Talk:Ropucha-class landing ship
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
Ropucha II Sucessor
edit(I am argentinian, my english it s bad) The Ivan Green class Landing Ship Tank it's the sucessor of the alligator class lst, but what it's the sucessor of the ropucha II lst. My opinion.....the ropucha II not have a sucessor or the ivan green it's a sucessor of the alligator class and the ropucha II class. Please respond/answer. Juakoblabla (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ropuchas from Berdiansk
edit- Copied from Talk:Russian ship Caesar Kunikov
In the video the number on the ship in the front resembles "58", a "1" is not visible however (scraped off? or completely different ship?), so if the decision is between only the two ships mentioned here, I'd say the Novocherkassk is the one in the back with the quite intense fire on the foredeck. However, one can also see a bit of smoke from the ship in the front (though that might only be smoldering debris blown over from the Saratov at the dock).--OBrian (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is quite possible, that for current operation all Ropuchas had changed their numbers (at least the nearest ship is painted off its name near stern). Moreover there are sources that Ropuchas from other fleets had also entered in Black Sea for exercises in the beginning of 2022. So, it is possible, that they are not even CK and N. Alex Spade (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Minsk
editI left the ship as active because the cite provided links to this tweet [1], which states that is "likely beyond economic repair" which is different than "is beyond economic repair". The first is supposition and not backed by proof. The second would be fact. Therefore the cite cannot be used to back up that statement. Llammakey (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
BDK?
editWhat does 'BDK' mean, as in the caption "BDK Alexander Shabalin"? Nurg (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- BDK is a Russian acronym which means Bolshoi Desantryy Korabl (I may have misspelled that, I wrote it quickly when I took the note) which means Large Landing Ship.[1]Llammakey (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ * Gardiner, Robert; Chumbley, Stephen & Budzbon, Przemysław, eds. (1995). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. p. 412. ISBN 1-55750-132-7.
Cesar Kunikov
editThe Cesar Kunikov has been reported destroyed by Ukraine. Video published by Ukrainian MoD appears to verify it was struck by USV and capsized shortly thereafter. As this occurred at sea it is quite possible additional photo verification may be difficult so I’m unclear what constitutes a reputable source for this. Do we just wait until/if Russia verifies its gone? Jyggalypuff (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- News picked up the story its reputable now. Jyggalypuff (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Independant sources have yet to confirm sinking. Please stop posting propaganda by either side. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- So Oryx and the Economist are now propaganda? Okaaaay....--RD47 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Obvious you only read headlines. The Economist states in the article it is only a Ukrainian claim. The Oryx article is just a list of things claimed destroyed, nothing confirming the destruction. You are not acting in good faith. I will no longer discuss this with you. Have a good day. Llammakey (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's your second-guessing of reliable sources which is not done in good faith. If the economist states that the ship was sunk, it's because they have asssessed UA claims to be credible. Also Oryx is not a "list of claims", but a list of losses based on open-source data. There is no reason to gainsay these sources without evidence. --RD47 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- The only thing that the Economist stated is that the Ukrainians claimed that the ship has sunk. The Economist never claimed to have verified the sinking, especially given the fact that there's not even a single video of sinking.
- Ukrainian claims of success are many and numerous for obvious reasons, but only some of them get confirmed. — kashmīrī TALK 17:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- There are, actually, videos of the sinking. The video from Ukrainian drones showed mutiple hits [2]; at the end the ship is seen rolling over to port and sinking [3]. After the sinking, an underwater explosion was witnessed from the coast [4]. The ukrainians do sometimes make false claims with no evidence, but this is not the case here. --RD47 (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- incredible. The sources provided literally show the ship sinking and you still object 46.135.79.201 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's your second-guessing of reliable sources which is not done in good faith. If the economist states that the ship was sunk, it's because they have asssessed UA claims to be credible. Also Oryx is not a "list of claims", but a list of losses based on open-source data. There is no reason to gainsay these sources without evidence. --RD47 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Obvious you only read headlines. The Economist states in the article it is only a Ukrainian claim. The Oryx article is just a list of things claimed destroyed, nothing confirming the destruction. You are not acting in good faith. I will no longer discuss this with you. Have a good day. Llammakey (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- So Oryx and the Economist are now propaganda? Okaaaay....--RD47 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Independant sources have yet to confirm sinking. Please stop posting propaganda by either side. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)