French trawler/Submarine/Inquest

Slowboat35

Well-known member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,627
Visit site
What a bizarre situation!
Is is surely abundantly plain that the visible and massive damage to the hull wasn't caused by snagged nets or anything remotely like it.
That was caused by a collision.

As there is no evidence or implication of a collision with a sub (an incredibly unlikely event, given the capability of modern submarine sensors) it must look as if the damage occurred in some other way.
 

Sybarite

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2002
Messages
27,694
Location
France
Visit site
What a bizarre situation!
Is is surely abundantly plain that the visible and massive damage to the hull wasn't caused by snagged nets or anything remotely like it.
That was caused by a collision.

As there is no evidence or implication of a collision with a sub (an incredibly unlikely event, given the capability of modern submarine sensors) it must look as if the damage occurred in some other way.

I agree that nets snagging could not cause damage to both sides of the hull. I suggest that the trawler was hauled under and was thrashed from side to side hitting rocks on the bottom in the process.
 

Slowboat35

Well-known member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,627
Visit site
Both sides? Where do we discover that?
And how, exactly, does a trawler with nets towed from her stern get damage like that if dragged backwards ? I just don't believe it.
Nuclear subs simply don't (or very rarely) operate in such shallow water in any case.

"Thrashed from side to side"? Wow! That take some imagination! That doesn't look like rock damage to me. If it were there would be ample evidnce of rockfragments embedded in the hull.

I think you can be assured it was something else entirely. (That I very much doubt involved submarines)
 

dunedin

Well-known member
Joined
3 Feb 2004
Messages
14,072
Location
Boat (over winters in) the Clyde
Visit site
What a bizarre situation!
Is is surely abundantly plain that the visible and massive damage to the hull wasn't caused by snagged nets or anything remotely like it.
That was caused by a collision.

As there is no evidence or implication of a collision with a sub (an incredibly unlikely event, given the capability of modern submarine sensors) it must look as if the damage occurred in some other way.
Have you read the MAIB report about the recent near collision between a UK submarine at periscope depth and a Stena ferry in the Irish Sea. The submarine completely misread the speed and distance of the ferry - and the collision was only avoided by an extremely vigilant Stena watch keeper spotting the periscope and instigating an urgent swerve to port.
And the submarine skipper didn‘t even report the near miss, but eventually was directed by Naval HQ to surface and return to base.
So don’t rely too much on “modern submarine sensors”
 

bignick

Active member
Joined
10 Aug 2011
Messages
880
Location
Poole
Visit site
I agree that nets snagging could not cause damage to both sides of the hull. I suggest that the trawler was hauled under and was thrashed from side to side hitting rocks on the bottom in the process.

if the trawler was being towed behind a sub, how would it hit the bottom? The sub would be nowhere near it?
 

Daydream believer

Well-known member
Joined
6 Oct 2012
Messages
21,255
Location
Southminster, essex
Visit site
Both sides? Where do we discover that?
If you follow the links , you will see one picture showing the port forward side stove in. Then later there is a picture of the boat on a barge & the Stbd side is also stove in, in an identical manner. Seems odd that both areas of damage are the same; as if the boat dropped into a cleft in rocks on the seabed.
 

ean_p

Well-known member
Joined
28 Dec 2001
Messages
3,012
Location
Humber
Visit site
As mentioned in a thread elsewhere the likely cause of the collapsed hull plates is pressure as the fish storage room is / was likely a sealed volume.
 
Top