Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 16:19:31 GMT
The standard rule is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Fitz was hit on right side, meaning it was trying to cut across path of a larger, less maneuverable ship.
An investigation will take place, will take months. But from initial data, the commanding officer of the USN ship will be fired. The Navy holds its commanders accountable for their actions, in stark contrast to the US Army.
Remember this is an LBH forum. 90% of LBH forum members go to insane and ridiculous lengths to absolve LTC Custer of his actions, while blaming his subordinate officers, noncommissioned officers, soldiers, Indian scouts, horses, mules, terrain (planet earth), etc, etc for the defeat.
I know of no battle where the commander has no responsibility for his decisions. Blaming subordinates who obeyed incompetent orders is disgusting.
The Lunatic board has been called the lunatic board for 8 years for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2017 17:28:31 GMT
I agree that from the initial data it appears that the Fitzgerald was being mishandled.
I also agree that even if the captain had been on his death bed after a coronary induced by Beriberi, exacerbated by a hangnail on the right index finger, when the incident occurred, that he is responsible for all his ship did and failed to do.
The standard rule is port and starboard. Port has the right of way. The prudent rule is for smaller to stay out of the way of larger.
I do not yet rule out deliberate intent on the part of the merchant vessel. While that may seem unlikely, it should not be ruled out until the investigation is concluded.
What the investigation will ultimately decided is the extent of the charges at the Court Martial.
Where I disagree is in the 90 percent. Ten percent go to these "insane and ridiculous lengths to absolve", and eighty percent do not know better. It is then up to the remaining ten percent to educate the eighty, before the lunatic ten get there first.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 18, 2017 14:15:18 GMT
The track of that merchant ship is very, very strange.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 18, 2017 16:49:36 GMT
I have not seen the tracks of either vessel yet but am always surprised when a naval crew is involved in a collision. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 18, 2017 21:30:01 GMT
So are they which begs the question as to why.
There is something about all this that does not smell right.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 18, 2017 23:39:52 GMT
QC Do you have a site where I can see the track of the merchant ship? Thank You Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 19, 2017 2:38:43 GMT
I am afraid not, as far as a site goes. I saw it on Steel Navy, and there are several posts concerning the incident, and one contains a link but I can't remember just which one.
Suffice to say it looked like a two year old scribbling on a piece of paper. There is a distinct 180 degree change of course then another.
Something is not right with this.
PS: Make that the 1250 scale message board. A post by a fellow named Jim Davis
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 20, 2017 16:25:38 GMT
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Generally for me the simple answer is usually the correct one. I tend to be the one that sharpens Occam's Razor.
That said, the business of the Fitzgerald raises the hair on the back of my neck, or al least it would had I any hair back there.
There are just too many things concerning this story that raise questions as to how it happened.
How could a very maneuverable warship, equipped with the latest generation sensors be rammed by a big clunking, hard to maneuver merchant vessel in the middle of the night, with the warship not being able to detect and avoid its approach?
Why did the merchant ship take not one but two 180 degree course corrections? Why was there a delay of nearly an hour for the merchant ship to report the incident?
Was Fitzgerald cutting across the bow of the merchant, or was Fitzgerald turned into by the merchant?
Accidents like these do happen. The Andrea Doria and Stockholm come to mind. I am beginning to believe though that this was not an accident, or at least my suspicions are aroused. Probably would not think this if it were 1955, but it is not.
This bears watching, at least so far until more facts appear. Also watch those facts. There may be some security implications here.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 20, 2017 18:15:44 GMT
Could the captain sailing that merchant vessel be sympathetic to north Korea or even ISIS?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 20, 2017 18:57:30 GMT
Anything is possible. What has to be done is thoroughly investigate the whole thing.
Like I said I am not a conspiracy theorist. I just want someone to make sense out of a story that at this juncture makes no sense
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 20, 2017 19:03:03 GMT
I would have thought that any US naval ship would be alert to any type of threat when operating in foreign waters, and if anything come towards them they would certainly know about it and warn the on coming vessel that if it continued with its present course then it would be fired upon.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 21, 2017 3:15:52 GMT
Remind me not to go fishing in a boat with you anywhere about.
That is the very thing Ian. A Burke has the most sophisticated sensor suite of any vessel afloat. That merchant ship is gross tonnage is several times the size of Fitzgerald. It seems very unlikely that either one or both of those vessels did not know of the other's presence.
I have only seen the track of the merchant vessel, and not of the merchant and Fitzgerald displayed together.
We also do not know of any communications between those two ships.
Firing on a ship belonging to a friendly nation, has more ramifications then one might think. It is an act of war, and has been recognized as such for quite a long time. Problem is here that by the time you realize another vessel is a deliberate or accidental danger to you, and you fire, the forward momentum of that vessels is going to get you anyway, fired on or not.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 21, 2017 13:26:21 GMT
Well I don’t do fishing or a fowling so there is no need to worry on that score.
But seriously, the only way we will find out is by listing to the radio traffic between these two vessels and see at what point the US ship knew that they were going to collide, plus if the Navy is playing its cards close to their chest over the course of their ship in relation to the merchant, but I wonder if it is on line.
Still think that in 2017 with all the technology that a US Naval ship could be struck in such a way.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 21, 2017 13:37:18 GMT
Here is one answer;
The captain of the Crystal said his ship was "sailing in the same direction as the US destroyer and then collided." The collision occurred after the Crystal made an adjustment of course to port, steering toward the Fitzgerald's track. Under normal conditions, the crew of the ship showing its starboard side in a meeting situation is supposed to give the right-of-way. The other ship is required by the international "rules of the road" for shipping to maintain a predictable speed and course.
The bridge watch on the Fitzgerald apparently missed the course change by the Crystal or misjudged the speed of the ship and thought that the destroyer would pass ahead of the freighter. That problem could have been avoided if the Fitzgerald's AIS*** was turned on.
***Automated Identification System [commanders US Navy ships frequently turn off AIS to preserve mission security]
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 5, 2017 10:30:02 GMT
|
|