Kursk sinking - conspiracy or not?

Discussion in 'Royal Navy' started by FORMER_FYRDMAN, Jan 25, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    A few nights ago I got into a discussion about a French documentary of a few years ago which laid out the case for the Kursk having been sunk by the US.

    Kursk (a submarin in troubled waters)

    For those who do not have fifty minutes at their disposal or can't retrieve the link, the key thrust of the evidence is that there is something akin to a Mark 48 strike on the Starboard side which was later hidden from view, the Russians changed their story continually and there was no meaningful rescue attempt despite the sub being in circa 350ft of water and the resources of the Royal Navy and the North Sea Oil industry not being a million miles away.

    I wondered what the Dark Blue view was of this on a tinfoil scale of one to ten and why. My personal view is that, despite the contributions of some certified wibblers - the yank at the end being one, there are some fairly authoritative people going on the record, the case is cogent and the circumstantial evidence is persuasive too. I have to say also that, if there was a cover-up, I am all in favour of it given the alternative.
  2. Ah conspiracy theories, almost as tedious as the tons of walt hunt outrages. Personally I think it sunk due to an explosion. Why that happened I don't know, something about a torpedo blowing up. All I know is that it happened and that's all I need to know and care to know. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone if there was a mysterious reason for it sinking...except of course to the Russians.

    Although it wouldn't surprise me if the yanks had something to do with it....they do have a habit of shooting the wrong things.
  3. yes because the US Navy would keep stum about blowing up a commie sub.
    dodgy torpedo design goes bang end of sub.
  4. On the tinfoil scale I give it a rating of ... 10 meters.

    The Americans sink a RUssian sub and Mother Russia does.... fcuk all?

    Even the details of the sub that sank (scuttled) off America came out in the end, including the bit where the American sub commander shot through the rescue effort (between the russian ship and surfaced sub) nearly hitting a launch in the process. IIRC the skipper of the boat had history. He rammed a russian sub by mistake.

    So an accident of some sort isn't impossible. But unlikely.

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    Mother Russia didn't do nothing according to this - it trousered circa $25 billion allegedly and allowed Putin to consolidate his position. The alternative was public outrage leading to heaven knows what, certainly nothing constructive. In the circumstances I can see why the US skipper might have fired whilst I can't see why the Russians would have left their guys to rot for no reason.

    (1 edit for clarity)
  6. Not that unlikely, there are several documented and acknowledged collisions between nucleear submarines.

    HMS Vanguard and and the french Triomphant collided in 2009,
    1999 the USS KEntucky collided with the USS San Juan
    1993 USS Grayling collided with a Russian Delta 4 K-407
    1992 USS Baton Rouge collider with a Russian Sierra class

    And thats just some of the acknowledged incedents. Did something other than a torpedo malfunction sink the Kursk? No idea, but collisions between submarines aren't impossible and have happened before.
  7. Like HMS Triton Sinking HMS Oxley?

    HMS Oxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  8. I meant in this incident, not generally. Enough people went down (again a relative figure) to have seen the front end, and possibly known what the crack was.

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    Though the salvage teams were specifically ordered away from the front end.