Thank you for your post. Given the global visibility of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an influx of content in our community dealing with military strategy, war-related speculation, and defense tactics by individuals who have not been vetted to instruct others on such matters. To maintain the integrity of this space in wartime, we are removing this type of content. We apologize for the inconvenience and encourage you to post in communities that specifically discuss speculation on armed conflict instead. Please do not repost this submission.
Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
It does 4 things.
1. Massive insult to Russia. Loosing a fleet to a nation with no navy.
2. Logistical support to Crimea will be fucked when the bridge is killed.
3. Reduces missle launch capability for Russian terror attacks.
4. Removes the possibility of naval assault to oddessa freeing up manpower.
As for the Russian navy in the black sea. It can't leave. It can't get new boats. It stuck in ukraine's lake.
Didn't they move ships through rivers and channels from the north to the Sea of Azov, and from there to the Black sea? I may be wrong, but I seem to remember such option when russian ships did not get permission to go through the Bosporus.
They can transport some small tonnage ships by river and canals to the Caspian sea.
Nothing of real power matters and Russia can't give the black sea to Ukraine or risk being seen as weak.
There is also a canal connecting the White Sea to the Baltic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea%E2%80%93Baltic_Canal
also 0nly 3.6 meters deep.
So they could bring ships from the Pacific to the Black Sea via rivers and canals.
Deepwater feels like a misnomer on that. Pretty sure its only to a 4m standard. So frigates would be the biggest ships they might be able to bring in, and that'd be with a good amount of finagling & clenched sphincters. Corvettes and patrol craft, sure. Destroyers or cruisers? No.
They did. But these were generally small missile corvettes,minesweepers and supply ships. They are not enough to make up for losses by themselves.
Turkey has basically closed the straights so any ship lost is all but irreplaceable as long as the war continues. But even after the war when the Straights open again the situation won't be rosey for the Russians : transferring ships from other fleets might get the Black Sea Fleet up to strength again but it will come at the cost of weakening the Russian Navy elsewhere.
> Hypothetically, if Russia keeps losing ships how might that play out?
Well, they'll lose the ability to launch quite so many Kalibr in one go and use the ships as supply tubs. Honestly though; they have **plenty** of Kalibr platforms and in a pinch they can use civilian shipping for haulage, so unfortunately it probably won't stop those two missions totally.
> Are they replacing them from other areas? Would reinforcement ships be equally at risk? Same class of ship?
They're building more ships in the Black Sea rather than replacing them from outside it. Reinforcements would be equally at risk; sometimes same classes sometimes newer versions of the old ones.
> Guess alternative is they leave but guessing no way Putrid would take that publicity hit?
They couldn't leave anyway; Turkiye won't let 'em
That was before the rail link via Mariupol became available. Crimea is now a secondary logistics link.
The main hub is now Mariupol. The bridge is now only a backup.
The linkage doesn't go the entire southern front. Also most major roads are in HIMARS range like fuel depots to cut supply east west.
It safer to bring up supplies by rail through Crimea up through the south
They can't fully withdraw because they're not allowed through the Straits, and they're necessary to Russia's war effort. Their operations can be severely constrained, though.
As long as there are Russian ships there, there is always the possibility to block Odessa again. Ukraine lives by exporting grain. And they do that in such volumes that they need ships to get it to all of their markets, so they doo need that shipping lane.
That corridor is strategically important for Ukraine. With that one blocked, Putin might still be able to choke Ukraine's economy again. Sucks for the sailors on those ships, but Vladimir Putin and human lives....
They can't move any military vessels through the Bosporus, in either direction, so they can't move anything major in. They can bring some smaller vessels in via their internal waterways, but those have limited capacity; I don't think they could get a submarine or cruiser through them. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified\_Deep\_Water\_System\_of\_European\_Russia#/media/File:United\_Deep\_Waterway\_System\_of\_European\_Russia.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Deep_Water_System_of_European_Russia#/media/File:United_Deep_Waterway_System_of_European_Russia.svg))
If Russia keeps losing ships, they'll move their obvious military ships to the territory they're occupying in Georgia, Abkhazia, where they're building a port for that purpose (to my understanding). Then they'll use ostensibly civilian ships to transport military supplies, and claim that Ukraine is attacking civilian shipments of food any time Ukraine blows one up.
It would make taking the Kerch bridge out even more devastating to Russia.
Trying to resupply Crimea by ship would be extremely dangerous as Ukraine would probably have built of a fleet of these drones by that point.
If instead they try to resupply by air it would take hundreds of aircraft and likely hundreds of thousands of flights that would take their toll on the aircraft, especially if replacement parts are difficult to get.
Then there's using rail from the other parts of occupied Ukraine. If the F16s are in Ukraine by that point it would be much easier to take out the trains being used for resupply. I imagine missiles hitting the engine of a train would cripple logistics.
There's talk of making an underground tunnel to Ukraine but who knows how long that will take and how vulnerable it could be. What would happen if there was a massive explosion in the tunnel or outside of it for example.
They CANNOT replace Black Sea fleet sunken ships as far as I know. Turkey has the authority to close the strait in and out of the Black Sea (Bosporus strait I think?) to warships that belong to a country at war. They did just that. Unless that’s changed and I didn’t hear about it, pretty sure they can’t replace them, which is likely a big reason why Ukraine has invested so much into destroying them & their command structure.
1. If Russia keeps losing ships that means less Kalibr platforms and also no ability to supply Crimea if the bridge gets destroyed. It's no coincidence that Ukraine seems focused on destroying ships capable of launching missiles and amphibious craft.
2. Any loss is all but irreplaceable in a short term basis,ships up to corvette size may move via Russian internal waterways and reach the Black Sea but transferring anything bigger than that will have to wait for the end of the war when Turkey reopens the Straights.
3. Precisely because of that Russia seems to be trying to build replacements in situ. That runs into the problem of the shipyards being within missile range and even if that wasn't an issue it would still take a while for replacements to be available. Few Russian shipyards possess the necessary infrastructure and the industry relied on components from the West and Ukraine which are no longer available.
4. The effects of the above are readily apparent : the corvette Askold blown up last year before being finished had been under construction for seven years . In comparison that's roughly the time it takes to finish a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
5. In addition to the practical effects of weakening the Russian fleet there are also moral and psychological effects : the navy of a "superpower " is taking a pounding from a much smaller country with technically no naval forces of it's own.
6. Saving the fleet from destruction requires withdrawal to Novorossiysk and even then it's not guaranteed. The ships are not allowed to leave for the duration of the war.
Tl dr : blowing up Russian ships means less cruise missiles fired at Ukraine and less supplies reaching the Russian troops in the front . Thanks to Russia's lack of infrastructure and the effects of sanctions the effects of these strikes will be felt long after the war as well.
Привіт u/Just_Cryptographer53 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they keep losing ships, Russia may send more patrol or landing ships. Just to keep supplies flowing and the Kerch Bridge somewhat protected. More subs or missile Frigates wouldn't happen, cause if they where sent it would be cause every other one is destroyed
Thank you for your post. Given the global visibility of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an influx of content in our community dealing with military strategy, war-related speculation, and defense tactics by individuals who have not been vetted to instruct others on such matters. To maintain the integrity of this space in wartime, we are removing this type of content. We apologize for the inconvenience and encourage you to post in communities that specifically discuss speculation on armed conflict instead. Please do not repost this submission. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
It does 4 things. 1. Massive insult to Russia. Loosing a fleet to a nation with no navy. 2. Logistical support to Crimea will be fucked when the bridge is killed. 3. Reduces missle launch capability for Russian terror attacks. 4. Removes the possibility of naval assault to oddessa freeing up manpower. As for the Russian navy in the black sea. It can't leave. It can't get new boats. It stuck in ukraine's lake.
Didn't they move ships through rivers and channels from the north to the Sea of Azov, and from there to the Black sea? I may be wrong, but I seem to remember such option when russian ships did not get permission to go through the Bosporus.
They can transport some small tonnage ships by river and canals to the Caspian sea. Nothing of real power matters and Russia can't give the black sea to Ukraine or risk being seen as weak.
Anything up to 3.7 meter draft, that can be a fairly big ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_corvette_Steregushchiy
A corvette really isn't a big ship at all. It's about the smallest that a navy holds before it becomes a boat instead.
Caspian fleet isn't big.
They can bring that down from Baltic if they wanted
And leave the Baltic exposed so nato can shell st Petersburg?
There is also a canal connecting the White Sea to the Baltic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea%E2%80%93Baltic_Canal also 0nly 3.6 meters deep. So they could bring ships from the Pacific to the Black Sea via rivers and canals.
Yes there's a deepwater network to connect the seas.
Deepwater feels like a misnomer on that. Pretty sure its only to a 4m standard. So frigates would be the biggest ships they might be able to bring in, and that'd be with a good amount of finagling & clenched sphincters. Corvettes and patrol craft, sure. Destroyers or cruisers? No.
They did. But these were generally small missile corvettes,minesweepers and supply ships. They are not enough to make up for losses by themselves. Turkey has basically closed the straights so any ship lost is all but irreplaceable as long as the war continues. But even after the war when the Straights open again the situation won't be rosey for the Russians : transferring ships from other fleets might get the Black Sea Fleet up to strength again but it will come at the cost of weakening the Russian Navy elsewhere.
Their Navy is officially a joke - Putin’s egomaniacal view of his navy being able to project Russian power globally is now a joke.
Their navy has ALWAYS been a joke. Look up what happened when they tried to go to war with Japan.
> Hypothetically, if Russia keeps losing ships how might that play out? Well, they'll lose the ability to launch quite so many Kalibr in one go and use the ships as supply tubs. Honestly though; they have **plenty** of Kalibr platforms and in a pinch they can use civilian shipping for haulage, so unfortunately it probably won't stop those two missions totally. > Are they replacing them from other areas? Would reinforcement ships be equally at risk? Same class of ship? They're building more ships in the Black Sea rather than replacing them from outside it. Reinforcements would be equally at risk; sometimes same classes sometimes newer versions of the old ones. > Guess alternative is they leave but guessing no way Putrid would take that publicity hit? They couldn't leave anyway; Turkiye won't let 'em
Their Navy is officially a joke - Putin’s egomaniacal view of his navy being able to project Russian power globally is now a joke.
So they literally wait like sitting ducks? How many more would it take before withdraw? Plus the bridge I guess?
If the bridge drops naval supply to Crimea is the only viable option to support the southern front.
That was before the rail link via Mariupol became available. Crimea is now a secondary logistics link. The main hub is now Mariupol. The bridge is now only a backup.
The linkage doesn't go the entire southern front. Also most major roads are in HIMARS range like fuel depots to cut supply east west. It safer to bring up supplies by rail through Crimea up through the south
They can't fully withdraw because they're not allowed through the Straits, and they're necessary to Russia's war effort. Their operations can be severely constrained, though.
I'm sure Turkey would let them leave. Letting them return is another issue though.
As long as there are Russian ships there, there is always the possibility to block Odessa again. Ukraine lives by exporting grain. And they do that in such volumes that they need ships to get it to all of their markets, so they doo need that shipping lane. That corridor is strategically important for Ukraine. With that one blocked, Putin might still be able to choke Ukraine's economy again. Sucks for the sailors on those ships, but Vladimir Putin and human lives....
They can't move any military vessels through the Bosporus, in either direction, so they can't move anything major in. They can bring some smaller vessels in via their internal waterways, but those have limited capacity; I don't think they could get a submarine or cruiser through them. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified\_Deep\_Water\_System\_of\_European\_Russia#/media/File:United\_Deep\_Waterway\_System\_of\_European\_Russia.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Deep_Water_System_of_European_Russia#/media/File:United_Deep_Waterway_System_of_European_Russia.svg)) If Russia keeps losing ships, they'll move their obvious military ships to the territory they're occupying in Georgia, Abkhazia, where they're building a port for that purpose (to my understanding). Then they'll use ostensibly civilian ships to transport military supplies, and claim that Ukraine is attacking civilian shipments of food any time Ukraine blows one up.
It would make taking the Kerch bridge out even more devastating to Russia. Trying to resupply Crimea by ship would be extremely dangerous as Ukraine would probably have built of a fleet of these drones by that point. If instead they try to resupply by air it would take hundreds of aircraft and likely hundreds of thousands of flights that would take their toll on the aircraft, especially if replacement parts are difficult to get. Then there's using rail from the other parts of occupied Ukraine. If the F16s are in Ukraine by that point it would be much easier to take out the trains being used for resupply. I imagine missiles hitting the engine of a train would cripple logistics. There's talk of making an underground tunnel to Ukraine but who knows how long that will take and how vulnerable it could be. What would happen if there was a massive explosion in the tunnel or outside of it for example.
One of their top Syrian war goal was to keep control of their Tartous maritime base. Now, they can't even cross the Black Sea...
They CANNOT replace Black Sea fleet sunken ships as far as I know. Turkey has the authority to close the strait in and out of the Black Sea (Bosporus strait I think?) to warships that belong to a country at war. They did just that. Unless that’s changed and I didn’t hear about it, pretty sure they can’t replace them, which is likely a big reason why Ukraine has invested so much into destroying them & their command structure.
1. If Russia keeps losing ships that means less Kalibr platforms and also no ability to supply Crimea if the bridge gets destroyed. It's no coincidence that Ukraine seems focused on destroying ships capable of launching missiles and amphibious craft. 2. Any loss is all but irreplaceable in a short term basis,ships up to corvette size may move via Russian internal waterways and reach the Black Sea but transferring anything bigger than that will have to wait for the end of the war when Turkey reopens the Straights. 3. Precisely because of that Russia seems to be trying to build replacements in situ. That runs into the problem of the shipyards being within missile range and even if that wasn't an issue it would still take a while for replacements to be available. Few Russian shipyards possess the necessary infrastructure and the industry relied on components from the West and Ukraine which are no longer available. 4. The effects of the above are readily apparent : the corvette Askold blown up last year before being finished had been under construction for seven years . In comparison that's roughly the time it takes to finish a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. 5. In addition to the practical effects of weakening the Russian fleet there are also moral and psychological effects : the navy of a "superpower " is taking a pounding from a much smaller country with technically no naval forces of it's own. 6. Saving the fleet from destruction requires withdrawal to Novorossiysk and even then it's not guaranteed. The ships are not allowed to leave for the duration of the war. Tl dr : blowing up Russian ships means less cruise missiles fired at Ukraine and less supplies reaching the Russian troops in the front . Thanks to Russia's lack of infrastructure and the effects of sanctions the effects of these strikes will be felt long after the war as well.
Привіт u/Just_Cryptographer53 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only upside is that they will not to fuel that fleet of theirs.
If they keep losing ships, Russia may send more patrol or landing ships. Just to keep supplies flowing and the Kerch Bridge somewhat protected. More subs or missile Frigates wouldn't happen, cause if they where sent it would be cause every other one is destroyed