Now I'm no Nelson....
Discussion
....but can any of you nautical coves, explain how the below happened.
Pretty sure the Cargo ship would have the bare minimum crew possible but
the American ship, one of the most up to date warships afloat?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40310563
Pretty sure the Cargo ship would have the bare minimum crew possible but
the American ship, one of the most up to date warships afloat?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40310563
Well after looking at the damage and US oft propensity for showing off, my money is on the US ship going for it thinking it can outpace the merchant man that is not that agile, then a quick "right turn" to get past it, then an o-s
t moment when they realise (too late) that the merchantman is going a tad faster than they thought.
t moment when they realise (too late) that the merchantman is going a tad faster than they thought. sherbertdip said:
Well after looking at the damage and US oft propensity for showing off, my money is on the US ship going for it thinking it can outpace the merchant man that is not that agile, then a quick "right turn" to get past it, then an o-st moment when they realise (too late) that the merchantman is going a tad faster than they thought.
Total agreed, that class of destroyers top speed is 30 knots whereas a container ships normally cruise around 20 knots but some can top out at 37 knots (42 mph).t moment when they realise (too late) that the merchantman is going a tad faster than they thought. Link to vessels history.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/...
The ship that hit it was doing 14knts but had been sailed erratically prior to the incident, doing a u turn on its course before the collision and then after the collision reversi its course again, apparently not stopping after the collision but going back to its original destination.
There's no normal reason for a merchant vessel to be being sailed like this. Wastes fuel and increases costs.
Smells very iffy to me. More to this story to come perhaps? Could it have been a deliberate ramming?
There's no normal reason for a merchant vessel to be being sailed like this. Wastes fuel and increases costs.
Smells very iffy to me. More to this story to come perhaps? Could it have been a deliberate ramming?
TTmonkey said:
The ship that hit it was doing 14knts but had been sailed erratically prior to the incident, doing a u turn on its course before the collision and then after the collision reversi its course again, apparently not stopping after the collision but going back to its original destination.
There's no normal reason for a merchant vessel to be being sailed like this. Wastes fuel and increases costs.
Smells very iffy to me. More to this story to come perhaps? Could it have been a deliberate ramming?
Link? Even so there is no way it could out manoeuvre the warship to force a collision. Intriguing. There's no normal reason for a merchant vessel to be being sailed like this. Wastes fuel and increases costs.
Smells very iffy to me. More to this story to come perhaps? Could it have been a deliberate ramming?
XCP said:
chris watton said:
A little off-topic, but it always amazes me just how slow these light warships are! 50k ton battleships of the WW2 era and before could go as fast, some faster.
Surprises me. Some Destroyers in 1916 could do 35 knots, I guess the role has changed slightly though!HarryW said:
TTmonkey said:
The ship that hit it was doing 14knts but had been sailed erratically prior to the incident, doing a u turn on its course before the collision and then after the collision reversi its course again, apparently not stopping after the collision but going back to its original destination.
There's no normal reason for a merchant vessel to be being sailed like this. Wastes fuel and increases costs.
Smells very iffy to me. More to this story to come perhaps? Could it have been a deliberate ramming?
Link? Even so there is no way it could out manoeuvre the warship to force a collision. Intriguing. There's no normal reason for a merchant vessel to be being sailed like this. Wastes fuel and increases costs.
Smells very iffy to me. More to this story to come perhaps? Could it have been a deliberate ramming?
gooner1 said:
L
Map of ships travels.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:...
All very strange. Pity we can't get a track of the Fitzgerald.
TheRainMaker said:
No excuse for a warship to be hit.
Even if the cargo ship didn't have right of way, the warship has people and systems to avoid the situation long before it becomes "situation".
Agreed. A warship is fast and agile compared to a tanker. It's also very easy to tell when you're on a collision course with another vessel.Even if the cargo ship didn't have right of way, the warship has people and systems to avoid the situation long before it becomes "situation".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff