Under section Examples, "A single dummy torpedo VA-111 Shkval exploded." If the torpedo were a dummy or inert, it would have had no explosives to cause an explosion or implosion. More likely, the word "dummy" needs to be omitted or clarified. My next best guess, is the item dislodged and knocked over other torpedos, although I speculate unlikely. --roger (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
-
According to the Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion Wikipedia article, "the Russian government investigation into the accident officially concluded that a faulty torpedo sank Kursk." So change the word dummy to faulty within this article. ;-) --roger (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
-
A little more research, and I've found these dummy torpedo do include a propellant, a mixture of hydrogen and kerosene. A faulty weld supposedly causes the peroxide to leak. (See Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion, section The explosion, second paragraph.) Might be best to clarify such as, "faulty dummy torpedo, a torpedo with propellant only and no explosives". When people commonly talk about dummy munitions, they're usually completely inert. If a dummy munition contains a propellant or other active feature, might be best to clarify to prevent misconception. --roger (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
