3 ms·
Sure, a "normal" torpedo that blew the front off an "unsinkable" sub, and then Russia declined foreign help and let their sailors (who were banging metal from i
by m0zg 6y ago
Sure, a "normal" torpedo that blew the front off an "unsinkable" sub, and then Russia declined foreign help and let their sailors (who were banging metal from inside for days) die to not let anyone close to the site.
I was in Russia at the time. They were testing supercavitation torpedoes, this was even reported in newspapers and on Russian TV shortly before the incident. Here's a contemporaneous slashdot post, referring to one of the top Russian TV channels, NTV: https://science.slashdot.org/story/00/08/22/1857222/kursk-destroyed-by-cavitation-missles https://science.slashdot.org/story/00/08/22/1857222/kursk-de...
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoRussia is somewhat unique in using very high proof hydrogen peroxide with their torpedos. An accident with one of their conventional torpedos is entirely capable of destroying a sub. Other nations have avoided this approach for exactly this risk. Coverups were also the natural inclination of the USSR government. The Kursk is just one of the instances where their approach backfired, arguably the most significant next to Chernobyl.
- m0zg 6y agoNah man. I was there, in Russia, when this happened. I think my information is more reliable than any information you can get in the US.