dChan
Anonymous ID: a20ca4 June 18, 2019, 5:17 a.m. No.6778813   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8904 >>8935

>>6778521

 

Analysis of damage indicates type of weapon used:

 

  1. Inward buckling of hole, particularly in the upper area. Also note the left-hand side of the hole shows a general inward warping proceeding from the 11-o'clock position to the 5-o-clock position.

 

  1. The cause of the warping is most likely due to the impact of the initial shock wave immediately followed by a reflected shockwave from the water's surface. The positioning of the warp indicates that the shockwave reflection was focused to the left-hand side of the hole, most likely due to the presence of wavecrest of sea water immediately behind the hole at the time of detonation - the water surface that caused the reflection of the shockwave.

 

  1. The blast intensity being focused on the upper-left quadrant of the hole is further supported by the appearance of the jagged edge of the hole, where the metal can clearly be seen buckling inward. Other areas around the hold appear to be more cleanly amputated.

 

  1. Analysis of photographs from the damage show that the explosion occurred slightly above the waterline. This position is completely inconsistent with a torpedo, less consistent with an air-launched projectile, and very consistent with a hull-attached limpet mine.

 

  1. The size of the entrance hole and apparent damage is consistent with a warhead of moderate size (100lbs actual explosive or less).

 

  1. Analysis of photos and videos of the fire and damage shortly after the incident (not shown, they have already been posted in PB's) do not appear consistent with a small air-launched projectile. The damage is larger than the expected result of large-caliber guns (recoilless rifles to 5" naval guns) and such fire is not supported at all by any known positioning of warships at the time of the event. The damage is inconsistent with small launched projectiles (RPG's) due to the size of the hole. The damage is inconsistent with air-launched missiles due to the fact that the missile body would penetrate with significant force into the cavity of the ship, in this case a tanker hold, where significantly more upper and internal damage, as well as widespread fire and/or secondary explosions from vapor detonations, would be expected to result from residues of flammable liquids.

 

However, the penetrative result is consistent with a limpet mine which would expend much of its explosive force and energy in rupturing the hull and surrounding framing, resulting in significantly reduced force/heat penetrating deeper into the ship. As a result, the damage is more localized into a single area and does not result in damage effects which traverse through the center and to the opposite side of the ship. A fast-moving projectile would be expected to create effects which would result in such damage due to the speed of the projectile at impact and/or unspent fuel in the projectile body creating further fire damage spread into the ship along the path of the projectile (see, e.g., USS Stark).

 

Conclusion - the damage is most consistent with a limpet mine.