French trawler/Submarine/Inquest

[Neeves]

This may have been posted already, but otherwise might be of interest to those of you in the UK

Submarine did not cause 2004 sinking of French trawler, UK inquest finds

Jonathan

 

[Slowboat35]

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]

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]

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]

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”

 

[penfold]

The sensors were working fine, it was the meat puppet looking through the periscope that was defective.

 

[bignick]

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]

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]

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.

 

[[70521]]

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

Additionally, how does a submarine thrash a boat from side to side like a dog playing with a toy?

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

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.

Which is exactly what it looks like, the edges being constrained by the top of the tank and the top plate of the double bottom.