Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Panama Canal-too fat to fit

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Panama Canal-too fat to fit Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 12:31:19 AM   
USS Henrico

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: Charlottesville, VA
Status: offline 		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Diego (high speed transits create a lot of system damage) and I was contemplating sending her through the Canal to be withdrawn after one more run to Sydney when I decided to check if this could actually be done historically-nope.
Post #: 1
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 12:34:05 AM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by Iridium -- 9/9/2009 12:35:46 AM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to USS Henrico)
Post #: 2
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 2:08:32 AM   
IndyShark


Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 3
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 2:26:34 AM   
IndyShark


Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to IndyShark)
Post #: 4
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 2:34:45 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		Also the Montana class BB {never built} were too wide to fit. 

(in reply to IndyShark)
Post #: 5
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 2:38:31 AM   
USS Henrico

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: Charlottesville, VA
Status: offline 		The BB West Virginia and the California class BBs were rebuilt after Pearl Harbor so that they wouldn't fit.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 6
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 2:44:55 AM   
GB68

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 8/4/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"Are you going to come quietly, or do I have to use earplugs?"
- Spike Milligan

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 7
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 3:01:37 AM   
Torplexed


Posts: 305
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: The Pacific
Status: offline 		A little grease along the flanks wouldn't hurt.


(in reply to GB68)
Post #: 8
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 3:28:55 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		The Yamatos would not have fit in the canal.....

_____________________________


(in reply to Torplexed)
Post #: 9
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 3:38:37 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________



(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 10
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 4:12:06 AM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 359
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline 		Being sunk in - and blocking - the Panama Canal would, in hindsight, have been a highly successful mission for either or both of the Yamatos.

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 11
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 4:36:53 AM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
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

(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 12
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 6:47:14 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
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...


_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 13
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 12:53:20 PM   
vlcz


Posts: 387
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline
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 doesn´t know wif from its table version, it is of null value as simulations of WWII but superb as a game.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 14
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 2:52:07 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to vlcz)
Post #: 15
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 3:42:12 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		How serious would it have been for the US if the Panama canal would have been blocked for, let´s say 2 years? Would there have been really big consequences other than having to ship around South America?

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 16
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 3:50:51 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

How serious would it have been for the US if the Panama canal would have been blocked for, let´s 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.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 17
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 4:18:30 PM   
Gilbert


Posts: 243
Joined: 8/8/2009
From: Hendaye, France
Status: offline
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



_____________________________

UMI YUKABA
"If I go away to sea, I shall return a corpse awash, if duty calls me to the mountain, a verdant will be my pall, thus for the sake of the Emperor, I will not die peacefully at home...."

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 18
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 7:00:34 PM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gilbert)
Post #: 19
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 7:09:28 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 20
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/9/2009 8:48:06 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 21
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/10/2009 7:51:30 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		but if one could afford to spend more fuel and supplies then it were the US. I can´t 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?

_____________________________


(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 22
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/10/2009 5:38:11 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

but if one could afford to spend more fuel and supplies then it were the US. I can´t 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...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 23
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/10/2009 6:20:58 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 24
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/10/2009 6:26:57 PM   
Xenocide

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline 		Saw the title and convinced that it would contain 'your mama' jokes. Thread did not deliver.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 25
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/10/2009 7:34:51 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

but if one could afford to spend more fuel and supplies then it were the US. I can´t 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.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 26
RE: Panama Canal-too fat to fit - 9/10/2009 8:58:33 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		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...




_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Panama Canal-too fat to fit Page: [1]
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

1.422