Re: Capt. of USS San Fransico reassingned

From: nospam (nospam_at_nospam.net)
Date: 01/29/05 

To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:21:37 -0800

How about a scenario where the sub detects the wall with
sonar or other sensors very shortly before impact and you
get a maximum hard rudder over to one side to avoid a
collision, which not only turns but tilts the boat? I'm
thinking of the scenario in the movie Red October where they
make a last minute turn to avoid an underwater cliff?

What if there's a ship wreck on the side of the underwater
mountain and you hit that?

What if it wasn't a mountain at all, but a collision in a
game of underwater chicken-tag with some other country's
submarine, and the other country isn't willing to admit what
happened?

George William Herbert wrote:
> stmx3 <stmx3@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Apparently this wasn't a direct head-on collision, but yet it wasn't a
>>glancing blow either. I see no further damage along the port side or
>>on the port fairwater plane so it looks like just the one single
>>contact. Also, there must have been a significant side load because,
>>if you look at the bulkhead between MBTs 1 & 2, you'll see it is bowed
>>in the forward direction (not aft, like you'd expect from a near
>>head-on collision). So, I'd say a 45 - 50 angle on the bow hit.
>>OR...a 20 deg AOB hit, slewing the boat 25-30 degrees as it absorbs
>>energy along the path of least resistance (i.e. not directly along the
>>longitudinal bulkhead (between MBT 1A and 1B). And I've also heard
>>that, as the boat dropped instantaneously from ~30kts to 4kts, it took
>>a large up angle...so perhaps theres damage further along the bottom.
>>I'd love to see a simulation model of the accident.
>
>
> Actually, something has been bothering me since I saw these
> detailed photos, and I finally have decided I have to pose
> the question and see what the rest of you think.
>
> Comparing the two drydock hires images, it's clear that
> while there's signficant damage to the side and upper
> port quadrant of the #1 and 2 ballast tanks (if I'm
> correctly interpreting Derek's labeling). But the bottom
> is more or less intact, with one frame's worth of crumple
> in tertiary overload failure.
>
> Ok. You're a submarine proceeding underwater and you
> hit a head on to head on / glancing blow on an underwater
> solid mountain obstacle.
>
> Say this mountain has a purely vertical flat wall that you
> hit at about a 45 degree angle. So the nose and port side
> of the nose are damaged, etc. Fine. But the damage should
> be more or less symetrical top and bottom.
>
> Say this mountain is like most mountains, somewhat conical
> so there's not a straight vertical wall but it leans back
> some as it goes up. So you hit it, as say a 45 degree
> angle. Same damage pattern, except that you expect
> *more* damage on the bottom now.
>
> How, exactly, do you hit a mountain and have more damage
> on the *top* quadrant than the bottom?
>
> That would seem to indicate an obstacle with a greater than
> 90 degree slope, some sort of overhang or something.
>
> Now, I've seen underwater topology with vertical cliff faces.
> I've seen underwater topology with very slight overhangs.
> But enough to do that sort of damage?
>
> The only credible thing I can think of is that it was a
> fairly vertical wall, but that the bottom of the hull
> has more structure down there for some reason,
> and while the upper lobe more or less just got ripped
> off the lower lobe just got compressed in somewhat but
> basically survived.
>
> The alternatives all seem too bizarre. A serious overhang?
> The sub rolled over to port before impact? Subs don't normally
> do that...
>
>
> -george william herbert
> gherbert@retro.com
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Forcecage Spell/ Ground support (in regards to Order of the Stick 375)
    ... You going to claim that you can't place a Wall ... Force broadside to a ship so that it runs into it? ... Or that it just doesn't damage the ship at all. ... Yes, but it's not listed as a use in the spell description, and thus by your ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • The Kook Physics Of The Undamaged Pentagon Column
    ... > inches) to which the pressure or force is applied is known. ... > columns and wall, however it's safe to figure they were pretty much ... >> for starboard engine damage and tail damage. ... > There are pictures of engine parts in front of the Pentagon, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why the planes did not crumple
    ... to the wall of 7.5 KSI to 62.5 KSI. ... not have been a plane of that size, ... leaving the striking object with no damage and only loss of velocity to ... A car colliding with a brick garden fence. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Grossly overheated news headline
    ... Is this a theme park mountain or some other artificial mountain ... A fire on Black Mountain in west Belfast is thought to have ... I thought you were going to complain about "malicious fire," but maybe ... damage" and suchlike are familiar in BrE. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: tripping with a wall of stone
    ... I think the damage is low for chargers that are quite close to the ... How much damage would the horse and rider take falling at that speed?? ... Charging horses move, what, ... And unless the caster times the wall inhumanly well, ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)