The Kursk tragedy.

I do not see the purpose of the whole cutting operation. So what if the front of the hull had "loose" parts, they would not affect
the balance of the hull and the raising was not so fast that they would act to destabilize it by "steering".

The NATzO torpedo did only a small fraction of the damage. It set off the warheads on the Kursk. This second stage explosion would
have obliterated most of the evidence itself. But thanks to the smelly cutting procedure we do not know. Maybe Russia
gathered under water photos that show more but these are likely classified.

The response of the Russian government was a coverup to prevent a confrontation it would lose. If it announced that NATzO had
sunk the Kursk, then public opinion and every norm around the world would require a response. But Yeltsin left Russia nearly a
vassal state of the USA. He deliberately weakened it and installed clowns like Berezovsky into key posts to insert NATzO fellow
travelers into important branches of government. Putin is still cleaning up this rot after 22 years.

GarryB wrote:The obvious problem with the hole is that it is not a complete circle.

A second problem is that modern submarine torpedoes can't punch holes through subs like that otherwise the US Navy would never have bothered to make their torpedoes that make direct contact HEAT charged.

And anyone who knows anything about HEAT charges and of course submarines, knows that when they are at depth punching a hole through them is often enough to sink them... which the Russians knew which is why in the empty cavity between the hulls they had materials and of course water to reduce the effect of an external explosion or HEAT warhead.

The problem of course is that we have seen the sound readouts for the area and there are no sounds of a torpedo launch so can we therefore assume the west has developed a brand new super technology that the Russians could only dream of.... silent torpedoes?

Equally obviously if that is where the torpedo went in... why is all the damage to the sub much further forward... in the photo where you can see the partial roundish hole you can also see a launch tube for a Granit missile... surely a torpedo hitting there would set off that rather large missile and its fuel and warhead... but no... it seems to have set off an explosion about a dozen metres further forward up the sub centred in the torpedo room....

Correct me if I am wrong but they cut out sections of the sub to lift it and that hole is behind the section cut line... which suggests it might have been manually cut to see inside the hull to work out where to cut through the hull... so the sub could be lifted safely.

Another problem with that hole is that it appears to have round-shaped (or rather tunnel-shaped) supporting structure behind it. When I first saw it, I assumed it was an emergency hatch or something.

Another problem with that hole is that it appears to have round-shaped (or rather tunnel-shaped) supporting structure behind it. When I first saw it, I assumed it was an emergency hatch or something.

The Antey boats have two escape hatches. See the graphic below (5 and 15). There is no hatch in that position that you assumed to be an emergency hatch. There is a rectangular hatch for the bow plane near that area.  The Antey's also have an escape chamber (12). The "supporting structure" you see behind the hole is actually the missile tube for a Granit missile (see third picture below).



Detail of the Omsk showing the starboard side >>

Here is an excellent view of the exposed missile containers on the Kursk with their ribbed reinforcement.

Mir wrote:

Another problem with that hole is that it appears to have round-shaped (or rather tunnel-shaped) supporting structure behind it. When I first saw it, I assumed it was an emergency hatch or something.

The Antey boats have two escape hatches. See the graphic below (5 and 15). There is no hatch in that position that you assumed to be an emergency hatch. There is a rectangular hatch for the bow plane near that area.  The Antey's also have an escape chamber (12). The "supporting structure" you see behind the hole is actually the missile tube for a Granit missile (see third picture below).



Detail of the Omsk showing the starboard side >>

OK, I see. Thanks.

I do not see the purpose of the whole cutting operation. So what if the front of the hull had "loose" parts, they would not affect
the balance of the hull and the raising was not so fast that they would act to destabilize it by "steering".

Dude... the submerged weight of the sub that is not flooded internally with water is over 19 thousand tons... with the level of damage to the front piece of the sub like that they would be bloody stupid to just lift it like that... what happens if it is half way to the surface and 10 thousand tons falls off the nose as it breaks off... do you think the lifting chains would be able to compensate or adjust to take the strain?

Normal anti ship torpedos explode under the hull because no one point on the structure can take the weight of the entire vessel on it and its own weight essentially destroys the vessel by breaking it in half... but you think they should have just lifted it as is.

Because by cutting it it conceals evidence of what?

Sounds like you are just being a ... The Russian government under Putin is not well know for telling lies... which is really what has set them apart for the last 20 odd years from western governments who lie and cheat and steal and murder on a regular basis.

The NATzO torpedo did only a small fraction of the damage. It set off the warheads on the Kursk. This second stage explosion would
have obliterated most of the evidence itself. But thanks to the smelly cutting procedure we do not know. Maybe Russia
gathered under water photos that show more but these are likely classified.

If all the warheads had gone off at once there would be nothing needing to be cut off that is just ridiculous.

The response of the Russian government was a coverup to prevent a confrontation it would lose. If it announced that NATzO had
sunk the Kursk, then public opinion and every norm around the world would require a response.

Then why not reinvestigate it now and find the real truth and hold the west accountable and demand payments for the families of those sailors?

Another problem with that hole is that it appears to have round-shaped (or rather tunnel-shaped) supporting structure behind it. When I first saw it, I assumed it was an emergency hatch or something.

Part of the conspiracy about the hole was that it was never shown on TV at the time, which is bullshit because it was repeatedly shown on TV at the time... and they always use the worst possible angle of the photo to make it look like it could be round, but from square on it isn't:



Another issue is that the hole is 1.4m across.... to big to be a 21 inch torpedo which is half a metre wide (533mm).

The combusting copper is from the torpedo's warhead...

Nobody uses copper in HEAT warheads any more.... it is obsolete as HEAT cone liner... and more importantly as everyone knows a HEAT round does not blow a full calibre hole in the target... for it to work it uses a shaped charge of explosive to compress and focus a metal liner into a beam of molten metal, sometimes called a plasma, that punches a tiny hole through enormous distances of metal armour... most of the time a 130mm to 150mm HEAT Shaped Charge will create a plasma beam about the thickness of your finger. For a torpedo half a metre across the beam has to be narrow because the explosive shaped charge works by concentrating the energy and heat and metal into a narrow beam so it would not be bigger than your fist... this hole is reportedly 1.4 metres across and was so divers could enter and check the front Granit tubes for damage... the didn't cut through the inner hull because there was no need.

From a forensic point of view the above photograph was taken when all the substantial debris from the front part of the submarine was already removed and therefor has no real value in any evidence.

From a forensic point of view it eliminates the theory that the hole on the outside was a penetrating hit from a torpedo that sunk the sub.

Her are some images of what the Kursk looked like at the start of the cleanup that is far more revealing >>

More revealing of what?

I personally was relieved that the sub's crew was "still alive" - only to learn a few days later of the full extend of the catastrophe!

They didn't know what had happened or what the situation with the crew was, but the sub has evacuation systems that had not been used so they would obviously assume there was something they were dealing with.

Being wrong is not the same as lying.

Proof that Saddam has nuclear weapons and is within 45 minutes of launching a chem or bio weapon attack on the west is lying.

The truth is they told a blatant lie. It was clearly an attempted coverup.

So you are saying they knew exactly what happened the moment hit happened?

Do you have any proof to back that up or are you lying?

Whatever conspiracy theories are floating out there - it was started by the Russian government. Too many things don't add up. The machinery used to cut the Kursk free from two meters of mud could not have caused that hole. They basically hacked it from the top to the bottom with something that could not have caused the precision of that hole.

It was an inspection hole cut to make sure the front Granit tubes were intact and far enough away from the damaged section being cut off that there was no risk of the loaded Granits falling and exploding if they broke up. Granits are ramjet powered missiles that use exotic liquid fuels that don't react well to sea water...

@GaryB
The secondary blast did follow the path of least resistance. They found that the inner pressure door leading to the torpedo room was left open. If the door was closed most of the crew could have survived the blast.

Now I know you are just making shit up, even in 2000 there is no way during an exercise that doors will be left open, you source is a sack of shit liar.

Nobody uses copper in HEAT warheads any more....bla bla bla

It now appears that you are the torpedo expert and Maurice Stradling, a former torpedo engineer and a key figure in the original investigation into the sinking of the Kursk knows squat! It's amazing! You probably served years in the worlds second largest submarine fleet of New Zealand!    

Also mentioned before: U.S. military source states that the puncture is trademark evidence of an American MK-48 torpedo, which is made to melt cleanly through steel sheet due to a mechanism at its tip that combusts copper [in the torpedo's warhead].

Part of the conspiracy about the hole was that it was never shown on TV at the time, which is bullshit because it was repeatedly shown on TV at the time... and they always use the worst possible angle of the photo to make it look like it could be round, but from square on it isn't:

No it was shown on TV but the starboard side was off limits shortly after the first footage showing the hole. Even from your picture it is clearly a perfectly round puncture. The piece at the bottom is metal bend outwards from the secondary blast. Very clearly shown in a picture posted by KVS. The indent is again clearly visible that could only have been caused by something that hit it with some force from the outside. No cutting tool could have caused that indent.

From a forensic point of view it eliminates the theory that the hole on the outside was a penetrating hit from a torpedo that sunk the sub.

No it doesn't as all evidence was removed by then - so again from a forensic point of view the picture you posted means squat.

So you are saying they knew exactly what happened the moment hit happened? Do you have any proof to back that up or are you lying?

Clearly you have either not read the first official statement I posted or you did not comprehend the full extend of the statement at all!?

Now I know you are just making shit up, even in 2000 there is no way during an exercise that doors will be left open, you source is a sack of shit liar.

Not making up shit here bro - and no lying involved. Just telling what I picked up from known sources. Come to think of it you seem to be quite good at that sort of thing though  

The internal tube door was designed to be three times as strong as the external torpedo door, so that any explosion inside the tube would be directed out into the sea. Salvage crews found the internal tube hatch cover embedded in the bulkhead separating the first and second compartments, 12 metres (39 ft) from the tube. This led investigators to conclude that it was likely that the internal door was not fully closed when the explosion occurred. Original source cited by Wikipedia: "Sinking of the Kursk (Russia's Nuclear Sub Nightmare)". Seconds from Disaster. National Geographic Channel. 18 April 2006

I should add an additional point about the highly suspicious August timing of this incident.    We have seen the use of Putin's
absence from Russia in 2008 by the Suckshitvilli regime in limitrophe statelet Georgia.   So it is clear that western stellar intellects
think that Putin's proximity to his office room is a critical factor for Russian command and control.   Thus, Putin being far from it
either inside Russia or abroad is the same situation.  

The physical evidence we have is already enough to conclude that no internal accident sank the Kursk.   The explosion would
not produce the hole plus indent feature as it is physically impossible.   There was no reason for any post sinking cutting of such
a hole and the indent would be bizarre since effort would be needed to produce it for absolutely no reason.   The Dutch contractor
hired to raise the submarine would not need to cut any symmetric hole for anything.   The forward section cutting operation was done
from above and from the outside.   It did not need any special inlet cut out using divers.  

The problem with a lot of opinion is that it is cut and paste, cherry picked BS.  If you cannot explain the glaring feature, then
you literally have nothing to say.   Ignoring this feature with some hand waving and attempts to impose additional requirements
using theoretical expectations (e.g. full perforation along the normal to the hull) simply does not cut it.   A torpedo would not
be designed to cut through multiple hulls and the hole has an elliptical profile which proves that the warhead went forward and
not simply at 90 degrees to the hull (*).   So the secondary damage is right where the metal is missing.   Any delayed detonation
mechanism allows for the warhead to bounce off the inner hull (after losing most of its kinetic energy penetrating the outer
hull) so we have a consistent set of facts that the enemy torpedo detonated to the right of where it entered.

I have not seen any solid support for the fanciful notion that Soviet torpedos would detonate if dropped as if they were using
nitroglycerine for propellant.  The leaking H2O2 theory is BS even if this is "official".   A catalyst is used to set off the H2O2
decomposition reaction so the issue is not a leak but the potential triggering of the contact with the catalyst due to the
torpedo being dropped.   This may sound plausible, but then every bomb that was dropped by mishandling would detonate
and that simply does not happen.   Basic design requirements would make sure that the catalyst exposure mechanism had
a reserve for shock from dropping.   Also, the Type 65 propulsion mechanism is not declassified and Wiki speculates that it
involves kerosene in addition to H2O2.   I may be accused of hand waving, but the lack of any other accidents with Type 65
torpedos is evidence that the engineering was not by retarded chimps.   So, given the glaring hole in the Kursk outer hull,
there is doubt about the official story.

(*) Given that the Kursk had forward momentum (highly dubious it was reversing or standing still) even at a 90 degree impact
the torpedo would rotate during the penetration.  This is true even if the time taken for the penetration is very short since
any warhead would still experience conservation of momentum.   Conservation of momentum would knock the warhead (and
the torpedo hull) forward before it exploded since there is a gap between the two submarine hulls.   A nice simulation of what
happens to a delayed fuse torpedo as it penetrates into a moving submarine is needed.   Maybe people will ease off on the
knee-jerk dismissals.

It now appears that you are the torpedo expert and Maurice Stradling, a former torpedo engineer and a key figure in the original investigation into the sinking of the Kursk knows squat!

What are you talking about... this so called expert is British.... the original investigation WAS NOT BRITISH. The investigation was Russian and would not be shared with any foreign experts because the sub was secret.

Generally Torpedos do not use shaped charge HEAT warheads... you have already stated yourself the outer hull is not made of tank armour, and the distance between the hulls is not particularly important either... the TM-83 roadside mine can penetrate 40cm of armour plate from a distance of up to 50m and it weighs a tiny fraction of the weight of a warhead on a torpedo and has less than half the diameter too... being 25cm round.

The Mk-48 torpedo with about 300kgs of HE does not need and would never need a shaped charge warhead to penetrate Soviet subs... the idea is ridiculous.

Also mentioned before: U.S. military source states that the puncture is trademark evidence of an American MK-48 torpedo, which is made to melt cleanly through steel sheet due to a mechanism at its tip that combusts copper [in the torpedo's warhead].

The hole is 1.4 metres across and is not round... neither of which makes any sense with a shaped charge warhead... even if it hit at an extreme angle.

Even from your picture it is clearly a perfectly round puncture. The piece at the bottom is metal bend outwards from the secondary blast.

Bullshit... the piece at the bottom should not exist as it should have been cut in a perfect hole shape with the initial hit and then when it bent out with the secondary blast it would not be there... the fact that it is there proves there was no perfect hole cut in the first place and the rest of the theory goes up in smoke.

Therefore the Torpedo attack is bullshit... but then we already know that because how would the sub firing the torpedo prevent the torpedo from hitting the friendly sub it was launching a torpedo to protect?

Very clearly shown in a picture posted by KVS.

The photo shown by KVS is the conspiracy angle shot that hides the fact that the hole is not round, and is the most popular image for tinfoil hat nutters to masturbate over.

The indent is again clearly visible that could only have been caused by something that hit it with some force from the outside. No cutting tool could have caused that indent.

The submarine buried itself nose first into the sand there is more than enough energy there for any sort of dents and damage.

No it doesn't as all evidence was removed by then - so again from a forensic point of view the picture you posted means squat.

But in this case it is not removed evidence.... it is added evidence... added material that stops that hole being actually round... and before you claim they added it later to hide the fact that it was a torpedo attack then why not recut the hole and make it square?

Clearly you have either not read the first official statement I posted or you did not comprehend the full extend of the statement at all!?

The first official statement... before they lifted the sub?

Original source cited by Wikipedia: "Sinking of the Kursk (Russia's Nuclear Sub Nightmare)". Seconds from Disaster. National Geographic Channel. 18 April 2006

Wiki and National Geographic... such infallable sources on information about anything to do with Russia...

The explosion would
not produce the hole plus indent feature as it is physically impossible.

The hole was cut to allow divers in to that part of the sub to inspect the Granit tubes... that is why they cut it to be 1.4m round instead of .533m round like the width of a torpedo, or something like 200mm like the diameter of a plasma beam from a HEAT charge from that sized torpedo.

I have not seen any solid support for the fanciful notion that Soviet torpedos would detonate if dropped as if they were using
nitroglycerine for propellant. The leaking H2O2 theory is BS even if this is "official". A catalyst is used to set off the H2O2
decomposition reaction so the issue is not a leak but the potential triggering of the contact with the catalyst due to the
torpedo being dropped.

What are you talking about?

How the **** could they drop a torpedo? More precisely how the **** could they pick one up to drop it?

Do you think they sling one over each shoulder and carry them over to the launch tubes and push them in by hand?

What is believed to have happened is that a HTP powered torpedo (not a Shval... that is a western attempt to suggest a Russian super weapon is faulty) started up inside the sub... likely in at torpedo tube, and with no sea water to cool its engine it overheated and ruptured causing an explosion that likely blew open the torpedo tube and started a serious fire because a byproduct of HTP is oxygen in gas form as well as heat... this fire likely set off the warhead of a torpedo or perhaps just the fuel of a torpedo which was enough to devastate the torpedo room.

The Oscar is a strongly build sub but there is no way multiple torpedos exploded inside the engine room or it would be totally missing.... there would be nothing to cut off.

If hit by a torpedo there would be more external damage, which there is not.

It is not the first time a faulty torpedo has led to the sinking of a sub... a US Sub called the Stingray had a faulty torpedo which they ejected from the sub by firing through the torpedo tube... standard procedure... the gyros were not set properly on the torpedo and when launched its engine started and it went on a journey in a great arc and came around and hit the Stingray and sank her with all hands.

What are you talking about... this so called expert is British.... the original investigation WAS NOT BRITISH. The investigation was Russian and would not be shared with any foreign experts because the sub was secret.

Point taken but the actual point is that he is a torpedo engineer - you're not.

Let me rephrase.He was part of an investigation into the Kursk. His expertise was used in two documentaries. One by the BBC and the other one the French documentary.

His evidence on the Mk-48 torpedo strike was confirmed by official US sources as well. Although the exact nature of the warhead mechanism is classified it does appear that the mechanism contains DU and copper.

Therefore the Torpedo attack is bullshit... but then we already know that because how would the sub firing the torpedo prevent the torpedo from hitting the friendly sub it was launching a torpedo to protect?

Modern day torpedoes may look superficially similar to WWI torpedoes but they are quite different in how they operate today. Just a sample of the Mk-48's capability:
"The torpedo's seeker has an active electronically steered "pinger" (2D phased array sonar) that helps avoid having to maneuver as it approaches the target. Unconfirmed reports indicate that the torpedo's sensors can monitor surrounding electrical and magnetic fields.The modular Mod 7 variant increases sonar bandwidth, enabling it to transmit and receive pings over a wider frequency band, taking advantage of broadband signal processing techniques to greatly improve search, acquisition, and attack effectiveness. This version is much more resistant to enemy countermeasures."

The submarine buried itself nose first into the sand there is more than enough energy there for any sort of dents and damage.

Nowhere else on the sub can we see any similar looking indent but only exactly where that round hole appears. Strange coincidence isn't it? Officially that hole was manually cut by divers as you've mentioned. One of them must have accidentally pushed against the side whilst hacking away!  

But in this case it is not removed evidence.... it is added evidence...

The picture below is the one I'm referring to. You posted it as some evidence that there was no hole in the hull. The shot was taken when all debris was removed and the inner hull was already sealed. You can not use a picture like that as evidence of anything as all the evidence was removed by then. Very simple to understand - it's like a crime scene where the cleaners have already cleaned the room and now you ask the investigators to investigate the crime.

The first official statement... before they lifted the sub?

This one >>

The first official announcement of the accident was made by the Russians on Monday, 14 August. They told the media that Kursk had had "minor technical difficulties" on Sunday. They stated that the submarine had "descended to the ocean floor", that they had established contact with the crew and were pumping air and power to the boat, and that "everyone on board is alive."

Wiki and National Geographic... such infallable sources on information about anything to do with Russia...

Your whole argument seems to come directly from this source.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9316/was-kursk-sunk-by-uss-memphis

Not exactly a great source I would say!
Come to think of it at least Wiki and NG does have some street cred when it comes to citations.