Sub sinks a tug boat (there goes the mail)

[@jeffreyzahn765]

I was the bridge phone talker and here’s what really happened - We were transferring one guy off the boat due to a death in the family. After he was on board and just as they cast off the last line, the tug lost power and the current kept it pressed against our side and pushed it aft. The tug landed on the vertical stabilizer on our starboard stern plane and, after restarting the engine, the tug backed off, ripping open her hull. We picked up the survivors and took them to Pearl Harbor. And to correct a few erroneous comments - The incident occurred off Midway Island in about 5000' of water. Since it was a Chief who made the “there goes the mail” comment, there was no Mast, but he was not a happy camper for a long time after that. The alarm is a collision alarm, not an engineering one. Due to operational concerns, a backing bell with left rudder was not an option, though that could have pushed him away from the hull (hindsight is always 20/20). After investigating and reviewing the video, it was determined that everything that could have been done was, no charges were filed and no one was relieved of duty because of this

[@tokenup420]

did anyone on the tug die?

[@tokenup420]

did anyone on the tug die?

[@JohnLee-mf4sc]

thanks for that clarification jeffrey it must have been horrific for everyone, god bless you subs your special i am a mariner but i cant quite fathom that extreme even for me.

[@WillRennar]

Two of the tug's crew didn't make it. One got trapped in the engine room while trying to get the tug going again. An eye witness said that a shark got the other one.

[@cometjockeydave4041]

Thank you for the explanation, and for your service. May God Rea the two few who were lost in this accident.

[@rhinochaser3216]

If this clip had any less pixels it would be radio

[@tammykiger8206]

haha..nice

[@davesstuff1599]

Good one!

[@kresokresic2072]

haha true !

[@andgate2000]

rhinochaser3216 ......it was made before pixels were invented.

[@deadpoollee9497]

Go back time an make them

[@janis317]

this accident is from 1986. The Tug lost power and was caught on the Georgia's stern diving plane. It was a regrettable ACCIDENT and the crew acted swiftly to save ten of the twelve crew members of the Secota.

[@cj5880]

my physics teacher was on this sub at the time

[@JamesJustice-rs5yc]

Not an accident. Tugmaster suppose to always make to on port side of sub

[@gpzking]

Since there are so many comments as to "why didn't they stop?" I'll give my expert opinion. I served aboard the USS Kentucky in the Navigation Department. We were trained and briefed on this very incident. The tug did loose power. That's the whistle that you hear. You hear them say HARD RIGHT RUDDER shortly after they do so. Standard procedure in a situation like this is to go RIGHT FULL RUDDER and ALL AHEAD FLANK CAVITATE to try and kick the stern away from the tug. Going ALL STOP will take over 1/2 nautical mile for the ship to stop. ALL BACK EMERGENCY (the highest backing bell) will take over 300 yards. How long does it take your car to come to a stop? Now have that car weigh almost 17,000 tons! It doesn't stop. On Ohio class subs, there are Vertical Stabilizers at the ends of the stern planes. These come up to 4' under the water. The stabilizer is what caught and dragged the tug. Ultimately ripping it open. As soon as the tug hit, they went ALL BACK EMERGENCY trying to create a "bubble" of backing wake to dislodge the tug. When it started to go down, they went ALL STOP STOP THE SHAFT ( ALL STOP will allow the screw to coast to a stop) to prevent anyone being pulled into a backing screw. Any other questions, please ask.

thanks for explainng and actually teaching. so for eal fate here, how the tug lost power in the very precise moment it was fatal??

[@chelleoj]

Wasn't there an incident involving another US sub, had the word 'Green' in the name, that surfaced under another boat, killing a bunch of high school students?\ I only remember a few details. Seems like the boat was from an Asian country? That's all I remember.

[@anorlunda]

+gpzking Thanks for your explanation, but I still don't understand. You said, "they went ALL BACK" who went all back, the sub or the tug? Black smoke shows that the tug's engines had restarted. What direction power did the tug use FORE or AFT? Even after the tug sank, the surface astern of the sub is white with rising bubbles. How is that consistent with ALL STOP? I would love to read the inquiry report. Is it public?

[@johnd3285]

+Dick Mills the sub went all back emergency. They were trying to reduce headway as much as possible to prevent damage to the tug. The all back emergency creates a huge area of cavitated water between the rudder and the exposed part of the sub. The black smoke from the tug doesn't necessarily mean they regained power. I don't recall the full incident report, but it's possible they never lost the engine, but only propulsion. Two very separate things. If they lost propulsion and the engines were still running, the black smoke could indicate flooding seawater reaching and killing the engines. I just don't know.

[@johnd3285]

+chelleoj the Greenville was a completely different incident. They were demonstrating an emergency surface for VIPs. They didn't clear the area via sonar or periscope before doing so as is standard operating procedure (sop). My understanding is that the Ehime Maru was dead in the water (no forward motion or engines running) and the Greenville surfaced right under her.

[@Jafromobile]

I think the tug and the sub got their roles reversed.

[@smartthinkerg8129]

Jafromobile Hahaha hahaha yes I believe they did.

[@spark4985]

sensibleChuckle.gif

[@sonnydean1617]

People who know very little about military duty don't always understand the dangerous business of the military. Non combat accidents such as this which take the lives of military personnel happen. During the Gulf War, I lost a good buddy because the Blackhawk helicopter he was flying lost power in a sand storm and crashed. No bullets involved. Although this video is over 20 years old, have a little respect for the sailors who lost there lives on the tug as well as those who survived. I might also add, cut the guys on the boomer some slack as well as there was nothing anyone on the sub could do to prevent this. In the military accidents happen. Good people can and do die. USAF retired.

[@walterzacofsky7116]

To Kacie P, for your information the tug did lose controlled air to the reduction gear which caused no control over ahead or astern propulsion. If you pay close attention you hear the controlled air alarm on the tug, shortly thereafter the Chief Engineer runs into the Engine Room through the aft door. The Craft Master has no propulsion control at this time, the sub was in a hurry to depart and cast off the bow line before the Craft Master requested it. The two men lost were the Chief Engineer and the Engine Room Watch stander. This was taped on a VCR camcorder, I should know, I was a Chief Engineer on YTB-775 (USS WAUWATOSA) stationed in the Philippines. This video was an essential training film for my crew, also the original copy was of a very good quality, this one has been raped so it has distortion. We should remember who we lost, not what we lost!

[@patriciapayne2533]

My father was the cheif engineer on this tug during WWII off the coast of Okinawa. He received a commendation for keeping the engines running for 48 hours straight while riding Typhoon Louise, saving many lives.. It is a shame the engineer here was unable to save Secota and two men from the depths of the sea.

[@klaa22]

I have no idea why the Navy bothers with official investigations that take so much time and money for occurrences like this. Interviewing witnesses, looking at physical evidence etc. . .They should just publish the video of the incident on KZbin and within minutes all these experts will have worked out exactly what happened and who was at fault! Brilliant!

[@craigwix456]

To help prevent it happening again.

[@The_Conspiracy_Analyst]

oh look, here comes the metaexpert

[@alainadiana7764]

I don't usually post (never, actually) but I served aboard YTB-764 & YTB-769 out of Bremerton WA and have moved the GA many times amongst other boats. The Gold & Blue have fine crews and Ca ptains as do the YTBs and the Pilots. I cannot say what went wrong here but I can tell you you that this is what we do - the crew of the YTBs. We transfer personnel and goods at sea while the boats are in motion and the greatest risk is backing down off the boat once the mission is complete and trying to steer clear of the stern planes. We on board all hold our breath b/c this is one of the riskiest moments of any exercise. The fact that this movement went tragically wrong is gut wrenching to watch. Pls hold your comments and send positive thoughts to whatever higher power you see fit for the sailors involved....

[@gsarjos]

People watch a 5 min video and all of a sudden they become expert mariners

[@riki3756]

***** lol well said

[@petezereeah517]

Griffey Jr. was the only expert Mariner....these guys are just pure unadulterated assholes.

[@petezereeah517]

***** I was referring to the people making comments on here.

[@petezereeah517]

*Some of the people

[@marcasdude]

its pretty obvious to all that the captains of these two vessels weren't expert mariners or this wouldn't have happened.

[@RS-ik6tv]

To all of those not present for the Small boat handling brief, this evolution was done by the book. SOP was 5 kts during transfer. When the tug was in imminent danger, the shaft was stopped and locked. The rudder is full over to attempt to swing the stern away from the tug. When handling an 18,000 ton ship, no maneuver causes instantaneous change in course or speed in the length of the ship. Submerging the ship as some one mentioned would have resulted in a bad problem. The Missile compartment hatch was open. That hole in the top of the boat wouldn't be a good thing under water. The results of the JAG investigation were that the SOP was the problem. All were exonerated. 2 men lost their lives, I watched one go from the pilot house to the engine room. He dogged the water tight door and assisted in getting the diesel up and running. He gave his life to do his duty. Every lesson learned in the military is written in the blood of those who did things by the book.

[@anorlunda]

+robert schultz Can you tell us where we can find the JAG investigation?

[@adriekjode1754]

I love how a bunch of armchair generals would know exactly what to do here.

[@salazam]

It's Navy, they are called armchair admirals

[@texasforever7887]

@@salazam Specifically they are armchair Rear Admirals

[@schlaznger8049]

It's amazing how far video cameras have come in such a short time

[@Boris_Chang]

Analog technology to Mylar tape.

[@IainMcClatchie]

Incident happened 22 March 1986

[@schlaznger8049]

Iain McClatchie ok I take back what I said

[@alphadelta2954]

Why? Is thirty years not a short time?

[@FoxRacingGaming]

cameras were still equivalent quality of this in the 90's... so to say from 1990 to 2010 , yes it is impressive how far we have come... add another 6 years and now we have 4k.. again. impressive

[@jamesmac7827]

OMG that was so long ago! The tug lost power to it's screws and that is why it sunk. A trident submarine doesn't stop on a dime, so when the tug lost power it slowed down while the sub is still going at the same speed it was before. Those stern planes are huge, and ripped the bottom of the tug boat open. Back when this happened there was no requirement for the tug boat to tie up to the sub, which would have prevented this from happening. Brings back a lot of memories seeing this video. And just for the edification of those who were not there or even onboard the Georgia, that was a civilian tug, not a Navy tug. The helmsman on the tug can't be courts martialed and on the Georgia it wouldn't be the helmsman or planesman that would be courts martialed it would be the OOD and the CO. It was a wooden bottom tug no less, not metal or fiberglass, and damage to the boat (the Georgia) amounted to paint. The boat was inspected for damage because that is required for subsafe as well as Navy regs. If you were not there then don't sit back guessing. Men lost their lives in that incident and that video became part of standard training for all submarines. One other thing, it isn't emergency astern, it's called Back Emergency. It is ordered to prevent a collision. This would have been treated like a man overboard on the starboard side, stopping the shaft with steam and giving a right full rudder which swings the stern to port (left side) away from the tug boat. Back Emergency would flush a huge wave of water over the aft end of the boat and swamped the tug boat as well, causing more problems and likely washing a number of sailors off the deck. -ET1/SS/DV RC Division, USS Georgia

[@jacobseay1296]

First I was not there just wanted to say u have the best explanation to this incident. Also I want to thank everyone who is currently or has past surved. Rip to the 2 men lost.

[@twp616]

Retired MTC/SS on the USS Stonewall Jackson SSBN 634 at the time. I remember the required viewing and training this accident, brought us all. Sad. I always served as a topside line handler during maneuvering watch, very dangerous business

[@crf450ish]

If you wanna get schooled on anything come to KZbin and read some comments.

[@helenpendergraft2739]

When I was in the Navy, I was stationed aboard a YTB. I had to watch this video my first week. It was explained that the YTB had some how been caught on the bow plane of the sub. A Navy Sailor on the Sub happened to be filming for his parents. I was told by one of the Harbor Masters and by my CWO3 that the bow plane actually sheared a section on the Tug causing the engine room to flood. Listening for rescue divers and hearing man over board as I sat and watched the tug sink broke my heart. I knew anyone in the engine room had perished. About 6 months after I first saw the video, this exact submarine pulled into port and I honestly was scared, because it had already claimed one tugboat. Fair Winds and. Following Seas to those who died.

[@Rayzer2368]

Who was at fault here? It looks as though the YTB should have kicked its stern around and backed away from the sub instead of sliding down its side. Did they ever tell you who was at fault?

[@klaa22]

Had they moved the bow plane to the stern of the sub?

[@greengoblin876]

@@klaa22 stern planes and bow planes

[@amijamcangirl8818]

Saddened me to see this retired navy sailor. 😥

[@1000m308]

@@Rayzer2368 Nobody was at fault... the tug lost power before becoming entangled.

[@mmcss640]

Due to the length of Trident class boats, the stern planes have vertical stabilizers. When the tug lost power, it drifted back until it got hung up on the stern planes where the vertical stabilizers cut through the hull of the tug. This caused the engine room to flood, sinking the tug. Those who have no knowledge of these dangerous evolutions or ship control are invited to keep their assinine comments to themselves, thereby preventing them from sounding like the fools they apparently are.

[@WillRennar]

@Gmanbelieves: I'm guessing you missed the part about the tug losing power and being dead in the water when this happened?

[@WillRennar]

Quick question for a few of the previous replies... You ever tried bringing 16 metric tons of streamlined ship to a halt? It's not like hitting the brakes on your car. Those things don't stop on a dime.

[@MrRichardfortune]

full reverse speed would have worked.

[@jonathanlang754]

Richard Fortune probably wouldn't have helped, the tug would have sunk anyway. If the prop was moving it could very likely slice through the hull of the tug even more and damage the prop while also causing the tug to take on water faster.

[@dataorg1]

WillRennar, Add a few zeros to your tonnage and it is even harder to stop...Responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Captain of the tug--nobody else! And he should have ordered ALL his crew topside when he knew he was in trouble...

[@ut000bs]

Richard Fortune An Ohio class sub generally takes about 300-400 yards to come to a stop, using "all back, full", at the speed they were going. That's 3 to 4 football fields. You have to remember the mass (weight) involved.

[@Oksam926]

This sort of accident is not unheard of. I was working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard when another tug (the Barcona) got its tow rope entangled in the screw of the Houston, a fast-attack submarine. One crew member of the Barcona was never found. In this case, the Houston was submerged and the tug was operating in a thick fog. There was no time for the captain of the Houston to react, as the tug was pulled under in less than one minute.

[@centralpicks]

I didn't realize you could take video with a microwave oven

[@centralpicks]

Smart about what? It was a joke?

[@muffemod]

it's from 1986 before digital era.

[@dfcvda]

Kids these day think that all that they have now has been around forever.

[@jf752]

that's called "tracking", friendo. VHS tapes suck obviously

[@getmeoutofsanfrancisco9917]

@@dfcvda This about sums it up as good as it can

[@johnlynch6429]

To the 2 crew members who lost their lives, rest in peace.

[@wowforreeel]

Wouldn't it make sense for the larger vessel to make sure the smaller vessel is well clear, before getting under way?

[@LRuso]

I'm guessing the sub didn't know the tug lost power.

[@williamhickey6433]

So much for bridge-to-bridge (channel 16).

[@liverpoolfcslayer4290]

The tug got caught on the subs plane. Gashed the tugs hull and well, There Goes the Mail!

[@heyshipwreck5445]

William Hickey they use 12 and an alternate, because they arent talking bridge to bridge they are talking pilothouse to pilot.

[@patsycav]

LIVERPOOL 68 and what about the two crew members who were lost.

[@logiticalresponse9574]

i think the worse thing here is all the opinions of people that were not present at said event and have no experience in the maritime industry. this video it limited therefore any opinions based from viewing it are also limited. Its funny how people have such strong opinions for a limited view

[@illinidorry]

To all the experts claiming "They should have just dived a little bit." That whole thing happened faster than they would have had personnel man the vents.

[@kaciesp]

Ok, to the guy who posted this, the sub did not sink the tug. The idiot at the helm of the tug did. And Helen Pendergraft is right, the tug had damage to the hull from the Sub's plane. Even the sub had to pull in for repairs to its plane after this incident. The tug never lost power as it still had full smoke from its stack. Naval records which are not classified on this incident shows that the helm was court marshaled for his actions. I was in from 1988 to 2000 when I was offered early partial retirement under Bush's cut backs. I had heard about this incident from a Boatsmen mate who knew someone who was on the tug. Tugs are suppose to pull hard away, in this case hard to Starboard (right) while the engines are engaged forward. They are not to go backing out like he did. The tug was in reverse in the video. My understand is that this incident resulted in new policies just like the Forestall fire during Vietnam resulted in sweeping changes in the Navy's fire fighting & weapons handling policies on all Navy ships.

[@brianpeters4486]

Unfortunately you are a bit off on this. I can't speak to whether or not someone was court marshaled but the cause was a main engine failure. I was the Chief Engineer on the Tug Piqua YTB-760 in Holy Loch Scotland and did hundreds of these transfers. We showed this video many times on the way out to meet a sub as it was important for those passengers on board to understand this could be dangerous and they needed to follow orders. Procedures on personnel transfers (this was not a mail transfer as the title suggests) were a bit different then those shown on the video, probably because of this accident, but there were still plenty of chances for things to go wrong. The tug was not in reverse in the video. It had lost power and was floating backwards as the sub was moving forward at a couple of knots. Transfers are not done at full stop as the wave action will slam the tug into the sub and cause damage. We damaged a missile bay door during one transfer because the commander of the sub refused to follow procedure and insisted the transfer be done at full stop. You can hear an alarm go off, the assumption is this is the main engine low lube oil alarm, and a sailor (reportedly the Chief Engineer) fly down out of the wheel house and into the tug as it starts to float backwards. The tug stops at the stern of the sub as it is hung up on the vertical section of the stern plane. Moments later a huge plume of smoke rises from the stack, the main engine restarting, and the tug frees itself from the subs stern planes. That is the death blow for the Engineer and Oiler as they are trapped in the engine room and go down with the tug. It is typical for the Chief Engineer to be in the wheelhouse while underway as there is always an Engineman (Oiler) in the engine room. . Another point of clarifications is tugs do not pull away hard. You come forward matching the speed of the vessel along side and slowly work your way out, which is what they appear to be doing when the alarm goes off. After a foot or two of separation the water pressure helps push you away and and once you are clear you can input more rudder. Pulling away with hard rudder would just swing the stern into the other vessel as you pivot around the center of gravity. There were many mistakes made in this accident and hindsight is 20/20 but things happen fast and the snap decision may not always be the right one. That is what training is for thus the reason why we showed this video and went over procedures before transfers.

[@MrAsificare]

Good post.

[@MrAsificare]

brian peters Better post.

[@jamesmac7827]

That tug, like most of the type, had traversable drives, aka they rotate, in that one I think they were 350 or 360 degree capable. Had they reversed direction then you would seen the shift in the tug away from the boat as the drives rotated. It was a contracted civilian tug, not a Navy tug. Nobody was courts martialed over it. The video was copied first as evidence then made part of the standard training for all submariners. The two that died were crew members of the tug, and if I remember correctly were both from the Philippines. Policy was changed because of this to require lines be tied up prior to transferring to and from a tug boat, which means the cleats had to be rolled. The tug had it's bottom ripped open from the stern planes, which received scratches from the tug. Those stern planes are not some thin metal bar and are quite massive. You don't see them because they are below the water line. And lastly, the tug did in fact lose thrust, and was not in "reverse". When a tug loses thrust it slows rapidly where a submarine such as the Georgia would actually coast for a mile to several miles depending upon her original speed. That was not some regular scheduled mail transfer. Boomers don't get those, sorry. We had two injured guys who had to be perstransed off or else we would have never surfaced until end of patrol, I had it you got it, it's your boat now, time for a bbq at my house in Silverdale...

[@brianpeters4486]

James McMillan James, You are a bit mistaken. That is a YTM, a Vietnam era Navy tug with a straight shaft and four blade screw My YTB was an actual YTB and a slightly different and more "modern" design but still was a straight shaft driving a 12 foot four blade screw via an air clutched reversible reduction gear attached to a 10 cylinder Fairbanks Morse diesel The drive mechanism you referred to is a much more modern system and civilian. Now the rest of it is correct. I have no idea why they were doing the transfer but I can guarantee is was not for the mail. In fact is all the personnel transfers I was apart of, and they were many, we never carried the mail.

[@CJ-so6vl]

Its amazing how fast the tugboat filled with water and sank. It would seem near impossible to get out if one was inside when this occurred

[@thomasrice7904]

You'll do realize this happened 29 years ago, right. I served on two submarines (1985-1990), the Tullibee SSN 597 and the Jack SSN 605. I made three Med Runs on the Jack. I remember having more than a couple Tugs come along side to transfer food over. Never had a problem. There were hundreds of Navy Subs operating and we had very few problems. I have watched this video several times and don't fully understand what the Sub was doing; but I would need to know more. Pray for the two lives lost.

[@jamessaunders1926]

Read a few comments after yours. The radio man explains in detail. As he was standing next to video guy.

[@helenpendergraft2739]

We were told that the was some type of power failure that caused the Tug. Boat to go float away. It doesn't help that the tug went over the bow plane which caused a section of the tug to be sheared.

[@briangodfrey5079]

I served in the tug boat division on Adak, Alaska during the '70s. One of our boats was the YTM-402 - the sistership of this tug. It was a creaking ancient thing at that time. No surprise that this one lost power. (Also, it is diesel-electric. It can lose power while the engines are still running.) This tug was not designed to work the rounded hulls of a sub. That's what the later YTBs were designed for. Tug work is very hard and dangerous, but most people just pass over them like they are toys. Most big ship sailors who went out with us came back with big eyes and empty stomachs. Two guys died trying to assist this sub. "There goes the mail" is asinine, not funny.

[@arwo1143]

That comment was made by an officer on the sub before it was clear that not everyone made it off the tug…..

[@jeffkerneen1210]

Amazing how there are so many experts about what happened. Well, let me tell you what happened. I was there. I was the QMOW. Tom King was the ANAV and Lt. Harden was the NAV. Capt. Kramer was on the bridge. The tug boat craft master decided to be cute and back down and to starboard to clear the sub, instead of doing it the right way and pull forward and to starboard. Then the tug boat lost power after we transferred two people, one of them who was EM2 Charlie Felts. Capt Kramer ordered a Full bell and the rudder to right full, but it was too late. The tug was punctured by the starboard stern planes stabilizer. The black smoke in the end was the engineer of the tug and his assistant restarting the diesel engines too late. They perished in the collision. EMC Ream was the guy he said “there goes the mail.” It was one of the worst patrols I ever made. At the end of the patrol one of my shipmates died and we had to carry him off in a body bag in Guam. So unless you were there just shut up. You don’t know anything.

[@WillRennar]

Glad to see someone with an eye-witness account set the record straight. Thank you.

[@WillRennar]

***** If you get the chance to, give him my thanks; my dad was one of the guys he pulled out of there.

[@robertoviana514]

Jeff, it's Roberto Viana ET-1. Give me a shout.

[@scoobydoowhereareyou94]

ah youtube,even though its full of shit comments some are little treasures yours is of the little treasure variety, ty for the information

[@barrettpolychronis2833]

As a former marine who has toured various different classes of subs I think people don't realize the amount of water that is being displaced and creating underwater rip tides that make any submarine HARD to pilot. Just wish they had more experience on that tugboat bridge. Also, thank you for your service shipmates.

[@MrWoodleyf]

A tug transfer turns into a search and rescue mission.

[@pffpoaboard9957]

My Dad was on the tug. He survived!

[@stuartwhelan233]

Was he wow thankfully he's here stay safe pal

[@peterratcliffe998]

I served 19years on British subs and we did the same to a fishing trawler

[@planegaper]

was it Spanish? fishing illegally in the Irish Sea?

[@Theoriginalbigbrillo]

@@planegaper No it was Scottish fishing in Cornwall ;)

[@baz6128]

The replies here are GOLD!!!

[@matthewbond8874]

Hey gene small were you on the USS Sarsfield DD 837?

[@woodbarter5713]

Does anyone know the precise location of the accident other than "3 miles south of Midway Island"? I cannot find a single reference to lat & long even in official reports, nor even depth under keel. No way this can still be classified if it ever was in the first place.

[@michaeldougfir9807]

+Wood Barter On the practical end, that location description may be all you will ever get.

[@ZingaraJoe]

As a practical note the sub skipper should have stopped the screw for several reasons purely related to the safety of his command/submarine. Possible damage to the stern plane area, and possible propeller blade strikes to the object fouling his stern. The tug was doing it's best to get away, lots of smoke from the stack though could be twin screw with one motor/shaft down. Tugs for servicing submarines have additional fendering underwater that may have fouled on the stern plane and 'locked' them together. Stop engines, ballast the stern of the sub so the stern plane was below the tugs draft and every one would have had a nice day and lived a better tomorrow.

[@jamessaunders1926]

Your clueless

[@MrRightwingextreme]

I was on a few of these transfers off the coast of Rota Spain while serving on the Sub tender USS Holland back in 1970. I was scared stiff. This was on calm seas. One time it was so rough the nose of the sub was way up out of the water and next the prop was out of the water. The smoke was billowing from the tires fixed to the tug as we were tied tight to the sub. Officers were actually JUMPING from the sub to the tug and others were doing the opposite. This is done to transfer mail and supply requisitions a few days before the Sub comes in for end of tour. I don't know for the life of me why any personnel needed to transfer. I was waiting for someone to get smooched between the two boats. I held on the tug for dear life.

[@DonziGT230]

The moment they realized the tug was going to get stuck on the sub they should have shut down the sub instead of dragging the tug, just plain dumb.

[@michaeldougfir9807]

+DonziGT230 If the stern plane penetrated the tugs hull they may have been unable to get the tug off the sub thereafter. And it may take a while to get that damage report to those who call the shots.

[@chriscameron4618]

@ michael i'm sure it doesn't take that long in an emergency! i'm obviously not an expert and never will be but how long can it take fro people to communicate the word "stop" and someone to make it stop?

[@DonziGT230]

+Michael Dougfir Whether or not it penetrated the tug, just stopping the sub would have reduced damage possibly leaving the tug afloat or at least giving them all time to safely get off the tug. Someone on the sub called out to go, he's heard saying "right full rudder". That guy should have waited for the tug to pull away and could have called out to stop as soon as he saw that the tug was on the plane. Even if the tug hadn't gotten stuck on its plane it was stupid to power away that close to it, the wake and wash off the sub could have taken the tug down. The sub is clearly at fault here, but blame doesn't bring the boat or its dead crew back.

[@DonziGT230]

+Chris Cameron I assume they assumed nothing bad would happen 'till it was too late. It looked obvious to me early on that it would at least present a hazard for the sub to continue on power.

[@chriscameron4618]

+ DonziGT230 yeah that's very true i can see why they might think that.

[@RedOcktober]

i really hate to see stuff like this... it looks like the sub was answering a fwd bell before the tug cleared... the tug appeared to be in distress (i heard an alarm and saw someone run aft on the tug) and lost propulsion(???) the sub continued ahead and the tug looks like it got caught on the stbd ventril fin (strake) which apparently cut through the hull below the water line... how much did i get wrong... why did sub continue under power... any additional info if released? CONDOLENCES to the families of the lost sailors... --Mike

[@SEVENSIX0H]

reverse

[@DaMominator]

When I first started tugboat duty on YTB 834 in 1987, they made me watch this video as part of training.

[@garyvale8347]

and right after the camera stopped recording, the Coast Guard pulled up and asked for their driver's licence, registration and proof of insurance cards.....

[@MrFatcat23]

Gary Vale uh, do you even know where Midway is? Here's a clue: it's Midway between Hawaii and Japan. The Coast Guard doesn't go that far from shore. ;)

[@TheArchitectOfDreams]

Oceans fault, it showed up unexpectedly.

[@kc5hgv]

The tug got caught up in the subs prop wash both ways. The boat was stuck to the subs hull from the suction of the prop wash and after the discharge of the prop wash pushed up the bow of the tug and sunk the boat. If you would take the sub's prop and put in on the tug it would sink it. What was the subs hurry to get under way?

[@williame.olsonjr.3589]

I was underway underwater on a fast attack for 4 1/2 years and never had mail transferred to the ship at sea. The Boomer boys have all the percs

[@ArthurGlover]

Mail was being transferred off the ship.

[@panpa6516]

What was this filmed on a Piece of Bread?

[@WillRennar]

Latex Toenails 1980s VHS camcorder.

[@panpa6516]

So a piece of Bread?

[@WillRennar]

Latex Toenails Yeah, pretty much.

[@jamesglovecrazy]

“On 22 March 1986, three miles south of Midway Island, harbor tug USS Secota (YTM-415) had just completed a personnel transfer from Georgia, picking up a submarine crewman who was going on emergency leave, when Secota lost power and got hung up on Georgia's starboard stern plane while the sub's propeller continued to turn. That sank Secota within two minutes. Ten people were rescued, including the Georgia crewman who had just transferred to Secota. Two Secota crewmen trapped in her engine room were lost. While Lt. Cmdr. John Carman, a Navy spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, told the media that the Georgia was undamaged, a report sent by the Commanding Officer of the Georgia indicates that after returning the surviving Secota crew members to Hawaii, Georgia underwent emergency repairs for minor damage sustained in the collision.” Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Georgia_(SSGN-729)

[@stuartwhelan233]

Thank you Rip the two crewman

[@harpomarx7777]

OOD or Skipper should have ordered immediate BACK TWO THIRDS/CAVITATE and stopped that boomer as soon as he realized the tug had lost power. UHF comms with the chief on the tug should have informed the OOD WTF was happening. Primary concern would be the sub's screw impacting the tug; as it was, the stern plane saved the screw. It was a PERSTRANS gone wrong. Men overboard are best recovered at the turtleback, not the side casings. Photographer kept getting distracted and let the casualty get out of frame several times. Total FusterCluck ... skipper should be relieved. F###ing WESTPAC ...

[@onehstrybuff]

+Tom Dee It lost power, read the incident report. In fact if you listen you can hear someone say "lost propulsion"

[@TheNavajo88]

+Harpo Marx If I recall the USS Georgia is based out of Kings Bay. so where is the West in WESTPAC?

[@jamesweldon9726]

+TheNavajo88 Georgia was stationed at Bangor from commissioning until 2005, when she was refueled and converted to SSGN. She has been stationed at King's Bay since 2008. This accident happened in 1986.

[@TheNavajo88]

+James Weldon My mistake, I only know that it is currently stationed at KB Georgia.

[@jodifu6274]

+James Weldon Oh Shit! 1986:The same year the Nathaniel Greene ran aground leaving Holy Loch and we (Kamehameha Gold crew) had to cover her patrol package.

[@TIMEtoRIDE900]

Filmed with an electric shaver.

[@sergepokorny3972]

WOW That must be one hell of a shaver, I tried with mine but man the quality s*cked way worse then this!!!

[@KPX-nl4nt]

No, just filmed before you were born.

[@chax2004]

LOL!!!!

[@CFLsurfr]

Or in 1986.

[@grahamgray2421]

Perhaps 'There goes the mail' unprofessional when two poor souls perished on board!

[@smithmichaele]

they didn't know two people were trapped when they said that.

[@grahamgray2421]

​@@smithmichaele it was in trouble so weather people trapped or not still unprofessional!

[@kevinpotts123]

Holy fucking shit, I can just hear the debriefing after this cluster fuck. Now let me ask an obvious question, why didn't they come to full stop and vent the rear ballast tanks a little to get the stern planes down below the keel of that tugboat? I have no doubt the CO, XO and the OOD (certainly all academy grads I bet) blamed this completely on the tugboat skipper who was probably a senior or master chief and I'm sure their academy buddies in squadron backed them up too. Regardless, I hope everyone was okay.

[@anonibat]

hopelessly, it says two people were lost

[@kevinpotts123]

That is terrible. Why didn't the sub come to all stop? Was there a reason given? Because this looks like something that could have been easily prevented. From what I could see it looked like the sub was knocking out a few knots and the rudder was cranked to the port side. How could it have been allowed to just keep going on without someone in authority saying to just stop?

[@nndorconnetnz]

Clearly the tug lost power, hence seeing someone running to the engine room. I can't help wondering why the skipper of the sub did not wait until the tug was well and truly clear before applying power, they don't stop on a dime so to speak. I mean safety protocols etc. As stated before, some idiots will have been keel hauled for this.

[@lynperk]

why did they not stop the sub

[@DakGuy05]

Kevin Potts A vessel of her size can't really just 'stop' or even halt propeller thrust.

[@6ec6YRFPTcC]

I bet that was an awkward ride back 😐

[@badpilot2]

matt k Sub Guy: "Sooo...what do you do for a living..oh right.." Tug guy: "....T_T...."

[@ollepearce3116]

Ikr

[@mrpearl1]

Its a big ocean. What brought the tug near the Sub? Did the sub surface right near the tug? and that's why it was so close? Or did the tug drive up to the sub? Did the tug have power? It seemed like the tug accelerated towards the back of the sub before it sank? Or was it sucked in? Why didn't the sub just submerge back down underwater? Too many questions unanswered with this video...Sorry.

[@8literbeater]

All of those questions are answered with this video. You're just to dumb to see it. You really think they should "just submerge back down underwater" with crew members up top, and the hatch open? As if they can just flip a switch and be underwater like a dolphin...

[@carlsmith4767]

Sub Captain's fault should have came to a complete stop so the smaller vessel could move in and out safely, sad such an easy maneuver became a deadly one and very costly.

[@bushido491]

+Carl Smith A lot of people's fault here. There should have been a clear line of communication happening between Tug and Sub. Sub captain should have stopped and Tug Captain needed to communicate that he'd lost his engines.

[@cj5880]

no its not my physics teacher was the radio operator on this sub he said that the tug got caught up on one of the fins and it happened so quick that it tore a hole in the sub the two guys that went down into the engine room of the tug inhaled gasses that made them pass out they went down with the ship the rest of the crew had to tag along with the submariners to finish there patrol on the Pacific for a few months and then they got released

[@ubamilitary]

+TheAtheistSwine Sounds like a big load of bullshit

[@cj5880]

+Horsey Tort alright what ever

[@carlsmith4767]

TheAtheistSwine You know nothing the captain would've been the one directly on the radio with the tug captain, you've obviously never been on either vessels so I call bullshit as well.

[@bobalobalie]

I see the problem here. No one was wearing a pt belt.

[@CankleCankle]

And...nobody did their TPS reports.

[@MrJoshcc600]

BewareTheIdes don't joke man 2 people died here

[@automobilesarefun409]

lol

[@dorathybowler2651]

MMCSS640, my husband also served on the USS Michigan when it was still a BN. wasn't that far back though LOL! seeing the name Michigan brings back lot of memories for us :) it was his first submarine and where he earned his dolphins :) he is now on his 3rd submarine and we are hoping to go back to the Michigan as a GN when this sea tour is over :) he would like to take his last tour and see the difference from when it was a BN :)

[@koehnchris52]

HUGE and FATAL mistake that was 100% AVOIDABLE!!!!!!!!!!

[@m00nsplitter72]

I think a torpedo would be a better way to sink a ship.

[@apache437]

The military was gearing up for a Democrat budget cut (military first) and they were trying to save a torpedo.

[@briand.1694]

Generally, subs wouldn't 'waste' a torpedo on a ship. They use missiles on ships and use torpedoes on other subs.

[@robusti82]

apache437 Military budget cuts were due to republican tea party-fueled sequestration which was a condition of breaking the budget impasse after GOP threatened to shut down the government. So, no, Democrats did not cut the budget.

[@robusti82]

maddierosemusic Delete your account

[@robjohnson8522]

Ok, I find this deeply confusing. I admit up from I am not a navy man and I don't know squat about handling large ships at sea but several things pop right to my mind here. One is STOP THE BOAT! The wake was still strong when the tug sank. After a collision and a tug is hung on the stern planes at what point does the skipper call "full stop"? 5 Minutes after? 10 minutes after? I can't imagine being in that position and not pulling the throttle back way sooner. Can someone help me understand this? Also, what caused the tug to sink? Did the plane tear open the hull (the plane is smooth so I don't see how??) or did the subs prop get a hold of the tug?

[@WillRennar]

Getting that much mass to stop quickly, especially when it's designed to glide through the water with ease, is no simple matter, especially when you add in the time it would have taken for word to get from topside down to the bridge to let them know that they *needed* to stop. As to your second question, yes, the stern plane tore a pretty big hole in the side of the tug. Smooth or not, that much metal smashing into something is going to do some damage.

[@robjohnson8522]

***** Will, you make a lot of sense. Sure it would take a significant distance for that mass to glide to a stop, I get that. My point was looking at the wake it appears the prop is still generating considerable thrust. In a "glide" the wake would be much smoother. (IMO) As to communication time, the captain or an officer in charge should have been on the conning tower watching. (that is why it is called a conning tower :) ) and been able to call full stop via intercom nearly instantly- -- Now with all that said, as I have watched several more times paying close attention to the wake I think all the wake turbulence was actually caused by full reverse as I can actually see some water moving forward up onto the hull of the sub. Which would also explain why they were stopped pretty quickly after the tug sunk. So my initial impression was wrong it seems. They were still under power but reversing. The Captain was stopping the boat with power (it seems). Thanks for a thoughtful reply Will!

[@gpzking]

I served on the USS Kentucky in the Navigation Dept (the guys that drill for this). Standard practice for a situation like this is to go All Ahead Flank with Right Full Rudder. This causes the stern to swing away as fast as possible. To go all stop and let the ship glide to a stop would take over 1/2 nautical mile. With and ALL BACK EMERGENCY (the fastest backing bell) it would still take 500+ feet to stop the ship. On Ohio class subs, they have vertical stabilizers at the ends of the stern planes. The tops of which are only 4' under the water. The stabilizer on the starboard stern plane is what tore the hull. Since this incident, whenever a small boat is alongside, subs are required to have all cleats open on the side that the boat is on. This allows a place for a line to be thrown across in an emergency such as this.

[@robjohnson8522]

gpzking AHA! I did not know about the vertical stabs. That explains a lot! Thanks for the answer! Also, thank you for your service.

[@STHFGDBY]

Incompetence at a terrible level. Sub captain is a disgrace..

[@calvinnotklein6368]

STHFGDBY Why the fuck is everyone blaming the sub captain

[@sarahmarsh6900]

And here we go, lotta sub capn's on the internet apparently.

[@mmcss640]

At the time of this sinking, I was serving on the USS Michigan SSBN 727, sister-ship to the USS Georgia. I had friends on the Georgia at that time who witnessed these events first-hand. The crew was shocked when they learned of the sinking. They were truly concerned about the lives of those onboard the tug. No one cares more about the lives of sailors than other sailors. Comments and opinions to the contrary are born from pure ignorance. Those Georgia sailors to this day regret the loss of life.

[@arizonatsunami]

1980s video quality sucked.

[@truthseeker7497]

1880's video was way worse.

[@Feelthefx]

because it didn't exist

[@ZerokillerOppel1]

Is that very relevant in comparison to this tragedy?

[@OriginalThisAndThat]

arizonatsunami ...back 80's no one would be complaining about it

[@dfcvda]

desperate for attention, basically.

[@supressorgrid]

USS Georgia gets one confirmed kill.

[@kevlarburrito6693]

+James walker Not even remotely funny.

[@tomredman]

+James walker yeah you idiot that is not funny. They got 2 confirmed kills

[@TheBigdogbrent]

My dad was a rescue swimmer that day on that sub. He saved 9 men's lives and received the Marine navy cross. His name is Ken Krotzer and he is now 74 years old living happily with my mom Diana in deer Island Oregon. He retired as a Master Chief after 23 years of service. He will always be my hero.

[@zanebrown2920]

I remember him well!

[@WillRennar]

Please let your dad know he has my eternal thanks; my dad was one of the guys on the tug when this happened. I was 4 at the time and, thanks to him being deployed so much, I'd never really gotten a chance to see him before then. If not for guys like your dad, I'd probably have never known mine.

[@whlhousejocky]

This could have been adverted had the sub slowed to a slow-bell or even stopped his wheel(s). Not the tugs fault, but caused by the subs suction from proceeding to keep underway. It is not easy to get away from a boat that is underway causing the suction and the sub should have gave respect by stopping his wheel(s) till the Secota got away safely. I've learned this from operating tugs, towboats, Merchant Mariner over 25 years.

[@thebbgrouplimited210]

***** ANY MORON knows a sub works. 'Murica.....

[@glynhardy2532]

Wrong

[@captsparks1]

Tug skipper's fault. He got too close to the stern plane after entering the draw of the screw and fouled the keel on it, most likely tearing the centerline seam of the hull free. As a result, two crewmembers went down with her. She went down quick. I am actually surprised more sailors didn't go down. That's why we maintain safety spacing between ships/boats. Especially when there is a great size and/or power difference between the two.

[@suprafrase]

captsparks1 It seemed to be hung up for quite a while before eventually breaking loose. Now I'm no sailor but I'd make an uneducated guess that the first impact with the plane probably punched a hole into the hull. Do you reckon that hole could have been made worse with the Tugboat bobbing up and down due to the emergency actions of both vessels and the motion of the ocean so to speak. Essentially tearing the hole further and wider because the speed the Tugboat went down was frighteningly fast. RIP to the two lost souls

[@Torrque]

Haha! Niccce. You got it, amigo.

[@josephdupont]

From March to April, 1984 she went on her shakedown cruise and test-launched a Trident C-4 missile in the Eastern Test Range on 7 April 1986.[4] In November 1984, she arrived in her home port of Bangor, Washington. In January 1985 she started her first strategic deterrence patrol. As an element of Task Unit 14.7.1 from September 1983 to May 1986, she was awarded a Meritorious Unit Commendation. She was awarded her second Meritorious Unit Commendation for Submarine Operations between February 1986 to August 1986. On 22 March 1986, three miles south of Midway Island, harbor tug USS Secota (YTM-415) had just completed a personnel transfer from Georgia, picking up a submarine crewman who was going on emergency leave, when Secota lost power and got hung up on Georgia's starboard stern plane while the sub's propeller continued to turn.[5] That sank Secota within two minutes. Ten people were rescued, including the Georgia crewman who had just transferred to Secota. Two Secota crewmen trapped in her engine room were lost. While Lt. Cmdr. John Carman, a Navy spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, told the media that the Georgia was undamaged,[6][7] a report sent by the Commanding Officer of the Georgia indicates that after returning the surviving Secota crew members to Hawaii, Georgia underwent emergency repairs for minor damage sustained in the collision.[8] Her Gold crew was awarded the Comsubron Seventeen Battle Efficiency Award for 2001. On 30 October 2003, Georgia returned from her 65th and last deterrent patrol. On 7 November 2003, while Georgia was docked at Bangor, Washington, her C-4 Trident I missiles were offloaded. The process proceeded smoothly until tube number 16. When each tube was opened, a ladder was lowered into the tube so a sailor could climb down and attach a hoist to lift the missile. After attaching the hoist to the missile in tube 16, the sailor climbed out, and the crew took a break without removing the ladder. When they returned, they began to hoist the missile, pulling against the ladder and cutting a nine-inch (230 mm) hole in its nose cone. No radioactive material was released. Three enlisted men in the missile handling team faced a court-martial. The Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific was immediately shut down and inspected by the Navy, and failed to pass. SWFPAC's commanding officer, Captain Keith Lyles, was relieved of command on 19 December 2003, followed by his executive officer, Commander Phillip Jackson, weapons officer, Commander Marshall Millett, and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Command Steven Perry. SWFPAC reopened after passing inspection under a new commanding officer on 9 January 2004. Georgia's crew was unaffected.

[@SvenBolin]

Girl scouts running a navy

[@MrFatcat23]

Sven Bolin. I've known a number of submarines and they are ALL extremely smart. Wow! Armchair commentators. Go back to eating Girl Scout Cookies.

[@calvinnotklein6368]

Sven Bolin fucking keyboard warrior.

[@thormcgee968]

Why couldn't the sub stop engines the first sign of trouble?

[@johnmastrangel7317]

Too lazy, chicken pot pie was scheduled for lunch and it was already half past 1300.

[@Chrisell]

My condolences to the families and friends of the 2 crewmen lost on that tug.

[@mastacheifa1182]

"there goes the mail" CRAP my new xbox one and BO3 were in there!

[@roberharpane3524]

The extent of my sea going experience is at the controls of a 16' ski boat equipped with an outboard motor but my immediate thought was why isn't the skipper of this sub cutting his engine/s? With my scant knowledge if I was pulling a skier behind who got tangled in the ropes,, I wouldn't pull them til they drowned! Yeah, a lot more went on here than my simple illustration but the basic same principle exists & I'm bewildered why this sub captain didn't get the message he had a captive tugboat sinking in his wake? The ex ship captain below explained some type of maneuver he was attempting to possibly free him up but it's obvious that proved deadly & in vain. He was trying to slingshot the tug away from his stern with the tug's buoyancy in question & maneuverability totally out of control. This just seems pretty basic in logic that a polished submariner would have handled this in a way with a positive result. Is no one in doubt if he couldn't handle a situation like this that one far more strategic & larger in scope would end in an even worse result? He cut his engine after the tub sank in the rescue effort,, why not before?? That alone proves he had knowledge of what was occurring outside his command post. If you're an American,, that's "your navy" operating billion $$ equipment with your name attached to it. In my small world,, I'm at a loss with his reasoning or lack of. Yeah,, I mean to be critical,, two men didn't return home & may still be locked in that engine room at the bottom of the ocean due to incompetence. I'm betting it was awkward on the way back to port with the crew who saved the tug crew all in closed quarters but the captain either hiding in his quarters or offering up the excuse,, "sorry guys,, shit happens"?

[@windwardpro]

+ArcticWolf Because it's nuclear, the captain can't stop the engines???????

[@roberharpane3524]

+ArcticWolf I see you're a proponent of shoving your head up your ass in lieu of obvious facts. I never offered to "be an expert" on the subject,, I simply commented on what was before me. No different than anyone else drawing a conclusion from factual evidence in the aftermath of this,, investigators will do the same. What I saw was a vastly superior vessel unresponsive to a situation directly attached to them. If you're of the opinion that a submarine loaded topside with personnel standing there watching the demise of this tug & it's crew members is standard procedure without sounding an alarm or reacting in a far more favorable way,, then you sir are a hopeless moron. The world is full of insufferable fools,, you sound to be a lifetime member. I guess in your opinion,, everyone needs to be a hall of fame ex NFL player to voice their thoughts on a terrible play call when 75,000 fans say "what the fuck was that about"! I'm in doubt you'll catch the satire/analogy..

[@roberharpane3524]

+ArcticWolf Please tell me what else is it you need to conclude something more should have been done or a system of checks & balances in place that could have easily prevented this from happening? Unlike you,, I have a high regard for our service members & simply feel while this was unfolding,, the "professional men topside" should have sounded the alarm realizing the danger of what they were witnessing,, these are seasoned seamen with vast experience of operations & operational standards!. That's my stance,, there were a lot of sailors topside & I could be wrong but I'm betting a monitoring system is in place at the control panel showing a topside view as well. Be it the commander of the sub or the officer in charge of engine speed,, I'm simply falling back on my high opinion of these men that they failed greatly in assessing what was before them & acting accordingly. If you want to criticize me for my opinion,, so be it. I think the fatal results from their non action prove me to be correct in my assumptions. I'm not sure what other evidence it is you need exactly to form an informed conclusion. I'm not an alarmist & normally take a forgiving viewpoint or give the benefit of the doubt viewing incidents such as these but IMO,, this comes close to dereliction of duty. There is given & great responsibility to keep a watchful eye for your mates & this especially goes for out at sea which I'm sure you'll even agree,, is very unforgiving..

[@roberharpane3524]

+ArcticWolf Hey buddy,, you just want to argue for argument's sake. I see mile long pissing matches all the time on YT with people who are too small to say they're wrong on an issue. I can see this developing into such an argument & I'm not up to it knowing I'm conveying my thoughts to a know it all. This isn't about "Monday morning QB'ing",, it's simply about me giving my opinion on a video I happened to open,, that's it pal. I gave the reasoning behind my thoughts but it's obvious those aren't good enough for you so here we go off into left field with you challenging me to write up some type of bullshit "failure analysis" as though someone really cares. So when I write this professional assessment,, exactly who do I turn it in to & will it be the final say-so in all of this? If not,, I think I've got better things to do today than appease your denial of what's squarely at the end of your nose. In summation,, I don't give a tinker's dam what you think about my thoughts but it might help if you read a few more viewers' mindset on this thread as well. A lot of them seem to think as well someone wasn't thinking as quickly & sharply as they should have. Do me a favor,, you wait right there at your desk or in the middle of a cornfield,, wherever you might be on that evaluation report. I've got it coming right up for you. Now be patient, it won't take long but I want to stir my deepest input & insight to make it convincing for a hardliner such as yourself. I'll be right back,, don't go away now..

[@rolloverriderpgr]

+ArcticWolf This is why it's called a social media. We can discuss. If it looks to long, go to the ones with pictures so you can understand. I go even further in comments. It's like owning guns or abortions. Don't want it don't get it the same with seeing it's a long sentence thats over your head to stay concertrated on, keep hitting the next button. As easy as not being offended when scolded. AHH The Third Herd! Ft Knox sucked for Basic in '71, all that noise at nigh while you guys were becoming tankers! Nothing like being rattled around in a can!

[@bobczz3919]

There was no reason why the sub should have been moving doing this transfer. End of story.

[@WillRennar]

Doing transfers with both vessels in motion mitigates the up-and-down movement of the ships caused by the waves, making them easier and safer to perform.

[@pettyofficermartinleeigh6383]

Who the hell was on the conning tower and where was the OOD this should never have happened, and a tragic,unnecessary waste of life. Why the hell was not all stop communicated on board the Georgia as no doubt the tug skipper or his 1st mate was on the radio telling Georgia he was fouled up on the subs stern plane, Holy crap I can just imagine the paper work after this fuck up. God bless all those who go down to the sea in ships.

[@Carlosbluiscarrillo]

Petty Officer Martin Le-Van all stop ¡ALL STOP!

[@michaeldougfir9807]

+Chief Petty Officer Martin Levan I was only a deck ape on a fleet tug (ATF). But I certainly spent my time at the helm in the '70s. Though I was no decision maker, I knew the command ALL STOP/RUDDER AMIDSHIPS very well. From what I can see, this would have been appropriate in this case. Just to begin dealing with the situation. Chief, with great respect to your rate, this is public media, and no place for salty language. I do not need to be your peer to point this out.

[@jsoe81657]

Carlos B. Luis contrary to belief, and assuming you never served on a sub, subs, especially the boomers, do not stop on a dime. The sub needs time to stop.

[@theklrdudeoo9173]

who in his right mind makes full power with a sub like that ? that tug got sucked right in.

[@unowild]

I miss Midway, I remember going to school there as a kid, in '73

[@superkato1k]

Lived there 99-02, good times.

[@N0rdman]

This is about the worst display of seamanship I have ever seen! It must be well known by anyone serving in the navy that subs have huge propellers and large protruding bow and stern planes (modern US subs have the bow planes on the turret, most other navies submerged on the hull). No forward motion should have been applied (turning of the screws/propeller) on the behalf of the sub, they should have waited until the tug had backed away was clear of the submarine and its large propeller. The officer of the watch on the submarine should have been observing the tug and that it wasn't backing away quickly enough and immediately stopped the engine or preferably ordered the engines to make revolutions for propulsion astern and the accident could have been avoided. I have been serving on tugs for years and towed several submarines.

[@ShockLegionLeader]

Goes to show you, just because you have a license doesn't make you competent.

[@gregkerr1084]

Really the American Sub had a bit to do with the sinking as well, hope someone was charged from the sub.

[@joeroberts431]

greg Kerr The sub did nothing wrong. They stopped the screw as soon as the tug was noted to be in trouble. These boats don't stop on a dime. The fault for this incident was completely on the tug.

[@gregkerr1084]

Oh, I see you have served on a Sub, or a Tug for that matter?

[@ShockLegionLeader]

No, I just know when someone isn't all that competent.

[@periesicsd]

The problem was that the tug lost power, it had an engine failure at a critical time. It was nobody's fault. They all were very competent. 10 people got rescued, but two men drowned.

[@SuburbAllied]

I think it looks like more that the water displacement from the sub was sucking the tug boat into the side of the sub (due to its oval shaped hull), rather than a power loss. That because the tug was too close to the sub when it started to going forward.

[@jodifu6274]

Do any of you commenting experts wear Dolphins?

[@JackCain]

+Joseph DiFusco You did, I did, +Win Williams probably...maybe more.

[@grooveclubhouse]

No, I despise clothing made of any animal! That being said thank you for your service and putting up with my lame jokes.

[@patdwyer5204]

Yeah, Silver dolphins but I'm not commenting. 2JV phone talker first couple of patrols and topside was my least favorite place.

[@kurtiskaskowski5386]

No, I wear a trident.

[@fuzzypony]

I do.

[@Jodonho]

3:46 'There goes the mail."

[@LeslieAnneCookSustaita]

Someone wrote, 'This is the best the U.S. Navy has to offer? You guys are fucked". The title to this video is ridiculous. Sub sinks a tug boat? You have several dynamics here. First of all, there was something wrong with the tug boat from the beginning of the video. They had lost control of the tug. It was listing everywhere. People running to the engine room. But several of the men were walking topside, waving at the submariners. It became very evident when the tug boat was bumping into the stern plane, that it had lost complete control. No engine. Those men stayed on the boat, when they could've easily jumped off the tug. They were right next to the submarine. The submarine didn't sink anything. Is it the submarines fault that the engine wouldn't start on the tug boat? What were they supposed to do? They saved who they could. Think if the submarine had already submerged. Nobody on that tug boat would've survived.

[@carlsmith4767]

+Leslie Anne Cook Sustaita Your wrong it's the subs fault it started forward before the tug boat could start it's engines and back away, always let the smaller vessel move out of the way first it's more maneuverable, it's not like they were drifting into shore or anything else they were in open waters.

[@LeslieAnneCookSustaita]

Carl Smith No. They hadn't even delivered their mail yet. Did you say the submarines ENGINES? You had better smarten up. Engines! Horses ass. The tugboats engine caught on fire, while all the hands are walking around nonchalantly....? The should've abandoned the tug boat but they didn't. They lost complete control of the boat. They put Navy divers lives in danger with their stupidity and arrogance. They weren't leaving. They just got there.

[@carlsmith4767]

What the fuck you know about subs? I live on one for years they don't shut down the engines just to receive mail they simply disengage come to a full stop, don't assume anything but the tug should've never even close to a moving sub. So maybe you should smarten up.

[@kbox8745]

+Leslie Anne Cook Sustaita You're the horses ass & talking right through it! This wasn't 'mail call'-- They had just completed a personnel transfer. It was quick and they were ready to depart. Just before it was clear, the tug lost power and then collided with the sub. The tug got hung up on the sub's stern dive planes, took on water and sunk. What engine fire are you talking about? Don't pass judgment on situations or others when you haven't a clue.

[@ESPNsPeacockbassProfessor]

the sub should have just dove instead avoiding this situation

[@roondarmurnig338]

It's not that simple. You can't just submerge at a moments notice. Especially with sailors topsides and hatches open. Edit: spelling

[@TheSteelTech]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[@bradthomson4830]

agreed..but why not FULL Emergency Stop?

[@roondarmurnig338]

Brad Thomson Boats can't just stop. There is little friction with the water, so even reversing the screws won't stop the boat very quickly.

[@bradthomson4830]

I understand but it looks like most of issue was due to prop wash. Own a boat. :-)

[@daveygivens735]

Maybe a stupid question as I've never served in the Navy, but why wasn't the Georgia at full stop during the transaction? Not criticism...trying to understand.

[@WillRennar]

Being in motion cuts down on the up-and-down motion of the waves, so it actually makes transfers like this easier.

[@daveygivens735]

Ah. That makes sense.

[@31diverboy]

Not sure if this has been pointed out, but one comment indicated a big dip in the water is what sunk the tug. Granted, there is dip in the water, but its only part of the problem. The cavitation in the water caused buy props and the moving ship that was a major cause and helped to sink that tugboat. The bubbles caused by the movement of props and hulls on the surface actually changed the density of the water, thus the water could no longer support the tug and it sank.

[@usernametaken7738]

And where they recording this during WWII also?

[@danr5105]

Do you remember when off of Hawaii the sub (making an demonstration rapid ascent,for guests onboard) came up under the Japanese fishing training boat? Well the Japanese boat sank,minimal damage to the sub. It turns out that the rudder of the sub was reinforced so as not to be damaged by ice. The rudder of the sub basically gutted the fishing boat. The sub (USS Greenville) displaced 6900 tons while the fishing boat displaced around 500 tons.The Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville.As it broke the surface, the Greenville's HY 80 steel rudder, specially reinforced to punch through ice, ripped open the stern of the Japanese ship

[@garynemetz8256]

Did they recover the 2 lost crew from the tug? I know it is in very deep water, but doesn't the navy have the capability?

[@bobo85301]

After watching this twice I see the sub is underway before the tug was clear. Very sad for those crew members that were lost. I come from a family that retired from sea going tugboats.

[@keithnoneya]

Where was the watch! How about calling out "ALL STOP"! Big boo boo on both sides here, especially the watch. Needless loss of life. Gurrrr Thanks for sharing so others can learn. Best Wishes n Blessings Keith

[@Zekeormoses]

Asking why didn't the sub just stop is like asking why didn't the freight train just stop before hitting the truck on the tracks. These things don't stop on a dime.

[@hutchinson54]

A similar situation happened when I was on the FLORIDA GOLD in 1996. We were transiting through the Panama Canal. We had just finished coming through one set of locks. I was in the bridge with the OOD and the CO. The tug had cast off and was trying to clear itself from our rear. As the bridge party was looking forward, we all held a hard “shudder”. My CO whipped his head around and looked aft and well as I did. Long story short, the tug didn’t get enough clearance and struck our stabilizer. We all watched the tug make a B-line for the shore and you could see the tug crew scramble for life jackets; which didn’t leave much to the imagination. We eventually turned the corner and the tug went out of site. But you could clearly see before we turned that corner that the tug was taking on water and was sitting very low in the water. Never got word of the outcome, but I’m certain that the tug sank near the shore.

[@chevyman95]

On 22 March 1986, near Midway Island, Secota had just completed a personnel transfer with the USS Georgia when the Secota lost power and collided with the Georgia. From amateur video taken of the incident, it appears Georgia increased speed before the tug was clear causing an impact with the sub's stern dive planes.[1] Secota sank, ten crewman were rescued but two drowned. Georgia was undamaged.

[@carolinawestern3875]

I wonder if it was hull damage, or being forced broad side against the wake, that made the tug sink? (Or both) The cam was just enough to the right, so I couldn't tell if the stern dipped below the surface. Scooping up more water than it could drain off or pump out in time.

[@CHESSIE222]

I am just curious why the sub couldn't just quietly submerge without its propeller turning and then the tug just floats away. (I mean before it gets back where the stern plates are) or sub could just stop engines. I'm not a mariner, but it sound pretty simple.

[@WillRennar]

Robert Mellinger Reaction time to realizing the tug had lost power, the fact that subs don't stop moving forward the instant the screws stop turning, the speed at which a sub submerges without the props, the fact that there were still personnel on deck (and thus probably an open hatch)... There were a lot of reasons that wasn't possible.

[@scoopbpmc6088]

***** yup, don't wanna leave a hatch open when your diving....

[@BlackLabAdventures]

So, the sub could stop after the capsize of the tug, and not during the tug's struggle?

[@01DOGG01]

Someone tell the captain that there's a tugboat stu.... nevermind... I'm saving this one for youtube in 20 years time.

[@xq3975]

2 of the crew were KILLED. YOU ARE WATCHING A HAUNTED VIDEO.