bitchen frizzy Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 For some reason, I was inspired to look for a nautical definition of the term "sink". I found several glossaries, such as this one: www.usmm.net/terms.html I could not find a formal naval definition of "sink" on any of them. A ship resting on the bottom or touching the bottom is said to be "aground" - that definition seems to be unaminous amongst the websites I found. A ship that has gone completely under the waves, in uncontrolled fashion of course, is said to have "foundered." The Marat was definitely "aground", in naval terminology. Whether it "sank" or not depends on what definition you wish to use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 For some reason, I was inspired to look for a nautical definition of the term "sink". I found several glossaries, such as this one: www.usmm.net/terms.html I could not find a formal naval definition of "sink" on any of them. A ship resting on the bottom or touching the bottom is said to be "aground" - that definition seems to be unaminous amongst the websites I found. A ship that has gone completely under the waves, in uncontrolled fashion of course, is said to have "foundered." The Marat was definitely "aground", in naval terminology. Whether it "sank" or not depends on what definition you wish to use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 This is true [referring to Stalin's Organist's post], but I suggest there is a difference between being immobile and simply engineless. A barge is not immobile because it can be moved. Propulsion may be irrelevant but mobility is not. Lack of mobility is especially relevant when it results from the ship being abruptly plonked on the bottom of the nearest sea-bed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 This is true [referring to Stalin's Organist's post], but I suggest there is a difference between being immobile and simply engineless. A barge is not immobile because it can be moved. Propulsion may be irrelevant but mobility is not. Lack of mobility is especially relevant when it results from the ship being abruptly plonked on the bottom of the nearest sea-bed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I think a ship that is aground has usually gotten that way by moving, whilst in a seaworthy condition, into water too shallow for its draught. I do not think it is intended to apply to ships that had their bottom blown out in what fortuitously happened to be shallow water... Anyways, I rest my case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I think a ship that is aground has usually gotten that way by moving, whilst in a seaworthy condition, into water too shallow for its draught. I do not think it is intended to apply to ships that had their bottom blown out in what fortuitously happened to be shallow water... Anyways, I rest my case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 No, the nautical websites I visited (entirely too many of them ) are emphatically clear that "aground" applies to any ship not fully afloat, whether it got there of it's own movement or not. The term "aground" means on or in contact with land, for whatever reason. In fact, a boat on a trailer on the highway can correctly be described as "aground." I'm not contradicting your assertion that the Marat was sunk, BTW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 No, the nautical websites I visited (entirely too many of them ) are emphatically clear that "aground" applies to any ship not fully afloat, whether it got there of it's own movement or not. The term "aground" means on or in contact with land, for whatever reason. In fact, a boat on a trailer on the highway can correctly be described as "aground." I'm not contradicting your assertion that the Marat was sunk, BTW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 It is truly amazing how many websites of entirely doubtful usefulness can be found when one is trying to back something up (Referring, incidentally, to the websites I've trawled through over the last day and a half, not your nautical websites.) [ February 27, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 It is truly amazing how many websites of entirely doubtful usefulness can be found when one is trying to back something up (Referring, incidentally, to the websites I've trawled through over the last day and a half, not your nautical websites.) [ February 27, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by McIvan: This is true [referring to Stalin's Organist's post], but I suggest there is a difference between being immobile and simply engineless. A barge is not immobile because it can be moved. Propulsion may be irrelevant but mobility is not. Damaged ships under tow, wrecks going to the breakers yard, ships fresh off the slipway, ships tied up at dock - there are lots of ships perfectly afloat without propulsion - some without the means to propell themselves even - temporary of not. Propulsion or lack of it doesn't result in a ship being plonked on eth sea bottom either - excessive water inside teh hull does that. Ships without propulsion may stand a greater chance of foundering in bad weather due to being unable to get onto the least damaging heading so they get broached or similar, but that's an indirect cause - ships with propulsion still suffer that fate too. Propulsion is irrelevant. Just to be clear - I have no problems with Rudel geting credit for killing a battleship - no doubt many of the tanks he got credit for were repaired too - even the ones he did actually hit!! And I dont' REALLY mind that the propaganda says he sank it - propaganda is worthless. And the Marat was definitely rendered immobile, it was badly damaged, it was out of combat (for a while). But I think that people on this board should be more accurate than propaganda. So IMO it was not sunk, and it was not destroyed. [ February 27, 2007, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by McIvan: This is true [referring to Stalin's Organist's post], but I suggest there is a difference between being immobile and simply engineless. A barge is not immobile because it can be moved. Propulsion may be irrelevant but mobility is not. Damaged ships under tow, wrecks going to the breakers yard, ships fresh off the slipway, ships tied up at dock - there are lots of ships perfectly afloat without propulsion - some without the means to propell themselves even - temporary of not. Propulsion or lack of it doesn't result in a ship being plonked on eth sea bottom either - excessive water inside teh hull does that. Ships without propulsion may stand a greater chance of foundering in bad weather due to being unable to get onto the least damaging heading so they get broached or similar, but that's an indirect cause - ships with propulsion still suffer that fate too. Propulsion is irrelevant. Just to be clear - I have no problems with Rudel geting credit for killing a battleship - no doubt many of the tanks he got credit for were repaired too - even the ones he did actually hit!! And I dont' REALLY mind that the propaganda says he sank it - propaganda is worthless. And the Marat was definitely rendered immobile, it was badly damaged, it was out of combat (for a while). But I think that people on this board should be more accurate than propaganda. So IMO it was not sunk, and it was not destroyed. [ February 27, 2007, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Further to that, Andreas' point is an excellent one. In the specific case of the Marat, 'merely' sinking or grounding it was insufficient. Mobility wasn't a characteristic of the Soviet fleet in Leningrad, so taking away something it didn't have to begin with wasn't much of an acheivement. Making the turrets non-operational was (or should have been) the objective. For one turret this was acheived. For the others it was acheived temporarily, somewhat akin to suppressing an regular army gun battery for a while. But suppression isn't the same as destruction. What would the silhouette painted on the a/c nose look like for providing some suppression? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Further to that, Andreas' point is an excellent one. In the specific case of the Marat, 'merely' sinking or grounding it was insufficient. Mobility wasn't a characteristic of the Soviet fleet in Leningrad, so taking away something it didn't have to begin with wasn't much of an acheivement. Making the turrets non-operational was (or should have been) the objective. For one turret this was acheived. For the others it was acheived temporarily, somewhat akin to suppressing an regular army gun battery for a while. But suppression isn't the same as destruction. What would the silhouette painted on the a/c nose look like for providing some suppression? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Mobility isn't a be all and end all in itself, and I would not pretend that it was. It's simply another factor going to whether something is a ship or a wreck. To me, the Marat was sunk, in shallow water, and was to all intents and purposes inoperative. Over the course of two months compartments were pumped out, repairs made, and three turrets brough back into action. It was still, however, a sunken ship. Those pictures don't show a structure capable of floating upon the water, and it wasn't floating. Whatever it was, a ship it was not. The ship was sunk; a battery may have been resurrected but not a ship. I presume we can agree that a ship needs to be capable of floating? I know you're looking at it from the point of view of whether it gets put completely under the surface of the water and/or whether it's a total loss, but I think that raises it's own problems when you think of ships put to the bottom in slightly deeper water yet raised and repaired, eg the examples at Pearl Harbour. At what point, if we accept the way you are looking at it, does the ship become sunk? I would say they were sunk, but were then raised and repaired....I would not say that they were never sunk in the first place. Likewise I think the stronger view is that the Marat was sunk, and then partially repaired. With regard to Jon's post, I would agree if you could describe a ship solely in terms of its gun battery, but the ability of a ship to project the power of that battery comes from mobility. I think its a unworkable criteria to judge whether a pilot got a kill on whether or not the owner of a ship intended to move it in the forseeable future. Even if the soviets would never have moved the Marat again, the potential threat of moving is an attribute...eg Tirpitz holed up in the fjords. A bunch of immobile ships sitting on the harbour bottom represents an entirely different threat to a squadron which could, if it received orders, sally forth. Hard enough for aircraft to hit a ship in the first place without trying to target the turrets specifically. Surely sinking a ship is generally the best method of making a ship non-operational? But if the Germans had known how shallow the harbour was and that anything holed would simply sink to the shallow bottom and potentially be repaired, then yeah. Even so I doubt they could have done anything other than what they did. I think I may have flogged this horse enough now. I will do my best not to post on it any more [ February 27, 2007, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Mobility isn't a be all and end all in itself, and I would not pretend that it was. It's simply another factor going to whether something is a ship or a wreck. To me, the Marat was sunk, in shallow water, and was to all intents and purposes inoperative. Over the course of two months compartments were pumped out, repairs made, and three turrets brough back into action. It was still, however, a sunken ship. Those pictures don't show a structure capable of floating upon the water, and it wasn't floating. Whatever it was, a ship it was not. The ship was sunk; a battery may have been resurrected but not a ship. I presume we can agree that a ship needs to be capable of floating? I know you're looking at it from the point of view of whether it gets put completely under the surface of the water and/or whether it's a total loss, but I think that raises it's own problems when you think of ships put to the bottom in slightly deeper water yet raised and repaired, eg the examples at Pearl Harbour. At what point, if we accept the way you are looking at it, does the ship become sunk? I would say they were sunk, but were then raised and repaired....I would not say that they were never sunk in the first place. Likewise I think the stronger view is that the Marat was sunk, and then partially repaired. With regard to Jon's post, I would agree if you could describe a ship solely in terms of its gun battery, but the ability of a ship to project the power of that battery comes from mobility. I think its a unworkable criteria to judge whether a pilot got a kill on whether or not the owner of a ship intended to move it in the forseeable future. Even if the soviets would never have moved the Marat again, the potential threat of moving is an attribute...eg Tirpitz holed up in the fjords. A bunch of immobile ships sitting on the harbour bottom represents an entirely different threat to a squadron which could, if it received orders, sally forth. Hard enough for aircraft to hit a ship in the first place without trying to target the turrets specifically. Surely sinking a ship is generally the best method of making a ship non-operational? But if the Germans had known how shallow the harbour was and that anything holed would simply sink to the shallow bottom and potentially be repaired, then yeah. Even so I doubt they could have done anything other than what they did. I think I may have flogged this horse enough now. I will do my best not to post on it any more [ February 27, 2007, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by McIvan: I know you're looking at it from the point of view of whether it gets put completely under the surface of the water No, I'm looking at it from the POV of whether it was put out of action or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by McIvan: I know you're looking at it from the point of view of whether it gets put completely under the surface of the water No, I'm looking at it from the POV of whether it was put out of action or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Was a reference to Stalin's Organist...you posted while I was writing mine, usual story. I've now edited my post to respond to yours.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Was a reference to Stalin's Organist...you posted while I was writing mine, usual story. I've now edited my post to respond to yours.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by McIvan: I know you're looking at it from the point of view of whether it gets put completely under the surface of the water No, I'm looking at it from the POV of whether it was put out of action or not. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by McIvan: I know you're looking at it from the point of view of whether it gets put completely under the surface of the water No, I'm looking at it from the POV of whether it was put out of action or not. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 No they aren't - it can be completely out of action and not under teh water at all. And my definition of sunk doesn't requier it be completely under water anyway. However I'm willling to let it rest at this now - I think both points of view have been fully explained. And McI is wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 No they aren't - it can be completely out of action and not under teh water at all. And my definition of sunk doesn't requier it be completely under water anyway. However I'm willling to let it rest at this now - I think both points of view have been fully explained. And McI is wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Originally posted by McIvan: With regard to Jon's post, I would agree if you could describe a ship solely in terms of its gun battery, but the ability of a ship to project the power of that battery comes from mobility. I think its a unworkable criteria to judge whether a pilot got a kill on whether or not the owner of a ship intended to move it in the forseeable future. Even if the soviets would never have moved the Marat again, the potential threat of moving is an attribute...eg Tirpitz holed up in the fjords. A bunch of immobile ships sitting on the harbour bottom represents an entirely different threat to a squadron which could, if it received orders, sally forth.No, I think in the specific case of the Marat, it's theoretical mobility was completely irrelevant. There was simply no way it was going to go anywhere without German permission. Pilots often seem to destroy things because they can, not because it's a useful or productive thing to be doing with their time. That's something that occurred to me after reading about the way airpower was applied in WWII, Vietnam, and Gulf War I. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.