SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Bubblehead1980 · 07-19-10, 11:01 PM

The revenge sinking isn't my theory, it is one that has been put forward that makes sense and I simply put out some reasons it makes sense.The others do also, I have never said the others are wrong, I just find the soviet sinking "revenge" theory to be plausible and should not be dismissed as it has been by some.

Again, motive, means, and opportunity.

Motive: Years of cold war with some "hot incidents" , ones we may not even know about.US submarines regularly shadowed Soviet subs and ships, Soviets did same.Kind of a tension thing that one could have with another person and then it escalates a bit, maybe not into a full blown fight because you both know you will both maybe get hurt, sizing up your opponent.To put this in Cold War terms....Mututally Assured Destruction, thus why we had so many proxy wars.The Soviets suspected US was responsible for the loss of their submarine in the Pacific, this pissed off many in Soviet Union to say the least.

Revenge is a great and poweful motive for man and since governments are ran by men.What was the US's major motivation in WW II, the battlecry, avenge Pearl Harbor? Why did were Japanese Americans treated a bit different then Germans or Italians, the anger over Pearl Harbor.Point is, does not matter who you are.You can be the most calm, collected "don't take a dump without a plan" Soviet but the motive of revenge can make you do things you may not normally do.

Means: While Soviets sub of the time were not the most advanced, they were still a threat and with right information, skilled Captain and crew and some luck, they could do it.Hell less advanced subs in WW II found other submarines and sank them, one even did it submerged.

Opportunity: Some reports say convicted Spy John Walker relayed information on the Scorpions return etc and Soviets knew where they would be, they had the opportunity or if they just detected the submarine snooping around soviet vessels in the Azores area, some hotheaded lower level Commander bent on revenge ordered the Captain of said submarine to "defend" and the Soviet sub got lucky.The Soviets knowing it could not be proved due to the depths etc, covered it up and denied knowing anything about it.Possible? absolutely. Again revenge is a powerful motive.Both sides knew neither of us would go to war over one submarine, esp when it could not really prove what happened then or now.

Now many of other theories are possible of course but I tend to believe a Soviet sub, in the midst of the cold war, with tensions high, attacked the US sub because they could and knew it.Maybe it was nothing as sinister as put forward, perhaps they were worried and fired, maybe an accident but it was covered up.We will never know, but theories make sense.

The torpedo battery explosion doesnt make sense to me because Dr Ballards survey showed a bow that was intact, too intact even for a low order detonation.

The bow was intact, the stern collpased in telescope effect and the midships area was gone, kind of like if a torpedo hit it perhaps?

We will never really know until everything is declassified, hopefully one day we and more importantly, the families of those loss will.

07-19-10, 11:01 PM	#4
Bubblehead1980 Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 7,105 Downloads: 605 Uploads: 44	re The revenge sinking isn't my theory, it is one that has been put forward that makes sense and I simply put out some reasons it makes sense.The others do also, I have never said the others are wrong, I just find the soviet sinking "revenge" theory to be plausible and should not be dismissed as it has been by some. Again, motive, means, and opportunity. Motive: Years of cold war with some "hot incidents" , ones we may not even know about.US submarines regularly shadowed Soviet subs and ships, Soviets did same.Kind of a tension thing that one could have with another person and then it escalates a bit, maybe not into a full blown fight because you both know you will both maybe get hurt, sizing up your opponent.To put this in Cold War terms....Mututally Assured Destruction, thus why we had so many proxy wars.The Soviets suspected US was responsible for the loss of their submarine in the Pacific, this pissed off many in Soviet Union to say the least. Revenge is a great and poweful motive for man and since governments are ran by men.What was the US's major motivation in WW II, the battlecry, avenge Pearl Harbor? Why did were Japanese Americans treated a bit different then Germans or Italians, the anger over Pearl Harbor.Point is, does not matter who you are.You can be the most calm, collected "don't take a dump without a plan" Soviet but the motive of revenge can make you do things you may not normally do. Means: While Soviets sub of the time were not the most advanced, they were still a threat and with right information, skilled Captain and crew and some luck, they could do it.Hell less advanced subs in WW II found other submarines and sank them, one even did it submerged. Opportunity: Some reports say convicted Spy John Walker relayed information on the Scorpions return etc and Soviets knew where they would be, they had the opportunity or if they just detected the submarine snooping around soviet vessels in the Azores area, some hotheaded lower level Commander bent on revenge ordered the Captain of said submarine to "defend" and the Soviet sub got lucky.The Soviets knowing it could not be proved due to the depths etc, covered it up and denied knowing anything about it.Possible? absolutely. Again revenge is a powerful motive.Both sides knew neither of us would go to war over one submarine, esp when it could not really prove what happened then or now. Now many of other theories are possible of course but I tend to believe a Soviet sub, in the midst of the cold war, with tensions high, attacked the US sub because they could and knew it.Maybe it was nothing as sinister as put forward, perhaps they were worried and fired, maybe an accident but it was covered up.We will never know, but theories make sense. The torpedo battery explosion doesnt make sense to me because Dr Ballards survey showed a bow that was intact, too intact even for a low order detonation. The bow was intact, the stern collpased in telescope effect and the midships area was gone, kind of like if a torpedo hit it perhaps? We will never really know until everything is declassified, hopefully one day we and more importantly, the families of those loss will.