Collision that killed 10 US sailors caused by warship’s mistaken maneuver

[TaiShang]

Very true. I've noticed this pattern. Recently without Chinese members posting news because most are sick of Pakistan management for being biased towards their so called"iron brother", the PDF traffic has gone down. That's when Pak hired this TakeitwithYou clown who's probably a Pakistani to post and even make up negative stories about China to draw more traffic. The survival of this website depends on Chinese news. We Chinese should stop contributing. I'm seeing this recently which is good news.
Also be aware of these new Chinese members. They are mainly Pakistani and hindu

100% agree.

Death penalty to the ship!
Promotion for the dead soldiers!

Now that would be an irony at the highest level but would perfectly reflect the current state of mind in the "VERY PROFESSIONAL" USer Navy.

 

[AndrewJin]

Very true. I've noticed this pattern. Recently without Chinese members posting news because most are sick of Pakistan management for being biased towards their so called"iron brother", the PDF traffic has gone down. That's when Pak hired this TakeitwithYou clown who's probably a Pakistani to post and even make up negative stories about China to draw more traffic. The survival of this website depends on Chinese news. We Chinese should stop contributing. I'm seeing this recently which is good news.
Also be aware of these new Chinese members. They are mainly Pakistani and hindu

The management of this forum is killing the traffic.
I have minimised my comments per day.
Will get self banned every 2-3 weeks also.

 

[TaiShang]

The management of this forum is killing the traffic.
I have minimised my comments per day.
Will get self banned every 2-3 weeks also.

Same here. Management is terrible. If they like low-IQ false-flaggers infest the threads, then be it that way.

 

[war&peace]

@jhungary is a nice guy.

Agreed...that's I tagged him to get a hilarious response.

 

[terranMarine]

Same here. Management is terrible. If they like low-IQ false-flaggers infest the threads, then be it that way.

Yes it's good to punish the P@ki admins, if they continue this kind of behavior Chinese members will have to stop contributing (quality news and posts). This section generates huge amount of traffic afterall it's China we are talking about here. Some have left permanently, and many have reduced their contribution. If this disgusting behavior is not coming to a halt we can let that Viet monkey infest this section with his LOW quality Vietnam threads. Lets see if members and visitors are eager to read and comment on that type of news.

 

[Brainsucker]

Yes it's good to punish the P@ki admins, if they continue this kind of behavior Chinese members will have to stop contributing (quality news and posts). This section generates huge amount of traffic afterall it's China we are talking about here. Some have left permanently, and many have reduced their contribution. If this disgusting behavior is not coming to a halt we can let that Viet monkey infest this section with his LOW quality Vietnam threads. Lets see if members and visitors are eager to read and comment on that type of news.

A way beyond racism statement.

 

[jhungary]

Let's see what our @jhungary has to say on the issue? How much can it be stretched?

My response? My response is how many post to make an idiot out of somebody.

If you care to look at my original post back in August last year, I never said it was never the US Navy fault, unlike some Chinese member make me out to be, in fact, after the second day, I already predicted the captain will be relief of his command. You can go back to check my post history if you like, I never delete or edit my post.

The thing I argue to the Chinese Poster here is YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO ASSIGN BLAME UNTIL EVERYTHING IS KNOWN PUBLICLY. A Crash is caused by many factor, most of us don't know most of them, my argument started when some Chinese Poster (look above) saying "The US Navy Ship crashed on the starboard, then it must be their fault". I said, nope, you need to know all the detail before you make a comment. If this "MOT" investigation is actually creditable. THIS ACTUALLY SERVE MY POINT. because in this case, it was the US Destroyer that was being hit from the starboard. Yet the Singaporean blame the US Navy.

Now, you want to know my response? People like you don't want to know my response, because you cannot digest what I said, and I am terribly sorry, I cannot dumb down to your level of ignorance. To begin with, if you are asking for my response, that mean you don't even know what I was talking about to begin with. Then How am I response to you if you know shit about nothing?

That is my response.

 

[powastick]

My response? My response is how many post to make an idiot out of somebody.

If you care to look at my original post back in August last year, I never said it was never the US Navy fault, unlike some Chinese member make me out to be, in fact, after the second day, I already predicted the captain will be relief of his command. You can go back to check my post history if you like, I never delete or edit my post.

The thing I argue to the Chinese Poster here is YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO ASSIGN BLAME UNTIL EVERYTHING IS KNOWN PUBLICLY. A Crash is caused by many factor, most of us don't know most of them, my argument started when some Chinese Poster (look above) saying "The US Navy Ship crashed on the starboard, then it must be their fault". I said, nope, you need to know all the detail before you make a comment. If this "MOT" investigation is actually creditable. THIS ACTUALLY SERVE MY POINT. because in this case, it was the US Destroyer that was being hit from the starboard. Yet the Singaporean blame the US Navy.

Now, you want to know my response? People like you don't want to know my response, because you cannot digest what I said, and I am terribly sorry, I cannot dumb down to your level of ignorance. To begin with, if you are asking for my response, that mean you don't even know what I was talking about to begin with. Then How am I response to you if you know shit about nothing?

That is my response.

Rolls eyes, exactly as predicted response.

 

[war&peace]

My response? My response is how many post to make an idiot out of somebody.

If you care to look at my original post back in August last year, I never said it was never the US Navy fault, unlike some Chinese member make me out to be, in fact, after the second day, I already predicted the captain will be relief of his command. You can go back to check my post history if you like, I never delete or edit my post.

The thing I argue to the Chinese Poster here is YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO ASSIGN BLAME UNTIL EVERYTHING IS KNOWN PUBLICLY. A Crash is caused by many factor, most of us don't know most of them, my argument started when some Chinese Poster (look above) saying "The US Navy Ship crashed on the starboard, then it must be their fault". I said, nope, you need to know all the detail before you make a comment. If this "MOT" investigation is actually creditable. THIS ACTUALLY SERVE MY POINT. because in this case, it was the US Destroyer that was being hit from the starboard. Yet the Singaporean blame the US Navy.

Now, you want to know my response? People like you don't want to know my response, because you cannot digest what I said, and I am terribly sorry, I cannot dumb down to your level of ignorance. To begin with, if you are asking for my response, that mean you don't even know what I was talking about to begin with. Then How am I response to you if you know shit about nothing?

That is my response.

Hey mate, have some shame and accept your mistake and don't be so arrogant especially when your analysis has been proved wrong by US Navy's internal report. I think a title holder should have the courage to accept that.

I remember very well the discussion with you when this incident happened and you, without knowing the facts similar to some Chinese members, were doing a robust defence of the US destroyer and placing the blame on the Merchant ship. I was of the opinion that a destroyer is equipped with a lot of sensors to know about what is going on in its surroundings, after all it is a modern battle ship, supposed to know the location of every object in its surrounding. But I didn't put blame on any of the ships. And BTW, the captain has been relieved because he has been found guilty and report says "the damage was done due to an avoidable navigational error" and not on the ground of some high ethical and moral standards.

Furthermore, I have no problem in digesting the truth since none of the parties involved is Pakistan or its close friends. It is between USA and Singapore and if I have a soft corner for any party in this conflict, that's USA.

 

[jhungary]

Hey mate, have some shame and accept your mistake and don't be so arrogant especially when your analysis has been proved wrong by US Navy's internal report. I think a title holder should have the courage to accept that.

I remember very well the discussion with you when this incident happened and you, without knowing the facts similar to some Chinese members, were doing a robust defence of the US destroyer and placing the blame on the Merchant ship. I was of the opinion that a destroyer is equipped with a lot of sensors to know about what is going on in its surroundings, after all it is a modern battle ship, supposed to know the location of every object in its surrounding. But I didn't put blame on any of the ships. And BTW, the captain has been relieved because he has been found guilty and report says "the damage was done due to an avoidable navigational error" and not on the ground of some high moral ethical and moral standards.
Furthermore, I have no problem in digesting the truth since none of the parties involved Pakistan or its close friends. It is between USA and Singapore and if I have any soft corner for any partner in this conflict, that's USA.

Mate, you should have been the one that "Accept your mistake" and blanket following the so called "Chinese" wisdom.

This is what I said in the beginning of the argument.

The day after USS Fitzgerald Collision, I said this.

yes, the captain will have to answer to this even if it was not at fault, because for a Naval Captain, the ship's crew is under his command, and if an accident is avoidable and even it was not at fault, he will still be on hook for command failure resulting death or serious injury to person or persons under his/her command

We need more information to assign blame, but I can see the Captain career is all but over.

Then on the day the news broke of that McCain collision, I said this

I am waiting on Chinese member saying it's the merchant ship fault, because this time the Destroyer was hit on PORT side, which mean the destroyer should have the "Right Of Way" if we use the USS Fitzgerald as an example.

Really want to know how the member can spin this into US Navy Fault.




The problem is, the destroyer did have the right of way, because the USS McCain was hit on the Port Side, not Starboard side (Naval traffic on the port side should give way)

So, if the destroyer was hit on port side, which mean the merchant ship failed to give way when it needed to.

Do you even know why I post and why I "Air-Quote" Right of Way.

If you don't know why, then I can't help you.

Plus, you are actually making my point. The problem is, in Fitzgerald case, it's unilaterally US Navy Fault, but now, it's obviously the ship was hit on Port Side and you of all people suddenly say "Why Don't we wait for further information"? LOL

To answer your question, In case you still have not heard my tone, I made my earlier post with sarcasism, which is what I am expecting you people to say.

yeah, hit on Starboard side, US Navy is not professional, non-discipline, hit on port side, US Navy is not professional and non-discipline.

Do you even know how the ship and the circumstance of the collision? (Both Fitzgerald and McCain) Cause I don't. And I do know two things for sure. Ship cannot suddenly stop, reverse or get out of the way like a car. And 2. Destroyer is build for collision in mind, if you have EVER served in the Navy, you will know Destroyer are build to ram other side, maybe McCain is trying to inspect the merchant ship, the merchant ship got to close and they collided? OR maybe the Merchant ship trying to ram the Destroyer like the time the Chinese Navy does? There are literally 100 possibility as to why a ship collided with each other, and only a few of them are either or both party is at fault, yet, in this case, when US Navy does anything, it's their fault.

You ask me why I am so defensive of USN? I am defensive of the truth, the TRUTH is, we don't know anything, you can of course open your big mouth and think anything is US Navy fault, then the real question is, why are you so hostile against US Navy?

The first post is being sarcastic, if you look at the second and third post you will know, basically in the first post, I said why the Chinese Member did not jump up and say it was the cargo ship at fault instead of like what they did with Fitzgerald where they bunch up a bunch of Yah-hoo logic immediately after the collision.

Second post I am actually explaining the above and the third post I said, my previous post is of sarcasism, where the third post I was saying we need more information to know what is going on.

But then you don't care about all these now can't you? The problem is, this is a MOT report, not the US Coast Guard report, AND if you care to read thru the whole report instead of the RT "Tailored" one, MOT also said both ship have made all safety precaution as they can, and MOT also blame the collision on AM bridge not being readiness enough and assume the ship would pass safely (Which is wrong) and the AM Bridge team is not manned according to the Company's guideline. So, if we read the actual MOT report, instead of RT "shortened" version, MOT lay blame on BOTH PARTY.

But then you will never saw that on RT extract of the report. Here are the Singaporean Report as a whole.

https://www.mot.gov.sg/docs/default...gust-2017fbb8a9e0d243486a903b817f70996233.pdf

When AM’s Bridge team saw JSM turning, it presumed that JSM would be able to safely pass ahead. The collision happened within three minutes of JSM turning to Port, and the actions taken by AM were insufficient to avoid the collision. AM’s Bridge team was not manned in accordance with the Company’s SMS, and the Master did not have full support on the Bridge.

So if you are not biased, then I don't know what are you.​

Rolls eyes, exactly as predicted response.

Again, it's expected when you quote RT which honestly hidden a big chunk of Singaporean Report to begin with.

Actaully, this is what I expected of you lot anyway so it is not a big deal.

@war&peace

You also need to look at the report itself not just what people tell you to look, because it stated in the MOT report.

From the information gathered, the following findings are made. These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.

And you know what these bafoon do? They use the report (extract of an incomplete report, I should say) and lay blame on one party, that is the US Navy. Where the report itself EXPRESSLY STATED this report should not be used to apportioning blames and liability to any party....

Now, I don't really care if you are pro-China or Anti-US, or what do you think of me, I really don't care about that, but if you have to hate, hate with the right reason but not join in some crowd, I mean this is just sad....I used to think you still have your individual mind but not go with the flow kind of person.

 

[war&peace]

Mate, you should have been the one that "Accept your mistake" and blanket following the so called "Chinese" wisdom.

This is what I said in the beginning of the argument.

The day after USS Fitzgerald Collision, I said this.

Then on the day the news broke of that McCain collision, I said this







The first post is being sarcastic, if you look at the second and third post you will know, basically in the first post, I said why the Chinese Member did not jump up and say it was the cargo ship at fault instead of like what they did with Fitzgerald where they bunch up a bunch of Yah-hoo logic immediately after the collision.

Second post I am actually explaining the above and the third post I said, my previous post is of sarcasism, where the third post I was saying we need more information to know what is going on.

But then you don't care about all these now can't you? The problem is, this is a MOT report, not the US Coast Guard report, AND if you care to read thru the whole report instead of the RT "Tailored" one, MOT also said both ship have made all safety precaution as they can, and MOT also blame the collision on AM bridge not being readiness enough and assume the ship would pass safely (Which is wrong) and the AM Bridge team is not manned according to the Company's guideline. So, if we read the actual MOT report, instead of RT "shortened" version, MOT lay blame on BOTH PARTY.

But then you will never saw that on RT extract of the report. Here are the Singaporean Report as a whole.

https://www.mot.gov.sg/docs/default...gust-2017fbb8a9e0d243486a903b817f70996233.pdf



So if you are not biased, then I don't know what are you.​

Again, it's expected when you quote RT which honestly hidden a big chunk of Singaporean Report to begin with.

Actaully, this is what I expected of you lot anyway so it is not a big deal.

@war&peace

You also need to look at the report itself not just what people tell you to look, because it stated in the MOT report.



View attachment 462969

And you know what these bafoon do? They use the report (extract of an incomplete report, I should say) and lay blame on one party, that is the US Navy. Where the report itself EXPRESSLY STATED this report should not be used to apportioning blames and liability to any party....

Now, I don't really care if you are pro-China or Anti-US, or what do you think of me, I really don't care about that, but if you have to hate, hate with the right reason but not join in some crowd, I mean this is just sad....I used to think you still have your individual mind but not go with the flow kind of person.

But mate, if you read the report though definitely it says it does not apportion the amount of blame on any party. But the points (3.1 - 3.3) seem to belie that and talk about a series of missteps and wrong turning of JSM to the port side and also talks about lack of training and skills of its crew in handling the propulsion based turning. In the point (3.4), it kind of mildly places some fault on the AM as it did not expect that an accident could happen and it was not manned enough but it clearly says that JSM entered the AM's path and not the other way round. Now to dumb it down for all, if an road accidents happens, let's ay, between two cars A & B, A going straight in its lane while B takes a sudden turn and enter the path of A and does not free the path before the car A would collide with it...now tell me if traffic police has this information, who will they charge, A or B?. It is not about hate or love, it is just about the facts mate.

Have a nice day.

 

[jhungary]

But mate, if you read the report though definitely it says it does not apportion the amount of blame on any party. But the points (3.1 - 3.3) seem to belie that and talk about a series of missteps and wrong turning of JSM to the port side and also talks about lack of training and skills of its crew in handling the propulsion based turning. In the point (3.4), it kind of mildly places some fault on the AM as it did not expect that an accident could happen and it was not manned enough but it clearly says that JSM entered the AM's path and not the other way round. Now to dumb it down for all, if an road accidents happens, let's ay, between two cars A & B, A going straight in its lane while B takes a sudden turn and enter the path of A and does not free the path before the car A would collide with it...now tell me if traffic police has this information, who will they charge, A or B?. It is not about hate or love, it is just about the facts mate.

Have a nice day.

You need to understand this, at sea, a collision involved both party, as the Convention to Prevent Collision at sea stated, both party have shared responsibility to avoid collision, so that put "The blame" issue a non-starter, unlike a car, where you can stop immediately, ship cannot do emergency stop, so both ship is needed to be on the lookout as to whether or not they will collide to each other or something else, it is NEVER a "Starboard vs Port" issue some Chinese member make out to be. And that is the reason report like this usually said "They are not to appoint blame to some party" that is because at sea, if you collided both party have to miss something to be collided to begin with, and weighting in on "Who's fault is that" is not the general aim of the report, those report find out what and why both ship collided, that's it.

In this case, if you have read the report, you will seethe report "Suggested" the captain of AM took a wrong reaction to the collision, he should go full astern (Full back) instead of what he did, which is half ahead.

So, who to say who's to blame? US navy ship make a sudden turn (Mind you, AM have 3 MINUTES ahead of that sudden turn, that's 180 seconds to avoid it, and it is INDEED Avoidable as per MOT simulation) or Captain of AM who don't have the support of his team and assume the US Navy ship is not going to crash and did the wrong adjustment? I don't know, again, I don't have the full picture on the situation.

Can you say who's responsibility is bigger? The Captain of USS McCain who make a turn and crash onto AM in 3 minutes (again, 3 minutes is a long time) or Captain of AM who did not actually avoid the McCain as he made the wrong action? It never because the US Navy occupied 3.1 to 3.3 in their conclusion and AM only have 1 conclusion out of it, that make AM "Less" responsible. You cannot look at an accident that way.

 

[war&peace]

You need to understand this, at sea, a collision involved both party, as the Convention to Prevent Collision at sea stated, both party have shared responsibility to avoid collision, so that put "The blame" issue a non-starter, unlike a car, where you can stop immediately, ship cannot do emergency stop, so both ship is needed to be on the lookout as to whether or not they will collide to each other or something else, it is NEVER a "Starboard vs Port" issue some Chinese member make out to be. And that is the reason report like this usually said "They are not to appoint blame to some party" that is because at sea, if you collided both party have to miss something to be collided to begin with, and weighting in on "Who's fault is that" is not the general aim of the report, those report find out what and why both ship collided, that's it.

In this case, if you have read the report, you will seethe report "Suggested" the captain of AM took a wrong reaction to the collision, he should go full astern (Full back) instead of what he did, which is half ahead.

So, who to say who's to blame? US navy ship make a sudden turn (Mind you, AM have 3 MINUTES ahead of that sudden turn, that's 180 seconds to avoid it, and it is INDEED Avoidable as per MOT simulation) or Captain of AM who don't have the support of his team and assume the US Navy ship is not going to crash and did the wrong adjustment? I don't know, again, I don't have the full picture on the situation.

Can you say who's responsibility is bigger? The Captain of USS McCain who make a turn and crash onto AM in 3 minutes (again, 3 minutes is a long time) or Captain of AM who did not actually avoid the McCain as he made the wrong action? It never because the US Navy occupied 3.1 to 3.3 in their conclusion and AM only have 1 conclusion out of it, that make AM "Less" responsible. You cannot look at an accident that way.

Good. makes sense.

 

[AndrewJin]

These ships should sink into the hell, for the interests of mankind.

Illegal killing by Murican soldiers should stop, and those perpetrators will be rotted in hell.

All people who have ever worked for this anti-human milltary should be shamed.

 

[jhungary]

These ships should sink into the hell, for the interests of mankind.

Illegal killing by Murican soldiers should stop, and those perpetrators will be rotted in hell.

All people who have ever worked for this anti-human milltary should be shamed.

Well, consider China hold the most US Treasure bond, and we all know where all these money went, to fund the US war machine, then should Chinese Government should be shamed? LOL

"On behalf of the US Government, thank you the Chinese Government for your generous donation to our war effort"

They should put that above on a thank you note and send to Chinese government.