|
Post by sherwino on May 9, 2012 8:08:03 GMT 8
Guys, it can hit mine on starboard stern while turning right. The whole ship probably had not yet cleared the last mine when it made the turn. My SWAG is that it was a premature right turn. I made some "simulations" using my hands and some things on my table. And with some experiences in the parking lot, I think it can happen.
|
|
|
Post by JohnEakin on May 9, 2012 8:25:33 GMT 8
I'll defer to the sailors on the forum, but my understanding is that with most ships it is the stern that steers so I would think that it would be the side of the ship on the outside of a turn (port side in this case) that would be hit.
But, with that said, weren't the mines at a depth of 15 feet? And I'd think that would vary a bit according to the state of the tide and the anchor system. The SS Corregidor had a draft of 16 feet so perhaps the mine struck in the area of the keel or rudders rather than the side.
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on May 9, 2012 9:20:20 GMT 8
Good comments guys, it keeps us thinking. Thanks okla, I was not aware of the Titanic information you posted, makes sense to me. Chad, I wonder where Gordon got his information from. Unfortunately none of us, including Gordon, were there that night so 100% accuracy in our stories is impossible. The internet is an amazing place. I did a search named “How to turn a ship”. Here is a new term for us: Pivot Point. A ship’s pivot point is a point on the centerline about which a ship turns when the rudder is put over. The pivot point scribes the ship’s turning circle. For a starboard turn, when the rudder is put over initially, the force acting on the rudder tends to push the ship bodily to port of its original line of advance. A ship’s pivot point is nearly always located about one-third the ship’s length from her bow when moving ahead. The location of the pivot point will vary with ship’s speed. An increase in speed will shift the pivot point in the direction of the ship’s movement. In simple English, a ship turns right by having the rudder cause drag which pushes the stern to the left. A right hand turn by the SS Corregidor would put the stern of the ship further away from a right-side Channel mine, not closer to it. For me, ‘starboard stern’ is unlikely. Actually it is not important which side of the ship hit a mine. It is one of those little details that can be debated but we can never be certain of the answer. P.S. “The guns of the 81st Artillery (and others) were on the SS Corregidor when it sank in Manila Bay, so this unit fought as infantry in Cebu”. cebueskrima.s5.com/worldwar2.html
|
|
|
Post by sherwino on May 9, 2012 9:38:48 GMT 8
Thanks, John and Fots, for those enlightenment. It's like I'm in a physics class. Those are stronger points which I will incline to.
|
|
|
Post by okla on May 9, 2012 20:38:07 GMT 8
Hey Guys...When the word PHYSICS appears, my mind harkens back to high school and the ever present mental block still rears it's ugly head. I will settle for the aft swinging enough to Port when the turn to Starboard was executed and contact with the mine was made somewhere in the stern section. I still maintain the essential point is mines that are deactivated, as these should have been, do not detonate, whether aft, forward or midships. This tragic chain of events could have been avoided from the outset, but "bull headedness" (is that a word???) in more than one quarter prevailed and we had a disaster, completely uncalled for, on our hands.
|
|
|
Post by JohnEakin on May 9, 2012 22:49:31 GMT 8
Okla - bullheadedness is a word where I come from and is certainly a good description of the actions of several people involved in the SS Corregidor debacle.
I wonder, too, if there may have also been a good bit of "familiarity breeds contempt" at work. Early in this thread there was mention that Bunker was tired of ships not following the proper procedures to transit the minefield which implies that it was common practice to "run" the minefield. Perhaps on the fateful night the tide was lower (and the mines closer to the surface) and/or the ship was drawing more than on prior transits (we know it was heavily laden). (Calvo probably didn't know the exact depths of the mines, either.)
Perhaps all the tolerances stacked up just right (wrong?) that night - the bullheaded decision makers (Calvo and Bunker) playing chicken with the mines; a low tide; deep draft; and a minor miscalculation in starting the turn out to sea.
There's also the possibility that wind or current caused the ship to drift to the Western side of the channel (which would be consistent with hitting the mine on the starboard stern). He could have been holding the correct heading, but tracking to the Southwest. With no moon or illumination of the buoys he wouldn't have had any way to determine his lateral drift.
If any one of many factors had been different he probably would have gotten away with it.
It would be interesting to know the state of the wind, current and tide that night.
|
|
|
Post by okla on May 10, 2012 0:59:05 GMT 8
Hey John...Am in full agreement. These marine factors could well have also been "elements" etc, paving the pathway to Hell, but I think we all can agree that the key factor was the mines could have easily been set on "safe" or whatever the catch word is, and they WERE NOT. I would certainly hate to think that a "stiff necked" attitude was at the root of this needless happening. Punishing violators of established "procedures" by allowing them to be blown to pieces is a bit callous in my humble. I always appreciate and enjoy your insights on this Forum. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by chadhill on May 10, 2012 3:46:55 GMT 8
Good points johneakin and all. Fots, I'm still away but had my wife-secretary ;Dcheck Gordon's book for a footnote or source about his claim that the ship was hit by the mine in the starboard stern. There was none given. I have a feeling that it probably came from A.V.H. Hartendorp's article I mentioned in Reply 93.
|
|
|
Post by xray on May 10, 2012 4:55:18 GMT 8
Hey John...Am in full agreement. These marine factors could well have also been "elements" etc, paving the pathway to Hell, but I think we all can agree that the key factor was the mines could have easily been set on "safe" or whatever the catch word is, and they WERE NOT. I would certainly hate to think that a "stiff necked" attitude was at the root of this needless happening. Punishing violators of established "procedures" by allowing them to be blown to pieces is a bit callous in my humble. I always appreciate and enjoy your insights on this Forum. Cheers. I don't agree with that. It is obvious to me that the "key factor" was the captain who completely disregarded established procedures, multiple times and ways, to fly the coop. The captain had to have known the terrible risk he was taking in regards to the mines, and in running a highly alert and heavily fortified island fortress, unannounced, at night. He disregarded a patrol ships orders to stop, I can't see why you place the entire onus on Bunker in view of these facts. Most passengers probably did not have a very good idea of the risk. To them, Japanese aircraft were the major threat, and they understandably wanted to get underway ASAP, to get as far south as possible at break of dawn. You know very well Okla, the captain is master of the ship, you cannot pass the buck to make excuse for his poor decisions. This is not even a "poor decision" with the benefit on hindsight. The risks were known at the time, he decided to chance them, and unfortunately, many innocent people paid with their lives for his rash and unprofessional actions. I would go so far as to say that, so far as what is known, his primary motivation was to save his own skin.
|
|
|
Post by okla on May 10, 2012 8:10:15 GMT 8
Hey Xray....Yes, the Captain IS the master of his ship and his arse should have been strung up on the Mast upon arrival in Cebu or where ever he was bound, but, methinks, he was taught a rather severe lesson for his disobedience of standing procedures. No question about the rashness of his actions, but don't you think the penalty (leaving the mines armed) that was dealt as being rather severe??? Had he been going thru the minefield, solo, in an open rowboat, then, by all means let Bunker's order be carried out. Since that was not the case he could have been justly crucified in short order, just as soon as he arrived at his southern destination. I have beaten this dead horse for the final time. Cheers.
|
|