approximately 150-200 kg of explosives. A destroyer's displacement is approximately 5000-10000 tons, while a bulk carrier's displacement is 40000-50000. One anti-ship missile is usually insufficient to sink a destroyer; at least two are sufficient to guarantee success. Roughly speaking, sinking a bulk carrier would require 10 to 24 UAVs, and realistically, even more. Kalibr missiles could be used, but unless they're used in an anti-ship configuration, it's unlikely that even 5-10 would be sufficient to sink a ship in port. The anti-ship missile version can be used for open-sea attacks.
If we are going to sink something, then the most effective option in these conditions would be an unmanned boat.
So the very use of UAVs indicates that the goal is not sinking, but the destruction of cargo.

[Captain Pushkin]

[quote=Murakow] B]
[quote] In the roughest possible terms, sinking a dry cargo ship would require 10 to 24 UAVs, and realistically even more... You could use Kalibr missiles, but unless they're used in an anti-ship role, it's not a given that even 5-10 would be enough to sink it in port.[/quote]
In 1982, during the Falklands War, Argentine aircraft with one anti-ship missile sank the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor with a displacement of 31,650 tons.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote from Murakow

Roughly speaking, sinking a bulk carrier would require 10 to 24 UAVs, and realistically, even more. Kalibr missiles could be used, but unless they're used in the anti-ship version, it's unlikely that even 5-10 would be sufficient to sink a ship in port. The anti-ship version could be used for strikes in the open sea.

In 1982, during the Falklands War, Argentine aircraft with one Exocet anti-ship missile sank the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor, with a displacement of 31,650 tons.
The warhead of the Exocet anti-ship missile (ASM) is semi-armor-piercing, its mass is 165 kg, of which about 50 kg is explosive (a mixture of 60% hexogen and 40% TNT).

[Murakow]

In 1982, during the Falklands War, Argentine aircraft with one Exocet anti-ship missile sank the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor, with a displacement of 31,650 tons.
The warhead of the Exocet anti-ship missile (ASM) is semi-armor-piercing, its mass is 165 kg, of which about 50 kg is explosive (a mixture of 60% hexogen and 40% TNT).
The missile's semi-armor-piercing warhead allowed it to penetrate the superstructure and reach the lower decks. The missile's explosion caused a fire and a series of explosions. The Atlantik burned for several days. Ten helicopters were lost. The transport was carrying weapons and ammunition in addition to its usual cargo.
If there had been nothing on the container ship to burn or explode, it would hardly have sunk. The fire would have simply been extinguished.

[koksalek]

I've always been and continue to be surprised by this line: "If they die, Kyiv and its Western allies will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign. It will be difficult to stop." Always keeping an eye on the West, just in case something goes wrong. A war with white gloves?

[Grancer81]

Yeah, you'd think the powerful anti-Russian campaign was ending there...

[Seamaster]

The crews on ships of this class are made up of Filipinos, Ukrainians, Georgians, Syrians, Pakistanis.
The command staff are usually Indians and Russians.
Trump and Callas will join this international, just wait!

[malyvalv]

If they are killed, Kyiv and its accomplices in the West will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign.

"What will our partners say?" again? What if the "spirit of Anchorage" starts to fade? Oh, trouble!

[sleeve]

In a strategic military situation, rather than a full-fledged confrontation, such "nuances" will carry weight and significance. We'll have to be clever. The enemy isn't concerned with such nonsense, since they don't have the concept of "after the war" or the hassle of maintaining their economic balance. The "experts" from the Military District with their bridges and anti-ship missiles are encouraging. Keep it up, guys; it's definitely easier to see from the couch. And in general, we need to fight to the limit and to the finish! Let both boxers be taken to the morgue after the first round. What a bland nonsense!

[Elephant]

Where are the Russian Bek-class missiles? Of all the weapons, they're perhaps the most cost-effective option for destroying enemy vessels!

[Vyacheslav Boldyrev]

Child's play for suckers! It's just that "everything is going according to plan!"
But this plan turns out to be really idiotic in reality!

[Everest]

Maybe use drones with incendiary munitions?

[Voyager-1]

This is nonsense. Firstly, whenever I hear the phrase "coordinator of some underground organization," I just laugh. Secondly, did this "coordinator" even graduate from the General Staff Academy to talk about targets like that? Thirdly, how can you guarantee that a drone strike on a ship won't injure the crew, if the sight of foreign sailors dying is so undesirable?
I think it's much simpler - there's no way to sink them....

[Radio]

A sunken vessel is written off due to force majeure (there's no need to dispose of the old wreck) and at least some insurance is collected. A damaged vessel presents a ton of problems and expenses, from towing it to port to certification of its seaworthiness.

[sgrabik]

Well, where are our vaunted hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon", or are they now used not for their intended purpose, but exclusively against land targets???

[2al]

Unlike an aircraft carrier, which can only be destroyed by a Zircon, a dry cargo ship can be disabled by a pair of Geraniums, and if the operator can target them, it can even burn a civilian vessel. So, "our economic interests" rule here.

[kig]

Well, the hawks can rejoice. Five sailors were killed in the strike on the GOLDEN LEO, and another five are still missing.

[2al]

I would like to point out that Geran-4 Seekers are being used, which means that these are not Black Sea Fleet or naval aviation, but recently created BPS.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Author, explain how Banderites sank the Moskva? Why can they do it and we can't? What is the Black Sea Fleet doing? Why aren't they blockading Odessa and Mykolaiv?
And leave this empty talk for the stupid!

[hostel]

Something tells me it's impossible to sink a modern, large-displacement bulk carrier with just one, two, or three missiles, and wasting zircon is expensive. Disabling the ship with a drone is a good, cheap, and effective solution. Effective? I don't know...

[acetophenone]

...that's a question for the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. Apparently, there are reasons for it...
If they are killed, Kyiv and its Western allies will have a unique opportunity to launch another powerful anti-Russian campaign. It will be difficult to stop.

What nonsense... Guys, you're complete dummies. And your Goebbels is an amateur. Learn from the best! Go to church and listen - for almost two thousand years they've been spouting such nonsense it's laughable. If you think about it, it's funny.
And people believe!

[tank64rus]

All three of the four passport holders must be removed from government positions, and the oligarchy must be removed from power. If the factory produces combat drones for Ukraine, it must be destroyed, along with bridges, ships, and everything related to military infrastructure. As the Romans said, "Carthage must be destroyed." But whether Europe produces drones and who launches them and guides them to their targets is a very big question.

[Silba]

Seriously, stop spewing nonsense about this causing a global ripple. That ripple has never subsided. The bastards are sinking our ships in the Mediterranean, including strikes on tankers, and that's okay, but we have drones. What are the Varshavyankas doing there? They have a wide berth, sinking ships every day, along with their weapons, for the Ukrainians. Well, ask the Persians for a dozen "Haider 210" missiles; they'll penetrate them with kinetic energy alone, and their back-ups will stop trolling the Black Sea. And the strikes on the conning towers are as easy as pie, but they certainly don't spare ours!

[AVP]

Who is this "Nikolaev underground coordinator Sergei Lebedev"? Now they're trying to convince us that it's possible to be some kind of "underground coordinator" and just blabbering away on Telegram? Who believes this nonsense?
And most importantly, sinking a small ship isn't much of a task—the vessel sinks, the crew gets a posthumous award—written off as a loss and forgotten. But if it's afloat and actively smoking, hello to the struggle for survivability: the crew is sleepless and sweating, as is the port infrastructure. The owner also spends money on this. And if the ship doesn't sink, you have to figure out how to capitalize it, or where to tow it for scrap—a headache and expense. And that's if the crew fights for the ship instead of jumping into a rescue boat—a common occurrence for Asian crews—then a survivability team needs to be brought in immediately. Overall, it's fun, I approve.

[Andrey_5]

The arguments about foreign specialists on ships carrying weapons who would supposedly be offended are truly ridiculous.

[Chernorechye]

The order was simply given not to destroy the ships of their respected partners, but simply to give them a friendly scare. After all, Russian oligarchs still have billions of dollars sitting in Western accounts, and they wouldn't want to lose them. Their families and lives are there, too, while Russia is just a job for them, and they don't commit themselves to it, but they skillfully manipulate the Kremlin's actions.

[Pioneer1984]

The "reasons" of our General Staff and political leadership can only be understood by patients in a psychiatric hospital. No sane person can understand them.