Author Topic: Russian Navy - Secrets of the Kursk (Read 3010 times)

Tango · « **Reply #75 on:** July 06, 2007, 04:06:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
weapons are much different today than what was used in ww2. We have weapons that are designed to go through tank armor b4 they explode. I'm sure the same could be said for a torpedo.

Look at this picture as example of this destroyed tank from Iraq.

hot linked from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/07/16727761.php

And you can also see the scoring around the hit on the tank turret where it went through. All there is on the sub is a clean perfect hole.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #76 on:** July 06, 2007, 04:15:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
weapons are much different today than what was used in ww2. We have weapons that are designed to go through tank armor b4 they explode. I'm sure the same could be said for a torpedo.

Look at this picture as example of this destroyed tank from Iraq.

hot linked from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/07/16727761.php

Look at this example of a Tiger tank destroyed by a Sherman M4A1 firing a 75mm AP round from 20-35 yards away.

ack-ack

gpwurzel · « **Reply #77 on:** July 06, 2007, 04:20:12 PM »

Sub to sub battle is generally settled by a torp hitting in the stern baffles, popping the seals around the shafts for the props.......torp homes in on the sounds generated (generally speaking), tho they can also use active sonar for acquisition etc.

Wurzel

Tango · « **Reply #78 on:** July 06, 2007, 04:52:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Look at this example of a Tiger tank destroyed by a Sherman M4A1 firing a 75mm AP round from 20-35 yards away.

ack-ack

Whats that ring around the hole?

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #79 on:** July 06, 2007, 05:29:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tango
Whats that ring around the hole?

It's Zimmerit coating that was blown off from the impact of the AP round.

ack-ack

Boroda · « **Reply #80 on:** July 06, 2007, 08:39:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Two Il-38 ASW aircraft allegedly tracked a contact near Kursk into Norwegian waters and down the coast of Norway for several days before losing contact.

On the night of 18th of August 2000, 6 days after Kursk sank, the USS Memphis (SSN-691) arrived at the Haakonsvern naval base in Bergen, Norway. She had visible damage to her bow and sail, and 12 American women had quietly arrived in Bergen. The one thing they had in common is that they were married to US sailors serving on the Memphis.

-USS Memphis docked behind KNM Bergen, an Oslo-class FF. Picture taken by Russian satellite.

On direct questioning by the Russians the Norwegian embassy in Moscow confirmed the USS Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern for repairs. Allegedly part of a fence used on LA-class SSN's sail was found near Kursk.

In the days that followed both President Clinton and the Chief Director of the CIA travelled to Moscow. Later the Norwegian government would retract their previous statement and deny that the Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern.

As far as conspiracy theories go this one is one of the more believable. Numerous collisions at sea between US and Russian subs have occurred during the Cold War, but information about the accidents was kept quiet to avoid increasing tensions.

Another theory that gained some popularity in Russia is that the Peter the Great accidentally sank the Kursk with ASW weapons during a live fire demonstration.

I have posted all this back in 2000, including the photo. Photo is not exactly a fake, but it was taken long before Aug 2000.

You summed up most of the "conspiracy theories" just as if you read Russian internet forums.

What I didn't hear in that silly film was that Kursk (pronounced Koorsk) didn't have electric batteries loaded, so after commander ordered to shut down the reactor - there was no power aboard...

The video is so full of obvious mistakes that it's not worth discussing. And I was defending that point of view back in 2000

As far as I remember Funked invited me to post in Kursk topic so I moved here from AGW.

Boroda · « **Reply #81 on:** July 06, 2007, 08:58:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Cant we just say its russian and it did what most russian equipment is good at?

Malfuntion, blowing up killing most of the crew.
Do any of you remember how they tested bombers?

"oh no, we lost another one to engine fires, okay..load the next one up,and fly that."

Rinse and repeat.

Quality junk.

USS Scorpion. Best advertisement for the US Navy reliability. So far USSR/Russia didn't lose any nuclear subs in such circumstances.

Anyone calling Soviet military equipment "unreliable" should compare M-16 to a good old Kalashnikov.

Is it true that American submariners still have to share beds with other shifts? Since 1958 Soviet nuclear sub crews have separate bed for each crew member, so sometimes Soviet stuff is more comfortable too.

Wolfala · « **Reply #82 on:** July 06, 2007, 08:58:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
I have posted all this back in 2000, including the photo. Photo is not exactly a fake, but it was taken long before Aug 2000.

You summed up most of the "conspiracy theories" just as if you read Russian internet forums.

What I didn't hear in that silly film was that Kursk (pronounced Koorsk) didn't have electric batteries loaded, so after commander ordered to shut down the reactor - there was no power aboard...

The video is so full of obvious mistakes that it's not worth discussing. And I was defending that point of view back in 2000 As far as I remember Funked invited me to post in Kursk topic so I moved here from AGW.

Thank you for clearing that up and preventing others from stepping in the bull****.

Wolf

Swager · « **Reply #83 on:** July 06, 2007, 09:10:49 PM »

While serving as a sonarman in the US Navy, I was directly involved in over 100 MK48 Torpedo shots. Trust me, these things have a unique signature. IF one was fired, many listening posts would have known it.

indy007 · « **Reply #84 on:** July 07, 2007, 10:48:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Is it true that American submariners still have to share beds with other shifts? Since 1958 Soviet nuclear sub crews have separate bed for each crew member, so sometimes Soviet stuff is more comfortable too.

I read that the Typhoon class had a full sized swimming pool, spa, and movie theater. Definately better than American boats for creature comforts.

Both sides make good stuff. Sometimes, something malfunctions. Nothing is perfect

McFarland · « **Reply #85 on:** July 07, 2007, 08:56:56 PM »

These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.

Nilsen · « **Reply #86 on:** July 08, 2007, 04:09:08 AM »

true and false mcfarland

AKIron · « **Reply #87 on:** July 08, 2007, 12:25:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by McFarland
These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.

Being continually uncomfortable can be a distraction. Military ships are spartan for monetary and efficiency reasons, not disciplinary.

indy007 · « **Reply #88 on:** July 08, 2007, 12:39:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by McFarland
These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.

Ever been on a US aircraft carrier? All the same stuff you'd find in a city with a population of 6000. Post office, movie theaters, stores, etc, etc. Everything but a Wal-Mart.

AWMac · « **Reply #89 on:** July 08, 2007, 12:52:52 PM »

Be afraid Russia, Be Very Afraid!!!

Mac