Fionn Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 Lorak, Agreed. Now, David, "Vietnam is the benchmark by which all new military engagments are gauged." ONLY in America. Remember, in other countries other benchmarks are utilised so anyone who only utilises the benchmark of the Vietnam war often fails to understand decisions taken using those, different, parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderlips Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 >The men weren't killed instantly, they >are/were waiting for help, which is very >different. I've seen this be debated over the last few days. The Russians say the sailers had been tapping messages on the hull and that all were initially alive and that now the tapping has stopped. Americans, who I imagine have been listening the whole time, maybe even since the sub was first set to sea, say there has never been any kind of tapping and indicating that they all died when the explosions happened. The second explosion was apparently far worse than the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 Well I just heard that when the Russians got the LR5 down over the rear hatch it could NOT make a watertight seal due to water filling the junction from INSIDE the sub. This means the aft portions inside the hull are flooded. Why flooded? Either they tried to get out through the rear hatch and failed, died and thus left it partially open or the hatch simply got popped in the explosion. As for my salvage comments.. Smit Tak has been contacted. Looks like the Russians want to raise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Hey Guys, Im not an expert, but i have a few views on this one. I heard and can understand this point, the americans do not have the nessary equipment to dock to the hatches of the submarine, the pressures are extreme, also temp. The Russian navy also does not want the US in one of their subs, cant blame them for that, plus this is their propery. This compounded by red tape. and as others have stated that the russian gov values life much differently than other countries. I have to admit im biased to the USA and i feel our technology and ability to "get the job done" is far superior. being that this is a tool of war and not some research sub makes it all the more difficult to understand. On the same topic has anybody every heard about the sub rescue off the east coast of USA by a USNAVY tug?? this happened in the 70's i think, i read it in a magazine. from what i remember of the story it was a russian missle boat and it was being tailed by an american sub. this russian boat had been sent out even after the capt had reported leaks about the missile tubes(from what i gather the substances inside the missles is highly corrosive and especially corrosive when exposed to sea water.) well these leaks were getting worse and at one point the capt sent one of the smaller guys in to try to fix a leak and he was overcome by gas and died so the capt flooded the bad silo and started for the surface. meanwhile the US sub is tracking her and hears the tube flood and hears the sub race for the surface. At this time the US sub thinks shes going to open up on the USA, but the capt has a cool head and thinks it over a bit and decides that No, this is not the case, the sub must be in trouble and he waits <capt was thinking, why didnt she open all tubes if it was a ICBM attack?? wouldnt they let all loose? So the Russian sub surfaces and are helped by an american tug i belive the name was the Pohatan or similar native american name. i will see if i can find this artical or any more info on this so i can deliver the facts, this is getting long, in short the capt returned to Russia lost command of his boat and was basicly treated as an outcast and a failure, and only till recently was he seen as the hero that he was. Sparks sorry for the grammar :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 woops exceeded the limit. the capt thinks that if this was the case that it was attacking it makes no sense to open 1 door and fire one ICBM,it would have fired all of them and thinks it must be in trouble. The Russian sub surfaces and is expelling smoke and poison fumes, the crew is resuced by american forces and a US navy TUG. The Russian capt upon return to Russia looses his commision of the sub and is basicly treated as a failure, and only recently has he been viewed as the hero that he really was. Sparks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 The CNN web site says that all the hatches are damaged, which might explain the failed attempts by the RN. Water got into the crew compartment in the middle of the sub, because of a gash in the hull. Jane's is wondering publicly whether there might not have been a collision between the sub at periscope depth and a surface vessel. That would have pushed the sub down, or have encouraged the crew to dive, wouldn't it? Diving in shallow waters, hitting the bottom, might explain the explosion in the front, the second explosion. We just have preliminary reports so far, everyone is just speculating at this point. I know it's not related, but a half dozen men jumped off a rusty Russian troller here in Halifax because they weren't getting paid, living conditions aboard the rusty vessel were awful, and because they weren't allowed to contact their relatives at home. If we are to believe the news reports, some of the crew (probably more than just those who jumped ship) will ask to immigrate to Canada. The Russian embassy said they were treating this as a dispute between a merchant and employees... so it doesn't look like they are keen on fixing anything. I know merchant vessels are not a good gage of working conditions overall, but it's not the first time we hear that economics in Russia are a mess, and that their military has lost some cohesion. I don't know how many documentaries I've seen of the conditions in the prisons, orphanages and hospitals in Russia, it's a mess and there just isn't enough money in their economy to satisfy basic needs. Just in the last two days the IMF released a report saying Russia is at the top of their debtor list, although their economy appears to have picked up some (projected 7% increase this year). I hope they will be able to pull out of this. The idea of being stuck inside a sub, with no escape and limited air supply, just turns my guts to mush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: I think here in America most of our Military types put as much value on individual life as much as their Russian counterparts. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> O.K. I'll bite. I don't know a bloody thing about submarine rescue but I know the men I've served under. They care about the missions they're required by their pollitical leaders to perform, and the men and women under them. If it costs lives to perform the mission it's a regreted but understood cost of the proffesion. That doesn't mean they don't care. Every officer I've served under does care very much. Remember this: war is politics by other means. In the USA the separation between the military and the political government is distinct enough that I can say with confidence: It's the politicians that get our boys killed not the generals. The generals are just doing their dirty work. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_889000/889465.stm Sigh. All dead by recent reports Norweigen divers got in but say entire sub was flooded and found a body near escape hatch (shudder). Also reported is that some crew members were alive last monday (talking via radio to ships). A damn bloody shame _dumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 The boat suffered a catastrophic failure, all hands lost. The rescue effort mounted was based on hope, not probable survivors nothing could be done. God bless the families who lost loved ones to the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock: O.K. I'll bite. I don't know a bloody thing about submarine rescue but I know the men I've served under. They care about the missions they're required by their pollitical leaders to perform, and the men and women under them. If it costs lives to perform the mission it's a regreted but understood cost of the proffesion. That doesn't mean they don't care. Every officer I've served under does care very much. Remember this: war is politics by other means. In the USA the separation between the military and the political government is distinct enough that I can say with confidence: It's the politicians that get our boys killed not the generals. The generals are just doing their dirty work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point was that the Russian military is no more careful or careless with the lives of their men as we are. I was saying we are similar in that way. This is not some condemnation in any way. Soldiers do thier job and sometimes it means sending other soldiers to die so that the rest may live. This a fact of the reality in the military. Helicopter crash, subs sink, arty falls in the wrong place, etc.. That scene in Saving Private Ryan where Capt. Miller rationalizes the sending of men to their deaths under his command so that other men may live was very to the point and I think it captured the true face of command decisions. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Point well taken. I remain highly skeptical of Soviet leadership's regard for the life of the individual, especially in comparison to the very contentious leadership I've had the privilege to serve under, but concede that you're entitled to your point of view. I of course am very biased, having personally seen the hard work that the U.S. Air Force has done for its troops. Hopefully without protracting this argument further let me just say the Russian officers I've had occasion to meet are very impressed. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock: Point well taken. I remain highly skeptical of Soviet leadership's regard for the life of the individual, especially in comparison to the very contentious leadership I've had the privilege to serve under, but concede that you're entitled to your point of view. I of course am very biased, having personally seen the hard work that the U.S. Air Force has done for its troops. Hopefully without protracting this argument further let me just say the Russian officers I've had occasion to meet are very impressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, I can accept that Russian High Command and even down to their officers maybe act in less regards to their men’s lives but I think this may be inherent in the training they have received and the Russian military philosophy, than actual callous concern for life. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wittmann Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 One defence expert claimed that the kursk was on a live fire exercise and that Russian torpedos use chemicals for propulsion (hydrogen peroxide ,amongst others) which are highly reactive with water. A fuel leak was suggested , which when the torpedo tubes were flooded prior to firing, caused the catastrophic explosions. The same fuel combo was considered by the US and UK and deemed too dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Just out of curiousity, can anyone tell me what SS, SSK, SSN, SSGN, and SSBN literally stand for? I know what they mean (diesel-electric, diesel-electric attack sub, nuclear attack sub, nuclear cruise missile sub, nuclear ballistic missile sub), but not the literal expansions of the acronyms. My best guess so far is: SS = Submarine Ship SSK = Submarine Ship _______ (fill in the blank?) SSN = Submarine Ship, Nuclear SSGN = Submarine Ship, Guided Nuclear SSBN = Submarine Ship, Ballistic Nuclear But those are just random guesses. Does anyone here actually know? -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts