| HistoryPhD | 01 Jan 2015 11:39 a.m. PST |
Did you know that the USNS Card was sunk in Saigon harbor? It was only an aircraft transport at the time, but still. The Johnson Administration kept that well under wraps link |
| Pictors Studio | 01 Jan 2015 11:52 a.m. PST |
I had no idea. Thanks for posting that. |
| Davoust | 01 Jan 2015 11:59 a.m. PST |
Define sunk. Per the article the crew stopped the flooding, only the engine compartment was totally flooded and stabilized the ship.
It sank a total of 48 feet only. The picture in the article shows a severe list only. The article and this headline make it out more than it was, a successful commando attack on a transport ship. Is there another source vice wikipedia? |
| HistoryPhD | 01 Jan 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
If you Google it, several different things show up. I wouldn't imagine that Saigon Harbor was much deeper than 48 feet, so it quite likely settled onto the bottom |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Jan 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
I would accept that as 'sunk'. As in 'It sank' a total of 48 feet only. |
| David Manley | 01 Jan 2015 2:05 p.m. PST |
I did. And she was "sunk", weight exceeded buoyancy – the reason she "only" sank 48 feet was that at that point she hit the bottom. |
 Doms Decals  | 01 Jan 2015 3:41 p.m. PST |
Damned daring, but in such a readily salvageable position it's sunk for a given value of sunk, and aircraft carrier for a given value of aircraft carrier…. |
| Mako11 | 01 Jan 2015 4:03 p.m. PST |
I was not aware of that. Apparently, they sortied at least a few jets against USN vessels offshore, but were unsuccessful in their attacks, which was a surprise to me as well (the first part, not the second). So, a decent subject for a different type of Vietnam air sortie, if you don't mind losing pilots and aircraft in the almost impossible attempt to damage/sink and US Naval vessel. |
| HistoryPhD | 01 Jan 2015 4:19 p.m. PST |
USNS (United States Naval Ship) denotes a U.S. Navy ship not actually in commission at the time, which has a civilian (generally a Merchant Marine) crew. Basically a ship that the Navy has a temporary need to use in a non-combat role and therefore it's not worthwhile training a full Navy crew. Mako11, I wouldn't say that the NVAF was totally ineffective. The USS Higbee was bombed in 1972 by a MiG-17 and the ship's aft main gun turret was destroyed. No casualties though. |
| Mute Bystander | 01 Jan 2015 7:16 p.m. PST |
I see a scenario or two here… |
| Mako11 | 02 Jan 2015 12:18 a.m. PST |
Yes, that may be the attack I read about a while back. Wasn't aware they knocked out a turret, but do recall an attack on an escort vessel. |
 Legion 4  | 02 Jan 2015 9:01 a.m. PST |
Who Knew !  "Charlie Don't Surf !!" |
| Steve Wilcox | 02 Jan 2015 3:20 p.m. PST |
The USS Higbee was bombed in 1972 by a MiG-17 and the ship's aft main gun turret was destroyed. No casualties though. The aftermath: YouTube link |
| HistoryPhD | 02 Jan 2015 3:36 p.m. PST |
|
| Doms Decals | 02 Jan 2015 5:17 p.m. PST |
Yeah, that sure looks broken…. Fortunately they'd had a misfire with one of the 5" guns, as a result of which the turret crew weren't in there at the time.
|
| HistoryPhD | 02 Jan 2015 7:33 p.m. PST |
It went to refit at Subic Bay |
has been itching for a small Soviet project!
