It now appears that you are the torpedo expert and Maurice Stradling, a former torpedo engineer and a key figure in the original investigation into the sinking of the Kursk knows squat!
What are you talking about... this so called expert is British.... the original investigation WAS NOT BRITISH. The investigation was Russian and would not be shared with any foreign experts because the sub was secret.
Generally Torpedos do not use shaped charge HEAT warheads... you have already stated yourself the outer hull is not made of tank armour, and the distance between the hulls is not particularly important either... the TM-83 roadside mine can penetrate 40cm of armour plate from a distance of up to 50m and it weighs a tiny fraction of the weight of a warhead on a torpedo and has less than half the diameter too... being 25cm round.
The Mk-48 torpedo with about 300kgs of HE does not need and would never need a shaped charge warhead to penetrate Soviet subs... the idea is ridiculous.
Also mentioned before: 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 [in the torpedo's warhead].
The hole is 1.4 metres across and is not round... neither of which makes any sense with a shaped charge warhead... even if it hit at an extreme angle.
Even from your picture it is clearly a perfectly round puncture. The piece at the bottom is metal bend outwards from the secondary blast.
Bullshit... the piece at the bottom should not exist as it should have been cut in a perfect hole shape with the initial hit and then when it bent out with the secondary blast it would not be there... the fact that it is there proves there was no perfect hole cut in the first place and the rest of the theory goes up in smoke.
Therefore the Torpedo attack is bullshit... but then we already know that because how would the sub firing the torpedo prevent the torpedo from hitting the friendly sub it was launching a torpedo to protect?
Very clearly shown in a picture posted by KVS.
The photo shown by KVS is the conspiracy angle shot that hides the fact that the hole is not round, and is the most popular image for tinfoil hat nutters to masturbate over.
The indent is again clearly visible that could only have been caused by something that hit it with some force from the outside. No cutting tool could have caused that indent.
The submarine buried itself nose first into the sand there is more than enough energy there for any sort of dents and damage.
No it doesn't as all evidence was removed by then - so again from a forensic point of view the picture you posted means squat.
But in this case it is not removed evidence.... it is added evidence... added material that stops that hole being actually round... and before you claim they added it later to hide the fact that it was a torpedo attack then why not recut the hole and make it square?
Clearly you have either not read the first official statement I posted or you did not comprehend the full extend of the statement at all!?
The first official statement... before they lifted the sub?
Original source cited by Wikipedia: "Sinking of the Kursk (Russia's Nuclear Sub Nightmare)". Seconds from Disaster. National Geographic Channel. 18 April 2006
Wiki and National Geographic... such infallable sources on information about anything to do with Russia...
The explosion would
not produce the hole plus indent feature as it is physically impossible.
The hole was cut to allow divers in to that part of the sub to inspect the Granit tubes... that is why they cut it to be 1.4m round instead of .533m round like the width of a torpedo, or something like 200mm like the diameter of a plasma beam from a HEAT charge from that sized torpedo.
I have not seen any solid support for the fanciful notion that Soviet torpedos would detonate if dropped as if they were using
nitroglycerine for propellant. The leaking H2O2 theory is BS even if this is "official". A catalyst is used to set off the H2O2
decomposition reaction so the issue is not a leak but the potential triggering of the contact with the catalyst due to the
torpedo being dropped.
What are you talking about?
How the **** could they drop a torpedo? More precisely how the **** could they pick one up to drop it?
Do you think they sling one over each shoulder and carry them over to the launch tubes and push them in by hand?
What is believed to have happened is that a HTP powered torpedo (not a Shval... that is a western attempt to suggest a Russian super weapon is faulty) started up inside the sub... likely in at torpedo tube, and with no sea water to cool its engine it overheated and ruptured causing an explosion that likely blew open the torpedo tube and started a serious fire because a byproduct of HTP is oxygen in gas form as well as heat... this fire likely set off the warhead of a torpedo or perhaps just the fuel of a torpedo which was enough to devastate the torpedo room.
The Oscar is a strongly build sub but there is no way multiple torpedos exploded inside the engine room or it would be totally missing.... there would be nothing to cut off.
If hit by a torpedo there would be more external damage, which there is not.
It is not the first time a faulty torpedo has led to the sinking of a sub... a US Sub called the Stingray had a faulty torpedo which they ejected from the sub by firing through the torpedo tube... standard procedure... the gyros were not set properly on the torpedo and when launched its engine started and it went on a journey in a great arc and came around and hit the Stingray and sank her with all hands.