Jump to content
B52STRATO

Some opinions needed

Recommended Posts

I look for a few months on the case of SSNs USS Thresher and Scorpion which disappeared 50 and 45 years ago respectively, however, only the American literature study their cases accurately. I recently read these books

 

death-uss-thresher-story-behind-historys                4.jpeg                9780471267379_p0_v1_s260x420.jpg

 

 

But could I have your opinion on these ones:

 

9780465051854_p0_v2_s260x420.jpg              9781416564348_p0_v3_s260x420.JPG         250px-BMBcover.jpg      

 

 

I intend to order them soon. All Hands Down being from Sewell I got some doubts about it. His book and theories on the K-129 was interesting and worthy of study, but his writing style made that at each chapter you return to the preceding one for much lines. In short, many pages were repetitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blind man's bluff is excellent, though keep in mind that it covers everything from the end of WWII to the early 1990s (and not just the Scorpion).  I also recommend "The Silent War", by John Craven.  He was part of the team that plotted the Scorpion's probable wreck site based on data from the Atlantic SOSUS network. He also pinpointed the most likely spots where the "missing" nuke off Palomares, Spain might be found (in 1966),

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pi%C3%B1a_Craven

Edited by Fubar512

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Fubar, "The Silent War" is now on the wish list too. I believe Dr. Craven also appears at many times in Red Star Rogue, about the Glomar Explorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love conspiracy theorists.  Especially those who make a profit off of the rest of us looking for something under the covers.  Good living if you can string the real facts together to make a yarn.  A closer look at the facts leaves many holes filled with conjecture (otherwise known as fiction). 

 

The Soviets sank a US warship and we covered it up!   What a bunch of BS! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Jug, this is why, despite the strong doubt that I owe on the basis of these theories, I intend to look into and study them carefully. After all, knowing his opponent in all its details can give you advantage of knowing its weaknesses too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if it was a preventable accident attributable to someone in the US of great importance politically, THEN I would expect the cover-up. I suppose likewise if the one at fault was an ally like Britain or France we could've had a similar cover-up, but the USSR? Really?

Edited by JediMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if it was a preventable accident attributable to someone in the US of great importance politically, THEN I would expect the cover-up.

Bruce Rule research based on acoustic datas theorized the possibility of an explosion in the torpedo room. It is currently the most compelling theory that I have read on the Scorpion. This ties the various testimonies of Skipjack's crews who agreed on the various technical problems this class experienced. Given their high level of innovation at the time of their design, it is not surprising that these (revolutionaries) SSNs have inherited the problems experienced with the Albacore in addition to those specific to the S5W reactor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn`t the russians detect the accustic signature of an american torpedo?! Those things are damn loud and can`t be hide, so far I know.

The russian underwater "missile" Squal, was tested and is not so reliable, but still damn loud and noisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well didn't the USS Memphis sink the Kursk?

That hole was not caused by a torpedo.  A torpedo impact does not leave a neat hole, ala a sabot round.  Water pressure from the warhead exploding against the hull would create what amounts to a huge "split" along the welded seam lines, radiating both vertically and horizontally..  I've seen the results of  torpedo detonations on wrecks that I've dove on.

 

That bow section appears to have suffered from both an internal explosion, and an implosion from water pressure.

 

 

Update: There's a good image of what torpedo damage looks like, at the following link: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/maru/shinkoku/shink_hole.html#axzz2i5znAqVB

Edited by Fubar512
added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A torpedo impact does not leave a neat hole, ala a sabot round.

 

 

Assuming it was armed, a dead fish "could" be more of a javelin than explosive. This looks like a lot of high pressure soda cans I've stuck a pencil in. The impact is clean but it starts a tear at the end of the can which then rips off due to the pressure. I don't know anything about the Mursk sinking though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken Fubar, I have no experience in diving or with ship wrecks. But, that hole was made by something going from outside to in..... just saying. Like Erik said the ole " Coke can with pencil trick." I don't see the point in having a guided torpedo that blows up on impact. I thought they blew up once they got inside. Where is a Torpedo Mate when you need one?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 But, that hole was made by something going from outside to in.....

Maybe the metal was bent inside after  the explosion 'cause of the vacuum effect that is created in the middle of the  explosion that happened from Kursk's own fish . Who knows. Russian official story is that Kursk's torpedo propellant induced explosion. If Americans had the slightest thing to do with Kursk's tragedy I assume the Russians would be blowing that horn big time. Jut saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough right after it happened the USA nullified all debt owed to it by Russia. Who knows not trying to stir poop but that hole has always bothered me. Especially after hearing the story about the Memphis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short of a pissed off rogue Narwahl I'd say the image is worth a thousand doubts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if it was a preventable accident attributable to someone in the US of great importance politically, THEN I would expect the cover-up. I suppose likewise if the one at fault was an ally like Britain or France we could've had a similar cover-up, but the USSR? Really?

I can think of one primary reason to do so. The sinking of a warship is an act of war. What would war between the US and USSR lead to in the 1960s? Also, all of the Sov's sank the Scorpion theories come back to a Russian belief we sank one of their subs in the Pacific previously. So if so, the Soviets felt justified but prob didn't want to exchange nukes over it. In either event the activies of the subs is a rather touchy topic even today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming it was armed, a dead fish "could" be more of a javelin than explosive. This looks like a lot of high pressure soda cans I've stuck a pencil in. The impact is clean but it starts a tear at the end of the can which then rips off due to the pressure. I don't know anything about the Mursk sinking though. 

 

Erik, there are literally dozens of accounts of dud torpedoes literally bouncing off the hullsides of tramp steamers during WWII. Our own experience in the Pacific during the war verifies this. So what happens when a torp strikes the hardened side of a sub's pressure hull?  The nosecone either fragments, or telescopes into the torp's body.

 

Crazyhorse, I can't vouch for a Mark 48, but the Mark 14's used during WWII usually sported a mechanical contact exploder, that essentially consisted of a threaded propeller mounted in a housing inside the torp's nose, which in turn spun a threaded rod tipped with a fulminate of mercury cartridge into the warhead as the fish ran through the water.  The propeller's pitch and the detonator rod's thread count usually guaranteed that this would occur after approximately 450 yards.  Then, all that was then needed to detonate the warhead (in theory), was a sharp blow of no more than 25 lbs of force, which forced a firing pin into the detonator cap.

 

Of course, the early versions of that fish were equipped with troublesome Mark VI magnetic exploder (which many skippers deactivated), and later models (post war, iirc) used a semi-programmable (electronically fired) contact exploder.

Edited by Fubar512
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it seems to me that the warhead should work from the outside, mainly using the pressure wave from the blast. I'm a huge explosion close aboard would cause such a pressure difference so fast that it would just rupture the hull outright causing a massive decompression. Also, the torpedoes are usually controlled by guide wires and if it went into the boat you could risk the wires being cut and the weapon not detonating. 

 

There was an interesting show called Movie Magic back in the day where they showed how the Crimson Tide film crew actually destroyed the Akula sub model by filling the hull with open top plexiglass jars to create bulkheaded chambers, so when it blew up (underwater!) it actually realistically imploded the hull.

 

Here's the scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzQsit3zag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..