Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:34:56 +1100 Subject: SMML VOL 3056 The Ship Modelling Mailing List (SMML) is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com For infomation on how to Post to SMML and Unsubscribe from SMML http//smmlonline.com/aboutsmml/rules.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) 2 Re The sinking of the USS Scorpion (SSN 589) 3 Re Warship Quarterly book 4 Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) 5 Re U-Boat dive kits (Revell 1/72) 6 Those Warship Quarterlies 7 Re Flectcher and Gearing 8 Wood Planking for Revell U-Boat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From jrsheridan@earthlink.net Subject Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) >> Of course, I have no absolute proof - and unless I'm mistaken, neither do you - but to just say I'm wrong without offering a shred of support seems a bit strong - unless you were on the accident investigation team (or had access to their reports), you're just speculating. To say my speculation is far-fetched is an opinion, and you're welcome to yours, as I'm welcome to mine. To say the facts don't support this theory - as an unproven possibility - is just dead-wrong. There are many facts that support this - as a possibility - though they're also subject to alternative interpretations. << Actually, the evidence that has been released to date does support the theory of an accident. None of it supports a coliision or any other mis-adventure that you claim. If Craven could find Scorpion simply by listening to the SOSUS and trianglulating, I'm sure he would have also detected a Soviet Sub as well considering how noisy they were back in the 1960s. >> This is hardly a "conspiracy theory" - as you suggest. At that same general time-frame, there had been several other open-water assaults on US ships (Pueblo and Liberty) and in each case, we did bupkus. << Yes it is actually. Other than you asurtion, you have nothing to even remotely support your theory. Give us your "proof" that backs-up this claim. And please, don't claim that there is a cover-up going on. >> We were embroiled in a land-war in Asia and were tied up in the most bitter election fight of the 20th Century - at that time, we may well have looked like a "safe mark" to the Soviets, especially if they could do this without leaving finger-prints. Bushwacking a lone sub in the open ocean, away from shipping channels and way-far-away from SOSUS, may have looked like a good bet. It's clear that we still have no definitive idea what happened, almost 40 years later - and that takes into account ROV probes of the site that weren't possible at the time Scorpion sank, or was sunk. << Ummm Ned, please re-read how Scorpion was found by Craven. Once Craven found the wreck, the Navy did send down subs to explore it shortly after. Yes, ROVs were a few years away but manned subs were not. Corrected me if i'm wrong but didn't they use Alvin? John Sheridan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re The sinking of the USS Scorpion (SSN 589) WE have here a clash between both Ned Barnett and Rick Nelson about what really happened to the USS Scorpion (SSN 589), with Ned leaning toward a pay-back for the sinking of the sub, and Rick discenting with the following statement >> I find the speculation regarding the Soviets "taking out" the Scorpion as retaliation for the loss of the K-129 very far fetched. The facts just don't support such a secnario. << I, myself, take a different interpretation of the facts, she was sunk because she had stumbled onto a Russian operation that could have brought both nations almost immediately to war, and also would have seriously compromised Russia's spy-rings in the US. On this site http//members.aol.com/bear317d/scorpion.htm , there is what seems to be the most reliable facts surrounding the loss, she was sunk because of messages she had sent about the Russian maneuvers, and because of Warrant Officer John Walker, the Navy's most notorious spy, having given over the navy's top-secret encryption codes. "Underwater recordings retrieved from three locations in the Atlantic - the Canary Islands and two sites near Newfoundland - captured a single sharp noise followed by 91 seconds of silence, then a rapid series of sounds corresponding to the overall collapse of the submarine's various compartments and tanks. "John Craven, then a senior civilian Navy scientist and expert on underwater technology who led the team that found the Scorpion wreckage, said the acoustic evidence all but proves a torpedo explosion - rather than a hull collapse from flooding - sank the Scorpion and killed the 99 men inside. "Once the hull implodes the other compartments are going to follow right along" in collapsing, Craven said. "There's no way you can have the hull implode and then have 91 seconds of silence while the rest of the hull decides to try and hang itself together." "Retired Capt. Peter Huchthausen was the U.S. Naval attache in Moscow in the late 1980s, two decades after both incidents. "Breaking his silence for the first time, Huchthausen told the Post-Intelligencer he had several terse but pointed conversations with Soviet admirals about the two sinkings. "One was in June 1987 with Admiral Pitr Navoytsev, first deputy chief for operations of the Soviet Navy. When he asked Navoytsev about the Scorpion, Huchthausen recalls this response "Captain, you are very young and inexperienced, but you will learn that there are some things both sides have agreed not to address, and one is that event and our K-129 loss, for similar reasons." "In another discussion in October 1989, Huchthausen said Vice Adm. B.M. Kamarov told him that a secret agreement had been reached between the United States and Soviet Union in which both sides agreed not to press the other government on the loss of their submarines in 1968. The motivation, Huchthausen said, was to preserve the thaw in superpower relations. A full accounting of either submarine loss might create new tensions, he said. "He (Kamarov) said the submariners involved and those few in the know on both sides were sworn, with the threat of maximum punishment, never to divulge the operational background of either incident," Huchthausen said. "And in 1995, after Huchthausen had retired and was working on a book on Soviet submarines, he interviewed retired Rear Adm. Viktor Dygalo, the former commander of the submarine division to which the K-129 was assigned. "Dygalo told him the true story of the K-129 will never be known because of an unofficial agreement by senior submariners on both sides to freeze any further investigation of involvement of either side in the losses of the Scorpion or the K-129. "And he told Huchthausen this "So forget about ever resolving these sad issues for the surviving families." "Scorpion's final seconds (Time based on hydroacoustic events of the Scorpion sinking recorded at the Canary Islands. Source Supplementary Record of Proceedings of Court of Inquiry by commander-in-chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.) "185935 -- 1. Torpedo warhead explosion on port side of middle of sub causes rapid flooding of control room and other areas amidships. 2. Water passes through access tunnel to reactor and auxiliary machinery room. 190106 -- 3. Torpedo compartment bulkhead collapses, causing rapid flooding. "190110 -- 4. Engine room bulkhead collapses aft into engine room, causing 85-foot stern section of submarine to telescope forward into auxiliary machinery and reactor compartments." "The Scorpion mission was compromised through a KGB intelligence operation that included Navy turncoat John Walker and the seizure of the American spy ship USS Pueblo. "U.S. intelligence officials told the Post-Intelligencer the seizure of the Pueblo was a direct consequence of Walker's espionage. The connection between the Navy spy and the doomed spy ship has been a closely held secret within the Navy and intelligence community in the 13 years since Walker's arrest. "Navy spokesman Cmdr. Frank Thorp declined comment on the possible connection between Walker and the Scorpion loss Tuesday, citing the classified nature of the reports. "However, the Navy 12 years ago conceded the severity of Walker's espionage. The KGB-Walker operation was so successful it had the *potential, had conflict erupted between the two superpowers, to have powerful war-winning implications for the Soviet side," said Rear Adm. William Studeman, then the director of naval intelligence, in a 1986 affidavit." "In particular, the Soviets had obtained a model of the KW-7 "Orestes" two-way teletypewriter, at that time the most modern encrypted communications machine for the Navy and other military services. More than 80 percent of the Atlantic Fleet ships and all of its submarines - including the Scorpion - relied on the KW-7 for secure messages in 1968, according to declassified Navy reports. "Seizing the machines from the Pueblo intact was relatively easy. A 1970 congressional hearing concluded the ship had failed to destroy much of its communications equipment before the crew was overcome by North Koreans who swarmed the vessel. "Don Bailey, then a 26-year-old communications specialist on the Pueblo, confirmed in a recent interview that the equipment was seized by the North Koreans. "Bailey was operating a KW-7 teletypewriter in the last frantic hour before he and his shipmates were captured, sending messages to a shore station in Japan pleading for air support or other military help. Bailey said he and his shipmates failed to destroy the cryptographic equipment because the ship had not been given emergency-destruct explosives. The machinery was installed in hardened steel cases designed to prevent them from being damaged. "I was busy trying to destroy everything I could," Bailey recalled. "But you can't beat it up with a sledgehammer; the way it was built, this can't be done." The machine he was operating was "pretty much intact when they got us." "Despite the loss of the equipment from the Pueblo, there was little concern then about the safety of coded communications, intelligence officials said. That was because the keylist system was assumed to be intact." In essence, the Scorpion was not necessarily sunk in retaliation, but became fair game when she started getting too close to what the Russian maneuvers were all about, the tapping into the US SOSUS system. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Gary Mansfield" Subject Re Warship Quarterly book Hi The SMML Think Tank, This the best warship book out there! It is very good for details, plans, references & naval authors! I am waiting for Warship 2006! Out in May/Jun 2006! I have a lot of the Annuals from I to 2005! Now the post states e-bay!! What a site for disappointments, etc. I was waiting for a Matchbox 1700 HMS Tiger in the Command/Helicopter role @ £10.00. "Sold to a private address in France" (what ever that means)? Please be aware. Anyone in SMML land now have this kit for sale? Any Parts/PE out there to convert the Airfix 1600 HMS Belfast WWII Cruiser (Town Class) to her present condition on the river Thames in London? Please remember with plastic subs; water will crush any plastic submarine kit if it goes too deep... (just like the real thing) - Sorry, Airfix! Please ask the experts at the sub committee! I would stick to surface running... Like the Kreigsmarine did... Just make sure the Matchbox 172 "Flower" does not ram you! Any idea of were to get a good copy/fine copy of "British Cruisers of WWII" by Alan Raven & John Roberts? I know it is expensive, thinking of getting it... Thank you once again on your replies, on HMS Blake/Tiger etc. Gary Mansfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From RDemeyere@aol.com Subject Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) From Ned Barnett >> We were embroiled in a land-war in Asia and were tied up in the most bitter election fight of the 20th Century - at that time, we may well have looked like a "safe mark" to the Soviets, especially if they could do this without leaving finger-prints. Bushwacking a lone sub in the open ocean, away from shipping channels and way-far-away from SOSUS, may have looked like a good bet. It's clear that we still have no definitive idea what happened, almost 40 years later - and that takes into account ROV probes of the site that weren't possible at the time Scorpion sank, or was sunk.<< Ned, I went back and read your original posting (Re Scorpion in SMML 3052) and the postings back and forth in SMML 3053, 3054, and 3055. I am coming late to the discussion and I personally have no dog in the fight (not a submariner, etc, etc.). However, I would be interested in your thoughts on how the possible ambush and destruction of the Scorpion might have been accomplished by the Soviet Navy - especially doing it without leaving any "fingerprints" (which I take to mean physical indications of an attack). In your SMML 3055 posting (as extracted above), you give an indication of some of the elements of such a possible action. Can I encourage you to give further substance? (Understanding that you are theorizing to create linkages between individual bits of information.) Given the some of the wilder Russian Navy statements made immediately following the Kursk disaster and the general tendency of navies everywhere to deny (until absoultely forced to deal with hard evidence to the contrary) that defects in their own equipment or operating procendures could ever possibly be the source of a sinking, I can see a Soviet Navy storyline developing that explained the loss of the K-129 as an American action. So, to keep the flow of theorizing from immediately running hard aground, let us stipulate at the onset that a powerful faction inside the Soviet Navy decides that "the explanation" for the K-129's loss is attack by an American submarine. Lets also stipulate that "they" decide that they want to retaliate in some form. Its what follows that I would be interested in reading about 1) Selling the story (who is selling it and to whom) to get permission to sink an American submarine in retaliation. (Was this a strictly inside the Soviet Navy submarine force job or did higher ups (Fleet/Soviet Navy GHQ, KGB, or even the Politboro) need to be involved? How long would making such a serious decison take?) 2) Deciding to specifically sink a submarine. (Not the easiest of targets.) 3) Coming to know the top secret routing of American submarines. (Did the Walkers or other spies have access to such information?) 4) Target selection criteria. (Was any US submarine acceptable or was the Scorpion fingered for a specific reason - say, she was in the Pacific at the time of the K-129 sinking (i.e., kill the US attack sub that probably killed our sub)?) 5) Ambush site criteria. (You noted Scorpion sank/was sunk away from the SOSUS network - any other factors (i.e., ambush site along a known transit route for US subs, etc.)?) 6) Getting the ambush force in position once the Scorpion was selected. (What would such an ambush force consist of; what kind of training is involved; and how much time would they have to get on station once they knew the Scorpion's routing?) 7) What the fingerprint-less attack device could have been. (Some sort of unmarked super hard penetrator to be subsequently broken up and lost in the implosion debris?), 8) Etc. As long as they don't involve Elvis, "fairy dust" (in the scenario writing sense of the word), or Atlantean/alien space technology, I would be interested in reading your ideas on how it might have been done. V/R, Russ, aka "Rhino" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Albert Choy Subject Re U-Boat dive kits (Revell 1/72) >> As some talk of subs lately, thought I'd mention my latest project, Revell typeVIIC U-Boat 172 scale. The challenge is to make it operate in pond/pool. Have previously posted my efforts in R/C plastic ships(QM2, Titanic, etc) . Many difficulties including waterproofing, buoyancy mech and fitting r/c gear into long narrow hull. Plan to use graupner pump for flooding an internal chamber(plastic pipe) and 1 channel for speed control, 1 for pump, 1 for rudder and 1 for bow planes. Lots of experimentation and trial and error. If anyones interested or doing similar, let me know. << See here http//www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288890 A complete how to.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "John Lambert" Subject Those Warship Quarterlies Hi to you All Those Warship Quarterlies up for sale, mentioned in the latest list are first class. These started way back in January 1977 (No 1) and were a collection of articles by the best writers and enthusiasts of the time. Edited by Antony Preston and Robert Gardener, they were published by Conway Maritime Press Ltd of 2 Nelson Road, Greenwich, London SE 10, only a stones throw from our National Maritime Museum. They are jam packed with Goodies. In No 1 articles by N J M Campbell, Alan Raven, Antony Preston, Lawrence Sowinski, David Lyon etc. Later I produced many of the articles and joined those illustrious names. Go for it. I have all mine and I waste many hours going through those gems. On another note! Thank you Gentlemen for the photographs of the 4" Mark IV Gun on the P IX Mounting. The replies came in within 24 hours and saved my bacon. As usual SMML produces the results. (I'm now updating my drawing of the 4" Mark IX and IX* Gun on the CPI Mounting of 1917. The main gun armament of the Flower Class Corvette. I visited the Model Engineer Exhibition at Alexandra Palace in North London yesterday. As usual a very high standard of ship model was displayed. I met a few old friends too. (Tot Time was celebrated by some WW II C/F crews with due ceremony at 8 bells). Yours "Aye" John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From Donsrcships@wmconnect.com Subject Re Flectcher and Gearing HELLO Joseph. This is Don that Portland Rustbucket . ( Don MacDonald ) OK I know this note is a little old but I have not check my boads lately. OK I see your doing something with the Summer or gearing class and i see you said you saw a pictureof the USS Laffey DD 724. OK If you go to model warship look up that ship again. under the 2005 list you will one see the one I did a converstion on the BLUE Devil hull. I did it befor the fram change over and it is RC. If I can help just get backin touch sorry for being late on this one. DON ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Leslie D. Foran" Subject Wood Planking for Revell U-Boat Greg, I have a suggestion if you decide to use the laser-cut wood decking on your operating U-boat model. I think it would be do-able if you do the following after making any cuts or drilling mounting holes, coat the decking with a polyurethane spar varnish. Be sure to apply this to both sides to prevent warping. After the first coat dries, the varnish will raise the grain, so lightly sand the wood before applying a second coat. If you are careful to varnish the cut edges and inside any holes, the varnish should seal the wood from water. Be sure you use a product labelled "spar varnish", as this is specially made for sealing wood on boats. Spar varnish is available at hardware stores under several brand names, and in both spray and for brush application. A couple years ago I built a false transome for my inflatable boat (to use as a motor mount) and it has gone through two boating seasons with no water damage after using spar varnish on it as described above. Les Foran Western Nebraska ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume