Kursk submarine

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

So Mahatma what about the comments on the OP's linked documentary?

What, What about the comments?

if you pick a specific comment or section of the documentary I will be happy to discuss it.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

What, What about the comments?

if you pick a specific comment or section of the documentary I will be happy to discuss it.

These

meglome wrote: »

I did watch it or at least tried to. The reason I asked you what documentary specifically was I saw a British one a couple of years back and it didn't make anything like the tenuous links this one does. It's the usual crap with all these conspiracy's, take as many events are you possibly can and put them together in documentary style with a nice voice-over and all of a sudden these events are linked. When in reality there may be no link whatsoever.

Okay then...
1. It says there were Chinese observers, but it doesn't specifically say that these were on the actual Kursk. Although the editing implies this. I would imagine they'd be on a command vessel, it would make more sense anyway.
2."All the evidence points to an attack" What? So let's take this scenario, there's an explosion so the commander of the sub take action in case they've been attacked. But it's actually one of his own torpedoes exploding, he learns too late after the second massive explosion his mistake.
3. So the sub was in 108m of water and it's 154 meters long. So that means it would be easy to find? How many years did it take to find the titanic?
4. The Russians/Soviets had always been very secretive/paranoid with anything like this in the past so they were acting totally to form here.
5. They sedate an extremely emotional woman. Wouldn't be done this way in the west but then again we wouldn't release a gas into a theatre and kill half the hostages either. Did some harm befall this woman? or did they just want to shut her up at the time as she was showing them up?
6. So a torpedo fuel which no Western nation uses as it's so dangerous, the British lost a ship to it, wouldn't be the likely cause of the explosion? This submarine is huge with a double hull if it ran into another sub that other sub would be in serious trouble.
7. It shows a neat hole in the sub after it was raised, next to where the bow had been cut off. Now correct me if I'm wrong but even if a torpedo cut into the hull neatly and exploded inside enough of the blast would come back out the hole to not leave a neat edge.

I can't watch any more of this completely one sided ****e sorry. It makes giant leaps all over the place. Lots of 'The only reason this could have happened", when obviously there could be several reasons why it happened. One of my favourite statements is "Vladimir Putin can openly pursue his allegiance to George W. Bush" What? when did that happen? This is like watching FOX News, so one sided it makes you angry or maybe you just wanna laugh.

and

FrostyJack wrote: »

I watched it last night, it was just like a Michael Moore documentary, a complete joke. Parts reminded me of the time Moore goes into a bank and gets a gun after opening an account. His point was this is so crazy to give you a gun in a bank! At first (if you are slow) you might agree with him and laugh, but if you use logic you see he is just making you think that to prove his retard point. To open an account you have to have id, make a deposit, fill out paper work etc etc plus you had no ammo etc etc, thus why would you rob the bank, it makes no sense, but to our non-thinking "sheeple" he is a god and proves his point.

The documentry off discovery (the evil official story) makes more sense and has realistic conclusions.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

*THUD*

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

I did watch it or at least tried to. The reason I asked you what documentary specifically was I saw a British one a couple of years back and it didn't make anything like the tenuous links this one does. It's the usual crap with all these conspiracy's, take as many events are you possibly can and put them together in documentary style with a nice voice-over and all of a sudden these events are linked. When in reality there may be no link whatsoever.

I found with the documentary that the links followed a logical pattern

Okay then...
1. It says there were Chinese observers, but it doesn't specifically say that these were on the actual Kursk. Although the editing implies this. I would imagine they'd be on a command vessel, it would make more sense anyway.

yes, most of the Chinese Observers would have been on the Command Vessel, but I would have found it stranger if they had been there and didnt have an observer in the torpedo room of the Kursk, after all they were about to shell out large amounts of cash for these things, they would have had someone checkin that it did what it was supposed to do as they said it did it.

2."All the evidence points to an attack" What? So let's take this scenario, there's an explosion so the commander of the sub take action in case they've been attacked. But it's actually one of his own torpedoes exploding, he learns too late after the second massive explosion his mistake.

The first explosion was the American torpedo, the second Terminal Explosion was the Kursks own torpedos exploding. seriously the guy was there to test fire a new torpedo if there had been any question of there being a problem with the torpedo dont you think they would have had a contingency plan, deploy beacon, Surface, fix problem. however the commander went to battle stations and dove after the first impact, more of a response to an attack than an accident.

3. So the sub was in 108m of water and it's 154 meters long. So that means it would be easy to find? How many years did it take to find the titanic?

and had its position marked by a large chunk of the Russian Naval Fleet, I think you will find that the Titanic was a bit deeper than 108M

4. The Russians/Soviets had always been very secretive/paranoid with anything like this in the past so they were acting totally to form here.

which version of events are you more inclined to believe, the Government report from Moscow or the Admiralty Report from eye witnesses

5. They sedate an extremely emotional woman. Wouldn't be done this way in the west but then again we wouldn't release a gas into a theatre and kill half the hostages either. Did some harm befall this woman? or did they just want to shut her up at the time as she was showing them up?

just wanted to shut her up it seems.

6. So a torpedo fuel which no Western nation uses as it's so dangerous, the British lost a ship to it, wouldn't be the likely cause of the explosion? This submarine is huge with a double hull if it ran into another sub that other sub would be in serious trouble.

well they are saying that the Skvall is what did the damage, however the documentary says that the Americans initiated the hostilities and fired first. can anyone find a maintenance report for the USS Toledo after the event, no, it was taken to a sealed drydock and all the information is an official secret

7. It shows a neat hole in the sub after it was raised, next to where the bow had been cut off. Now correct me if I'm wrong but even if a torpedo cut into the hull neatly and exploded inside enough of the blast would come back out the hole to not leave a neat edge.

you do realise that the benifits of a double hull are the same if the explosion is on the inside as on the outside, hull 1 takes most of the damage so that hull 2 dosent disentigrate. spurious argument at best there lad.

I can't watch any more of this completely one sided ****e sorry. It makes giant leaps all over the place. Lots of 'The only reason this could have happened", when obviously there could be several reasons why it happened.

I found this to be a very plausible explanation of why the Kursk sank

I will continue to discuss te rest of the documentary once you watch the rest of it

One of my favourite statements is "Vladimir Putin can openly pursue his allegiance to George W. Bush" What? when did that happen? This is like watching FOX News, so one sided it makes you angry or maybe you just wanna laugh.

what it should have said is
Putin could then make friends with GWB so that the Americans wouldnt cause a huge stink when Putin renationalised the Countries Oil & Gas companies

Stimpyone

Deigning everything and blaming the Americans is standard Soviet/Russian Military procedure. Coupled with the fact that the Soviets/Russians have a history of producing substandard (excuse the pun) equipment leads me to believe that this conspiracy theory is just that, a theory.

The Soviets sent their sailors out in sub's with leaky reactors for decades.

Using a dangerous propellant in the torpedoes/counter measures was obviously deemed an expectable risk, one which went terribly wrong.

This sort of thing has always gone on behind the Iron curtain. More recently a poorly trained badly paid (if at all) conscript force, poor maintenance, and poor motivation have all added to the woes of the Russian military.

Just my opinion.

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_10_Military_Submarine.html

The Soviet Submarine Legacy
October, 2000

The Soviet Union killed tens of millions of people in massacres, the gulags and deliberate famines. Another legacy of Soviet contempt for human life is now sitting on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean -- the 118 sailors of the Oscar Class Submarine Kursk. Following an accident, presumably with the hydrogen-peroxide fueled torpedoes carried forward, the cruise missile armed submarine sank with all hands in early August 2000.

The Kursk was another of the many products from the massive military expenditures wrought by the Soviet Union. Few people remember the USSR's militaristic nature, but it produced an amazing amount of weaponry -- often making more of some (tanks and artillery for example) than the rest of the world combined. However, the Soviet's social and industrial infrastructure decayed as the 20th Century wore on.

From 1960 onwards, the Soviets grew incapable of matching the quality of equipment produced in Western Nations. To overcome this, they relied on vast amounts of equipment instead. To achieve this end, Soviet designers made compromises in safety and reliability that no Western Army would ever accept. For example, many Soviet tanks (the T-64, T-72 and T-80 family) had an automatic loading device for the main gun that frequently ripped off the arm of the gunner and stuffed it into the breach.

The Soviet Army was not alone in accepting dangerous trade-offs to get a measure of enhanced performance. In an underwater duel, the submarine with the fastest torpedoes might be able to compensate for its weaker electronics and noisier hull. While the Russians are reluctant to describe some aspects of their military technology, the Kursk was certainly armed with torpedoes fueled with hydrogen peroxide. These provide an awesome speed (70 knots or more in the basic model and 250 in an advanced one), but the fuel is incredibly corrosive and explosive. This is not a substance that should be mixed up with sailors and machinery all crowded together in the tight confines of a submarine. However, this inevitable result of theoretical performance over real safety was typical of Soviet thinking.

Even now, a decade after the USSR disintegrated, the Russian military is still almost entirely equipped with Soviet-era material.

There are few things as complicated as a warship, where everything is a compromise between firepower, sea-worthiness, protection, speed, sensors and crew endurance. The Soviets gave low priority to the latter. The problem is worse in submarines where size is even more important, and the operating environment is deadlier.

The history of submarines is a fatal one, and hundreds of sailors have died in them through normal accidents. As nuclear reactors, deeper diving depths and faster speeds appeared in the 1950s, submariners faced even more hazardous challenges.

Since the 1950s, the US Navy lost the USS Thresher in 1963 and USS Scorpion in 1968. Neither the British nor the French navy lost any nuclear submarines. The Soviet penchant for sloppy workmanship and rushing unproven designs into production led to a worse record.

Another unpleasant aspect of Soviet ideology was the refusal to acknowledge accidents or disasters. For example, if no foreigners were killed in a Soviet air-crash, it might not be officially reported. The Soviet penchant for secrecy still applies to many incidents where hundreds of people were killed. As the families of the Kursk's crew have discovered, old habits can die hard.

The Soviet record of their submarine losses is incomplete. Instead, émigrés, veterans and an occasional intelligence leak suggest the following:

A Soviet sub vanished without a trace in 1962, presumably when its external missile bays accidentally flooded. A nuclear-armed diesel-electric submarine sank off Hawaii in 1968. (Part of this was later raised by the US, whose experts were stunned at the crude technology in the vessel).

Three Soviet subs may have been lost in 1970. One sank in shallow water near Severomorsk. While the crew died of suffocation, the vessel was later recovered. A November class submarine sank under tow -- presumably after a reactor failure -- southwest of Great Britain, and another unidentified one sank after a major naval exercise near the Faeroe Islands.

In 1972, two subs were towed home after lethal reactor leaks (the Soviet military joke that men from the submarine fleet glowed in the dark had a strong currency). The same thing reportedly happened to a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean in 1977. While the Japanese didn't notice the transit of such a sub in 1977, they did in 1978. A reactor leak on another Soviet sub prompted the evacuation of 12 crewmen off Newfoundland in 1977. An Echo Class submarine was towed home from off Scotland in 1978.

A fire on another submarine killed 9 sailors off Okinawa in 1980, and yet another influx of irradiated sailors into Soviet hospitals was noticed in 1981 after an undisclosed incident in the Baltic.

A Charlie-I submarine sank off the Kamchatka Peninsula in June 1983. In October 1986, the Soviets lost a Yankee-I submarine near Bermuda. Finally, the experimental Mike Class submarine Komsomolets sank near Norway in April 1988.

The USSR lost at least four nuclear submarines between 1960 and 1989, and may have lost nine altogether. There were also at least another eight cases (that seem obvious) where lethal levels of contamination or fires occurred on board a nuclear submarine.

Fortunately for Russian submariners, the end of the USSR meant an enormous reduction in the size of the fleet. Many of the elderly subs were scrapped or abandoned, and the smaller fleet also meant a huge increase in crew quality as the proportion of officers to conscripts narrowed dramatically.

It is to the credit of submariners like those of the Kursk, that more accidents did not occur between 1988 and today. Unfortunately, they put to sea in vessels that were designed and built by a society that placed little value on safety and reliability. The legacy of the Soviet Union is still lethal.


http://www.jamesoberg.com/sub.html