hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 282 of 283 FirstFirst ... 182232272279280281282283 LastLast
Results 5,621 to 5,640 of 5658

Thread: Warships - Armchair Admirals ahoy!

  1. #5621
    Movember '11 Best Facial Hair, Best 'Tache Movember 2011Movember 2012Donor helgur's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 24, 2011
    Location
    Putting owls in your Moss
    Posts
    8,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoggbert View Post
    I have also served in the navy and being a conscript doesnt make you a navy professional.
    And being a "conscript" doesnt mean you are not qualified for your job especially in a military run on them.
    Sweden thought they had any business on the high seas. Then they built and launched the Vasa. Ever since any seadog worth his salt knows not to listen to a perfidious Swede when it comes to seafaring

  2. #5622
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    A large fucking tanker in a commercial lane is regarded as a "Stand on" vessel. A (more) easily manoeuvrable military warship have to give fucking way.
    You would have an argument if it was an Aircraft carrier meeting a tanker but thats not the issue at hand.
    How are we still having this conversation? I literally quoted the Rules. And seriously do none of you have a boat license, they're literally he same Rules.

    A large fucking tanker in a commercial lane may well be the stand on vessel but certainly not by dint of its size. And given where McCain was hit it's not all that likely to have been (but it plausibly was).

    Hell a large fucking tanker is required to give way to a tiny fucking yacht (provided that the yacht is under sail and it's not within a Traffic Separation Scheme).

    Size is never mentioned in the Rules as they apply to manoeuvring.

    What this is is largely irrelevant, per the Rules any ship is required to take action once it becomes apparent that the ship that has required to give way has not done so. So either way the McCain has fucked up.
    Are you seriously this fucking stupid? No wonder your navys dhips collide all the time with "professionals" like you at the helm.

    And you allready conceded the tanker is the stand in vessel so nothing after that matters. Case closed.

    The rules do make distinction between ability to take action and not being able. The able vessel is always bound to take action.

    Comon fucking sense tells you a tanker cannot take action in time to avoid collision with a warship who is much nimbler.
    All vessels are bound to take action if required by the Rules (it's literally Rule 2). I've never disputed that. Nor have I disputed that it's plausible that McCain was the Give Way vessel (easy scenario would be if she was the Overtaking vessel and crossed ahead before she was past and clear). Do note though that I've conceded that it's plausible the tanker was a Stand On vessel not that she actually was: I don't know enough about the circumstances of this case to tell.

    The Rules require a vessel to proceed at a Safe Speed so that they can take action in time to avoid collision, irrespective of their size. It actually doesn't require much effort not to hit something if you're keeping a proper Lookout and take action in good time and with due regard to the principles of good seamanship even in a very large ship.

    What I've taken issue with is you and others is using a terminology in a way that doesn't apply (Give Way and Stand On).

    Should McCain have taken action to avoid collision? Yes
    Was she the Give Way vessel? It depends, but given where she was hit - Port side - it's probably 60/40 that McCain was the Stand On vessel.

  3. #5623
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    A large fucking tanker in a commercial lane is regarded as a "Stand on" vessel. A (more) easily manoeuvrable military warship have to give fucking way.
    You would have an argument if it was an Aircraft carrier meeting a tanker but thats not the issue at hand.
    How are we still having this conversation? I literally quoted the Rules. And seriously do none of you have a boat license, they're literally he same Rules.

    A large fucking tanker in a commercial lane may well be the stand on vessel but certainly not by dint of its size. And given where McCain was hit it's not all that likely to have been (but it plausibly was).

    Hell a large fucking tanker is required to give way to a tiny fucking yacht (provided that the yacht is under sail and it's not within a Traffic Separation Scheme).

    Size is never mentioned in the Rules as they apply to manoeuvring.

    What this is is largely irrelevant, per the Rules any ship is required to take action once it becomes apparent that the ship that has required to give way has not done so. So either way the McCain has fucked up.
    Are you seriously this fucking stupid? No wonder your navys dhips collide all the time with "professionals" like you at the helm.

    And you allready conceded the tanker is the stand in vessel so nothing after that matters. Case closed.

    The rules do make distinction between ability to take action and not being able. The able vessel is always bound to take action.

    Comon fucking sense tells you a tanker cannot take action in time to avoid collision with a warship who is much nimbler.
    All vessels are bound to take action if required by the Rules (it's literally Rule 2). I've never disputed that. Nor have I disputed that it's plausible that McCain was the Give Way vessel (easy scenario would be if she was the Overtaking vessel and crossed ahead before she was past and clear). Do note though that I've conceded that it's plausible the tanker was a Stand On vessel not that she actually was: I don't know enough about the circumstances of this case to tell.

    The Rules require a vessel to proceed at a Safe Speed so that they can take action in time to avoid collision, irrespective of their size. It actually doesn't require much effort not to hit something if you're keeping a proper Lookout and take action in good time and with due regard to the principles of good seamanship even in a very large ship.

    What I've taken issue with is you and others is using a terminology in a way that doesn't apply (Give Way and Stand On).

    Should McCain have taken action to avoid collision? Yes
    Was she the Give Way vessel? It depends, but given where she was hit - Port side - it's probably 60/40 that McCain was the Stand On vessel.
    The fact Macain was hit on the Port side says nothing about who´s the stand on vessel. And as you im sure knows well if there is a risk for a collision both vessels should if able turn to starboard. This would in fact expose Macains portside to the other vessel who are not turning or not turning fast enough.

    Im placing my bet on Macain misjudging distance to tanker then tries to evade thus exposing port side and the tanker doesn't have the manoeuvrability to make the appropriate action in time. The blame for this collision will as long as the tanker crew was sober, land on the Macain for failure to keep safe distance.

  4. #5624
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,218
    It's a plausible scenario. My money is on McCain crossing the flow of traffic near the termination of a Traffic Separation Scheme and fucking it. The impact looks quite square-on.

    I note that you're no longer saying that the tanker is a Stand On vessel though

    And the blame will almost certainly go both ways, there's very few cases of collision at sea where one party has been found to be solely at fault.

  5. #5625
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    20,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    It's a plausible scenario. My money is on McCain crossing the flow of traffic near the termination of a Traffic Separation Scheme and fucking it. The impact looks quite square-on.

    I note that you're no longer saying that the tanker is a Stand On vessel though

    And the blame will almost certainly go both ways, there's very few cases of collision at sea where one party has been found to be solely at fault.
    Where is the upgrade screen hels_?

  6. #5626
    Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 24, 2011
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Devonshire
    Posts
    7,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Kai is an Australian naval officer and has been for at least 5 years. He does know how the sea works.

    Swedish conscripts need not apply.
    Im sure the sailors sleeping below deck feels much safer with him at the helm.
    Good thing that the USS John McCain isn't an Australian ship Mr Conscript


    Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it

  7. #5627
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Kai is an Australian naval officer and has been for at least 5 years. He does know how the sea works.

    Swedish conscripts need not apply.
    Im sure the sailors sleeping below deck feels much safer with him at the helm.
    Good thing that the USS John McCain isn't an Australian ship Mr Conscript
    Good contribution to the discussion Mr fuckstick.

  8. #5628
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,348
    nevar forget

  9. #5629
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,430

  10. #5630

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,459
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    Despite the situation’s calamity, sailors reported that the attempted exodus from Berthing 2 was calm and orderly. The sailors lined up on the port side of the berthing space to exit via the port side ladder. There was no rush, no pushing and fighting to get out first, and sailors were helping other sailors who were in need, even though at this point water was up to most of their necks.

    At the bottom of the port ladder, two sailors were leading the exit from Berthing 2, making sure the egress was done in the quickest manner possible as the water continued to rise from the hole in Fitzgerald’s hull. With it no longer possible to be at the bottom of the ladder, the two sailors were eventually forced to exit. ... Though now in Berthing 1 and in relative safety, these two sailors continued to search for those who may be trapped below. Reaching into the dark water over and over again hoping to find someone still struggling to escape Berthing 2, their efforts were rewarded, as two more shipmates were found. Those two were completely underwater, pulled through the watertight scuttle and away from certain death.
    Holy shit, each sailor involved, especially those two, is a fucking hero and I hope they are recognized by the Navy.

  11. #5631
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    Despite the situation’s calamity, sailors reported that the attempted exodus from Berthing 2 was calm and orderly. The sailors lined up on the port side of the berthing space to exit via the port side ladder. There was no rush, no pushing and fighting to get out first, and sailors were helping other sailors who were in need, even though at this point water was up to most of their necks.

    At the bottom of the port ladder, two sailors were leading the exit from Berthing 2, making sure the egress was done in the quickest manner possible as the water continued to rise from the hole in Fitzgerald’s hull. With it no longer possible to be at the bottom of the ladder, the two sailors were eventually forced to exit. ... Though now in Berthing 1 and in relative safety, these two sailors continued to search for those who may be trapped below. Reaching into the dark water over and over again hoping to find someone still struggling to escape Berthing 2, their efforts were rewarded, as two more shipmates were found. Those two were completely underwater, pulled through the watertight scuttle and away from certain death.
    Holy shit, each sailor involved, especially those two, is a fucking hero and I hope they are recognized by the Navy.
    Aye, if it went down like that I hope there are a few gongs go out to those involved. How does the US military honour acts of bravery not in the face of the enemy?
    TRAPS ARE GAY!


  12. #5632
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,348
    I think the lower to mid tier don't require enemy contact and I'd guess the medal of honor has also been awarded without actual combat surrounding the event.

    The US military has tons of awards, I'm sure they'll find something appropriate.

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  13. #5633
    Donor Shiodome's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    I am a white male.
    Posts
    4,770
    as long as they're not transgender.

  14. #5634
    Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 24, 2011
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Devonshire
    Posts
    7,461
    Spurred by Joe's post I ha a look to see if anyone had been awarded the medal of honor for non-combat stuff being initially skeptical

    Turns out loads of them were given to non-combat personnel for all kinds of reasons including one conscientious objector in 1944

    I was surprised.


    Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it

  15. #5635
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
    Spurred by Joe's post I ha a look to see if anyone had been awarded the medal of honor for non-combat stuff being initially skeptical

    Turns out loads of them were given to non-combat personnel for all kinds of reasons including one conscientious objector in 1944

    I was surprised.
    Wasn't the medal to the conscientious objector the medic who got a movie? (he refused to carry and use weapons)

  16. #5636
    Donor Shiodome's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    I am a white male.
    Posts
    4,770
    hacksaw ridge

  17. #5637
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    20,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiodome View Post
    as long as they're not transgender.
    As long as i could drop tend for overpower/something.

  18. #5638

  19. #5639
    Donor Shiodome's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    I am a white male.
    Posts
    4,770
    presumably decommissioned for being gay after that photo.

  20. #5640

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    2,680
    The Indian coastal town of Alang, the world’s largest ship breaking shipyard, where half of the world’s retired ships go to die.




Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •