Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

Common sense would dictate a warship would be able to better absord damage, though I also guess not many ships come under ememy attack from directly below, other than mines !

 

They are not top heavy nor cheaply built and seem to perform well. As a NA&ME employed by the US government, I will state that CVN's limit damage not only longitudinaly, but transversely and verticaly also. But this is a cruise ship, not expected to soak up the damage of XXX contact weapons and continue on without interuption in air operations. A CVN would have listed too if it had had 1/4 of its length opened to sea and then been grounded.

People, really, the ship did well. Even if the screaming bloodly murder short time offered up by not-so-smartbight is correct; almost everyone who wasn't still sitting in their cabin or allready dead got off, if not comfortably, then safely; after the command team did the unthinkable and delibertly ran the ship up onto the beach. This is an example of the rules and regulation working well. Only people with a different adgenda than ship safety see this.

 

Think of it this way

you have seen photos of holed damaged warships disabled or limping home
you have seen photos of damaged oil tankers and bulk/box ships as above.

I cant think of any cruise ship like this as they seem to go straight to the bottom at the first chance

 

are you shorting cruise line stock or something?? Your posts in this thread draw dramatic conclusion from scant or non-existent data.

 

Sort of. All ships are liable to collisions but warships are liable to enemy attack. Everything from bullets, torpedoes, missiles, to underwater explosions. You don't send a wimp kid to war, you send Captain America.

If you have seen the movie "Pearl Harbor", part of the difficulty of rescuing crew in capsized ships was cutting and opening the hull. The hulls are so thick.

 

Where did the 80 deg port list figure come from? I've been looking around trying to find some timeline of vessel attitude from initial impact to beaching, but can't find anything.

 

no problem, show me a photo of a damaged cruise ship that is still afloat

 

I've heard and read about a lot more sunken warships, tankers and freighters than I have cruise ships.

I'm not making any claim one way or the other - maybe cruise ships are the worst designed ships ever, maybe the best. I'm just saying it is irresponsible to post your opinion as fact, but offer no supporting evidence. If you want to make a case that cruise ships are inherently flawed and prone to sinking, please do the research and post your results. I will happily review and discuss with you.

 

my posts are my research DOH!
I dont see where I posted any facts I asked a question from my observations as below.
Can anyone show me a photo of a damaged cruise ship still afloat!

 

No, I haven't seen you post any facts, just conjecture.

Example: You said that cruise ships "seem to go to the bottom at first chance". Can you back that claim up? What are you basing it on?

 

Polar Star grounded and survived (albeit not a purpose built cruise ship)

Atlantic Star (formerly FairSky, Pacific Sky, Sky Princess and Sky Wonder) grounded twice and survived
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Star_(cruise_ship)

Mona Lisa
http://www.cruisebruise.com/Mona_Lisa_Grounding_May_4_2008.html

Carnival Celebration

 

certainly not a small double hull ship that has grounded on rocks and survived or 2 others that touched the sand and survived
how about a cruise ship that has had a hole punched in by rocks and survived

 

Most of those were hard groundings requiring tugs to free them. I can't say how much damage was done. They may or may not have been holed.

So what is your point anyway? And what specific type of vessel are you making your point about? Does it need to be a certain length? Breadth? Depth? Tonnage? Classification?

Let's turn it around - what cruise ships are you thinking of that have sustained impact damage (grounding or collision) and sunk? Besides Concordia of course. Have at it, educate me.

 

you mean like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sea_Diamond
Luckily the captain didnt trust the fully computerised ballast and stability control so he played it safe when everything on board said there was no dangerous situation and got everybody off ( or so he thought)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail...tov_(ship)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Explorer
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Salem_Express

 

Well now you've gone and connected us to this thread as well by posting the same thing in both of them. The rest of my response is over there.

Salem Express was a ro-ro. Once the bow visor was compromised and water was shipped on the deck, capsize was imminent. Not at all comparable to typical cruise ships. The ro-ro design is inherently flawed, and Salem Express isn't the only one to sink quickly with huge loss of life. Herald of Free Enterprise also comes to mind.

Again, what point are you trying to make?