Creaking DoorI wasn’t aware that the torpedo that detonated was obsolete, but they can be dangerous due to the fuel involved. And yes, if you blow up something inside the hull, it applies pressures on the hull that were most likely not thought of by the designers. The hull is designed to contract under pressure, not expand past normal size. Besides, one torpedo going off is one thing, but an ENTIRE MAGAZINE detonating is a whole different ball game.
I see now why you took offence at my earlier criticism of the statements regarding the hull strength of the Kursk. Do you see the similarity between the statement above and those that I was so critical of?
Or are you seriously suggesting that the Kursk could have survived the internal explosion of even a single torpedo?
Creaking Door“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 torpedoes at once. Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.”
You don’t see an implication here then, that had the collision that didn’t occur, occurred then it would have been the fault of the captain of the NATO submarine that was spying, as opposed to the captain of the Russian submarine that was being spied on?
You don’t see, following an admission that the Kursk was destroyed by an internal explosion of one of its own (obsolete, dangerous) torpedoes, an apologetic caveat that that fact did not imply any inferiority of the hull strength?
Clearly I’m not blessed with good comprehension so I’ll stop being so petty now and go off to do that research about free speech. :rolleyes:
Creaking Door“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 torpedoes at once. Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.”
You don’t see an implication here then, that had the collision that didn’t occur, occurred then it would have been the fault of the captain of the NATO submarine that was spying, as opposed to the captain of the Russian submarine that was being spied on?
You don’t see, following an admission that the Kursk was destroyed by an internal explosion of one of its own (obsolete, dangerous) torpedoes, an apologetic caveat that that fact did not imply any inferiority of the hull strength?
Clearly I’m not blessed with good comprehension so I’ll stop being so petty now and go off to do that research about free speech. :rolleyes:
Creaking DoorYou might not have noticed, but his statements are factually correct.
I would disagree with that statement…did you read the points carefully?
The Kursk would have sunk the NATO submarine…not that both would have been sunk…is that factual…under all possible circumstances?
I’d agree that although it goes against probability, are you also saying there are no circumstances in which the Kursk could have come off worst in a collision with a NATO submarine?
While the other statements are basically factual, in the context of the thread there was no need to point them out.
Nobody was disputing that an explosion on that scale would have destroyed any submarine in existence.
In a discussion about hull strength why point out that there are claims that NATO submarines are quieter instead of stating that NATO submarines may be quieter? In fact why make any statement about quietness at all?
How, then, are factual comments derogatory?
“Neither Britain or France has ever lost a nuclear submarine while the United States has lost two, USS Thresher in 1963 and USS Scorpion in 1968; even China has a better safety record on that score.”
The statement above is factually correct…do you find this example derogatory?
Creaking DoorYou might not have noticed, but his statements are factually correct.
I would disagree with that statement…did you read the points carefully?
The Kursk would have sunk the NATO submarine…not that both would have been sunk…is that factual…under all possible circumstances?
I’d agree that although it goes against probability, are you also saying there are no circumstances in which the Kursk could have come off worst in a collision with a NATO submarine?
While the other statements are basically factual, in the context of the thread there was no need to point them out.
Nobody was disputing that an explosion on that scale would have destroyed any submarine in existence.
In a discussion about hull strength why point out that there are claims that NATO submarines are quieter instead of stating that NATO submarines may be quieter? In fact why make any statement about quietness at all?
How, then, are factual comments derogatory?
“Neither Britain or France has ever lost a nuclear submarine while the United States has lost two, USS Thresher in 1963 and USS Scorpion in 1968; even China has a better safety record on that score.”
The statement above is factually correct…do you find this example derogatory?
Creaking DoorIt is accepted that having a double hull increases the structural strength of the Soviet designs over the western single hull designs.
A double-hulled design has some merits but I was actually commenting on your need to constantly denigrate any non-Soviet design with comments like:
“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.
Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.
You will see claims of smaller and quieter for western subs…”
See what I mean?
Part of the defection consiprasy was that the person they got to identify crabb initially identified it as crabb but later had second thoughts.
Pretty handy that Crabb went on a top secret mission with his name tag sewn into his wetsuit…
To be honest there would be no reason for Crabb not to have a name tag sewn into his wetsuit…in the event of his capture (or the recovery of his body by the Soviets) I doubt that anybody would be fooled as to his identity, he was after all, well known.
Crabb had been missing for fourteen months when the headless and handless body was pulled from the water; identification under those circumstances would have been extremely difficult.
As for suggestions of defection I would say that it was a possibility but very unlikely. If he had defected, due to, for example, dissatisfaction with his lot in life, decorated war hero but according to some accounts penniless, then why would the Soviets not use his defection to embarrass the British. Some have suggested the Soviets wanted to learn about covert diving from him but I’m sure you’ll ridicule that suggestion!
I didn’t know until recently that his last surviving relative still favours the kidnapping / brainwashing / abduction theory. It raises the interesting question of what was done with ‘the’ body and whether there would be any chance of a DNA confirmation of his identity.
So what would be the point of sending such messages. There was a general code of conduct in such matters where there are rules.
Why kill enemy agents when they can be used to exchange operatives to get some of your guys back.
Why indeed? But headless and handless corpses don’t happen by accident…and since I think it happened aboard the Ordzhonikidze and that the body was thrown over the side then why not throw it over the side off Murmansk or bury it in Russia?
I can’t think why else the Soviets would want the body found.
Ask me for proof and then say you are not interested in proof.
What I actually said was that if you want to make those accusations then this thread is not the place for them. If you don’t start another thread then I’ll assume that you don’t want to discuss Chechnya and that you have withdrawn those accusations.
I never gave the mine idea any credibility till this confession. If everyone had said it was possible but very unlikely in their opinion that the RN had planted a mine…I would have simply agreed. When some posters here claim that to even consider the possibility you’d have to be stupid was when I pointed out how it was possible.
But, as I’ve said before, there comes a point that something becomes so unlikely that to even consider it does become stupid.
While you may find it difficult to believe that this Russian diver is lying others find it difficult to believe that Crabb was planting a mine.
It seems some have taken that to mean I am convinced it was 100% true.
So you have some doubt about what the Russian diver is claiming?
Creaking DoorIt is accepted that having a double hull increases the structural strength of the Soviet designs over the western single hull designs.
A double-hulled design has some merits but I was actually commenting on your need to constantly denigrate any non-Soviet design with comments like:
“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.
Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.
You will see claims of smaller and quieter for western subs…”
See what I mean?
Part of the defection consiprasy was that the person they got to identify crabb initially identified it as crabb but later had second thoughts.
Pretty handy that Crabb went on a top secret mission with his name tag sewn into his wetsuit…
To be honest there would be no reason for Crabb not to have a name tag sewn into his wetsuit…in the event of his capture (or the recovery of his body by the Soviets) I doubt that anybody would be fooled as to his identity, he was after all, well known.
Crabb had been missing for fourteen months when the headless and handless body was pulled from the water; identification under those circumstances would have been extremely difficult.
As for suggestions of defection I would say that it was a possibility but very unlikely. If he had defected, due to, for example, dissatisfaction with his lot in life, decorated war hero but according to some accounts penniless, then why would the Soviets not use his defection to embarrass the British. Some have suggested the Soviets wanted to learn about covert diving from him but I’m sure you’ll ridicule that suggestion!
I didn’t know until recently that his last surviving relative still favours the kidnapping / brainwashing / abduction theory. It raises the interesting question of what was done with ‘the’ body and whether there would be any chance of a DNA confirmation of his identity.
So what would be the point of sending such messages. There was a general code of conduct in such matters where there are rules.
Why kill enemy agents when they can be used to exchange operatives to get some of your guys back.
Why indeed? But headless and handless corpses don’t happen by accident…and since I think it happened aboard the Ordzhonikidze and that the body was thrown over the side then why not throw it over the side off Murmansk or bury it in Russia?
I can’t think why else the Soviets would want the body found.
Ask me for proof and then say you are not interested in proof.
What I actually said was that if you want to make those accusations then this thread is not the place for them. If you don’t start another thread then I’ll assume that you don’t want to discuss Chechnya and that you have withdrawn those accusations.
I never gave the mine idea any credibility till this confession. If everyone had said it was possible but very unlikely in their opinion that the RN had planted a mine…I would have simply agreed. When some posters here claim that to even consider the possibility you’d have to be stupid was when I pointed out how it was possible.
But, as I’ve said before, there comes a point that something becomes so unlikely that to even consider it does become stupid.
While you may find it difficult to believe that this Russian diver is lying others find it difficult to believe that Crabb was planting a mine.
It seems some have taken that to mean I am convinced it was 100% true.
So you have some doubt about what the Russian diver is claiming?
Creaking DoorMy daughter acquired these to hang on the wall in her house…
She sounds like the perfect woman…is she married? 😀
Creaking DoorVery nice…but isn’t it…upside-down? 😉
Creaking DoorGET YOUR HAIR CUT!…sir. 😀
Creaking DoorVenom FB1 would be my guess…makes more sense with a gap between them for the nose-wheel…
…and is that the coolest thing you could have found to stand them on? 😀
Creaking DoorIt’s a brilliant website…I stumbled across this a while back:
http://www.detektorweb.cz/index.4me?s=show&lang=1&i=6544&mm=2&xb=2&vd=1
I just wish I could understand more…well…any of it! 😀
Creaking DoorAre we talking here only about the actual ‘fabric’ (excuse the pun) of an airframe?
In a faithful replica, such as the Me262 replicas, a lot of design, manufacturing and operating knowledge is preserved, or rediscovered if you prefer (replacement engines excepted of course).
Ironically this knowledge, while it can possibly be rediscovered, may not be ‘preserved’ in the most original of originals.
Of course this knowledge is also preserved, without really thinking, whenever historic aircraft are flown.
Creaking DoorWhy did he not resign last night and leave with some pride intact and show that he has a pair of bollox ,and admit that he was not up to the job, but like the coward that he is he wait to be sacked,did he really think that he would not be sacked,he did not even wait in London at FA HQ, he is giving a press confrance in Yarm ,to a few local reporters,for me that shows just what a coward he is.
In 12 matches he has distroyed English football and turned us into the laughing stock of world football.
Come on, don’t hold back…tell us what you really think! 😀
Creaking DoorWhy did he not resign last night and leave with some pride intact and show that he has a pair of bollox ,and admit that he was not up to the job, but like the coward that he is he wait to be sacked,did he really think that he would not be sacked,he did not even wait in London at FA HQ, he is giving a press confrance in Yarm ,to a few local reporters,for me that shows just what a coward he is.
In 12 matches he has distroyed English football and turned us into the laughing stock of world football.
Come on, don’t hold back…tell us what you really think! 😀
Sign In
