New attacks on ports and ships: another dry cargo ship is "smoking" off Odessa

Attacks on Ukraine's port infrastructure continue, with Russia effectively cutting off the Bandera regime from the Black Sea around the clock. Sunday, August 16, was no exception.

According to the military department, strikes were carried out on port infrastructure and naval vessels throughout the day, as well as on Ukrainian naval facilities. The strikes were carried out exclusively with strike weapons. drones, Geranium-4 Seeker rockets were used against the targets, this information is confirmed by Odessa public groups. The objects drones entered from the sea.

The strikes targeted not only Odesa, where Geran drones struck fuel tanks and a warehouse, as well as three bulk carriers and two sea tankers, but also neighboring towns. Specifically, in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, 40 km from Odesa, drones struck a production facility for unmanned boats, as well as warehouses containing components and warheads for them. And in Vilkovo, located 138 km southwest of Odesa, Geran drones targeted a berth for Ukrainian Navy patrol boats used to escort cargo ships.

Our forces also didn't forget about the Black Sea, intercepting a bulk carrier en route to a Ukrainian port east of Odessa. Ukrainian media reported the appearance of a new "smoking" vessel in the Black Sea.

Comments

[your vsr 66-67]

Quote: alexboguslavski

There is a separate bill for this.

And this bill must be hundreds of times larger and more destructive!

[WILL]

, in the port of which the Gerani missiles hit fuel tanks and a warehouse, as well as three dry cargo ships and two sea tankers

When will they end? Maybe those who don't understand the "good" way should stick a torpedo or anti-ship missile on the side instead of Geranium?

[Derbenev Anton]

Banderites didn't even bother when NATO missiles sank the Black Sea Fleet flagship, the Moskva. What's stopping the Central Committee from making a decision?

[Russia2014]

...it feels like Washington is stopping "them" from making decisions, it makes ALL the decisions for them....

[Svetlana]

Do you have anything to say? In your own words. This isn't a quote, it's a copy-paste posted on a dozen websites. TSIPSO?

[alexboguslavski]

Alexander Kots, war correspondent.
Since late 2013, Kots has covered events in Crimea and Donbas. Since February 2022, he has been working in the special military operation zone. If he's CIPSO, then who are you?
I advise you not to browse Ukrainian information dumps.

[Evgeny64]

What does all your spam have to do with the topic of the article? You've polluted the entire thread, and it's impossible to tell people what's on topic.
It's all off-topic and spam. Maybe you should complain to the admins. Nowhere to speak up? Feeling lonely? See a psychologist.
Among this garbage, it is impossible to find anyone who is discussing the topic.

[alexboguslavski]

Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you where to go.

So, for you, civilian casualties are spam? And shouldn't they be avenged many times over? You're the enemy. Simply the ENEMY.

It's impossible to tell people on this topic.

Speak up, I'm not standing behind you with a gun to the back of your head.

[Evgeny64]

Here we go...

That is, for you, sacrifices

I didn't drink vodka with you as brothers.

Shouldn't they be avenged many times over?

There's no need to cover up your spam with good intentions. Are you meeting your posting quota?

[alexboguslavski]

Russia launched a missile strike on a grain elevator belonging to Ukrlandfarming in the Sumy region, causing the company to completely halt operations, according to a statement from the agricultural holding.
Ukrlandfarming complained that since the start of the full-scale conflict, its grain elevators and other agricultural facilities have been repeatedly attacked in the Sumy, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv regions.

[fruc]

Drones approached the sites from the sea.

It can be assumed that they were clearly visible on the radar screens, unless they were flying very low.

[alexboguslavski]

The Houthis launched new attacks on the port of Mokha on the Red Sea coast, causing significant material damage. The ground offensive toward the port also continues.

[Maximum.1]

Bisogna bloccare il porto di Odessa colpendo le imbarcazioni che tentano sia di entrare sia che di uscire dal porto ,così si bloccherebbe il canale principale di rifornimenti .Avanti cosi con sempre maggiore intensità.

[bukhach]

New strikes are good, but I have a question for the experts: wouldn't it have been simpler to simply mine the entrances and exits of Ukrainian ports with widespread warning to the so-called "international community," and then send Gerani and other missiles to land targets? Maybe it would be more cost-effective, since they wouldn't go where there are likely mines, and whether a UAV arrives or not, there's a risk, but there's also the temptation to slip through.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Wouldn't it have been easier to simply mine the entrance and exit of Ukrainian ports?

What kind of platforms do you propose to use to mine Ukrainian ports? Send destroyers there to bombard them with coastal artillery before they even reach the shipping lanes? Airborne mines are possible, but they carry a high risk, and it's clear that these would need to be bottom mines, which would need to be placed precisely in the shipping lanes within range of Ukrainian air defenses.
But perhaps you have a third method for laying mines... from a submarine? I'm sorely disappointed to hear that I suggest you look at the depth chart for this area, where no competent submarine commander would dare venture while submerged. Even for surface vessels with a deep draft of 8-10 meters, there are established shipping lanes with dredging and markings using buoys and beacons. And the submarine's height from keel to masthead is about 15 meters, so no one would dare crawl on their bellies along the seabed. What are your suggestions?

[olboop]

This is probably the tenth post, including two of mine, explaining the physical impossibility of using submarines and mines in the northwestern corner of the Black Sea.
One can only be surprised by people who try to speak out here without reading what has already been discussed on this issue.
It is clear that not everyone is competent in maritime matters, but one must have respect for fellow forum members.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Olbop, I'm cool with this nonsense about mining or landing troops near Odessa. People simply don't know the depths of this corner of the Black Sea, and our comments don't always make it to the top of the article... I rarely have the patience to read comments past the first ten. But let's hope that water wears away stone, and that the same drunkard (Oleg) will see that mining isn't so simple. And I hope he won't resort to suggesting laying mines far from shore in deep water, where the length of the halyard and anchor would be nearly a hundred meters, which is the weight a naval mine needs to keep afloat. At the beginning of the Northern Military District, the Ukrainians planted such mines off their coast, fearing a landing, and over time, the mines were torn from their buoys and carried by the current all the way to the Bosphorus.

[bukhach]

Dear Sir, you're right, I'm no expert, but your post suggests that mining is, in principle, possible, but only this, that, and that. You surprise me—you yourself admit to the Air Force's actions. As for air defense, well, the enemy always has it, and the task of overcoming and suppressing it hasn't been cancelled—or should we wait until it's gone? The same Yankees were able to suppress Iran's air defense without significant losses in the air. We, of course, have a lower smokestack and thinner smoke, but do we really lack such experience? By the way, why not use unmanned combat aircraft for mining? Depth is no obstacle for them, and there's less risk to personnel. Or conduct a combined operation from the air and sea. As for bottom mines and precisely in the fairway, the very fact of mining will already play a role in psychological pressure—how and where they were laid is unknown, but they can explode. Yes, you are epic about moored mines and depths. They wrote, I sinfully thought that this weapon can only be used out of desperation, is it really that bad in terms of mine weapons?!

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Is it really that bad that we have mine weapons?!

Oleg, I'm no expert on naval mines either, although I read all the materials on such weapons. But if we believe one of the experts on this website, M. Klimov, who writes about torpedoes and mines in our arsenal, it's not "that bad," but a downright disaster in this regard.
Why aren't we mining them? And why haven't we attacked the ships from the air until recently, even though we knew perfectly well they were carrying weapons?
Unfortunately, in this NWO, which we're afraid to officially call a war, we're acting not just like a mirror, but through a distorting mirror. We first allow the enemy to use everything they can against us, and only then... dare we respond.
I can only assume that the Kremlin doesn't want to be the first to violate the IMO rules on freedom of navigation on the high seas. We signed and ratified this IMO, which means the inviolability of foreign vessels in neutral waters, no matter what they're carrying, even tanks on their decks, just as we once carried to Vietnam, and not a single Soviet vessel was attacked until it docked in Haiphong. And not because the US was afraid of us, but because they adhered to these rules back then, even though the US itself never ratified the IMO.
Neutral waters are defined as waters beyond 12 miles from the shore... Laying mines in neutral waters doesn't make much sense; it's too far or too deep. And venturing into territorial waters under coastal defense surveillance is still terrifying. The example of the cruiser Moskva is proof of this. And after that, our fleet was so decimated that we can no longer even dream of landing troops or laying mines with it.

[bukhach]

Thank you for the detailed answer. I just realized that, despite all our problems with mine weapons and the current circumstances, the main obstacle is still our deliberate reluctance to lay mines. Incidentally, "civilized" countries are quite willing to stop tankers flying other countries' flags in neutral waters. It seems all agreements and treaties have ceased to mean anything to the West, so now it's up to us. All we need is, as they say, the will—Vova gave the go-ahead. Perhaps his permission is required for mining too? If so, things couldn't be worse; the military itself must decide what and how to do to accomplish its assigned task.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

The military must decide for themselves what and how to do to accomplish the assigned task.

But here you are hasty... without specific permission from the Commander-in-Chief, coordinated with the Security Council, the military is tied hand and foot in choosing targets and the means of destroying them.
Suffice it to say that many civilian vessels from friendly countries, primarily Chinese and many Indian, have been calling at Ukrainian ports. Even if they were flying foreign flags, just as many of our own vessels fly similar "flags of convenience." And every strike on such vessels leads to a diplomatic "F.E." from the Foreign Ministries of these countries. But it seems we've finally crossed this threshold, having apparently accumulated a number of strikes on our own ships and those of other countries in our ports and neutral waters. In other words, we've effectively demonstrated to everyone that we weren't the first to start this and are now striking back. And here the only question remains: how much did we have to endure before we were ready to take retaliatory measures? It seems no country in the world would tolerate so much and would respond immediately, and some even in multiples, as Israel does. And we are the sufferers... and we justify ourselves with the ingrained saying "it takes a long time to get going, but the speed is good."
I doubt they'll even resort to mining the waters around Ukrainian ports... It's technically difficult and risky. And there might be no return, other than our own losses during the mining process. It's not like just throwing mines in a field—that's much more complicated—but forcing foreigners to refuse to use Ukrainian ports is possible even without naval mines. For now, we're not sinking them, just scaring them with lightweight drones, trying not to kill anyone on board, and waiting for a reaction... If they don't understand that, we'll start hitting them harder...

[bukhach]

Dear Sir, I meant the military fulfilling assigned tasks, not acting freely. They gave us the task of interrupting port calls - carry it out, but the military has to think about how and by what means. By the way, mining solves the problem of ships of friendly countries - we warned them, and if anyone doesn't hide, it's not my fault.
Why does a submarine minelayer have to be underwater? Aren't surface vessels capable of this when deployed in groups? And can't the submarine itself be made into a mine, not just a fireship? It arrives at its target, dives on command, and then just lies there, biding its time, especially since shallow water isn't a problem. How hard could it be for our designers to build something like that? Russia was once a master of minelaying, and everyone, including our enemies, acknowledged it.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Aren't surface ships capable of this when used in groups?

[/ Quote]
I don't know if we have any unmanned submarines for laying mines. As for the unmanned submarine itself, as a bomb, mine, or torpedo... there are plenty! And the Ukrainian Armed Forces are using them aggressively. But look at their effectiveness when we recovered from the attack on the Crimean Bridge and began protecting such facilities and harbors with anti-submarine nets and observation posts.
And it's better for a miner to be underwater, to conceal its operations... Isn't it clear? But so far, no one in the world has such BEK miners... They wrote here that the US is developing such a thing, but it's not yet in service.

[quote]He came to the point, sank on command and let him lie there waiting for his turn.

WHY??? What's the point of waiting? We see any vessel that crosses the parallel north of the Danube mouth, which means it's DEFINITELY headed for Ukraine... And then it can be hit from the air with Geranium missiles. Kali missiles, from aircraft, or from a Bastion missile from the shore, whatever... There are plenty of weapons, hit as much as you want... and we're finally hitting!

[bukhach]

Well, if there was a mine threat, there wouldn't have been any need to attack; they simply wouldn't have come near the ports, that's all. And the weapons would have been saved for mine-sweeping parties, if any showed up.

[bukhach]

Listen, I haven't read your discussions, so I apologize. It's clear about the depths for submarines, but why do you think mine weapons can't be used? Because of the carriers? Express yourself more clearly so you can be understood.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Express yourself more clearly so that you are understood.

You should try reading up on the different types of naval mines yourself. After all, many of our citizens' perceptions of them haven't changed since their inception. A horned ball suspended in the water by a cable, waiting to collide with a ship. Or how those cables scrape against the hull of a submarine as it makes its way through a minefield... And most importantly, who lays these mines and how, so they don't stick out on the surface and don't hang too deep, but can snag on the hull of a passing vessel. Can you imagine?
Now, imagine the likelihood of a collision in the open sea with its vast expanses and how many such mines would need to be installed, preferably so covertly that the enemy would not see or guess where they were placed.
But even if you manage to plant them, it's unclear from which carrier (submarine or destroyer), to clear such primitive contact mines, a couple of simple boats with paravanes are enough. Due to their shallow draft, these boats don't snag the mines themselves, but cut them from their cables, forcing them to surface...
And although such contact mines have practically been abandoned, new magnetic and other floating acoustic mines cannot be simply thrown anywhere and with whatever comes to hand.
I assumed it wouldn't be possible to get there on a surface ship, and it's too shallow for a submarine... I did include a picture of the depths of that corner of the Black Sea, where artificial channels have been created even for surface vessels. You'd need either a small submarine, like the Piranha, or an unmanned underwater minelayer, which I haven't heard of in our arsenal.
But now the most important thing is - WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT?
Why bother with such risky mining when you can strike any vessel from the air with far greater effectiveness? Don't we have Geraniums or missiles for that? All warships and aircraft are equipped with such missiles, and Geraniums don't even require ships... So why are you so eager to put your head under the guillotine?

[bukhach]

I don't understand your statement about the guillotine. What does it have to do with any combat mission involving risk? Is accomplishing what's required with minimal losses an axiom for the military, or am I wrong? And the decision on how to accomplish this should rest with the commanders. Overall, I stand by my opinion that mining the port entrances would be more effective in stopping shipping, and who knows, the war continues and night hasn't come yet.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

To carry out what is required with minimal losses is an axiom for the military,

This is exactly what I am talking about when I give the example of the guillotine, when you want to try to get your head off the chopping block in time.
Mining will be the last resort, and only out of utter desperation, which is precisely what I doubt and am trying to convey to you. While there are far safer and more effective ways to stop foreign vessels from entering Ukraine, and we are currently implementing them with drones... if that's not enough, we'll start using missiles from ships, submarines, aircraft, and even Bastion missiles from the shore. We have more than enough resources and capabilities, and there's no significant threat to ourselves.
So what's so hard to understand? Elementary, Watson!

[bukhach]

The effectiveness/cost of our strikes with all the means you listed varies, but mines are supposedly cheaper, and besides, they still hit! Your opinion is your own opinion, everyone is their own director, you haven't convinced me.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

and mines are cheaper

It's not just the cost of the charge itself that needs to be considered, but also the cost of its delivery or installation. And that's where things get very expensive and dangerous for the mine's carrier (installer), isn't it?
Could you explain how and with what means you propose laying naval mines, and most importantly, where? But when it comes to "where," I don't want a simple answer like "In the Black Sea." I need a very precise one, tied to neutral waters, the exclusive economic zone, or Ukraine's territorial waters. You understand that we need to enter the fairways, which have been dug (!!!) by dredgers and marked with signal buoys and floating beacons. Scattering mines across the rest of the waters is useless; no one sails there. And mining these fairways is like putting your head under a guillotine with a slim chance of being able to pull it out just before it goes off. And it will go off; don't doubt NATO's reconnaissance capabilities in the Black Sea. They'll be waiting for you there, long before you approach the fairway.
Therefore, you shouldn't consider yourself smarter than the ship commanders and the Black Sea Fleet leadership.

[Ivan Kuzmich]

Quote: Saburov_Alexander53

Wouldn't it have been easier to simply mine the entrance and exit of Ukrainian ports?

What kind of platforms do you propose to use to mine Ukrainian ports? Send destroyers there to bombard them with coastal artillery before they even reach the shipping lanes? Airborne mines are possible, but they carry a high risk, and it's clear that these would need to be bottom mines, which would need to be placed precisely in the shipping lanes within range of Ukrainian air defenses.
But perhaps you have a third method for laying mines... from a submarine? I'm sorely disappointed to hear that I suggest you look at the depth chart for this area, where no competent submarine commander would dare venture while submerged. Even for surface vessels with a deep draft of 8-10 meters, there are established shipping lanes with dredging and markings using buoys and beacons. And the submarine's height from keel to masthead is about 15 meters, so no one would dare crawl on their bellies along the seabed. What are your suggestions?

Hello, it's well written. I have nothing to object to.
And what if they are sunk in neutral waters or in the Bosphorus, so that they cannot dodge)))?))))))) and for sure

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Ivan Kuzmich, thank you for your support. Although the missile submarine I served on wasn't designed to lay mines, I have some understanding of such weapons from the internet.
Sinking in international waters is, of course, safer for you, if you're talking about a submarine-launched torpedo where the depths allow. But as I understand it, we don't yet have the goal of necessarily sinking a foreign vessel, risking the loss of its crew. For now, we're simply trying to scare everyone with light drone strikes that don't lead to sinking. And thus, we expect to soon force everyone to stop sailing to Ukraine.
And if the goal were to sink, then even here a submarine with torpedoes would be a last resort... After all, any military ship and aircraft has missiles for this, and a civilian vessel has nothing with which to fight them off... So why complicate the task for yourself and torment your submarine by hunting defenseless people?
And about the Bosphorus... We shouldn't irritate Erdogan too much right under his nose... He might freak out and close the passage to our ships in retaliation... And do we need that? Aren't the rest of the waters enough for us? We want to take a dump right on the Turks' doorstep? This is pure politics, not military prowess.

[skeptic]

Attacks on Ukrainian port infrastructure continue

If dry cargo ships are still sailing, it means not all of them are being hit. There is an opportunity to slip through.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

It seems we don't have much desire to sink a foreign vessel yet... So we're hitting them with light Geranium missiles to stop them or force them to return. After all, attacks on foreign civilian vessels in neutral waters are a direct violation of the ISL. And we only resorted to this after accumulating similar statistics on strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against such vessels.
In such attacks, GEOGRAPHY helps us a lot, which UNCERTAINLY shows that the ship is heading specifically for Ukraine when it passes by the mouth of the Danube, without turning into Romania.
And if they attack ships exiting the Bosphorus, how can they tell if they're heading for Bulgaria or Romania? They're unlikely to keep data on ships' transponders indicating they're heading to Ukrainian ports.

[Sergei Fonov]

"New attacks on ports and ships: another dry cargo ship is 'smoking' opposite Odessa."
There is no need to pollute the atmosphere, sunken bulk carriers will no longer be able to smoke, and unloading a sunken vessel is much more difficult.

[mexanik62]

Yes, it shouldn’t smoke, but block the fairway!

[Ivan Kuzmich]

Quote: Saburov_Alexander53

Ivan Kuzmich, thank you for your support. Although the missile submarine I served on wasn't designed to lay mines, I have some understanding of such weapons from the internet.
Sinking in international waters is, of course, safer for you, if you're talking about a submarine-launched torpedo where the depths allow. But as I understand it, we don't yet have the goal of necessarily sinking a foreign vessel, risking the loss of its crew. For now, we're simply trying to scare everyone with light drone strikes that don't lead to sinking. And thus, we expect to soon force everyone to stop sailing to Ukraine.
And if the goal were to sink, then even here a submarine with torpedoes would be a last resort... After all, any military ship and aircraft has missiles for this, and a civilian vessel has nothing with which to fight them off... So why complicate the task for yourself and torment your submarine by hunting defenseless people?
And about the Bosphorus... We shouldn't irritate Erdogan too much right under his nose... He might freak out and close the passage to our ships in retaliation... And do we need that? Aren't the rest of the waters enough for us? We want to take a dump right on the Turks' doorstep? This is pure politics, not military prowess.

Yes, I was just joking and fantasizing a bit about the Bosphorus.
I agree with you that no one will like it if ships start sinking in their territorial waters.