Sorry but Kursk was torpedoed and not by its own

[Captain Sub]

That's right, a few amateur shots reveal more truth than a multi billion dollar salvage and media campaign.

You see a round impact hole with a dent around it that goes inward. Apparently they cut in the wrong place, failing to cover that one up.

I guess everytime NATO and Russia clash the press is like "oh naval accident" or "well the russians once again did a bad job of keeping their stuff together".




And you can read more here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...RSK/kursk.html


kind regards,

Paul

[Dowly]

Sooo, if that's made by an torpedo, then why there's no damage to the left side of it?

And you really think that they'd miss something like that if they were to cover it up?

[Captain Sub]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Sooo, if that's made by an torpedo, then why there's no damage to the left side of it?

And you really think that they'd miss something like that if they were to cover it up?

Dear Dowly,

We don't see the inside of the left do we? The right side is the only side we can look into because they've cut it appart.

Also: the hull is very thick and there were 2 explosions heard, it could be that the torpedo first impacted making a very narrow hole, and slowly caused the boat to collapse internally or raising a fire, eventually causing a few more torpedoes inside to blow up the front part.


kind regards,

Paul

[Fincuan]

Google and you'll find tens of pics from every side of the wreck, including inside.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Here's a more interesting question: What will the United States do if (this is a hypothetical) it is proven that Kursk was indeed sunk by an American torpedo?

[Dowly]

Sorry, Paul. I still don't believe it. Granted, I don't know much about modern submarines, but wouldn't and explosion from an torpedo leave something more than just a hole to the hull? I mean, the pressure of the explosion would be huge inside an submarine.

Also, if a torpedo can puncture the hull, then wouldn't you think that an explosion in such a small and confined space would puncture the hull aswell?

[fred8615]

Originally Posted by Captain Sub

You see a round impact hole with a dent around it that goes inward. ...

Sorry, but that doesn't prove anything. The hull plates of the Maine were bent inward too, convincing investigators that the explosion that sank it in Havana harbor, eventually causing the Spanish-American War in 1898, was because of an external explosion. Later research showing that the simple rush of water into the hull could bend the plates back meant that the now current theory of an internal explosion of some of the Maine's own ammo due to the heat of an undetected fire in a next door coal bunker was quite plausible, and in fact more likely than an external mine.

Also, as others have pointed out, that hole is awfully perfect in shape. I suppose you suggest the U.S. used an armor-piercing torpedo, since those type of weapons are the only thing that make nice round holes like that?

And of course there's the question of why in the world would the Russians be covering this up??? Either they have to be, or they're the biggest idiots in the world, since they can't see the "evidence." You would think they would rather blame an outside force for this tragedy rather than their own shoddy equipment or poor crew work, wouldn't they??

And finally, what possible reason would anyone have for torpedoing the Kursk in the first place??? Wars have started over little things like that! Or did the perpetrators know the Russians would blame themselves?

Sorry, but your conspiracy theory gets an "F" for originality and believability. I advise you to seek professional help immediately.

[ETR3(SS)]

All I'm going to say about this is, torpedoes don't puncture the hull. It's not like a HEAT round. I'm gonna go ahead and file this with "the Scorpion was sunk by the Soviets ZOMG!"

[TLAM Strike]

Kursk ended up nearly nearly vertical with her bow buried in the mud when she sank! The angle was so great the AS-28 DSRV couldn't dock with her. The inwards crush could be from something on the seabed like a rock.

How come one side of the hole is round and the other side is square? Answer: because it was cut with a torch, this was caused by the salvage operation that raised her.


BTW if you don't like long URLs like that Vitesse use http://tinyurl.com/ to make them shorter or use the Insert URL feature located above where you type the message here on subsim.

[Captain Sub]

Initially, the truth was actually stated.

This was before the massive media and salvage coverup operation.




MK48 is a US american torpedo and they say fragments of it were found.

Well I think its clear with all pretences and white covers are dropped there is really a secret war going on. Kursk was obviously a victim of that war.
The official story is quite convincing but like so many is filled with just too much BS.


kind regards,

Paul

[convoy hunter]

kursk sank by an poor quality torpedo which was loaded in the tube but the inner door was opened and boom. then the other torpedoes exploded and we are sinking sinking

[Vitesse]

Thanks TLAM Strike for the URL advice.


I'd always understood that the Kursk was sunk by internal torpedo detonation. I take it that is the official version? IIRC, similar designs had been dropped in the west because of hot run accidents.


In comparison to the rest of the damage, that hole in the side is nothing.

If it was caused by a penetrating torp, surely the structure round the entry hole (being already weakened) would have been obliterated in the detonation?

Those pictures showing the bulkheads slammed along inside the pressure hull and smashed to nothing give some idea of the damage sustained internally. Horrible.

I know nothing about modern torpedoes, but the damage looks (to me) far more than might be caused by a single device. I assume other stored torpedoes and/or water pressure?

There is probably more to the Kursk story than we will ever know, but unfortunately, too many conspiracies rely on unlikely circumstances.

[msxyz]

Originally Posted by Vitesse

Thanks TLAM Strike for the URL advice.


I'd always understood that the Kursk was sunk by internal torpedo detonation. I take it that is the official version? IIRC, similar designs had been dropped in the west because of hot run accidents.

The massive damage seen in the photo is clearly the result of the detonation of one or more torpedoes inside the submarine. Not an external explosion, nor water pressure (the submarine sunk in 110m of water)

Whatever caused it IS the true matter of the debate.

An explosion of a "renegade torpedo" launched by mistake by a nearby vessel? A hard collision with the seafloor triggering a premature explosion of one of the warheads? A leak in the hydrogen peroxide tanks of one of the torpedoes? Sabotage? Incompetence? Maybe the truth will be never known.

[Kapitan]

Ok for a start i have seen pictures of kursk with the bow damage before salvage, this is totaly not a torpedo attack the ballistics are entirely wrong for a start the hole you see is back towards compartment 3 and 4, a torpedo explosion is the cause i have spent 10 years researching Kursk and the disaster and the evedence shows that had a MK 48 been responcible it wouldnt have sunk the submarine, the submarine is built like a typhoon although lacks twin pressure hulls, the kursk is able to come to the surface thanks to its 32% reserve bouyancy and there fore the disaster would not have happened in such a catastrophic way.

I have sources within the russian navy who yes spun this scenario off, they are the old die hard communist who still wants war with america.
The photos i have seen show explosive outwards damage to the forward starbord side of the bow so the torpedo went off in tube 1 or 3 ripping upwards, in the said pictures you can clearly make out peeled back metal of the kursks damaged bow.

Again ballistics does not support the idea a torpedo from a forign vessel sinking the entire submarine, the thing was designed to take atleast one direct hit and still be able to make surface, whats more the MK48 ADCAP detonates under the ship in normal circumstancies, this pushes the hull upwards breaking its back.

againg there had already been several instancies with a certain type of torpedo used in the fleet and they had known flaws and problems.
We know from records that a 65-76 fat girl torpedo was onboard and are commonly used for training torpedos, the said torpedo was built in march 1976 and had recieved little maintinance between 1988 and 2000, we also know the torpedo when loading was dropped on the quayside as the cradle gave way and couldnt support it, it was loaded on any way.

Given the state of the torpedo and its age and the fact its fuel is also corrosive it is incredibly possible and most plausable that a fuel leak (Hydrogen peroxide) met with copper components and reacted causing immence pressure in the torpedo finally exploding and causing a fire.
Now the british tested hydrogen peroxide in the 1950's and found the exact same results, further more in 2002 a scenario was put to a british scientist on behalf of the discovery channel UK he showed a small amount of Hydrogen peroxide aprox 10ml mixed with a small amount of copper in a test tube that is sealed like a torpedo will explode with great force.

Another thing stationed some 140 miles infront was the SSBN K114 also taking part in the exercise who picked up the explosion, there were atleast 15 ASW units in the area they would have sniffed a forign submarine and yes they did know who was where, two US submarines and also a british submarine were known to be in the area, and also swedish submarine was in the near area.

Should the americans or british or swedish fired on kursk they would have retaliated they were firing off live weapons at the time kursk went down, whats more peter the great who was just 12 miles away would have heard a torpedo run and also the ASW escorts beside and behind would have heard, if unshedualed the torpedo would have been hostile and a fully sweep would have been conducted to weed out any forign intruders.

The reason a US submarine was photographed in norway is quite simple and is not un common, dropping off intelligence material to be flown back to the USA damage would have been apparent on thier satalites, and whats more photos of the submarine reveled no damage.
Further more any collission between a western submarine and kursk would have led to severe damage, kursk is 18,000tonnes when submerged unlike the 7,000ton US submarine. and 5,000ton british, the damage would have been severe enough that the submarine would had to have surfaced, the kursk is a hefty lump and moving like she was would garentee your going to damage another vessel if a collision occours badly.

I can honestly say after my 10 years of research, the photos i have seen, the people i have spoken to the evedence laid out from both sides.
A torpedo from a forign submarine never caused this accident.

[ETR3(SS)]

Couldn't have put it better myself Kapitan!