Quoted: The other theory that gets explored in the SILENT STEEL book is that (believe it or not) a toilet valve that was designed to deep-six the sailor's bodily waste might have malfuctioned while running at depth, resulting in uncontrolled flooding.

They should have jiggled the handle.

Or perhaps the Soviets sunk the Scorpion and discovered shortly afterwards that they had really screwed up.

The key to the loss of the Scorpion was the revilation that the early Mk 37 torpedoes had bad batteries that would short out and catch fire, without generating enough charge to turn the electric motor over and make the prop turn.

That and the fact that the nose of Scorpion is not crushed like the rest of the sub.  But the escape hatch and torpedo loading hatch are both blown open.  Water had filled the bow section of the ship before it exceeded crush depth.  But there is no detectable hole in the 2/3rds of the bow section circumfrence that is above mud.  It may be sitting on a torpedo hole.  But right now all we can see are bent, open hatches, fairly obviously forced open from inside.

All the rest of the cylinder portion of the hull is complely crushed and broken up except for the part of the machinery section where the cone section of the the stern was forced into it.  The pressure was not enough to crush flat the double layer of metal.

Without finding a torpedo entrance wound, a internal explosion that blew the forward hatches open and flooded the torpedo room is the most logical explination.  With the story now out that Mk 37 batteries had caught fire during vibration tests on land the most logical cause is now that a Mk 37 caught fire and the warhead had a cook off, resulting in a explosion that blew the bow hatches off.  The bow filled with water, and was thus not crushed as pressure had already equalized.  A single 330pound warhead, if it was not lying against the pressure hull may not breach the hull, and military explosives are stable enough that there may not be enough power to cause any of the other torpedos to sympathetically detonate.  

The Krakken is a helluva critter.

Quoted: The Krakken is a helluva critter.

Ouch

Quoted: If you are interested in subs, I highly recommend the book Blind Man's Bluff.  Great read.

An acquaintance (former USN nuke guy) told me, "I can't tell you if what's in the book is true, but I was there."


Yes, excellent book!

I have a Book about the U.S.S. Tang a few years back, From what I recall, they were being chased by a Japanese Destroyer and they launched a torpedo from one of the aft tubes and set it so that it would fish around hit the Destroyer on its flank. The toprpedo was set wrong or malfunctioned and it ended up comming back around and hitting the Tang just forward of the aft torpedo room.
Most of the crew survived and were taken prisoner by the Japanese.

In it's short career, the U.S.S. Tang had more Kills than any other U.S. Sub in WWII.

Quoted: Quoted: It's pretty well established that the THRESHER loss was caused by a flooding casualty that scrammed the breeder reactor, resulting in a complete loss of power. Yes, we understand why Thresher was lost.  Many procedures were changed immediately after that accident. 5sub

yup, the start of subsafe

Quoted: My own theory is, she suffered a loss of depth control (either through control jamming or machinery flooding) and passed through her crush depth before the crew could recover.  Examples of machinery flooding could include shaft cracking/separation or TDU malfunction. My theory is drawn on my own experience and not based on any access to restricted data.

I don't know if they existed in the 60's, but currently there is a set of operating envelopes (depth vs speed) which the sub is allowed to operate in.  As long as your inside them and go with the proceedure, you've got depth to spare.  In a simulator packed full of Ensigns, I never saw anyone exceed max depth into the safety margin by more than a handful of feet.

Once you start getting just a little water into the people tank, it goes downhill fast unless you have gobs of speed, and even then, the clock is ticking on a short fuse.

There's lots of bad possibilities all in close proximity with high pressure air, 120+ cell ship's battery, cabling, torpedos, and lots and lots of seawater valves and pipes that can give up rapidly or drip silently (degrading other stuff), the possibilities are endless.  And don't forget the O2 generator (which also makes high pressure hydrogen).

As usual, lots of uninformed speculation in this thread.  Lots of it is based on a couple of books that are somewhat suspect, to say the least.

I have looked at the Scorpion picutres more than a few times.  Some of the pictures I looked at are unpublished, so I'll refrain from discussing them, as what I say I saw in them can't be argued effectively by me or anyone else, especially in a public forum.

I can make a couple of points, based on the public pictures, though.

1. No torpedo exploded inside Scorpions torpedon room.  There wouldn't be enough left ot the forward part of the boat to tell what it was, had this happened.

2. No torpedo exploded on contact with Scorpions hull.  Since Scorpions major hull components are together on the bottom, this is pretty much the same as #1.

(Note: I know what those warheads were made with, and I have a pretty good feel for what kind of explosion would result from a warhead detonation.  Not 'Torpex', a WWII-era composition.  Something somewhat more effective)

3.  Being somewhat familiar with that class of boat, there are other hypotheses that fit the circumstances, if you know something about patrol procedures. Particularly those involved in heading back to port.

4. No one really knows for sure what happened on Scorpion.  Anything, by anyone, (myself included), is nothing more than an informed, educated guess, at best.  All anyone can do is rule out stuff that obviously did not happen, like a warhead detonation.

Speculative statements follow:

No torpedo warhead explosion on or in the hull, from anywhere/any country, sank Scorpion.  This is pretty certain, given the relative complete hull that is on the bottom.

The telescoping of the engineering spaces into the ops compartment could have happened on impact with the bottom, which is my guess.

This impact/telescoping, assuming an open torpedo room watertight door, could have blown off the forward access hatch, and blown open the torpedo loading/escape hatch, and popped the masts up and/or out of the hull.  This requires a flooding casualty so immediate and severe that watertight integrity could not be set within the boat.  OTOH, of the TR WT door was closed, it is possible that an overpressure event in the TR could have caused the forward trunk damage visible in the photos.

Impact with the bottom detached the sail.  Had this happened sooner, the sail would be more remote from the pressure hull.

There are a few things that could have caused all this to happen. But I stress, without going into detail, a knowledge of patrol procedures would lead an educated, informed person down a different path.  I don't think it was an O2 generator explosion.  The boat could probably survive this, and there would be more evidence if not.  

Battery well fire.  Again, the crew would have had time to react, as a battery fire/explosion severe enough to prevent the crew from reacting would have exhibited more discernable damage, IME.

Scorpion did not suffer a 'crush-depth' excursion with watertight integity complete.  Again, there would be more evidence of the hull imploding.  It could be argued that the telescoping of the engineering spaces into the ops compartment is exactly such evidence, however.  Possible, but implausible.

A battery fire in a torpedo.  Again, the crew would have had some time to react, and I have never seen any evidence pointing in this direction, other than pure specualtion.  If it happened in a tube, then the solution (for the crew) would have been fairly obvious and effective.  There is no evidence of this.




It would be nice if Ballard could have placed an ROV into the torpedo room, assuming that is even possible, and assuming he didn't.  There might still be something to be learned from any pictures that might result.  

So does anybody think that the two US subs that were shadowing the Kursk during new topedo testing put a Mark 48 in it after the Kursk shot at one of the US subs which it accidentally rammed? Watched a 2 hour long documentary on this on the History channel which was pretty good a couple of months ago.

Quoted: If you are interested in subs, I highly recommend the book Blind Man's Bluff.  Great read.

+1

Sick stuff happened when no one can hear you.

Quoted: So does anybody think that the two US subs that were shadowing the Kursk during new topedo testing put a Mark 48 in it after the Kursk shot at one of the US subs which it accidentally rammed? Watched a 2 hour long documentary on this on the History channel which was pretty good a couple of months ago.

Russian claims aside, Kursk was destroyed by an internal explosion. The US sub(s) present never fired on her. The Kursk was lost in the middle of a Russian Navy exercise. A couple of US SSNs shooting MK 48s in their direction would have been noticed.

Quoted: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1021640/Titanic-search-Cold-War-cover-story-secret-mission-nuclear-subs.html

If you can't come up with a better source than a tabloid, don't bother posting this stuff.

I don't care how true it is, tabloids are not a reliable source. It's like linking to Wikipedia to prove something.

Quoted: Quoted: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1021640/Titanic-search-Cold-War-cover-story-secret-mission-nuclear-subs.html If you can't come up with a better source than a tabloid, don't bother posting this stuff. I don't care how true it is, tabloids are not a reliable source. It's like linking to Wikipedia to prove something.

How about this:

Foxnews

ABC News

National Geographic

But you're correct about the tabloid.

Quoted: Titanic search was Cold War cover story for secret mission to find nuclear subs

That's old news. Heck, "oceanography" is the cover for every covert maritime operation: recovery of enemy weapons, planting surveillance devices, inserting/recovering personnel, espionage in general, anti-sub/surface warfare, testing, etc...

Quoted: The key to the loss of the Scorpion was the revilation that the early Mk 37 torpedoes had bad batteries that would short out and catch fire, without generating enough charge to turn the electric motor over and make the prop turn. That and the fact that the nose of Scorpion is not crushed like the rest of the sub.  But the escape hatch and torpedo loading hatch are both blown open.  Water had filled the bow section of the ship before it exceeded crush depth.  But there is no detectable hole in the 2/3rds of the bow section circumfrence that is above mud.  It may be sitting on a torpedo hole.  But right now all we can see are bent, open hatches, fairly obviously forced open from inside. All the rest of the cylinder portion of the hull is complely crushed and broken up except for the part of the machinery section where the cone section of the the stern was forced into it.  The pressure was not enough to crush flat the double layer of metal. Without finding a torpedo entrance wound, a internal explosion that blew the forward hatches open and flooded the torpedo room is the most logical explination.  With the story now out that Mk 37 batteries had caught fire during vibration tests on land the most logical cause is now that a Mk 37 caught fire and the warhead had a cook off, resulting in a explosion that blew the bow hatches off.  The bow filled with water, and was thus not crushed as pressure had already equalized.  A single 330pound warhead, if it was not lying against the pressure hull may not breach the hull, and military explosives are stable enough that there may not be enough power to cause any of the other torpedos to sympathetically detonate.

The problem with that theory is the acoustic signals detected by the SOSUS monitoring stations.  If one of the warshots had functioned uncommanded, the acoustic signature would have been a lot stronger than what was detected.

I think it was a flooding casualty, similar to what happened with the THRESHER.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's pretty well established that the THRESHER loss was caused by a flooding casualty that scrammed the breeder reactor, resulting in a complete loss of power. Yes, we understand why Thresher was lost.  Many procedures were changed immediately after that accident. 5sub I highly recommend the book SILENT STEEL if you are interested in the Scorpion.  It came out a few years ago.  I couldn't put it down. THINK that's the book I bought and had read only a few pages.  My puppy was also a reader - AND an eater of books - and he finished off that book !! Guess I should re-buy. 5sub

5sub, I still have my old copy of it, and I'm done with it.  My IMs are turned off, but if you send me an e-mail with your address I'd be happy to mail it to you at no charge.

Quoted: If you are interested in subs, I highly recommend the book Blind Man's Bluff.  Great read.

Phenominal book...

I found it fascinating that the method Ballard used to find the submarines (debris trail) is the method he publicly admitted using to find the Titanic.

I heard Ballard on the radio this morning. What a cool guy!

Ok, so when was the Titanic actually found?

Quoted: Ok, so when was the Titanic actually found?

1985, with a follow up exploration in 1986.

Quoted: In 7 yrs 2 months active, I saw ONE sailor TOTAL leave the submarine service.

When I worked at Electric Boat at least half of the sub sailors I talked to wanted out of the navy and my dad was a Machinist mate nuke on subs and he hated it, in fact he told me they had people on his boat turn themselves in for drug use just to get off the sub.

Quoted: Quoted: In 7 yrs 2 months active, I saw ONE sailor TOTAL leave the submarine service. When I worked at Electric Boat at least half of the sub sailors I talked to wanted out of the navy and my dad was a Machinist mate nuke on subs and he hated it, in fact he told me they had people on his boat turn themselves in for drug use just to get off the sub.

There was a nuke boat in Pearl in the early seventies where enough of the crew did this to prevent the boat from going to sea.  CO and XO relieved. I'll remember which boat, eventually.  I watched them blow sanitaries all over the forward deck once during that period.  My boat lost three guys to drugs, one for being a dickhead, one medical disqual, and one non-vol (ex-nuke MM, never qualified, didn't know what an open-end adjustable wrench was, literally).  The attrition rate at four years was extreme, back then.  Lots of E-5 losses at that point.

edit: It was the Barb.

Quoted: Quoted: Dr Ballard mapped both submarine wrecks using his newly developed underwater robot craft. He concluded that the most likely cause of the Scorpion's destruction was being hit by a rogue torpedo it had fired itself. Is that even possible - to be hit by your own torpedo?

Duh... didn't you see Hunt for Red October?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dr Ballard mapped both submarine wrecks using his newly developed underwater robot craft. He concluded that the most likely cause of the Scorpion's destruction was being hit by a rogue torpedo it had fired itself. Is that even possible - to be hit by your own torpedo? Happened at least once in WW2. USS Tang, SS-306. ETA: Make that 4 times. USS Tang (SS-306) USS Tullibee (SS-284) U-377 U-972 Okay then. Damn that would suck.

They were called "circle runners." The gyros in the warheads on the torpedoes would sometimes cause them to turn around and come back "home." Skipper Dick O'Kane was one of the very few who survived the circle runner that destroyed the Tang because he was on the bridge at the time and flew off after the explosion.

U-869 discovered off of New Jersey in the 1990s by John Chatterton and Richie Kohler was probably destroyed by a circle runner. Shadow Divers is a great read about the discovery of the U-boat.

Quoted: I have a Book about the U.S.S. Tang a few years back, From what I recall, they were being chased by a Japanese Destroyer and they launched a torpedo from one of the aft tubes and set it so that it would fish around hit the Destroyer on its flank. The toprpedo was set wrong or malfunctioned and it ended up comming back around and hitting the Tang just forward of the aft torpedo room. Most of the crew survived and were taken prisoner by the Japanese. In it's short career, the U.S.S. Tang had more Kills than any other U.S. Sub in WWII.

IIRC, only 5 of her crew survived. That's not most by a long shot.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dr Ballard mapped both submarine wrecks using his newly developed underwater robot craft. He concluded that the most likely cause of the Scorpion's destruction was being hit by a rogue torpedo it had fired itself. Is that even possible - to be hit by your own torpedo? Happened at least once in WW2. USS Tang, SS-306. ETA: Make that 4 times. USS Tang (SS-306) USS Tullibee (SS-284) U-377 U-972 Okay then. Damn that would suck. They were called "circle runners." The gyros in the warheads on the torpedoes would sometimes cause them to turn around and come back "home." Skipper Dick O'Kane was one of the very few who survived the circle runner that destroyed the Tang because he was on the bridge at the time and flew off after the explosion. U-869 discovered off of New Jersey in the 1990s by John Chatterton and Richie Kohler was probably destroyed by a circle runner. Shadow Divers is a great read about the discovery of the U-boat.

I HIGHLY recomend that book.