Scorpion Down - Don't Read This Book

Subnuts · 07-24-07, 02:54 PM

I finally made it to the end of this book the other day. Thank God it's over with. I haven't had to read through a more ridiculous, insulting pile of crap in a long time. As the book reviewer for the site, this is my rough draft review:

The May 22, 1968 sinking of the American nuclear-powered attack submarine Scorpion, 450 miles Southwest of the Azores Islands, is one of the most enduring mysteries of the Cold War. The focus of the largest search operation in American naval history, the Scorpion's wreck wasn't discovered until October of 1968. The hull was in three sections, the fairwater had been torn off, and the stern was shoved 50 feet forward into the auxiliary machinery space. All of the compartments except for the torpedo room had suffered massive implosion damage, implying that the torpedo room alone had flooded before Scorpion exceeded it's crush depth.

No one has ever been able to determine what really happened to the Scorpion. Had one of the torpedoes exploded while still inside it's tube? Did the Trash Disposal Unit fail? Did the diving planes jam themselves in full down position, sending the submarine into an out of control dive? A small percentage believed that foul play on the part of Soviet Navy caused the destruction of the Scorpion. Most of these theories have been pretty thoroughly debunked, but that didn't stop Ed Offley from writing Scorpion Down.

Where does one begin when reviewing a book like Scorpion Down - Sunk By The Soviets, Buried By The Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion? This book is so riddled with logic flaws, second-hand circumstantial evidence posing as "smoking guns," idle speculation regarding conspiracy theories, and convenient side-stepping, that it reads more like a bad spy novel than a "shocking expose." Scorpion Down begins with a quote from George Orwell's 1984, and ends with a statement from the author that the responsibility for the book's accuracy is his alone. If there was any justice in the world, it would open with "this is no ****!" and end with a money back offer.

Ed Offley wants me to accept a number of extremely questionable assertions that go against everything I've learned over the years. He wants me to believe that the Soviets, tired of American submarines being overly aggressive during surveillance missions, sank the Scorpion as a warning to the United States. He wants me to believe that the Soviet submarine that sank the Scorpion (a hot-rod attack submarine presumably capable of speeds of up to 35 knots) was one of the slowest and noisiest boats in their fleet, not to mention ill-equipped to hunt other submarines. He wants me to believe that the Scorpion was destroyed by a torpedo, despite reams of evidence to the contrary. He wants me to believe that the Russians spilled the beans to the Americans just days after the sinking, and that a small elite tried to cover up the truth. There's plenty of other absurd things that Mr. Offley so desperately wants me to believe, almost none of which make a lick of sense.

Ed Offley began his research for Scorpion Down way back in 1983, when he was writing an article for the Norfolk Ledger-Star on the 15th anniversary of the sinking. I imagine he would have given up by now if it weren't for the 2006 release of Stephen Johnson's Silent Steel, a vastly superior book on the same subject. Silent Steel was a calm, in-depth examination of the last 18 months of the Scorpion's life. While Johnson devoted a sizable portion of Silent Steel to covering the large number of mechanical causalities that occurred during the sub's final deployment, Offley sweeps it all under the rug to further his conspiracy theory.

In fact, Offley sweeps pretty much anything that doesn't jive with his "Soviet torpedo" scenario under the rug. As I mentioned before, the torpedo compartment is the only section of Scorpion to survive mostly intact, and photos taken of the wreck fail to show any torpedo damage. Had the Scorpion been actually torpedoed, the entire submarine would have been flooded, and wouldn't have been crushed (or not crushed to such an extent) by hydrostatic pressure. Except for a single picture of the dismembered fairwater, Offley fails to mention the condition of the wreck anywhere in this book!

Scorpion Down also asserts that the Navy conducted a secret attempt to locate the Scorpion beginning on May 23rd, several days before the sub was officially listed as "overdue." I can buy that - submarine operations at the time were so secret that the Navy frequently had to "fudge the truth" (okay...lie) about the reality of what the submarines were really up to. This doesn't surprise me one bit. It was the height of the Cold War after all, and security was a premium. At the same time I can't find anything terribly insidious about the operation as Offley describes it. In his recounting, it becomes another part of a grand cover-up, another piece in a bodyguard of lies. Typically melodramatic.

Offley's "smoking gun," if one could honestly call it that, came from a sonar technician who graduated from the Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center in 1982. The technician came forward and revealed that his instructor had shown his class a drum paper recording (not an audio recording) from a SOSUS sensor that allegedly depicted a battle between the Scorpion and a Russian submarine. The Russians fired a torpedo, the Scorpion took off, and six minutes later was sunk by the Russian torpedo. So much for the grand cover-up.

Since Offley hinges his entire theory on this little bombshell, it's worth examining in greater detail. Offley asserts that the submarine on the scene of the Soviet naval exercise that Scorpion had been monitoring, an Echo II-class, with a top speed of about 23 knots, had been stalking the Scorpion for several days, which repeatedly failed to elude it's Soviet hunter. How could the crew of the Scorpion be so grossly incompetent?

In 1968, the Soviets had three types of submarine-launched anti-submarine torpedoes in use. The first, the SET-53M, had a top speed several knots below that of Scorpion's. The second, the SET-65, had a top speed of 40 knots, but was so new that it probably wasn't used by the Echo class. The third, the SAET-60, was a passive homing torpedo with a speed of 42 knots, and a far more likely candidate for the "Scorpion Killer." If the Scorpion really could make 35 knots, that gave the SAET-60 a 7 knot speed advantage. With a run time of about 6 minutes, the Echo would have had to close to about 1,400 yards from Scorpion before firing. During these six minutes, the Scorpion never returned fire and never launched any countermeasures. The same technician who related this story to Offley also stated that the Echos were so loud that they could be heard from miles away even when running "silent." Does this scenario seem completely unreasonable to anyone else yet?

On and on Scorpion Down goes, peddling out more ill-researched innuendo and second and third-hand accusations with each passing chapter. The parts that don't deal directly with the conspiracy are loaded with padding as well, not to mention a number of forehead-slapping historical errors. A full breakdown of Offley's theories would stretch on for thousands of words, which I'll spare the reader from. Scorpion Down might have been terribly amusing if it was a crackpot PDF file on a conspiracy website. Unfortunately, I'm seeing dozens of copies of it in the Military History section of my local Borders and Barnes and Noble, selling for $27.50.

Scorpion Down isn't just bad or merely incompetent, it's an affront to common sense and an insult to the submariners on both sides of the Cold War who put their lives on the line and perhaps prevented a global catastrophe. I was sick to my stomach and had an awful headache by the time I was done reading it.

There's no doubt that in this conspiracy-happy modern age this book will sell well, and make a tidy sum for Offley and his publisher. What a shame that the author, a decent writer and a veteran military journalist, allowed himself to buy into this garbage. Once the controversy over this book reaches full boil, the Navy will probably spend millions of dollars trying to defeat Offley's claims, which will just give him more credibility in the eyes of conspiracy theorists. There's no "truth" to be found in Scorpion Down, just a whole lot of hand waving and easily debunked silliness. Or as Stephen Colbert might call it, truthiness.

07-24-07, 02:54 PM	#1
Subnuts The Old Man Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Connecticut Posts: 1,658 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	Scorpion Down - Don't Read This Book I finally made it to the end of this book the other day. Thank God it's over with. I haven't had to read through a more ridiculous, insulting pile of crap in a long time. As the book reviewer for the site, this is my rough draft review: The May 22, 1968 sinking of the American nuclear-powered attack submarine Scorpion, 450 miles Southwest of the Azores Islands, is one of the most enduring mysteries of the Cold War. The focus of the largest search operation in American naval history, the Scorpion's wreck wasn't discovered until October of 1968. The hull was in three sections, the fairwater had been torn off, and the stern was shoved 50 feet forward into the auxiliary machinery space. All of the compartments except for the torpedo room had suffered massive implosion damage, implying that the torpedo room alone had flooded before Scorpion exceeded it's crush depth. No one has ever been able to determine what really happened to the Scorpion. Had one of the torpedoes exploded while still inside it's tube? Did the Trash Disposal Unit fail? Did the diving planes jam themselves in full down position, sending the submarine into an out of control dive? A small percentage believed that foul play on the part of Soviet Navy caused the destruction of the Scorpion. Most of these theories have been pretty thoroughly debunked, but that didn't stop Ed Offley from writing Scorpion Down. Where does one begin when reviewing a book like Scorpion Down - Sunk By The Soviets, Buried By The Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion? This book is so riddled with logic flaws, second-hand circumstantial evidence posing as "smoking guns," idle speculation regarding conspiracy theories, and convenient side-stepping, that it reads more like a bad spy novel than a "shocking expose." Scorpion Down begins with a quote from George Orwell's 1984, and ends with a statement from the author that the responsibility for the book's accuracy is his alone. If there was any justice in the world, it would open with "this is no ***!" and end with a money back offer. Ed Offley wants me to accept a number of extremely questionable assertions that go against everything I've learned over the years. He wants me to believe that the Soviets, tired of American submarines being overly aggressive during surveillance missions, sank the Scorpion* as a warning to the United States. He wants me to believe that the Soviet submarine that sank the Scorpion (a hot-rod attack submarine presumably capable of speeds of up to 35 knots) was one of the slowest and noisiest boats in their fleet, not to mention ill-equipped to hunt other submarines. He wants me to believe that the Scorpion was destroyed by a torpedo, despite reams of evidence to the contrary. He wants me to believe that the Russians spilled the beans to the Americans just days after the sinking, and that a small elite tried to cover up the truth. There's plenty of other absurd things that Mr. Offley so desperately wants me to believe, almost none of which make a lick of sense. Ed Offley began his research for Scorpion Down way back in 1983, when he was writing an article for the Norfolk Ledger-Star on the 15th anniversary of the sinking. I imagine he would have given up by now if it weren't for the 2006 release of Stephen Johnson's Silent Steel, a vastly superior book on the same subject. Silent Steel was a calm, in-depth examination of the last 18 months of the Scorpion's life. While Johnson devoted a sizable portion of Silent Steel to covering the large number of mechanical causalities that occurred during the sub's final deployment, Offley sweeps it all under the rug to further his conspiracy theory. In fact, Offley sweeps pretty much anything that doesn't jive with his "Soviet torpedo" scenario under the rug. As I mentioned before, the torpedo compartment is the only section of Scorpion to survive mostly intact, and photos taken of the wreck fail to show any torpedo damage. Had the Scorpion been actually torpedoed, the entire submarine would have been flooded, and wouldn't have been crushed (or not crushed to such an extent) by hydrostatic pressure. Except for a single picture of the dismembered fairwater, Offley fails to mention the condition of the wreck anywhere in this book! Scorpion Down also asserts that the Navy conducted a secret attempt to locate the Scorpion beginning on May 23rd, several days before the sub was officially listed as "overdue." I can buy that - submarine operations at the time were so secret that the Navy frequently had to "fudge the truth" (okay...lie) about the reality of what the submarines were really up to. This doesn't surprise me one bit. It was the height of the Cold War after all, and security was a premium. At the same time I can't find anything terribly insidious about the operation as Offley describes it. In his recounting, it becomes another part of a grand cover-up, another piece in a bodyguard of lies. Typically melodramatic. Offley's "smoking gun," if one could honestly call it that, came from a sonar technician who graduated from the Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center in 1982. The technician came forward and revealed that his instructor had shown his class a drum paper recording (not an audio recording) from a SOSUS sensor that allegedly depicted a battle between the Scorpion and a Russian submarine. The Russians fired a torpedo, the Scorpion took off, and six minutes later was sunk by the Russian torpedo. So much for the grand cover-up. Since Offley hinges his entire theory on this little bombshell, it's worth examining in greater detail. Offley asserts that the submarine on the scene of the Soviet naval exercise that Scorpion had been monitoring, an Echo II-class, with a top speed of about 23 knots, had been stalking the Scorpion for several days, which repeatedly failed to elude it's Soviet hunter. How could the crew of the Scorpion be so grossly incompetent? In 1968, the Soviets had three types of submarine-launched anti-submarine torpedoes in use. The first, the SET-53M, had a top speed several knots below that of Scorpion's. The second, the SET-65, had a top speed of 40 knots, but was so new that it probably wasn't used by the Echo class. The third, the SAET-60, was a passive homing torpedo with a speed of 42 knots, and a far more likely candidate for the "Scorpion Killer." If the Scorpion really could make 35 knots, that gave the SAET-60 a 7 knot speed advantage. With a run time of about 6 minutes, the Echo would have had to close to about 1,400 yards from Scorpion before firing. During these six minutes, the Scorpion never returned fire and never launched any countermeasures. The same technician who related this story to Offley also stated that the Echos were so loud that they could be heard from miles away even when running "silent." Does this scenario seem completely unreasonable to anyone else yet? On and on Scorpion Down goes, peddling out more ill-researched innuendo and second and third-hand accusations with each passing chapter. The parts that don't deal directly with the conspiracy are loaded with padding as well, not to mention a number of forehead-slapping historical errors. A full breakdown of Offley's theories would stretch on for thousands of words, which I'll spare the reader from. Scorpion Down might have been terribly amusing if it was a crackpot PDF file on a conspiracy website. Unfortunately, I'm seeing dozens of copies of it in the Military History section of my local Borders and Barnes and Noble, selling for $27.50. Scorpion Down isn't just bad or merely incompetent, it's an affront to common sense and an insult to the submariners on both sides of the Cold War who put their lives on the line and perhaps prevented a global catastrophe. I was sick to my stomach and had an awful headache by the time I was done reading it. There's no doubt that in this conspiracy-happy modern age this book will sell well, and make a tidy sum for Offley and his publisher. What a shame that the author, a decent writer and a veteran military journalist, allowed himself to buy into this garbage. Once the controversy over this book reaches full boil, the Navy will probably spend millions of dollars trying to defeat Offley's claims, which will just give him more credibility in the eyes of conspiracy theorists. There's no "truth" to be found in Scorpion Down, just a whole lot of hand waving and easily debunked silliness. Or as Stephen Colbert might call it, truthiness.