Panama Canal-too fat to fit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

USS Henrico -> Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 12:31:19 AM)

Is there a list of ships that are too big for the Panama Canal? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there is no actual restriction on current transits, just a house rule.

I know USS Midway and several of the rebuilt pre-war US battleships are too wide to pass through the canal. Also the Queen Elizabeth: in my current game I have her being repaired at San Diego (high speed transits create a lot of system damage) and I was contemplating sending her through the Canal to be withdrawn after one more run to Sydney when I decided to check if this could actually be done historically-nope.



Iridium -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 12:34:05 AM)

Probably not due to this requiring another attribute added to ships and a check routine to ensure only Panama Canal worthy vessels may traverse it. It would be nice though.



IndyShark -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 2:08:32 AM)

I think you are mistaken. The size of the canal was a major consideration in US ship sizes. I would be very surprised if any US WWII ship could not fit.



IndyShark -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 2:26:34 AM)

I may be mistaken. ALl of the Iowa class battleships could fit. But it appears the Midway and all of the supercarriers are too big.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 2:34:45 AM)

Also the Montana class BB {never built} were too wide to fit. 



USS Henrico -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 2:38:31 AM)

The BB West Virginia and the California class BBs were rebuilt after Pearl Harbor so that they wouldn't fit.



GB68 -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 2:44:55 AM)


I am not sure of the exact size of the US BB's, but I do remember reading an article along with several photos of the HMS Hood going through the Panama Canal pre-war. It only just made it with probably only a couple of feet to spare.  She was up 48,000 tons with a width of up 105 feet (32 metres). I see that the US Iowa class ships are only a few feet wider (108).

So , it might be a tight fit for the Iowas, but possible.



Torplexed -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 3:01:37 AM)

A little grease along the flanks wouldn't hurt.

[img]http://www.bb62museum.org/images/Hart/canal_99_2.jpg[/img]



Q-Ball -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 3:28:55 AM)

The Yamatos would not have fit in the canal.....



bstarr -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 3:38:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The Yamatos would not have fit in the canal.....


And if they did they would have had hell dodging torpodoes while in transit. [:D]



DeriKuk -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 4:12:06 AM)

Being sunk in - and blocking - the Panama Canal would, in hindsight, have been a highly successful mission for either or both of the Yamatos.[:'(]



Chad Harrison -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 4:36:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Being sunk in - and blocking - the Panama Canal would, in hindsight, have been a highly successful mission for either or both of the Yamatos.[:'(]


A lot more good than they did otherwise [:D]



Pascal_slith -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 6:47:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Being sunk in - and blocking - the Panama Canal would, in hindsight, have been a highly successful mission for either or both of the Yamatos.[:'(]


I forget in which other game (Clash of Arms naval rules series?), but I remember reading a fictional account of a Japanese suicide mission with a cargo ship full of explosives blowing up in the Panama Canal at the outset of the war. Perhaps this was in Hector Bywater's book? This would have created serious delays in transit...



vlcz -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 12:53:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Being sunk in - and blocking - the Panama Canal would, in hindsight, have been a highly successful mission for either or both of the Yamatos.[:'(]


...
This would have created serious delays in transit...



Just wait for WiF (one of the next matrix games) and you will see japs in panama...and venezuela [:'(]

If someone of you doesnīt know wif from its table version, it is of null value as simulations of WWII but superb as a game.



oldman45 -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 2:52:07 PM)

Assuming they could get the tanker support, if the KB could destroy the lower loch doors the ships from the east coast would be coming around Africa. I cannot remember the name of the lake but if the doors that hold that lake back were damaged and the lake drained it would close the canal for a long time.



castor troy -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 3:42:12 PM)

How serious would it have been for the US if the Panama canal would have been blocked for, letīs say 2 years? Would there have been really big consequences other than having to ship around South America?



Iridium -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 3:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

How serious would it have been for the US if the Panama canal would have been blocked for, letīs say 2 years? Would there have been really big consequences other than having to ship around South America?


More fuel wasted, time needed to establish a well maintained and supplied base to allow the the volume of traffic going the new route...etc Depends on when this supposed blockage occurred, make it happen in early '43 and it might slow down the US behemoth a year or two.



Gilbert -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 4:18:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I cannot remember the name of the lake but if the doors that hold that lake back were damaged and the lake drained it would close the canal for a long time.


Hi Oldman45,

It's "Gatun Lake" or "Lago de Gatun" in spanish.

Cheers
Gilbert




Whisper -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 7:00:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gilbert


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I cannot remember the name of the lake but if the doors that hold that lake back were damaged and the lake drained it would close the canal for a long time.


Hi Oldman45,

It's "Gatun Lake" or "Lago de Gatun" in spanish.

Cheers
Gilbert



I know somebody who just went through the ditch two weeks ago. He might have some pictures.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 7:09:28 PM)

Just my $.02, the canal was more a convenience than a necessity. Think of the delay imposed on troop and supply convoys to the 8th Army when the Brits couldn't ship direct across the med and had to go around the cape. Inconvenient yes, show stopper no.



Iridium -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/9/2009 8:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Just my $.02, the canal was more a convenience than a necessity. Think of the delay imposed on troop and supply convoys to the 8th Army when the Brits couldn't ship direct across the med and had to go around the cape. Inconvenient yes, show stopper no.


Figure it takes much more fuel and supplies to ship material around S. America than it does through the canal. It saves time, fuel, repair time (ships will incur more damage due to travel),etc. Making the Panama Canal inoperable would delay the Allied advance by quite a bit if only through making logistics much more inefficient.



castor troy -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/10/2009 7:51:30 AM)

but if one could afford to spend more fuel and supplies then it were the US. I canīt believe it would have slowed down the advance in the Pacific by much more than two or three months. Just think about all the shipping the US had. How much longer does the travel around South America take? Two weeks? Three?



Iridium -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/10/2009 5:38:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

but if one could afford to spend more fuel and supplies then it were the US. I canīt believe it would have slowed down the advance in the Pacific by much more than two or three months. Just think about all the shipping the US had. How much longer does the travel around South America take? Two weeks? Three?


I just figure that not every ship was equipped for underway replenishment so a base of a decent size and with certain requirements would be needed to be built from almost scratch. Not sure how long it would take...



John Lansford -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/10/2009 6:20:58 PM)

Without the Panama Canal, Port Stanley suddenly takes on a much larger level of importance.  Somewhere along the Chilean shoreline a new base would be needed too; the PC takes out about 2000 miles of travelling as opposed around the southern tip of SA.



Xenocide -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/10/2009 6:26:57 PM)

Saw the title and convinced that it would contain 'your mama' jokes. Thread did not deliver.



crsutton -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/10/2009 7:34:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

but if one could afford to spend more fuel and supplies then it were the US. I canīt believe it would have slowed down the advance in the Pacific by much more than two or three months. Just think about all the shipping the US had. How much longer does the travel around South America take? Two weeks? Three?



Well yes, in good weather two or three, but I have been around Cape Horn and sometimes it is so rough that you don't actually go anywhere. Burns up fuel and can cause a lot of damage when the weather is bad-and it is bad a lot. Could you risk a critical convoy being held up for two or three weeks due to storms around the Horn.

The purpose of the canal was to ensure transit anytime of the year more so than speed. Consider the era. When the canal was built most ships burnt coal and did not have any real navagational equipment other than a sextant and a compass. Supplies of coal were a big time issue for warships up to the end of WWII. Coal burning ships had much shorter legs than oil burning. Read about some of the German raiders in the S. Pacific. Basically their actions were dictated by fuel and the availbility of coaling stations. When it was built the canal was considered a big deal, and must still be today as they are digging the second ccut that will handle larger ship.

In 1939 the US began a program to expand the locks of the Panama Canal but stoped the project in 1942 after extensive digging due to the demands of the war. The current expansion of the canal is using the old US dig.



bradfordkay -> RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit (9/10/2009 8:58:33 PM)

It was Hector Bywater's book...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Being sunk in - and blocking - the Panama Canal would, in hindsight, have been a highly successful mission for either or both of the Yamatos.[:'(]


I forget in which other game (Clash of Arms naval rules series?), but I remember reading a fictional account of a Japanese suicide mission with a cargo ship full of explosives blowing up in the Panama Canal at the outset of the war. Perhaps this was in Hector Bywater's book? This would have created serious delays in transit...





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625