Scorpion and Thresher
 

I had heard of the US nuke subs lost during the cold war but havent seen anything about them in a while.Yesterday evening on one of the 10 discovery channels I get(lol) there was a thing about how DR Robert Ballard of Titanic fame went on secret survey missions of the wrecks of Thresher and Scorpion while under the guise of looking for the Titanic.

Some pretty good evidence the Soviets sank the Scorpion from there and other things I have read.They had motive(revenge for one of their subs that was rammed in the Pacific) means...their own nuke sub.They had information leaked from spy John Walker who told them about Scorpion's location so they had the opportunity to ambush her.They also knew they were likely to get away with it since no one would ever know or be able to prove it.Also, was the US going to go to war over one submarine?

Just wanted to get other views.Don't want an ugly insult fest to start, so keep it respectful.Just want to know what others have read, think etc.

I find it unlikely that a soviet sub commander would risk something as stupid as that.

I do as well but if acting on orders, no doubt he would hestitate. Doubt it was a rogue Captain type thing. Cold War is over, just wish could get the whole truth.

Well they are still sunk...

This again? An Echo-II some how sneaked up on a Skipjack class boat and got within weapons range.

First an Echo-II sonar fit was garbage and is noisy as hell.
Second the best Soviet ASW fish of that time was the SET-65 which has about a 9 knot speed advantage over a Skipjack (not much). Unless fired from with in 2nm a Skipjack could simply run it to exhaustion.

The internal explosion (Mk37 malfunction) theory is far more plausible.

See the MK 37 "hot run" explosion was dismissed by many because the bow section was left intact and I agree.


I tend to believe the Soviets attacked.Either out of revenge for the Soviet sub or when the Scorpion was diverted at last minute to check out Soviet ships operating near the Azores, they had a submarine operating with them who detected Scorpion, saw her as a threat and engaged or was ordered to engage from by someone higher up than the sub Captain and even if her abilities were limited, she got lucky.

The Soviets had motive, means, and opportunity and evidence I've read about etc suggests it.Of course no one really knows but those involved.Hopefully one day the truth will come out.

Orders from command seem even more unlikely, I don't hold any love for the soviet regime, but they weren't complete morons.

Actually I was talking about the "hot" torpedo theory not the "hot run" theory. The theory goes that a Mk37 torpedo battery malfunctioned and began to overheat. The overheating battery exploded and cause a low order detonation of the Mk 37 torpedo warhead.

Ah ok.Well they addressed that theory in the show I watched, theory was the low order detonation caused the hatch to blow and flooded the bow I believe, but they said the bow was in too good of condition for that or for a large explosion.

The evidence seems to point to them.Also consider the time, still at the height of the Cold War, had info from a spy about Scorpions location so as said motive, means, and opportunity.Maybe my legal mind but its the way i see it based on the evidence.Does this prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

Sad thing is, the government knows the truth but has not told it yet.Most of the files are still classified, perhaps one day we will know.

Ick, That could certainly ruin your day.

@bubblehead, I am not sure I can agree your opinion on the motivation. The revenge angle just does not seem plausible. How exactly would the Soviets garner any "revenge" by secretly sinking a US submarine?

I was an old cold warrior and it was my impression that the Soviets were neither stupid nor rash in what they did.

:yeah:

I am assuming that the "ramming" of the Soviet submarine is the sinking of the K-129 on or about 8 March 1968. The sinking of the USS Scorpion was on 22 May 1968.

That would mean that in 73 days the Soviets would have to

1. Determine that the K-129 had, in fact sunk. It was not declared missing until the end of March 1968.

2. Decide that the K-129 had been sunk because it was rammed by a US submarine. How would they know this at the time, especially since we don't know what caused the K-129 to sink even after we found it and recovered parts of it.

3. Decide that it would be in the best interest of the USSR to sink a US submarine as a form of Revenge

4. Maneuver a Soviet Submarine to track and follow a US Submarine (not a common thing in 1968 given the differences in technology)

5. Attack and sink the USS Scorpion.

That is a lot to do in only 73 days. And what could the Soviet command think they would gain by this? The risks far far outweigh any benefit of emotional "revenge".

The revenge story just does not make sense. Occam’s razor should be considered.

My two cents on the subject; the exact cause will never be known, and if it is known by the Navy you and I will never know. The missing puzzle piece here is what caused the Scorpion to exceed crush depth. Personally I don't buy into the "revenge" sinking for one reason. If a torpedo hit the Scorpion it would flood. If the pressure hull is full of water it can't be crushed.

Ya know, beyond arguing the relative kookiness of the Soviet government of the time, there's plenty of sound engineering evidence dismissing the Soviet torpedo theory. This article by Silent Steel author Stephen Johnson does a good job explaining why Scorpion's demise wasn't quite as sinister as conspiracy theorists would have you believe: http://www.terratol.com/sitebuilderc..._The_Myths.pdf

Depends on how much of the pressure hull is flooded. She has five compartments incl. the reactor vessel.

True, if they manage to shut as many watertight doors as they could. But given the layout of the boat I wouldn't think you would see evidence of collapse in the Engine Room and the Forward Compartment.

Didn't the back end collapse forward? From around the control surfaces forward to the aft compartment bulkhead.

Correct. The stern "telescoped" forward and the sail was blown off as a result of the hull crushing.