Did the Americans sink the Kursk?

...Or did the Russians sink it themselves by accident? What really happened and why are they covering it up? Did Pentagon buy the Russians' silence? 118 submarine crewmembers perished in this incident.

Official version: A torpedo exploded on the inside of the sub by accident.
Evidence: A hole in the sub´s hull showing clearly that a torpedo hit the Kursk from the outside.

From: The Fatherland Is in Danger!

the official version has been stated: an exploding torpedo inside the sub is what caused the disaster.

As you probably remember, the nose of the "Kursk", was sawn off before the sub was raised, allegedly to avoid the possibility of an explosion during transport. Skeptics claimed that the government was really trying to leave the evidence for the real cause of the disaster on the ocean floor. Their suspicions were increased by the fact that no pictures of the sub's nose were ever shown to the public. It's possible that the nose of the sub was completely undamaged, for example, which would destroy the government's official explanation of the disaster.

But the official cover-up went awry when the sub was finally raised, for there, for all to see, was a perfectly round hole on the sub's hull, just at the point where the nose had been sawn off. (Apparently they sawed in the wrong place.) This hole was bent in at the edges, and could only have been caused by impact of an external object traveling at an extremely high speed.

Oh, if it weren't for that damned round hole, seen by millions of people on television.

There it is, right there in the middle of the hull, that round hole, whose diameter corresponds exactly to the impact point of our new weaponry, and the edges of that accursed hole are neatly bent inwards, so that even a child can understand that if he takes a hammer and pounds a nail into a tin can, the same sort of hole with the edges bent inwards will result... What's worse, Midshipman Borisov managed to scrawl a note about the real reason for the tragedy and put it into a bottle. We had to do a bit of "arm-twisting" on his mother to get her to say that a mere midshipman couldn't have understood anything about the real reasons, only those higher in rank. But no normal person's going to believe that nonsense.

From: Kursk story unfolding

From the report filed by the Staff of the Northern Fleet to the Governmental Kursk Inquiry Commission:

“On the port board of the submarine, at the binding frame of the first and second compartments, a rupture hole the size of 2x3 meters was found. The edges of the rupture hole are curled inside the boat and melted.”

Comments by the Navy’s representative at the Dagdisel plant (torpedo manufacturer), Captain of II rank, Vyacheslav Lohmatov:

“Only a missile could have rammed the submarine. There are no explosives at the binding frame between the first and second compartments. If the Kursk was rammed by another submarine, there would be only a hole there without signs of fire.

From: U.S. Offers Help To Rescue Submarine

U.S. experts said whatever sank the submarine Kursk, which was designed to withstand a torpedo attack with its double-layer hall, had to be massive.

John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists said the 13,900-ton submarine was designed to be hard to sink.

From: Two or More Explosions

Seismic stations as far away as Canada, Germany and Alaska recorded the events. But scientists are paying particular attention to sounds recorded by Norwegian stations, part of a global network, which were closest to the sub and may provide the most reliable readings.

The first, smaller reading “certainly would be consistent with what you might expect from either a torpedo or cruise missile warhead exploding,” says John Pike, of the Federation of American Scientists, adding, “it would not exclude bumping in to an old WWII sea mine.” The second recorded sound or sounds, says Pike, would be consistent with single or multiple near simultaneous torpedo or cruise missile explosions — or possibly the collapse of one or more pressurized bulkheads. From the two-minute delay, he says, “one could speculate that the initial explosion caused a fire in the torpedo room, and that that set off another weapon, or weapons or that initial explosion breached part of the hull, which damaged another pressure bulkhead subsequently causing it to collapse.”

After seeing that hole I find the official story hard to believe. I believe there is no doubt that Kursk was hit by a torpedo. The question is: Who fired that torpedo and did it happen by accident? I´ve recently seen a documentary (made by a french guy in 2005) where they show a video-footage of that hole. No "photoshop pictures" here and there are many sources...

Related links:
Kursk - the various theories
Secret torpedo test 'blew sub apart'
Kursk families demand new inquiry
The Sinking Of The Russian Sub Kursk!

Are you sure that that hole wasn't made durring the salvage opperation?

What an interesting possiblity and a great post.

I always wondered whay really happened and not to place blame but it could have been a Russian torpedo as well as an American one. We just dont know but I bet you the US and Russia do. Why the coverup? It makes you wonder,


that being said, it could very well be just as the 'offical' line says it was.


I dont know.

Would the Warhead explode before penetration or after? I do not think it was a torpedo as the hole is to symmetrical for penetration on a double titanium hull.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by edsinger]

Hellmutt,

Official version: A torpedo exploded on the inside of the sub by accident.

Correct. There was an explosion which pierced the hull.

Evidence: A hole in the sub´s hull showing clearly that a torpedo hit the Kursk from the outside.

Incorrect. The internal explosion that pierced the hull, due to its depth and external water pressures, caused an implosion. That would account for the bent in edges, etc.





seekerof

But one thing is lacking .
WHY whould america sink the Kursk?
The only reason I can think of is getting some of the Shikval(Spl?) rocket torpedo's.

The question is: Who fired that torpedo and did it happen by accident?

First of all, American subs don't "accidentally" fire torpedos. There are so many links in the chain of command required to even fire a dummy torpedo, that it'd be impossible to accidentally fire a live one. It's not like someone can trip and fall and accidentally land on the "fire" button.

Secondly, I sincerely doubt the US would fire at a Russian nuclear submarine and risk causing World War 3. The whole reason that this story is being covered up by the Russians is because of the experimental nature of the weaponry that was being tested. There's a lot of pride amongst the Russian military and the last thing they want to admit is that they are responsible for the Kursk's demise.

Just my humble opinion...

I might remember all wrong or from tv/movies, but I read somewhere that kursk was testing a new rocket torpedo which lost control and target and then headed back at them. These things are super fast, no time to hit self destruct or such. If the torpedo wasn't armed it would just hit the hull at high speed and cause damage inside the ship which results in the final explosion.

I think that the sinking of a nuclear sub would have been considered an act of war. In particular it would have been seen as a precurser to a nuclear strike, since that is one of the tasks that hunter subs are for.
Take out the enemy subs carrying missiles before you attack, to limit the response that they can bring about.

Basically the main theory about the demise of the Kursk was the testing of an experimental torpedo. Apparantly it had some dangerous gas in it that has proven in the past to be extremely volatile, and I think especially when it comes into contact with water. During the test launch, the torpedo exploded while still in the tube. That's the story that I remember. It makes sense that the Russians would want to cover that up. As I said in the previous post, their military are a very proud people and would rather blame the US than admit that the fault lies squarely on their shoulders.

Just look how they refused our help and European country's help in the very beginning. Had they been able to get down to the Kursk in the beginning, it is possible that MANY lives could have been saved. Instead Russia wanted to handle it themselves, and sent down an antique of a rescue pod and they couldn't even get the Sub's hatch open.

By the time Russia finally caved in and allowed Europe to help, everyone on board was dead. How Russia could sit there and listen to the men banging on the walls and pipes of the sub begging to be rescued, and be so arrogant as to not accept outside help and listen to the banging slowly cease as their men died, is just beyond my comprehension.

Basically the main theory about the demise of the Kursk was the testing of an experimental torpedo. Apparantly it had some dangerous gas in it that has proven in the past to be extremely volatile, and I think especially when it comes into contact with water.

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that is how we lost one of ours.

really nice article, this is what this site makes so great,

Why would america sink the cursk? maybe it was someone else...who knows

Originally posted by Rasputin13
How Russia could sit there and listen to the men banging on the walls and pipes of the sub begging to be rescued, and be so arrogant as to not accept outside help and listen to the banging slowly cease as their men died, is just beyond my comprehension.

Let's not forget that our government would do the exact same thing to us before they let "Ruskis" onto one of our subs. They'd pour a couple thousand dumb jarheads like me into a meat grinder before they let themselves be embarrassed or in any way inconcenienced. Afterall, how many kids did we send to their deaths in the 60s and 70s before a president could stomach the idea of being the first in American history to "lose" a war for us?
It's idiocy, and its not a distinctly Russian trait.

If it was a torpedo, it could have only been fired by a Russian ship, perhaps even the Kursk itself. Although American and British subs were in the area, they certainly wouldn't have fired any torpedos during a Russian military exercise.

The Kursk was falling to pieces. There was a documentary on about a year ago on UK TV about what happened. I only saw a bit of it, but it did involve gas leaking out of dodgy seals on torpedoes. This wasn't the Russian story, it was British forensic experts who came up with this theory. None of them suggested that it was hit from the outside.

The Australian: US 'torpedoed Kursk nuclear sub'

May 09, 2005

A FORMER British military official has backed a sensational claim that the Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, was torpedoed by US forces in August 2000.

The new explanation for the Kursk's downing is based on film footage of a hole in the side of the vessel, and evidence placing US submarines in the area at the time it was sunk.

The French film shows stills of the Kursk raised above the water after being salvaged, with a precise circular hole in its right side. The hole clearly bends inwards, consistent with an attack from outside the submarine.

Sounds like manufactured propaganda for an anti-American French audience akin to the "missile hit the Pentagon" garbage.

A US military source in the documentary declares the hole to be the 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.

Playing the game of Cat and Mouse under the Water with Nuclear Submarines is always a risky job - most of the time, you dont know who the Cat and who the Mouse really is.

From some records there have been around 50-60 nuclear sumbarine "accidents" caused by the Cold War Underwater Chess game between the US and the Russian Navy.

Where there is one Russian submarine, there are two American following it.

Things easily go out of hand.

The film suggests the attack happened while two US submarines, the Toledo and Memphis, were shadowing the Kursk in a routine military exercise.

I dont think an implosion could have been the cause of that suspicious circle. Wouldn't an implosion have turned the whole sub into a twisted wreck? If the explosion was internal and somehow miraculously created that circle wouldnt the implosive force be centered on that one spot obliterating its form. Besides the circle has an even more damning groove leading up to it. A cylindrical dent that looks it like it came in from an external source at an angle. Heck the groove is even facing toward the rear of the sub as if it was fired upon from behind. The more I think about it the more suspicious I get.

There is no way that this could have been caused by a U.S. torpedo. If it had been, while not causing WWIII, it would have been the best propaganda win for the Russians ever. We'd be having to endlessly apologize to the Russians and would have absolutely no room for criticizing Putin and his backsteps on democracy at all.

It's clear if anyone is covering up anything, it's the Russians covering up their own mistakes and incompetence in this affair. I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened, but I am certain it had nothing to do with U.S. or other NATO forces.

[edit on 5/9/2005 by djohnsto77]

There was a Los angeles class sub tracking the kursk but why would they fire on it? I could believe it was an accident and that the russian government didnt want other countries looking at it's armaments, etc. A shame though that the russian government didnt accept help to save the sailors lives.