Talk:Soviet submarine K-129 (1960)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anyone Read "Scorpion Down"?

I had the opportunity to peruse a book "Scorpion Down" that triangultes between the sinking of the K-129, the capture of the USS Pueblo (AGER-2) by the North Koreans and leakage of crypto keys by the John Anthony Walker ring as causes that resulted in the possible retaliation by the Russian Navy in the sinking of the USS Scorpion (SSN-589). Has anyone read this book in detail and can you post citations from it in the "Mutual agreement - some connection between K-129 and the loss of USS Scorpion" section?

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaking Missile Section

This is poorly written and almost seems like it was copy and pasted from somewhere else. Somebody should fix this. This section seriously hampers the flow of the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.190.138 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Collision theory section

I think this could use some expansion. I removed some unsourced conclusions, but those conclusions are probably valid if they can be properly sourced and balanced. The collisionists claim that there was no ice in the Sea of Japan at that time of year, and the anti-collisionists claim that Swordfish's sail couldn't have done that much damage. There are other claims on both sides. I think we should just present them, properly sourced, without trying to lead the reader to any particular conclusion. Rees11 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

It seems to me that the intro is a bit long and detailed. Perhaps that could be shortened a bit, and most of the rest moved into a "History" section? Jedikaiti (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just split out everything after the first paragraph. It would be nice to have more pre-sinking history but that could be hard to find. Rees11 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Layman's suggestions

I just read this article for the first time. As a layman, I don't feel qualified to make edits, but I do offer these suggestions:

1. The one fact that justifies this submarine having its own article is its mysterious sinking, but this is not mentioned in the introduction.

2. Two administrative commanders are named in the introduction. I kept looking for their names to show up again; surely they must be important, but we don't hear from them again.

3. I know what the PLAN is, but I doubt that most people do. Rather than introduce (yet) another military acronym, perhaps "Chinese" might suffice.

4. I know how difficult it is to write a decent article when conspiracy theories abound. I think this article does a nice job of presenting the competing theories without getting embroiled in the arguments. Cwelgo (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sewell's "Red Star Rogue"

The Project Jennifer article in wikipedia has shown us how to isolate Sewell's conspiracy theory from the history of the K-129 event. Please refer to the discussion page of that article for the reasoning behind what is sure to be a controversial edit that I'm about to make to this article.

Gwyncann 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Watched Phantom last night and Sewell's interview in the bonus section. What a bozo! He can't seem to get timelines, directions, or distances correct. Anything he writes should be dismissed as pure fantasy. He places the wreck at 40N 180W on one day (to make targeting calculations easier) and then a few days later 1200 miles away at French Frigate Shoals. Parking on a lat/long intersection is laughable. What where they using to do the spherical trig targeting calculations, an abacus?

User:Dbryant_94560 —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He's using popular press notation, a system of mathematics that involves no calculation beyond one's physical digits, when stressed, using one's toes, but in preference not doing that level of precision. That said, it's notable, even if a fallacy involving a diesel/electric boat traveling at nuclear boat maximum speeds (being overly generous). The film will emphasize that in the public mind, hence inclusion remains notable, even if laughable and technologically impossible at that time.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Administative Inconsistencies

The newly added section, Alternative explination theory doesn't have proper spelling or grammatical format. I usually don't agree with such criticism but it also appears to be placed in the wrong area and is missing citations of any kind. I hesitate to summarily delete it, but I can't see that it provides anything more than an unverifiable conspiracy theory. So, I'm passing the buck and seeing if someone else will do something about it.

Mentor397 04:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the conspiracy theory ramblings at the end of the section, and add citation tags for the bullet points in the first half of the section. I would suggest that most of rest of the section be deleted if sufficient sources can't be found. the_raptor 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For this information to be useful for me, the identification of the skill sets/ratings of the redundant crewmen may indicate the likely areas the Soviets anticipated problems - basically throwing in more men to fix something. For example, if they were the propulsion system, then this might indicate problems with the engine. If for the missile, then problems with the SLBMs were the likely area of concern. maclilus (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, to me, it sounds like a training rotation reinforcing a regular crew. That would trivially account for the overmanning. Add in a hasty deterrence mission that would be considered a good idea with a newly graduated group for training, it would explain also the pulling of the manning jacket and the increased likelihood of its loss. Things can get really stupid once paperwork goes outside of the operational chain. In every nation's military. But, that is OR, even if a very well educated guess OR and not worthy of inclusion in the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Article bias

To me, checking the article after sending an online reader here, this article is biased in implying there were any number of possible reasons for the sinking. The more "possibilities" that are presented, the less likely a reader is to believe any particular one. I'm especially concerned about the section "Unauthorized missile launch", because, if true, it's the single most important thing about the whole article, and yet mention of it is so far down, most casual readers might never see it.

Reading also suggested to me that the conclusion that a casual reader of the paragraph might take away is that Sewell's information was "undermined". That is, invalid. And it goes on to explain, with significant synthesis bias, that K-129 wasn't in the right place to bomb Pearl Harbor, but could only reach Midway Atoll. The thing is, for the purposes of Sewall's hypothesis, an attack on Midway would have produced exactly the same reaction from the United States.

The declassified CIA document link is interesting, it also has huge sections blanked out. That is, it is relevant to the Wikipedia article, but cannot be held to be absolutely reliable. Cannot be held to be unbiased, that is, in the format it is presented.

There is unwarranted speculation in the Wikipedia paragraph that KGB leaders would have known all about safeguards. That is pure, unfounded, and apparently uninformed opinion.

The whole article seems to dance around the fact that John Pina Craven is a hugely important and decorated, authoritative manager associated with the project to raise the K-129, who published a book that bluntly says that the Soviets might have been planning a nuclear attack. Read his Wikipedia article. (This article also fails to mention that Sewell's book was on the New York Times bestseller list for weeks.)

If that attack had happened, it might have started WWIII, as intended. That makes this theory, and this article, potentially one of the most important in Wikipedia. And this article should be clear on that, right from the start. 67.188.212.174 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The order of theories listed are by either probability as ascertained by educated guesses of experts or by official rulings on the cause of vessel loss. It's POV, true, but it's a rather official POV gathered from the opinions of experts in the field. I do consider Craven's notion ludicrous, as the distance to US installations was laughably distant from the distance to where the vessel was found, even when accounting from drift from initial loss of depth control. If one accepts his notions, one might as well blame Scotty from the Starship Enterprise for beaming the vessel so far off from its initial sinking location! A pure and distilled fact is that both a KGB officer and the command officer held control of the nuclear missiles, neither one could independently launch. Both could attempt to collude, but additional personnel were present to interfere with that. That happens to have been well documented and trivially available to any researcher.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please update with 2012 information

Project Azorian: The CIA and the Raising of the K-129 by Norman Polmar and Michael White (ISBN 978-1-59114-668-1) was published in September 2012. The book reports that a Soviet sailor's remains were found in his bunk and that he had been reading a book when he died. The conclusion made by the CIA was that the crew had no warning of the disaster and that their deaths were immediate. Damage to the silos in the sail indicates that a missile's engine ignited while the missile was not in launch position (it was not an explosion of the missile's fuel tanks). What is interesting is that the ignition began within seconds of midnight. The book does not say so, but couple an accidental midnight ignition with the submarine's position on the international date line, and the possibility seems to arise of a computer program error being the root cause. Yes, the launch controller was probably an analog computer and the "program" was hardwired, making this possibility a long shot, but it should be considered and the article updated by a subject matter expert to reflect this 2012 revelation. tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not read the book, so which midnight did the explosion occur? Local midnight or midnight, Moscow time, or midnight UTC time? An explosion while not in launch position means that the missile doors were not opened. Damage to the sail could have caused a leak of propellant and/or seawater. It could also have caused a leak of peroxide or similar steam/gas generation used to eject the missile from the tube. Either way, overpressure would force the missile door open *and* cause a catastrophic failure that created a path for seawater into the pressure hull. The launch computer could have been analog, could as easily been an early hybrid or digital model. Discrete component digital computers were in use in both nation's military forces at the time, crude by today's standards, but they existed and tended to be used with strategic forces. Anything not well cited would simply be WP:OR. Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Recovery Site"

There are a few sections where it referrers to the "alleged" recovery site. I believe that since there are several independent sources, (EG British commercial vessel that requested medical help, and the sonar triangulation of the explosion site. Also the constant soviet ships observing the recovery). This should be removed and the site is not alleged. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer5054 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hydrogen explosion paragraph mixes up two different things: hydrogen explosion is an explosion of the gaseous hydrogen, generated during battery charging, when mixed with the submarine air in sufficient concentration.

Whereas the explosion mentioned by Dr. Craven is an battery explosion, i.e. explosion of the batteries themselves due to short circuit caused by seawater. Especially in the context he mentioned it in his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.212.126 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How many dead?

I was wondering are there no legimate source on how many died? DoctorHver (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Secretive?

Please don’t use this word to mean ‘classified’, ‘confidential’, ‘undercover’, or ‘covert’.

‘Secretive’ is used to describe the character of a human being, a person who is sly, indirect, generally dissembling of their true feelings or intentions. The word should not be used to describe the acts or policies of organisations. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:F4EA:46AC:106E:B260 (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

K-129 route and speed to patrol area

In his book "The Silent War" John P. Craven states that subs in general travel along great circle tracks to their destination. He also states that the Soviets started their search for K-129 in Kamchatka at a latitude of 65 deg N. This suggest that after leaving its base in Petropavlovsk, which is at 53 deg N, K-129 first took on a northern course. A possible destination might have been the Soviet nuclear arsenal Anadyr'-1, which was located close to the Kamchatka coast at 65 deg N. Is there any other evidence on the track K-129 took after leaving its base?

K-129 also reached a distance of 1230 nm from Petropavlovsk in 13 days. If travelling along a great circle, this corresponds to an average speed of 4 knots. Any evidence for this being the typical speed for a diesel-powered Soviet sub travelling to its patrol area? Enemenemu (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV???

Yeah. Citing US sources on a cold war incident involving a possible collision between a Soviet sub and a US sub. I've got no idea where to find more (non-US) sources on this, but I encourage anyone who does to edit this article.

I have done some digging on this topic, and the Russian version is officially a snorkeling accident, and unofficially that the US did it and is covering it up. Only thing missing is any documentation to show either to be accurate. Until the CIA opens the related files, we're not going to know much more. Just a picture, or pictures, of the sub on the ocean floor would probably illuminate the situation immeasurably. Wish the CIA would declassify at least those, as they shouldn't impact anyone's security (or perhaps the answers to the open questions would?) Aki Korhonen 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a personal account (sorry, in Russian) on this story [1] by Anatoly Shtyrov, who presumably was deputy head of intelligence of Pacific Fleet of USSR at the time (from middle of 70s, according to text). If you need any help with Russian, I can spend some time to help with translation. silpol 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bad that the url www.navy.ru is not accessible. However, I would doubt that Shtyrov would have any more insight beyond what has been covered.Moryak (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I was there

I expected ww3 the next day. How we knew K-129 was rogue was unknown to me. We were on top for 3 1/2 days, 2 crews 12 hour flights, to prevent missile launches. The Russians did not sleep for those 3 1/2 days, we were extremely noisy and there was no other sub in the area. On Day 3, we were ordered to leave the area immediately because a destroyer was taking over tracking the sub, I protested saying the ship could not track the sub, but we were ordered to leave immediately. I left the sonobuoy audio on to listen to the surface ship's sonar, but the recorder chart went completely white due to the explosion. Officially it was said we were tracking a whale. 208.104.45.32 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)