Talk:Kursk submarine disaster/Archive 1

Priz
Jane's states that "Priz" is a class of DSRV. The line "The rescue ship Rudnitsky carrying two submersible rescue vessels, AS-32 and the Priz" implies that "Priz" is the name of vessel. My sense is that AS-32 is a vessel of the Priz class. I just created Priz class and would appreciate it if someone who knows more would either move my article or modify the text here. Thanks,  BanyanTree 14:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Some details on Kursk
Kursk suffered from severe design deficiencies.
 * 1) The double hull was basically the Sierra hull structure, and would have worked well if built of titanium. Built of steel, it was inflexible (see US Navy photo of cross-section of Oscar-I hull) and buckled under the force of the first explosion.
 * 2) The control room was not separated from the torpedo room by other compartments, as is customary in submarine design. Hence the initial explosion transmitted shock and fumes directly into the control room.
 * 3) Propellant-grade hydrogen peroxide was used in Kursk not only for Tshkval torpedoes, for which it was essential, but also for conventional torpedoes. Northern Fleet knew this was a bad idea, and had protested, but was overruled by Moscow. Propellant-grade hydrogen peroxide is about the nastiest propellant imaginable; it slowly decomposes spontaneously, putting pressure on pipes, valves and fittings; it is extremely corrosive; it causes fire in such materials as textiles and leather, and a hydrogen peroxide fire is very difficult to quench except by dilution by water flooding. This would have severely limited Captain Lyachi9n's attempt at an emergency blow. In addition, the initial explosion quite likely jammed the forward bow planes.
 * 4) There was no "gertrude" in the aft section that could be operated if the forward section was disabled, and there was no way to release the aft emergency buoy.
 * 5) Oscar-II was a single-purpose sub, built to attack American carriers. but it was cluttered with too much stuff; it had more missiles than would reasonably be considered useful, and, incredibly, it was equipped with mine-laying capability.
 * 6) Although Kursk was very large, it was still too small to have logical space for everything aboard. In particular, note that addition of the extra reactor compartment (Kursk had two compartment V compartments), in an attack sub using two Typhoon SSBN reactors, meant that the reactor spaces wouldn't fit the intended hull diameter; in photos of Kursk on the surface one can see the resulting bulge just abaft the sail.

Crew manning was unsatisfactory. There were no experienced regular navy michmanny aboard; the michmanny were reservists. In the torpedo room (compartment I), during the exercise there was no damage control technician; only one inexperienced officer, two torpedomen, a bilge control seaman, a bow sonar artificer, and two factory technicians from the torpedo factory, who knew torpedoes but had no experience with hydrogen peroxide. The damage control officer was back in compartment IV, instead of in Compartment II where he should have been. And there was too much brass in the control room; everybody and his cousin had gone along for the ride, which must have caused confusion and conflicting orders immediately after the first explosion.

Inadequate attention has been paid to the fact that Peter the Great launched an antisubmarine missile and was greatly surprised by the size of the resulting explosion; they initially though they might have hit USS Memphis. The dents noted in Kursk may have been caused by that missile, and the missile may also have sprung the hydrogen peroxide leak. (Damage to the sail, initially attributed to collision, was caused by hull fragments blown back and up by the two explosions.)

As for USS Memphis, it seems very likely that some electronics in Memphis would have been damaged by the second explosion in Kursk. Contrary to reports, no US sub launched an emergency buoy, but Memphis departed the area quite slowly, as one would expect if the technicians were busily restoring critical electronics to operable status.

Vyssotsky 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Vyssotsky


 * That's very interesting information. Do you have a reliable source we can cite so we can include it in the article? TomTheHand 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What was recovered?
The article conflicts itself about whether the bow or stern were recovered. Were both recovered? It is not clear from the article.It says "Most of the hull of the submarine, except the bow, was raised from the ocean" and also "the Russian Navy recovered the Kursk's bow section". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.159.92 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


 * All but the bow, and later some of the bow. The rest was deliberately damaged by yet another explosion.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced conspiracy theories
I have cleaned up that section. Please do not restore unsourced content representing fringe views, nor unsourced content debunking fringe views. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, nor is it an ideological battle ground. Just the verifiable facts, please, are what we publish. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting conspiracy theory
I'm reverting the conspiracy theory stuff placed on the page by 86.135.30.143. I'm doing so because it is unsourced. The only "sourced" piece of information is the statement that Kursk had a "concave impact injury," but then it states that this is "typical signature of US MK-48 torpedos," which neither true nor sourced. TomTheHand 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The source is Kursk: a Submarine in Murky Waters, the French documentary the section is describing. I have seen it, and can verify that 86.135.30.143 accurately describes the allegations made in it. &#0151; JEREMY 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll look over it in detail later and deal with the obviously inaccurate stuff, like the bit about the small hole in the Kursk's hull being typical of a Mk-48.  I'll also restore the criticisms of the collision theory, because they are perfectly valid, whereas the collision theory is a bunch of conspiracy bunk. TomTheHand 13:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to write a bit about the absurdity of a Mk-48 being involved. I almost removed the "citation needed" from the section describing flaws, as the flaws are common sense and readily verifiable using Wikipedia, but I realized that what is needed is a "Western submarine expert" making these statements.  I would honestly feel much more comfortable with this section if it were better sourced; whereas I certainly believe you that all of these statements came from a French documentary, I'm familiar with similar American documentaries and don't consider them reliable.  The article would be much better off with sourced statements by real experts or major media sources. TomTheHand 14:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the documentary says that no one really knows how American torpedos work. Then it claims that one of the few US torpedo experts told them 'off the record' that it was a typical MK-48 signature'. It also claims that the MK-48 uses a depleted uranium point to penetrate and then detonate. Since how this torpedo works is top secret I think it would be wrong to assume that all torpedos work in the same way. Obviously shells don't all work in the same way. The problem is, shells go way way faster than torpedos. Torpedos don't have the kinetic energy needed to penetrate. The DU will have no use at all. Maybe it is still possible to create penetrating torpedos but the MK-48 seems powerful enough to destroy a ship without penetrating. And if it did penetrate then when it detonates wouldn't the sub/ship get teared to pieces?

The first rebuttal point to the film, regarding the amount of damage to the American submarine leaves me somewhat cold. To begin, we dont have an estimate of how much damage actually occured on the US sub. Further, the idea that simply because one object is more massive than another it would cause more damage does not seem correct. To the best of my knowledge, there are a considerable number of factors involved in how damage occurs, including hardness of the materials, how the architecture of the impact points, the angle of attack and so on. For instance, a key can be used to scratch a car, despite the key being of considerable smaller mass. Perhaps there is something to this argument, but in its current form I have trouble with it.


 * That's a positively silly argument. Sure, a key can scratch a car, but it won't rip a 2 meter hole in it. And, if anything, Soviet subs are very robustly designed.  They may be loud, big and dangerous to their crews, but they are famous for their structural integrity.  There is also 2 meters of water between an Oscar II's inner and outer hulls.  While I can imagine a scenario where a Los Angeles boat half the size of the Kursk could sink it in a collision and still limp back to port under its own power, I can also imagine a scenario where the Kursk was hit by a meteor.  Either scenario seems extremely unlikely. Epstein&#39;s Mother 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while I'd say the current evidence does not point to American involvement, the 4 reasons used to rebutt are all flawed:
 * Mass differential: I hadn't had the chance to look at the French film. However, in a double hull configuration, the outer hull is made very light (and thus weak). There is no need for it to withstand water pressure because the space between the outer and inner hulls is flooded with seawater. The lighter outer hull allows more weight to be saved for the inner pressure hull that bears the seawater - and Russian pressure hulls are often made with titaniums or steels as tough as HY-140 equivalent. Further, a "soft" outer hull is more easily curved into complex hydrodynamic shapes. When faced with the American pressure hull (HY-80), the light outer hull will deform easily, which will actually reduce the deformation (damage) on the American sub in a "cushion-like" effect. So it is possible that in a light collision, the American sub will suffer less superficial damage (though the Russian should suffer little or no substantial damage). On the other hand, if the collision presses all the way into the Russian's hard pressure hull, the mass and tensile strength differences would spell heavy damage for the American).
 * there is still no explanation why if two subs collide at speed, one explodes and sinks and the other, half the size, can sail away without being detected. if nothing else the damage would have made the US sub very noisy underwater. 217.7.209.108 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answering you as a devil's advocate. First, if I understand this right, that French conspiracy theorist didn't say it was the collision that killed Kursk. It was the torpedo fired by Memphis that killed Kursk (and even that was indirect - it apparently knocked a torp off a rack or something, causing the ultimate damage). So all Toledo had to do was get away without crippling damage. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the detection part, according to this theory, it was a coverup b/w the Russian and American governments. The Russians could have watched the whole thing happen and it won't cripple that theory. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like this can be seen in Augusta's collision with a Delta I in 1986 (ref: Hostile Waters) - the American suffered minor flooding (light deformation of the pressure hull). The Russian suffered an ugly looking dent (the outer hull being heavily deformed) but no flooding at all (no damage to pressure hull).
 * The ROE: Officially, American subs weren't supposed to sneak into Soviet waters. However, substantial anecdotal evidence suggests that American submariners enjoy sneaking into Soviet waters and then altering their logs to conceal it. Even if you assume the stories themselves were untrue, the mere fact they can say this so openly speaks wonderfully to their respect to rules, the rights of other nations ... etc. No, the rules are IMO not an adequate guarantee for them not to fire.
 * Perhaps you could provide a link to this "substantial anecdotal evidence" or maybe give the names of the American submariners you have talked to in your life?68.164.6.238 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that any American commander/leader would sneak into Russian waters just so they could torpeado a    Russian SSBN sub, thus risking not only being fired back upon, but potentially starting WWIII as well. Why would they do  this??? Why take the risk? Just to sink a single sub (the Ruskies have more than one SSBN)? What if the Ruskies detected the attack (as the American commander would mostly assuredly assume that they would detect it)? How would the US benefit from sinking one Russian ship? How would the US benefit from potentially starting WWIII in this way, and if they wanted to start WWIII, why not just launch an all out nuclear first strike--and if this was a goal, and they wanted to take out Russia's SSBN fleet first, why just attack ONE SSBN ship??68.164.6.238 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Russia isn't well know for obeying the rules either, and they sure as hell are pretty well known for making up bullshit, especially in regards to finding foreign scapegoats for their own screw-ups. Additionally, foreign anti-American bashers are well known for their conspiracy theories were the US is to blame for everything evil in the world (and it's curious that somebody would be so keen to produce a film over such an incident--I wonder if the idea to make a film blaming the US for this came before the film-maker even looked at all the evidence)). So I guess we can't trust the film here as evidence either.68.164.6.238 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't he simply listen from a safe disatnce? 217.7.209.108 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ''I repeat. I don't think the Americans did that (based on current evidence), but if they did that, these rebuttals are kinda weak IMO.'' Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * accepted that there may have been US subs near, would a US sub captain sneak into the center of a live fire exercise?
 * I don't think there's anyone that doubts there were American subs close. As for the distance, unlike in a Tom Clancy, submarine detection ranges are not always that long even w/ vaunted American sonars. And the Barents are not exactly great acoustic conditions (try reading []). So to get the intel they want, they may well have had to go in very close.
 * Acoustic homing: So turn off the sodding active homing and fire them in with pure wire guidance. Besides, the Kursk would have a much bigger active sonar signature and in the event a purely active-homing shot is made, there's every reason to believe the Mk48s (or most active homers) will select the Kursk based on target size.
 * Warhead: Doubt it was KE penetrator. Even if the low velocity penetrator breached the hull, if the warhead was omnidirectional the small hole would be blasted open. Rather, it is more likely the charge (assuming conspiracy theory is true) was HEAT-like shaped charge, a tech that had been around for a long time.
 * a HEAT warhead would punch a hole, not cause a dent. the only way a torpedo would cause a dent would be if it failed to explode but had enough kinetic energy to cause the bump. 217.7.209.108 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The pictures linked seem to show a hole and a wider dent. The problem is that we don't know the warhead(s) (might be tandem charge) or how well the blast of a 650 pound warhead can be contained into a very narrow cone. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a great example of what happens when people without any concept of sub design or armament come into a perfectly good page and start confusing people. Here's the bottom line:

1)The US Navy does not have, nor has it ever in recorded history had, any kind of conventional torp warhead that used anything other than plain HE. No KE, no HEAT, no HESH, no AP, nothing other than HE. Ever. Period.

2)The MK-48 has been around since 1972. While the guidance package and whatnot is massively complicated (and classified) these days, the warhead itself is both ridiculously uncomplicated and gigantic. It's 650-lbs of PBXN-103 stuffed into a compartment. It works the same way as every other depth charge, mine, and torpedo in the history of the Navy: by making a big, big boom in the water close to (or right up against) a boat. Big booms create shockwaves. The shockwave spreads through the water (much easier than it would through air), and crushes the the boat's hull(s) like a bike tire driving over a beer can. It does not make iddy-biddy holes in the hull, nor does it make any kind of signature "concave impact injury" (a made-up term if I've ever heard one) that I've ever heard of. It seems like you're trying to imagine this bizarre tale of a gut-shot Russian nuke boat with a torp-sized hole and these "signature concave impact injuries"; I hate to be the one to break it, but a contact det from a Mark-48 doesn't wound. It kills. Thoroughly. With one just one. That's the way it was designed.

3)Generally, the typical result when 650-lbs of HE detonates next to a hollow tube underwater is for the tube to be imploded into junk within about half a second. While Ivan has, in the past anyway, built boats with particularly vigorous pressure hulls, including the Kursk, they've never once claimed any kind of real substantive protection against a contact det from a Mark-48. Because it frankly wouldn't help at all. What it DOES do is give them more "wiggle room" in terms of overpressure, so that a close-proxy det in their baffles or on a noisemaker, say, (or even a contact det from one of the lighter torps, like the 46) that would have crunched another boat might just collapse the outer hull, annihilate their entire sensor array, severely injure half of the crew, spring a thousand leaks in the internal bulkheads, and destroy their entire propulsion system (screws, shafts and bearings) from the reactor aft. But hey, whatever keeps you from being a breakup noise on somebody else's sonar...at least temporarily.

3)A Mark-48, like all Navy torps, has several redundant arming mechanisms that must all actuate in sequence before the fuze can receive the juice and the warhead be allowed can detonate. And yes, it has what you'd call an "arming distance", the actual figure being highly classified. A Mark-48, big as it is, makes a very poor bullet; it simply does not possess the design or inertia necessary to noticeably damage, much less penetrate, the titanium hull of a sub. It may or not make a small dent, depending on the type of boat it's hitting and how fast it was going, but unless it hit the Kursk perfectly broadside, it'd be much more likely to just skip off the hull like a pebble off your fender. And yes, there's been incidents before to back this up. So that kills at least half of the myth. As for the rest, no sub driver with more than two brain-cells left to rub together would fire a torp that is: incapable of arming itself, into a another boat, belonging to a neutral nation. That's ridiculous on 3 separate levels, quite possibly one of THE dumbest things I've ever heard, and a prime example of the sort of "war-story" concocted by some civilians (possibly service fakers trying to make themselves sound cool) after a few too many drinks.

4)Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I don't generally coddle IP trolls, but in this case I'll make an exception. User:217.7.209.108, your ultra-Leftist military hater fantasies as to the nature of US-Russo/Soviet sub-games are almost enough to make me laugh. Almost. As anybody who's ever worn the dolphins or done their homework would know, we've been playing in each other's backyards since way before you were born. It was never about nationalism; it was about a group of guys who were the best at what they did going the extra mile to test each other, so everyone could both stay sharp and do their job if it ever came down to it. And I bet if you found a group of Russian submariners in a bar in Polyarrny, they'd have all have the same sort of stories to tell as the ones you'd hear in a bar at Groton or Norfolk. Of course, neither one would tell you anything. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I think you have unfairly maligned User:217.7.209.108. If anything, he's arguing a bit against me, who wrote the original chunk of test. I, in turn, am not making a statement on whether the Americans did it. The main thrust is to point out why the reasons posted don't seem to wash to me. It is all fine to write up the counter to a conspiracy theory, but IMO it has to clearly and convincingly devastate the theory, and the list out on the article does not do that. --10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your Pts1-3, they are good. I strongly suggest you find some references for them and send them out to buttress what's on the article. By the way, IMO it is better to find a source proving Impossibility rather than just an alternate view. For example, there are many websites that name the official Mk48 warhead as 650lbs PBXN-103, but to a conspiracy theorist, that's just an official story, so a better source will be, for example, a source that shows shaped charges are not possible underwater, or that a omnidirectional charge has that nice kill ability you refer to, so shaped charges are not effective or even counterproductive. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding Pt3 (the 2nd point 3), the first half is OK (find sources). Note BTW that the Oscar is not made of titanium, much less the outer hull. The 2nd half does not explain why the torpedo would necessarily be shot at a range too short for arming. The rest (which is only 1 level, not 2) depends on faith in the American submariner, and a conspiracy theory cannot exist if you start with unshakable faith in government officials. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding Pt4, your benign interpretation of submarine intrusions, almost as if they are some kind of Olympic game, is unsupportable. Never mind that such an intrusion is illegal under international law, or the practical risks of collision (and death). Publicly available statements, at least, seem to say that the Russians are not nearly as enthusiastic about this "game" of "testing each other's skills" as the Americans (take for example Counter Admiral Alexei in 1994). Americans, in turn, constantly mention their concerns about being attacked if caught in Russian waters. If this is a game game, it most resembles Russian roulette. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Shaft seals
The current article seems to suggest that normal shaft seal leakage would have eventually flooded the aft compartment of the Kursk. Given the existence of backup or emergency shaft seals for large diameter marine shafting, the suggestion that Kursk, a military vessel designed to operate under extreme conditions, had none is dubious. Please provide a reference which states that the seal leakage posed short or long-term danger to habitability in the aft compartment.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Title
Wouldn't "Sinking of the Kursk" be a more appropriate title for this article? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move reverted: new title is highly confusing: Kursk is mostly known as a Russian city, so the title Kursk explosion is improper. - Altenmann >t 05:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Page name
I would suggest that "Kursk submarine disaster" or similar would be a better name for this page than "Kursk explosion", particularly in the context of the opening sentence which doesn't feature "Kursk explosion" anywhere in it (and frankly would read terribly if it did). Given that there has already been a few differences over the page name I thought that I would bring it up here before moving. da nn o _ u k 21:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the initiative yesterday to rename the article failing to read the prior discussions here. "Kursk submarine disaster" might be suitable as "Sinking of the Kursk" may not adequately convey the gravity of the situation.


 * Comparable article titles include:
 * USS Hartford grounding - Descriptive and to the point
 * 2008 Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa accident - Awkwardly worded IMO
 * HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant submarine collision - Descriptive enough
 * USS Hartford and USS New Orleans collision - Good
 * — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 01:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sinking of the Kursk" is definitely an improvement on "Kursk explosion" but I was shying away from that particular title as it makes it sound like the ship was sunk by enemy action as opposed to succumbing to technical problems on its own. da nn o _ u k  00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Review and reclassification needed
I've expanded the article to the best of my ability. It's ready for a review by another editor and should be re-classified accordingly. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 09:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

us emergency beacon at site of kursk dissater
soem time ago i readed that few days after kursjk was sunk in waters was finded floating emergency beacon for us submarine,which is - among others things - automataticaly relased in case of colision. and that beacon was found missing in us submarine which perated in that area at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:92A:EBEA:E5DE:6250 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Light
"When the nuclear reactors automatically shut down, emergency power would have been limited, and the crew would have been in complete darkness". This cannot be true - and is inconsistent with other references suggesting that the crew had light to write messages. Emergency lighting must have continued for at least a time.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the investigation, they may have had emergency lighting for a short while. The notes found on the crew members' bodies indicated they had light to write the first note, but no light to write a second a few hours later. Remember that the entire forward third of the sub was basically eviscerated, completely destroyed, by the explosions of multiple torpedo warheads. Everything forward of the reactor, which was immediately shut down, was gone. So any emergency lighting systems were likely also affected, thus limiting the amount of emergency power available to the crew. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kursk submarine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206224817/http://www.largeassociates.com/kurskpaper.pdf to http://www.largeassociates.com/kurskpaper.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tremis.ru/15/171
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bratishka.ru/archiv/2003/3/2003_3_2.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manw.nato.int/boldmonarch2011/pdfs%20Bold%20Monarch/BM%2011%20Press%20Release%2007%20june%202011%20Russian%20Federation%20Navy%20fully%20integrated%20in%20NATO%20Exercise%20Bold%20Monarch.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120925000426/http%3A//www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00131.x

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia fined over free speech violation
Is this worthy of inclusion? Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kursk submarine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220231704/http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=K141-Kursk to http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=K141-Kursk
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222034245/http://russiajournal.com/node/8141 to http://russiajournal.com/node/8141
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FkJwoIET?url=http://www.manw.nato.int/boldmonarch2011/pdfs%20Bold%20Monarch/BM%2011%20Press%20Release%2007%20june%202011%20Russian%20Federation%20Navy%20fully%20integrated%20in%20NATO%20Exercise%20Bold%20Monarch.pdf to http://www.manw.nato.int/boldmonarch2011/pdfs%20Bold%20Monarch/BM%2011%20Press%20Release%2007%20june%202011%20Russian%20Federation%20Navy%20fully%20integrated%20in%20NATO%20Exercise%20Bold%20Monarch.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kursk submarine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927184318/http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2010/089/00.html to http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2010/089/00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Double Hull space = 2 inches... not sure what the prior wording was intended to mean but it was poorly stated
That's all folks. "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.196.137 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The inner, pressure hull is 2 inches thick - that is not the gap between the inner and outer hulls. To be fair, the source you used is poorly worded. (Hohum @ ) 14:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Refusal of foreign help
In the section "Accusations of cover-up", there is the sentence, "Minister of Defence Sergeyev said in interviews on 21 March 2000, that he had never refused any foreign help." I don't understand what this statement is supposed to be referring to, since he said it several months before the disaster. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Anomalies on the seabed
First sentence under the "Russian rescue efforts falter" section states the rescue crew discovered two anomalies on the seabed, but said anomalies aren't described. Added a clarification request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.155.35 (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)