RE: Merchant ship damage durability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Tristanjohn -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/8/2004 7:41:56 PM)

I wish I knew exactly how the game models various kinds of damage now, but if I had to pick a sailor's absolutely worst nightmare it'd have to be fire, followed by flooding. Fire can actually cause flooding as plates buckle, and it can surely inhibit crews from correcting even modest flood damage. And then of course all the system damage caused directly and indirectly by the fires.

Of course a couple-three of torpedoes along the side of a vessel far enough apart might just caused it to turn turtle fast and that would be that, but as a rule I think fire's the main enemy at sea.



PeteG662 -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/8/2004 8:31:49 PM)

Mentioned earlier in the thread was the flammability and machine guns issue. Just wanted to add two cents worth here as tracers set off fires and usually in aircraft the ratio of tracer to 'regular' rounds was high enough to start the fuel in tankers on fire.



crsutton -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/8/2004 9:48:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


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.


Actually, it is really almost the opposite. A fully loaded tanker is actually very difficult to sink. Primarily because it is full of stuff that is usually very boyant. Once set alight, a fully loaded tanker is in trouble but will take a very long time to sink-fire being about the slowest way to put a ship under. However, crude oil is very difficult to set on fire. Many times the force of the explosion or the cascading water would actually snuff out any fires set by the detonation.

As a former third mate, with ten years sea time, I can assure you that the most dangerous tanker is one that is empty or not fully loaded. Generally, it is not the cargo that blows up on tankers but the gases formed in vacant areas. A fully loaded tanker will have no room in the tanks for gas, thus a lower chance of massive explosion.

This very thing happened on a ship I served on (but was not present at the time). The Golden Dolphin, a 90,000 ton tanker blew up and sank while running empty in 1982

That is why in the late seventies and early eighties they began putting inert gas systems on tankers. That is, they vent smoke stack exhaust into the tanks as they were pumped out and the tanks are kept sealed. No oxygen, no explosions. This made tankers much safer. World War II era tankers did not have the benefit of this.

A tanker fully loaded with crude oil should be a very tough nut to sink. Gasoline is another story altogether. I refused to sail on ships carrying, light fuels like gas or napatha.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/8/2004 10:17:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Mentioned earlier in the thread was the flammability and machine guns issue. Just wanted to add two cents worth here as tracers set off fires and usually in aircraft the ratio of tracer to 'regular' rounds was high enough to start the fuel in tankers on fire.


And that brings us right back to strafing and the very real damage .50-cal. ammo could and did inflict on non-armored vessels.



crsutton -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/8/2004 10:32:40 PM)

quote:

Nik - Didn't know they did that! Interesting stuff! I just figured they probably wouldn't sail around empty, the'd find something to put in the hold for the return trip. I suppose water is an option! But wouldn't that be a bad idea, because now your taiting your storage area? Wouldn't that be problematic to have to clean the area out to be able to carry fuel or oil cargo next time?


Water is used for ballast but the tanks are never fully filled with water (the ship would sink)-only partially so. Older tankers (pre 1980s) had unlined metal tanks. As the tanks aged, the interor walls rusted and became porus. The rust and metal would actually retain residual fuel and this fuel would be a source of serious gas emmission. To get rid of this residual fuel and to prepare the tanks for another load or a different type of cargo, a process called "butterworthing" was used. Manholes are openened in the top of the deck over the tank and high pressure butterworth machines are lowered into the tanks. They work like super garden sprinklers and wash down the tanks with heated water at high pressure. This can take hours to do. After the washing was done, the crew went down into the tanks and "mucked" the bottoms. Using little rubber shovels and buckets. (No metal or nylon clothing!) It is truely one of the foulest jobs on earth and highly dangerous due to trapped pockets of gas.

Modern tankers have lined tanks and are much easier to clean. And inert gas systems have greatly reduced explosions.



neuromancer -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/9/2004 1:15:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
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.


Of course, ammo carriers can make a pretty impressive boom from just a single fire.

Just ask Hallifax.



Chris21wen -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/13/2004 4:57:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder



quote:

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.


The Hood was laid down in WW1. After Britain lost three BC building stopped to analysis why the three BC where lost so easily. The conclusion was that shells lob from 10+ miles away were more likely to hit the deck than the armour belt so they increased the deck armour. That’s what they intended to do but they only ever did the front intending to increase the deck armour at the back during a refit. Unfortunately this never got done, being the pride of the RN she was always 'showing the flag'.

The admiral on the Hood at the time new well that she was vulnerable at the back hence his tactic of closing the range to less than 10 miles as quickly as possible. This would cause the Bismarks shell to be fired at a flatter trajectory and the belt armour would have taken have the brunt of the fire. The Hood was seconds away from achieving this when the Bismark salvo hit the deck close to C turret, penetrating to the ammo below blowing off the stern.

There have since found the Hood 2 miles down. Photos show of the rudder set to port which indicates that the Hood was making a turn in preparation to firing all her guns, but they also show that the bow had also been blown off as well. Speculation is that the aft explosion travelled though the engine room to B turret which also exploded. A ship with no bow or stern would sink very quickly hence the enormous loss or life.

Eye witness at the time stated that there appeared to be two explosions which now seems to be confirmed.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/14/2004 1:17:57 AM)

quote:

A ship with no bow or stern would sink very quickly hence the enormous loss or life.

Eye witness at the time stated that there appeared to be two explosions which now seems to be confirmed.


Minor point, but more like a bow and a stern with no amidships will sink quickly! ( IIRC the centre of the ship is very damaged, and if X, and B did go up , with cordite blast venting through the machinery spaces, the middle is what goes.)



Tristanjohn -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/14/2004 2:51:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

A ship with no bow or stern would sink very quickly hence the enormous loss or life.

Eye witness at the time stated that there appeared to be two explosions which now seems to be confirmed.


Minor point, but more like a bow and a stern with no amidships will sink quickly! ( IIRC the centre of the ship is very damaged, and if X, and B did go up , with cordite blast venting through the machinery spaces, the middle is what goes.)


It's amazing anyone survived. The hot exhaust from the detonations should have easily burned to cinder/suffocated everybody within a hundred yards.



Feinder -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/14/2004 4:01:12 AM)

Only 3 surviors.

-F-



spence -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/14/2004 5:48:00 AM)

With regards to .50 cal damage I recall reading "A Glorious Way to Die" (or similar title) which details the Yamato's last sortie: written by a former Ltjg who was on board. He describes waves of F6Fs strafing the ship as a precursor to the torpedo bomber attacks. Apparently the strafing attacks slaughtered the gun crews in the AAA mounts which as I recall were heavily concentrated on the ships island.
The author recounts "rivers of blood cascading from the mounts above to the main deck below".
Apparently this was a new tactic by the USN. Don't know how one might model it - probably can't. The author also describes a design flaw in the ship which the Americans capitalized on which was a longitudinal bulkhead running the length of the ship that prevented or hindered counterflooding to correct a list. The torpedo bombers concentrated on one side and the ship's dc control couldn't correct the list caused by multiple hits so the ship eventually capsized.



Feinder -> RE: Merchant ship damage durability (9/14/2004 5:59:55 AM)

Well, technically speaking, you -could- set your Fighters on Naval Attack at 100' (or would Escort at 100' do this also? seems like a not-so-good idea tho). The fighters will then strafe. And the AAA mounts are -not- armored, so any hits scored against the mounts could theoretically be destroyed.

Not saying I would go about doing this, but technically speaking, you could accomplish this within the game's engine.

-F-



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375