Now I'm no Nelson....
Discussion
Probably not an answer available, but if we seem to be suggesting that the behaviour of the merchant was suspicious, what was the operational role of the navy ship? Could it have been trying to execute a stop?
Even so it should have been able to keep clear, using some sort of normal stop and search procedures.
Do the extreme course variations of the merchantman suggest some sort of struggle for control on board her? Not as in crew struggling to deal with faulty steering but struggle for command? Naval vessel in close proximity might make them do something stupid.
Even so it should have been able to keep clear, using some sort of normal stop and search procedures.
Do the extreme course variations of the merchantman suggest some sort of struggle for control on board her? Not as in crew struggling to deal with faulty steering but struggle for command? Naval vessel in close proximity might make them do something stupid.
My dad was a skipper on container ships. One night a ship felt a momentary judder but nobody could find a fault. It kept steering to port but nothing wrong could be found. Eventually somebody looked over the bow and discovered an impaled whale, head on. :-( and yes these ships can get a move on if they need to.
HarryW said:
It won't be a million miles away though. Each extra knot towards the top end of speed can take up to double the power.
That's interesting, isn't it?I once saw a TV documentary about the big trans-Atlantic ocean liners of the thirties, when they were racing for the Blue Riband. They interviewed the ex-Captain of the Queen Mary who said that he hated the whole thing. Every time the Normandie went faster he was ordered to get the record back. Just to get there a few minutes faster they had to use half as much fuel again . The ships were designed to cruise at a specific speed, and if you tried to go faster, the water resistance would just build up and hold you back.
I have ever since taken this as a lesson in life. I reckon that I am designed to go at a certain speed, and any attempt to go even a little bit faster will result in a disproportionate expenditure of energy.
It works very well.
HarryW said:
s2art said:
tescorank said:
Total agreed, that class of destroyers top speed is 30 knots
Do we really know that? Or is that just a figure put out by the USN?I've been on warships doing 30knots plus and they shake and virbrate quite a bit at that speed.
In a previous lifetime which included doing four transatlantics on sailing yachts we regularly radioed merchant men either on days or nights, the majority had no watch on and didn't respond to radio comms.
Never been on merchant man doing 30knots but I know Volvo 60 get noise at 35knots plus!
Never been on merchant man doing 30knots but I know Volvo 60 get noise at 35knots plus!
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?
I think the initial change of course (the hard turn to starboard) is to try and avoid the collision and not prior to it.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?
It then makes a hard turn to port going back to the site of the collision (to provide assistance if required) - you can see it slows at that point - and then turns to starboard again to resume it's previous bearing.
Makes no sense that this was deliberate IMO.
Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 17th June 22:35
Bodies of the missing sailors have been found inside flooded compartments of Fitzgerald.
Reuters link
Reuters link
gregs656 said:
I think the initial change of course (the hard turn to starboard) is to try and avoid the collision and not prior to it.
It then makes a hard turn to port going back to the site of the collision (to provide assistance if required) - you can see it slows at that point - and then turns to starboard again to resume it's previous bearing.
Makes no sense that this was deliberate IMO.
But why just sail away? You can't do that accidentally.
It then makes a hard turn to port going back to the site of the collision (to provide assistance if required) - you can see it slows at that point - and then turns to starboard again to resume it's previous bearing.
Makes no sense that this was deliberate IMO.
But why just sail away? You can't do that accidentally.
Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 17th June 22:35
gooner1 said:
gregs656 said:
I think the initial change of course (the hard turn to starboard) is to try and avoid the collision and not prior to it.
It then makes a hard turn to port going back to the site of the collision (to provide assistance if required) - you can see it slows at that point - and then turns to starboard again to resume it's previous bearing.
Makes no sense that this was deliberate IMO.
But why just sail away? You can't do that accidentally.It then makes a hard turn to port going back to the site of the collision (to provide assistance if required) - you can see it slows at that point - and then turns to starboard again to resume it's previous bearing.
Makes no sense that this was deliberate IMO.
]
Edited to post map.
Edited by FiF on Sunday 18th June 10:09
Elroy Blue said:
What was the OOW doing on the destroyer? No matter what the other ship is doing, your ship shouldn't be in a position where a collision occurs.
Read the top post by Wordsmith, click to expand the quoted part.https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/pull-up-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff