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. :rotfl2:

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".


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/KURSK/kazouille_1105145210_torpille3.jpg

And you can read more here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/KURSK/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? :DL

[Captain Sub]

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? :DL

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. :hmmm:

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? :hmmm:

[msxyz]

I admit I never hunderstood what kind of damage is that. I've seen that shot before linked to the "renegade torpedo" conspiracy claim.

I'm not a person to jump to conclusions. As an engineer I should know better that without knowing all the variables involved, a single photo may be deceiving.

Oscar subs have thick double hulls designed to withstand some degree of damage from nearby explosions. A torpedo near miss or a ww2 depth charge wouldn't probably sink a submarine like that.

That's why modern antisubmarine torpedoes have shaped explosive charges aimed at defeating thick double hulls like those employed by Oscars. I'm not saying that 350-500kg of good old Torpex wouldn't do the trick, but the resulting weapon would be huge and, possibly, hard to steer towards its nible and fast target!

On a side note, ever seen the external damage caused on a tank by a shoulder launched RPG? It looks ridicolous. Hard to think it can disable a tank: it's just a tiny hole with some minor splash damage around it. On the inside, there are some signs of blast fragments sprayed around but the path of the main "bullet" (usually copper liquified by extreme heat and pressure) is pretty clear. It just drills a hole in everything in its path.

What's missing from the picture is the extreme heat and pressure wave that kills or injures the people inside. The tank usually remains functional even after multiple hits, unless vital parts of it are damaged (the engine, the transmission, the ammo magazine... )

Of course a submarine is not a tank. Any hole compromising the watertightness is a potential killer. And, if in the process, it happens to hit the torpedo cache blowing them, the better. :ping:

[fred8615]

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.

[Vitesse]

Perhaps have a little look at the pictures here...

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.livejournal.com %2Fwarhistory%2F844960.html%3Fthread%3D11503776%23 t11503776&langpair=ru|en&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.livejournal.com %2Fwarhistory%2F844960.html%3Fthread%3D11503776%23 t11503776&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)

Please excuse the untidy link.

[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]

:nope::nope::nope::nope:

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.

[msxyz]

Perhaps have a little look at the pictures here...

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.livejournal.com %2Fwarhistory%2F844960.html%3Fthread%3D11503776%23 t11503776&langpair=ru|en&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.livejournal.com %2Fwarhistory%2F844960.html%3Fthread%3D11503776%23 t11503776&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)

Please excuse the untidy link.Interesting link :up:

The main argument against the american torpedo theory is that Russia wouln't have kept its mouth shut... unless a big, big compensation was offered. Back in 2000 Russia was cash strapped, so the government might have decided to trade their silence on the true cause of the Kursk disaster in exchange for a big sum of money. As for why a US submarine observing another nation "wargame" decided to crash the party, that's the real incongruence of this theory.

But there's another theory: the torpedo which sank the Kursk was Russian. The boat was taking part in a joint naval exercise: this is no secret. By mistake a "fire and forget" anti submarine torpedo was launched with a live warhead and it did what it was designed to do: it sank the first submarine that happened to pass nearby! As for why the Russian navy kept this incident a secret... well it's better to blame some fire in the torpedo compartment due to poor maintenance or malfunctioning equipment (aka "we need some more funds, we cannot allow our boys to die") that admit that a incompetent moron high in the command chain ordered one of its own subs to be sunk.

Both theories have a certain appeal but lack solid evidence.

[Captain Sub]

Initially, the truth was actually stated.

This was before the massive media and salvage coverup operation.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/KURSK/kazouille_1105142863_torpille.jpg

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.

[Raptor1]

The damage you point to is completely incosistant with damage caused by the Mark 48. The Mark 48 has a proximity fuze, which means that it will detonate outside the submarine, leaving no such hole. Even if you say it exploded inside for some reason (Assuming the Mark 48, with it's blunt nose and all, could even penetrate both the inner and outer hulls, which I doubt), the damage such an explosion would cause would easily obliterate the area where it entered.

[fred8615]

Initially, the truth was actually stated
First reports never mean anything. On 9/11 it was initially reported a small plane hit the first tower, there was a bomb explosion outside the State Department, the Pentagon was attacked with a bomb, not a plane.

And you also have to consider the source. Is possible this newspaper is/was run by anti-American morons as well?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And you also have to consider the source. Is possible this newspaper is/was run by anti-American morons as well?

Well, the entire idea of a conspiracy theory is to experiment with loose ends - We thought this was noise, if this is signal, then what?

[msxyz]

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!:yeah:

[Dowly]

Excellent post Kapitan! :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

An interesting PowerPoint on just how powerful a Mk 48 torpedo is. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&ved=0CA4QFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwebspace.utexas.edu%2Fjoem%2Fmk4 8mod4%2FWARHEAD%2520EFFECTS-SAN.ppt%3Funiq%3D4kwu6h&rct=j&q=HMAS+Farncomb%2C+Ex-HMAS+Torrens+%26++MK-48+MOD+4+Torpedo++Sinkex+15+June+1999&ei=pcnZS9KyOILw9ASYi7BU&usg=AFQjCNGfq4xJ_uxeG6-Peg0e-xPJhuji2Q&sig2=ra9xCP_epxtMtDEUpqAjUQ)

If it can do that, that little hole is nothing.

[Kapitan]

Couldnt down load it TLAM, but the thing is if one did hit kursk the metal would be pointing inwards too look at the picture its bent slightly outwards conclusive of an internal explosion.

Whats more when Hydrogen peroxide is alight in a small sapce it just keeps reacting and can cause fires, and this has been known for 60 years at the time, and well the amount of torpedos onboard in a very hot super heated compartment with no room to expand would have built up pressure inside, either detonated torpedo fuel or warheads or both and thus giving you the second devastating blast.

Whats more apparent is when they raised kursk they noted the air conditioning ducts were charred and thick black ash and soot inside the vents meaning a fire of some kind forward, this would also prove that no MK48 had been involved, because if the 48 had detonated outside there would have been no fire, the water would have quenched that in seconds.
And the front would remained largely intact with a penetration hole in one side.

The notion the MK48 penetrated inside the submarine is also rubbish, the first hull is about 1/3 inch thick steel coated with 6 inches of rubber, then you have a 2.2 meter gap with support stantions then the main pressure hull which is half inch thick steel so some how a torpedo doing 55 knots and wieghs 2 tons has got to penetrate that i think not even a standard shape charge would only cut one hull open she will still float.

You have to understand the americans are a conveniant excuse for the russian mishaps, the do not like or tolerate failure and will cover it up to try and save face.
also the admiral who made the rediculas claims about a forign torpedo later went on to say the peter the great was in danger of blowing up was repremanded for this (later dismissed after the PTG incident) he liked to stir the crap as it were and so you got these stories.

Admiral Popov resigned from the navy he was commander in chief and now sits in parliment on the upper bench (kremlin).

[TLAM Strike]

Couldnt down load it TLAM...


Strange, works for me.

Here is an alternate link. (http://rapidshare.com/files/381689187/WARHEAD_EFFECTS-SAN.ppt.html)

[Kapitan]

thanks sorted good powerpoint !

[msxyz]

Heh, to think the Germans wanted to build submarines running on 200+ tons of concentraded hydrogen peroxyde. :88)

At home I have a few flasks of 50% stabilized hydrogen peroxide I use for bleaching wood and decapping paint off models. Even if it's stabilized, dropping reactive metals like copper or silver in it will result in a nice fountain spray, just like a shaked bottle of Coke. Dense fumes of pure oxygen will develop from the boiling liquid :o

It's also quite corrosive to the skin and it will ruin any tissue it will come in touch with. Nice substance!