RE: Kursk

RE: Kursk (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Terminus -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 12:38:37 AM)
I've got another one. The US government is secretly putting depleted uranium into breakfast cereals, so today's American children become stupid by eating them, and don't grow up to question what their government tells them.

Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 1:06:44 AM)
That's it! We're changing the name of our Danish Pasteries to Swedish Pasteries![:D]

Error in 0 -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 3:34:49 AM)
Funny how some see conspiracies everywhere, while others never ever see them, no matter what. I'll bet some conspiracies has truth in them, but which ones? Thats why they are quite interesting. It makes life more interesting, at least :) Kursk was sunk by aliens. There is proof. JT

Viper6 -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 4:42:45 AM)
Oh I am sure that there are conspiracies that are either partly or compleatly true, a number of years ago it was a "conspiracy" that the US was taping underwater Soviet comunication cables in the North Atlantic, that the CIA and US Army had a large part in the hunting down and killing of Paublo Escobar, or that the Soviets ever shot down a CIA-piloted U-2 over Soviet airspace ... As for aliens sinking the Krusk I am well aware of the proof, the aliens were actualy from Neptune and used the Moon as the base for the particle-beam weapon that hit the Kursk ... or something.

Neilster -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 5:25:17 AM)
quote: ...so today's American children become stupid by eating them... Too late! Cheers, Neilster

Brady -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 5:55:30 AM)
I personaly feal, now that I cant find any referance for MK 48's havign a Depleated Uranium, anything... That the most likely explanation is that the USS Toledo Hit the Kursk on acedent and that the Mepphis was just two close to the Kursk when the second Blast occured and took damage from the shock wave. As to wheater or not the Toledo caused the damage that lead to the exploshion on the Kursk is speculative. Clearly the Whole Torpedo things is full of holes, it looked good at first but it just doesent add up when it is looked at closly. The Damage to both US Subs is aparent and thier behaviour during and after that atack suports this. The documentary neaded to add the whole Torpedo angle, imo, to make a real case for the Drama angle, simple makinmg a move to show that their was a acedent at sea would not go over well.

Viper6 -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 7:06:59 AM)
I'm not sure about that whole ramming thing ... it's really hard to say. Sure there have been a whole lot of acidental collitions between US subs and Russian/Soviet subs so that part is hardly unbelievable, though none of them that I am aware of resulted in explosions. I think the most likely explination, though I cannot claim to know all the facts of this case, is that the Toledo and Memphis were on hand to "observe" the Russian's torpedo experiment when something went very wrong and blew up the Kursk. The actions of both subs aferward I would guess is a combination of damage resuting from the explosion and the US not wanting to make it obvious we were watching what must have been a very top secret experiment ... and thus beg the question of how we knew about it. Like Erik I am a fan of Occam's Razor: the simplest explination that fits the facts is usualy the right one. No need to go complicating the hell out of something when you don't even have anough proof for a simple explination.

Brady -> RE: Kursk (2/28/2006 9:12:39 AM)
Ramming is to hard a word, clearly hitting an Oscar in a 688 Class is a very undisariable thing, Hitting anyboat is not something one would want to do, espichaly underwater. The link way above indicates that the Sound wave is indicative of a long scraping sound and not an exploshion. The Toledo was aparently suposed to observe from close range. This is again not new, their is plently of historical precedent to suport this, as their is the acedential hitting of a forgine sub, some fatal encounters for the subs in question. We have recordes to indicate that the Toledo went home to a dry dock (Covered Dry Dock) and was in their for some time 7 months I belave, she made no other stops from what I understand on the way their. The Memphis, acording to The Russians was spoted just after that exploshion on the sea bed not far from the Kursk, then moved off slowly, taking 7 days to make a 2 day trip to a Norweigine port, and she lost her emergancy bouy, which the Russians found in the watter in the area Near the Kursk. The Experement was not top secerate, it was being conducted for teh benifit of the Chinese who on board one of the Russian Ships that were in the area as part of the excersise, we knew all about it and had voiced concerns to the Rusians regarding the potential sale of the technoligy to the Chinese.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 5:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brady I personaly feal, now that I cant find any referance for MK 48's havign a Depleated Uranium, anything... That the most likely explanation is that the USS Toledo Hit the Kursk on acedent and that the Mepphis was just two close to the Kursk when the second Blast occured and took damage from the shock wave. As to wheater or not the Toledo caused the damage that lead to the exploshion on the Kursk is speculative. Clearly the Whole Torpedo things is full of holes, it looked good at first but it just doesent add up when it is looked at closly. The Damage to both US Subs is aparent and thier behaviour during and after that atack suports this. The documentary neaded to add the whole Torpedo angle, imo, to make a real case for the Drama angle, simple makinmg a move to show that their was a acedent at sea would not go over well. You might invest in a spell checker. It would give your thoughts more credibility. Ore whir ewe triing four thet affact?

Brady -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 9:34:21 AM)
"It would give your thoughts more credibility" Why. My spelling is legendary, I apricate the paticience of those who wade through it, but in the end it matters not as long as the message gets through, if you dismiss it simply because of the delevery, then you are unworthy of it in the end.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 10:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brady "It would give your thoughts more credibility" Why. My spelling is legendary, I apricate the paticience of those who wade through it, but in the end it matters not as long as the message gets through, if you dismiss it simply because of the delevery, then you are unworthy of it in the end. Because if you do not care how you express your ideas, or the impression that your expression makes, why should the reader believe that you have taken any care in crafting your thoughts? And if you are going to use written language to communicate, why do it poorly? Be careful how you answer that question, for many instant answers will lend themselves to paraphrasing, where your reasons for not caring about spelling can be carried over to the ideas you are expressing. A waiter in a restaurant may perform his job perfectly but if his clothes are dirty and in disarray, he is going to be perceived as ill suited for his job. Would you say that patrons that judge him on his outward appearance are unworthy of his fine service? From the patrons' point of view, they just go to another restaurant. If the outward appearance of your ideas is that they are poorly formed, you convey a strong impression that the ideas themselves are also poorly formed. Indeed, the message you are trying to communicate does not get through, it is discarded. But then perhaps you don't care whether people read what you write or not. At least that is what I am hearing you say: "you are unworthy".

wodin -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 12:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Brady "It would give your thoughts more credibility" Why. My spelling is legendary, I apricate the paticience of those who wade through it, but in the end it matters not as long as the message gets through, if you dismiss it simply because of the delevery, then you are unworthy of it in the end. Because if you do not care how you express your ideas, or the impression that your expression makes, why should the reader believe that you have taken any care in crafting your thoughts? And if you are going to use written language to communicate, why do it poorly? Be careful how you answer that question, for many instant answers will lend themselves to paraphrasing, where your reasons for not caring about spelling can be carried over to the ideas you are expressing. A waiter in a restaurant may perform his job perfectly but if his clothes are dirty and in disarray, he is going to be perceived as ill suited for his job. Would you say that patrons that judge him on his outward appearance are unworthy of his fine service? From the patrons' point of view, they just go to another restaurant. If the outward appearance of your ideas is that they are poorly formed, you convey a strong impression that the ideas themselves are also poorly formed. Indeed, the message you are trying to communicate does not get through, it is discarded. But then perhaps you don't care whether people read what you write or not. At least that is what I am hearing you say: "you are unworthy". Sorry I have to disagree a little here. There are many people who are dyslexic and yet also extremely intelligent. Does this mean we take no notice of someone because they cant spell, which could be because they are dyslexic? I think a spell checker built into the forum would help.

sprior -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 3:26:57 PM)
[/quote] I think a spell checker built into the forum would help. [/quote] Putt knot yore trussed inn spell chequers.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 6:19:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior Putt knot yore trussed inn spell chequers. Hehe - agreed. Don't judge a book by its cover is another way to look at this. Regards, - Erik

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 8:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Brady "It would give your thoughts more credibility" Why. My spelling is legendary, I apricate the paticience of those who wade through it, but in the end it matters not as long as the message gets through, if you dismiss it simply because of the delevery, then you are unworthy of it in the end. Because if you do not care how you express your ideas, or the impression that your expression makes, why should the reader believe that you have taken any care in crafting your thoughts? And if you are going to use written language to communicate, why do it poorly? Be careful how you answer that question, for many instant answers will lend themselves to paraphrasing, where your reasons for not caring about spelling can be carried over to the ideas you are expressing. A waiter in a restaurant may perform his job perfectly but if his clothes are dirty and in disarray, he is going to be perceived as ill suited for his job. Would you say that patrons that judge him on his outward appearance are unworthy of his fine service? From the patrons' point of view, they just go to another restaurant. If the outward appearance of your ideas is that they are poorly formed, you convey a strong impression that the ideas themselves are also poorly formed. Indeed, the message you are trying to communicate does not get through, it is discarded. But then perhaps you don't care whether people read what you write or not. At least that is what I am hearing you say: "you are unworthy". Sorry I have to disagree a little here. There are many people who are dyslexic and yet also extremely intelligent. Does this mean we take no notice of someone because they cant spell, which could be because they are dyslexic? I think a spell checker built into the forum would help. I have two nieces who are dyslexic and excellent students. The spelling inaccuracies in the post were not caused by dyslexia, but a simple "I don't care" attitude about spelling. I have used, and still use, the written word to communicate professionally. From the first I knew that spelling accuracy was not one of my strengths. However, I view words as a tool. Just as I would not use a dull knife for cutting, but instead take the time to sharpen it so it works better, I suggest that a modicum of effort be made by the post's author to "sharpen" his ability to spell correctly. There is more power in a sharp knife.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 11:53:15 PM)
Brady's research and support for all that is IJA/IJN more than make up for his crimes against spelling.

Terminus -> RE: Kursk (3/1/2006 11:56:18 PM)
Agreed. He's earned the right to suck at spelling...

cpt_Venomous -> RE: Kursk (3/11/2006 5:10:59 PM)
heh most people here in Russia believe it was US submarines which caused that accident, not to forget the canceled debt and that "LA" class submarine which barely made it to Norwegian port. And yeah sure makes Putin look real cold in this one, but then probably Kremlin only keeps Kursk tradegy quiet until "convenient time" Still one has to agree, was one of those close calls for this world though. To be honest some truths best to be kept disguised, theres way too much hatred already as it is. First reaction is always to retaliate, but then take a deep breath think of all the future and global consequences after you quench your revenge. Makes one glad that someone accountable was in control at that time.

vertical -> RE: Kursk (3/12/2006 1:52:08 AM)
I do not give the Kursk conspiracy theories any credibility. Except for the sensational media whores, there's been no real evidence of anything other than a torpedo blowing up. A very informative thread on Kursk here http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm19.showMessage?topicID=592.topic Pay special attention to posts by BP, drunknsbmrnr, and seasick. They've been there and done that when it comes to subs, and are very intelligent folks.

riverbravo -> RE: Kursk (3/12/2006 2:50:18 AM)
From what I have read, the crews of the Kursk, Memphis and Toledo were all "hooked" together and having a party an 800 meters when when things got out of hand.[;)] Judging from the media coverage ( if you can believe anything they say) it seems the Russians didnt want any help. I mean the US and the British could have been on the scene and probably saved the sailors. The only conspiracy I can see is maybe there was something on the sub the Russians didnt want anyone to see. BOTOH, what in the heck could they gave thats so 'secret'. Plus with the Russians past history of submariner "accidents at sea"......command,crew or mechanical is probably the culprit. Im with Marc...but I think it was a german mine from ww2...[:D]

riverbravo -> RE: Kursk (3/12/2006 11:14:28 AM)
SB-2 missile?

Raverdave -> RE: Kursk (3/12/2006 11:39:11 AM)
If anyone thinks that the Kursk was "sunk" by the USN then I dare say that they also think that the Apollo missions were also faked.

Terminus -> RE: Kursk (3/12/2006 11:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave If anyone thinks that the Kursk was "sunk" by the USN then I dare say that they also think that the Apollo missions were also faked. Well they were, weren't they?[:'(]

Raverdave -> RE: Kursk (3/13/2006 4:13:43 AM)
Sure they were Terminus sure they were, now just take this tablet like a good boy, oh and pay no attention to those guys over there in the white coats.[;)]

RevRick -> RE: Kursk (3/13/2006 5:10:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: wodin quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Brady "It would give your thoughts more credibility" Why. My spelling is legendary, I apricate the paticience of those who wade through it, but in the end it matters not as long as the message gets through, if you dismiss it simply because of the delevery, then you are unworthy of it in the end. Because if you do not care how you express your ideas, or the impression that your expression makes, why should the reader believe that you have taken any care in crafting your thoughts? And if you are going to use written language to communicate, why do it poorly? Be careful how you answer that question, for many instant answers will lend themselves to paraphrasing, where your reasons for not caring about spelling can be carried over to the ideas you are expressing. A waiter in a restaurant may perform his job perfectly but if his clothes are dirty and in disarray, he is going to be perceived as ill suited for his job. Would you say that patrons that judge him on his outward appearance are unworthy of his fine service? From the patrons' point of view, they just go to another restaurant. If the outward appearance of your ideas is that they are poorly formed, you convey a strong impression that the ideas themselves are also poorly formed. Indeed, the message you are trying to communicate does not get through, it is discarded. But then perhaps you don't care whether people read what you write or not. At least that is what I am hearing you say: "you are unworthy". Sorry I have to disagree a little here. There are many people who are dyslexic and yet also extremely intelligent. Does this mean we take no notice of someone because they cant spell, which could be because they are dyslexic? I think a spell checker built into the forum would help. I have two nieces who are dyslexic and excellent students. The spelling inaccuracies in the post were not caused by dyslexia, but a simple "I don't care" attitude about spelling. I have used, and still use, the written word to communicate professionally. From the first I knew that spelling accuracy was not one of my strengths. However, I view words as a tool. Just as I would not use a dull knife for cutting, but instead take the time to sharpen it so it works better, I suggest that a modicum of effort be made by the post's author to "sharpen" his ability to spell correctly. There is more power in a sharp knife. Shannon, Brady's been on the board for almost four years with some very good thoughts. I haven't encountered you before, but I have been around as well, and will see your communicative capacity and raise you a couple of advanced degrees. Don't be an intellectual snob.

Terminus -> RE: Kursk (3/13/2006 11:49:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Sure they were Terminus sure they were, now just take this tablet like a good boy, oh and pay no attention to those guys over there in the white coats.[;)] Bah, I run the asylum these days... I have to, the drugs stopped working, and they couldn't find butterfly nets and straightjackets big enough...

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Kursk (3/21/2006 6:37:15 PM)
I agree..the concept of an "entry wound" for a torpedo is not plausible. The explosive component of the warhead on the Mk 48 ADCAP is 292 Kg [X(]. This is not an antitank round. DU works on antitank rounds b/o of its very high density and extremely high velcoity (velocity at contact ~ 1000-2000 fps) allows delivery of a huge Kinetic Energy over a very small cross sectional area. An ADCAP might hit the target at 55 kts. That is like a Grand Canyon mule compared to an antitank round. I suppose it is possible that the ADCAP warhead might incorporate some element of a "shaped charge" to direct the energy, but it still kills with the shock wave from its warhead..not with kinetic energy. My brother, who used to work for Hughes, which had some sub-contractor role on the ADCAP, once showed me a video of an ADCAP breaking a target ship in half with an experimental fuse set to detonate right under the hull. You could see the ship lift a bit over a giant bubble in the ocean, then a bunch of spray, then a void form where the bubble had been and water rushed back in...and the darned thing just cracked in half. It was pretty bloody impressive. (Note: I am not sure if this was the standard ADCAP warhead)

Neilster -> RE: Kursk (3/21/2006 6:42:24 PM)
Have a look at page one of this thread to see that. Cheers, Neilster

Terminus -> RE: Kursk (3/21/2006 6:49:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake My brother, who used to work for Hughes, which had some sub-contractor role on the ADCAP, once showed me a video of an ADCAP breaking a target ship in half with an experimental fuse set to detonate right under the hull. You could see the ship lift a bit over a giant bubble in the ocean, then a bunch of spray, then a void form where the bubble had been and water rushed back in...and the darned thing just cracked in half. It was pretty bloody impressive. (Note: I am not sure if this was the standard ADCAP warhead) Any sort of shaped charge would negate the advantage the ADCAP gets by exploding under the keel of the target ship. The damage potential of the bubble formed by the detonation of the warhead in the water is far greater than the hole that would be punched in the side of the ship by a shaped charge. An impact detonation makes a hole in the side, the detonation under the keel breaks the back of the ship. And I'm pretty sure that this fuse setting is standard for fleet ADCAP's.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Kursk (3/21/2006 6:54:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster Have a look at page one of this thread to see that. Cheers, Neilster I think that is a contact fuse. Note the smoke and black debris coming out from inside the hull. You can also see the debris impacting the water behind the ship in the early frames.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375