Canadian sub sinks former USNS Concord - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Roadkiller · #1 18 Jul 12, 20:02

Yesterday during RIMPAC:

Half Pint John · #2 18 Jul 12, 20:51

Interesting Art, but it looked like it sank due to taking on water and not from structural damage.

In you opinion could she have been saved if crewed. I know your not working off of much other than this vid.

Roadkiller · #3 18 Jul 12, 21:49

Hi John:

I agree. The hit is well forward and although it certainly holed the ship, it did not appear to "break her back" as we have all seen in other videos of torpedo firings.

While much would depend on how many watertight compartments the ship was divided into, in my humble opinion only, damage control efforts by a crew may have saved the ship. They could have sealed the forward part of the ship off, commenced pumping operations and limped on. Certainly counterflooding aft would have kept her from lifting her stern out of the water.

To counter that of course, a "live" ship would have been closer to full load displacement and likely suffered a large number of casualties. Still, without knowing much other than one vid, I think it could have been done

MonsterZero · #4 18 Jul 12, 22:42

I saw some desperate Canadian sailors jumping overboard at the last minute. Good for them!

WWIIWWIpilot · #5 18 Jul 12, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

I saw some desperate Canadian sailors jumping overboard at the last minute. Good for them!

Who would stay on a sinking ship? Lol!

T. A. Gardner · #6 19 Jul 12, 00:01

She would have survived that with a crew aboard and watertight compartments dogged down.

At worst one of the forward holds would have been flooded and with pumping that could have been stabilized.

skiplc · #7 19 Jul 12, 03:13

Agree. SinkEx targets are usually opened up so as to flood and sink. If only damaged, EOD folks usually board and set charges to put the target under; expensive and dangerous.

drivin-fool · #8 19 Jul 12, 14:20

The (then) USS Concord steamed with my battlegroup back in the late 80's and we were grateful to her for stores, mail, and evrything else she brought alongside. I hate to see her go down this way, but it is better than being cut into millions of pieces, and made into razor blades or Coke cans

Roadkiller · #9 19 Jul 12, 16:29

Lots of discussion about this today.

Worth noting:
a. The torpedo did not "hit" the ship. Like all modern torpedoes, it did so at a pre-programmed depth under the ship's keel. Still, note the size of the plume of water!
b. The ship sank in 12 minutes.
c. Initial assessment is that more than one watertight compartment was holed and certainly doors and hatches outside those were also sprung.

DC would have been a challenge

And I agree, it's great that these old ships can perform one final service

Half Pint John · #10 19 Jul 12, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadkiller

Hi John:

I agree. The hit is well forward and although it certainly holed the ship, it did not appear to "break her back" as we have all seen in other videos of torpedo firings.

While much would depend on how many watertight compartments the ship was divided into, in my humble opinion only, damage control efforts by a crew may have saved the ship. They could have sealed the forward part of the ship off, commenced pumping operations and limped on. Certainly counterflooding aft would have kept her from lifting her stern out of the water.

To counter that of course, a "live" ship would have been closer to full load displacement and likely suffered a large number of casualties. Still, without knowing much other than one vid, I think it could have been done

Dang Art!!!!! I thought, hoped to have taught you better. When at sea there is only one casualty that counts.

Now if you act dumb, I'll have to extend my vacation and come up there and give your land lubber _____ that it gets back in gear.

So now my highly respected friend, can you still tell me what that one casualty might be. Please realize your future hangs in the balance.

Roadkiller · #11 19 Jul 12, 21:34

Well John, the damage control mantra is "Float, Move, Fight".

So the number one thing is to stay afloat. After that, make the ship move, then make it combat worthy.

Mind you, on a personal note, the #1 thing to prevent would be becoming a casualty myself

Blackcloud6 · #12 20 Jul 12, 08:30

What is the training value in torpedoing a ship that is sitting dead in the water?

johns624 · #13 20 Jul 12, 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackcloud6

What is the training value in torpedoing a ship that is sitting dead in the water?

Well, with the problems that the RCN has had with their subs, it proves their "worth".

Blackcloud6 · #14 20 Jul 12, 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by johns624

Well, with the problems that the RCN has had with their subs, it proves their "worth".

I am unfamiliar with the RCN's issues with their subs. What are their problems? How does this SINKEX show those issues are resloved?

drivin-fool · #15 20 Jul 12, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackcloud6

What is the training value in torpedoing a ship that is sitting dead in the water?

Even though the ship is not moving the sub crew are still learning the various steps necessary to fire the torpedo at the target, and in turn they are getting "Hand's On" experience doing what they were trained for.

It also allows the ship's systems to be used for what they were meant to do. There is nothing worse than a simulated explosion on the horizon