On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:53:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/29/2017 9:05 AM, Tim wrote:

Jun
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:17:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/28/2017 11:00 AM, wrote:

It appears that the ACX was pretty far away from the destroyer and
passing in front was not an unreasonable maneuver.
Are you saying that if you see a vessel approaching from your
starboard side you will stop and wait, no matter how far away it is?
I think that the OD made the determination that if the freighter
maintained course and speed, he had plenty of time to be gone when the
freighter got there. As it was the freighter turned 90 degrees and it
took 10 minutes to hit the destroyer on the starboard side. That makes
it sound like he would have been a couple miles behind the destroyer
if he stayed on course. The open question is why the destroyer did not
detect the course change and take evasive maneuvers. I still have not
seen the movements of the destroyer or what it's base course was when
this all started.
My only thought about "arrogance" is these destroyer guys think they
are race car drivers and think freighter captains are truck drivers.


I am saying that according to the regs, it's up to the give way vessel
to do whatever is necessary to avoid a collision. If the freighter
changed course but was still to starboard of the destroyer, it was up to
the destroyer to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision,
regardless of how far away it is. Obviously, they didn't.

I am still curious what the destroyer was doing.
Also was the 90 degree torn to starboard a scheduled course change for
the freighter or an evasive maneuver.

The CO's career is over. The two things the Navy doesn't tolerate
regardless of who was at fault is groundings and collisions. The only
naval officer who grounded a ship but later was given command was
Chester Nimitz (as an ensign) in WWI. He was forgiven in WWII.

Indeed. This guy will be toast ... unless he is politically connected.
JFK should have been court marshaled in 43. He got a medal and a trip
to Washington.
....

I've heard the controversy on that. How a mosquito boat could be sliced into by a Japanese man o war.

If the captain and hands had paid attention they easily could have tanked theNippon
.



I don't know about that Tim. Reading the accounts, Kennedy's boat
(PT-109) was not equipped with radar. Although some PT boats were being
equipped with radar, his was not.

The collision occurred at 2am on a moonless night. Pitch black and
lights out on both the PT boat and the destroyer. Kennedy was sitting
in the channel, idling on one of the three engines. By the time someone
noticed the Japanese destroyer heading at them at high speed, they had
10 seconds to fire up the other engines and get out of the way.

That's the "official" account anyway, based on survivor's testimonies.



---

The way I heard it all of the engines were off. (against standing
orders)

10:23
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:53:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
- show quoted text -
The way I heard it all of the engines were off. (against standing
orders)
----

I'd heard that theory too. I.e. - Sleeping

On 6/29/2017 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:53:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/29/2017 9:05 AM, Tim wrote:

Jun
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:17:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/28/2017 11:00 AM, wrote:

It appears that the ACX was pretty far away from the destroyer and
passing in front was not an unreasonable maneuver.
Are you saying that if you see a vessel approaching from your
starboard side you will stop and wait, no matter how far away it is?
I think that the OD made the determination that if the freighter
maintained course and speed, he had plenty of time to be gone when the
freighter got there. As it was the freighter turned 90 degrees and it
took 10 minutes to hit the destroyer on the starboard side. That makes
it sound like he would have been a couple miles behind the destroyer
if he stayed on course. The open question is why the destroyer did not
detect the course change and take evasive maneuvers. I still have not
seen the movements of the destroyer or what it's base course was when
this all started.
My only thought about "arrogance" is these destroyer guys think they
are race car drivers and think freighter captains are truck drivers.


I am saying that according to the regs, it's up to the give way vessel
to do whatever is necessary to avoid a collision. If the freighter
changed course but was still to starboard of the destroyer, it was up to
the destroyer to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision,
regardless of how far away it is. Obviously, they didn't.

I am still curious what the destroyer was doing.
Also was the 90 degree torn to starboard a scheduled course change for
the freighter or an evasive maneuver.

The CO's career is over. The two things the Navy doesn't tolerate
regardless of who was at fault is groundings and collisions. The only
naval officer who grounded a ship but later was given command was
Chester Nimitz (as an ensign) in WWI. He was forgiven in WWII.

Indeed. This guy will be toast ... unless he is politically connected.
JFK should have been court marshaled in 43. He got a medal and a trip
to Washington.
....

I've heard the controversy on that. How a mosquito boat could be sliced into by a Japanese man o war.

If the captain and hands had paid attention they easily could have tanked theNippon
.



I don't know about that Tim. Reading the accounts, Kennedy's boat
(PT-109) was not equipped with radar. Although some PT boats were being
equipped with radar, his was not.

The collision occurred at 2am on a moonless night. Pitch black and
lights out on both the PT boat and the destroyer. Kennedy was sitting
in the channel, idling on one of the three engines. By the time someone
noticed the Japanese destroyer heading at them at high speed, they had
10 seconds to fire up the other engines and get out of the way.

That's the "official" account anyway, based on survivor's testimonies.



---

The way I heard it all of the engines were off. (against standing
orders)


Who really knows? However if so, they would have heard the destroyer
bearing in on them, especially at night.

I believe the one engine idling account. I imagine that even at idle
one of those 12 cylinder engines made enough noise to mask the sound of
the destroyer plowing through the water at high speed. Even if they
finally heard it, it's could have been very difficult to detect and
pinpoint where sound was coming from on the open water in pitch black
conditions. I have been in a situation like that
where visibility was about 30 feet and an approaching ferry was sounding
it's horn in the fog. Impossible to tell where the sound was coming
from. Thankfully, I had radar.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:15:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/29/2017 11:23 AM, wrote:

The way I heard it all of the engines were off. (against standing
orders)


Who really knows? However if so, they would have heard the destroyer
bearing in on them, especially at night.

I believe the one engine idling account. I imagine that even at idle
one of those 12 cylinder engines made enough noise to mask the sound of
the destroyer plowing through the water at high speed. Even if they
finally heard it, it's could have been very difficult to detect and
pinpoint where sound was coming from on the open water in pitch black
conditions. I have been in a situation like that
where visibility was about 30 feet and an approaching ferry was sounding
it's horn in the fog. Impossible to tell where the sound was coming
from. Thankfully, I had radar.

RADAR has it's own downside. Even in WWII they had RADAR detectors.
You are illuminating yourself when you turn it on.
The controversy was over the question of if he did have one running
since that was the SOP and what I heard he didn't, for exactly the
reason you cite. They thought they could hear a ship coming if all of
them were off. Dunno, it was just chatter around the Navy Department
in 1960 during the election.