Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Merchant ship damage durability

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Merchant ship damage durability Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 12:43:43 PM   
Panzer76


Posts: 68
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline
I have a feeling that, perhaps ships in general, but especially merchant ships take too much damage to be sunk. Let me illustrate.

I have seen photos and movies of merchant ships blowing up from plane strafing, most likely ammunition or fuel has exploded. I have never seen this in WitP, which brings me to the next point, tankers.

I cant for the life of me see how a tanker filled to the brim with fuel can withstand even a stern look, not to mention multiple bombs/torpedos/ shells. Shouldnt the tanker be ablaze from bow to stern from a few shell hits?

How much damage could a merchant typically ship withstand anyway? When I see merchant ships take two fish, or multiple bomb hits and still remain afloat, I wonder.

Yes, FOW and all that, but even with FOW taken into account, it seems something is rotten in Denmark.

I will freely admit I am no expert on the subject, so please enlighten me.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin
Post #: 1
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 1:03:29 PM   
Harpoon_GER

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
I think you are right on this one. Merchant ships in Surface Combat vs. CAs and BBs sometimes take an incredible amount of hits without sinking. Happened more than once in my Campaign 15. Attach some big guns to AKs and they would win the war.



< Message edited by Harpoon_GER -- 9/6/2004 11:05:34 AM >

(in reply to Panzer76)
Post #: 2
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 3:35:43 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
I think those merchants in naval combat actually take sufficient damage to sink. But unfortunatelly they keep getting pounded despite being a total loss already. Last night I checked ai losses in my most recent game and found casualties were much higher then my most optimistic estimate (99 ships in one month, among them 1 cruiser, half a dozen subs and maybe a dozen small escorts, all the rest AK, AP and TK (one oiler) that had been pounded by bombers, attacked by MTB's (PT's) and engaged by ships (including a pair of battleships). So merchants are pretty vulnerable, but the same one's tend to be picked repeatedly despite already having taken sufficient damage to sink within a turn or two at most.

Now whether that is accurate is another question (I wish I had hecked whether any of the sunk one's showed machine gun damage as cause of loss (I did quite a bit of strafing and some MTB's were too inexperienced to use their torpedoes for a while).

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: The ai's inability to avoid death traps is another issue again that is clearly shown by that casualty rate (most losses were unescorted or weakly escorted convoys through the Straits of Mallacca while Singapore was still firmly in Britsh hands (about a dozen each were at Davao and Rabaul (cruisers are good to tear up unescorted amphibious forces), half a dozen were lost to submarines anotehr half dozen to mines).

(in reply to Harpoon_GER)
Post #: 3
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 4:39:44 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
In all GG games that I have played hit probability seems inflated while damage recieved is deflated. At least that is how it has always appeared to me. I suppose the effects balance each other out. It applies to all ship types as you will see carriers get hit 8 or 9 bombs and come away with only modest damage.

Maybe it just makes the game a little more exciting as you get hits more frequently. Perhaps it is to make the game a little less luck oriented. In reality many attacks are all or nothing affairs. You either sink something or do no damage at all. In the game you have a greater chance to do at least some damage.

Its been this way forever and I'd doubt this will change. It works fine once you accept that more hits will be needed then would be required historically. Chalk it up to fog of war if you wish.

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 4
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 5:23:45 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
The solution to me is to make the chance of a critical blow varible depending on ship size and class. That is, the chance of something like a magazine explosion that would sink a ship would be greater on a DD than a BB.

One torpedo had a greater chance of breaking a merchants back than say a CA.

It just seems to be a bit too linear as it is now.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 5
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 5:29:57 PM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
Here Here! See my thread about "Surface Combat Sux". Brits made over 55 hits on a TK from BB, CLs, DDs, in addition to a couple torpedos. It still didn't sink until after the surface combat phase. This also caused every one of my ships to conintuously pound on the TK instead of perhaps shifting fire to another ship.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 5:31:24 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
2 torpedos usually sink a DD out right. At least allied DD. One is enough if not close to a port Bombs and shells are a different story.

I had an engagement between the 2 better CL of the Dutch fleet and 4 Japanese DD. The Jappanese scored lots of hits with 4.7 ( I think) inch guns on the armor of the CL. None penetrated for any damage, while my CL laid waste to the DD.

I dont see a problem, since it is the same on both sides, the 5 inch gun is nearly worthless in a surface engagement and the 500 pound bomb isnt much better against Heavyly armored ships.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 7
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 5:32:59 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
I think it is all in the roll of the dice, my one PBEM game, my partner had 2 DD's and a CA sunk with one hit wonders, all in the same night !

and the ship that took a Trop and 20 + hits, sailed away and made it to port

sometimes it pays to be lucky

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 5:37:42 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
The truth is, in WWII, one to two torpedo hits or 2-4 bomb hits almost always sank a merchant vessel.
Even Allied ones, which tended to be a fair piece larger on average than Japanese ships. There have
already been a few threads about the "Yamato Maru" and her cousins. Don't know if any consideration
is being given to correcting the situation though.

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 9
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 6:04:00 PM   
MasterChief


Posts: 159
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: The Hundred Fathom Curve
Status: offline
This exact issue has frustrated the heck out me. In part I think the game model has it about right. Case in point, "Submarine Operations in WWII" illustrates time and time again where ships of all classes (including merchants) took catastrophic torpedo damage and were reported sunk only to find from post war records they limped back to port. Submariners and merchant raiders of every nation tell of depleting huge amounts of deck gun ammo trying to take down merchant ships…including oilers that would smoke and burn for days but never sink! A specific example for the warship side, USS LAFFEY, a Sumner class destroyer, on picket duty off Okinawa, was hit by 3 bombs and 5 kamikazes in one attack, yet limped home.

On the other hand multiple historical sources are filled of reports where that “one lucky hit” meant a quick end for ship and sailor alike. Examples include merchants exploding after being strafed, merchants going down in minutes after one torpedo hit, the HMS HOOD’s demise at the hands of BISMARK, The unsinkable IJN SHINANO taken out with a lucky spread of torps from ARCHERFISH , etc… I don’t believe this has been accurately modeled in the game. Of course how do you model in “dumb luck”?

I do love the FOW aspect and not knowing the accuracy of the reports I’m seeing.

My opinion is, awesome game regardless!!!

< Message edited by MasterChief -- 9/6/2004 4:05:28 PM >

(in reply to Panzer76)
Post #: 10
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 6:46:15 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Well, they kind of tried with the "massive explosive damage" thing. Maybe it needs to come up a little more often.

(in reply to MasterChief)
Post #: 11
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 10:07:35 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
Every heard of the Hood?

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 12
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/6/2004 10:18:33 PM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline
and be quite more damaging...

historically the "massive explosive damages" weren't exactly light issues. Four of those forced the Japanese to scuttle four CVs at Midway, mostly with only 1 or 2 1000lb bomb impacts yet in WitP I've seen carriers standing 5-10 1000pound bombs without the extreme damage that should mean...and this is not right.


And yes ,I know at Midway the KB had the whole air groups on the decks when the Dauntlesses rained over them, and that added to the havoc of the bombs themselves; however at Coral Sea the Shokaku was quite lucky to survive after 2 or 3 impacts when her hangars and decks were almost empty and was forced back to japan for more than a year of repairs and refittings. One more bomb put into her, and she'd have gone down...in fact she was terribly lucky reaching Japan after a gale almost capsized her in the extremely sorry state she was.

And the Zuikakus where ,according to almost every source, the best designed japanese carriers to stand damage...

yet in WitP they stand damage and stand, and stand ,and...yet they refuse to go down.

It's not a extreme gripe for me, as it's the same for both sides, but for the realism lovers like yours truly, it's a tad frustrating...

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/6/2004 8:22:17 PM >


_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 13
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 12:42:17 AM   
MasterChief


Posts: 159
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: The Hundred Fathom Curve
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Every heard of the Hood?


Chris, I know it was another theater but the HMS HOOD is a great example of bad "dumb luck." She was a British Battle Cruiser sank in an engagement with the Geman Battle Ship BISMARK. Most resources seem to agree that a single shell penetrated one of her magizines. She went down so fast that there were very few survivors... 2 or 3 IIRC.

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 14
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 2:25:11 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
I think that there's an item on "the list" to take a look at the damage effect of the US 1,000-pound GP bomb, which some have suggested is under-represented in WitP, particularly against lightly armored targets like CVs, escort vessels, and merchant shipping.

(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 15
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 2:27:58 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterChief

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Every heard of the Hood?


Chris, I know it was another theater but the HMS HOOD is a great example of bad "dumb luck." She was a British Battle Cruiser sank in an engagement with the Geman Battle Ship BISMARK. Most resources seem to agree that a single shell penetrated one of her magizines. She went down so fast that there were very few survivors... 2 or 3 IIRC.


H.M.S. Hood was a design from the British "exploding battlecruiser" period of 1914-1917. Several other examples were detonated at Jutland. It should have been no surprise that this ship went up like a celluloid collar against Bismarck.

(in reply to MasterChief)
Post #: 16
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 3:44:35 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
The thread is about "unsinkable merchant ships". Warships are designed with resistance
to damage in mind (not always successfully, but it is in the designer's mind). Merchant
Ships are designed to maximize cargo space and minimize operating costs. Most of the
ships lost by the Allies in the Battle of the Atlantic were hit with ONE torpedo. Yes, some
took two, three, and even four..., but if you average the number of hits needed to sink a
merchant vessel it comes out at between one and two.

Nor were dozens of bomb hits needed. The Lustwaffe's Condors didn't fly in squadrons
but as individual planes hunting targets of opportunity. Yet they sank over a half million
tons of Allied shipping. They couldn't carry a big enough bomb load to obtain more than
1-3 hits on a target, but they still sank a lot of targets. Merchants aren't designed for war.
Damage control might amount to a couple of guys with buckets. Internal subdivision
wasn't based on survivability, it was for optimum cargo handling. Unless loaded with
cork or balsa wood or some such cargo, they didn't float very long once a good sized
leak (like a torpedo hole) appeared, or a fire (like from a bomb) got a good hold.

_____________________________


(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 17
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:08:47 AM   
watchtower


Posts: 867
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Republic of Kilburn. London UK
Status: offline
These ships had very soft hulls - a bomb/ shell could quite easily just pass through without exploding or hitting anything.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 18
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:18:19 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: watchtower

These ships had very soft hulls - a bomb/ shell could quite easily just pass through without exploding or hitting anything.


IF you are talking about heavy calibre AP ammo or bombs, maybe---but you don't use
that kind of ordnance on such targets anyway! You use HE, or GP, or maybe SAP.
And AP ordnance still explodes in the water, so all that happens with an AP bomb that
passes through a ship from top to bottom is that it becomes a mine when it detonates
below the ship and breaks her back. Same with an AP shell---a "hit" might pass through
and become an "over"---but a "short" plows into the water and detonates as a torpedo.

_____________________________


(in reply to watchtower)
Post #: 19
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:30:02 AM   
watchtower


Posts: 867
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Republic of Kilburn. London UK
Status: offline
In a way I think a lot of peeps get a litlle over enthused on the reliability of WW2 munitions - they were not smart bombs!!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 20
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:44:06 AM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

H.M.S. Hood was a design from the British "exploding battlecruiser" period of 1914-1917. Several other examples were detonated at Jutland. It should have been no surprise that this ship went up like a celluloid collar against Bismarck.




this is running a bit off topic, but to make things short, no, HMS Hood wasn't a design from the flawed Fisher idea of "speed is the best armor". The original drawings for the ship were badly protected, but after Jutland had taken place the Admiral class Battlecruisers were thoroughly redesigned, and all work on HMS Hood (wich was in a very early stage of building) was stopped for months so she could be modified acording to the new armor schemes of the new design.

All in all the HMS Hood of 1919 was an ,if not excellent, at least very well armored ship, sporting armor comparable to that of some of the RN Battleships (something unthinkable in the pre-jutland times).


The fact that the HMS Hood blew up at the Denmark Straits had a lot to do with her having a badly outdated armor scheme (in 1916-1919 vertical protection wasn't as important as in 1941) which needed an urgent update (was scheduled for 1942), something shared with many battleships of her age or even newer, as, for instance, the japanese Nagatos, ships with a quite weird armor scheme that left some angles completely free for enemy shells to burst into her vitals.

It may have had a lot to do with the actual age of her armor, too. There are some accounts that point out that HMS Hood's armor had, after so many years of service without a really thorough and proper refit during all of them, become brittle and much less resistant, wich may have had also to do with the actual hit which blew her up.


To argue that Hood sank because it was a battlecruiser instead of a battleship is quite unfortunate; firstly because in fact she wasn't a battlecruiser according to the RN standars of 1914 because she didn't trade off armor for speed, neither she was a battlecruiser according to German Standards as she had excellent top speed coupled with a powerful main battery (the germans sacrificed firepower instead of armor, for speed). That was the main reason behind her enormous size and great tonnage for her completion time, 45000tons were needed to hold the neccesary machinery to put that great amount of armor and firepower running at 30knots, while the biggest battleships and battlecruisers of her time (1918) didn't go over 35000tons.

Secondly because many other ships, being called Battleships, were as vulnerable as HMS Hood to sink in a similar way because their vitals, once well protected, weren't well armored for the standards set 20 years after their completion.



If Nikademus happens to read this he may ellaborate a bit more, he's a true BB and BC nut :).

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 21
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 6:52:22 AM   
Panzer76


Posts: 68
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline
My question was primarily about merchant ships, could we please keep the thread on topic? Thanks.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 22
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 7:11:15 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM

If Nikademus happens to read this he may ellaborate a bit more, he's a true BB and BC nut :).


I could, but as the thread originator has reminded all, this thread is about Merchant durability.....an issue on which i have mussed about in the past. So out of respect to him i wont go into novel mode about HMS Hood

_____________________________


(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 23
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 3:49:04 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
Got a picture of her over my desk, before she was sunk though

(in reply to MasterChief)
Post #: 24
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:05:18 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
A useless fact. The Hood (262m) was only 1m shorter than the Yamato (263m).

The mighty (or not so mighty Hood)

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 25
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:07:17 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
Forgot the photo.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 26
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:24:58 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
During the war there were many instances of tankers suffering enormous amouts of damage but still making it back to port. One to the most famous incidents was a Med convoy from Gibraltar to Malta. SS Ohio (Yes American) see the picture if her entering Malta.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 27
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:38:42 PM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer76

My question was primarily about merchant ships, could we please keep the thread on topic? Thanks.




My apologies, Panzer76, I just wanted to answer an OT comment with an OT answer (as I already said in my previous message). I wanted to discredit the common relationship set between Hood's sinking with the fact that she was labelled as Battlecruiser (even while she was better armored than many battleships of 1941), a common, but wrong, identifier for "lightly amored heavy armed ships".

I didn't meant to change the topic of the thread at all, just put some things straight. As you said this is a thread to discuss the merchant ship ability to stand punishment in the game, not to discuss why the HMS Hood went under :).

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to Panzer76)
Post #: 28
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:54:23 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
The Hood's lesser amount of deck armor has been greatly maligned thru history.

A lucky shot, that happend to penetrate the "right" spot.

Some points to ponder...

1. What they mean by "speed is the best protection" -was- a sound philosophy at the time of her construction. The battle of the Faulklands (1914?), was dictated by the superior speed RN BCs, where they soundly clobbered their German opponents. Jutland showed otherwise, but it certainly presented a conundrom to designers of the time.


2. It might very well have been the Prinz Eugen that sank the Hood. With the Hood having only 2 - 3" of deck armor, the 8" shells from Prinz Eugen could very easily have penetrated even 3" of armor.


3. -NO- capital ship (up until Dakotas and Iowas, and the overall "beasts" that were the Yamato and Musashi) has ever been sufficiently protected from "plunging fire". Plunging fire occurs after about 12,000+ yds, and means that the trajectory of the shells are such that they are essentially falling like rain, instead of "direct fire", where the shells impact latterally against the ship. Pluging fire is normally against the deck (top) armor of a vessal, wherease "direct fire" is against the belt (side) armor of the ship. The general rule of thumb (that was used up to, and throughout WW2), was belt armor should equal gun size, and deck armor was about 1/4 - 1/3 of belt armor. So a ship with 15" guns would have 15" of belt armor, and 3 - 5" of deck armor. The reason for the lack of deck armor included :

a. at the time that most BBs were constructed (1910 - 1920), fire control was still quite difficult (no radar). Therefore, an egagement was EXPECTED to be at ranges of <10,000 yds, where the visible fall of shot could be most accurately observed. We point back to belt armor (direct fire) being the main concern at ranges of less than 10,000 yds; because "What's the need for greater deck armor, if nobody is likely to hit anything at ranges where deck armor is the considered factor?"

b. If you don't need much deck armor, because you don't think surface engagemenst will be over 10,000 yds, your only other threat is Gen Billy Mitchell and those new-fangled flying machines. Everybody knows that Mitchell got lucky sinking those two obsolete German BBs, but we'll put enough armor up top to protect vs. most bombs that planes can carrry (about 250 lbers during the 1920s).[/sarcasm off]

c. The real threat was considered to be torpedoes (actually, quite accurate). Most capitol ships were refitted with torpedo bulges, or incorporated them into their design.

d. All this armor means weight. The more amor you have, the more weight you now have to push thru the water. You either need more/stronger engines, but if you do that, you now have to spread your your armor more, to protect those extra engines (cue the Hood). Or you squish everything together (less area to protect), but your limited to fewer, less powerful engines (the Rodney and Nelson were "squished" (very dense armor), but could only make 22 kts at best).


4. With it's 4 inches of deck armor, even the Prince of Wales was vulnerable to plunging fire from Bismark's 15" guns at those ranges. Conversely, Bismark would -ALSO- have been vulnerable to PoW and Hoods plunging fire (if they had hit), even with her 5" of dect armor.


5. Esp with the integration of radar into fire control, surface engages were able to "open" at much longer ranges (about 16,000 yds). This meant that Deck Armor -was- important. And it often only took 2 or 3 hits at such a range to decide the victor in the battle (if you've already lost 2 turrets by the time the range is within 12,000 yds, you're at a distinct disadvantage).

Enjoy.
-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 9/7/2004 9:55:48 AM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 29
RE: Merchant ship damage durability - 9/7/2004 4:58:59 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

During the war there were many instances of tankers suffering enormous amouts of damage but still making it back to port. One to the most famous incidents was a Med convoy from Gibraltar to Malta. SS Ohio (Yes American) see the picture if her entering Malta.


An empty tanker in particular can be very durable to underwater damage due to multiple sealed compartmentation. However a loaded tanker is much more vulnerable and the risk of explosion greater. The Ohio of course was a notable exception and a tribute to tenancity of her crew.

Regular cargo carrying merchants, unless carrying ammo, are at less risk of explosion but their compartmentation and crew proficiency would be far below that of a naval warship. The risk of fire is also of major concern.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Merchant ship damage durability Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844