Sorry but Kursk was torpedoed and not by its own
 

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/WRHART..._torpille3.jpg

And you can read more here:

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


kind regards,

Paul

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

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

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?

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:

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:

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.

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

Please excuse the untidy link.

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!"

: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.

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.

Initially, the truth was actually stated.

This was before the massive media and salvage coverup operation.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...3_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

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

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.