near miss at periscope depth

[Garrincha]

Now this is interesting...looks pretty real to me!

Anyone know which sub class this is?

cheers,
Garrincha


http://castlemaine-boy.smugmug.com/photos/313360635_HCqEC-O.jpg

[Jimbuna]

No idea what class of sub it is.....but that was a really close miss :o

[Platapus]

I am not a sub guy, although I do play one on the computer.

How could this happen? Small ships such as this are not exactly stealthy.

If the sub were already at periscope depth would it not dive/change course to avoid the ship?

If the sub were submerged would not its sensors be abel to detect a this ship?

On another thread there were comments that our sub's sensors can track stuff from hundreds of kilometers.

Was the incident in the photographs an accident or was the ship supposed to be that close. The ship appears to be not a fishing boat but some sort of research type. Was this part of an experiment or test?

One of the gentlemen on the deck does not seem at all concerned (or particularly interested) in the periscopes that close.

And of course these days I always have to ask this question: Do we know for a fact that these are not fauxtographs? The periscopes seem different in the different pictures.

[Oberon]

Upholder class?

[Jimbuna]

Upholder class?

It wouldn't appear so.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8554/uphold1bn0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[lesrae]

Upholder class?

No - they don't have that swept aft end to the fin, as jimbuna's photo shows.

Are we sure this isn't a photoshop? The guys on the boat look a bit too calm to me. If the photos are meant to be in sequence, why would the sub raise (what looks like) it's snort exhaust before surfacing after a near miss like that?

[Oberon]

I gotta admit, those guys on the stern of the fishing boat look a little too calm for periscopes passing by that close, and I don't think the third picture is a part of the sequence, if indeed there is one because I could have sworn I've seen that picture before and it was a Walrus snorting.

[Skybird]

Anyone know which sub class this is?

Assuming the photos are not constructed, I would say it is a sub class that has some very serious problems with its sensors and periscopes.

but I cannot image the first two photos to be true. Or does anyone believe the first movie poster for Jaws (the one with the girl swimming and the shark raising from underneath her) described a physical reality?

[mcf1]

Maybe that guy was playing to much SH and he got used to that :lol:

[FIREWALL]

Columbian drug sub picking up or delivering a load of coke ?:p

[FIREWALL]

Caption of two fisherman : Pesky Colombo subs are everywhere now damnit

http://castlemaine-boy.smugmug.com/photos/313360635_HCqEC-O.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

I once saw something similar where a Russian submarine surfaced underneath an old man and a boy in a boat (or maybe they were ice fishing, it's been a long time) and they shared Nestle Crunch bars.

Incredible stuff.

[August]

I think they're faked. If you look closely at the first photo the black cable (boom stay?) passes in front of most of the periscopes but is partially obscured by the camouflaged one.

[OneToughHerring]

Well there was that one accident where the US sub rammed the Japanese ship, created a lot of bad blood I remember.

[geetrue]

That's one crazy photo for sure ...

Reminds me of a sea story ... we were in the South China sea one time at about 64' snorkeling on the USS Salmon SS-573 when we heard a big bang, secure from snorkeling, take a look around with number one scope, suface, surface ...

The bow was covered with a near-by fishing boats fishing nets, not a big modern fishing boat, but an old tired Chinese type. We cut it off and sent a diver down to make sure no damage to the underside.

While waiting for clearence to dive again the fishing boat hails us and demands money for their nets. The chief of the boat takes up a collection from the crew and gives the poor fisherman the money.

"Okey dokey you guys can go now" The fishing boat pushes off.

He was happy and we slide back under the waves.

Year 1963 ... :yep:


P.S. notice the third picture from the top and how the boat is going the other direction, plus the background clouds are all different ... placement of the mast is different in two pictures too.

[Marcantilan]

It´s the argentine ARA Santa Cruz, a TR 1700 class. Back in the ´80s the most advanced SSK.

The pics aren´t a fake. Are real and were part of Mr. Ricardo Fuchs´collection.

Another one (same collection)

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/ArchivoFotosGral/ArchivoFuchs/Image051.jpg

[OneToughHerring]

Well if the pics aren't fake then what is going on in the first two pics? Some kind of navy version of 'playing chicken'?

[mcf1]

Well if the pics aren't fake then what is going on in the first two pics? Some kind of navy version of 'playing chicken'?

No, it's Bernard playing Marco Polo :lol:

[geetrue]

The first picture has a sled that you tow, perhaps a torpedo retrevier boat?

[OneToughHerring]

Oh they're Argentinians, well that explains everything.

[Jimbuna]

LOL :lol:

[Marcantilan]

Oh they're Argentinians, well that explains everything.

??????

[Jimbuna]

Oh they're Argentinians, well that explains everything.

??????

I think he's joking....no harm or insult intended.

[Enigma]

Fakes. August's observations, among other factors....

[Cohaagen]

One of the things I love (can't stand) about the internet is how people have become so paranoid about looking gauche, unsavvy or unwordly that they immediately label even the most triflingly unusual photographs/videos as "fake". The fact that the sub "going in the other direction" and the clouds looking "different" (identical) from picture to picture is taken as evidence of fakery is indicative of dismissiveness by default, not intelligent skepticism.

It goes without saying that those pictures are obviously real, and anyone who can't tell that at first sight needs to ease up with the Photoshop paranoia.

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/Submarinos%20Argentinos/ClaseTR1700.htm

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/ArchivoFotosGral/ArchivoFuchs.htm


EDIT: If you want a real laugh at something truly dubious, check out a page at the above site where the Argentine "Armada" trots out the old claims to have seriously damaged HMS Hermes and sunk Invincible (but ze Englisher pirates covered it up, jajajajaja!)

[Jimbuna]

One of the things I love (can't stand) about the internet is how people have become so paranoid about looking gauche, unsavvy or unwordly that they immediately label even the most triflingly unusual photographs/videos as "fake". The fact that the sub "going in the other direction" and the clouds looking "different" (identical) from picture to picture is taken as evidence of fakery is indicative of dismissiveness by default, not intelligent skepticism.

It goes without saying that those pictures are obviously real, and anyone who can't tell that at first sight needs to ease up with the Photoshop paranoia.

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/Submarinos%20Argentinos/ClaseTR1700.htm

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/ArchivoFotosGral/ArchivoFuchs.htm


EDIT: If you want a real laugh at something truly dubious, check out a page at the above site where the Argentine "Armada" trots out the old claims to have seriously damaged HMS Hermes and sunk Invincible (but ze Englisher pirates covered it up, jajajajaja!)

Could you be a little more prescriptive, or even post a link for these tired old eyes of mine :up:

[OneToughHerring]

Oh they're Argentinians, well that explains everything.
??????
I think he's joking....no harm or insult intended.
Yes I'm joking but I'd really like to know what is going on in those first two photos.

Oh well, maybe it was just a case of the sub 'starting' right next to that boat and it just looks like a near collision.

[Marcantilan]

EDIT: If you want a real laugh at something truly dubious, check out a page at the above site where the Argentine "Armada" trots out the old claims to have seriously damaged HMS Hermes and sunk Invincible (but ze Englisher pirates covered it up, jajajajaja!)

In fact, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible being damaged (not sunk) was an old claim of the Argentine Air Force.

Here´s a CGI video about the HMS Invincible attack (FAA point of view). I recommend to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EphkYTMDV18

As far as I know the official posture of the Argentine Navy is HMS Invincible was attacked by an Exocet, without any confirmed results.

I know a legend about HMS Invincible being sunk (and HMS Illustrious disguised as HMS Invincible just after the sinking). But I also heard about the Yeti, Nessie, so on...

[Marcantilan]

Yes I'm joking but I'd really like to know what is going on in those first two photos.

Oh well, maybe it was just a case of the sub 'starting' right next to that boat and it just looks like a near collision.

I will ask a former crewmember of the sub about the pics. Stay tuned...

[Jimbuna]

An interesting video, from an Argentine perspective anyway :lol:

Your pilots were extremely brave and were the most creditable part of your forces in this sad conflict.

[Blacklight]

Bernard ? :D

[Kapitan]

The thing the troops were apparently told was that these were two islands that the british didnt want we need to make a show they wont put up a fight how wrong they were.

last time i went to portsmouth i counted 3 carriers invincible illustrious and ark royal none of them sunk not even hermes which my farthers friend was on during the conflict as that was paid off in 1989 and sold to india.

[Cohaagen]

An interesting video, from an Argentine perspective anyway :lol:

Your pilots were extremely brave and were the most creditable part of your forces in this sad conflict.
I'd agree with that...

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6417/skyhawksrx5.jpg

Two Skyhawks attacking HMS Broadsword, unsuccessfully thankfully. See the huge amount of SAF going out, with what looks like a 4.5" shell in the foreground.

Interestingly, I've also seen the same photo used on the internet used as "evidence" in the carrier conspiracy and subtitled "Attack on the Invincible"!

The "kills list" is here:

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Malvinas/ArtDiegoMarre.htm

It basically counts every instance of damage to the Task Force as "serious", regardless of whether it actually was.

[Stealth Hunter]

After nearly 7 decades of sailing the waters, the last German U-boat, which was never accounted for, was finally sighted off the coast of South America, after having apparently undergone minor upgrades.

[ASWnut101]

I think they're faked. If you look closely at the first photo the black cable (boom stay?) passes in front of most of the periscopes but is partially obscured by the camouflaged one.

That's...kinda the point of camoflage. To make things "disappear." :)


And about the whole "not detecting it on sonar," well, a boat with it's engine(s) off dosen't make much noise... If you look closely, there is not the slightest sign of a stern wake from the boat, and it's not that uncommon for a skipper to shut down the engines when stopped for a bit. In fact, it's been done on every fishing boat I've been on.

Just my opinion.

[Safe-Keeper]

One of the things I love (can't stand) about the internet is how people have become so paranoid about looking gauche, unsavvy or unwordly that they immediately label even the most triflingly unusual photographs/videos as "fake". On the contrary, I feel people should be about ten times more skeptical and that it's crazy what they actually fall for. See, for example, the "whale landing on kayak" vid on YouTube. Idiot spammers post it with their own login, 10 000 other idiots post "OMG!" posts, some skeptic comes along and points out it's "fake" (read: taken from a commercial, not that they would know), and another idiot goes "oh, ****, found out, guess I'd better repost it somewhere else, then!".

Look at all the silly irrationality people fall for from GW deniers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4092449199080437781&q=global+warming+swindle&ei=0qKESJb_Ao3yiQLXxqnhBw), psychics (http://stopsylviabrowne.com/), fundies (http://fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=1), alternative medicine, homeopaths (http://randi.org), etc. Have a run through Snopes (http://www.snopes.com) and check out what people actually believe.

A "Philosophy 101" course should be mandatory for all High School students.

It goes without saying that those pictures are obviously real, and anyone who can't tell that at first sight needs to ease up with the Photoshop paranoia.You say they're "obviously real", and post as evidence a site that simply reproduces them and offers no evidence?

[OneToughHerring]

Yes I'm joking but I'd really like to know what is going on in those first two photos.

Oh well, maybe it was just a case of the sub 'starting' right next to that boat and it just looks like a near collision.
I will ask a former crewmember of the sub about the pics. Stay tuned...

Oh you don't need to go through that trouble just because of me...but you know, if others are interested, be my guest and ask. :up:

[Cohaagen]

Safe-Keeper,

I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Responding to the gullibility of others by adopting a default "no...no...no" position isn't intelligent, it's reflexive thinking. To be honest, I couldn't care less what people say about "viral" videos. I don't watch that sort of guff and I'm certainly not interested in whether people are taken in by them or not.

You say they're "obviously real", and post as evidence a site that simply reproduces them and offers no evidence?

So now we're into needing "evidence"? For what - a submarine passing within a few feet of a small ship? What kind of sad bastard would take the time out to Photoshop that? Not exactly a big shark leaping at a guy hanging off a helicopter from a rope ladder, is it?

[Safe-Keeper]

So now we're into needing "evidence"?I'm not the kind of person who believes things without evidence, no.

For what - a submarine passing within a few feet of a small ship? What kind of sad bastard would take the time out to Photoshop that? Not exactly a big shark leaping at a guy hanging off a helicopter from a rope ladder, is it?The kind of sad ****** who likes to have people around the Web spread his picture and gasp at the alleged moment of near-catastrophe. The same kind of "sad ******" spreads other interesting pictures, real or not.

But I agree, this has to be Bernard, or whatever his American counterpart is called (Parker?).
"Damnit, you nitwit, we nearly hit that trawler! Good thing they didn't see us! Parker, why didn't you sound the alarm?"
"Why, CO, you told me to watch out for enemy warships. If that's a warship, I'm a Swedish landlubb--"
"PAARKEEEEER!"

[Cohaagen]

I can tell you for a fact it's not a fishing boat - I used to work on one. It's a small Argentine naval vessel. Trawlers have nets and winches and winding gear, and the crew wear wellies. They don't have their deck space taken up with a big fluourescent RIB, and they're usually not painted naval grey.

This is a ship from the same class:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3671/lapointx3ij7.jpg

Note the boom and the orange RIB on the quarterdeck.

[Maverick30]

Bernard was at the periscope and the captain asked: its okay to surface? And Bernard looking at the fishing boat replyed to the captain: its okay captain, we can surface. :D

[Platapus]

On the contrary, I feel people should be about ten times more skeptical and that it's crazy what they actually fall for.


There is nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism about stuff you see on the internet.

I have heard tell that there are people on the internet who post things that are not true. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

On the contrary, I feel people should be about ten times more skeptical and that it's crazy what they actually fall for.


There is nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism about stuff you see on the internet.

I have heard tell that there are people on the internet who post things that are not true. :yep:

Really :o

Probably only one or two at the most :hmm:

[mcf1]

On the contrary, I feel people should be about ten times more skeptical and that it's crazy what they actually fall for.


There is nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism about stuff you see on the internet.

I have heard tell that there are people on the internet who post things that are not true. :yep:

Really :o

Probably only one or two at the most :hmm:
you're talking about millions right?:hmm:

[Jimbuna]

On the contrary, I feel people should be about ten times more skeptical and that it's crazy what they actually fall for.


There is nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism about stuff you see on the internet.

I have heard tell that there are people on the internet who post things that are not true. :yep:

Really :o

Probably only one or two at the most :hmm:
you're talking about millions right?:hmm:

I'll let you be the judge of that ;)

[TLAM Strike]

The masts are so high in the first picture that if there was a sub there they would risk striking the sail on the bottom of that patrol craft.

Now on to the RN Carrier being sunk. The whole thing probaly came from an Argintine attack on the hulk of the Altantic Converyor which was deployed as a decoy for the RN Carrier TFs. The AC was a big ship with a retlivly empty deck with a few discarded aircraft (from the prevous Exocet attack) so its easy to see why a pilot flying a high speeds while being shot at might think it was a carrier.

[Cohaagen]

The Atlantic Conveyor was never used as a decoy. She was hit by two Exocets and the munitions on board began burning. Some time later, after the inferno had died down, it was decided to survey her to see if she could be taken under tow to salvage the critically-needed cargo. When an RN ship, I can't remember which, returned to her they found that the bow had broken off and the ship was completely burned out and a total loss. AC was then scuttled. There were no Harriers on board, just Chinooks.

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

[Jimbuna]

The Atlantic Conveyor was never used as a decoy. She was hit by two Exocets and the munitions on board began burning. Some time later, after the inferno had died down, it was decided to survey her to see if she could be taken under tow to salvage the critically-needed cargo. When an RN ship, I can't remember which, returned to her they found that the bow had broken off and the ship was completely burned out and a total loss. AC was then scuttled. There were no Harriers on board, just Chinooks.

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Initially the warships Alacrity and Brilliant went to her aid, then the tug Irishman.

http://www.naval-history.net/F47opsweek9.htm

[rifleman13]

So what class of submarine was that in the picture again?:hmm:

[Enigma]

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Had the Argentine pilots taken out all those Paras and Marines, I suspect the death toll on their side would have ultimatly been a helluvalot higher...

[Jimbuna]

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Had the Argentine pilots taken out all those Paras and Marines, I suspect the death toll on their side would have ultimatly been a helluvalot higher...

Do you mean the death toll of the pilots or the soldiers :hmm:

[Marcantilan]

So what class of submarine was that in the picture again?:hmm:

ARA Santa Cruz - TR 1700 Class.

[Marcantilan]

who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century


mmm, as far as I know one of top land commanders (Julian Thompson) titled his book about the war "No Picnic"

Considering the british infantry is probably the best in the world, the argentine conscripts did a good fight, specially those in the Marine Infantry.

[Kapitan]

who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century


mmm, as far as I know one of top land commanders (Julian Thompson) titled his book about the war "No Picnic"

Considering the british infantry is probably the best in the world, the argentine conscripts did a good fight, specially those in the Marine Infantry.

Para's and royal marines were the spear head of the fight they are basically the eliete of the infantry on both sides.

If you ask anyone who wants to join the army what they want to do most say para you do get the odd sod say things like bomb disposal logistics ect.

[Cohaagen]

I believe in titling his book "No Picnic" Thompson was referring to the multitude of mainly logistical factors weighing in against the task force - operating 8000 miles from home in Antarctic conditions with an enormously stretched supply train against an enemy who was fighting just 300 miles from his (more or less in his back yard), coping with the loss of nearly all their troop-carrying helicopters, much cold-weather clothing, arctic rations and other vital equipment on the Atlantic Conveyor, never being able to establish adequate air superiority, etc etc.

As far as the actual fighting went, after Mt Harriet General Thompson said something to the effect of "with a platoon of Royals I could have held that hill for a hundred years". Considering that the Argentines outnumbered the Task Force troops more than 2:1 in total numbers and even up to 5:1 in individual battles, that in every battle the British were attacking well dug-in troops on mountaintops who had the benefit of heavy machineguns, supporting artillery, snipers, and the traditional tactical advantage that defending troops always have, it was - all things considered - a remarkably bloodless campaign for the UK as far as the ground war went. When you look at what the Germans did defending Monte Cassino even though vastly outnumbered it puts things into perspective. In the South Atlantic it was the British who were the far smaller number, yet each hill folded one after another. That's not to say the fighting wasn't fierce - it was in places, but expected British casualty figures calculated prior to each battle were ten times the number they actually were. By the time the Ghurkas were about to attack Mount William the Argentine troops were abandoning their positions and in general flight.

The Argentine conscripts got a rotten deal, being duped into an invasion that was bound to end in disaster, and were apparently seriously mistreated and abused by their officers. When the Paras entered Stanley, the found most of them had dysentry - they didn't even know how to prepare proper field latrines. Ken Lukowiak wrote in A Soldier's Song of how he found the body of a young conscript who had been shot by one of his own officers.

[Jimbuna]

Gota agree wholeheartedly....the Argentine conscripts were betrayed by their superiors.

pity about the sniper/mercenaries that were taken to Tumbledown.

[FIREWALL]

Haven't all you nerds about wrung all the " yuk yuks " out of this yet ? :-?

[Marcantilan]

Gota agree wholeheartedly....the Argentine conscripts were betrayed by their superiors.

pity about the sniper/mercenaries that were taken to Tumbledown.

I don´t think they were betrayed. Just some officers and NCOs were better than others.

About the mercenaries, on Tumbledown were only elements from the BIM5 (Marine Infantry Battallion 5). The mercenary issue is just a myth: a man was killed because he was speaking american english. So what?

Regarding troop strenght, it´s true the english troops were outnumbered all along the islands. But in every attack they had numerical superiority: concentration principle against fixed positions.

My point is the average argentine infantrymen fought well, according the circumstances. Of course, the Paras and Royal Marines were far better trained and motivated troops (as I told before, IMHO the best infanrty in the world). But the fought wasn´t one sided.

A recent example about a one sided battle, I think is the 1991 Gulf War.

[Marcantilan]

Well, I spoke with some submariners.

The ship in the foreground is the ARA Punta Mogotes, an ex-USCG Point class boat.

No one heard about the manouvers of the ARA Santa Cruz. All of them called it very dangerous, but no one claimed the pics as fake.

I will keep investigating...

[OneToughHerring]

Well, I spoke with some submariners.

The ship in the foreground is the ARA Punta Mogotes, an ex-USCG Point class boat.

No one heard about the manouvers of the ARA Santa Cruz. All of them called it very dangerous, but no one claimed the pics as fake.

I will keep investigating...
Hey thanks for the info, that's really interesting. I suppose the rules in the navies of the world haven't always been so strict, or strictly obeyed. I've been trained to be in the army but even we have had close call - situations. Last time in a field exercise we had a truck back over a crate full of explosives, lucky really that nothing blew up. I was standing just a few meters away. :huh: