Container ships are bigger, less manoeuvrable, more lightly crewed and less technologically sophisticated than this missile destroyer, but they don't seem to collide with each other. That means the most natural explanation to me is that the warship was doing something risky.
A quick google search turns up two container ships colliding in Malaysia this year, and another collision a few years ago in the suez canal. I feel confident a more thorough search would turn up more instances.
I'm not saying the destroyer couldn't have been doing something stupid, though the angle of impact suggests otherwise to me; but it seems to me a lot of speculation goes the way it does simply because of people's feelings about the military.
The problem is the risky action may have been an additional drill earlier that required a sleep deprived watch team to stay awake and miss a hoped for extra cat nap. It may have been the decision to qualify a marginal OOD to get the ship up to 4-section watch. It may have been the decision to not qualify a marginal OOD and stay on 3 section, or 2 section watch. And the othwrwise brilliant watch team was running ragged. It may have been a public rebuke of an OOD, or an OOD's rebuke of a lookout, that compelled someone to not speak up on that fateful night. Every option sucks. But the fact that the collision was on the Fitz's starboard side strongly suggests someone on the Fitz has some explaining to do.
Container ships are bigger, less manoeuvrable, more lightly crewed and less technologically sophisticated than this missile destroyer, but they don't seem to collide with each other. That means the most natural explanation to me is that the warship was doing something risky.
A quick google search turns up two container ships colliding in Malaysia this year, and another collision a few years ago in the suez canal. I feel confident a more thorough search would turn up more instances.
I'm not saying the destroyer couldn't have been doing something stupid, though the angle of impact suggests otherwise to me; but it seems to me a lot of speculation goes the way it does simply because of people's feelings about the military.
Also aware of crashing oil tankers, cruise liners, ferries...
The problem is the risky action may have been an additional drill earlier that required a sleep deprived watch team to stay awake and miss a hoped for extra cat nap. It may have been the decision to qualify a marginal OOD to get the ship up to 4-section watch. It may have been the decision to not qualify a marginal OOD and stay on 3 section, or 2 section watch. And the othwrwise brilliant watch team was running ragged. It may have been a public rebuke of an OOD, or an OOD's rebuke of a lookout, that compelled someone to not speak up on that fateful night. Every option sucks. But the fact that the collision was on the Fitz's starboard side strongly suggests someone on the Fitz has some explaining to do.