The Kursk Disaster - What is your theory?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

After reading a few threads about the ship, and reading a book on the subject, I'm interested to know what you folks think about the Kursk and what happened.

My theory is, the boat was rushed to sea when it clearly wasnt ready, and substandard ex-soviet torpedoes malfunctioned and exploded in the bow, killing everyone in the first few compartments and sealing others in the aft.



Please dont turn this into a political debate about Communism or crap like that. All I want is your views on what happened. :)

[STEED]

You would need to scan the wreck inside and out to get any idea on what happen. But I suspect the truth will never see the light of day, that is to say something else may have not come to light yet.

[robbo180265]

I reckon that had a NATO sub or subs been involved,Russia would be only too happy to put the evidence on display, and show the rest of the world how horrible we all are in the west.

For that reason, my vote goes to a torpedo explosion. Apparently The Kursk was trialling a new kind of torpedo, so maybe something went wrong whilst loading. A warhead going off inside(rather than outside) the sub would do a hell of a lot of damage, and maybe lead to a chain re-action in the tubes leading to the sub sinking pretty quickly.

On the other Kursk thead I posted a link to the memorial site, they talk about possible reasons on there. It's quite a good read.

[ASWnut101]

My theory? Here: A 65cm Hydrogen Peroxide powered torpedo malfunctioned in the magazine, blew up, and sunk the boat.

[waste gate]

Hit by one British and one US torpedo. Two torps sealed its fate. A message needed to be sent to the Russians.

So far so good. That's my theory.

[bookworm_020]

My theory? Here: A 65cm Hydrogen Peroxide powered torpedo malfunctioned in the magazine, blew up, and sunk the boat.

That matches my theroy, HP power torpedos have a mixed history. The UK had some bad experiences with them and got rid of them.


That's my two cent's so I'll stop here.:yep:

[Enigma]

A little off topic, but I recall seeing a woman overcome by emotion at a hearing about the Kursk, and she stood up and was yelling at the military and goverment officials on the panel, and a lady walks up and injects her with something to knock her out and shut her up. :o I couldnt believe my eyes!

As for the Kursk, I think a cook off is most likely. I've never seen anything convincing that suggested hostile action.,.....

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

My theory is, the boat was rushed to sea when it clearly wasnt ready, and substandard ex-soviet torpedoes malfunctioned and exploded in the bow, killing everyone in the first few compartments and sealing others in the aft.

Actually, the Kursk had been around for awhile. The problem was w/ the torpedo. The Russians needed the long range capability for their 65cms, so they could not go for a battery design. Don't know why they didn't try for Otto-fuel type monopropellant, but Soviet naval designers are a wierd mix of innovative and conservative.

But honestly I won't put it past the Americans to have done what the conspiracy theorists said (collide and shoot torps to cover their escape, thus INDUCING the accident).

[baggygreen]

well then, where did the damaged US sub go?

It'd have to be repaired somewhere, and isnt pretty much every US naval base able to be seen by civilians - not to mention any aircraft flyovers etc...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

well then, where did the damaged US sub go?

It'd have to be repaired somewhere, and isnt pretty much every US naval base able to be seen by civilians - not to mention any aircraft flyovers etc...

As I understand it, the US came as clean as possible about the Memphis, but the situation with Toledo is less certain. A submarine is mostly submerged and damage can easily be concealed if it is underwater. If the submarine managed to limp from a collision all the way to back to a port, it is in no immediate danger of sinking. IF there was a collision, my move as the USN would have been to just keep the collided sub mostly submerged until there's a chance to quietly move it into a drydock when interest dies down.

[baggygreen]

Alas, there you go - i've never even heard of any incident with the toledo - which helps to push your point.

it would be nice to know for sure, wouldnt it.

Edit - nice avatar, btw

[CptSimFreak]

Aliens....it's always the aliens.

[cobalt]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/

I doubt any of this is what really happened, but it makes you think for a second.

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/

I doubt any of this is what really happened, but it makes you think for a second.
I thought about it for a second and came to the conclusion that a site named "What really happened" is an oxymoron.

The Kirsk was discussed on a thread here about a year or 2 ago. Bring out your dead! :dead:

[Takeda Shingen]

The Kirsk was discussed on a thread here about a year or 2 ago. Bring out your dead! :dead:

Funny, I say that to myself every time a new Middle East thread appears. Then, I utter the final latin text from the Requiem and hit myself in the head with a board.

[Oberon]

The Kirsk was discussed on a thread here about a year or 2 ago. Bring out your dead! :dead:

Funny, I say that to myself every time a new Middle East thread appears. Then, I utter the final latin text from the Requiem and hit myself in the head with a board.

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/thumbnails/05-monks.jpg

"Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem."

[SUBMAN1]

As I understand it, the US came as clean as possible about the Memphis, but the situation with Toledo is less certain. A submarine is mostly submerged and damage can easily be concealed if it is underwater. If the submarine managed to limp from a collision all the way to back to a port, it is in no immediate danger of sinking. IF there was a collision, my move as the USN would have been to just keep the collided sub mostly submerged until there's a chance to quietly move it into a drydock when interest dies down.
Thats funny! Have you ever seen US dry docks? All are open to public scrutiny from many angles. It is impossible to hide a damaged US sub in America. Besides, the reporters like to chew the Navy up over this kind of stuff - so your theory is a practical impossibility.

ANd then I throw the ultimate thing out there - even if they did collide - so what? What answer do you have to that question?

-S

PS. Not to mention the sailors - they can't even keep the White House quiet...

[SUBMAN1]

My theory? Here: A 65cm Hydrogen Peroxide powered torpedo malfunctioned in the magazine, blew up, and sunk the boat.

Thats the best theory too.

[SUBMAN1]

Did a torpedo sink Kursk?

With speculation rife over the causes of the Kursk disaster, Richard Scott examines what could have happened if an explosion occurred in the torpedo room
Norwegian and UK divers last week confirmed that the Russian Oscar II-class (Antyey)(T949A) submarine Kursk (K141), stranded on the floor of the Barents Sea, was completely flooded, thus ending the faint hopes that some members of the submarine's crew might be found alive.

Seismologists in Norway recorded two explosions at the time the Kursk sank on 12 August. Video pictures of the submarine, lying in 100m of water, subsequently revealed extensive damage to an area of the submarine stretching from the bow back to the fin.

Plans are now being drawn up to salvage the stricken submarine and recover the remains of the 118 crew. This may yield new evidence on the cause of the loss of the Kursk, but for the time being speculation continues. Some Russian officials have continued to insist that a collision was responsible for the sudden and massive damage, with one senior officer from Russia's Northern Fleet blaming the disaster on a UK Royal Navy nuclear submarine.

However, one highly experienced torpedo engineer discounts the collision theory. "The amount of damage depicted in the press reports was extreme," he told Jane's Defence Weekly. "With the robustness of the hull design, for a collision to cause that much damage to the Kursk is very unlikely. The Project 949A 'Oscar II' boats have a tremendous amount of equipment and weapons outside the hull that would absorb a lot of energy before the inner (pressure) hull on the Russian boat would have been hit."
A conventional weapons incident - involving a torpedo fuel fire and detonation of one or more warheads - remains the most likely explanation.

"In a recent article in the Russian journal Military Parade, the director of Gidripribor, the Russian torpedo design bureau, commented on the fact the older generation torpedoes on Russian submarines had been replaced with modem [UGST] dual purpose, liquid mono-propellant fuelled, long-range torpedoes. In the past the Russians have also had hydrogen peroxide-fuelled torpedoes on their submarines, as well as torpedoes with high-pressure oxygen fuel and high-energy batteries.

"Each has its own problems and dangers, but years of experience with all the older systems might suggest that problems with the newer type might be the more likely."
If one accepts the veracity of the reports emanating from Russia, then the torpedoes on board Kursk were indeed the newer UGST mono-propellant fuelled weapons. Press reports state that weapon-firing exercises were in progress and so weapons handling and loading proceeding firing would have been under way.

"Normally an exercise would involve torpedoes without warheads, but an operational submarine could have any number of warshots on board and in close proximity to the handling operation." According to this same source, preliminary analysis of available evidence suggests the following sequence of events that could have led to the loss of the Kursk.
"During the handling and firing operation, a torpedo fuel, leak develops and fuel is present in the torpedo room. If so, the sailors would start to respond to the leak. But before it is cleaned up a tool or other object either impacts the fuel or causes a spark.

"The fuel ignites and causes the fuel tank to deflagrate [first explosion detected by the Norwegians] the residual fuel bums for a period of time and results in a high order detonation of one or more torpedo warheads stored in the torpedo room [the second explosion].

"The submarine is designed to resist damage from the outside - not a detonation of one or several warheads inside the vessel. This would result in the first two compartments (including the control room) being destroyed instantly with total loss of life in those areas and buoyancy and the ballast tanks adjacent to the forward part of the ship.
"This submarine would sink very quickly. Emergency surface system would have been destroyed and may prevent the aft ballast tanks from being blown to provide some buoyancy and capability to surface."

The torpedo engineer also addressed the question of the composition of the mono-propellent fuel: "In the mono-propellant fuel the nitrate ester energetic ingredient can be very unstable and have a low flashpoint and impact resistance. Stabilisers are required to prevent that type of problem. For example the Western nations have been using OTTO II fuel in torpedoes for decades, quite safely and without incident.

"An incident resulting in ignition of this fuel is very unlikely, due to the stabiliser content added to the fuel during manufacture. It is quite difficult to light off OTTO fuel due to high Hash point (this also reduces energy content and is the trade off for safety and long term stability)."

So why could the torpedo leak fuel? There are a number of possible causes.
• The nitrate ester fuel needs special '0' rings that are not susceptible to deterioration when in contact with the fuel. If standard '0' rings were used, these would deteriorate over time and cause a leak when the torpedo was being moved.
• Inexperienced torpedo handling crew moving the torpedo might hit a piece of ship's structure (like a storage chock), drop it when removing a storage restraint, or drop a tool on to a weapon fuel tank causing the leak and a spark.
• Shore-based maintainers may have improperly assembled the torpedo. This may mean the seals were not installed correctly, causing a break in a tenuous seal when the torpedo was being moved in the weapons compartment or rammed into the tube.

The resultant fire, from whatever source, would bum for a time and once ignited would be very difficult to put out. A senior official told JDW: "The crew would try to put out the fire [but] fumes might overcome personnel in the torpedo room before they are able to put on breathing gear and extinguish the fire.

The Russian warhead explosive used in this case could not take the heat of a fully developed fire for more than a few minutes before it detonated.
A second, but less likely, cause of the fire is a solid rocket motor on a VA-111 Shkval super-cavitating torpedo. Explosive squibs generally utilised to initiate and light off a rocket motor are susceptible to static electricity.

"Normal handling of these motors requires a very specific set of actions and procedures to prevent initiation. If an inexperienced sailor made a mistake during torpedo loading the rocket motor could light off in the torpedo tube or room. It would likely take place at the moment when the torpedo is almost completely in the torpedo tube and the firing cables are being hooked up.

"A static discharge or a stray voltage in the firing cable results in rocket motor firing and the flame and exhaust would be back into the torpedo room.
"And would most certainly instantly kill all personnel in the area, if not the entire compartment, and initiate fires in other torpedoes and fuel, possible fuel tanks."

Until the submarine can be accessed without restriction, all causes and explanations remain speculative. As, and if, real data is made available the above explanations may by modified, reinforced or dismissed outright.

Richard Scott is JDW's Naval Editor

[The Avon Lady]

Then, I utter the final latin text from the Requiem and hit myself in the head with a board.
Then you should spend more of your time on the "curiosity killed the cat" (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=92958) thread. :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

Was the discussion about the site? No, it wasn't. I found the site on google, and I dont frequently visit it.

Nice try though.
Actually, I was referring to your stating that it might make someone think for a second.

Nope. :nope:

[Kapitan]

[quote=Enigma]A little off topic, but I recall seeing a woman overcome by emotion at a hearing about the Kursk, and she stood up and was yelling at the military and goverment officials on the panel, and a lady walks up and injects her with something to knock her out and shut her up. :o I couldnt believe my eyes![quote]

That woman you saw was nadezhda tylik her son sergey was onboard in the 4th compartment, and its new russia so thats what happens now.

The kursk had been round for about 6 years and her construction was not rushed like the early boats, it was carefuly laid out and planned and built.

Like all other people i believe a torpedo exploded inside causing a chain reaction.

as for a collision i highly doubt it would be like riding a bike into a bus down hill at full speed the NATO sub would have either beed sunk or damaged so badly that it would have to surface, people forget a western sub averages just 7,000 tonnes the kursk is more than 3 times that at 24,000 tonnes and she was traveling at speed when she sank, so anything that hit her would have been barged clear out of the way easily.



the toledo brought about heavy speculation because it was seen by a russian satalite in a norwiegen harbour, i would have thought there were norwiegen analysts onboard (which happens often) monitering the exercise, what people are forgetting is this was the ASW part of the exercise and submarines can be seen from the air so if its not a big fat blob like kursk under that wave then i wonder who it could be?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Thats funny! Have you ever seen US dry docks? All are open to public scrutiny from many angles. It is impossible to hide a damaged US sub in America. Besides, the reporters like to chew the Navy up over this kind of stuff - so your theory is a practical impossibility.

ANd then I throw the ultimate thing out there - even if they did collide - so what? What answer do you have to that question?

-S

PS. Not to mention the sailors - they can't even keep the White House quiet...

It is open to public scrutiny, but that only works if there is public INTEREST - ratings for the TV stations. The media can be rabid when worked up but their attention also gets diverted just as easily and fast onto another focal point. The Memphis inspection was a good move (If I assume a collision) by the US Navy. Let them see the undamaged sub to cool down the media attention. While they are staring at Memphis, do a sleight of hand with Toledo.

Even if someone notices a few months later, if things get tight they can always claim it bumped the sea bottom or something.

If they did collide? Well then there's an obvious act of dishonesty by the US Navy to say the least. And if they collide and covered it up with a torpedo like the conspiracy says, that's an act of war.

In any case, I don't think a collision alone sank Kursk. As Kapitan and many others say, that would spell the death of Toledo or Memphis or whoever bumped - mass and steel strengths will see to that. As I've said previously, if there was a collision, it would be a grazing collision - one light enough in terms of relative velocities to pit only the Kursk's light hull against the LA's main hull, so the strength difference becomes important and saves the American from heavy damage. The Russians were just unlucky that a torpedo got knocked about and caused the explosion. Either that or the Americans fired...

[SUBMAN1]

It is open to public scrutiny, but that only works if there is public INTEREST - ratings for the TV stations. The media can be rabid when worked up but their attention also gets diverted just as easily and fast onto another focal point. The Memphis inspection was a good move (If I assume a collision) by the US Navy. Let them see the undamaged sub to cool down the media attention. While they are staring at Memphis, do a sleight of hand with Toledo.

Even if someone notices a few months later, if things get tight they can always claim it bumped the sea bottom or something.

If they did collide? Well then there's an obvious act of dishonesty by the US Navy to say the least. And if they collide and covered it up with a torpedo like the conspiracy says, that's an act of war.

In any case, I don't think a collision alone sank Kursk. As Kapitan and many others say, that would spell the death of Toledo or Memphis or whoever bumped - mass and steel strengths will see to that. As I've said previously, if there was a collision, it would be a grazing collision - one light enough in terms of relative velocities to pit only the Kursk's light hull against the LA's main hull, so the strength difference becomes important and saves the American from heavy damage. The Russians were just unlucky that a torpedo got knocked about and caused the explosion. Either that or the Americans fired...

You missed the point - A collision would 'never' go un-noticed by anyone in any US port. And who is going to sink the Kursk if you simply colide anyway? That was the point. You make it out like this - Oh no! We collided! Sink the Kursk so no one knows! That is a smart thing to do since the entire Russian Navy already knew the British and Americans were there watching - its a given! Thats the dumbest conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard - says something about people's intelligence when they create this stuff.

Oh I know - the Americans parked their sub right next to the Kursk so they could watch the firing through a periscope, but actually bumbped them instead! That must be it! They can do this because the Kursk has crappy sonar and can't hear them that close anyway! (Now Watch Kapitan come on this thread! :D I'm just kidding Kapitan! I know they can hear a US sub miles away).

And if you ask Kapitan, he would even tell you it was an internal torpedo since he even beleives a Mk48 couldn't sink the Kursk!

I just love conspiracy theories and when people actually believe them it is even better!

-S

[XabbaRus]

But everyone likes a good conspiracy theory. Who has seen that French documentary that laid out the case for a collision with Toledo and Memphis firing the torp. Personally it seemed like a French director with an axe to grind or a sure fire ratings winner. Let's blame the Americans again.

I was living in Russia at the time and the amount of crap I heard was amazing. Saying that I heard even more people angry with the govt. and not belieing the early line that someone else sunk the Kursk.

[cobalt]

I remember someone saying it was a suicide bomber when it first happened?

The Russians are very secretive when it comes to these things, but im sure it wasnt anything thats too surprising. I'd back the faulty torpedo theory.

[SUBMAN1]

But everyone likes a good conspiracy theory...

Me too - in a good movie or something! In real life, I like to analyze, and only if a plausable explanation fails to exist do I start to actually pay any attention to the conspriacy theorists, but I always take that with a grain of salt too.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

You missed the point - A collision would 'never' go un-noticed by anyone in any US port.
Are you postulating that the US would have NO way of quietly dealing with such an incident?

And who is going to sink the Kursk if you simply colide anyway? That was the point. You make it out like this - Oh no! We collided! Sink the Kursk so no one knows! That is a smart thing to do since the entire Russian Navy already knew the British and Americans were there watching - its a given! Thats the dumbest conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard - says something about people's intelligence when they create this stuff.
If they did it, they clearly made it off well, right?

As far as I'm concerned, there is insufficient hard evidence to say the Americans did it (at least not as commonly published). That's why I try to be consistent to include some hint like "If they collided" in every post. However, in my opinion, many of the excuses people make to handily discount the conspiracy theories are flawed and place too much faith in the US Navy. You may say so far I'm going for Not Proven (an option available in some legal jurisdictions) instead of Not Guilty. And I'd admit it - the alternate theories sound so much more interesting than the main one, and I'd prefer to consider how they might be valid rather than just sticking to the nice government version.

If they sank it with torps, it was probably a mistake. For all the high training standards purported for the US Navy, Vincennes shows that American personnel can see an ascending plane as descending, a commercial airliner as a F-14 (even a transponder won't save them), and a F-14 becomes a antiship attack aircraft with precision munitions and we all know what happened that day. Considering that the assessing the underwater picture is a much more manual (manual=human error) process than the neat little radar picture assembled by Aegis, I'd hardly be shocked if after a collision, the covering sub's nervousness caused a mistake in judgment.

[Kapitan]

The oscar II was designed around the MK48 ADCAPS they were designed to take one hit and be able to surface the maximum damage one MK48ADCAP could do is realy flood two compartments well thats still not enough to send her down to the bottom, whats more if you look at the angle of the sub as she lays there, note her arse end is a fair bit boyant even with 7 forward compartments completely flooded.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The oscar II was designed around the MK48 ADCAPS they were designed to take one hit and be able to surface the maximum damage one MK48ADCAP could do is realy flood two compartments well thats still not enough to send her down to the bottom, whats more if you look at the angle of the sub as she lays there, note her arse end is a fair bit boyant even with 7 forward compartments completely flooded.

What if it hit the torpedo room and blew up what the Kursk was carrying?

[fatty]

The oscar II was designed around the MK48 ADCAPS they were designed to take one hit and be able to surface the maximum damage one MK48ADCAP could do is realy flood two compartments well thats still not enough to send her down to the bottom, whats more if you look at the angle of the sub as she lays there, note her arse end is a fair bit boyant even with 7 forward compartments completely flooded.

Sounds not too far from another vessel that was supposedly unsinkable ;)

[Kapitan]

Oscar II has two major week points that could split it in half easily if hit but the chance of a torpedo hitting those two spots is slim as they are both on the belly of the submarine (one near the reactor one between compartments 2 and 3), if a torpedo hit head on or even impacted the compartments 1 and 2 its still not enough to sink her.

[Kapitan]

the bow and sail of all Oscar II are re inforced theres two main beams that run along the submarine end to end, unless you get one right up the tube again its going to do little damage dont forget there wont be time for a fire the compartment will flood not long after impact.

[VizlaN]

My theory? Here: A 65cm Hydrogen Peroxide powered torpedo malfunctioned in the magazine, blew up, and sunk the boat.
Indeed. Can't realy comprehend wich idiot that authorized the use of it. Been working with Hydrogen Peroxide for several years in a lab, it's a VERY unstable explosive! Confined, everything over 5 grams will selfdetonate over it's own weight if the substance has suffered polution. ( Polution as in fine grains of dust or moister from the air )

[seawolf34]

I saw a program on one of the documentary channels on sky a while ago which went into great detail about what happened onboard the Kursk. A flaw in the torpedos they were carrying caused an explosion which caused the disaster.

Got no idea if all that's true of course, could all be a cover up but I certainly remember alot of detail was shown in the program. They talked about how the inital explosion and fireball didn't just kill the men in the torpedo room but even crew members as far back as the control room were either rendered unconcious or killed. If I remember correctly the reason they explained as to why the fireball from the explosion so easily traveled back through the compartments was down to something like how the air conditioning system worked on the sub, or something like that.

One thing I remember being talked about was evidence that the inner torpedo hatch wasn't properly closed and secured when the torpedo explosion occured, if it was, the initial explosion and it's effects `might` (that's my words, I can't remember exactly what was said as I watched this program a while ago!) not of been so dramatic further away from the torpedo room & if the crew in the con hadn't been either knocked out or killed outright then who knows if they could of managed to get the sub to the surface.

It was a very interesting documentary, keep an eye out for it on national geographic channel, it's bound to be repeated.

[geetrue]

Whatever the problem was that sunk her ... it had to happen fast.
Most US submarines run around with all compartment hatches open. I suspect the Russians are the same ...
only in an emergency or a drill or for battle stations would the hatches be dogged watertight.

The topedo's were suspected in the Scorpion sinking too,
but I think not. Not in that case, but aren't these Russian torpedo's
the super fast 60 to 70 kts and only go in a straight line?

Perhaps their own fish did it, but not Uncle Sam's ... that's for sure.

But don't ya'll remember some of the crew made it to the aft escape trunk and died in the trunk from lack of air?

I thought they left a note, a clue perhaps.

[CCIP]

I thought they left a note, a clue perhaps.
They did leave a note, but they were far from the forward compartments when it all happened, and I'm sure their clue would be no more accurate than those that we have ourselves. I'm certain that whatever happened, happend fast and unexpectedly. As you yourself suggest about the compartment hatches - I would guess whatever happened to the sub, it was not rigged for any sort of emergency circumstances. If it were, as Kapitan suggests in terms of the torpedo survivability, it's unlikely that would have sunk the sub.

As far as I understand, were this not a completely unexpected event (and if it weren't an accident, I would think it would be expected), the damage would not have been so catastrophical and there would be survivors, the sub could maybe even surface. When the thing blew up, and everything seems to suggest that the 'thing' was inside of it, it was already too late to start doing anything. Water went from compartment to compartment and the sub just sank.

[August]

Memphis inspection was a good move (If I assume a collision) by the US Navy. Let them see the undamaged sub to cool down the media attention. While they are staring at Memphis, do a sleight of hand with Toledo.

Subman is right. There is absolutely no way the US Navy could keep such a secret. There would be far too many people involved, from the crew to shipwrights and dock workers, to the various politicos and their staffers, you're talking thousands of people. Somebody would talk for any number of reasons and while the US media may be easily diverted it would not be long before they returned to it.

Even today, years later, revelations that the US Navy was involved in the Kursk disaster would be front page news in every city in the US. If not for the action then the coverup.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman is right. There is absolutely no way the US Navy could keep such a secret. There would be far too many people involved, from the crew to shipwrights and dock workers, to the various politicos and their staffers, you're talking thousands of people. Somebody would talk for any number of reasons and while the US media may be easily diverted it would not be long before they returned to it.

Even today, years later, revelations that the US Navy was involved in the Kursk disaster would be front page news in every city in the US. If not for the action then the coverup.
Even if I were not right, you could consider it payback for the USS Scorpion.

-S

[Enigma]

so.....Scorpian was sunk by the Russians?

[SUBMAN1]

so.....Scorpian was sunk by the Russians?
That is one theory, and since the Admirals say that maybe in due time we will get to know what happened, I am inclined to think so. Admiral Victor Dygalo is the one that hinted at that as the the true reason - and this is why the truth was covered up (notice that not much attention was given to the Scorpion sinking over what was given to the Thresher?).

-S

[Enigma]

Huh.

I always was of the opinion that it was all but certain it was a hot Torp.

[SUBMAN1]

Huh.

I always was of the opinion that it was all but certain it was a hot Torp.

THats the official explanation, but if you look at the evidence, it is a near impossibility. I series of errors so long would have had to happen for that to be true. Then all the secrecy surrounding this sinking - which is exactly opposite of what happened to Thresher, and you have the makings of the perfect cover up in my opinion. Every attempt at inquiry was kept secret from the public. Notice that this didn't happen with Thresher.

-S