US destoyed Kursk? - Page 2




 
--
 
December 21st, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think most torpedos nowadays actually blow up underneath the target submarine, creating an air gap at the mid section and having the weight of the water break it in half.
But that statement is big enough for anyone claiming it to produce at least one photographic piece of evidence.
And how would blowing up that submarine stop Russia from selling it to China? China would buy their own torpedos and hold trials of their own.. of course the price of the torpedo might go a little lower.
If the Americans blew it up to send a message, that means they're going to have to be prepraed to sink even more Russian subs if Russia motions to sell the torpedos anyways. And imagine the risks involved in the United States was CAUGHT doing this. Do you have any idea the scale of chaos that would ensue?
Most people consider the risk-benefit ratio before going ahead. In this case the risk would have been ... well I can't think of anything riskier than deliberately sinking a Rusisan submarine, and the benefits from a success would have been practically miniscule. China would get those torpedos sooner or later anyways. Do you really expect me to believe the US would risk something THAT big just to delay the delivery of a few stupid torpedos for maybe 3 years at the most??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
It says that USA wanted to stop Russia to sell the new torpedo to China.

And do you really think that if something explodes from indside, it will leave metal bent inward?

And Kursk was loded with the new torpedos.
December 21st, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
As an exercise in absurdity, Snauhi, YOU explain this to me:


Quote:
Russian nuclear-physicists recently developed a teleportation system that will allow instantaneous travel between our own planet and the famously chemical rich Jupiter. According to the head of the project, Russia plans to send a fleet of heavy tractors to the gaseous planet to retrieve as much chemical rich ore as possible before returning.


You can come up with a hundred different explanations, Snauhi, but the only correct one is that I pulled that story straight out my fourth point of contact. Point is, just because somebody writes something or even gets it published does not make it true. Just something to think about.
December 21st, 2004  
AlexKall
 
The bent in metal is a good thing to bring up but not a good enough reason. This "evidence" would work in dry land like a broken window. But there is a problem when the sub (kursk) is in the water, the presure is so emence that if an explotion would happen inside a sub, even if this explotion does not rip the hull open it will defenetly weaken the hull, making the presure outside the sub to bend the steel inwards, this can only be done far enough till the breaking point of the steal. Remember that steal does stretch, but only to a sertain point. When it can no longer ceep up with this sretch it will break a part there the steal is most weakened, this time around the explotion. These subs go to 200 meters deapth? The presure at that depth is extreeme, the only thing keeping the presure of the water to implode a sub is the structure, the rounded structure which works like a rounded bridge which is srtonger then a straight bridge.

Picture your self a coca-cola can. Stand on it, it will take the weight of around 80 KG but if you just only nudge the side a bit, it will collaps. The structure was weekend. Same thing with a sub, if its weekened it will implode and collaps. The presure makes the metal to bend inwards. After the whole is present there will be a current from the air seeping out making debree to disperse on the seabed.

There ware American (or rather NATO) subs present during the Russian exercise, as Russia is disaloved to cunduct submarine exercises without the supervision from NATO members (such as USA, Norway and more). This rule that was set after the cold war with the cat and mouse games.
--
December 21st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Had any US sub been responsible for sinking the Kursk, there would have been at least 2 submarines on the botton and not one. Does anyone believe that that the USA has such unbelievably superior equipment to the Russians that they could get anywhere close to Archangel, pick off a Russian submarine, and then just casually walz on home? The US sub would have been swarmed upon and sunk in short order. Also, such an action would have touched off a war, possibly even a nuclear war. The article makes the assumption that Putin is a meek little kitten, happy to roll over and let the USA do whatever they like. Does that sound anything like Putin to anyone else??
December 21st, 2004  
EagleZtrike
 
 
I saw a documentary on this.


The most likely cause of the Kursk is probably U.S. Submarine intercepted it, thats what all the evidence and stuff pointed to the documentary said. Also it might have been a fault in the weapons bay.
December 22nd, 2004  
Darcia
 
If the Americans had done it thy would have pointed it out to show they were superoir. or the Americans could have done it to test a new weapon. However America would not have done it cause the Kursk wasn't the only naval ships the Russians had thier.
December 22nd, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
Well its an interesting story...

The tale of the Kursk often reminds me of what fate awaited the USS Scorpian back in 1968. Back then, there were rumors of the sub being sunk by the russians, aliens, ect. In the final run analysis, the most probable cause...a running (accidental start) of a torpedo in the forward torpedo room..followed by an explosion, catastrphic flooding, and then sinking to the seafloor.

In the case of the scorpian it too had the characteristic bending in of metal: that HY-80 steel is flexiable to a point.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/s...s/ssn589-n.htm

try this page to see what the scorpian looks like on the bottom...and look at the pressure effects on the metal structure

http://www.jmsnet.com/scorpion.htm

a discovery channel exclusive on the scorpian

folks...in the deep catastrophic stuff happens
December 22nd, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
That's smart. I think the best thing to do is compare what's presented with other submarine accidents. The ones that have been declared accidents.
September 26th, 2005  
worthy
 
Have just seen the documentary on Australian TV. They were saying that the commander of the second US sub over-reacted after the collision when they heard the distinctive sound of the Russian sub's torpedo bay being opened. He thought that the Russian sub was about to fire upon him, so "struck back first"

Here's the pictures of the torpedo hole (at the bottom of the article.)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/kursk.html
September 26th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by worthy
Have just seen the documentary on Australian TV. They were saying that the commander of the second US sub over-reacted after the collision when they heard the distinctive sound of the Russian sub's torpedo bay being opened. He thought that the Russian sub was about to fire upon him, so "struck back first"

Here's the pictures of the torpedo hole (at the bottom of the article.)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/kursk.html
Very interesting, although the source is yper-biased. I'd like to hear what people on the boards think about this. Navy , anyone?


P.S. That's actually a Coast Guard smiley, don't we have a Navy one?