Scorpion Down - Don't Read This Book

[SSBN629ERS]

They show two photos of the bow but they dont look the same. The first dated 1/69 #1136658 shows the bow where the superstructure has been heavily damaged.
The second dated 8/86 #NH 97220-KN shows the bow intact.

Are these photos of the same area? Of all the photos, the one of the aft end of the front half of the boat is the only one that shows damage from implosion.

They show a photo of the stern plane (looks like a waffle) and rudder. No screw. Then the caption asks you to notice how the engineroom "telescoped" forward into the machinery space. I don't see that. The part of the photo they show barely shows all of shaft alley, let alone the machinery room/engineroom.

[yankee-V]

Unfortunately I bought this book at Costco months ago, before I read any reviews. Mistake one. Never finished it, got about 1/3 of the way through it before all the prevarication got to me. There were some hints of this in the first few pages, mainly the author's portrayal of himself as a one man crusade to "get to the truth". Always a bad sign.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

i wouldnt call for people not to read it thats unfair although its quite clearly bias towards controvercy i dont believe a word of the bible but i have read it, it can give you a objective out look on subjects

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by SSBN629ERS

They show two photos of the bow but they dont look the same. The first dated 1/69 #1136658 shows the bow where the superstructure has been heavily damaged.
The second dated 8/86 #NH 97220-KN shows the bow intact.

The damage is in the second pic. The contrast in the 1st pick makes the damage look worse that it is (which is bad never the less). Or their is 16 years of dirt and sand that's filled the hole making it look less damaged. Look at NH 977224-KN for a close up of that damage in 8/86.

Of all the photos, the one of the aft end of the front half of the boat is the only one that shows damage from implosion.

They show a photo of the stern plane (looks like a waffle) and rudder. No screw. Then the caption asks you to notice how the engineroom "telescoped" forward into the machinery space. I don't see that. The part of the photo they show barely shows all of shaft alley, let alone the machinery room/engineroom.

About 20-30+ feet has been crushed inwards in that pic. What they said is basicly accurate. The gap between the section forced inwards and the "lip" of the section not gives a hint of how much has been crushed forwards.

[SSBN629ERS]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

I just read a summary of the Court of Inquiry Findings. It was their opinion that "the visible structural damage in the Operations Compartment...is more probably associated with an explosion rather than an implosion." It was thier belief that the initial casualty resulted in flooding, but were uncertain if it originated in the Torpedo Room or Ops Compartment. Later it states,"except for the engineroom, Scorpion was fully flooded before passing hull collapse depth."

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

The Court of Inquiry beleived that "the initial casualty, which resulted in flooding, was most probably due to causes other than ...implosion of a major compartment". Also, "that acoustic event #1 was most probably an explosion of the large charge weight external to the hull." and later, "as established in the original report (fact 271), the only item on board, forward of frame 44, with sufficient explosive energy to cause the initial event, were the torpedo warheads."

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

How do you know they didn't launch countermeasures? Do you know how long it takes to launch CM's? Longer than it takes to hit a button on your keyboard.

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

I'm not sure what qualifies you to speak for Cold War submariners, but I as a Cold War submariner myself, I can say I was not insulted at all. The Scorpion accident happened well before I served, but scuttlebutt in the silent service about its demise continued for many years. I assure you that Mr. Offley did not start the "soviet attack" theory. Maybe it came about from our arrogance that only an act of treason or something sinister could possibly overwhelm the most elite, best trained submariners in the world. As for me, I don't know what to believe. This book has got me asking more questions than I had before I read it. I know that Silent Steel by Stephen Johnson is next on my reading list.

Originally Posted by Subnuts

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.

[end rant/]

[micky1up]

ssbn629rs quote "something sinister could possibly overwhelm the most elite, best trained submariners in the world."

is that why your serving captain's come to the royal navy to conduct perishers ive seen 4 in the last 3 years come through perisher the royal navy is the best trained submarine service and that is a recognised fact around the world just because you have loads of subamrines and throw loads of money at them doesnt mean you have the best service

[SSBN629ERS]

Originally Posted by micky1up

ssbn629rs quote "something sinister could possibly overwhelm the most elite, best trained submariners in the world."

is that why your serving captain's come to the royal navy to conduct perishers ive seen 4 in the last 3 years come through perisher the royal navy is the best trained submarine service and that is a recognised fact around the world just because you have loads of subamrines and throw loads of money at them doesnt mean you have the best service

i told you we were arrogant. I've seen plenty of sailors from other navys at USN schools I was attending as well. I'm not that familiar with "perishers" though. Isn't it like a litmus test for officers wanting to become sub commanders? I guess the fact that you saw USN officers there only proves my point of how well trained we are. If I said some of the most elite, best trained,..., would that be ok? I don't think that lessens my point any? Sorry if I offended.

[end apology/]

[micky1up]

i wasnt offended at all we train USN officers that have already passed for command in the USN and in my time ive seen germans israeli chillean dutch and french officer's come though the courses , i do realise you are arrogant as is the entire US military but its not the same type of arrogance thats bred from excellence the fact is the ROYAL NAVY SUBMARINE SERVICE which ive served 20 years this november has been the benchmark for decades you could say ive seen it done it got the teeshirt and the mug oh and a very fine pair of dolphins tatooed on my chest and the pins on my back the real question i would ask is whos navy is the only one to have torpedoed a ship in comabt since WW2 and and how many nuclear submarines have we lost to accidents those paint a very good picture

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by micky1up

i wasnt offended at all we train USN officers that have already passed for command in the USN and in my time ive seen germans israeli chillean dutch and french officer's come though the courses , i do realise you are arrogant as is the entire US military but its not the same type of arrogance thats bred from excellence the fact is the ROYAL NAVY SUBMARINE SERVICE which ive served 20 years this november has been the benchmark for decades you could say ive seen it done it got the teeshirt and the mug oh and a very fine pair of dolphins tatooed on my chest and the pins on my back the real question i would ask is whos navy is the only one to have torpedoed a ship in comabt since WW2 and and how many nuclear submarines have we lost to accidents those paint a very good picture

The submarine officers courses for both countries are so different they can't be compared. They follow different tracks, it like comparing apples to oranges. Both countries train foreign officers. Your painting is also flawed to be useless. The UK has had a naval conflict, the U.S. has not. The number of U.K. submarines is somewhat smaller than America's numbers and has been since I don't know when.

[micky1up]

your right in a way american officers train engineering and thats a major part of the course in the uk our commanding officers dont do the engineering they concentrait on the tactical side there is a perisher course starting on monday and guess what theres 1 american commander on the course i will be thier as the OPSO for a month helping them thats my job

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by micky1up

...only one to have torpedoed a ship in comabt since WW2 and and how many nuclear submarines have we lost to accidents those paint a very good picture

One of two to torpedo a ship since WWII. Your forgetting Pakistan. The PNS Hangor sank the Indian Frigate INS Khukri.

Also don't forget while the UK has never lost a Nuclear submarine she did lose a Diesel Submarine; HMS Affrey near the Isle of Wight in 1951.

[micky1up]

thats fair enough now compare that stat versus the usa ,ussr ,france or any other nuclear submarine navy ?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by micky1up

thats fair enough now compare that stat versus the usa ,ussr ,france or any other nuclear submarine navy ?

Well just counting lost of ship insadents Post WWII (there have been countless times when one or two sailors have died, groundings and collisons even on Brittish submarines so I won't discuss them) The UK and France are tied I belive at 1 (Both diesels) each. The US has lost four (two nuclear, two diesel) and one of those lost diesels (Sickleback SS-415) had no casuleties and both those diesels were WWII era subs, The other diesel (Cohino SS-354) lost only 1 crewmen plus six lost on the rescuing submarine Tusk SS-426.

The Royal Navy is a outstanding record but considering that the US has three or four times as many submarines our record isn't too shabby.

your right in a way american officers train engineering and thats a major part of the course in the uk our commanding officers dont do the engineering they concentrait on the tactical side...

Thats one area where I agree with you folks on the other side of the Atlantic. Submarines have ChEng's for a reason. The CO's schooling should be in combat related matters.

Thanks a lot Rickover.

[UglyMowgli]

There is a review in the August USNI Proceddings by the Capt (ret) James B. Bryant, he conclude 'it is an entertainement yarn .... but a pure fiction'

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by SSBN629ERS

I'm not sure what qualifies you to speak for Cold War submariners, but I as a Cold War submariner myself, I can say I was not insulted at all. The Scorpion accident happened well before I served, but scuttlebutt in the silent service about its demise continued for many years. I assure you that Mr. Offley did not start the "soviet attack" theory. Maybe it came about from our arrogance that only an act of treason or something sinister could possibly overwhelm the most elite, best trained submariners in the world. As for me, I don't know what to believe. This book has got me asking more questions than I had before I read it. I know that Silent Steel by Stephen Johnson is next on my reading list.

I don't know, but wouldn't the concept of being successfully trailed and attacked by an inferior Soviet Echo, which is not only inferior technologically but also in training compared to the "most elite, best trained submariners" be more insulting than dying in an accident?

On a related note, I must say I never understood why the Russians always keep saying their subs died in collisions with American subs. Never mind whether that was the case. How is it good for morale to keep blasting out that their enemy's subs can get close enough to their own, without being counterdetected and thus evaded to cause a collision? If I'm a Soviet submariner, I'd be quite depressed about what this implies for my odds at war indeed...