Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Here_to_learn]

As for its route, website Private Bahnhoff believes the JAIC estimated this wrongly and that it was taking the more northerly route to join the Helsinki departure ships and thus the captain was indeed attempting the 'safe route'.

Oh come on. "Private Bahnhoff" (SP) is not a website like that. Bahnhof is an ISP. The website in question is the personal space for one person that uses Bahnhof as an ISP. Don't just google stuff and then quote it without linking to it.

In this case it's the website of the "Independent Fact Group", that among their methodological principles list:

1. All scenarios must be considered to be true until the contrary is proved.

So when you use them for supporting something, you have to check what status their statement have, since in the early stages they will allow anything!

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am not sure the storm was particularly severe or that the vessel was going particularly fast. It is claimed it was an hour behind schedule but in fact only left Tallinn fifteen minutes late.

Sailing in to a head sea slows a ship down, can you think why?
You can be at full engine speed through the water but moving far more slowly 'over the ground'.
Even without a storm this happens. if for example, you are sailing in to a current or tide of 6 knots, and you know that at full speed you can make 12, you will only be making 6 knots over the ground.

As for the windows supposedly smashing in the waves whilst it floated (really?) on its side, those windows had been tested to withstand winds of 42 m/s. These winds were 15 to 20 m/s (29 to 39 kn; 34 to 45 mph (wiki).

Waves are not the same as wind.
Can you think why the wind doesn't have the same force as a wave?.

As for its route, website Private Bahnhoff believes the JAIC estimated this wrongly and that it was taking the more northerly route to join the Helsinki departure ships and thus the captain was indeed attempting the 'safe route'.
ibid

What evidence does Bahnhoff have that the Estonia was taking a 'more northerly route'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think the Russians knew the Baltic Sea like the backs of their hand? It had plenty of incursions into Sweden and Finland.

These guys, Spassky and Kolyakov were the Russian submarine designers, and no doubt had at various times pondered the logistics of rescue operations.

The Russian inventory 1990:

wiki

What does any of that have to do with deep sea rescue or having an 80 meter 'pipe' to cut through a bilge?

Why didn't they use any of it to recover the Kursk?

 

[Vixen]

But it wasn't just that post, was it? You followed it up by stating that he was born in 1976, then corrected that.


You didn't just make a mistake about when the first moon landing was, you attempted to save face and made it worse for yourself in doing so.

This is something that you've repeatedly done.

Vixen, are you a scientist?

As I said, I checked the dates. I have no idea where 1976 came from but having done so I assumed it was correct as this was ex' dob mnemonic*. I corrected this simple error.


*As an example of this, I know the Queen's year of birth as it is the same year as my mother's. The coronation the same year as my sibling's dob. Prince Harry the same birth date as my own sprog, less a few hours. My grandparents' marriage year, same as the Bolshevik Uprising/Finland Independence/Finnish Civil War, etcetera, etcetera.

 

[erwinl]

I think the Russians knew the Baltic Sea like the backs of their hand? It had plenty of incursions into Sweden and Finland.

These guys, Spassky and Kolyakov were the Russian submarine designers, and no doubt had at various times pondered the logistics of rescue operations.

The Russian inventory 1990:

wiki

An impressive list for sure.
As was the Soviet fleet in the 80's and 90's.

But. The question one would ask, is how many of these submarines were based in the Baltic Sea?

This sea is not really submarine friendly, you know. Even less friendly then the North Sea! And locked in as the Baltic Sea is, a submarine based there is almost useless for the purpose the Soviets had in mind for them.

As of now, for instance, the Russian navy has 66 submarines. Of this, still impressive total, there is 1 (one) that is based in the Baltic Sea (The Dmitrov, a Kilo class submarine).

Considering the 'Whiskey on the Rocks' incident with Sweden, we could say the Soviets were not likely to base their more modern and capable submarines in this sea, but keep them where they could actually do something during wartimes (raiding NATO convoys, but more importantly protecting the Bastions).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am not sure the storm was particularly severe

Turned out it was severe enough in the circumstances.

... or that the vessel was going particularly fast.

How much faster could it have gone? What knowledge do you base your judgement on to say that it was safe to make that speed while heading into those seas?

Something grievous happened to that ship but it so easy to simply blame the crew.

Not relevant as the JAIC does not "simply blame the crew".

As for the windows supposedly smashing in the waves whilst it floated (really?) on its side

Do you doubt all the survivors who say the ship turned on its side and remained afloat in that condition for some time? Are they all lying to you?

those windows had been tested to withstand winds of 42 m/s.

That's a curiously detailed observation. What's your source please? In any case, nobody thinks the wind broke those windows so it doesn't appear to be relevant to the sinking.

 

[Vixen]

What does any of that have to do with deep sea rescue or having an 80 meter 'pipe' to cut through a bilge?

Why didn't they use any of it to recover the Kursk?

They were slow to realise there were still survivors on board. The Kursk was a series of complex accidents, yet nonetheless, the Russians did recover the vessel, despite it being in much deeper waters and heavier.

AIUI they did try to send down a submarine diving bell and escape trunk.

Private media and state-owned Russian newspapers criticised the navy's refusal to accept international assistance.[5] Five days after the accident on 17 August 2000, President Putin accepted the British and Norwegian governments' offer of assistance. Six teams of British and Norwegian divers arrived on Friday, 18 August.[14] The Russian 328th Expeditionary rescue squad, part of the Navy's office of Search and Rescue, also provided divers.[37] On 19 August at 20:00, the Norwegian ship Normand Pioneer arrived with the British rescue submarine LR5 on board, seven days after the disaster.[14][26]

On Sunday 20 August, the Norwegians lowered a ROV to the submarine. They found that the first 18 m (59 ft) of the boat was a mass of twisted metal and debris.[14]

wiki

The Kursk was up to 24,000 tonnes submerged and the rescue operation far too late to save anyone, except that some crew had survived a long time.

Unlike the Estonia, the Kursk was salvaged despite all kinds of logistical issues.

The Russian government committed to raising the wreck and recovering the crew's remains in a US$65M salvage operation.[84] They contracted with the Dutch marine salvage companies Smit International and Mammoet to raise Kursk from the sea floor. It became the largest salvage operation of its type ever accomplished.[85] The salvage operation was extremely dangerous because of the risk of radiation from the reactor. Only seven of the submarine's 24 torpedoes were accounted for.[3]

Bow detached
Salvage divers from Halliburton[86] first detached the bow from the rest of the vessel because it might have contained unexploded torpedo warheads and because it could break off and destabilise the lifting.[87] The divers installed two large hydraulic suction anchors into the seabed and attached a high-strength tungsten carbide abrasive saw that was pulled back and forth over the bow between the anchors. It took ten days to detach the bow.[88]

After the bow was cut free, the salvage crews raised several smaller pieces of wreckage. This included a piece of a torpedo tube weighing about a ton which was analysed to try to learn if the explosion occurred inside or outside the tube. They salvaged a high-pressure compressed air cylinder weighing about half a ton,[89] to learn more about the nature of the explosion. They also raised a part of the cylindrical section of the hard frame and part of the left forward spherical partition, to determine the intensity and temperature of the fire in the forward compartment. Finally, they brought up a fragment of the sonar system dome.[90]

ibid


Pictured: The Kursk compared to a USS Toledo

 

[Andy_Ross]

They were slow to realise there were still survivors on board. The Kursk was a series of complex accidents, yet nonetheless, the Russians did recover the vessel, despite it being in much deeper waters and heavier.

AIUI they did try to send down a submarine diving bell and escape trunk.

wiki

The Kursk was up to 24,000 tonnes submerged and the rescue operation far too late to save anyone, except that some crew had survived a long time.

Unlike the Estonia, the Kursk was salvaged despite all kinds of logistical issues.

ibid


Pictured: The Kursk compared to a USS Toledo

Kursk was not recovered by the Russians. It was the Dutch marine salvage companies Smit International and Mammoet and divers from the American company Haliburton.

Kursk was completely different to the Estonia. A Submarine is designed to withstand the pressures of diving very deep. It has a massively thick pressure hull and pressure bulkheads to divide it in to watertight compartments.

It was salvaged by cutting it in to two sections and taking advantage of the strength of the pressure hull to pass cables through and raise it to the surface.

Because of the danger of explosions the bow section containing the torpedo storage was left on the sea floor and destroyed there.

That could not be done with the Estonia, a passenger or cargo ship does not have the strength in the hull to withstand such a lifting method.

 

[Vixen]

Turned out it was severe enough in the circumstances.


How much faster could it have gone? What knowledge do you base your judgement on to say that it was safe to make that speed while heading into those seas?



Not relevant as the JAIC does not "simply blame the crew".


Do you doubt all the survivors who say the ship turned on its side and remained afloat in that condition for some time? Are they all lying to you?


That's a curiously detailed observation. What's your source please? In any case, nobody thinks the wind broke those windows so it doesn't appear to be relevant to the sinking.

It can remain on its side if it is bottom heavy, that is, it has a breach in the hull and water has flooded in. The Estonia engineers were in the Engine Room desperately operating the bilge pumps (although I am sure Sillaste really was 'fixing the passenger toilets' nearby) which indicates there was an incursion of water in the hull area.


If, as the JAIC claim, there was no hull breach and the water came in above the waterline into the car deck - and they ha to admit, this would not capsize the boat - then a smashing of windows as it 'floated' on its side had to be invented, as there is no evidence this happened at all, especially as Kurm, Sept 2021, discovered the car deck doors, or at least the couple they witnessed, was totally intact, contrary to the JAIC premise that these must have smashed, allowing the torrential ingress at great volume and speed.

 

[Vixen]

Kursk was not recovered by the Russians. It was the Dutch marine salvage companies Smit International and Mammoet and divers from the American company Haliburton.

Kursk was completely different to the Estonia. A Submarine is designed to withstand the pressures of diving very deep. It has a massively thick pressure hull and pressure bulkheads to divide it in to watertight compartments.

It was salvaged by cutting it in to several sections and taking advantage of the strength of the pressure hull to pass cables through and raise them to the surface.

That could not be done with the Estonia, a passenger or cargo ship does not have the strength in the hull to withstand such a lifting method.

The Rockwater divers - from a company holding of Smit-Tak - did report back to their Swedish government sponsors, who tasked them with assessing whether the Estonia could be salvaged and the bodies recovered - that yes, and yes, both were feasible and viable.

Consider this: the operation to cover the wreck in concrete was about thirty times more expensive - and a waste of time and money as it had to be aborted - than salvage and recovery.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

AIUI they did try to send down a submarine diving bell and escape trunk.

As far as I remember, the Russians had two miniature submarines for underwater rescue, only one of which worked, but it got damaged. They tried to repair it by cannibalising the other but eventually gave up and accepted outside help.

There was further delay because the Norwegian rescue crew tried but failed to open the escape hatch on the Kursk. Eventually they tried rotating the hatch mechanism the opposite way from what the Russians had told them it should turn and that worked.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It can remain on its side if it is bottom heavy, that is, it has a breach in the hull and water has flooded in.

It had a big breach in the hull, right up at the bow, and flood water finds its way down.

The Estonia engineers were in the Engine Room desperately operating the bilge pumps ... which indicates there was an incursion of water in the hull area.

"In the hull area" = inside the ship. Water finding its way down from the car deck is not a mystery, unless perhaps you think you can show otherwise. And of course nobody was operating pumps when the ship was on its side as they had no power.

If, as the JAIC claim, there was no hull breach and the water came in above the waterline into the car deck - and they ha to admit, this would not capsize the boat - then a smashing of windows as it 'floated' on its side had to be invented, as there is no evidence this happened at all, especially as Kurm, Sept 2021, discovered the car deck doors, or at least the couple they witnessed, was totally intact, contrary to the JAIC premise that these must have smashed, allowing the torrential ingress at great volume and speed.

Garbage. The JAIC said the large external windows on deck 4 would have been broken in by the sea, increasing the rate of flooding; a completely reasonable hypothesis. They did not opine on small windows in the car deck doors. You know this yet you keep coming back with this twisted, dishonest claim. Unimpressive.

<edit to add> What the hell are those scare quotes around 'floated' for? The ship remained afloat for about half an hour with a severe list. That's just what happened. Do you dispute this? Is every survivor lying about that? Is there some special definition of "float" which you alone apply when a ship is not upright yet has not yet sunk?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It can remain on its side if it is bottom heavy, that is, it has a breach in the hull and water has flooded in. The Estonia engineers were in the Engine Room desperately operating the bilge pumps (although I am sure Sillaste really was 'fixing the passenger toilets' nearby) which indicates there was an incursion of water in the hull area.


If, as the JAIC claim, there was no hull breach and the water came in above the waterline into the car deck - and they ha to admit, this would not capsize the boat - then a smashing of windows as it 'floated' on its side had to be invented, as there is no evidence this happened at all, especially as Kurm, Sept 2021, discovered the car deck doors, or at least the couple they witnessed, was totally intact, contrary to the JAIC premise that these must have smashed, allowing the torrential ingress at great volume and speed.

When the ship went on to it's side the pumps and engines will have stopped.

Why do you doubt that Sillaste was tasked with working on the domestic systems through the night? That is when such work is done as there is reduced demand when the passengers and crew are asleep and the pumps and vacuum system can be taken off line.


Water on the car deck pushed the ship past it's point of recovery. There was no reserve ballast capacity to try and right the ship as the tanks on the port side were already full because of the earlier attempts to correct the list caused by the bad cargo loading. There are more openings than just the few passenger doors. Ships are not watertight above the waterline. They have massive openings for air intakes and exhausts for the machinery spaces for engines, generators, air conditioning and ventilation air.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Rockwater divers - from a company holding of Smit-Tak - did report back to their Swedish government sponsors, who tasked them with assessing whether the Estonia could be salvaged and the bodies recovered - that yes, and yes, both were feasible and viable.

Consider this: the operation to cover the wreck in concrete was about thirty times more expensive - and a waste of time and money as it had to be aborted - than salvage and recovery.

How would it be salvaged?

 

[Here_to_learn]

The Rockwater divers - from a company holding of Smit-Tak - did report back to their Swedish government sponsors, who tasked them with assessing whether the Estonia could be salvaged and the bodies recovered - that yes, and yes, both were feasible and viable.

When you say "the bodies" what is your source for that, and what meaning to you put to that? All reports I've seen say that "some bodies" could be recovered, but they were clear that not all bodies could be found.

In Sweden, an ethics advisory board was formed. Their report can be read here: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES009767_00001#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-2203,-195,6932,3884

Their conclusion/recommendation is:
M/S Estonia should not be salvaged.
No diving should be performed looking for additional bodies.
The M/S Estonia final resting place should be protected, and be considered a burial ground.
The wreck should be protected in such a way that private diving is not possible. The ship should be monitored.

 

[erwinl]

They were slow to realise there were still survivors on board. The Kursk was a series of complex accidents, yet nonetheless, the Russians did recover the vessel, despite it being in much deeper waters and heavier.

AIUI they did try to send down a submarine diving bell and escape trunk.

wiki

The Kursk was up to 24,000 tonnes submerged and the rescue operation far too late to save anyone, except that some crew had survived a long time.

Unlike the Estonia, the Kursk was salvaged despite all kinds of logistical issues.

ibid


Pictured: The Kursk compared to a USS Toledo

Uhmm.
I have to warn you, that you slipped up this time.

The game is pretending you make these mistakes accidentally.
Now we see that it is on purpose, so the game has become invalid.

But maybe if you correct your post we can continue with the game?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Uhmm.
I have to warn you, that you slipped up this time.

The game is pretending you make these mistakes accidentally.
Now we see that it is on purpose, so the game has become invalid.

But maybe if you correct your post we can continue with the game?

To be fair Toledo is a Los Angeles Class and is known because initially the Russians tried to claim the Toledo collided with the Kursk.

 

[erwinl]

To be fair Toledo is a Los Angeles Class and is known because initially the Russians tried to claim the Toledo collided with the Kursk.

I know what the Russians claimed, back then.

But that is not what Vixen posted and what the picture showed.

 

[Vixen]

An impressive list for sure.
As was the Soviet fleet in the 80's and 90's.

But. The question one would ask, is how many of these submarines were based in the Baltic Sea?

This sea is not really submarine friendly, you know. Even less friendly then the North Sea! And locked in as the Baltic Sea is, a submarine based there is almost useless for the purpose the Soviets had in mind for them.

As of now, for instance, the Russian navy has 66 submarines. Of this, still impressive total, there is 1 (one) that is based in the Baltic Sea (The Dmitrov, a Kilo class submarine).

Considering the 'Whiskey on the Rocks' incident with Sweden, we could say the Soviets were not likely to base their more modern and capable submarines in this sea, but keep them where they could actually do something during wartimes (raiding NATO convoys, but more importantly protecting the Bastions).

The Russians have been caught - or suspected of having been - schlepping around Swedish and Finnish waters, where it should not have been. A Swedish guy going out fishing was surprised to see a stonking great Soviet submarine of the Whiskey class resting, trapped, on rocks on his shore.

The captain tried to explain it was a navigation error (of course it was) and when the Swedish navy turned up, they heard the captain being instructed from Russia that he should blow up the entire submarine rather than give the Swedes access to it.

Likewise, with the Kursk, the Russians insisted on removing all of its documents and stuff inside before letting the Brits and Norwegians in on their recovery mission.

This tells you the Russians valued their state secrets more than human lives, so we get a glimpse of their likely reaction on discovering Sweden was smuggling Russian state secrets to the west via the Estonia. Given the 25% Russian population in Estonia, and especially top-heavy in official positions, it is not difficult to understand how it got wind of this.

The salvage companies agreed that the Norwegian divers would cut the holes in the hull but only Russian divers would enter the submarine. The Norwegian divers cut a hole in the hull of the eighth compartment to gain access,[39] using a cutting machine that shoots a high-velocity water-and-cutting-grit mix at a pressure of 100,000 kilopascals (15,000 psi).[40] The Russian divers entered the wreck and opened a bulkhead hatch to compartment nine.[41]

They found that dust and ashes inside compartment nine severely restricted visibility. As they gradually worked their way inside the compartment and down two levels, Warrant Officer Sergei Shmygin found the remains of Captain-lieutenant Dmitry Kolesnikov.[37] All of the men had clearly been badly burned.[14] The divers cut additional holes in the hull over the third and fourth compartments.[39] The Russian divers removed secret documents and eventually recovered a total of 12 bodies from the ninth compartment. This contradicted earlier statements made by senior Russian officials that all of the submariners had died before the submarine hit the bottom.

wiki

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Russians have been caught - or suspected of having been - schlepping around Swedish and Finnish waters, where it should not have been. A Swedish guy going out fishing was surprised to see a stonking great Soviet submarine of the Whiskey class resting, trapped, on rocks on his shore.

The captain tried to explain it was a navigation error (of course it was) and when the Swedish navy turned up, they heard the captain being instructed from Russia that he should blow up the entire submarine rather than give the Swedes access to it.

Likewise, with the Kursk, the Russians insisted on removing all of its documents and stuff inside before letting the Brits and Norwegians in on their recovery mission.

This tells you the Russians valued their state secrets more than human lives, so we get a glimpse of their likely reaction on discovering Sweden was smuggling Russian state secrets to the west via the Estonia. Given the 25% Russian population in Estonia, and especially top-heavy in official positions, it is not difficult to understand how it got wind of this.


wiki

How does blowing up a stranded sub put lives at risk? Do you think they would blow the crew up too?

What 'Brits and Norwegians' were involved in the Kursk, the individual nationality of the contracted divers isn't important?

How did the Russians removing the 'documents and stuff' put lives at risk?

What does the Kursk have to do with the Estonia?