RE: Long Lances... just, Wow.

RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (Full Version)

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

Message

bklooste -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 12:45:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Also, in re explosives, the reason why DCs werent' as dangerous is as you pointed out lack of fuel and also lack of O2. Torpex used in Allied DCs and torps was a rather stable explosive. If you were to lay a bunch on the ground you'd have a hard time lighting it with a match. If you lit it with a torch it'd burn. The Japanese didn't use the same explosive though. If there's any comparison between their aerial/land munitions and their naval ones, it was probably less stable than Allied explosives. O2 is oxygen it is everywhere it makes no difference. Torpex did explode when exposed to fire a number of ships were lost this way.

bklooste -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 1:14:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panther Bait Considering that torpedoes and DCs are designed to explode under water (where there isn't a lot of free oxygen), it seems to me that the explosive itself must contain the more than enough oxygen to support the explosion. Therefore, it's debatable whether extra oxygen in the area from a ruptured torpedo oxygen bottle (as opposed to extra oxygen in the explosive itself) would make the warhead more dangerous or the explosion of the warhead that much worse. What the oxygen would possibly do is make any secondary fires started by the warhead explosion worse, and if the oxygen bottle ruptured first, the concentrated oxygen could obviously start fires (with an ignition source, which aren't hard to find in combat). Correct but a fuel fire in air and a fuel fire with pure Oxyge are not very different. The only dif is pure Oxygen is more likely to start a fire but this is not possible when contained nor relevant if there is already a fire. With any torpedo containing 2-3 tons of fuel any direct hit will cause a fire.

Nikademus -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 4:44:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panther Bait Considering that torpedoes and DCs are designed to explode under water (where there isn't a lot of free oxygen), it seems to me that the explosive itself must contain the more than enough oxygen to support the explosion. Therefore, it's debatable whether extra oxygen in the area from a ruptured torpedo oxygen bottle (as opposed to extra oxygen in the explosive itself) would make the warhead more dangerous or the explosion of the warhead that much worse. What the oxygen would possibly do is make any secondary fires started by the warhead explosion worse, and if the oxygen bottle ruptured first, the concentrated oxygen could obviously start fires (with an ignition source, which aren't hard to find in combat). Yes, this is supported by what i found when i researched Japanese cruisers last year. In almost every case, the large warhead or multiple warheads were set off either by direct damage or by encroaching fires. The O2 was not directly involved. Furutaka may be the exception in this. Richard Frank's description of Cape Esperence indicates that after a hit on the torpedo tubes a bright burning flare lit up the ship (but not an explosion) making her an easy target for American gunners. (and the captain of that ship had already purposely put his ship into harm's way to cover the hard hit Aoba.) Cross referencing with Lecroix, it would appear that in this case o2 was fired up but it did not set off the warhead or warheads. The ship continued to fight gamely back and all told Furutaka took approx 90 hits before sinking. This is why Lecroix does not highlight Type 93 torpedoes as a special issue. The issue he documented was one of whether to have or not have torpedoes period on cruisers and battleships, particularily given the large size of Japanese torpedo warheads. In the end a compromise was reached and upgrades and future construction put the tubes on sponsoons on upper deck positions to put more distance between the warheads and the hull proper. (vs. the initial internal tube setup above engine room spaces)

Klahn -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 5:30:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: ORIGINAL: Panther Bait Considering that torpedoes and DCs are designed to explode under water (where there isn't a lot of free oxygen), it seems to me that the explosive itself must contain the more than enough oxygen to support the explosion. Therefore, it's debatable whether extra oxygen in the area from a ruptured torpedo oxygen bottle (as opposed to extra oxygen in the explosive itself) would make the warhead more dangerous or the explosion of the warhead that much worse. What the oxygen would possibly do is make any secondary fires started by the warhead explosion worse, and if the oxygen bottle ruptured first, the concentrated oxygen could obviously start fires (with an ignition source, which aren't hard to find in combat). Correct but a fuel fire in air and a fuel fire with pure Oxyge are not very different. The only dif is pure Oxygen is more likely to start a fire but this is not possible when contained nor relevant if there is already a fire. With any torpedo containing 2-3 tons of fuel any direct hit will cause a fire. A fire burning in a pure oxygen environment if very different than in an air environment. For starters, a fire being accelerated by pure oxygen is 3x hotter than it would be in air. That's why we use oxygen in cutting torches. An air-fed torch won't cut through hardened steel. An O2 torch, (which is usually fueled by acetylene,) will easily melt hardened steel. In grade school science we experimented with O2. We lit a balsa stick on fire and then blew the fire out. The stick was still glowing, but no longer burning. Then we put the stick in a beaker containing O2. It immediately reignited and proceeded to burn like a torch. This is what oxygen does. It makes fuels catch fire more easily and burn much more vigorously. (Contrary to popular belief though, O2 is not actually flammable by itself. It is an accelerant, not a fuel.)

bklooste -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 6:16:07 AM)
Exactly O2 is dangerous for sparks as it will create fires . In terms of increasing fire the above is all O2 in a contained environment or when O2 is continually blowed onto a single point to cut a 1 dimensional line , when an O2 tank is ruptured you will just get a huge wave of air ( rich in oxygen) which will VERY quickly disipate ( not explode) up and sideways due to higher pressure and instead of being focused on a single dimension covers a 3 Dimensional space this makes a huge difference just do the sums.

morganbj -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 3:30:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ryvan (Contrary to popular belief though, O2 is not actually flammable by itself. It is an accelerant, not a fuel.) Well, technically, O2 is not an accelerant although the fire prevention agencies like to say it is. O2 is required for fire. Fire is the rapid combining of oxygen with another element. No O2, no fire. (I've heard NASA chemists say that similar reactions can occur with the combining two or more other elements, but I think they just say that so they can pretend to be smarter than the rest of us. But in this case O2 would not be part of the reaction, so it would not be an accerant, either.) And, just because I think this is a fun addition, rust is the slow combining of O2 with another element. So rusting and burning are the same process at different speeds. Ain't chemistry great?

mdiehl -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 4:52:27 PM)
quote: O2 is oxygen it is everywhere it makes no difference. Torpex did explode when exposed to fire a number of ships were lost this way. You completely missed the point. Yes, Oxygen is everywhere. But EVERYTHING combusts much more readily and much faster in pure O2 than it does in air. Many kinds of METAL will burn fast in pure O2 and not burn at all in air. The oxygen richness near the fire is the factor that controls the rate of combustion. A torpedo fuel fire fed by a leaking O2 bottle will burn much hotter and much faster than a fire fed by mere air, because pure O2 is 5 times richer in O2 than mere air. Ryvan has it right. You've got it completely wrong. And yes, torpex explodes when detonated in a container. That is what it is supposed to do. When it's not contained it burns when exposed to heat, rather than exploding. That's also what it is supposed to do. It's a different explosive than the material that the Japanese used in their warheads.

Nomad -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/25/2010 6:53:30 PM)
If you want to understand how bad pure O2 can be, check into the Apollo Comand module fire in January 1967.

bklooste -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/27/2010 11:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: O2 is oxygen it is everywhere it makes no difference. Torpex did explode when exposed to fire a number of ships were lost this way. You completely missed the point. Yes, Oxygen is everywhere. But EVERYTHING combusts much more readily and much faster in pure O2 than it does in air. Many kinds of METAL will burn fast in pure O2 and not burn at all in air. The oxygen richness near the fire is the factor that controls the rate of combustion. A torpedo fuel fire fed by a leaking O2 bottle will burn much hotter and much faster than a fire fed by mere air, because pure O2 is 5 times richer in O2 than mere air. Ryvan has it right. You've got it completely wrong. And yes, torpex explodes when detonated in a container. That is what it is supposed to do. When it's not contained it burns when exposed to heat, rather than exploding. That's also what it is supposed to do. It's a different explosive than the material that the Japanese used in their warheads. 1. It makes no difference whether it combusts or not when a Torpedo takes a hit it WILL cause a fire , fuel + O2 in air + explosion will do that. 2. How does O2 "leak" out of a compressed container ? 3. As said it will not be a bottle slowly feeding the fire . There is no incidance of a steel melting on anything bigger than a point this requires like 3000 degrees for a non instant period of time. When the air or Oxygen tank explode it will send the air everywhere in 3 Dimensions. There is no occurence of steel melting in these explotions on the other hand alluminium and Magnesium are a major risk. 4. In 99% of these cases there is no O2 released until the warhead explodes shattering the oxygen container this will create a 3D blast wave of O2 , this blast wave does not give the fire the energy to melt steel plate that is an inch or more thick even nuclear weapons had difficulty with this at short range. 5. Both explosive compounds are NOT that different they are both 40-60% TNT based mixtures and hence there properties will vary by a small amount. The Japanese using Hexaninte ( which the Germans also used in their torps) , if they get heated by a fire or hit by a shell both Torpex or Type 97 will blow explode. Anyway im not going to convince you but I believe The fact these torps were Oxygen were no different , and Niks losses of 5% of ships are pretty good. In almost every case a fire reached the torpedos which then exploded , i believe this is a difference and better DC may have prevented many of these cases though its arguable what kind of DC you can do when taking heavy punishment. I will grant the Suzuya is unusual but it may have been the torpedo was armed , faulty dentonator or there may have been an issue with a massive shake in the armoured box.

bklooste -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/27/2010 12:17:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl O2 is oxygen it is everywhere it makes no difference. Torpex did explode when exposed to fire a number of ships were lost this way. You completely missed the point. Yes, Oxygen is everywhere. But EVERYTHING combusts much more readily and much faster in pure O2 than it does in air. Many kinds of METAL will burn fast in pure O2 and not burn at all in air. The oxygen richness near the fire is the factor that controls the rate of combustion. A torpedo fuel fire fed by a leaking O2 bottle will burn much hotter and much faster than a fire fed by mere air, because pure O2 is 5 times richer in O2 than mere air. No i think your missing the point please stay with the discussion :-) I already said O2 will make fires more likely (and is especially dangerous in closed spaces more so with alluminium ( ie the Appolo)) however the issue here is is the Long lance more dangerous in combat . Now with the O2 in a compressed chamber its not going to get out and start a fire in case of a fire or a direct hit the warhead will explode rupturing the tank and sending a wave the same will occur with all torpedos and depth charges. Will this wave be a bit hotter yes but it will only be for such a short period that it doesnt make any difference. Ok excluding the fuel TNT has 2.72 × 10^6 J/kg a 490 kg warhead has a maximum theoretical energey of 1.3G Joules , now to melt 1M^2 of 2" steel plate you need 34.5Gjoules and that is assuming ALL the energy is directed at the job eg a shape charge . With a Torpedo being 2m + from the deck that 80%-90% of the energy lost directed away from the ship . So could an exlosion penetrate the deck , possibly but it would be unlikely and be a very small hole ( like a shape charge) , in most cases the damage will be large but have little impact below the deck.

Shark7 -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/27/2010 4:15:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: O2 is oxygen it is everywhere it makes no difference. Torpex did explode when exposed to fire a number of ships were lost this way. You completely missed the point. Yes, Oxygen is everywhere. But EVERYTHING combusts much more readily and much faster in pure O2 than it does in air. Many kinds of METAL will burn fast in pure O2 and not burn at all in air. The oxygen richness near the fire is the factor that controls the rate of combustion. A torpedo fuel fire fed by a leaking O2 bottle will burn much hotter and much faster than a fire fed by mere air, because pure O2 is 5 times richer in O2 than mere air. Ryvan has it right. You've got it completely wrong. And yes, torpex explodes when detonated in a container. That is what it is supposed to do. When it's not contained it burns when exposed to heat, rather than exploding. That's also what it is supposed to do. It's a different explosive than the material that the Japanese used in their warheads. 1. It makes no difference whether it combusts or not when a Torpedo takes a hit it WILL cause a fire , fuel + O2 in air + explosion will do that. 2. How does O2 "leak" out of a compressed container ? 3. As said it will not be a bottle slowly feeding the fire . There is no incidance of a steel melting on anything bigger than a point this requires like 3000 degrees for a non instant period of time. When the air or Oxygen tank explode it will send the air everywhere in 3 Dimensions. There is no occurence of steel melting in these explotions on the other hand alluminium and Magnesium are a major risk. 4. In 99% of these cases there is no O2 released until the warhead explodes shattering the oxygen container this will create a 3D blast wave of O2 , this blast wave does not give the fire the energy to melt steel plate that is an inch or more thick even nuclear weapons had difficulty with this at short range. 5. Both explosive compounds are NOT that different they are both 40-60% TNT based mixtures and hence there properties will vary by a small amount. The Japanese using Hexaninte ( which the Germans also used in their torps) , if they get heated by a fire or hit by a shell both Torpex or Type 97 will blow explode. Anyway im not going to convince you but I believe The fact these torps were Oxygen were no different , and Niks losses of 5% of ships are pretty good. In almost every case a fire reached the torpedos which then exploded , i believe this is a difference and better DC may have prevented many of these cases though its arguable what kind of DC you can do when taking heavy punishment. I will grant the Suzuya is unusual but it may have been the torpedo was armed , faulty dentonator or there may have been an issue with a massive shake in the armoured box. 2. Bad seals. Since I work with 02 bottles a lot in my job, I can tell you for a fact they can leak. The leak can be a slow seepage type leak, or it can be a catastrophic leak (which generally ends in the O2 Cylinder launching through the air like a missile). The catastrophic failure is bad, and can be deadly. Those bottles are under pressure at 2000 psi when full.

John Lansford -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/28/2010 1:49:07 AM)
Since oxygen enhances oxidation (burning or rusting, it's the same thing, only at different speeds), wouldn't the containers for pure oxygen be subjected to higher rates of corrosion than usual?

Shark7 -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/28/2010 3:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Since oxygen enhances oxidation (burning or rusting, it's the same thing, only at different speeds), wouldn't the containers for pure oxygen be subjected to higher rates of corrosion than usual? Yep, O2 cylinders have to be sent off for inspection every so often, including the tank and valve.

Klahn -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/28/2010 6:43:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: O2 is oxygen it is everywhere it makes no difference. Torpex did explode when exposed to fire a number of ships were lost this way. You completely missed the point. Yes, Oxygen is everywhere. But EVERYTHING combusts much more readily and much faster in pure O2 than it does in air. Many kinds of METAL will burn fast in pure O2 and not burn at all in air. The oxygen richness near the fire is the factor that controls the rate of combustion. A torpedo fuel fire fed by a leaking O2 bottle will burn much hotter and much faster than a fire fed by mere air, because pure O2 is 5 times richer in O2 than mere air. Ryvan has it right. You've got it completely wrong. And yes, torpex explodes when detonated in a container. That is what it is supposed to do. When it's not contained it burns when exposed to heat, rather than exploding. That's also what it is supposed to do. It's a different explosive than the material that the Japanese used in their warheads. 1. It makes no difference whether it combusts or not when a Torpedo takes a hit it WILL cause a fire , fuel + O2 in air + explosion will do that. 2. How does O2 "leak" out of a compressed container ? 3. As said it will not be a bottle slowly feeding the fire . There is no incidance of a steel melting on anything bigger than a point this requires like 3000 degrees for a non instant period of time. When the air or Oxygen tank explode it will send the air everywhere in 3 Dimensions. There is no occurence of steel melting in these explotions on the other hand alluminium and Magnesium are a major risk. 4. In 99% of these cases there is no O2 released until the warhead explodes shattering the oxygen container this will create a 3D blast wave of O2 , this blast wave does not give the fire the energy to melt steel plate that is an inch or more thick even nuclear weapons had difficulty with this at short range. 5. Both explosive compounds are NOT that different they are both 40-60% TNT based mixtures and hence there properties will vary by a small amount. The Japanese using Hexaninte ( which the Germans also used in their torps) , if they get heated by a fire or hit by a shell both Torpex or Type 97 will blow explode. Anyway im not going to convince you but I believe The fact these torps were Oxygen were no different , and Niks losses of 5% of ships are pretty good. In almost every case a fire reached the torpedos which then exploded , i believe this is a difference and better DC may have prevented many of these cases though its arguable what kind of DC you can do when taking heavy punishment. I will grant the Suzuya is unusual but it may have been the torpedo was armed , faulty dentonator or there may have been an issue with a massive shake in the armoured box. 2. Bad seals. Since I work with 02 bottles a lot in my job, I can tell you for a fact they can leak. The leak can be a slow seepage type leak, or it can be a catastrophic leak (which generally ends in the O2 Cylinder launching through the air like a missile). The catastrophic failure is bad, and can be deadly. Those bottles are under pressure at 2000 psi when full. I don't think I made it completely clear in my posts either. While I do believe, due to the number of incidents, that the Long Lance was significantly more dangerous to carry than other torps; I don't think the O2 used in the torps was likely the cause. I think it was just a combination of bad damage control, a more powerful warhead, and the Japanese suffering from more air attacks than their opponents. The bad damage control and more air attacks are covered in the game environment. The warhead size is probably too minor to be covered in a game of this scale. There were also differences in shell sizes for guns, depth charge explosives, magazine protection, etc... on a class by class scale. We would never find an end in trying to model every tiny peculiarity of every class of ship. I'm quite happy with it the way it is.

khyberbill -> RE: Long Lances... just, Wow. (3/28/2010 10:02:23 PM)
quote: Since oxygen enhances oxidation (burning or rusting, it's the same thing, only at different speeds), wouldn't the containers for pure oxygen be subjected to higher rates of corrosion than usual? Yes, but other factors are necessary too. Your car rusts in the winter in areas that treat ice/snow with salt. The chloride in the salt accelerates rust (corrosion). Heat as well. Steam generators control the pH, chlorides and O2 levels to reduce corrosion. An O2 cylinder, properly maintained, will last a long time.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125