During the documentary a U.S. military source states that the puncture is trademark evidence of an American MK-48 torpedo, which is made to melt cleanly through steel sheet due to a mechanism at its tip that combusts copper.
The Kursk isn't made of copper, and how could the Russians possibly miss this amazing evidence if it is so obvious to a British expert?
The perfectly round hole is slightly obscured in the picture by the sheet metal bend outwards from the massive internal explosion.
A massive internal explosion would have blown out the circle cut section because explosions take the line of least resistance and the hole going in... as long as it is not heavy frontal armour, which we agree it isn't, then the outward explosion should have been centred on where the torpedo hit... unless there was no torpedo.
Projectiles are also known to deviate from a straight path once it strikes the target.
A supersonic pointed projectile rapidly decelerated by hitting fluid, or in this case gel will tend to tumble because its rear end is fat and its front end is pointed meaning the rear is heavier than the front.
There is no part of the design of a torpedo that would make it tumble and its length would mean it would not tumble... it would break up.
The better image would be of the 5.56mm bullet whose built in weakness of the cannilure makes it shatter at specific velocities during its tumble in flesh.
Also if you look at good quality internal drawings it does appear that the hit corresponds to where the torpedo room is situated.
It was not an active homing torpedo or it would have been detected by all parties, and firing a passive homing torpedo would have put the other American sub at as much risk as the Russian sub.
Active sonar homing torpedoes go for centre of mass, passive homing torpedoes go for sound... the engine rooms at the rear of the sub.
Russia had no reason at the time to cover anything up, because the alternative is that it is their own fault. Any evidence that it could be blamed on anyone else would be seized upon at least by a few people in the government.
The only naysayers are internet trolls.
How about this:
Дата 31.10.2001 11:06:44
Рубрики Современность; Флот;
Круглая дырка на Курске
Главком пояснил, что ее вырезали водолазы еще в прошлом году, никакого
отношения ни к возможному столкновению, ни к торпедированию не имеет. Ее
теперь заварят, что бы не было более досужих вымыслов:-)))
C уважением к сообществу.
From: tevolga; To: All; Date: 31.10.2001 11:06:44; Rubrics: Modernity, Fleet
Subject: Round hole on Kursk
Commander-in-chief /of the Navy/ clarified that hole was cut by divers early as in previous year /2000/, no any relation is possible to hypothetical collision or to torpedo attack. The hole will be welded now to limit more of myths :-)))
With respect to the community.
Александр _Покровский, 11 август 2012 в 09:24
В "Рубине" мне сказали насчет того отверстия: был технологический разрез.
Alexander Pokrovsky, 11 August, 2012 at 09:24
In "Rubin" (=Rubin Design Bureau, operator of the Raising operation of Kursk) I was told about this hole: was technological incision
Another issue is this:
And how about this...
Download and view this powerpoint... look at the damage a Mk-48 torpedo does hitting a Frigate... now assuming this weapon hits the torpedo room of an Oscar class SSGN with 30 odd 533mm torpedoes and missiles all packed close together... next to tubes of 7 ton Granit supersonic anti ship missiles packed in a double layer metal tube underwater... if you detonated all those warheads together with that warhead the explosion would be directed by the surrounding water... which does not compress well, down the submarine through the air that does compress well with explosions. The detonation would have travelled through the sub and killed everyone and the entire nose of the sub would have been blown off and scattered around the sea floor... instead the nose was still attached and pushed into the sand and had to be cut off to raise the sub.