The Sheffield almost proves Moskav wasnt sunk by Ukraine

[AZrailwhale]

You can start with what they were hit with.

The HMS Sheffield was hit by a single Exocet missile. At Mach .9 with a missile mass of 780 kg and a warhead of 155kg. But the warhead failed to detonate, so the only damage was from the impact.

Moskva was hit by two Neptune missiles. That is two missiles, also at Mach .9, but 870 kg mass and 150 kg warhead. And from all reports, both warheads detonated.

In other words, one had a hole punched in the side. The other had 2 holes punched in the side, followed by explosions.

Sheffield was lost to fires caused by unburned fuel from the Excocet.

 

[whitehall]

"Almost proves". Another oxymoron to add to the list.

 

[Dayton3]

Lastly in my urgent call to keep an open mind about Moskva sinking. The Sheffield is an unarmored destroyer that was 1/3rd as heavy as Moskva (which was heavily armored).

The Sheffield took 6 days to sink in the rough seas of the Atlantic.

The Moskva sank in less than. A day in relatively calm waters.

The exocet warhead is about 80% as massive as the Harpoon which the Neptune is supposedly derived from.

How does a 3x heavier ship with actual armor (structural support) sink so quickly from a missile that hit a much weaker ship and took 6 days to sink?

When your ship has 16 massive and heavy anti ship missiles mounted in the open, unprotected on the sides of a warship (as with the Moskva) then any fire would likely cause catastrophic explosions.