Why park a submarine by the QUEEN MARY

Mar 31, 2005
7
0
71
What sort of BLOOMING IDIOT (just my opinion) would place the retired Russian sub "Scorpion" beside the QM? Think of the ironies & contrasts:
(1)PURPOSE: QM was designed to PROMOTE(& in WW2) DEFEND peace; "Scorpion" was made in Cold War for OFFENSIVE purpose of firing should real war actually break out;
(2)OWNERSHIP: QM was England's, always a 20th century ally for peace; "Scorpion" was Russia's, described by former Pres. Ronald Reagan as "The Evil Empire";
(3)INTEREST: which will be more popular with the public: a huge & famous former luxury liner, or a small, unknown submarine?
I had a model of the Queen Mary, but have never seen one of the Scorpion. That say anything?
Rob
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
To be bluntly realistic, the Queen Mary was designed to make money for her owners and stockholders by engaging in the trans-Atlantic passenger trade. In World War Two, there was no peace being promoted. It was all out total war. Granted, it was against a regime so evil by any reckoning that it beggers belief, but it was war nonetheless and the Queen Mary's roll as to transport soldiers to where they were needed to do the job.

As to the Russians, I'm a child and veteren of the Cold War and I've even had some opportunities to interact with my counterparts on the other side. I disagreed with their politics and had little use for the people they took their orders from, but they weren't in themselves evil. Far from it. They impressed me as a very professional lot as dedicated to the defence of their country as I was and still am to mine. And make no mistake about it, these people never lacked for resourcefulness and courage...lots of it...even in the service of a government that often let them down. This is especially true of their submariners who put to sea in boats that had horrific accident rates due to often poor training and slipshod industrial standards. I have no problem offering to them the honour and respect that's their due.

When their country called, they stepped up to the plate. As a military man and sailor, it's something I understand and respect.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,108
12
198
There is also the financial angle. Queen Mary has been on the verge of bankruptcy repeatedly, and perhaps the addition of other attractions is seen as a way of generating more revenue. This may be the wrong venue in which to introduce this particular thought, but the world of liner buffs is considerably smaller than the world of military buffs, and perhaps the introduction of MORE open-to-the-public military vessels to the area might be a good way to boost QM's financial totals.

>which will be more popular with the public: a huge & famous former luxury liner, or a small, unknown submarine?

Given the success of the various submarine exhibits here on the East Coast, and the QM's several close calls with bankruptcy I'd have to go with choice #2, unfortunately.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,360
745
273
Chicago, IL, USA
I don't believe the nationality of the vessel is the issue. In Chicago, at the Museum of Science and Industry, they have a German U boat that was captured during WW-II on display. It is a great attraction. There are plenty of US boats to explore around the US, but not many vessels of former adversaries.

As a member of the Submarine Memorial Association I can tell you that location is everything. Here in NJ we have the USS Ling (SS297) tied up in the Hackensack river. A few years ago there was a proposal to move her to Liberty State Park behind the Statue of Liberty along with decommissioned USS New Jersey (BB65). The battleship was instead moved to the Delaware River outside of Trenton (the Capitol of NJ) and the Ling is still where she has always been, up river. Both would be so better off if they were located together in NY harbor by Liberty State park along with the NJ Naval Museum. Certainly that would attract a lot more tourists who come to visit NY City every year and take the ferry to visit Ellis Island and the Statue. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the advantage of that location. But you all know how politicians think - sorry - I mean are influenced.
 
Mar 31, 2005
7
0
71
Michael, my apologies for sending an incomplete, misleading message about Russia in general. I'll restate that Reagan's quote was solely aimed at the Cold War era USSR govt, not the people; that was my intent, too. I've also met a few native Russians: kind & caring folk who love their land but not their govt (which like you said, has often disappointed THEM).

You mentioned poor submarines: wasn't it the "Murmansk" that went down off Siberia's coast a few years ago? Movies like "K-19:The Widowmaker" & "The Hunt for Red October" also portray a mix of loyal soldiers beleaguered by subs with poor parts, yet still other soldiers seeking asylum in the United States.

Thanks again for your correction & helping me see the insult in my above post: completely unintended, but insult nonetheless. Personally, though, I can't really see much way Scorpion can give QM much financial boost (unless it had been a 'war prize' like the u-boat Samuel Halpern mentioned above); I still think the liner will far overshadow it, but any financial help is appreciated.
Rob
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
Actually, that was the Kursk. A Project 949 class guided missile submarine that was lost. The best evidence tends to indicate that it was one of the torpedos that exploded and cooked off the rest in the torpedo room.

>>Personally, though, I can't really see much way Scorpion can give QM much financial boost (unless it had been a 'war prize' like the u-boat Samuel Halpern mentioned above); <<

I can. It all boils down to the novelty of seeing what it is the "Other Guy" was using.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,108
12
198
>Personally, though, I can't really see much way Scorpion can give QM much financial boost

Because there are far more military buffs than there are liner buffs, and there may be a possible spillover to the QM of visitors to the sub who think "well, as long as we are here, we might as well...."
 
Mar 31, 2005
7
0
71
>Because there are far more military buffs than there are liner buffs, and there may be a possible spillover to the QM of visitors to the sub who think "well, as long as we are here, we might as well...."<

Right Jim...[of course, there are lots more military ships than liners, too :')], people do think 'as long as we're here' The sub's just an AFTERTHOUGHT right now--doesn't get any advertising billing with the QM. Maybe there could be more attraction if freeway exit signs led to the "Ship & Sub Tour"(or make your own; ideas welcome). That could raise some funds.

Of course if the sub were a "war prize" as one listed above, that would no doubt give LOTS more interest, & definite $ boost for both ships!
Rob
 

John Clifford

Member
Nov 12, 2000
1,686
0
166
56
I got a chance to visit the Russian submarine, last July. It was quite a contrast to walk through the cramped environment of the submarine, instead of the spacious areas of the Queen Mary. It is not a place for anyone who is claustrophobic, and one has to duck down a lot, to go through it (I'm 6'1").

What I don't have is what year that particular model of submarine was launched. One should also remember that the Russians also fought against the Germans in World War II. I find myself thinking about how it was a Russian submarine that sank the Wilhelm Gustloff, and about four other German merchant ships in early 1945, when the Queen Mary was the Gray Ghost.

How long the Russian submarine will be there is anyone's guess.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
>>What I don't have is what year that particular model of submarine was launched.<<

The submarine in question is a Project 641 type attack boat known in the west as a Foxtrot. The first one, named B-2 was completed on 14 July 1963. [Source: Warships of the USSR and Russia, 1945-1995, page 64.]
 

Ryan Thompson

Member
Dec 6, 2005
261
0
86
Question -- when was the submarine placed there? I've been to the QM and on the submarine, too. Its very interesting.
happy.gif
 

Ryan Thompson

Member
Dec 6, 2005
261
0
86
Cool. I saw it in August of 1999. I bet it was a pain to move the rocks so it could be towed into the enclosed area!