Shipbucket

So in short... this early reports indicate that sinking was part of fault in shaft water protection that lead to flooding engine room. But the reason ship was ramed was all on bridge crew?

But Spanish expert, says that they think it's the propeller shaft have been pushed out of position and thus damaged the bulkheads and causing flooding... but that would only apply to 2-3 bulkheads, not 5-6...

Might be possible that those damaged bulkheads allowed for that extra flooding that put a larger part of the side gash underwater, thus causing flooding into compartments that had no damaged bulkheads?

Damage to the propeller shafts is deadly, that is one reason why HMS Prince of Wales sank so quickly. And the force of the impact with a laden tanker is probably something no designer can mitigate against.

I'm rather surprised to read they were designed to withstand a torpedo impact, having seen a heavyweight torpedo cut a Type 12 in half I would think any direct torpedo impact would be the end.

Good evening, Heuhen. May I ask if the double keel is in relation to the double bottom? If no, what is it? Thanks and cheers.

Some quick thoughts on communications and rules of the road, having had the deck in busy coastal waters myself:

1.) Vessels getting underway are required to announce this via a security call on standard VHF channels. Example: "Security, Security, Security. This is vessel XXX getting underway from terminal XXX, Berth XXX, entering the channel in vicinity of XXX light/buoy/marker/etc. Vessel XXX is monitoring VHF channels XX/XX," or something equivalent. If the tanker did this and the warship ignored it or failed to ascertain the tankers position relative to itself then the warship is at fault. Such a call would have instanlty told the warship everything it needed to know about where this tanker was, where it was coming from, and where it was going. If the tanker didn't make that announcement, especially when entering a crowed traffic scheme, they are at fault and also grossly negligent.

2.) It is the responsibility of every underway vessel to display the correct navigation lights and day shapes. Having your working deck lights on in such a fashion that you are not distinguishable in form or relative movement while underway is a violation of law and given the crowded nature of the traffic scheme gross negligence. I also see no indication that the warship was not displaying the correct lights, so I question the wisdom of the tanker getting underway at all without establishing contact with vessels it was about to maneuver into and around.

I don't know any of the details so I am not passing judgement, but I am reading two things from what I have heard thus far. Firstly, the warship lost situational awareness and despite the non-standard lighting of the tanker, they had more than enough tools at their disposal to accurately access and react to the situation. Secondly, the tanker displayed gross incompetence in the handling of its lighting and communicating to underway ships in a traffic scheme it was entering.

It was frustrating for me to listen to the bridge communications traffic between the tanker/terminal/warship. None of them seem to be very insistent on accurately communicating where they are in relation to each other, and neither vessel seems to have done anything substantial to maneuver away from a collision (including just stopping). The warship especially is very tight lipped. Its just mind blowing to hear how nonchalant everyone is. And to be perfectly honest the vessels were not really that constrained by draft or traffic. This situation was peanuts compared to entering or exiting the Suez or major ports like Rotterdam or Jebel Ali.