Talk:Russian submarine Kursk (K-141)

K-148 redirect

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&section=1#(194.78.170.201 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

Second explosion?

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)

Spliting

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)

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)

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)

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)

Largest ?

This article:"At 155 metres in length, and four storeys high, it was the largest attack submarine ever built. " What about Typhoon class submarine ? Not an attack submarine ? Kummi 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not an attack sub. "Typhoons" (Akulas to the Russians) are ballistic missile submarines (Podvodnaya Lodka Atomnaya Raketnaya Ballistecheskaya — PLARBs — to the Russians) . ➥the Epopt 22:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oscar class subs are not attack subs either they are SSGNs, so neither is the biggest.Noha307 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Typhoons are ballistic missile submarines but isn't it true that the Serverodvinsk Typhoon subs were used to down an enemy cruise ship in a search and destroy mission in 1989? 15, November, 2006, 18:54

Odd claim here. "but isn't it true that the Serverodvinsk Typhoon subs were used to down an enemy cruise ship in a search and destroy mission in 1989?" What 'enemy' cruise ship was sunk by the Russian Navy in 1989? What 'enemy' country was Russia at war with in 1989?Seki1949 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. The Kursk was a Oscar II-class (American term; in Russia it is a Project 949, or Antey-class) strategic missile carrier, or SSBN (again, an American deaignation). It is 155 meters long, the largest submarine at the time of it's launch; the Ohio class 170 meters. The Russian Akula [shark]-class is the NATO Typhoon-class; NATO confuses the nomenclature by using the name "Akula" for the Russian Project 971 Shchuka-B class attack submarines. The Typhoon is bigger than the Ohio because the missiles it carries, the R-39, is older and twice as massive as the Trident, and the submarine is sized accordingly. The Typhoon was designed specifically to match the Ohio. At this point, the Ohio out-missiles the Oscar-II, Typhoon and the currently in-design Borei-class SSBNs.

No, the Kursk was not an SSBN. It was an SSGN.

SSBN are ballistic missile subs, SSGN are cruise missile subs. Attack submarines are not missile subs; their offensive weapons are torpedoes exclusively. They are desigbned to sink other subs abd surface ships. An SSBN is not designed to engage militarily; their entire reason for existence is strategic offensive arms. I doubt very much their being active in any minor, or even major, surface action. Their orders are usually to avoid notice of any kind. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Western attack class submarines carry both torpedos and missiles. Missiles can be fired from the torpedo tubes (depending on the weaponry) or missile tubes forward of the sail, on US subs they would be cruise missiles.

Move to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk

rename to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk

Support

1. 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)
2. Support - I nominated this, sorry about forgetting this step. 132.205.3.20 19:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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)

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)

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)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 06:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

metric and imperial measurements

"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)

Net loss

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)

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)

Possible reasons for sinking

Video footage has since come to light from the norweigan rescue vehicles showing a circular inwards hole to the rear of the Kursks forward torpedo area. Indeed additional photography once the kursk was risen also shows this near perfect circular inwards directed hole which appears to be around the diameter of a current western torpedo.

A suggestion has been made that the Kursk was testing a supercavitation torpedo and was being watched by at least two US submarines. These suggestions go on to say that upon launching the supercavitation torpedo the commander of one of the US submarines launched their own torpedo which caused the initial explosion (the suggestion is that the US commander felt the 2nd US sub was under fire as a result of the test torpedo). The suggestion continues that the US torpedo breached the Kursk's hull and caused shortly afterwards the explosion of Russian torpedoes. This hypothesis fits with the facts as known. This would also lend credence to the Russians refusal to allow initial western rescue attempts of their vessel (the Kursk may have been attacked by a Western vessel). It would also explain why the front portion of the Kursk -which would contain supercavitation torpedoes, was not raised by the Norwegian salvage team (concern with the West obtaining sensitive Soviet military technology.)

It is also a fact that some months after the Kursk sank the US gave Russia approximately 10 billion dollars of US aid. It is worth noting that Russia had not approached the World Bank for this money prior to the loss of the Kursk but that it was supplied, almost without asking, once the Kursk was lost.

A lot of this information was precised in Jean-Michel Carre's documentary entitled 'Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters'. The video footage of the kursk both underwater and once salvaged gives some credence to the suggestion that the Kursk was sank by torpedo. For this reason I believe there should be a comment saying that there is thought that the Kursk may have been sank by a tropedo fired at it.

I agree with this (I saw the documentary yesterday). The evidence is too big to ignore, so it should be mentioned in the article. --Pierre Vis 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that an emergency beacon from the USS Toledo was recovered by the Russian Navy in the immediate area shortly after the incident. It's also worth noting a satellite photo was available showing the Toledo docked in Norway with the emergency beacon hatch shrouded and damage to the outer hull.

These rumors have been disproved by multiple sources, so I would not include them... (Ego Felem Amo 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Can you send a link to some of those multiple sources, as the ones I've read are as reliable as the movie's claim. If both things are equal, why not post both sides and let users decide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.123.68.98 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• What is truly worth noting is the Russian Procurator General's extraordinarily thorough, detailed, and objective report on the causes of the losss of the KURSK. In that report the attributed direct cause was the explosion of a single torpedo that then led to the detonation of the entire load. Also, the proximity or direct involvement of any non-Russian submarine was also ruled out. However, the facts rarely satisfy those who wish to see more elaborate scenarios and possibly conspiracy theories. At the 40th anniversary of the US moon landing therre are still those who believe that it all took place on MGM's back lot or internal sound stage.Федоров (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• What really is worth noting is that there exists a clear second line of thought for how and what exactly happened to the Kursk - for the sake of completeness that version should be presented here. Additionally, that the English language version of this wiki entry has no reference to it except here in the discussion while other language versions of the same article all include it in the main entry seems odd to say the least. This has nothing to to do with moon landings and other garbage but actual, verifiable information. There most definitely should be an entry explaining said point of view - it is up to the reader to make of it what they wish, it is not for self-elected wikipedians to exclude information simply because they don't believe it or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.219.13 (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread, started three years ago, is still waiting for reliable sources for alternate reasons, which explains the lack of inclusion in the article. Hohum (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The accident is featured in a Seconds from Disaster episode 'Russia's Nuclear Sub Nightmare' that is on YouTube here: [1]

The conclusion is that an HTP practice torpedo of faulty manufacture leaked HTP into the torpedo tube after loading, which then came into contact with rust inside the tube. This caused a violent heating and expansion of gasses which ruptured the torpedo carcass which then ignited the torpedo's fuel. Unfortunately the torpedo tube inner door had not been secured fully and was blown open by the relatively minor fuel explosion. The resultant flash fire in the torpedo compartment quickly consumed all the oxygen killing all the personnel inside. High-temperature gasses, i.e., the flash fire, then traveled along the light-alloy overhead ventilation duct (which inexplicably passed through the watertight bulkheads, the doors to which had been closed for the exercise) and consumed all the oxygen in the forward compartments very rapidly leaving the occupants as far aft as the control room either dead or incapacitated. The torpedo room fire after burning for a short while then caused at least seven of the stored live torpedoes' warheads to explode, this being the second and massive explosion that was detected on seismometers in Norway.

Previously, the live (warhead) torpedoes from the same batch as the practice one had all been rejected due to poor welding, the practice ones not being rejected as they were not thought important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How many nuclear reactors?

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)

Two is correct per Janes. I'll change it. Good spot. Megapixie 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• More importantly, two is correct per authoritative Russian sources. It is their submarine.Федоров (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Were they going for war?

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)

This section regarding "armed reactors" should be deleted, due to it being ill informed nonsense. Armed reactors indeed, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sinking Depth

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).

Unsinkable

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)

• Russian submarine design criteria for double hulled submarines is that the submarine would be capable of being brought to the surface if any one of its multiple, usually about six or seven, watertight compartments were to be flooded. That is the source of the remark that the design is meant to be unsinkable. Unless a torpedo hit were to hit the bow and cause an explosion such as occurred on the KURSK a single hit would disable the sub but not necessarily sink it. Under most normal anti-submarine warfare scenarios torpedoes chase down a submarine and are meant to hit it in the stern area.Федоров (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dimension query

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)

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)

Just a quick comment. On this page there should be something about the movie that was made about the incident. It was called 72 metra (meters in Russian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.130.26 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Political Motivations for Russian Claim?

"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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for either proposal. Before any of these articles should be moved, it is probably best that (a) (and most importantly) appropriate redirects are set up, as expressed below, so that some other "clear" possibilities point where they should and (b) the project-wide naming conventions and that of the involved WikiProjects "get along". JPG-GR (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing that this article and several other Russian and/or Soviet submarine articles be moved to match the naming conventions spelled out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The articles affected by this proposal, along with the suggested new names, are as follows:

• Russian submarine K-141 Kursk → Russian submarine Kursk (K-141)
• Russian submarine K-239 Carp → Russian submarine Carp (K-239)
• Russian submarine K-173 Chelyabinsk → Russian submarine Chelyabinsk (K-173)
• Russian submarine K-414 Daniil Moskovsky → Russian submarine Daniil Moskovsky (K-414)
• Russian submarine TK-208 Dmitri Donskoi → Russian submarine Dmitri Donskoi (TK-208)
• Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa → Russian submarine Nerpa (K-152)
• Russian submarine K-407 Novomoskovsk → Russian submarine Novomoskovsk (K-407)
• Russian submarine K-336 Pskov → Russian submarine Pskov (K-336)
• Russian submarine K-456 Vilyuchinsk → Russian submarine Vilyuchinsk (K-456)
• Russian submarine K-157 Vepr → Russian submarine Vepr (K-157)
• Russian submarine K-496 Borisoglebsk → Russian submarine Borisoglebsk (K-496)
• Soviet submarine K-278 Komsomolets → Soviet submarine Komsomolets (K-278)
• Soviet submarine K-3 Leninsky Komsomol → Soviet submarine Leninsky Komsomol (K-3)

As far as the distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet", the suggested names are based upon the article's current name and have no other motivations. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to notice at WP:RM, notifications have been posted to WikiProject Ships and to the Maritime warfare and Russian and Soviet military history task forces of WikiProject Military history — Bellhalla (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - a routine procedure to bring Soviet/Russian submarines into line with our standardised guidelines, and not before time. Benea (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: By "into line with our standardised guidelines" do you mean our widely followed general Wikipedia standardised guidelines (like WP:NC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION), or do you mean the peculiar guidelines used by the ships project that blatantly contradict the widely followed general Wikipedia guidelines? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: Born2cycle, can you assume good faith and trust that those of us with differing views are, in fact, taking a look at the big picture and don't have "blinders" on? Honestly, when I read your constant recitations of Wiki-alphabet soup, I can't help but think of the two-year-old that tries to out-scream her friends. I will assume good faith and view it as a passion you have for your viewpoint, but honestly, we get it: you believe your view is supported by these policies and you've stated your reasons at length below. Badgering everyone by repeating your points ad infinitum is bordering on disruption, and frankly, in my view, lessens any legitimacy your arguments might once have had. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can assume good faith, and I do, but I have no reason to believe that those who favor niche-specific naming convention that preemptively disambiguate are taking a look at the big picture. And when you don't answer my questions (note that I answer yours), but attack my "badgering" instead, that doesn't help establish that you have the big picture in mind. The meaning of the main naming conventions and guidelines, which you deride as "Wiki-alphabet soup" (your derision of them makes my point), are as a result steadily eroding. Recognizing and being concerned with that is looking at the big picture. I mean, is such erosion what you want? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems routine and un-controversial to me going by the naming conventions. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To me too, but after reading the naming discussion at WT:SHIPS, it seemed like it might be worth going about a more formal proposal. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: MBK, by "the naming conventions" do you mean the widely followed general Wikipedia naming conventions (like WP:NC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION), or do you mean the peculiar conventions used by the ships project that blatantly contradict the widely followed general Wikipedia conventions? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - though the titles are long, the information is necessary and the presentation is consistent with other vessel groups. Links/redirects from pages like Carp K-239, Carp (disambiguation), and K-239 are recommended. Haus^Talk 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question:. How is the "Russian submarine" information in the title necessary? Necessary to what end? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. This will follow the protocol of Nationality, Name, Method of disambiguation. The alternative titles can be set as redirects for those searching with other combinations. --Brad (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: What do you think of following "the protocol of Nationality, Name, Method of disambiguation" when doing so is contrary to following the protocol of WP:NC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D and WP:PRECISION? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Observation: Picking just one of the more unique names out of the list, Chelyabinsk, I went to that page. It's about the city, the namesake of the submarine. Fair enough, the city rightfully claims WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But what about the submarine? There is no link to it at Chelyabinsk. And Chelyabinsk (submarine), where by all rights the article about the sub should be, is not even a redirect to the article about the sub. Why is the link and redirect missing? Because the convention for submarines is to preemptively disambiguate per some overly-precise naming scheme, and so editors make sure the articles are at the "right" place based on their convoluted naming formats, but naturally totally overlook the Wikipedia fundamentals (like making sure there is a link at Chelyabinsk and a redirect at Chelyabinsk (submarine). Now that I've pointed out these particular oversights, someone can and probably will fix them, but the big problem remains: because the convention is to preemptively disambiguate the article titles, these types of errors are rampant. Just say no to preemptive disambiguation, for the good of Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have raised this issue at the naming conventions page. Your proposal to change the guidelines received no support. You have gone back to the practice of citing a long list of guideline pages and claim that WP:Naming conventions (ships) is 'contrary to following the protocol of...', or 'that blatantly contradict the widely followed general Wikipedia guidelines'. This is your opinion. On none of these pages does it indicate that the style used here is to be avoided. For example you have taken that brief line in the opening summary of WP:PRECISION ('where necessary') as a ruling that disambiguation must be cut back to the bare minimum. When I pointed out to you that this was merely your interpretation, you treated me like an idiot, saying 'what part of it had I not understood'. Your attempt to secure this viewpoint in a general discussion did not achieve consensus, one of the final comments being 'Serge does not see the advantage of predictable names, but he is almost alone in this inability'. You have been treated with considerable patience over this. I have tried to resist engaging you in this crusade because you clearly hold such strong views over the issue of disambiguation, but when you continue to recycle your opinions as facts that our poor little niche has been unable to comprehend, and continue to press your point of view of bemoaning our blatant inability to understand why we are all in the wrong, it becomes disruption to push your point of view, no matter how unintentional. Your last lines below - "Mindless naming is not necessarily a bad thing (though I believe it is for a variety of reasons), but that's clearly what this is, isn't it? ... If anyone disagrees, I would like to understand why." - is clearly an indicator that this is your personal opinion, and one that people have been debating with you on this page, on the naming conventions page and on other policy pages about the issue of disambiguation, and you have not been able to accept this. 'Just say no to preemptive disambiguation, for the good of Wikipedia' is your viewpoint, not the project's. When that changes, this issue can be revisited. Otherwise, it's time to draw this to a close. Benea (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Benea, at the ships naming conventions talk page you asserted that my proposal was "a solution in search of a problem". I replied by explaining in detail what the problems were that my proposal would be solving, and also addressed every point you made. You never responded to that, and here you keep posting about my proposal and arguments, but not actually addressing the content of anything I'm saying. This is not a discussion. And yes, of course this is about personal opinion. Both sides necessarily are in such discussions about naming. But the discussions are supposed to be about the reasons that support each opinion, not whining about the other side being an opinion. Of course it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you are continuing to belabour us with links to guidelines that you say we are violating. You don't see the need to explain how these guidelines identify our conventions as being wrong, and a search through those guidelines reveals that many of these things are open to interpretation. You have interpreted it, and expressed those opinions on the general guideline page, the specific ship naming conventions page and now here. Other people, myself included, don't agree with your antipathy towards predictable disambiguation, nor do I see why because you think we are not addressing your concept of the big picture, we should be badgered and insulted for it, or that you should at each stage make such opinionated comments such as 'blatantly wrong' and about us having our blinders on over what is your opinion, that does not have consensus. You have expressed your opinion, have the good grace to accept that other people have disagreed, without feeling the need to challenge it at every step. Benea (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Benea, I would be happy to agree to disagree, as long as I understand the nature of the disagreement. I do admit that I've been assuming the contradiction is obvious -- it's certainly been recognized in other contexts by many others, Belhalla even came close to acknowledging it here when he wrote, "the very nature of a wiki can allow for what may appear to be contradictory interpretations of policies" -- and that there is no need to spell it out. I don't understand whether you're saying that preemptive disambiguation doesn't contradict the general guidelines I've been citing, or that you recognize the contradiction, but are okay with it (believing that the advantages of predabbing, at least in this niche, outweigh the disadvantages of contradicting the general guidelines and any problems caused by doing so). I believe it's the former, but I'm not sure. Please clarify. Regardless which is your position, I'm in the dark with respect to the reasons for holding that position. What are they? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• Neither. This is like choosing between getting a paper cut on the left or right side of the tongue. Both current and proposed names are horrible. I suppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) is to blame. Wikipedia article titles are supposed to convey the most common name of the topic of the article, with additional information for precision only when necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name (per WP:PRECISION), and even then only when the given topic is not primary usage for the name in question. Having these article titles prefixed with "Countryname submarine" means the titles are not conveying the name of the article topic. This practice is inconsistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. I would support something which is consistent with Wikipedia general naming guidelines and conventions, like the following.

• Russian submarine K-141 Kursk → Kursk K-141
• Russian submarine K-239 Carp → Karp K-239
• Russian submarine K-173 Chelyabinsk → Chelyabinsk K-173
• Russian submarine K-414 Daniil Moskovsky → Daniil Moskovskiy K-414
• Russian submarine TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy → Dmitriy Donskoy TK-208
• Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa → Nerpa K-152
• Russian submarine K-407 Novomoskovsk → Novomoskovsk K-407
• Russian submarine K-336 Pskov → Pskov K-336
• Russian submarine K-456 Vilyuchinsk → Vilyuchinsk K-456
• Russian submarine K-157 Vepr → Vepr K-157
• Russian submarine K-496 Borisoglebsk → Borisoglebsk K-496
• Soviet submarine K-278 Komsomolets → Komsomolets K-278
• Soviet submarine K-3 Leninsky Komsomol → Leninskiy Komsomol K-3

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support, with the proviso that the vessels' designations should be bracketed - as with, for example, USS Chicago (SSN-721) or HMS Victorious (S29). "Russian submarine" is a useless disambiguator, since there's only one Kursk (K-141). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The disambiguator "(Russian submarine)" is useful, because "Kursk" has other meanings: see Kursk (disambiguation). In "Kursk K-141", the naval code K-141 means little to many readers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, the most appropriate name is simply Kursk (submarine). Note that this title already redirects to this article. This form clearly identifies the most common name of the topic, Kursk, and clearly disambiguates from all other uses. If there were other (non-Russian) submarines named Kursk, then Kursk (Russian submarine) would be appropriate. K-141 should not be in the title unless it is part of the name, or, perhaps, to disambiguate it from other Russian submarines named Kursk. As a reminder, per WP:PRECISION, additional information in the title for precision is appropriate when necessary. Whether such information is necessary needs to be decided on a per-article basis, forcing a comparative evaluation of all uses of the particular name in question (in this case Kursk), rather than blindly following some mindless naming format. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose alternative proposal. This is not in keeping with long-established consensus nor with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) in regard to names of naval vessels in navies that do not use prefixes. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Being long-established does not erase the fact that this consensus and naming convention is and has been inconsistent with, and in violation of, the even longer-established more general naming conventions, guidelines and policies, not to mention how many problems are created because of it. But keep your blinders on and only look at this from the perspective of this little niche of Wikipedia, and how to make it easer to predictably determine the names of all the articles in this niche, as if that solves a problem that needs to be solved. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can respect that you have a differing view on the ship naming conventions (notice I didn't call it "wrong" as you did my opinion in your edit summary). Unfortunately, the very nature of a wiki can allow for what may appear to be contradictory interpretations of policies, guidelines, etc. In any case, you presented your case for changes to the ships naming convention there, and were rebuffed. I stated my opinion on the alternative proposal and how it is contrary to the consensus naming convention. Keep the personal attacks to yourself, please. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with Bellhalla here, your contributions seem to this debate have descended to the level of simply insisting that we've got the whole thing wrong. This was discussed at the naming convention page, and your suggestions achieved no consensus whatsoever, similar to how your other wider proposal about disambiguation also received no support. You have interpreted the guidelines one way, and it has been demonstrated that your view is a minority one. Please stop attempting to claim that your opinions are right and that everyone else is wrong because they disagree. Statements such as 'But keep your blinders on' and 'blindly following some mindless naming format' are unnecessarily insulting, and this is now coming across as disruption to push your point of view. Benea (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No insults or disruptions were intended, and I apologize for conveying that. But I will continue to hold that predisambiguatory naming conventions are "mindless naming formats" that allow for being "blindly followed", by definition. That is, their very purpose is to define how articles are to be named within a particular niche (if you will) so that the article names in that niche are predetermined, don't have to be thought about, other potentially conflicting uses of the primary name of each article in that niche don't have to be considered, etc. If this is not trying to achieve mindless article naming, I don't know what is. Mindless naming is not necessarily a bad thing (though I believe it is for a variety of reasons), but that's clearly what this is, isn't it? And again, no insults are intended, I'm just calling it the way I see it. If anyone disagrees, I would like to understand why. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture

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)

Chinese Farm

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)

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)

Granit Cruise Missiles

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)

Um, what? HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

New Book: Lost Subs

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))

Raising the Kursk

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))

Raising - 'the risk assessment'

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)

Article Assessment

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)

Info missing on rescue attemps

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)

If you've got some good refs, feel free to add those in. peterl (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Would they had any chance to survive when getting out of the submarine in 80 meter depth?

The submarine sank to 100 meters and I guess it is 20 meters high so the sailors would have to get out at a depth of 80 meters. What would have been their chances to survive at this depth? --2003:F5:CF01:4160:428:B43B:3BBB:492B (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Had the victims. In general, had a chance? To stay alive.

Escape hatch. Was thick and tightly locked. Before they leave your port. Another thing. Yes, it is also interesting. Has the combat swimmer made a military career? Well here we assume. Discreet and quiet. To close the escape hatch. Basically, it was only possible under water. Yes, and on. why did he do that? How was it explained to him? That he has to obey such a dubious order? Further . Such an important one "Ekschen". Feeled, presumably - not a marine or a non-commissioned officer.

Yeah, by the way. z. B. we. Young Wikipedia User's. Under no circumstances would have done something like that. Or, - done, but not quite right, etc.Ah Colonel mon Colonel (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)