• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Exactly so an overturned boat doesn't sink straight to the bottom by your own account.
Click to expand...

A sailing dinghy has sealed buoyancy tanks or inflated 'bladders' strapped in to the hull to stop it sinking otherwise it will sink straigh to the bottom.

bYZPKDnl.jpg


ZA4cqZll.jpg


Iqz1pz2l.jpg
 
lobosrul5 said:
No. They. Don't. Always. Do. That.



I honestly haven't the foggiest clue why you are even making this baseless claim AGAIN, except maybe it's something you thought before and as always you won't admit to making a mistake. What difference does it make if the Estonia went down on her side vs upside down with respect to if she was deliberately sunk or not???
Click to expand...

The Andrea Dorea sinking was caused by:

  • a collision with another ship
  • being top heavy

What makes you think it is the same circumstances as the Estonia?

For a good example of what happens to a top heavy ship look up that earlier riverboat example or even the Vasa.

On 25 July 1956, while Andrea Doria was approaching the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts, United States, bound for New York City, the eastbound Stockholm of the Swedish American Line collided with her in one of history's most infamous maritime disasters. Struck in the side, the top-heavy Andrea Doria immediately started to list severely to starboard, which left half of her lifeboats unusable.
Click to expand...
wiki

Of course, if Estonia was in a collision, that would indeed explain the rapid sinking.
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. The Estonia turned on its side at 90° and sank right down within 35 minutes. The MS Jan Heweliusz turned on its side due to water ingress onto the car deck and all of its concrete botched repair jobs notwithstanding, it floated belly up for a further five days.
Click to expand...

The Jan Heweliusz was already unstable, there were concerns over it's ballasting and the topweight added by repairs.

Water did not enter the car deck, it capsized in a storm because it was an unstable ship. It was in hurricane conditions and turned over quickly without extensive flooding.

As I keep saying, different ships sink for different reasons.
 
SpitfireIX said:
USS West Virginia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS...nese_raid_on_Pearl_Harbor_-_NARA_-_306536.jpg

USS Arizona:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arizona_(BB-39)#/media/File:USS_Arizona_2.png

USS California:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS...participation_in_World..._-_NARA_-_295983.jpg
Click to expand...

In which way are any of the aforementioned equivalent to the Estonia?

Re USS Arizona, for example:

On 7 December 1941, Arizona was hit by Japanese torpedo bombers that dropped armor-piercing bombs during the attack on Pearl Harbor. After one of their bombs detonated in a magazine, she exploded violently and sank, with the loss of 1,177 officers and crewmen.
Click to expand...
wiki

It is telling is it not that not one single person can find one single equivalent of the Estonia sinking.
 
Vixen said:
Kurm's September expedition was a preliminary one but now the two intact doors have been discovered it may mean a return visit in Spring to check out the other doors and wndows.







Press udpate 12.10.2021
Click to expand...
Did they inspect two doors under all the car deck debris on the relevant side of the ship, or two doors on the accessible but irrelevant side?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So that's all those ships that were torpedoed and bombed and they all went down without turning over!

By far the vast majority of ships you see sinking after hitting mines or being torpedoed look like this

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/pQS8yyrl.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/C8nyAwLl.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/EbeRtuKl.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Er, we were talking about capsizing. Why have you changed the subject to torpedoed ships?

Strangely enough, the Estonia behaved exactly like the torpedoed Wilhelm Gustloff but we all have to pretend it was the bow visor falling off because of a Baltic wave - a wavy sea anyway so ships are ipso facto designed for Baltic conditions in that region.
 
Vixen said:
The only unsealed areas of the hull were the engine room, the swimming pool and sauna and public toilets IIRC.
Click to expand...

How big do you think the machinery and pool spaces are?

What percentage of the reserve buoyancy do they represent??

How much water was already in the hull when the order to secure openings came?

How do you know the status of all the openings in the ship?

How do you know the condition of all the pipe and cable glands that run through compartments?

Did the last person out of every compartment make sure the openings were all securely dogged?

Were all the compartments watertight from above?

Unlike a warship where every compartment below the waterline only has access from above, on a ferry or merchant ship there are openings between the compartments.

Even on navy ships doors and hatches don't always get correctly closed when evacuating a compartment. I can link you to a document that details how flooding progressed through warships in WW2.
A surprisingly large amount of flooding was due to unsecured openings and badly packed or neglected glands on pipes and cable runs.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A boat is designed to float. Why would anyone deliberately try to make it sink. It doesn't disprove anything, does it? You can make it sink by simply drilling a hole in the hull. Why waste time filling it with water?
Click to expand...

Because ships sink when they fill with water.
 
LondonJohn said:
Actually, that photo of a rowing eight sinking is an excellent example to take.

It's a great example for this reason: these sorts of rowing boats don't typically sink because they collide with something, or because they develop leaks. They sink because they have very little free board (in order to facilitate fast and efficient rowing strokes) - which means it's relatively easy for water from the lake/river to splash above that free board and into the boat. The boat is buoyant when its cargo is merely the rowers and the cox. But if/when more water gets over the side and into the boat than can be auto-bilged out, there comes a point when the additional mass of this water pushes the boat past its buoyancy limit. And it starts to sink.

Furthermore, there's ample empirical evidence (not least from the televised annual Boat Race in the UK) that when these sorts of rowing boats start to sink in this way, they simply sink straight downwards, without capsizing. As your photo elegantly shows.....
Click to expand...

The Estonia didn't do that, did it?
 
Vixen said:
It is telling is it not that not one single person can find one single equivalent of the Estonia sinking.
Click to expand...

The HOFE is the closest equivalent I know. And it's *very* telling that your only objection to the official report declaring that if it had not sunk in shallow water it would have sunk entirely is that you don't want it to be true. And your sole counter example is a sinking *less* like the Estonia than the HOFE.
 
Vixen said:
Er, we were talking about capsizing. Why have you changed the subject to torpedoed ships?

Strangely enough, the Estonia behaved exactly like the torpedoed Wilhelm Gustloff but we all have to pretend it was the bow visor falling off because of a Baltic wave - a wavy sea anyway so ships are ipso facto designed for Baltic conditions in that region.
Click to expand...

Because you were claiming the ship was torpedoed so I showed you pictures of torpedoed ships.
Find me one of a torpedoed ship floating upside down if you can.


Wilhelm Gustloff took 40 minutes to turn on her side after being torpedoed, then it sank bow-first ten minutes later.
It did not turn turtle and float for any length of time.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Balanced out? Which two things do you have in mind that are balanced here, and what is the significance of their being balanced?

If you mean the weight of seawater which might fill the volume of the car deck is roughly equivalent to the displacement of the ship, then what if anything should that tell us?
Click to expand...

The total weight of the Estonia with full capacity passengers and cargo (cars and lorries) - on 28 Sept 1994 it was a half capacity - is circa 18,000 tonnes. at this weight it will float. The car deck is designed to be able to take on 2,000 tonnes of water and it would still float, as the hull can withstand 18,000. If this 2,000 tonnes causes a list making it capsize, then the balance of displaced air and tonnage mean it simply floats upside down instead.

Once water - being heavy - replaces the air in the superstructure's 700 or so individual cabins - then it will finally sink completely. But it doesn't happen in half an hour.
 
Vixen said:
The Andrea Dorea sinking was caused by:

  • a collision with another ship
  • being top heavy

What makes you think it is the same circumstances as the Estonia?

For a good example of what happens to a top heavy ship look up that earlier riverboat example or even the Vasa.

wiki

Of course, if Estonia was in a collision, that would indeed explain the rapid sinking.
Click to expand...

Bows falling off explain the rapid sinking.
 
Vixen said:
The total weight of the Estonia with full capacity passengers and cargo (cars and lorries) - on 28 Sept 1994 it was a half capacity - is circa 18,000 tonnes. at this weight it will float. The car deck is designed to be able to take on 2,000 tonnes of water and it would still float, as the hull can withstand 18,000. If this 2,000 tonnes causes a list making it capsize, then the balance of displaced air and tonnage mean it simply floats upside down instead.

Once water - being heavy - replaces the air in the superstructure's 700 or so individual cabins - then it will finally sink completely. But it doesn't happen in half an hour.
Click to expand...

You are making it up as you go along.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
WHy would it have floated 'belly up'?
You srtill haven't shown any support for this?

By far the huge majority of ships that sink do not turn 'belly up'

Windows on the ship would certainly break due to the imbalance of pressure What is your evidence that they wouldn't?
Click to expand...

That is because they sink because

  • the vessel collides with another ship, submarine or heavy object
  • the vessel has been topredoed
  • the vessel is hit by the one-in-ten super wave swell causing it to break in half
  • the vessel hits a natural disaster such as a hurricane which causes a deadly whirlpool
  • water gets into the ventilation pipes
  • a terrorist act such as the USS Cole.


The JAIC assumed the windows on Deck 4 (the upper car deck) had broken allowing ingress of sea water to accommodation areas. Yet Kurm has found the windowed doors of the car deck completely intact, unbroken and shut. Further investigation is needed but it suggests the JAIC assumption is wrong. Based on a false premise.
 
Vixen said:
... The car deck is designed to be able to take on 2,000 tonnes of water ...
Click to expand...

No. It might have enough reserve buoyancy for another 2000 tons but the car deck was absolutely not designed to take on 2000 tons of water.

Show us your reference for this ******** claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom