Talk:Kursk submarine disaster

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kursk submarine disaster article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Kursk submarine disaster was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 21, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 12, 2009, August 12, 2010, August 12, 2013, August 12, 2017, and August 12, 2022.

Military history: Maritime / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Russia: Technology & engineering / History / Military Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Nadezhda Tylik was copied or moved into Kursk submarine disaster with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Regarding the power of the explosion(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_submarine_incidents_since_2000 says that "...This second explosion was equivalent about 3-7 tons of TNT..." This fact has a source

Before I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion, it said "...Monitoring equipment showed an explosion equivalent to 100 kg of TNT..." This fact doesnt have a source.

Therefore I am changing 100 kg of TNT to 3-7 tons of TNT.

Film: Kursk: a Submarine in Murky Waters

Kursk conspiracy is equated to Bush stealing election in Florida. I want to believe but not in cuckoo kaka.

May/might differences

The past form of the auxiliary verb "may" is "might". We do not say "I thought you may be tired", because "thought" describes a past time and "may" a present time. There is a notion among weak English students that "might" is somehow an ungrammatical form, owing to its incorrect use as a present form in expressions such as "I might go with you tomorrow."

Now, we can correctly say "I think you may have erred", as the "may" refers to a present, not a past, uncertainty. One such expression has been left in the text of this article. The other three usages of "may" to describe past uncertainties were wrong and have now been corrected. Please do not revert these corrections.Chenopodiaceous (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental drop of explosive cartridge by initial survivors

„Captain-Lieutenant Kolesnikov and two others had attempted to recharge the oxygen generation system when they accidentally dropped one of the chemical superoxide cartridges into the sea water slowly filling the compartment.“

The „accidentally“ seems assumed and should be dropped. The source provided is insufficient.

It is not known whether the explosion was indeed an accident or a deliberate attempt to end suffering in a situation that was perceived as hopeless.

Death of survivors

In this section it states that it is unlikely that any Russian or foreign vessels could have reached Kursk in time to rescue survivors - citng a source published December 2000, before the salvage, and counter to earlier post-salvage analysis in the article, including the possibility that survivors could have lived up to 3 days (well within reach of Norwegian-British rescue). 2A00:23EE:13B0:87B1:9BFB:AB4D:6151:75D4 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that there is an apparent contradiction between this section and the fact that the British/Norwegian assistance arrived the day after President Putin accepted. But it is not clear whether the resources needed for that help had been moved much nearer the sinking site in the period between the initial offers and the date of acceptance. Without that information, it isn't clear whether arrival would have been within 3 days of the sinking. Sbishop (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this description referring to?

In the Naval exercise section the last sentence of the 4th paragraph gives dimensions of what appears to be the torpedo.

"It was 10.7 m (35 ft) long and weighed 5 t (4.9 long tons; 5.5 short tons).[14]". Is this accurate? A 35ft torpedo seems really large. Most modern torpedos are not this large. Syohannan (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems properly sourced, and agrees generally with Type 65 torpedo. (Hohum ^@) 15:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]