Earlier Proof of Rogue Waves

POD: May 1945, but not really a WWII WI.

Rogue waves are monsterous waves that occur in mid-ocean. Only recently (1995) acknowledged to exist by oceanographers, they can grow to 30+ meters in height, and devastate ships. They are rare (fortunantly), but do occur. In OTL, oceanographers didn't really acknowledge the existence of these things until one (the Draupner wave) hit an oil platform in the North Sea in 1995.

What if we had earlier proof...

Admiral Halsey is in command of the USN's Third Fleet operating against Japan. In OTL, he sailed into a typhoon, which damaged many ships.

In this TL, he decides to skirt the edges of the typhoon. The fleet makes a long run around the storm. It encounters the heavy seas one would expect in mid-ocean near a typhoon, but nothing extraordinary until...

An AP reporter in on board the BB Missouri. He is taking photos of the nearby BB Indiana plowing through the heavy seas with an accompanying destroyer. The dark edge of the typhoon and heavy seas coupled with the bright sunshine the fleet is sailing through makes for a visually dramatic scene, and the reporter is capturing some shots. A shout from a lookout and the reporter looks up to see a monsterous 30 meter rogue wave bearing down on the Indiana. In horrid fascination, he snaps a pulitzer-prize winning series of photos of the Indiana plowing into the very deep trough at the base of the rogue wave, the wave breaking over the ship, and the BB surging through. The Inidana survives, but is heavily damaged. The DD isn't so fortunate - it is lost with almost all hands. The wave also damages other ships in the Third Fleet.

Hand waving away, this event doesn't impact the end of the war. However, there is documentary proof that these monster waves actually do exist. How does this impact ship design - both civilian and military -and insurance rates?

Mike Turcotte
 
I have no idea, but what a fascinatingly original WI! :)

Ok, I have no idea ship-wise, but (hysterical) fear of "Kamikaze waves" (assuming an ATL name ;)) may spur the growth of transoceanic flight as folks fear sea travel. It may help in the decline and fall of the flying boat too. :(
 
I have no idea, but what a fascinatingly original WI! :)

Ok, I have no idea ship-wise, but (hysterical) fear of "Kamikaze waves" (assuming an ATL name ;)) may spur the growth of transoceanic flight as folks fear sea travel. It may help in the decline and fall of the flying boat too. :(

Thanks - and I love the name.

My idea was that it spurs the growth of massive ships. I picked the Indiana and the unnamed DD on purpose. It will be clear that the Indiana (a modern BB) survived while the smaller DD did not. I might think that this raises the idea of massive, armored ships able to take 'kamikaze' waves. From an nautical engineering standpoint, there's no reason why a ship (military or merchant) couldn't be designed that is fully capable of taking a kamikaze wave - just that it is more expensive to do so.

I think the post-war ship building industry would take pause. It would be hugely expensive to not just build better ships, but to redesign ship yards and dry docks to service them. Trans-oceanic shipping becomes more expensive as a result, perhaps reducing post-war economic growth.

Of course, Kamikaze waves are rare too. In OTL, since the confirmation of rogue waves, the reaction has been a shrug, and a strange 'you pays your money you takes your chances' attitude. In OTL, we loose a major merchant ship a week at sea. I can't say how many of these are do to rogue waves, as opposed to lousy maintenance, regular storms, pirates, some combination thereof, etc.

It may be that in 1945, the attitude is similar. "Wow, they do exist. Well, better hope you don't run into one." Lloyd's raises rates, and the world goes on.

Mike Turcotte
 
Thanks!

That last point's why I made the change in passenger travel. A shipping company will take the small risk of losing a ship versus the huge costs of changing shipping. Now Joe and Mary Passenger, however, might freak out "OMG teh killer waves!" (pardon the anachronism) and decide to put off that QE2 trip in favor of saving up to fly it...much as happened post-Hindenburg to airships.
 
Only recently (1995) acknowledged to exist by oceanographers...


Mike,

No. Let me correct that for you.

"Only recently acknowledged to exist with great frequency by oceanographers..."

There had been anecdotal evidence of these waves since seafaring began and oceanographers believed, that while they did exist, they were very rare events that required geological, geographical, weather, and other events to trigger them. The terms "once in a century" or "once in a 1000 years" was often used when discussing them.

There has even been photographic evidence of monster waves dating from 1933 when someone aboard the USN auxiliary, USS Ramapo, managed to take a picture of a 30+ meter wave while that vessel was in the Pacific. In 1942, the SS Queen Mary was hit with 20+ meter wave in the Atlantic while carrying US troops and nearly capsized. IIRC, the QE2 was hit too sometime in the 1980s. While no scientist discounted those reports, they did question the frequency of such events.

The actual change in oceanography over the last two decades or so has nothing to do with the existence of rogue waves and everything to do with the frequency or rogue waves. When ocean-scanning radar satellites determined the greater frequency of such wave, oceanographers have been to mathematically model a few reasons for that frequency.


Bill
 
Mike,

No. Let me correct that for you.

"Only recently acknowledged to exist with great frequency by oceanographers..."

There had been anecdotal evidence of these waves since seafaring began and oceanographers believed, that while they did exist, they were very rare events that required geological, geographical, weather, and other events to trigger them. The terms "once in a century" or "once in a 1000 years" was often used when discussing them.

There has even been photographic evidence of monster waves dating from 1933 when someone aboard the USN auxiliary, USS Ramapo, managed to take a picture of a 30+ meter wave while that vessel was in the Pacific. In 1942, the SS Queen Mary was hit with 20+ meter wave in the Atlantic while carrying US troops and nearly capsized. IIRC, the QE2 was hit too sometime in the 1980s. While no scientist discounted those reports, they did question the frequency of such events.

The actual change in oceanography over the last two decades or so has nothing to do with the existence of rogue waves and everything to do with the frequency or rogue waves. When ocean-scanning radar satellites determined the greater frequency of such wave, oceanographers have been to mathematically model a few reasons for that frequency.


Bill

With Mike's scenario, the photograph(s) of Indiana and the destroyer could lead to a perception in the public that rogue waves are more common, even if the oceanographers disagree. Hmm, once evidence comes in that the rogue waves are in fact more common than the scientists believe, there may be resistance among scientists to not believe the evidence. The more experienced oceangraphers may not like the idea that they were wrong and that popular opinion was right.

Bill, you have another POD in what you wrote. What if the SS Queen Mary was lost to that rogue wave?

Mike L.
 
Oh, a cruise ship sailing between Spain and Italy was damaged by a big wave on Wednesday. Two passengers killed, and others hurt. Will this incident change perceptions?
 
Mike,

No. Let me correct that for you.

"Only recently acknowledged to exist with great frequency by oceanographers..."

There had been anecdotal evidence of these waves since seafaring began and oceanographers believed, that while they did exist, they were very rare events that required geological, geographical, weather, and other events to trigger them. The terms "once in a century" or "once in a 1000 years" was often used when discussing them.

There has even been photographic evidence of monster waves dating from 1933 when someone aboard the USN auxiliary, USS Ramapo, managed to take a picture of a 30+ meter wave while that vessel was in the Pacific. In 1942, the SS Queen Mary was hit with 20+ meter wave in the Atlantic while carrying US troops and nearly capsized. IIRC, the QE2 was hit too sometime in the 1980s. While no scientist discounted those reports, they did question the frequency of such events.

The actual change in oceanography over the last two decades or so has nothing to do with the existence of rogue waves and everything to do with the frequency or rogue waves. When ocean-scanning radar satellites determined the greater frequency of such wave, oceanographers have been to mathematically model a few reasons for that frequency.


Bill

Bill - thanks. I am awful long way from being oceanographer, but my understanding was that only after the Draupner wave were Rogues taken as real - or more frequent than once-in-a-long-lifetime events. While there has been ancedotal evidence for centuries, the incidents you mention were explained by earthquakes (tsumanis as opposed to rogues) or simply wildly inaccurate estimates by startled crews. Until there was an indisputable mechanical measurement, these sightings were not considered evidence.

My understanding is that the linear model used to predict wave height says you'll get a 30-meter wave in deep water once every 10,000 years or so.

Of course, you seem to know more about this me. The reason I set up the WI the way that I did was to make it blazingly obvious - the Indiana was a major fleet element in 1945 and it's loss (even temporary) would have been significant. Also the 'pulitzer-prize winning' photos would have branded them into the public eye.

Mike

Mike
 
Oh, a cruise ship sailing between Spain and Italy was damaged by a big wave on Wednesday. Two passengers killed, and others hurt. Will this incident change perceptions?

Yeah I saw that too. Wave was 'only' 8 meters or so though. A big wave, but not in 'rogue' or 'kamikaze' class.

Mike
 

Sandman396

Banned
Bill,

Was it really necessary to attempt to spoil such an original idea as this with the minutiae that you have posted? :rolleyes:

We all get that you are able to use Wikipedia and other research tools, well done. :p

Try using this power for good rather than evil. :eek::eek:
 
With Mike's scenario, the photograph(s) of Indiana and the destroyer could lead to a perception in the public that rogue waves are more common, even if the oceanographers disagree.


Dilvish,

The public already believed rogue waves were more common than oceanographers did or at least that segment of the public who loved "sea stories".

And there has been photographic evidence since 1933.

Hmm, once evidence comes in that the rogue waves are in fact more common than the scientists believe, there may be resistance among scientists to not believe the evidence.

There wasn't in the OTL. In fact, scientists quickly embraced the evidence because it closed the gap between anecdote and theory.

The more experienced oceangraphers may not like the idea that they were wrong and that popular opinion was right.

See above.

What if the SS Queen Mary was lost to that rogue wave?

The US build-up in Britain loses a division. IIRC, there were something like 10,000 troops aboard.

I'd also suspect that the Queens would no longer sail unescorted afterward. That would mean a few destroyers wouldn't be available as escorts for the convoys and hunter-killer groups. I don't know if a destroyer has the bunkers to cross the Atlantic at the constant speed the Queens crossed it however.

Getting back to the OP's question. So, better estimates regarding the real frequency of rogue waves are developed in the 1940s and what then happens? My answer: Nothing much at all.

Even in 2010 with our satellites and global communications we're not spotting rogue waves and routing shippng around them.


Bill
 
Oh, a cruise ship sailing between Spain and Italy was damaged by a big wave on Wednesday. Two passengers killed, and others hurt. Will this incident change perceptions?

Maybe for a TV episode or for a movie at most. The fact is, that the life in western countries has become so safe that people are more and more interested in rather quixotic exotic threats while ignoring those they can really have an influence upon, such as depression, alcoholism, overweight etc. Personnel traffic, whether on land, air or sea, is simply absurdly safe nowadays.

Even a loss of a cruise liner or ten at sea to Der Überwelle won't change that.

To cite a Baltic example, in 1994 the cruiseferry MS Estonia was sunk in a storm with a loss of 852 lives in Tallinn-Stockholm route. The accident did not have any measurable effect upon the cruiseferry traffic volume in the Baltic. However, the accident has created a viable conspiracy industry of it's own.
 
Last edited:

Bearcat

Banned
This was the phenomenon I immediately thought of when the Final Countdown thread got posted in ASB.

A truly horrific rogue wave hitting Nagumo's Striking Force, just as he is about to launch his aircraft (maybe even with them spotted on deck) is going to wreak seventeen kinds of hell with the Japanese Pacific advance.

And we don't even need Kirk Douglas... :D
 
T
My idea was that it spurs the growth of massive ships. I picked the Indiana and the unnamed DD on purpose. It will be clear that the Indiana (a modern BB) survived while the smaller DD did not. I might think that this raises the idea of massive, armored ships able to take 'kamikaze' waves. From an nautical engineering standpoint, there's no reason why a ship (military or merchant) couldn't be designed that is fully capable of taking a kamikaze wave - just that it is more expensive to do so.

I think the post-war ship building industry would take pause. It would be hugely expensive to not just build better ships, but to redesign ship yards and dry docks to service them. Trans-oceanic shipping becomes more expensive as a result, perhaps reducing post-war economic growth.

I doubt armor would have anything to do with the larger ship surviving.

Escorts, especially the corvettes and the smaller destroyers (<1000 tons) which were used on the oceans during WWII often, especially in bad weather, shouldn't have been used due to their very small size.

If I had to choose between encountering such a storm in the USS Indiana or in a ULCC or some other supertanker I'd definitely choose the latter.

If any changes were made, instead of your suggestion of designing huge, expensive ships I'd sooner expect ships like this:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/12387

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP42hf-kO1g
 
Mike,

Leaving aside what people knew and when they knew it, I just don't see any marked changes in ship design, construction, or insurance rates simply because a newsreel cameraman caught a destroyer being eaten by a rogue wave.

What are people watching that film going to say or think about the ocean that's any different from what they already say and think about ocean: It's damned dangerous and can kill you in a heartbeat.

What's really going to change?

Overall armor won't help against a rogue wave, it may even hurt be reducing buoyancy. Length won't help either, given the experience of the Edmund Fitzgerald and others length might actually hurt your chances of surviving a rogue wave.

As for insurance rates, they already took into consideration rogue waves under the heading of "unknown causes". They might not have known the X number of vessels were lost due to rogue waves each year, but the fact that the reason the vessels were lost was unknown didn't stop insurers from setting rates that took into account the fact that those losses occurred.

I just don't see any real changes here. One of them got caught on film and a destroyer died. It's a tragedy, but is it a world changing tragedy? i don't think so.


Bill
 
If I had to choose between encountering such a storm in the USS Indiana or in a ULCC or some other supertanker I'd definitely choose the latter.

I have to second Bill here; from what I recall (though IANAME) long ships are actually more likely to break up from wave action than small ones, due to the greater differential stresses on their long frames.
 
I have to second Bill here; from what I recall (though IANAME) long ships are actually more likely to break up from wave action than small ones, due to the greater differential stresses on their long frames.

Isn't a battleship designed to be beat to hell, though? I mean they were intended to slug it out over long battles with other BBs. I know that a rogue wave is going to be entirely different mechanic from a 16 inch shell, but shouldn't a battleship's superstructure and deck be able to take it better than a even a big civilian ship?
 

Al-Buraq

Banned
Wasn't it a not-yet discovered rogue wave that was supposed to have caused "The Posidon Adventure"?
 
Isn't a battleship designed to be beat to hell, though? I mean they were intended to slug it out over long battles with other BBs. I know that a rogue wave is going to be entirely different mechanic from a 16 inch shell, but shouldn't a battleship's superstructure and deck be able to take it better than a even a big civilian ship?


Mike,

It's not just the wave, it's the trough behind the wave too.

The longer the ship, the better chance there will be more "air" beneath the keel when the ship finds itself perched between two waves, and the more "air" the better the chance the ship breaks in two.


Bill
 
Top