• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
They were caulked when the hull was dry and relied on the timber swelling when wet to keep them watertight.
Click to expand...

As do the clinker-built boats hanging from the davits of the otherwise highly irrelevant frigate model a few pages back. The Royal Navy of the Napoleonic era would occasionally tow their boats so that their strakes would not dry out and open the seams.

Their timbers were always 'working' and there was as you say a constant leak at the seams.
Click to expand...

In shell construction, as in many types of shipbuilding, the shell layer is structural. The thin strakes in Viking ships meant the ships were lighter and therefore more buoyant. But the constant stress means the strakes underwent more strain than thicker-straked boats of similar design and were more prone to open seams even when suitably waterlogged.

Contrary to popular myth the Vikings were coastal sailors, long open sea passages were quite rare.
Click to expand...

And the Viking long boats are perfect examples of littoral craft.
 
Vixen said:
The car deck is well above the waterline, so any excess water washes away, just like on any other deck on a ship. Nobody knows when the bow visor fell off but the JAIC put the time at 1:15, which means it sunk in just over half an hour at 1:48. Now the Jan Heweliusz a car ro-ro which was in terrible condition (repaired by concrete) capsized, killing about 58. However, that didn't sink for five days, notwithstanding its grossly negligent state. So the Estonia sinking as fast as it did should have been a huge flag.

Now, if an explosive blew the bow visor off, that would also explain the deformation on the car ramp stiffeners, and likewise the preceding/simultaneous breach to the starboard. Now that would explain why the Estonia sank like the Wilhelm Gustloff and not the Jan Heweliusz.
Click to expand...



If you're correct, then why did the Herald of Free Enterprise sink - given that it's a certainty that HOFE sank because its vehicle deck flooded through open bow doors? And why did HOFE sink even more quickly that the Estonia?


(Hint: the answer is that you're not correct. You don't know what you're talking about.)
 
Vixen said:
Your assumption they were all expert engineers privy to all of the facts.
Click to expand...


Where did I state/imply this as an assumption?

In fact, my assumptions are these: 1) there was sufficient expertise (including, of course, the engagement of external specialists in their fields to contribute to the gathering of evidence and its analysis); and 2) they had enough (more than enough) evidence upon which to draw a robust & reliable conclusion about the cause of the disaster.
 
Vixen said:
The car deck is well above the waterline, so any excess water washes away, just like on any other deck on a ship. Nobody knows when the bow visor fell off but the JAIC put the time at 1:15, which means it sunk in just over half an hour at 1:48. Now the Jan Heweliusz a car ro-ro which was in terrible condition (repaired by concrete) capsized, killing about 58. However, that didn't sink for five days, notwithstanding its grossly negligent state. So the Estonia sinking as fast as it did should have been a huge flag.

Now, if an explosive blew the bow visor off, that would also explain the deformation on the car ramp stiffeners, and likewise the preceding/simultaneous breach to the starboard. Now that would explain why the Estonia sank like the Wilhelm Gustloff and not the Jan Heweliusz.
Click to expand...

So the Estonia couldn't sink as fast as some other ship due to her now visor being ripped off but it could if the visor was blown off... Hookah.

I wasn't really sure either way but now I strongly suspect you're trolling.
 
LondonJohn said:
If you're correct, then why did the Herald of Free Enterprise sink - given that it's a certainty that HOFE sank because its vehicle deck flooded through open bow doors? And why did HOFE sink even more quickly that the Estonia?


(Hint: the answer is that you're not correct. You don't know what you're talking about.)
Click to expand...

It did not sink. It lay on its side on a shallow bank. Had the doors come open mid-sea - and there is no reason why the boatswain would have done this - then it would have capsized and immediately turtled upside down - just like the Jan Heweliusz.
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink.
Click to expand...


Yes. Yes it did.



It lay on its side on a shallow bank.
Click to expand...


Yes. Because it capsized and sank.



Had the doors come open mid-sea - and there is no reason why the boatswain would have done this - then it would have capsized and immediately turtled upside down - just like the Jan Heweliusz.
Click to expand...


No. It. Would. Not.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink. It lay on its side on a shallow bank. Had the doors come open mid-sea - and there is no reason why the boatswain would have done this - then it would have capsized and immediately turtled upside down - just like the Jan Heweliusz.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?
 
Psst, hey Vixen..over here...ssh, act natural, yeah?...word to the wise, these folks, they got knowledge. They ain't like us plebs, they know metallurgy, they know welding, they know boats!
****, some o'them even served in navies! Best not try to school 'em on bouyancy or any of that crap, they'll only go and use their provable facts to undermine your arguments. It ain't worth it fam, just sayin' right?

****, Cap'n Swoop's seen us, scarper!
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
Psst, hey Vixen..over here...ssh, act natural, yeah?...word to the wise, these folks, they got knowledge. They ain't like us plebs, they know metallurgy, they know welding, they know boats!
****, some o'them even served in navies! Best not try to school 'em on bouyancy or any of that crap, they'll only go and use their provable facts to undermine your arguments. It ain't worth it fam, just sayin' right?

****, Cap'n Swoop's seen us, scarper!
Click to expand...

^^^THIS^^^
There are clearly posters here who know something (quite a bit actually) about the design, construction, and operation of ships. If Vixen were 'wise' she'd figure that out, realize that she is out of her depth, and head to shallow water. If...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
[*]the car ramp was often secured with a hewser as the locks didn't align
[*]if it was secured to a capstan/windlass then it could not have been torn open (unless you are arguing the waves also cut through thick rope and a cast iron capstan
[/LIST][/INDENT]
Click to expand...

The car ramp was secured with a rope?
 
Vixen said:
Oh please. Anyone who owns a rowing boat knows a bit of water in the boat is normal. These Vikings were master boat builders and sailors. Sure, it may have taken five hundred years to perfect their skill but perfect, they did.
Click to expand...

And yet, they still bailed their boats. It was commonplace enough that some of the sagas even describe it (Grettir's Saga, IIRC)
 
Vixen said:
Problem is, there are no witnesses as to when the bow visor fell off and no witnesses as to the car ramp being open, other than a 10º gap at the top, and even this is presumed based on the word of one of the crew who only saw it on a monitor, and even then he described water coming in through the sides, not the top.

There are a lot of assumptions here which have never been proven.

The assumption - which all points to being a false premise - is that it was a facsimile of the Herald of Free Enterprise accident, and therefore they had to postulate that in order for that to have happened, the bow visor and car ramp needed to be not there.

However, there are plenty of doubts about this:

  • the Captain didn't steer the ship towards shallow water
  • the car ramp was often secured with a hewser as the locks didn't align
  • if it was secured to a capstan/windlass then it could not have been torn open (unless you are arguing the waves also cut through thick rope and a cast iron capstan
  • the original Rockwater divers found the ramp shut and thus could not enter the car deck (they claimed)
  • Arikas of OJK (July 2021) and Kurm for Mare Liberatum (Sept 2021) both found it hanging open
  • Kurm discovered that contrary to the JAIC hypothesis water and airpressure smashed Deck 4 windows, the car deck doors can be seen to be intact and shut.
Click to expand...

Everything you've written here is wrong.

1. The visor could not have detached from the ship without wrenching the ramp open due to the design.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it happened. How do we know it happened? The obvious answer is it is now completely detached from the ship, the joints or hinges or whatever held the ramp in place were OBVIOUSLY damaged. The stern ramp and ramp cover are still locked in place.

The divers found the ramp closed, but never checked to see if it was secured (not sure how they'd do that) and the forces involved with a large ship sinking combined with rough seas the ramp shutting on its own is well within reason.

2. The crewman reported water coming into the car deck BECAUSE IT WAS UNUSUAL, and occurred AFTER a large wave struck the ship. What he saw was just the beginning part of the disaster and the visor had been knocked loose but was still in place. I think the crewman would have mentioned the ramp being opened.

3. The Captain was clearly inept. The engineering crew was lazy.

Oh, and the car deck being above the waterline is relative in high seas.
 
JayUtah said:
Right up there with helyards, lunyards, farestays, and bruces.



It's as if she doesn't have a clew.
Click to expand...

I've go a spare finial transom here to clog that clew for you. Also a spectacle clew if your eyesight is lacking. (checks old sea chest) I've also got a bunch of other nautical terms I haven't used for years, if you need extra. Some of them are even real terms... :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom