General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: nice site Yuri & some thoughts
Posted by:
T R York
()
Date: May 29, 2001 12:10AM
<HTML>Yuri;
I too have bookmarked this site, and am looking forward to reading about the raising of submarine Kursk. Thank you very much for this information.
It is sad that politics and not honest engineering will control and direct the inquiry. This will ultimately be a great dis-service to the Russian Navy, for whatever flaws in Kursk or the torpedoes will not be exposed, and thus a similar disaster may happen again.
The collision theory has always been preposterous to me, if only for one reason; thickness of the Kursk\'s hull. Though I haven\'t found out the exact thickness, these are deep diving submarines, possibly surpassing the Los Angeles class, which was known to be thinner hulled with the first batch than the contemporary Russian boats.
In lieu of a ram bow, I should think that the bow of the alleged ramming US sub would have experienced a severely flattened nose, as it were. All of the underwater listeners recorded explosions, not the Clang! of steel hitting steel. Wouldn\'t such damage be nearly fatal for the ramming sub as well? Wouldn\'t this sub have surfaced immediately, and would she able to return home under her own power? We generally bring our damaged ships back on a \"flatbed truck\" ship; most recently the 8000 ton USS Cole. Concealing this damage from the world would be next to impossible as well. The USS Greenville was not able to get away with ramming the Japanese fishing boat, was she? There it was for the world to see; a dent along the hull...This also re-inforces my theory about collision damage to thick skinned submarines, especially these days, when even surface warships have paper thin hulls.
I just hope that the Russian Navy at some point will learn the actual truth from this tragedy so that those sailors will not have died in vain.</HTML>
I too have bookmarked this site, and am looking forward to reading about the raising of submarine Kursk. Thank you very much for this information.
It is sad that politics and not honest engineering will control and direct the inquiry. This will ultimately be a great dis-service to the Russian Navy, for whatever flaws in Kursk or the torpedoes will not be exposed, and thus a similar disaster may happen again.
The collision theory has always been preposterous to me, if only for one reason; thickness of the Kursk\'s hull. Though I haven\'t found out the exact thickness, these are deep diving submarines, possibly surpassing the Los Angeles class, which was known to be thinner hulled with the first batch than the contemporary Russian boats.
In lieu of a ram bow, I should think that the bow of the alleged ramming US sub would have experienced a severely flattened nose, as it were. All of the underwater listeners recorded explosions, not the Clang! of steel hitting steel. Wouldn\'t such damage be nearly fatal for the ramming sub as well? Wouldn\'t this sub have surfaced immediately, and would she able to return home under her own power? We generally bring our damaged ships back on a \"flatbed truck\" ship; most recently the 8000 ton USS Cole. Concealing this damage from the world would be next to impossible as well. The USS Greenville was not able to get away with ramming the Japanese fishing boat, was she? There it was for the world to see; a dent along the hull...This also re-inforces my theory about collision damage to thick skinned submarines, especially these days, when even surface warships have paper thin hulls.
I just hope that the Russian Navy at some point will learn the actual truth from this tragedy so that those sailors will not have died in vain.</HTML>
