US sank the Kursk claims

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by FunkyNewBlood, May 9, 2005.

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:

  1. Bloody Frenchies!!! The mothers of Subversion if you ask me.

  2. Not to sure if we will ever know the real truth. The yanks will never own upto it and the Russians would never admit that they got hit by the US.

    It's a good story though.
  3. an underwater 'Blue on Blue', involving the Americans? never!! A cover up by the Americans? never!!
  4. Sorry to the conspiracy theorists, but the result is very well known. And no I'm not even going to waste my time getting the link for you! The Kursk sank because of a torpedo fuel explosion rupturing the pressure vessel causing massive flooding. Even the Russians have accepted the evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory of a torpedo attack on the boat.

    A very nasty way to die, but at least for most of the crew it was very quick.
  5. I didn’t see the documentary but as it was French and came up with an anti US conclusion it sounds like a complete load of arrse. What did it say about the survivors of the initial explosion and their account of a fire and no mention of an attack? I would also guess, although I am willing to be corrected, that if a sub, no matter how new or big, got a good hit from a Mk 48 at 300 m down then it would go up (or in) in a oner, not hang around for a few minutes to allow hatches to be close. Undoubtedly there were reports for other Russian vessels who heard the Mk 48 being fired and its run to the Kursk. Or is that asking too much from the cheese eating surrender monkeys?
  6. Was there ever any weapon better made for conspiracy theory than the submarine? It's this silly sort of story that makes some submariners think they are so cool....
  7. Forgive my ignorance but if this boat is one of Russia's newest,would'nt it have advanced sensor's to warn them of an aproaching torpedo threat?,and would they not then launch counter measures?,and a stock take of the bouys discharged could give them an indication of wether the crew then took evasive measures.

    Do sub's have a 'cockpit voice recorder"?
  8. There were notes left by the crew who had collected aft (I think). They mentioned the explosion forward, a fire but absolutely nothing about a torpedo hit. The bow section was not recovered (as far as I know) because of the heavy damage inflicted and was left on the bottom of the Barents Sea. The Kursk was raised minus the damaged bit. Could the Norwegian divers have done some judicious cutting in this area not to make it look like a torpedo hit but as a result of freeing other gear or creating a hold for lifting gear?
  9. I have never met Mr Stradling but I have met dozens of so-called MOD experts of this ilk. They are tweed-jacketed, national health glass wering, beardy-wierdies to a man. They retire on their index-linked pensions and then set themselves up as "consultants". They have the appetite for a conspiracy of The Lone Gunmen and the ability to critically debate of a four year old.

    Their influence on DRA/DERA/Qinetiq is most easily distinguished in the way in which seventies technology filters through to the field army in the nineties, eighties technology cetera..when off-the-shelf items are available elsewhere at fractions of the cost.

    An amusing tarradiddle one feels?
  10. I may not be an Andrew, but don't torpedos aim at the screw end of the sub, i.e . the noisey bit. Causes more damage and cracks the prop shaft for good measure. The Kursk explosion was in the nose area. A bit unlikely for a torpedo.
  11. One for the grassy knoll tinfoil hat wearers methinks :roll:
  12. Plus the rather obvious clue that the rupture in the nose section was from the inside going outwards.
  13. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Errrm no, thats heat seaking air to airs. Torps paint with sonar in their final run in and hit what they can see. At least that was the case and M48's are older than most soldiers these days so I suspect that holds no water here... rather unlike certain Ruskie subs hahahah

    I recall the Brit BBC/ITV doc. at the time about what happened (basically the same issue with torp fuel sunk/damaged one or two brit subs in the 50-60's).

    I don't think this theory is true esp. given the US chain of command re ROE but the Ruskie reaction afterwards (NOT blaming the west, drugging a complaining mother in the town meeting etc) was slightly wierd, but then that's Ruskies for you.... Mad as a cut snake the lot of them.
  14. I had thought that with the titanium hull of the Kursk type subs you'd need Nuke to zap them.
  15. Must admit, I never completely bought the exploding torpedo explanation. It seemed that the investigators were making the accident fit the evidence rather than the other way round, and it didn't explain why the problem of exploding torpedoes hadn't been picked up in 50 years with half the world using the same design.

    Having said that, wasn't opening the tubes a standard ploy in the Cold War cat and mouse games both sides played for half a century? It doesn't seem reasonable that a US sub would suddenly panic and press the red button, especially in these days of 'peace'.

    Oh and yes, I am an expert. I've seen 'Red October'... :)