Jump to content

Talk:Kursk submarine disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeKursk 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
DateProcessResult
November 21, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...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.

    Regarding the power of the explosion(s)

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    „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

    [edit]

    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?

    [edit]

    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]