Subject: SMML VOL 3058 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:07:48 +1100 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 HMS Amazon 2 Re Imperial Russia Life Rings - Color? 3 Re Scorpion 4 Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) 5 Re Scorpion 6 revell U-Boat 7 Re Scorpion 8 Re The Scorpion Mystery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "John Grainger" Subject HMS Amazon I am trying too build a radio control model of HMS Amazon as it was the last ship I served in during my Naval career. Do you have any pictures of the hull shape you could send me to assist in my Ply? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From URUDOFSKY@aol.com Subject Re Imperial Russia Life Rings - Color? If the restored Aurora is historically correct, the rings could be half white, half red http//albums.tomoro.net/Jerome/st_petersburg/html/01_f.html Ulrich Rudofsky ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Hank Lapa" Subject Re Scorpion I haven't read all of this thread, but here's my 2 cents I think SOSUS would pick up a detonation (torpedo) and also a traumatic crush event, close together or seperately. SOSUS "range" on hearing traffic is obviously much shorter than for major noise. I'm sure it could pick up a boat running on batteries for some kind of reasonable distance, especially if it could subtract out the much louder background noise. So the "out of range" bit is part of the story "getting better" with every reteller. There is no way the Soviets could have set a trap, or even an effective acoustic barrier, for Scorpion. We would have likely seen part or all of it going into place. We saw them look for their lost missile boat, wide open to us, even when they were keeping the loss a secret. The assumption that the US was guilty is less plausible when they were not even close to the wreck site. As for the US boat coming into Yoko with a damage sail, there are reasons to expect a collision with something other than a sub. US subs still collected photo intel of surface ships. Has anyone ever seen a photo of an American CVNs screws, up very close, taken thru a scope during an excercise? Then again, it could be a "crazy Ivan" causing the damage, no? Not that I know the inside story or anything. None of the above is represented by fact by me or is offered as official information of any kind. Hank ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From jrsheridan@earthlink.net Subject Re The battle of opinions (was Scorpion) >> He asks a bunch of questions, perhaps assuming that I don't know jack about this. I have those answers, spread out in my research notes and collection of submarine books and primary sources, but I think Harold Stockton answered every one of his questions as well or better than I could have. In addition, Harold quoted Craven ((which John referred to - without quoting) to challenge and refute all of John's most aggressive arguments. << Here's what it comes down to Ned Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. So far you have given us none of this. All you given us is some vague conclusions based on historical happenings during the disaster. You have given no hard facts so far to support your argument. All of the evidence presented by Craven, et all goes completely against your assurtion that Scorpion was destroyed by Soviet Forces. I also note that since I challanged your assurtions, now I have become a bad guy. This is typical of a conspriacy theorist tactics. In fact, everything you have presented so far fits the conspriracy theory model. All I ask is that you give us hard facts to support your extrodinary claim Ned. It is not up to me or anyone to disprove you arguments. It is up to you bring your facts (not speculations) to the table to support your claims. >> In the quotes Harold included (see below) Craven clearly concluded that a torpedo explosion was the proximate cause of the sinking of the Scorpion. Beyond that, Harold noted (as I have before) that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that the Soviets bushwhacked the Scorpion. << Again, to back up your claim, you are going to need FACTS not assurtions or anecdotal evidence. I can use your same arguements to prove Scorpion was destroyed by Alien UFOs and the government is covering-up the TRUTH. >> None of us knows all of the facts - no American alive today was there when it happened - but to casually and rather derisively dismiss my conclusions (conclusions based on months of research for the History Channel) impedes, rather than promotes, a fuller understanding of what may have happened at one of the darkest hours of the cold war. << Yet we do have plenty of evidence that supports that the Scorpion was lost due to a accident or casualty. Because we don't have 100% proof does not wipe all this evidence from the table. So far you have given us 0% proof. >> Below , John's rather caustic comments, and Harold's thorough, point-by-point refutation of them, using John's own favorite source to demolish John's contentions. << Please do. I await your answers. Make sure you can back-up your claims however with hard facts. I do have some simple questions What would the Soviets gain (and everything to lose) by sinking a US Sub during peacetime? If the Soviets did sink Scorpion, why hasn't any of the crew of the Soviet sub ever come forward to tell the story? Why could Craven find the Scorpion through triangulation of sonars, yet not a noisy Russian sub? Do you completely discredit the theory that an accident caused the loss of Scorpion? John Sheridan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From ives100@aol.com Subject Re Scorpion Had I known that posting the review of "Silent Steel" was going to lead to such acrimony on SMML, I never would have posted the information. On the other hand, that is, I think, what SMML is all about the sharing of information. Anyhow, I'm sorry that the somewhat inflammatory posting wars have broken out over the Scorpion. They seem to have degenerated into a war of words. I went back and reread the responses in previous volumes, and in my view, I didn't see anything at all I would characterize as a personal attack being made on Ned by either John Sheridan or Rick Nelson in their responses. Ned is certainly entitled to post his opinion on the events that might have transpired around Scorpion's loss, but others are also entitled to ask him for explanations and support for his views. We have a dictum in science that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In any case, I think it best if we move on and leave this topic. We are generating much heat but little light. Tom Dougherty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Gregory Turek" Subject revell U-Boat Thanks for all the advice and contacts, I'll be making use of this. I am a modeller that enjoys the journey rather more than the destination, the building of the model with all its challenges is for me the fun part, Showing it in action is nice but I have few people around me who are interested in it. Maybe I should get in touch with the guys at subcommittee as suggested, I noticed an Australian division, and communicate with like minded hobbyists. I intend to use the plastic deck, have already experimented with having the deck fully watertight and removable, near impossible, so will now seal deck onto hull with small water tight access panel to recharge batteries etc. I intend to submerge only to periscope depth so pressure shouldnt be a problem. I can pump about 600gm of water in and out of internal tank so ballasting to just the right level will be critical. Total displacement is about 2.8kg so all up unflooded weight must be just over 2.2 kg. Regards, Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Roy Knight" Subject Re Scorpion Hi guys I thought that I would say something here, I don't know if it means much or not, but here goes. When I was younger and my dad was in the Navy, he flew in P-3's doing ASW in the Atlantic Fleet. I asked him once about the Scorpion when I was doing a term paper about Submarines, and he would generally answer my questions with an answer or the line "I can't tell you that" Well when it comes to anything about the Scorpion he refuses to talk, I will be the first to say that it doesn't mean anything but it sure brought up a lot of additional questions in my mind. He did tell me that what was heard on SOSUS was explosions or implosions in the area that the Scoprion went down in, and would not answer me when I asked if there was other sounds that would suggest a battle or one on one fight with someone else. When I pushed for more info, he told me that he wouldn't answer any further questions about the Scopion, ever. Does this make me believe that the Scorpion was ambushed, not really, is there the possiblity that the Scorpion stumbled onto something that the Russians were wanting to keep secret so they hunted her down and sunk her? I find that to be more likely than she was jumped on as retaliation for the K-129, if she were sunk buy the Russians. And like Tom said, she could have sunk due to nothing more sinister than an accident. One last thing before I go, my dad did tell me that he had listened to the tape of the Scoprion that was recorded by SOSUS, but that is all he would say. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Chuck Messer" Subject Re The Scorpion Mystery Generally, I tend to believe the loss of the Scorpion was probably due to an explosion in one of her Mk 37 torpedoes, or an explosion in the sub’s own batteries -- examination of the wreck showed considerable damage in that area. Both the Mk 37 and the Scorpion were having a lot of trouble at that time. There were one or two crew members who transferred off the boat -- nicknamed the U.S.S. Scrap Iron -- because of her poor material condition. So, for now, I don’t think she was deliberately sunk. HOWEVER. I do keep two things in mind that keep my mind open on the subject. One is an account by former petty officer Dan Rogers on a PBS documentary, “Secrets of the Cold War Subs”, where he described a surveillance mission where the Soviets did fire a torpedo at his boat. He did not name the boat nor give the time or place. The sub got the hell out of Dodge and outran the torpedo. The usual Soviet practice was to corner the offending sub, hammer them with sonar or practice depth charges until they came to the surface and cried uncle, like the Gudgeon in 1957, or evaded their hunters and got the hell outa Dodge, like the Skipjack ten years later. Skipjack managed to slip away, but only after a long, scary game of hide and seek. The other is an account by Captain Zateyev, the first commander of the ill-fated SSBN K-19. During a shakedown cruise in 1960, K-19’s sonarman detected machinery noises, but a check through the periscope showed nothing. Zateyev concluded they were being shadowed by a submarine - obviously American. They zig-zagged in order to clear their baffles, but could not pinpoint the source of the sound. Long story short, while running at low speed on the surface, the K-19 had to go to full reverse when they spotted a periscope headed their way, apparently looking right at them. They narrowly missed a collision with the American sub, which then headed toward the arctic ice cap at high speed. Zateyev later learned the mystery sub was probably the Nautilus, which intelligence reported was in the Barents sea area at that time. Admiral Gorshkov himself criticized Zateyev for not ramming and sinking the Nautilus when he had the chance. He said he’d have been happy to pay for the damage to K-19’s stempost, which was made of reinforced steel and would have easily penetrated the Nautilus‘ pressure hull. Zateyev told his commanding officer he would never “act like a pirate” during peacetime, even if he were ordered to do so. His CO agreed with him. Sometimes the Soviets did go beyond the peacetime rules of engagement, and it looks like naval officers did so without consulting the Politburo. Gorshkov apparently wasn’t squeamish about sinking U.S. Navy submarines. So, I keep an open mind about the Scorpion, despite my doubts. Chuck Messer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume