Fortunately no, I did not. Though several relatives have returned or not, from various wars, with long-term damage visible or not.
Mostly, my perspective is from being (by HN standards) extremely old. It was 1808 when Napoleon wrote (paraphrasing) that military power is 3/4 the quality of the people and 1/4 the supplies and equipment. The Atlantic gushes about the sinking of the Moskva as if wooden sailing ships were about to be replaced with steam-driven iron ones. I don't see much difference between the Moskva and the IJN's Akagi and Shinano (being sunk) back in WWII. Arguably, one lone dive bomber sunk the former. Certainly one little submarine sunk the latter. (Which was, at the time, by far the heaviest aircraft carrier ever built.) Atlantic-quality journalists at the time could have gushed about how the dive bomber would be new queen of the naval battlefield (they were pretty much obsolete by the end of WWII), and how aircraft carriers would have to get tiny or they'd be doomed (again, reality was quite the opposite). Actually competent journalists could have noted that the Akagi was an extremely vulnerable ship by nature (stuffed full of airplanes, gasoline, bombs), and that damage control efforts on the latter were hopelessly incompetent.
From what I've seen, the Moskva was a very vulnerable ship by design. And the performance of the Russian Army gives no reason to suspect that the Russian Navy might be up to scratch on damage control.
But that sort of cold, people-centric old man's analysis of events is not what most folks want to hear.