Slitherine

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.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Nikademus)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)