Russian Diver Admits Killing ‘Buster’ Crabb

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:

After firing warning shots what did you expect them to do? Why don’t you just turn up at a major US airshow and walk over to the F-22 with a camera and refuse to get pushed back and get a photo of the cockpit.
Compassion? Hahahaha.

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.
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.
3) Just because everyone on this thread disagrees with your preposterous
supposition does not mean that you are necessarily wrong. In fact it made
me think that I may have read somewhere about a second
Spetnatz diver by a grassy knoll.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Got it in one. destroying the ship would achieve nothing, none of the reasons you give are valid.

Destroying the pride of the Soviet navy and potentially blaming it on hitting a mine at sea would greatly effect the development of the Soviet Navy and undermine world wide confidence in the Soviets as a superpower.
They were sending a guy to have a look at the ship anyway… adding a few kgs of HE to his equipment is of only a minor concern logistically.
Like the US with the CIA… plausable deniability… the RN wouldn’t send a 41 year old on such a mission… he was an ex WWII diver that acted alone… personal vendetta etc etc.

So the Russians admit killing a man for “spying”….real or imagined.

Yeah… ask the Rosenbergs… the US kill a man and his wife from “spying” …real or imagined.

If you were the Russian, what a better way to sooth your conscious (if you have one ) than saying the (probably) unarmed man you killed was planting a mine.

Hahahahaha… if he was Special Forces (ie naval spetsnaz) he would cut the throat of a pregnant nun on christmas day if that was part of the mission.

A bit off topic here but this put me in mind of KAL 007 when I watched the interview with the pilot of the Flagon that shot it down. He spoke of an ‘intruder aircraft’ for which read ‘Commercial airliner full of innocent civilian passengers’. Compassion was never one of the Soviets strong points.

After firing warning shots what did you expect them to do? Why don’t you just turn up at a major US airshow and walk over to the F-22 with a camera and refuse to get pushed back and get a photo of the cockpit.
Compassion? Hahahaha.

Not an easy thing to admit to…but if you are going to admit to it…better to say you ‘had to do it’ to foil an attempt to plant a mine saving many lives in the process. It also makes your story more ‘palatable’ and (as has been suggested) more saleable for the Russian domestic market.

You may be confusing the western market with the Russian one… and I doubt the Russians care about Crabb as a person, much as I doubt the Brits cared much about the Commies as people, or the Nazis before them.

Sorry, I thought you were making an argument…or were you just arguing?

Was making what I thought were relevant points.

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

The British secret service has both directly and indirectly been responsible for lots of deaths, I doubt they would be bothered by a few more…

Timed explosive fuses can be days or weeks long and could be used to avoid the blame others here claim would instantly befall the Brits.

Again I am saying that if we can’t believe this diver why believe the Royal Navy or the British government. They admit to losing a diver on a clandestine mission. Makes sense for them to say he was just looking at the hull rather than anything more sinister. Why does thinking the RN was an active combatant in the Cold War seem so absurd to some? Were Blowpipe SAMs and Milan ATGMs in afghanistan in the 80s a figment of the Soviets imagination?

Sorry, I thought you were making an argument…or were you just arguing?

Just making points that others seem to be ignoring. It seems the RN is the good guy and any suggestion that they might do anything underhanded is seen as blasphemy.

Assume the Russian is being truthful, what would the UK gain by damaging/sinking a soviet ship with the soviet premier aboard?

What did the west gain and the East lose when the Kursk sank? Or when the Chernobyl reactor melted down. It was all part of the cold war.

The USSR would hold the UK responsible, and war would undoubtedly follow, in which case western europe and the US would be forced to fight too.

Did the US hold the Soviets responsible for the deployment of Mig-15s in Korea, or Mig-21s in Vietnam, or SA-2s in Vietnam, or how about the Soviets invading the US because the US supplied Stingers to the Afghans and in Africa to UNITA. Without proof it would be a war of words… which was largely what the Cold War was except when it got hot in proxy wars.

My main reason for thinking the russian claims about the mine are BS is the same as many here, the UK would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an action.

Yeah, what has logic to do with anything these days… Putin personally orders polonium worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and traceable back to only Russia for a hit on a political rival in Britain… hardly logical, but UK wants a guy extradicted anyway…

I’m sorry, Garry, but I can’t agree with your logic.

Assume the Russian is being truthful, what would the UK gain by damaging/sinking a soviet ship with the soviet premier aboard?

The USSR would hold the UK responsible, and war would undoubtedly follow, in which case western europe and the US would be forced to fight too.

My main reason for thinking the russian claims about the mine are BS is the same as many here, the UK would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an action. Is it not infinitely more plausible that Crabb was on a spying mission, as opposed to sabotage?

Where exactly did I state “The game is up. The Royal Navy is guilty of an act of war. It was caught red handed planting mines on a ship in its own harbours.”

I was possibly confused by the following statements you made:

Does the Royal Navy not plant mines?

Has the British secret service never killed anyone?

A timed explosive that detonates a day or two later near an ammo storage area on the vessel so that the resulting explosion is enormous and might sink the ship.

A delayed fuse would mean if it was sunk or damaged it would be after it left British waters. There were plenty of mines floating around the place that could be blamed for the incident…

Placed over the position where an internal ammo magazine is the likelihood of sinking the vessel would be pretty good.

The loss of a major flagship might bring into question their safety record and reduce confidence in their navy.

I am saying that if we can’t believe this diver why believe the Royal Navy or the British government. They admit to losing a diver on a clandestine mission. Makes sense for them to say he was just looking at the hull rather than anything more sinister.

There are plenty of fuses developed during WWII that operated over minutes, hours, days and weeks. They would know when the vessel would depart and ensure the vessel was well away before the “incident” happened.

The Sverdlov has three main gun turrets with 152mm guns. It wouldn’t be hard to work out where the ammo would be stored even without espionage.

A shaped charge weapon can easily penetrate armoured belt and if it sets of an internal magazine its own weight is irrelevant, though with buoyancy aides you could carry a rather large weapon.

Unless Buster signed the side of the hull how would they be able to point the finger… they could make claims but with no real proof they could do nothing…

The British ministry of defence have not stated he wasn’t planting mines either.

Sorry, I thought you were making an argument…or were you just arguing?

I’m sure the conscience(s) of the man (or men) responsible for killing Crabb will have been affected with the passing of fifty years…not forgetting that somebody was responsible for cutting off his head…probably on board the Ordzhonikidze.

Not an easy thing to admit to…but if you are going to admit to it…better to say you ‘had to do it’ to foil an attempt to plant a mine saving many lives in the process. It also makes your story more ‘palatable’ and (as has been suggested) more saleable for the Russian domestic market.

So the Russians admit killing a man for “spying”….real or imagined.

So what else is new?

If you were the Russian, what a better way to sooth your conscious (if you have one :diablo: ) than saying the (probably) unarmed man you killed was planting a mine.

A bit off topic here but this put me in mind of KAL 007 when I watched the interview with the pilot of the Flagon that shot it down. He spoke of an ‘intruder aircraft’ for which read ‘Commercial airliner full of innocent civilian passengers’. Compassion was never one of the Soviets strong points.

According to Peter Wright ex MI5, the Navy were pressing MI6 to get details
of the ships propellers and that the Soviets had prior warning of the mission.

So the Russians admit killing a man for “spying”….real or imagined.

So what else is new?

If you were the Russian, what a better way to sooth your conscious (if you have one :diablo: ) than saying the (probably) unarmed man you killed was planting a mine.

Another theory is that whilst the russian probably did kill Crabb, he might have looked at his meagre pension and decided to sell his story and in the process larged it up a bit by the inclusion of the Limpet Mine element. My humble opinion only. 😉

The British ministry of defence have not stated he wasn’t planting mines either.

If you don’t agree with me you are irrational because my reasoning is correct… An excellent reason for me to change my mind and believe what you say is the truth.

Got it in one. destroying the ship would achieve nothing, none of the reasons you give are valid.

It is ridiculous to anybody capable of rational thought becouse it would have achieved nothing and potentially destroyed an awful lot.

The British ministry of defence have not stated he wasn’t planting mines either.

If you don’t agree with me you are irrational because my reasoning is correct… An excellent reason for me to change my mind and believe what you say is the truth.

We are ‘allowed’ to believe whatever we want…but to have a rational argument we must evaluate evidence, examine history, understand technology and balance probability…even then we could be wrong.

But if someone states that something is irrational now what does that mean? I mean irrational now and irrational then were two different things. In the Mid 50s the west was sure there was a bomber gap and a missile gap. There was but it was in favour of the west rather than the other way around. Such a situation can effect what is rational and what is not. We know there was no WWIII during the cold war, but they didn’t know that.

Opinions based on reputation or propaganda are no more helpful than opinions based on race or religion.

Let me remind you of my original statement:

Let me remind you of what I said…

Why? Does the Royal Navy not plant mines? Has the British secret service never killed anyone?

A timed explosive that detonates a day or two later near an ammo storage area on the vessel so that the resulting explosion is enormous and might sink the ship.

On the other hand he could have been planting a listening device.

Either way the Russians are hardly going to let him to it…

Where exactly did I state “The game is up. The Royal Navy is guilty of an act of war. It was caught red handed planting mines on a ship in its own harbours.”

The west didn’t win the cold war by being nice or fair even if that is the face they like to present to the general public.

If this guys story can be verified by someone else in the Russian Navy and we can learn a bit more about what they have to say I will start with percentages, but currently he could be a crackpot after glory, or this could be the cover story to the defection of Crabb, or any of a number of answers. We might have to wait 20 years to find the truth or it might all end up going through a shredder before then…

Of course if we are only allowed to believe what the UK government officially accepts…

…and claims by those who actually claim to have been there are dismissed out of hand…

We are ‘allowed’ to believe whatever we want…but to have a rational argument we must evaluate evidence, examine history, understand technology and balance probability…even then we could be wrong.

Let me remind you of my original statement:

“I find it difficult to believe that the Royal Navy or the British Secret Services would do anything as stupid as to plant ‘limpet’ mines on a Russian warship that was in Portsmouth harbour on a diplomatic mission.”

Nobody disputes Crabb was diving around the Ordzhonikidze and that he ‘disappeared’….but was he:

A – Examining the propellers, hull, bow-thrusters or sonar of the ship? 95.00%

B – Planting some sort of listening, monitoring or tracking device? 0.99%

C – Planting a delayed action mine to destroy or damage the ship? 0.01%

D – Something else (please give details)? 4.00%

I’ve given you my percentage probability for each of these but, of course, that is just what I think. 🙂

So, GarryB, what do you believe in percentage terms?

Why is it clearly ridiculous? Clearly to whom?

It is ridiculous to anybody capable of rational thought becouse it would have achieved nothing and potentially destroyed an awful lot.

So? Does not make it true. Its clearly a ridiculous notion.

Why is it clearly ridiculous? Clearly to whom?

The story I heard was that Crabb was tasked with checking out the propellors which were supposedly of a new design and would seem far more plausible than planting a mine. Purely as an aside, he was an ex pupil of the naval training school I attended – HMS Conway.

The story I remember hearing was that the British were interested in the bow thrusters of the Sverdlov because it seemed to manouver rather well for such a large ship.

Of course if we are only allowed to believe what the UK government officially accepts and claims by those who actually claim to have been there are dismissed out of hand we will never know. A bit like placing trust in an alcoholic to know when hes had enough to drink really.

Yes, I think the important part of ‘Cold War’ is the ‘cold’ part…so peacetime really.

So western special forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s didn’t do anything? There were no Soviet pilots in Korea? There were no US advisors in Vietnam just as there were no Soviet Advisors in vietnam… or Iraq… or Iran, or Cuba, or mozambique, etc etc etc. It was all just peace and love and good natured ribbing at the UN.

So, let me get this correct…fifty years after the event you are convinced that one Russian diver must be believed when he says Crabb was planting a mine…

No. I am saying that if we can’t believe this diver why believe the Royal Navy or the British government. They admit to losing a diver on a clandestine mission. Makes sense for them to say he was just looking at the hull rather than anything more sinister. The RN don’t want to look like the bad guy… undermines all their work at making the Soviets look bad.

…but if a hole is blown in the bottom of a Russian cruiser twenty-four hours after it leaves British waters, at (as you say) the height of the Cold War…then nobody will suspect the British…and the British defence should be “we’ve never done this before”?

There are plenty of fuses developed during WWII that operated over minutes, hours, days and weeks. They would know when the vessel would depart and ensure the vessel was well away before the “incident” happened.

I don’t think I mentioned Greenpeace…but since you’ve brought it up I don’t believe Britain would ever have acted the way that France did. What the French did to Greenpeace in New Zealand was an absolute outrage and I was astonished how little France was made to atone for it.

They largely got away with a terrorist attack without even a slap on the wrist. If the victim had been an american citizen they certainly would have been in trouble but the poor chap who died was a portugese photographer.

As I mentioned in a previous post it may not have actually been a mine… I doubt they would have taken the time to take it on board and examine it. It could have been a listening device. The fact that this guy claims it was a mine and it was being placed in a specific location suggests to me he knew what he was talking about.

And how would Britain know exactly where the magazines were…the Russians would be unlikely to supply the British with blueprints!

The Sverdlov has three main gun turrets with 152mm guns. It wouldn’t be hard to work out where the ammo would be stored even without espionage.

Frankly the chances of sinking a 16000 ton armoured cruiser with a limpet mine containing about 5kg of explosive are about zero. The un-armoured Antelope, 3000 tons, had a 1000lb bomb explode in her engine room, an uncontrolled fire raging for many hours and multiple magazine explosions. She was still afloat the next day. Can you name a single armoured cruiser-sized warship that has been sunk by a limpet mine?

A shaped charge weapon can easily penetrate armoured belt and if it sets of an internal magazine its own weight is irrelevant, though with boyancy aides you could carry a rather large weapon. Ask any hunter… position of the shot is rather more important than the calibre used.

I suspect that defeating Britain in the war that followed would restore their moral a bit!

Unless Buster Signed the side of the hull how would they be able to point the finger… they could make claims but with no real proof they could do nothing… except not visit Britain anymore.

So, a limpet mine that lets you remove it from the ship, drag it along the bottom and bury it in rubbish without exploding but will explode if taken aboard ship…clever stuff for 1956!

The person removing the mine from the ship would do so with a line to reduce the chance they are killed if it goes off. If it comes clear of the ship they can either drop it near the ship, drag it away from their ship or take it on board. they probably have plenty of British limpet mines to study so dragging it away from the still rather new Sverdlov class vessel might seem like a good idea. On land a similar procedure was used for UXO that can’t be detonated in place. Tie a piece of rope to it and drag it away from the target to an open field and then place a charge next to it and blow up the charge… except why bother blowing it up… it isn’t your problem as long as you don’t sail over it on your way out and find it has a secondary MAD function that is fired by your magnetic signature.

or they could evacuate part of the ship and sit-tight until it exploded. Any of these would cause the British more embarrassment than removing the mine and hiding it.

Assuming they wanted to embarrass the British government… that had so recently sold them Nene and Derwent jet engines…

I think you’ve been watching too much James Bond…this was 1956, electronics were in their infancy, and how is the device (data) recovered…swim to Russia?

Yeah, those dumb schmucks couldn’t do anything without a silicon chip…. http://www.spybusters.com/Great_Seal_Bug.html

It was hardly peacetime…it was the most paranoid part of the cold war…

Yes, I think the important part of ‘Cold War’ is the ‘cold’ part…so peacetime really.

A delayed fuse would mean if it was sunk or damaged it would be after it left British waters.

Yes, I understood that part.

There were plenty of mines floating around the place or uxo that could be blamed for the incident and any accusations against the Brits could be countered with… but the brits would never do such a thing.

So, let me get this correct…fifty years after the event you are convinced that one Russian diver must be believed when he says Crabb was planting a mine…

…but if a hole is blown in the bottom of a Russian cruiser twenty-four hours after it leaves British waters, at (as you say) the height of the Cold War…then nobody will suspect the British…and the British defence should be “we’ve never done this before”?

Note there was very little international outcry when the French blew up a greenpeace vessel in a New Zealand harbour except from greenpeace and New Zealand. Are you suggesting the British wouldn’t where the French do?

I don’t think I mentioned Greenpeace…but since you’ve brought it up I don’t believe Britain would ever have acted the way that France did. What the French did to Greenpeace in New Zealand was an absolute outrage and I was astonished how little France was made to atone for it.

Placed over the postion where an internal ammo mag is the likelyhood of sinking the vessel would be pretty good.

And how would Britain know exactly where the magazines were…the Russians would be unlikely to supply the British with blueprints!

Wasn’t it the Antelope that sank in the Falklands when a fire reached its missile mag and blew it in half?

Frankly the chances of sinking a 16000 ton armoured cruiser with a limpet mine containing about 5kg of explosive are about zero. The un-armoured Antelope, 3000 tons, had a 1000lb bomb explode in her engine room, an uncontrolled fire raging for many hours and multiple magazine explosions. She was still afloat the next day. Can you name a single armoured cruiser-sized warship that has been sunk by a limpet mine?

The loss of a major flagship might bring into question their safety record and reduce confidence in their navy.

I suspect that defeating Britain in the war that followed would restore their moral a bit!

I doubt they would have taken it aboard the ship, it might have been boobytrapped. They probably would have attached a line to it and dragged it as far from the ship as possible and then let it sink to the bottom and cover it with rubbish on the seabed.

So, a limpet mine that lets you remove it from the ship, drag it along the bottom and bury it in rubbish without exploding but will explode if taken aboard ship…clever stuff for 1956!

The Russians would have photographed it presumably…or they could simply have announced to the world press that they had found it and demanded that the British remove it…or explode it off the ship in the harbour…or they could evacuate part of the ship and sit-tight until it exploded. Any of these would cause the British more embarrassment than removing the mine and hiding it.

Well it could just as easily have been a listening device or any other of a number of different electronic devices…

I think you’ve been watching too much James Bond…this was 1956, electronics were in their infancy, and how is the device (data) recovered…swim to Russia?

The story I heard was that Crabb was tasked with checking out the propellors which were supposedly of a new design and would seem far more plausible than planting a mine. Purely as an aside, he was an ex pupil of the naval training school I attended – HMS Conway.

Don Camsell (Ex-SBS) recounts in his book ‘Black Water’ of an operation in Gibraltar against a Soviet Cruiser in late 1978. The cruiser was on a courtesy visit and they were assigned to photograph the hull on entry and later a physical inspection when moored. As preparation Camsell stated that the team was briefed on “Buster” Crabbs and on other mission against Soviet warships.

Camsell’s team lay attached to a seabed chain that ran from the South Mole to the Detached Mole. They photographed the underside of the cruiser as it passed above them on entrance to the harbour. They later conducted a night hull recce. Camsell recounts that three pairs of divers were used. One pair for the stern, one pair the bows, while another took the amidships. While they were under the cruiser they noted a small boat appear and heard divers entering the water. Camsell said that the team pressed themselves agains the hull so as not to be silhouetted. They watched the two divers swim along the propshafts but they did not come further up the hull. They waited until the Soviet divers had exited the water, completed their hull recce and exited the area.

Anyone read the other links?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6281109.stm

The guy who claims to have killed him states he was planting a mine.

So? Does not make it true. Its clearly a ridiculous notion.