Small Tankers: strangely unsinkable

[Keelbuster]

In all the versions of this game that i can remember (modded, unmodded) - the small tanker is strangely difficult to sink. Medium and Large tankers (previously T2 and T3) are comparatively easy to sink. You'd think that based on the amount of torpex that you put into the bastard compared to her size, small tankers would have the least chance of survival. But they're the most resilient. It's annoying. The same seems to hold for small ships like the small merchant and particularly the tramp steamer. While Large and even medium cargos sink with a single torp, this is much less likely to happen with the smaller ships. It seems intuitively correct that a 2000 ton tramp steamer or a 4000 ton small tanker would be _devastated_ by a torpedo hit. Yet these ships remain the most difficult to sink (aside from medium or large warships and liberty cargos).

Anybody else irked by this? If you were to hit a small tanker with one torp and hope to sink her, where would you aim? I've tried bow, mid, and stern with no avail. I've even put two torps into a small tanker and had her sail on. With a Large Tanker, a medium tanker, a large cargo, or a medium cargo, a good hit to the bow or stern brings her down quite often (though i usually give them two because they deserve it). I can't remember a single torp taking out a small tanker...ever?

[JCB]

I will not pretend I know anything about this game or merchant construction, but from building sailboats I know this: Smaller is stronger! One example is the mast. The stresses of the mast increase by a factor of four with increase in length, making shorter masts less reliant on strong supports. A big merchant and a small merchant both have the same parts, like keels, ribs, skin and so on, but I don´t think the dimensions of the bigger merchant follow the rule of strenght - for example making the ship skin much thicker to have the same relative strenght of the smaller merchant. I know through experience that the short, simple gaff-rigged mast more often than not will outlast modern hightech carbon masts if subjected to stresses they are not designed for. Smaller is in many regards more robust. I suppose a torp under the keel is not in the design description for the merchants either :D

[melnibonian]

From personal experience I think that if you hit the small tanker with one torpedo set at 1m running depth just in front of the engine room (towards the aft part of the ship) it will blow to pieces. As far as GWX is concerned because of the probability factors associated with each torpedo hit you might not see an instant kill every time but you will sink them in the end 9 times out of 10. Another important factor is the angle at which the torpedo hit. If the angle is close to 90deg you're maximising your chances for a good and devastating kill.

[KeptinCranky]

Also, with the small tanker in particular, it has a very rounded hull shape and very little vertical side below the waterline, which makes it harder to hit succesfully with an impact shot, I'd second Mel's advice on how to sink them, except in rough weather where you'lll probably be better of using a magnetic eel

[Jimbuna]

I can't say I haven't noticed what your saying on the odd occasion. What I tend to do is hit them in the engine room so if they don't sink, they eventually fall out of formation and come to a stop, then finish them off with the deck gun http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Fusek]

Is there a difference (in GWX@) in empty and full tankers?

[Keelbuster]

Also, with the small tanker in particular, it has a very rounded hull shape and very little vertical side below the waterline, which makes it harder to hit succesfully with an impact shot, I'd second Mel's advice on how to sink them, except in rough weather where you'lll probably be better of using a magnetic eel

I've noticed that - that they have a shallow draft and a rounded hull so it's risky to try for the keelbuster. I always set 2 or 3m with these guys. And yea, I usually end up deckgunning them. They look like such bite-sized food, but they end up being barely worth it in my mind. Also, they're so short in length that it's often hard to hit them in a desired spot. I usually have to aim for the center and calculation error brings the hit in front or behind that spot.

[Keelbuster]

I will not pretend I know anything about this game or merchant construction, but from building sailboats I know this: Smaller is stronger! One example is the mast. The stresses of the mast increase by a factor of four with increase in length, making shorter masts less reliant on strong supports. A big merchant and a small merchant both have the same parts, like keels, ribs, skin and so on, but I don´t think the dimensions of the bigger merchant follow the rule of strenght - for example making the ship skin much thicker to have the same relative strenght of the smaller merchant. I know through experience that the short, simple gaff-rigged mast more often than not will outlast modern hightech carbon masts if subjected to stresses they are not designed for. Smaller is in many regards more robust. I suppose a torp under the keel is not in the design description for the merchants either :D

This does make some sense. I wondered about that - if it was intentional. But in terms of compartments, you'd think that a torp hit would have a higher chance of compromising more than one compartment in a smaller ship, and hence cause terminal damage. It seems that with small tankers, there's no one compartment that when destroyed, will cause sinking. With larger ships, destruction of the bow or stern compartment usually brings her down.

[Schwartzkat3x]

Same problems here, I try to set the deck gun on waterline and move within 800 so I can use the flak gun on them too. in rough water the small tankers are barely worth it unless you are 1000m with a perfect angle.

[bookworm_020]

Is there a difference (in GWX@) in empty and full tankers?

Yes,, If they are in ballest (water in the tanks) they will be harder to sink than if they are ladened with Avgas (wich will cause them to blow up at the drop of a hat)

This is exlaned in the GWX manual.:D

[Fusek]

whats this 'manual' everybody keeps talking about? :doh::up:

[Grayson02sept1980]

the GWX manual that comes with GWX....

About those "little" is more robust..

Howe comes when I shoot a DD it explodes in 70% and sinks in 99% and a little merchant with a midship (impact) hit... fire all over the place... carries on as if nothing has happened (Hey Bernard get the sausages and the steaks... they mad some fire on the deck)

Shooting big fish you have to have some trust and patience I found. I shot a big Ore freighter just around 1/6 on the bow and it took 45min to go down... trust :up:

I shot that smal freighter with and impact on its engines ... fire all over the place.... and it never wnet down... I had nottim - no eels - no chance and HECK I didn't even want to waste a second torp! trust? :down:

There is something fishy about those smaller ships imho

[Blacklight]

After a lot of testing, I can validate this finding. Ever since GWX 2.0 went in, I've noticed that small merchants and tankers do not go down like they should. Sometimes, even with two eels in them, they still sit there bobbing like corks. The big ships sink a LOT faster than the smaller ships. I can definitely verify this in the case of the small merchants and small tankers.

Lately I've been finding that the smaller ships need more torpedoes than the large ships to send them to the bottom. :hmm:

Maybe something is going on between the ships weight and the flooding ? Are lighter ships actually more naturally boyant than the big ships ?

To give you an idea, I put one eel into a large merchant right in the middle and it sunk in about 45 minutes.
I put two eels (One in each side) directly into the middle of a small merchant and it took about an hour and forty five minutes to sink. This is NOT including the 30 minutes or so I waited for the ship to sink from the first shot I put in it (Which blew a huge hole in the side but didn't phase it as it just kept chugging along on fire and SEEMINGLY NOT TAKING ON ANY WATER. This definitely started after GWX 2.0 went in. Prior to that, these ships would go down quickly with one well placed eel.

[Keelbuster]

Case in point, I just hit a Medium Merchant, a tramp steamer, and a Large Merchant, all with keel shots (simultaneous impact, thank you very much). The Large merchant obviously started to take on water, as did the Medium. The tramp steamer was unphased. The torp det'd about 1m below it's keel. She's just not taking on any water....:damn:

[Blacklight]

Maybe we should start a new thread "Small merchants, Small Tankers, Trawlers, Tramp Steamers... Unsinkable" :yep:

[harzfeld]

Couple days ago, I was camping and bored, came along a small tanker. I fired one torp at its fuel tank, it exploded, but its engine remain unaffected and it still running 7 knots for over a hour until it finally sank, probably with help of high waves. How can it still run without fuel? Anyway, I thought one torp would kill small tanker instantly, next time I would just aim for bow and drown it. I have noticed only few kinds of ship typically break in half while most doesn't.

[Jimbuna]

Maybe we should start a new thread "Small merchants, Small Tankers, Trawlers, Tramp Steamers... Unsinkable" :yep:

That's an idea.....but remember, they DO SINK, and not everyone (myself included) always experience the same timescales.

I've tested the sinking rates more than most and can say with utter confidence.....sinking times vary regardless of size, class or hull shape. http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Grayson02sept1980]

but let me ask this dumb question:

how comes that a small freighter hit at a (obvisiually) vulnerable spot ... set to fire instantly .... does not sink? ... I mean the ship was blown to pieces and burning... but carried on like nothing happened? :hmm:

Well just a question

[harzfeld]

you could make modification in zone.cfg for all ships under 2-3,000t to break and sink instantly if you like. Also when a torp punctured fuel tank making a hole in hull, bringing water into tank while fuel is being burn up or spill out, don't ships usually have to cut the engine to prevent seawater from getting into and ruining the engine?

[Keelbuster]

I GOT ONE. Ok, so I'm sonar/hydrophone hunting in the unrelenting rain, fog, wind, and murky blackness of grid BE52. I pick up a fast moving merchant and peg her every 3.15 mins with the sonar. She's alone, so it's all good. I get her course nice and clean. I line up within 1.5 kms - i can't see any lights from here, so I figure she's blacked out = badguy. I set a fast steam torp at 3m and off she goes. Now, I follow my fish with the external cam because really, this is the one reason to have it. It turns out to be a small tanker :nope:. Luckily, the shot connects at the tail end of the tanker, just aft of the smoke stack (must have been 14kts rather than 13). I let her go, and she doesn't sink (surprise!) but she does stop. The back end takes on a wicked list. Time compression - hard - nothing, just bobbing away in 5m waves. So I creep up to her, plotting her with sonar checks and line my stern tube up. I put the stern steamer right into her midsection. There's a massive fire that is quickly doused in waves. And then, after about 15 mins, she sunk. Damn was she tough though...the Little Bismarck. But then again we got her in the end. I guess they just take two...

[Jimbuna]

but let me ask this dumb question:

how comes that a small freighter hit at a (obvisiually) vulnerable spot ... set to fire instantly .... does not sink? ... I mean the ship was blown to pieces and burning... but carried on like nothing happened? :hmm:

Well just a question

There are two ways to sink a ship in GWX:

1) Flooding (the more holes beneath the waterline the better)

2) Destroying all damage points (multiple gunfire or eels)

Your just being unlucky....try patrolling another suspected route instaed of the cork passage. http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/scream.gif

[Blacklight]

Your just being unlucky....try patrolling another suspected route instaed of the cork passage. http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/scream.gif

I don't think this has anything to do with luck. I'm going to put a mission together using the editor to further test what's going on.

[Tessa]

but let me ask this dumb question:

how comes that a small freighter hit at a (obvisiually) vulnerable spot ... set to fire instantly .... does not sink? ... I mean the ship was blown to pieces and burning... but carried on like nothing happened? :hmm:

Well just a question

As JCB noted that smaller ships tend to be stronger so they can be robust enough to handle bad weather. So you end up with a small(er) ship that should be fragile but is built like a King Tiger tank. IF we really wanted to start getting technical we could start using Physics calculations to reverse engineer why that particular ship is so annoyingly hard to sink. I think we'd find that the ship is dissproportionately more armored than it should be. :know:

A more accurate metaphor about the small vs large ships: You've got a baseball bat and 2 boards to break, a 2 foot one and an 8 foot one. One good hit to the 8 foot one will shatter it in 1 hit as the board's resistance is spread across 8 feet instead of 2 feet making it naturally weaker (assuming both boards are the same width). Now hit the 2 foot board you'll most likely end up chipping away at it unless you score a perfect hit in the middle as its compact nature makes it (relatively) stronger for what we're looking at. :damn:

When liberty ships were first used they would sink with 1 torpedo hit just about anywhere. The length of the hull + cheap materials + cold atlantic water temp severly compromised the hulls integrity. It wasn't uncommon for them to sink in transit as the force of the cargo eventually became larger than what the hull could withstand, and with the help of a critical design flaw. It was easily solved by welding a large buckle of steel across the length of the hull to reinforce it.

For the relatively small tonnage that you get from sinking those small tankers I usually avoid em unless its calm enough to use the deck gun. If I'm in a harbor and one is parked where a 90 shot is possible a shot at 6m will usually annihilate it. There's better fish in the sea to catch than those nasty little things.

[Keelbuster]

When liberty ships were first used they would sink with 1 torpedo hit just about anywhere. The length of the hull + cheap materials + cold atlantic water temp severly compromised the hulls integrity. It wasn't uncommon for them to sink in transit as the force of the cargo eventually became larger than what the hull could withstand, and with the help of a critical design flaw. It was easily solved by welding a large buckle of steel across the length of the hull to reinforce it.
Strangely, liberty ships are among the hardest to sink. It takes me 2 torps basically always, where as many larger ships (medium cargo, largo cargo, large merchant, medium tanker, large tanker, all cruisers, etc) often only require 1.

Edit: Cool fact though! I would like the GWX team to implement this if it is so!

[Blacklight]

It kind of seems like they already have in a way. At least now we may have some kind of explanation. Now it's a matter to go back early in the war and see if there's a difference in the small ships than later in the war. :hmm:

[Tessa]

When liberty ships were first used they would sink with 1 torpedo hit just about anywhere. The length of the hull + cheap materials + cold atlantic water temp severly compromised the hulls integrity. It wasn't uncommon for them to sink in transit as the force of the cargo eventually became larger than what the hull could withstand, and with the help of a critical design flaw. It was easily solved by welding a large buckle of steel across the length of the hull to reinforce it.
Strangely, liberty ships are among the hardest to sink. It takes me 2 torps basically always, where as many larger ships (medium cargo, largo cargo, large merchant, medium tanker, large tanker, all cruisers, etc) often only require 1.

Edit: Cool fact though! I would like the GWX team to implement this if it is so!

Generally when I play I've got the TV on and there was a documentary on the history of Victory ships that caught my attention. I'll find the historical info about the problem with the keels cracking in half, in reality Victory ships were a joke. They were mass produced, used poor grade steel, and poorly engineered. The whole idea was to produce so many that enough of its cargo would reach the allies across the pond. Their life expectancy was only like 2.5 trips before they would detereate so much that they were no longer sea worthy.

[siber]

Forget Small Tankers, what about Passenger/Cargos? :shifty: These generally need two or more torps to send 'em down.

Doesn't help that, with 100% realism and OLC's GUI, I'll only get hits with about 50% of the shots I make.

[predavolk]

I haven't noticed smaller ships taking more than one torp. I usually put two into the bigger ships to speed their sinking, as I love to hunt in the North Sea (still in the early years) and don't like waiting for help to show up. My understanding of the Liberty ships was that they were easy to sink and had weak hull generally. It was the Victory ships that were much improved in terms of toughness (and speed). I'd be greatly disappointed if, when I get to it, the GWX team hasn't taken that into account (if it's possible).

And I haven't said it publically yet, so after that comment, I'll say thanks to the GWX team for a great mod!

[Grayson02sept1980]

funny thing... I tried again on a small freighter... a "Trampdampfer" in German
Shot it on the bow mast and it caught some fire... the screener I have..

and it sunk after 15min....

Is there a difference between torps?

I read some many people just swear about T1-steamers... I usually use electric as the ships really see the T1s... and I guess there is no difference in the payload... but tell me if so.

[predavolk]

I've used T1s on steamers with no problems. I prefer them because of their higher speeds, which are more forgiving towards quick calculations. I set my torps to run on fast, impact, 2 M.

[Tessa]

funny thing... I tried again on a small freighter... a "Trampdampfer" in German
Shot it on the bow mast and it caught some fire... the screener I have..

and it sunk after 15min....

Is there a difference between torps?

I read some many people just swear about T1-steamers... I usually use electric as the ships really see the T1s... and I guess there is no difference in the payload... but tell me if so.

Both torpedo's carry the same amount of explosives, the major difference being the water trail and the inability to increase the speed on electric ones. The TI G7a's other advantage is its range as the G7e's were limited to 5k; though is rare sometimes you get lucky and do manage to slam your last torpedo into a cargo ship 8km away and then close the deal with the deck gun. I'm in the minority favoring magnetic detonation under the keel. In my experiences you can tell pretty quickly if the ships going down or need another one. I just love the sight of a perfect hit that blows the ship apart into 2 pieces, the magnetic is a little more forgiving with poor bow angle shots but there's always ones were the mechanism fails despite passing right under the keel or bouncing off the hull if not deep enough.

[Gezur(Arbeit)]

magnetic should be used at angles where a normal impacct torpedo would bounce of the hull.

[Keelbuster]

magnetic should be used at angles where a normal impacct torpedo would bounce of the hull. And it's really only reliable in calm water - if the boat is bobbing like crazy, it's like 50/50 that the torp will be too-deep/too-shallow. T2s are also at a disadvantage in rough weather - slower running means longer run times, and therefore a larger chance that the torp will prematurely detonate. In rough weather, I close to 600m or so and put out a fast T1, shallow, to have the maximum chance of inflicting a hit.

Edit: I feel like this thread is becoming suspiciously like a general torpedo technique thread:) I think the moral of the original story was that the little guys (i.e. small ships, small tankers) just aren't worth the torpedoS required.

[Grayson02sept1980]

sorry for the offtopic...

and yeah I now saw it again.... magnetic under the keel 1m calm see... bad angle for impact (impacts are better in general? dunno) and it made a nice firework...some explosion... and carried on as if nothing has happened...

"Bernard... were are those sausages and steaks! The fire is almost estinguished by the tommys!":rotfl:

[Gezur(Arbeit)]

The prob is that a magnetic torp must travel some time under its target to detonate..so the Torpedo might explode on the other side of the hull and maybe 2 far away...resulting in a small damage

[danurve]

I have sunk a battleship in GWX with 1 TII, but it takes 3 eels to take out a pass/cargo :arrgh!:

So if it takes on average 2-fish to sink a med-cargo &^ then I'll stick to the bigger targets. And hope and pray they run true .. ha ha ha. :cool:

[Jimbuna]

TBH I tend to leave the smaller fry alone (particularly in the latter part of the war) and concentrate more on Libertys and bigger.
Not because of numbers of torpedoes, because all vessels regardless of size can be 'eel sponges' and all also have random 'sweet spots'.
But more because the rewards are greater for the higher the tonnage you sink. http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9708/piratebf4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Grayson02sept1980]

TBH I tend to leave the smaller fry alone (particularly in the latter part of the war) and concentrate more on Libertys and bigger.
Not because of numbers of torpedoes, because all vessels regardless of size can be 'eel sponges' and all also have random 'sweet spots'.
But more because the rewards are greater for the higher the tonnage you sink. http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9708/piratebf4.gif (http://imageshack.us) true

and imho the bigger the fish the more likely it will kill itself simply of the bigger weight etc....


--- EDIT ---

Forget it....

Just did two range shots on a Big frieghter over 8000t big... it was 4000m when I fire the first and half way I decided to shot a second one... both were FaTs and it was more kinda test cause I was ure they would miss... so I set the FaT to follow the course of the ship but "lucky" me the first one hit it... right under the chimney... well ok slightly to the stern... but under the chimney

then the ship started to make a sharp turn and also increased speed... so the second torp hit it also! .. I must admit this one really was aimed very badly and I REALLY wanted to test the FaT...

But guess what.... it hit it, too! ...without the need of any turns etc. ... and it hit it at the very same spot :roll: ... now I know that the GWX manual etc. states to aim at different spots... so I was very unlucky to hit it the second time at the very same spot..

The first torp was a magnetic under the keel... the second was an impact.... :roll:

and guess what....

it never stopped
it never sunk
....

I guess everyone has this "It just won't sink"-experience..... ;)

[Rykaird]

There were a set of PDFs long ago for the stock game that showed vulnerable spots for various cargo and naval ships. Is there such a doc or list for GWX 2.0?

[Grayson02sept1980]

mhhh.... I never came accros such an PDF... I have tried this modding of the Ship-graphics in the "book" but found out soon that those are not right in GWX

[Jimbuna]

There were a set of PDFs long ago for the stock game that showed vulnerable spots for various cargo and naval ships. Is there such a doc or list for GWX 2.0?

I'm afraid not :nope:

[AdlerGrosmann]

Yes, I've thought about that..and it seems they can take up the damage. I've shot one with a torpedo and it hit the stern, and destroyed the propellers. So I shot 28 shells into her and she finally sunk.

It's true, most bigger ships are weaker than smaller ships. Because of it's design, unlike a bigger ship, it's weight and how much water the ship can take in. A bigger ship, the more heavier, with water coming in from the torpedo hit it goes down more faster. If ye hit it between the command tower/deck and the middle, it should split within seconds.

[Keelbuster]

A bigger ship, the more heavier, with water coming in from the torpedo hit it goes down more faster.
I wonder....bigger to me means proportionally more volume (volume increases by the cube of the dimensions) and more displacement. More displacement means more buoyancy. But this buoyancy is reduced by the load the ship carries. So the hypothesis is this: whether or not the ship has cargo (i.e., westbound vs. eastbound tanker) should make a bigger difference for T3s than small tankers because when a T3 is empty, it has oceans of extra buoyancy compared to a small tanker.

To me it feels like small tankers are unrealistically buoyant - there's something glitchy about their displacement/load. Finally, I still stick to the point that a torpedo would be more likely to compromise more than one compartment when hitting a smaller ship than a larger one, because the bulkheads would be closer together in a smaller ship. Hence catastrophic damage should be more common in hits on small ships.

One other thing to wonder about is this: ships are more likely to sink with damage at the extremeties (bow/stern). When the ship's bow is compromised, it starts to lean that way, like a lever. In a long ship, the lever is longer, and hence the water that is sinking the ship can more easily (with less force required) bring the ship into a fatal listing angle. With a smaller ship, the lever is shorter, and it requires proportionally more force to bring about the fatal list angle. What do you think about that?

[Blacklight]

I agree. The same goes for all the smaller ships that I've noticed are "Extra boyant" I've been testing the smaller ships (Small merchants, Tramp steamers, and small tankers) and I think they are unrealistically boyant.

My reasoning is that since the ships are smaller, their compartments should also be smaller and therefore on a torpedo hit, would fill up with water faster than say the cargo hold of a large ship. A single torpedo hit on the small ships should do more damage to the structure of the ship as well in my opinion.

There's something screwy with the sinking mechanic with these small ships. I havn't noticed the same problems with any of the other smaller ships. These three in particular I know have something fishy about them.

[Grayson02sept1980]

I agree. The same goes for all the smaller ships that I've noticed are "Extra boyant" I've been testing the smaller ships (Small merchants, Tramp steamers, and small tankers) and I think they are unrealistically boyant.

My reasoning is that since the ships are smaller, their compartments should also be smaller and therefore on a torpedo hit, would fill up with water faster than say the cargo hold of a large ship. A single torpedo hit on the small ships should do more damage to the structure of the ship as well in my opinion.

There's something screwy with the sinking mechanic with these small ships. I havn't noticed the same problems with any of the other smaller ships. These three in particular I know have something fishy about them.

everything good and fine....
BUT when I hit a ship... no matter what size! .. on the fuel compartment/bunker... see a nice explosion... fire all over... and it keeps going at it's inital speed and never sinks.... no comment..... :shifty:

Honestly I admit this has happened only once .... yet..... :shifty:

[Danelov]

Yes, this small tankers are really hard to sink.Today I have hit one of this "Battleship" small tankers near Dover with the last TI torpedo of my IID.
That was one good hit in the aft section between the bridge and the stern, usually there is the machine room and boilers in the tankers. Well, the tanker was complete ablaze; stop the machine and go to the bottom to wait his sink(there were some PT boats and trawlers near).Accelerated time, coffee,and checking several times with exterior view, the guy was always there, unsinkable,burning and floating very happy, two hours, three hours...ufff.Nothing to do, and finally decided to sail back to Kiel.

[Grayson02sept1980]

Yes, this small tankers are really hard to sink.Today I have hit one of this "Battleship" small tankers near Dover with the last TI torpedo of my IID.
That was one good hit in the aft section between the bridge and the stern, usually there is the machine room and boilers in the tankers. Well, the tanker was complete ablaze; stop the machine and go to the bottom to wait his sink(there were some PT boats and trawlers near).Accelerated time, coffee,and checking several times with exterior view, the guy was always there, unsinkable,burning and floating very happy, two hours, three hours...ufff.Nothing to do, and finally decided to sail back to Kiel.

:nope: - feel your pain - :nope:

[predavolk]

I'm a big fan of bow shots, as the momentum of the ship drives it under. I've never failed to sink a small ship with a bow shot. I have seen them settle on their stern though, when I suspect they are able to control the flooding. It is unrealistic for a small ship to be tougher. Proportionally, they may be stronger than a larger ship, but proportionally, the same explosive charge should also do much more damage. A 15' hole in a 150' ship is 10% of its length, in a 75' ship you're looking at 20%. Volume-wise, the difference is bound to be even larger proportionally.

[KeldorKatarn]

Try the following (carefull, exact hit needed, only fire if 0° gyro possible, a near hit will usually not work):

3m depth, hit the rear mast exactly. The tanker should be reported as destroyed immediately and sink a few mins later.

[Tessa]

A bigger ship, the more heavier, with water coming in from the torpedo hit it goes down more faster.
I wonder....bigger to me means proportionally more volume (volume increases by the cube of the dimensions) and more displacement. More displacement means more buoyancy. But this buoyancy is reduced by the load the ship carries. So the hypothesis is this: whether or not the ship has cargo (i.e., westbound vs. eastbound tanker) should make a bigger difference for T3s than small tankers because when a T3 is empty, it has oceans of extra buoyancy compared to a small tanker.

To me it feels like small tankers are unrealistically buoyant - there's something glitchy about their displacement/load. Finally, I still stick to the point that a torpedo would be more likely to compromise more than one compartment when hitting a smaller ship than a larger one, because the bulkheads would be closer together in a smaller ship. Hence catastrophic damage should be more common in hits on small ships.

One other thing to wonder about is this: ships are more likely to sink with damage at the extremeties (bow/stern). When the ship's bow is compromised, it starts to lean that way, like a lever. In a long ship, the lever is longer, and hence the water that is sinking the ship can more easily (with less force required) bring the ship into a fatal listing angle. With a smaller ship, the lever is shorter, and it requires proportionally more force to bring about the fatal list angle. What do you think about that?

It would make sense that a solid hit to the forecastle or engine room should cause the ship to sink on its on with just one hit; especially a hit to the forecastle. Besides the water that would normally flood from the initial hit, you've got the engines still propelling it forward which forces water into the boat at high pressure. It's like a bilge pump working in reverse.

A hit to the engines will cause the same sort of effect, though generall not as fast. Just like the forementioned, it works on the lever principle. The ship will still have momentum and creates a vacuum of sorts sucking water into the ship until it either tips upwards and goes down, or the flooding gets contained; in which you end up with a ship that has no propulsion and becomes a sitting duck that you can come back for later and take out with the deck gun. The (good) homing torpedos can usually do this pretty well provided the ship is travelling fast enough.

[Jimbuna]

There were a set of PDFs long ago for the stock game that showed vulnerable spots for various cargo and naval ships. Is there such a doc or list for GWX 2.0?

I'm afraid not :nope:

There's a one based on anilla/stock (available from my GWX FF account) http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif