Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[Vixen]

I was just going to ignore this, but as you asked about it, I'll respond. "Double-headed hammer" is a colloquial term for bar shot, in which multiple projectiles are connected by one or more iron bars. This, along with the closely related chainshot, is known as dismantling shot, and was used mainly to attempt to damage enemy vessels' masts, sails, and rigging.

As for Nelson's always following a broadside of "cannon shot" (presumably Vixen means roundshot, or ball) with a broadside of dismantling shot, she just pulled that out of an orifice, as usual. First, Nelson never told his captains what type of ammunition to fire; each captain used his own judgment based on Royal Navy doctrine and the tactical situation. Second, dismantling shot was usually fired from a ship's lighter guns, as a 32lb bar or chainshot was unlikely to cause significantly more damage than a 12lb shot, as either one would have likely torn through any rope, sail, or spar encountered. But a 32lb ball striking the hull of an enemy vessel would have almost certainly caused far more damage than a 12lb ball.

Round shot, bar shot and tiered grapeshot. The point was to attack the beam, then the rigging and then the crew. So the claim that no way could there be more than one cause of the Estonia sinking is misconceived if the sinking was a military operation.

No way was it 'a few strong waves pounding the bow'.

 

[Vixen]

What does that have to do with anything,?

Are you saying that the Estonia was torpedoed by the Russians?

Do you know how insane that looks?

We went through this already. There's no damage that is consistent with a torpedo.For a start there's no damage under the waterline and a torpedo would have ripped the Estonia apart.

The point being made to Phiwum was that if it was an attack, it wouldn't just be once. Or necessarily even of the same type and means. I illustrated with a few examples how an attack is almost always an attack on more than one front. The torpedoes directed at Wilhelm Gustloff were each aimed at different parts of the vessel.

These are what is known as 'examples' of common military attack at sea.

 

[Vixen]

The material was not unseen by customs. It was checked to ensure it was what it was purported to be (electronic equipment) and then the vehicle (an ordinary Volvo car) was waved through.

Do you read your own sources?

The politicians would say that, wouldn't they?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The point being made to Phiwum was that if it was an attack, it wouldn't just be once. Or necessarily even of the same type and means. I illustrated with a few examples how an attack is almost always an attack on more than one front. The torpedoes directed at Wilhelm Gustloff were each aimed at different parts of the vessel.

These are what is known as 'examples' of common military attack at sea.

I doubt the Russian submarine crews in WW2 were aiming at different parts of the ship.
No torpedo was aimed at different parts of a ship, they still don't do it apart from acoustic torpedoes that home on propeller sounds. In WW2 only the Germans had them and they were not reliable.

You are straying in to one of my areas of professional expertise and qualification.

Please don't even dare to try and tell me how a torpedo is aimed, set and launched, or how it steers itself or is guided to a target.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The point being made to Phiwum was that if it was an attack, it wouldn't just be once. Or necessarily even of the same type and means. I illustrated with a few examples how an attack is almost always an attack on more than one front. The torpedoes directed at Wilhelm Gustloff were each aimed at different parts of the vessel.

These are what is known as 'examples' of common military attack at sea.

But this has nothing to do with the Estonia. As usual.

 

[zooterkin]

The point being made to Phiwum was that if it was an attack, it wouldn't just be once. Or necessarily even of the same type and means. I illustrated with a few examples how an attack is almost always an attack on more than one front. The torpedoes directed at Wilhelm Gustloff were each aimed at different parts of the vessel.

These are what is known as 'examples' of common military attack at sea.

That 'if' is doing a lot of lifting. Please provide one shred of evidence to assist it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The politicians would say that, wouldn't they?

So you quote sources you don't believe.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The point being made to Phiwum was that if it was an attack, it wouldn't just be once. Or necessarily even of the same type and means. I illustrated with a few examples how an attack is almost always an attack on more than one front. The torpedoes directed at Wilhelm Gustloff were each aimed at different parts of the vessel.

These are what is known as 'examples' of common military attack at sea.

Nonsense. You're taking an example of one attack by one submarine firing a spread of torpedoes to increase their chances of a hit and using that to pretend there's some navy doctrine of using multiple different methods to attack a civilian vessel simultaneously from within and without. Utter garbage.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The politicians would say that, wouldn't they?

What politician?

 

[Vixen]

That 'if' is doing a lot of lifting. Please provide one shred of evidence to assist it.

• On the stroke of midnight
• mid-point of journey distance-wise
• mid-point of journey time-wise
• sunk withoout trace of debris or flotsam within 35mins
• the only comparable times of sinking are ships destroyed by military attack
• massive breach in the hull - not mentioned by JAIC - so 'classified'.
• military vehicles seen loaded at last minute
• Capt Andresson not at the stern
• winchman received top military combat honours 'FOR OPERATIONS'.
• British naval explosives experts Braidwood & Fellows recognised a hexacomposite device on the bow undetonated.
• independent university academics cannot rule out explosive deformation of metal at the bow.
• Prof Ida Westermann of Norway Uni of Technology could rule out 'normal friction' such as pounding of waves.
• The fact the Swedish government demanded to have the vessel covered in concrete instead of bringing home the bodies.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That's not evidence, some of it isn't even true.

 

[Vixen]

What politician?

The politicians that added the guff that vehicles had to be identified. It is complete nonsense of the 'we take our responsibilities seriously' politician-speak.

Of course Henriksson had to be advised which vehicles to wave through, how else would he know? That doesn't make it all right by any stretch.

One young Estonian guy said he was refused embarkation onto the Estonia because the car he was in was a company car and he had not acquired written permission to take it abroad to Sweden. I would have though you would know this. Only owners of the car are allowed to take it out of the country, or obtain written permission from the owner. Your ID is checked that you have the right to take the car onto the ferry. When I was in the far north of Lapland, I had to hire a car after writing off my own and the car hire company said we must not drive it across to Norway (which we had actually intended to do) but obviously, we obeyed the rules.

Before the restrictions, you were not allowed to drive rental cars across to Russia. Russian cars are now restricted for war reasons.

So, you see, there were strict controls over cars and cargo (or should have been). The Swedish customs are given a list ahead of the journey of what vehicles and cargo are on board and the Captain is contacted by the Customs officials if they are unclear about car registration ID.

So the idea that rental Volvo station wagons with a fake ID driver in a fake rental car with a fake rental company ID and address, tells you loud and clear that this was a shell company and furthermore, it was endorsed by whoever authorised this activity.

 

[Here_to_learn]

• mid-point of journey distance-wise

• They had completed about 95 out of 228 nautical miles on their trip from what I could see on a quick meassurement.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The politicians that added the guff that vehicles had to be identified. It is complete nonsense of the 'we take our responsibilities seriously' politician-speak.

Be specific. Quote the report and show where a politician was involved in formulating parts of the report.

Of course Henriksson had to be advised which vehicles to wave through, how else would he know? That doesn't make it all right by any stretch.

One young Estonian guy said he was refused embarkation onto the Estonia because the car he was in was a company car and he had not acquired written permission to take it abroad to Sweden. I would have though you would know this. Only owners of the car are allowed to take it out of the country, or obtain written permission from the owner. Your ID is checked that you have the right to take the car onto the ferry. When I was in the far north of Lapland, I had to hire a car after writing off my own and the car hire company said we must not drive it across to Norway (which we had actually intended to do) but obviously, we obeyed the rules.

Before the restrictions, you were not allowed to drive rental cars across to Russia. Russian cars are now restricted for war reasons.

So, you see, there were strict controls over cars and cargo (or should have been). The Swedish customs are given a list ahead of the journey of what vehicles and cargo are on board and the Captain is contacted by the Customs officials if they are unclear about car registration ID.

So the idea that rental Volvo station wagons with a fake ID driver in a fake rental car with a fake rental company ID and address, tells you loud and clear that this was a shell company and furthermore, it was endorsed by whoever authorised this activity.

What on earth are you on about? Of course it was authorized. That is exactly what the report says - that Swedish Defence coordinated with the Swedish Customs for two transports on specific dates, including specifying what vehicle to be used, and the cargo carried.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The politicians that added the guff that vehicles had to be identified. It is complete nonsense of the 'we take our responsibilities seriously' politician-speak.

Of course Henriksson had to be advised which vehicles to wave through, how else would he know? That doesn't make it all right by any stretch.

One young Estonian guy said he was refused embarkation onto the Estonia because the car he was in was a company car and he had not acquired written permission to take it abroad to Sweden. I would have though you would know this. Only owners of the car are allowed to take it out of the country, or obtain written permission from the owner. Your ID is checked that you have the right to take the car onto the ferry. When I was in the far north of Lapland, I had to hire a car after writing off my own and the car hire company said we must not drive it across to Norway (which we had actually intended to do) but obviously, we obeyed the rules.

Before the restrictions, you were not allowed to drive rental cars across to Russia. Russian cars are now restricted for war reasons.

So, you see, there were strict controls over cars and cargo (or should have been). The Swedish customs are given a list ahead of the journey of what vehicles and cargo are on board and the Captain is contacted by the Customs officials if they are unclear about car registration ID.

So the idea that rental Volvo station wagons with a fake ID driver in a fake rental car with a fake rental company ID and address, tells you loud and clear that this was a shell company and furthermore, it was endorsed by whoever authorised this activity.

What point do you think this makes?

You can't take a rental vehicle out of the country you hired it in unless the rental agreement permits it. That's normal and mundane. I've had rentals I expressly couldn't drive across borders but others where I expressly could and did. So what?

 

[phiwum]

The politicians would say that, wouldn't they?

But you have no evidence to the contrary.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Jack by the hedge]

• On the stroke of midnight
• mid-point of journey distance-wise
• mid-point of journey time-wise
• sunk withoout trace of debris or flotsam within 35mins
• the only comparable times of sinking are ships destroyed by military attack
• massive breach in the hull - not mentioned by JAIC - so 'classified'.
• military vehicles seen loaded at last minute
• Capt Andresson not at the stern
• winchman received top military combat honours 'FOR OPERATIONS'.
• British naval explosives experts Braidwood & Fellows recognised a hexacomposite device on the bow undetonated.
• independent university academics cannot rule out explosive deformation of metal at the bow.
• Prof Ida Westermann of Norway Uni of Technology could rule out 'normal friction' such as pounding of waves.
• The fact the Swedish government demanded to have the vessel covered in concrete instead of bringing home the bodies.

Do you intend to update this list to remove the falsehoods or just keep adding more garbage?

Rhetorical question is rhetorical.

 

[Andy_Ross]

• On the stroke of midnight
• mid-point of journey distance-wise
• mid-point of journey time-wise
• sunk withoout trace of debris or flotsam within 35mins
• the only comparable times of sinking are ships destroyed by military attack
• massive breach in the hull - not mentioned by JAIC - so 'classified'.
• military vehicles seen loaded at last minute
• Capt Andresson not at the stern
• winchman received top military combat honours 'FOR OPERATIONS'.
• British naval explosives experts Braidwood & Fellows recognised a hexacomposite device on the bow undetonated.
• independent university academics cannot rule out explosive deformation of metal at the bow.
• Prof Ida Westermann of Norway Uni of Technology could rule out 'normal friction' such as pounding of waves.
• The fact the Swedish government demanded to have the vessel covered in concrete instead of bringing home the bodies.

Ships sink suddenly and quickly all the time.
In many cases the crew Don't have time to get off.
You just made it up again without doing even basic research in to ship sinkings.

 

[JayUtah]

...there were plenty of teams of naval and other professional divers who examined the outside.

You're not a diver.

These are what is known as 'examples' of common military attack at sea.

You're not a military historian.

The politicians would say that, wouldn't they?

You're not a political scientist.

 

[JayUtah]

• On...

Gish gallop of multiply-debunked nonsense.