Russian Diver Admits Killing ‘Buster’ Crabb

but where they stopped before this incident or only afterwards?

They were never authorised, only ever fantasy designs that the RN kept in the cuboard for happier times, eventually being killed finally in 1957. Although Tiger, Lion and Blake were completed.

Thats the point, the anti- sverdlov designs were all cancelled for monetary reasons, the sinking of a sverdlov would not have stopped that

but where they stopped before this incident or only afterwards?

Moderator Comment

….I’m not going to be drawn into a discussion about Chechnya…if you want to discuss that please feel free to start another thread….

That seems eminently sensible to me.

A question for you garry,

What do you think is the most likely sequence of events that happened surrounding this affair?

I can’t decide whether you are just playing devils advocate or something else.

I’m not discounting the possibility that the RN were placing mines, UK plc has done some dodgey dealings in the past and i am sure will do so in the future. However, as you know, for reasons of international relations and many others, i and most others here believe that the mine theory is most unlikely.

What do you think happend?

And why would it prove a collision… we know it wasn’t. It was the internal explosion of a HTP powered conventional torpedo that started a fire and eventually set of the rest of the torpedos at once.

So, we agree, no collision then.

Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.

…especially one of those inferior Western submarines, much weaker than the mighty Russian Kursk, right?

…they jumped to conclusions based on what they knew.

They had no idea what had happened but they knew foreign subs were in the area at the time…

So the Russian military and government lied.

Which means there is no evidence that what sank the Kursk was outside the Kursk, not that there were no foreign subs in the vicinity at the time.

Nobody is disputing that there were NATO submarines in the area.

There is no evidence that that body was Crabb.

Except the British government says it was Crabb…but you don’t believe them, of course.

The difference between me and those like you who are disagreeing is that I am prepared to consider the possibility and not decide either way till we get some confirmation from the Russian Navy.

So you would believe the Russian Navy if they said it was Crabb.

British = Lies. Russians = Truth.

Is that correct?

A drug deal gone wrong?

Ah, yes, the decadent drug-fuelled West.

Clever lot these drug-dealers to put the body in Crabb’s wetsuit…so no, I don’t think it was drug-dealers or an alien-abduction and it wasn’t Jack the Ripper!

When has Britain ever stopped spying on anyone?

Why should Britain stop spying, it isn’t against international law…and Russia never spies on Britain?

And the Brits were already sending messages… any chechen killers of children can come and live in Britain… we will protect you from justice…

You have proof of this of course.

I’m not going to be drawn into a discussion about Chechnya…if you want to discuss that please feel free to start another thread.

I have discussed the Kursk and the alleged polonium assassination because they do at least involve Britain and Russia and because you raised them…

…but if you are trying to demonstrate the integrity of the Russian military and government are these the best examples that you could find?

well perhaps talks of entire budget are bit far headed. My orginal claim (i just read it myself:D) was that such blow would have effect on those who were suggesting and desinging anti-sverldov desings. You may be rigth that to the budget it wouldnt have had any effect, but what to do with that budget inside the navy.

Thats the point, the anti- sverdlov designs were all cancelled for monetary reasons, the sinking of a sverdlov would not have stopped that.

And what I am pointing is that suggestion is flawed. The reason being that the RN’s budget was being perpetually driven down by the UK’s economic reality, not by any operational considerations. The loss of one Sverdlov would not have changed any RN procurement policy.

well perhaps talks of entire budget are bit far headed. My orginal claim (i just read it myself:D) was that such blow would have effect on those who were suggesting and desinging anti-sverldov desings. You may be rigth that to the budget it wouldnt have had any effect, but what to do with that budget inside the navy.

Garry, do you seem to be insisting that those who disagree with you must prove a negative.

I am giving my opinion and they are giving theirs.

What I am insisting on is that they provide evidence that there is no possibility that the Royal Navy tried to plant mines on that ship… afterall claiming such a thing is a ridiculous thing to think seems to be clearly claiming it definitely did not happen. I am just asking how they know for sure.

The inability of a poster to do the impossible does not, in itself, disprove their argument.

Discounting options out of hand based on no apparant evidence skews a discussion unfairly. Just as automatically assuming Russian former KGB agents are guilty, compared with accepting Chechen rebels automatically assuming they are innocent victims of evil Russian oppression is unfair. I have some pictures taken in Beslan of bits of children for those who feel sorry for those poor victimised chechens.

And what I am pointing is that suggestion is flawed. The reason being that the RN’s budget was being perpetually driven down by the UK’s economic reality, not by any operational considerations. The loss of one Sverdlov would not have changed any RN procurement policy.

So the British Armed forces get what the British can afford and the current threat of the day has nothing to do with their budget… sounds like a very crappy system.

So, we are in some agreement here…the problem here is one of quantifying how likely…and there comes a point where something is so unlikely that it becomes ridiculous, preposterous or irrational even to consider it.

Until this diver said anything I wouldn’t have considered it a possibility.

I’ve put my cards on the table and said I think it is ten-thousand-to-one that Britain would even attempt this operation. Could you help us by giving us a similar estimate? Having said that, if the positions were reversed, I’d give similar odds for Russia planting mines on a British vessel.

As far as I am concerned this isn’t a lottery. Either the diver is telling the truth and it is 100% or he is a fraud and it is 0%.
The difference between me and those like you who are disagreeing is that I am prepared to consider the possibility and not decide either way till we get some confirmation from the Russian Navy.

The only reason you seem to think I think it was definitely a limpet mine planted is because I am countering comments that it is not possible at all… it was always possible in the sense that almost anything is possible.

By arguing that the technical difficulties could be easily overcome and championing the benefits of a successful operation you are by default suggesting that the British were more likely to undertake such an operation in the first place.

Based on the claims of this dying man they did who claims he was there at the time. Several here have claimed it is not possible and you would be foolish to think it even was possible. I would like confirmation either way.

Unusual maybe, but it doesn’t prove it had been involved in a collision.

Not unusual at all that it was there… they are there for a reason afterall. Collisions happen when a sub captain gets too close to the action he is spying on. And why would it prove a collision… we know it wasn’t. It was the internal explosion of a HTP powered conventional torpedo that started a fire and eventually set of the rest of the torpedos at once. Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.

So that would seem to suggest that a collision was less likely as no other submarine was found.

The photos of the american sub tied up in port that was known to have been in the area of the exercise is what started the conspirasy theories… and that is all they were. Plausable but not conclusive. If you hit the side of a ship with the bow of another vessel the bow tends to be stronger than the side so the vessel hitting with the bow usually comes off better with less damage.

So, really nothing more than circumstantial ‘evidence’ then but only a matter of hours after the loss of Kursk Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, said he was 80% sure that the loss of Kursk was due to it being rammed by a NATO submarine, Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov told the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta there was growing evidence the Kursk sank after a collision with a foreign submarine, Russian Defence Minister, Igor Sergeyev, claimed satellite images had shown the foreign submarine moving away damaged and Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said investigators had collected video proof that the Kursk went down after colliding with another submarine.

So hardly ‘retired naval officers’ making such claims…

Within hours of the accident those on board were still alive and the vessel had not even been located. They had no idea what had happened but they knew foreign subs were in the area at the time, they had satellite photos of a foreign sub tied up at a port that was not its home port… like Sealord here they jumped to conclusions based on what they knew. The HTP power torpedos have been in use for decades without problems. It was only later after examining the wreck that the true cause was established.

In 2002 after an investigation, General Vladimir Ustinov confirmed “There is no information whatsoever about another vessel being involved.”

Which means there is no evidence that what sank the Kursk was outside the Kursk, not that there were no foreign subs in the vicinity at the time.

A headless body washes up on a beach, hardly the sort of thing that the press is likely to ignore, but why headless, there was no need to hide his identity? How did he die, no stab or gunshot wounds and what sort of misadventure could have resulted in him ending up like this…’this was no boating accident!’

There is no evidence that that body was Crabb. A drug deal gone wrong?

To me, the message the Russians were sending to the British is clear, “don’t try spying on us or this is what happens, we are not afraid to do this, even in your own back yard.”

When has Britain ever stopped spying on anyone?

And the Brits were already sending messages… any chechen killers of children can come and live in Britain… we will protect you from justice…

I don’t think it is particularly likely myself, but we are being presented with evidence that it may have been done. Some here are closed minded and refuse to discuss it.

West = good, Soviets = bad…

So, we are in some agreement here…the problem here is one of quantifying how likely…and there comes a point where something is so unlikely that it becomes ridiculous, preposterous or irrational even to consider it.

I’ve put my cards on the table and said I think it is ten-thousand-to-one that Britain would even attempt this operation. Could you help us by giving us a similar estimate? Having said that, if the positions were reversed, I’d give similar odds for Russia planting mines on a British vessel.

So not really a case of good versus evil rather a case of discussing the technical difficulties, which are many, and the benefits of a successful operation against the possible consequences of a successful operation or the possible consequences of an embarrassing failure.

By arguing that the technical difficulties could be easily overcome and championing the benefits of a successful operation you are by default suggesting that the British were more likely to undertake such an operation in the first place.

A US submarine was known to be in the area and was seen docked in port a few days later in Europe… which is unusual as they normally remain at sea for a month.

Unusual maybe, but it doesn’t prove it had been involved in a collision.

If the Kursk had been hit by another submarine the single hulled western sub would have been the vessel at the bottom of the ocean, not the massively double hulled Oscar class Kursk.

So that would seem to suggest that a collision was less likely as no other submarine was found.

Collisions are actually quite common too.

Collisions have been known but how many nuclear submarines have been lost as a direct result of a collision?

Far more Russian (and American) nuclear submarines have been lost in accidents that didn’t involve a collision.

I heard individual reports of interviews of retired Naval officers making claims of a collision but no reports of inservice officers making such claims.

So, really nothing more than circumstantial ‘evidence’ then but only a matter of hours after the loss of Kursk Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, said he was 80% sure that the loss of Kursk was due to it being rammed by a NATO submarine, Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov told the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta there was growing evidence the Kursk sank after a collision with a foreign submarine, Russian Defence Minister, Igor Sergeyev, claimed satellite images had shown the foreign submarine moving away damaged and Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said investigators had collected video proof that the Kursk went down after colliding with another submarine.

So hardly ‘retired naval officers’ making such claims…

…and no evidence there of propaganda being ingrained in the Russian psyche!

In 2002 after an investigation, General Vladimir Ustinov confirmed “There is no information whatsoever about another vessel being involved.”

Ironically president Vladimir Putin sacked Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov following another Russian submarine accident in 2005 when the seven crew of a mini-submarine who were trapped on the seabed were saved by a British ROV.

So two completely different cases and perfect logic in one case and fatally flawed logic in the other…

Well, you said it, not me.

Do you see the similarities between the alleged polonium assassination and the killing of Crabb?

A headless body washes up on a beach, hardly the sort of thing that the press is likely to ignore, but why headless, there was no need to hide his identity? How did he die, no stab or gunshot wounds and what sort of misadventure could have resulted in him ending up like this…’this was no boating accident!’

To me, the message the Russians were sending to the British is clear, “don’t try spying on us or this is what happens, we are not afraid to do this, even in your own back yard.”

How can it be a fact, when such thing (blowing up a Soviet Cruiser) didnt happen:confused:
Anyway, my suggestion was mainly made to give some support the orginal mystery claim that Why would UK special services try plant limbet mine to a Soviet Cruiser?

And what I am pointing is that suggestion is flawed. The reason being that the RN’s budget was being perpetually driven down by the UK’s economic reality, not by any operational considerations. The loss of one Sverdlov would not have changed any RN procurement policy.

The British defence budget in this period (really up until the 1980’s) was entirely budget driven and the random loss of one Soviet cruiser would have changed nothing. That is fact.

How can it be a fact, when such thing (blowing up a Soviet Cruiser) didnt happen:confused:
Anyway, my suggestion was mainly made to give some support the orginal mystery claim that Why would UK special services try plant limbet mine to a Soviet Cruiser?

I don’t think it is particularly likely myself, but we are being presented with evidence that it may have been done. Some here are closed minded and refuse to discuss it.West = good, Soviets = bad, Planting mines = bad so not possible for RN to have planted mines. The logic is shaky, and in my opinion the premises are not proven true.

Garry, do you seem to be insisting that those who disagree with you must prove a negative.

As someone who frequently invokes logic to support their own arguments you, of all people, should understand the folly of this.

The inability of a poster to do the impossible does not, in itself, disprove their argument.

Unless they’re Superman, I suppose. 🙂

How could the person who set “the timer” be sure that the ship would leave on time, given an almost endless list of reasons, that it might not (including an extended good will tour, and of course Russian hardware reliability).

If it hasn’t left port the day the explosive charge goes off you send Buster back in to recover the explosive and replace the timer with a fresh one.

To say there were Russian pilots in Korea, is a bit like saying there were US pilots in China, the US was at that time neutral, as was Russia; the term “cold war”, is something of a misnomer, with (as has already been said)the emphasis on the former, rather than the latter.

So a Soviet Pilot still in active service shoots down an American plane under the UN flag in Korea is being neutral? How then can sinking a Sverdlov be an act of war… 41 year old Crabb is no different from a Soviet Ex WWII pilot in Korea except he is operating from home.

1) I would not expect them to shoot down a civilian airliner full of
passengers. It would have been easy enough to identify the airliner and
lodge a formal diplomatic protest rather than killing a few hundred men,
women and children.

The USAF had been prodding that area for quite some time with various surveillance aircraft, at the time of the shootdown there were several USAF aircraft in the air at the time and an ELINT satellite going over at the time. In fact there is actually a very good chance that the pilot deliberately flew the course he did so that the defences could be tested and signals and intercept procedures recorded etc. The Pilot himself was CIA and was an ex south korean military pilot. They might have been just banking on the aircraft being correctly identified as civilian and not being shot down.

Of course at 5am at that height there would be poor visual conditions and if the target does not respond to cannon fire or flashing of navigation lights except to slow down you have to think they are not so innocent. Slowing down is a standard tactic to lose a fighter of that generation to try to get the fighter to stall and go into a spin.

2) If I walked up to an F22 at an airshow with a camera and ignored warnings
I would most likely be wrestled to the ground and arrested – easy enough
as I am an old codger. It would be extremely unlikely that I would be shot
in full view of hundreds of spectators.

You think. So those guys with the rifles standing guard is going to risk getting into hand to hand range with someone who for all they know could be trained in hand to hand combat and could also be armed… yeah right. He will point his rifle and if you think you can call his bluff be my guest. Either he will do his job and shoot you or he will probably be court marshalled for derelection of duty.

Just because everyone on this thread disagrees with your preposterous
supposition does not mean that you are necessarily wrong.

Yes, I keep hearing even the suggestion of a limpit mine is ridiculous… preposterous… have to be irrational to even consider it.

The Royal Navy obviously has a very good image… if it was a British Sailor claiming to have killed a Russian diver planting a mine on a British boat in a Soviet Harbour the only question would be if the limpet mine would work properly or fail…. and I am sure the latter would be totally determined by whether they used a copy of an old western fuse or a copy of a newer western fuse.

There is a very big difference between it being ‘technically possible’ and it being likely.

Indeed there is, but when some here are claiming anyone even CONSIDERING the POSSIBILITY that it might have been a mine is irrational then suggesting it is technically possible is a way of allowing for debate on the possibility without me having to state there definitely was a limpet mine involved.

What I am saying is that I believe such an operation would be very unlikely to be attempted.

I don’t think it is particularly likely myself, but we are being presented with evidence that it may have been done. Some here are closed minded and refuse to discuss it.West = good, Soviets = bad, Planting mines = bad so not possible for RN to have planted mines. The logic is shaky, and in my opinion the premises are not proven true.

I didn’t claim the Russians would care about Crabb, better in their eyes if he is a enemy of the state planting a mine…but they will care about the reputation of their own man…and he will care how he is received by them.

He did his job. Whether Crabb was just spying or planting a bomb it was this guys mission to deal with the threat and he seems to have done it, whether Crabb died that night or whether he is living in a Moscow apartment right now… he’d be pretty old now.

Russian political and military history is full of ‘heroic’ figures, many of them with highly dubious claims, this sort of propaganda is ingrained in the Russian psyche so I don’t think it is unrealistic the suggest the truth may have suffered in this case.

Fairly bold claim here… care to back it up with some facts and figures?

When the Kursk sank what did the Russians claim…that it had been rammed by a Royal Navy submarine on a spying mission!

A US submarine was known to be in the area and was seen docked in port a few days later in Europe… which is unusual as they normally remain at sea for a month. If the Kursk had been hit by another submarine the single hulled western sub would have been the vessel at the bottom of the ocean, not the massively double hulled Oscar class Kursk. I heard individual reports of interviews of retired Naval officers making claims of a collision but no reports of inservice officers making such claims. Collisions are actually quite common too.

There is perfect logic in what is alleged. What better way to warn your outspoken critics abroad than by murdering one of them using a method that leaves no doubt as to who was responsible for the murder and so demonstrating that they are not beyond your reach and that you do not care if the country who has given them sanctuary knows it.

So two completely different cases and perfect logic in one case and fatally flawed logic in the other… the only real difference is who has the bone pointed at them. Evil russians, good British, same old bollox.

———-
“the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
———-
Samuel P. Huntington

I am sure the westerners that read this thread agree with your logic. Please understand if some of the rest of the world doesn’t.

Yeas and its the politicans who rule the how much money goes to which sector…and politicans can be influenced by just about anything

The British defence budget in this period (really up until the 1980’s) was entirely budget driven and the random loss of one Soviet cruiser would have changed nothing. That is fact.

You dont know your Royal Navy History, read Vanguard to Trident By Eric J Grove. The factor driving the british defence budget was money and almost nothing else, every time a project is cancelled in this period it for financial reasons, the country could not afford it.

Yeas and its the politicans who rule the how much money goes to which sector…and politicans can be influenced by just about anything

How could the person who set “the timer” be sure that the ship would leave on time, given an almost endless list of reasons, that it might not (including an extended good will tour, and of course Russian hardware reliability).

To say there were Russian pilots in Korea, is a bit like saying there were US pilots in China, the US was at that time neutral, as was Russia; the term “cold war”, is something of a misnomer, with (as has already been said)the emphasis on the former, rather than the latter.

Budgets and plans are mostly politically orientated and are often affected on large symbolical events which may technically be quite minor.

Thats a tricky one. In the context of the post-war situation where aircrafts seemed to be the nails in large surface combatants coffins there might be difficoult to drawn conclusion that completely WWII era concept and equal technology of western cruisers of 1939-45 era wouldn’t be obsolete.
Then again 16 cruisers added to a fleet that before that had less than 10 wwII era cruisers (Pr. 26, 26bis and 68) is a huge difference and certainly gives its adversors something to chew on. Aircrafts and even more EW sector at those days didn’t have the same goodies that justifies similar superiority status as the enjoy today in naval warfare. Any US/UK battlegroup would have still had to face pr.68bis with its own surface assets as well in most cases.

You dont know your Royal Navy History, read Vanguard to Trident By Eric J Grove. The factor driving the british defence budget was money and almost nothing else, every time a project is cancelled in this period it for financial reasons, the country could not afford it.

I have a thread in the naval aviation section on your second point.

The loss of one Sverdlov would not have affected British procurement which was entirely budget orientated.

By 1956 Sverdlovs were being scrapped on the ways anyway, the Soviet policy change had already taken place………whether British intelligence was aware of this at that time I dont know.

Budgets and plans are mostly politically orientated and are often affected on large symbolical events which may technically be quite minor.

Whether the Sverdlovs actually were obsolete is a difficult question to answer…IMO.

Thats a tricky one. In the context of the post-war situation where aircrafts seemed to be the nails in large surface combatants coffins there might be difficoult to drawn conclusion that completely WWII era concept and equal technology of western cruisers of 1939-45 era wouldn’t be obsolete.
Then again 16 cruisers added to a fleet that before that had less than 10 wwII era cruisers (Pr. 26, 26bis and 68) is a huge difference and certainly gives its adversors something to chew on. Aircrafts and even more EW sector at those days didn’t have the same goodies that justifies similar superiority status as the enjoy today in naval warfare. Any US/UK battlegroup would have still had to face pr.68bis with its own surface assets as well in most cases.

The Royal Navy has and does plant mines so it is not an impossible event.

There is a very big difference between it being ‘technically possible’ and it being likely.

Timed explosive fuses can be days or weeks long…

Please stop talking about timed fuses…I get it, alright.

I’m not disputing a mine could have been planted, I’m not disputing that an unusually large mine could have been used, I’m not disputing a timed fuse could have been used, I’m not disputing that the mine could have been planted close to where the British assumed the magazines could be, I’m not disputing that the mine could have triggered a massive magazine explosion that totally destroyed the ship.

What I am saying is that I believe such an operation would be very unlikely to be attempted.

Why? Because although it is ‘technically possible’ in reality it would be extremely unlikely to succeed and either way the most probable outcome of such a blatant act of aggression against a diplomatic mission would be war.

…I doubt the Russians care about Crabb…

I didn’t claim the Russians would care about Crabb, better in their eyes if he is a enemy of the state planting a mine…but they will care about the reputation of their own man…and he will care how he is received by them.

Russian political and military history is full of ‘heroic’ figures, many of them with highly dubious claims, this sort of propaganda is ingrained in the Russian psyche so I don’t think it is unrealistic the suggest the truth may have suffered in this case.

When the Kursk sank what did the Russians claim…that it had been rammed by a Royal Navy submarine on a spying mission!

Did you believe them? Do they still claim this? Was it an accident? Do you believe that?

What has logic to do with anything these days…polonium worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and traceable back to only Russia…

There is perfect logic in what is alleged. What better way to warn your outspoken critics abroad than by murdering one of them using a method that leaves no doubt as to who was responsible for the murder and so demonstrating that they are not beyond your reach and that you do not care if the country who has given them sanctuary knows it.

Stabbing somebody to death in a faked mugging would not have been so good a warning!

Few things I would like to throw into this depate considering the pros and cons of UK to actually posit explosives to Sverlodv class.

Those of you who had done your homeworks by naval matters will surely know the rather odd prestige and value that RN put on the Sverldovs. Despite these cruisers were obsolete from launching, in British circles they posessed considerable attention and were taken as suprise threat in the climate where RN was stripping of its large surface combatants. If war would have bursted out, there migth have been odd situation where RN would have been almoust suprassed by Russia in quantative terms.
Therefore many desings and ideas rosed out in this period to counter the thread of the Sverldovs. Many are familar with the unbuild big gun cruisers/destroyer projects of this period and other applications came foward also. Such projects were offcourse extra burden to UK defences that were allready in tigth situation and underpressure of new war methods, and few wanted to see revial of the manpower insestive big surface fleet.

Under these circumstances a dreadfull Sverldov, suddenly and embrassingly exploding in aftermath of high-key diplomatic visit would have make end of the expensive counter-sverldov desings (like they did in real life) and migth have even made Soviets to reconsider the practicality of such ships in first place.

So who knows:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The loss of one Sverdlov would not have affected British procurement which was entirely budget orientated.

By 1956 Sverdlovs were being scrapped on the ways anyway, the Soviet policy change had already taken place………whether British intelligence was aware of this at that time I dont know.

Whether the Sverdlovs actually were obsolete is a difficult question to answer…IMO.