Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Mark Test" wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Stinky Pete wrote:

The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub
sinks
and
its crew is lost (Kursk).

But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.

Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
in Norway where it had limped off to.


SMH

Stephen,
I was going to get "spun up" over you comment, then I realized
you must be joking.

Here's why; the KURSK displaced 24,000 tons, wheras an LA
displaces 6,900 tons, and a UK Trafalger / Swiftsure class
displace 5,200 / 4,900 tons. So you see how ludicrous it is to suggest
that a HUGE double hulled sub could have been taken down
by a collision with a sub 1/4 it's size.

Nice joke though.

Mark

Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.

Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?

And of course it was a torpedo, not a missile...

John