US Destroyer T-boned - Again

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, the merchants bow was probably high, because the nature of the hole, from below basically, which would indicate that they got hit by the bulb, but a hard turn to starboard would drop the portside not raise it, so if hard a starboard, the impact would have been higher up on the hull. Ships don't bank like airplanes, opposite of that.

Right, and the impact is on the port-side, correct?

Either way, they were turning hard away from the freighter at moment of impact. That bulb is just barely above water-level, if at all.

[Smitty-48]

Well, the merchants bow was probably high, because the nature of the hole, from below basically, which would indicate that they got hit by the bulb, but a hard turn to starboard would drop the portside not raise it, so if hard a starboard, the impact would have been higher up on the hull. Ships don't bank like airplanes, opposite of that.

Right, and the impact is on the port-side, correct?

Low on the portside, which would mean, if hard about, they were turning to port, raising the portside to be hit low on that side. If they were hard about to starboard, the portside would have been low, and the hole would be higher up near the deck.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, the merchants bow was probably high, because the nature of the hole, from below basically, which would indicate that they got hit by the bulb, but a hard turn to starboard would drop the portside not raise it, so if hard a starboard, the impact would have been higher up on the hull. Ships don't bank like airplanes, opposite of that.

Right, and the impact is on the port-side, correct?

Low on the portside, which would mean, if hard about, they were turning to port, raising the portside to be hit low on that side. If they were hard about to starboard, the portside would have been low, and the hole would be higher up near the deck.

Again, I don't know the exact size of that destroyer, but the hole looks about 20 feet above water-level...

[Smitty-48]

Also, if in the merchants path to their portside, hard a starboard doesn't get them out of the path it keeps them in it, so if they were turning away, starboard would not be where to turn, because that would just staying in the merchants path, he's coming from portside, turning hard a starboard from there, is actually just vectoring to stay in his path, if you're trying to avoid him, you just keep going, you don't turn back into him, you try to swing your stern around out of his way.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Also, if in the merchants path to their portside, hard a starboard doesn't get them out of the path it keeps them in it, so if they were turning away, starboard would not be where to turn, because that would just staying in the merchants path, he's coming from portside, turning hard a starboard from there, is actually just vectoring to stay in his path, if you're trying to avoid him, you just keep going, you don't turn back into him, you try to swing your stern around out of his way.

True enough. I'm going with the 'cowboy' theory. Somebody thought they could race the train and lost.

[Smitty-48]

Right, and the impact is on the port-side, correct?

Low on the portside, which would mean, if hard about, they were turning to port, raising the portside to be hit low on that side. If they were hard about to starboard, the portside would have been low, and the hole would be higher up near the deck.

Again, I don't know the exact size of that destroyer, but the hole looks about 20 feet above water-level...

If they had been hard a starboard, the hull would be leaning down sharply to port, so they would have got hit right up on the deck level, not anywhere near the waterline.

[Smitty-48]

Also, if they had been hard a starboard, that's where you would see the hole being torn laterally along the hull, because they would actually be pulling against the impact, whereas if hard a port, they would be swinging the stern away, so the impact would be reduced and more of a straight in punch, rather than a ripping action as they swung the stern into the impact as they went starboard.

Hole is low to the portside, portside was not low, hole is a straight in punch, no ripping action, looks like; portside turn into the path and just didn't make it before they got clipped, but were still swinging their stern away so didn't tear it laterally as they took the hit.

[Smitty-48]

Even if they had been totally asleep at the switch and just drove in front of the merchant, that would also cause more ripping action as they scraped laterally along its bow, the look of the hole as being a straight in punch without lateral tearing nor scraping, that seems to indicate that they didn't do that neither. And that would be a lot of guys being asleep at the switch at the same time, which makes me suspect garbage in garbage out more than dozing.

[Speaker to Animals]

my bet is on some kind of equipment malfunction. They must have been relying on some kind of anti collision system that failed. The two ships that T -boned the Destroyers are huge. They don't turn or change speed suddenly. For a modern computer they should be about as predictable when it comes to future position as a lighthouse.

Who takes responsibility when a system fails like this? Can the manufacturer be sued or do they get some immunity?

MV ACX Crystal


Alnic MC

My bet is incompetence and possibly unjustifiable risk-taking.

The USN has a reputation for being somewhat bozo apparently for a reason..

[Smitty-48]

Maybe they just wanted to come about, portside in front of the merchant, and maybe they were a little too careless about it, and that merchant was coming harder and was already closer than they thought, and so instead of busting the portside turn with flourish around the merchant, they got clipped, so maybe they were showing off a bit and just got burned.