Talk:Russian submarine Kursk (K-141)

message: Why does Russian submarine K-148 redirect to the Kursk article? Unless there's some weird story behind 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_submarine_K-141_Kursk&action=edit§ion=1#(194.78.170.201 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  K-148 redirect 

message: According to a recent documentary, the second explosion had a yield much greater than a single torpedo can produce. The implication was that all torpedoes in the forward compartmnet blew at about the same time. Can anyone confirm? JDG 20:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
:I have recently obtained a copy of Robert Moore's "A Time to Die" which confirms this, and that the second explosion probably occured as it hit the bottom of the sea. I want to expand this article once I have finished reading the book! Pcb21| Pete 21:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Second explosion?

message: Once I get the time, and the folks to do it, I want to split the article into two. this sub stinks compared to us subs.
:Well seems like you are in the middle of things at the moment so it is hard to comment. But, why do you want split this? Pcb21| Pete 07:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to have one article about the ship itself, while have a second article about the accident. The later seemed to dwarf the main section about the ship. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a problem at all. 99 out of a hundred wanting to read about the Kursk will wanting to mainly read about the end of the Kursk. I am not sure I see gain by making them click one more time. Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. What we can do is condense the accident section into one or two paragraphs here, then have the accident article there in its full entirity. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliting 

message: :rename to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk
====Support====
# Note that I didn't propose this. However it does seems logical given the contents of the Russian Navy Submarines and Soviet Navy Submarines categories. Support. Megapixie 06:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the large number of Russian/Soviet submarines that don't have names (or at least names that our publically known) - We are going to end up with half the submarines named like Kursk (K-141) and half named Soviet submarine K-142 - since K-142 or (K-142) is a bit messy. What I'd really like is to get rid of the Russian/Soviet split in the names. Megapixie 07:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not call this article RFS K-141 Kursk, and submarines without names "RFS [number]"? RFS = Russian Federation Ship   kallemax 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk 

message: # Note that I didn't propose this. However it does seems logical given the contents of the Russian Navy Submarines and Soviet Navy Submarines categories. Support. Megapixie 06:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: To me all the "Russian/Soviet submarine..." article titles seem overly disambiguated. I'd suggest something more like Kursk (K-141). It's simpler and more consistent with other navy's submarine articles (note the two in the see also section). Niteowlneils 22:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the large number of Russian/Soviet submarines that don't have names (or at least names that our publically known) - We are going to end up with half the submarines named like Kursk (K-141) and half named Soviet submarine K-142 - since K-142 or (K-142) is a bit messy. What I'd really like is to get rid of the Russian/Soviet split in the names. Megapixie 07:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not call this article RFS K-141 Kursk, and submarines without names "RFS [number]"? RFS = Russian Federation Ship   kallemax 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "The outer hull, made of high-nickel high-chrome content steel just 8.5mm thick, had exceptionally good resistance to corrosion and a weak magnetic signature which helped prevent detection by Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) systems. There was a two-metre gap to the two-inch-thick steel inner hull."
two-metre...... two-inch
Imperial measurements are on the way out.
The article has non-continuum of standard measurement usage  
[GR]
*I would endorse a reasonable policy of using the measurement system of the ship's manufacturer.  If the builder used the English system - use feet and inches, if the metric system - use meters, centimeters, or millimeters.  I'm sure that most really interested readers could do the conversions if they desired.Федоров (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  metric and imperial measurements 

message: When the Kursk was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea, it could not be tracked by NATO and there was a lot of anxiety about what it could be up to. However, it was accidentally caught in netting by a fishing boat and the big sub towed the small ship for several hours before surfacing and exchanging nasty words between the two vessels. Afterwards, the US Navy awarded a "Catch of the Year" plaque to the fishing ship. That's what I read. Someone should find the details and include it in the article, because it is such a funny story. 195.70.32.136 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not possible. Such tow would sink fishing boat, so her skipper would rather cut the net, than let sink the entire ship. Matrek (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net loss 

message: In the German and the French article about the Kursk the submarine has two nuclear reactors, in the English it has one. In the article about the type of the Kursk: Oscar class submarine it has two. What is right?   -- 80.141.122.181 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two is correct per Janes. I'll change it. Good spot. Megapixie 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many nuclear reactors? 

message: Would it be possible that these Russians were going for war, why would they carry armed nuclear reactors for the practice session? Munashe Gudu 196.44.177.253 (Talk) 01:32, 21 November 2006 (edit)
:Nuclear reactors are the nuclear submarine's source of power to drive the vessel. They have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. -Will Beback · † · 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, knowledge of Russian would help a great deal.  The reference to "armed reactors" is a bad translation of what should read "fueled reactors".Федоров (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were they going for war? 

message: The Kursk sank to a depth of 350 feet, not 85 miles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.43.65.38 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking Depth 

message: The statement about the class being unsinkable due to a double hull sounds inaccurate. People stopped calling ships unsinkable after RMS Titanic, and a double hull doesn't guarantee protection from torpedoes. Anynobody 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsinkable 

message: The article says "There was a two-metre gap to the 50.8mm thick steel inner hull." A two metre gap? seems large. With the beam at 18m, that makes 4m of gap left and right. Is this right? What's the reference?
peterl 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos reveal the inner hull to be round (cylindrical) whilst the outer was oblate. The gap left and right contained various items of equipment, including cruise missile silos. 213.173.165.130 (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimension query 

message: "The Russian admiralty at first suggested that most of the crew had died within minutes of the explosion; however, their motivations for making the claim are considered by outside observers as political."
Can someone please clarify these 'political motivations'? I'm not sure I completely understand --SaintDaveUK (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Making that claim would have removed any urgency to rescue survivors. As it turned out, the rescue was seen as something of a fiasco, so this suggestion may have seemed like a coverup effort to outsiders.
*Many claims have been made by many commentators.  Most have not been well informed.  Even had the Russian search and rescue effort moved more quickly it was highly unlikely that appropriate rescue assets could have arrived on scene in time to rescue the men trapped in the stern compartment.  With water entering the submarine and their compartment they likely passed out due to increased pressure and oxygen depletion even before the compartment was fully flooded.  Also, increased internal pressure would have made the stern rescue hatch impossible to open until pressure equalized when the compartment was fully flooded and the men in it dead.Федоров (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Motivations for Russian Claim? 

message: People, there has to be a better PD image of the K-141 than a grainy, black and white shot of a sub that might be her. Anybody? -Samnuva  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.125.216 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture

message: The first para says Kursk was the largest tank battle in history. I suspect that is wrong. The Battle of the Chinese Farm had more tanks and the Battle of (some number) Easting covered more area. I think. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There were thousands of tanks at Kursk, only a couple of hundred at Chinese Farm. As for 73 Easting taking place over a larger area, I'm not sure, but "largest tank battle" is intended to mean the largest number of tanks involved, not the physical area over which the battle was fought, though I would tend to believe (given the scale of the Eastern Front) that Kursk would also be larger in that respect.172.190.75.25 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Farm

message: If no evidence was provided to the contrary, why is it included in the article other than to stick the boot in?  Clearly biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.131.241 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what? HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I found loads of biased text in there, some subtle, some not.  I don't think Westerners actually realise they are being biased when it comes to Russia.  I have done my best to tidy it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.166.243 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granit Cruise Missiles 

message: Lost Subs: From the Hunley to the Kursk, the greatest submarines ever lost-and found by Spencer Dunmore is a collection of stories about the worlds most famous lost submarines, from the civil war era to the nuclear age.  The book not only gives a description of how the different submarines sank, but also describes why they were famous, and their contributions to history.  Lost Subs is full of fantastic pictures of each submarine from underwater, and from before each submarine sank.  The last chapter is about the Kursk, and includes amazing pictures and diagrams of how it was raised.  It also includes information about some of the crewmembers, and Russia’s handling of the incident.(Khaschekluender (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New Book: Lost Subs

message: Chalmers, P. (2002). Raising the Kursk. Mechanical Engineering, 124(5), 52-55.  "Raising the Kursk" is an excellent source of information on the process used to raise the submarine from the ocean depths.  The article dives into the technical challenges of raising the Kursk, and a step by step outline of how it was done.  It also explains how the Russian's didn't have the technology necessary to take on such a project, and a Dutch company was contracted to complete raise the sub. (Khaschekluender (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Raising the Kursk

message: Re 'risk assessment by Large Associates': imo this paragraph needs attention. It contains a dead link (the source presentation is now behind a paywall at Large Associates) and gives little information about the 'risk assessment' - apart from mentioning it - rendering it superfluous with the strong whiff of 'advertorial'. Who was it for? Was it official? What did it say? Indeed, the link to the wikipedia page on 'John Large Associates' throws up another dead link on his role in this enterprise and little information other than an assertion of having 'done the risk assessment'. For now I am soliciting responses or repairs and amendments. Beck daross (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising - 'the risk assessment' 

message: Is there anyone out there w/ experience who would undertake an assessment of this article to see what needs to be improved to secure a higher rating? Is there a process for nominating an article for just regular review (that is, not Good Article review)? Or just hope someone will do it? Thanks... Azx2 20:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Assessment  

message: There is no info on the rescue attemps made by Norwegian and British divers in this article. Why is that? These rescue attemps were very public and could be watched on television the world over...kind of strange that it has so little focus in the article. Barely mentioned ... Mortyman (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got some good refs, feel free to add those in. peterl (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please complete the article with the data: what has Baron Bourgouin, such as metal recycling company, to do with this tragedy ?1Frlla (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Info missing on rescue attemps

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Russian submarine Kursk (K-141). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2000nn/0008nn/000818nn.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified