This is going a bit too far, although I agree with the overall thrust. Very often an otherwise structurally sound modern vessel that goes aground in good weather is not destroyed. For example, the ship I mentioned in my last post needed a couple of million dollars worth of steel replacement forward, but that was only about a tenth of its value. Not even close to a write off. The “Pasha Bulker” which went aground on the beach in Newcastle last year was very badly damaged for almost her whole length but was refloated and repaired.
I was not talking about a casual accident. I was responding to the scenario where a tanker would be used as a missile at full speed so it would “plow a mile inland”. What I say is that a tanker is not going to plow a mile inland but if you send it full speed into the shore it will just be destroyed right there.
I read the other day that most of these ships only have forward mounted radar, thus have a blindspot when approached from the rear.
“If ships would only operate at night it would be a simple matter of installing a series of infrared cameras around the ship.”
What do they do during the day, magically teleport out of the area?
Otara
I understood you perfectly, and what I said stands.
What mechanism of destruction do you see? Feel free to describe the damage in terms of particular elements of ship structure and the mechanism of damage. I should be able to keep up.
I don’t think so. The radar is usually mounted above the bridge on conventional vessels, which is at the stern. I’ve never had to consider the issue. Certainly the radar extends well around to the quarter on either side, but possibly they have a blind spot directly astern, but I’ve never noticed it.
I read it here, or am I misunderstanding?
Excuse me, is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
Sorry, but I am not allowed to argue unless you pay.
Since you are the expert why don’t you tell us what would happen if a tanker were to steer right into the coast at 20 knots? I am quite sure it will not get very far inland. In fact, I am quite sure the rudder would still be in the water.
No, sounds like you are exactly right. Since my experience is with casualties that were going forward, I’ve never had to consider a radar shadow behind. I’ve never noticed it, but I’ve probably just never had reason to consider it.
That would be an unusually fast VLCC, though there are some that fast.
I agree with your last two sentences entirely.
The short answer is that it depends upon whether the coast shelves abruptly or gradually, but either way there will be damage forward but that is unlikely to do more than flood the forward peak and possibly the forward double bottoms. It takes a lot to sink a VLCC because they are very big and fully compartmentalised. There’s a hellava lot of ship between the point of impact and the centre and aft tanks. Immediately aft of the forward peak is the “collision bulkhead” which is specifically designed to ensure that when the bow gets concertina’ed, the rest doesn’t and stays watertight.
Driving aground straight ahead is actually the best way to do it: only the “dumb” end of the ship hits, and your propellor and rudder (which are the crucial bits) stay clear. Also, it’s better than going in sideways because you don’t get damage to tanks along the length of the ship, and you don’t get hung up and in danger of breaking the ship’s back as the tide falls afterwards.
Also, oil floats, which means when you get tank holing you don’t get water ingress, and oil also provides flotation.
After the collision, she’ll be stuck hard, but the stern will be afloat. Fully loaded is good, because it means that you can lighten and float off. The worst is when a ship grounds in ballast, because there’s not much to pump out to lighten it.
If the weather is bad, or gets bad before you refloat, then all bets are off.
Until that last sentence I was going to mention the Torrie Canyon. (I also realise she was not a double bottomed tanket.