No comments. If the message below is accurate, then we are facing
very very serious problems. Please an expert to cast some light!
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:51:49 +0200
From: democrite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Nestor or Miguel Gorojovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Fwd: Kursk hit by British submarine (part2)]
democrite a écrit :
> "Russian Naval Sherlock Holmes"
>
> http://www.redstar.ru/kursk5.html
>
> (parts of the article in Red Star - Krasnaya Zvezda from 22/08/00)
>
> ... But what precisely has caused the crash of the newest and the
> most modern submarine in the world? There is in our fleet a man
> beaten many times by life and by his bosses, an admiral from the
> submarinists ranks. .. I consider him to be the naval version of
> Sherlock Holmes, in every case, contra-admiral Anatoly Tikhonovich
> Shtyrov whose hair gone gray during his service in the Northern
> fleet, is God-given analyst who has behind him the most dreadful
> situations during the Cold War. - Anatoly Tikhonovich, doesn't this
> story with Kursk remind you another tragedy - with the submarine
> K-129 back in 1968? - Not only reminds - it simply struck me with
> the similarity of the scenarios of both these tragedies. Of both
> versions that were and are going around about the reasons behind it.
> Look for yourself: several days later after the disappearance in the
> Northern part of the Pacific of our submarine an American submarine
> "Swordfish" comes into the Japanese port of Yokosuka with a badly
> damaged fence of the deck cabin . They are making it a "plastic
> surgery" virtually immediately after the arrival, and thereafter it
> returns back to its base and is disappearing from our vision for a
> year and a half. That's how long it really took to repair the
> damage. From its crew there has been taking a written promise to
> keep silence about what has happened. And practically immediately
> Pentagon has launched its own "version" of the events - according to
> which "the Russian submarine has had its own explosion of an
> accumulator battery on board"! I can tell you with confidence that
> in all history of the submarines NOT A SINGLE SUBMARINE has lost its
> hermetic after an explosion of a battery on board. This is hydrogen,
> not a trotyl. Besides, the pressure from the outside of the
> submarine eases the strength of the internal explosion considerably.
> That should also be taken into consideration if you speak about the
> possibility of an internal explosion as a reason of the tragedy on
> Kursk.
>
> Today it is exactly the same as back in 1968: Kursk is at the bottom
> of the sea, on its rear, with a characteristic hole on one side,
> typical for an
>
> external hit - a hole obviously of external origin, according to the
> information of the Government's Commission. Just as it was on K-129,
> Kursk' s periscope and its other parts which can be moved out, are
> out. Just as the Swordfish back in 1968, a NATO nuclear submarine
> has demanded for help in a Norwegian port, one of those foreign
> submarines that were in the area of the exercises of the Russian
> Northern fleet at the time. And just as it was back in 1968,
> Pentagon immediately started speaking about "an internal explosion"
> on the Russian submarine...Familiar till pain version! ... But it
> wasn't just "one click sound" that was registered by,among others,
> our own naval vessel Pyort Velikiy , - there were 2 ENORMOUS HITS ,
> with an interval of 2 minutes and 12 seconds between them. Wouldn't
> a collision of 2 colossal submarines, one of 18.000 tons and another
> one of at least 6000 tons, be registered like that ? Wouldn't the
> hitting of the undersea ground by our sub 2 minutes and 12 seconds
> later be registered as this second seism signal ? ...
>
> Here I will ask the commander of a similar to Kursk submarine,
> "Smolensk",
> Cpt. A.Ephanov:
> "Arkady Petrovich, the Russian NTV station (the most pro Western TV
> station in Russia -I.M) has reported am American version that on
> Kursk a torpedo
>
> that wasn't fully launched yet, started to burn, and because of this
> 2 other torpedoes on the neighboring sections have exploded... -
> That is a complete and utter nonsense. Nobody uses real torpedoes
> during the exercises, only the special ones - those that do not have
> explosives in their head part - only the various measuring
> apparatus. The American experts know it very well. It's only the
> housewives who do not know it - and it is the mass public that the
> NATO wants to believe into this version: "again
>
> those Russian have exploded something! They always have those
> explosions - in Chernobyl, in the streets of Moscow etc..." I can
> tell you even more ; during the exercises we are always taking out
> the real torpedoes from the other sections of the vessel: the God is
> taking care of those who take care of themselves. Another important
> thing is that Kursk was found with its periscope up.Today's nuclear
> submarines, and even the diesel ones , do not shoot from under its
> periscope. It was only during the WW II. What? There were rumors
> that we were testing the top secret weapons? My dear, who will test
> such weapons on a regular polygon during the regular
>
> exercises/ There are special polygons for that in our "closed",
> internal
>
> waters..."
> We are coming back to Shtyrov now:
> "Every rumors has its author. And all those "versions of the
> independent"
> experts are an old and well tested weapon in the information war, in
> the war for the minds of the people, for their moods and beliefs.
> The version ofan "internal explosion" suits perfectly the NATO
> generals; you blew it yourself, and sort it out for yourself. we
> aren't involved into any bloodshed." "But the US have officially
> confirmed that there were at least 2 American and 1 British
> submarines near the area of the exercises at the time. And
>
> that the distance between them and Kursk was 200 miles. "
> "About the distance of 200 miles - that is said simply for the mass
> public. Being there really at such distance, they could simply not
> fulfill what they came into this area at this time in the first
> place - to do the technical and the hydroacustical intelligence and
> to "keep an eye" on our submarines at the distance of a torpedo hit.
> In reality - and that can be confirmed by any commander who has
> sailed the Atlantic, - the distance between the submarines in such
> situations is often less than 1 km. Plus some foreign
>
> commanders are considering it the biggest "show-off" they can
> impress their crew and their bosses with - to "dive" under the
> targeted submarine. This "show-off" could cost life of K-129 and
> also most probably -of K-219 in 1986, when the American nuclear
> submarine Augusta was "fooling around" it in the sea. This case is
> reported in the recent American documentary book «Hostile wаters»
> by Cpt. Peter Hoohthausen and officers R. Alan White and Igor
> Kudrin... - Anatoly Tikhonovich, I expect some questions in the sort
> of "didn't our submarines, our people hear that they are being
> followed"? Why couldn't they move aside or prevent the collision in
> any other way? - Imagine 2 airplanes without illuminators at their
> pilots cabins. They are following each other blindly. The pilots of
> the first plane are only suspecting that they are being followed,
> but they can't hear the other plane because of the noise their on
> motor is creating. In order to hear it they would need to step aside
> quickly and unexpectedly for the other one. How
>
> would such a maneuver end?
> All commanders of the Russian and the American submarines are
> obliged from time to time to move aside from their course in order
> to listen to the area which is normally unreachable for their
> acoustics because of their own motor noise. The submarine that is
> following, is unable to predict such a move. The distance of the
> following isn't that big - the speed is about 15-20 knots (30-40
> km/h). There are no breaks under water. Both "the hunter" and "the
> target" are not turning on their hydrolocators in order not to
> reveal themselves. Under such conditions the collisions happen...
>
> - The Russian TV reporter from the main Russian RTR channel, Arkady
> Mamontov, has reported that some foreign parts (some rescue buoys of
> the
>
> foreign origin) were picked up by the sailors of the Russian vessel
> Pyotr Velikiy... - That is a very important information. ТAll
> submarines of the world are carrying on board the rescue buoys on
> their bodies. There must be a number or the name of the submarine on
> this buoy, there must be information to which state it belongs.
> There wasn't a number on it. But nobody goes on an intelligence
> operation with documents in his pocket. -It looks like a car crash
> with "hit-and-run" situation, where the hitting car has left its
> license plate at the scene. Can't we trace it based on that? - Try
> it. In the first place, the numbers are deliberately washed off. In
> the second place, they will claim that the buoy was simply "brought
> to this area by the stream" and that they were lost 100 miles away
> from here during a storm... -OK, but if the collision was so strong,
> that means that the Western submarine must be also strongly
> damaged... - Yes, and that will be impossible to hide. But it will
> be perfectly possible to declare that this damage was received in
> another part of the
>
> world during a collision with an underwater rock...."Who is not
> caught red-handed, is not a thief", as they say in Russia...But if
> we would discover a damaged submarine at the sea bottom near Kursk -
> that would be a different kettle of fish...
> - But how did it survive while ours sank?
> - Did you try to hit 2 Easter eggs on each other?If you will hit
> with a nose of one into the side of the other, you will break it for
> sure. The similar case is also with the submarines. The nose is much
> stronger than the sides. More than that - Kursk was hit at its most
> vulnerable place, between the 2 compartments (torpedo and the living
> one). It is important to remind here that ALL THE PREVIOUS
> COLLISIONS OF THE SOVIET/RUSSIAN SUBMARINES WITH THE AMERICAN ONES
> HAVE HAPPENED PRECISELY THIS WAY - by a hit on the side.It is also
> important to underline that in all history the American side has
> never confessed that it participated in those events, despite not
> only damage to their fleet, but even the PARTS OF METAL OF THEIR
> SUBMARINES THAT WAS JAMMED IN THE BODY OF OURS! - Do you expect the
> guilty side to admit the fact of its collision with Kursk? - I don't
> think so. After all this attention of the world for the rescue
>
> operation and the agony of the Russian submarine to confess this
> would be too brave step for them. It's much easier to deny
> everything - just the way it was with K-129.
> I can say that until the investigation will be completed we will
> not
> put a
> blaming finger on anybody... But according to all the information
> that we have at the moment, we can only conclude this logic chain...
>
> E-mail address of Red Star: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------- End of forwarded message -------
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
