Ever destroy a ship with all hands?

[Mouftic]

I don't wanna sound morbid, but I have never seen in my patrol logs with SH3 Commander that the whole crew was lost. One survivor is my "best".

My Grand-Uncle drowned when his ship caught on fire. All crew left the burning ship alive in too seperate life boats and the rescue didnt go as planned and they lost one life boat when it banged on the rescue ship.
It was really bad wheather and very cold water. Unfortunatly for him he was onboard that life boat. Sucky way to go.

You can check it out if you want. HMCS Otter. Lucien Laurin. RIP.

But on the other hand HMCS Regina which was escorting a convoy prior to D-Day was sunk with all hands.
(edit)--- wrong ship, Regina did not loose all of her crew. HMCS Racoon and HMCS Shawinigan lost all hands. Thats only on Canadian side. I did not reasearch the other nations.

All that to say that it did happen quite often that all hands were lost. May there is a way to change the settings?

Or maybe I don't sink my ships fast enough, althought I did get the occasional ships broken in half.

[Gargamel]

Yes, it does happen. Sometimes when it shouldn't too. Ie, that passenger/cargo takes 3 days to sink, yet SHC still lists all hands as lost. But when you hit the Hood right in her magazine and she goes down in 15 seconds, Almost everybody makes it off. SHC just randomizes that number i think.

[Sailor Steve]

I've used Commander's Writable Log function to change it to suit the circumstances. If I sink a ship in calm water and it takes twenty minutes to sink, I roll a die. On a 1-5 that number of crew were killed in the actual explosion. If it's a 6 then all survived.

[desirableroasted]

It is totally, absurdly random.

1) Merchant explodes like New Year's Eve with just an impact badly aimed. Cargo: lumber. 75 of 77 crew survive.

2) Passenger/cargo. Takes 3 days to go down after two torpedoes and finishing deck guns. Cargo: mail. 3 survivors.

Yeah. 'nother rum, Bertha.

[Captain Nemo]

It is totally, absurdly random.

1) Merchant explodes like New Year's Eve with just an impact badly aimed. Cargo: lumber. 75 of 77 crew survive.

2) Passenger/cargo. Takes 3 days to go down after two torpedoes and finishing deck guns. Cargo: mail. 3 survivors.

Yeah. 'nother rum, Bertha.

I agree with 1) but not so sure of 2). Shouldn't the location of the sinking be taken into account? If you sunk the passenger/cargo in the mid-Atlantic many miles from the nearest land, then the chances of survival would be reduced. Also the lifeboats may have been damaged forcing survivors into the sea also reducing survivability. There are many factors such as the state of emergency provisions in the lifeboats or lack of water that can influence the number that actually survive a sinking, even if they actually got off the ship in one piece.

Nemo

[Jimbuna]

Old game engine I'm afraid....randomisation can be good in one instance then not so good in another.

[Kapt Z]

Can't say for certain, but I did hit a lone Hunt I a few months back. She was making a good 20+ knots and just happened to pass right in front of me. One magnetic under her keel and she went up like a roman candle. They never knew what hit them. Couldn't imagine anyone surviving that.

Actually felt bad about it for awhile afterwards.:nope:

[Fish In The Water]

It is totally, absurdly random.

I'm guessing the developers didn't see this as an integral part of the simulation so they essentially took a pass. Nice as it would have been, if they devoted the necessary time to every last detail we'd probably still be waiting for the release... :03:

[frau kaleun]

I'm guessing the developers didn't see this as an integral part of the simulation so they essentially took a pass. Nice as it would have been, if they devoted the necessary time to every last detail we'd probably still be waiting for the release... :03:

Is the "crew lost" thing even part of the game itself? I thought that was something that only got added by Commander when you update your personnel file and logs there after the patrol is over. And Commander has no way of knowing the exact circumstances of a ship's destruction, only that you sank it. It works with as much information as the game gives it... and I doubt the developers could have foreseen a stand-alone program that would incorporate real ship names and data and add them to the logbook after the fact.

[Sailor Steve]

...and I doubt the developers could have foreseen a stand-alone program that would incorporate real ship names and data and add them to the logbook after the fact.
And I was just wondering myself why JScones couldn't have added that extra detail rather than randomize it. You're absolutely right. What Commander does has absolutely nothing to do with the game itself in that regard - it generates all the details after the patrol is finished. The only way to fix it is what I described, which is to change the log to suit the circumstances yourself.

Thanks for the reminder, Frau. :sunny:

[Mouftic]

Is the "crew lost" thing even part of the game itself? I thought that was something that only got added by Commander when you update your personnel file and logs there after the patrol is over. And Commander has no way of knowing the exact circumstances of a ship's destruction, only that you sank it. It works with as much information as the game gives it... and I doubt the developers could have foreseen a stand-alone program that would incorporate real ship names and data and add them to the logbook after the fact.

Yeah, that perfectly right.

[iambecomelife]

I agree with 1) but not so sure of 2). Shouldn't the location of the sinking be taken into account? If you sunk the passenger/cargo in the mid-Atlantic many miles from the nearest land, then the chances of survival would be reduced. Also the lifeboats may have been damaged forcing survivors into the sea also reducing survivability. There are many factors such as the state of emergency provisions in the lifeboats or lack of water that can influence the number that actually survive a sinking, even if they actually got off the ship in one piece.

Nemo

Definitely true. If you were sunk in the Western Approaches you were very likely to get picked up due to frequent Allied patrols. On the other hand, getting sunk outside of the major shipping lanes was often a death sentence. Regardless of how much time you had to abandon ship.

The average medium-sized merchant or tanker had a crew of between 35 and 60. The average fatality rate for ships lost on the North Atlantic was about 9 men killed per ship lost. As a rough estimate, most sinkings fell into predictable categories:

No casualties (Slow sinking, buoyant cargo, nearby rescue vessels, etc)
1-5 casualties (Usually a few men in the engine room or near the impact point killed)
50%-75% casualties (Fast sinking, bad weather, hazardous cargo, many days adrift, etc)
100% casualties (Ammo, fuel, iron ore, & other very dangerous cargoes, midocean sinkings, etc)

While researching this feature with JSCones I asked if it would be possible to factor in these casualty trends but unfortunately it was not. I understand; all in all, SH3Commander has many amazing (and much more important) features.

If there is enough interest and I get permission, I could fiddle with the program and try to replace numerical casualties with percentages...

[Gargamel]

If there is enough interest and I get permission, I could fiddle with the program and try to replace numerical casualties with percentages...

I don't thik that would be a need, but I think what would be doable would be to compare the sinking location, your casualty groups, weather (via date, ie winter, summer, etc) and cargo.

A frieghter with lumber sinking in AM5x in June would have a much higher survival rate than a warship getting sunk in AL7x in winter.

[Mouftic]

Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode.

But definately some area were worst than other. Would'nt have not liked being sunk in the North Atlantic during winter time. But I guess in the middle pacific would be better if some ships were around.

I had a small taste of isolation when we were where performing a boarding in the Pacific and the Zodiac's engine broke. The ships kept going in front of us until we lost visual contact and we were in rough seas. It's kind of a sucky feeling to say the least. Could not imagine doing it in a wooden boat in the middle of winter in the North Atlantic.

[Missing Name]

I did get a destroyer with all hands in New York. However, it was rather calm weather. The destroyer sank after 20 minutes, with a shot that clipped off the bow.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives,
Nope. Small-calibre ammunition was in one-piece casings, and it was very hard to generate enough heat to make them cook off. Even a magazine hit on a destroyer, frigate or corvette was unlikely to make any massive explosion. Battleships were prone to this sort of thing because the powder was all bagged, and would tend to go off with one big boom.

and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode.
Unless the ship was sunk while making a depth charge attack, the charges wouldn't be primed. No depth setting, no boom.

[desirableroasted]

While researching this feature with JSCones I asked if it would be possible to factor in these casualty trends but unfortunately it was not. I understand; all in all, SH3Commander has many amazing (and much more important) features.

If there is enough interest and I get permission, I could fiddle with the program and try to replace numerical casualties with percentages...

Probably not worth tinkering with a very, very good Mod.

I think at best you would end up with (typical crew for ship type) * (multiplier based on location, cargo, sea state) = crew loss. Since SH3 Commander randomizes the cargo and cannot know the sea state at the time of sinking, you'd just be adding a another layer of randomization.

That might "smooth" the results out some, but it is all eye candy in the end -- all generated post-patrol. I do chuckle a little when I learn that a merchant that exploded so spectacularly was only carrying mail, but by the next patrol, I cannot remember which one it was.

[Missing Name]

Unless the ship was sunk while making a depth charge attack, the charges wouldn't be primed. No depth setting, no boom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hammann_%28DD-412%29

The USS Hammann was torpedoed during the Battle of Midway while attempting salvage work on the USS Yorktown. The depth charges detonated as the ship sank below the preset depth.

[Sailor Steve]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hammann_%28DD-412%29

The USS Hammann was torpedoed during the Battle of Midway while attempting salvage work on the USS Yorktown. The depth charges detonated as the ship sank below the preset depth.
If you had followed the reference link to the original source http://destroyerhistory.org/goldplater/usshammann/index.asp?r=41200&pid=41210 , you would have seen that the quote "from the destroyer's depth charges and torpedoes going off" isn't there, which means that the Wiki article author was guessing. Also you're guessing, as even the Wiki article doesn't contain your phrase "preset depth".

On the other hand, the Captain's and Gunnery Officer's official reports http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/mid9.htm does raise the possibility of a faulty depth charge or torpedo, but also insists that all depth charges were set to 'safe'.

[flag4]

the depth of knowledge here at subsim is amazing and always a pleasure to read:yep:

[VONHARRIS]

But definately some area were worst than other. Would'nt have not liked being sunk in the North Atlantic during winter time. But I guess in the middle pacific would be better if some ships were around.
.

What about the sharks in the Pacific? Their numbers and kinds are many more in the Pacific than the Atlantic.
If I am not mistaken it is very rare to find a Great White in the Atlantic.

[Mouftic]

Nope. Small-calibre ammunition was in one-piece casings, and it was very hard to generate enough heat to make them cook off. Even a magazine hit on a destroyer, frigate or corvette was unlikely to make any massive explosion.

"At 0201 hours on 23 September 1943 the German submarine U-666 (http://www.subsim.com/boats/u666.htm) fired a Gnat torpedo, which hit HMS Itchen (Cdr. Clement Edward Bridgman, DSO, RNR) after 1 minute and 10 seconds. The frigate blew up after the hit in position 53º25'N, 39º42'W. Debris from the vessel was later found on the conning tower of the U-boat and on HMCS Morden (http://www.subsim.com/allies/warships/ship/829.html)."

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/100.html

"HMCS Athabaskan (Lt.Cdr. John Hamilton Stubbs, DSO, DSC, RCN) was sunk in the English Channel north-east of Ouessant by two torpedoes from the German torpedo boats T-24 and T-27. The magazine and a boiler blew up in an explosion that was seen 20 miles away."

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4440.html


Unless the ship was sunk while making a depth charge attack, the charges wouldn't be primed. No depth setting, no boom.

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives. But he himself was not one of the survivors. Malone received no official recognition for doing his duty but he is remembered with gratitude by those who were rescued. In other rapid sinkings many Canadian sailors were lost while they were in the water, through the explosion of depth charges of foundering ships."

http://www.magma.ca/~leprecha/casualty_invasion.htm


Also from reading many books, I have observed that remark.

:salute:

[Mouftic]

What about the sharks in the Pacific? Their numbers and kinds are many more in the Pacific than the Atlantic.
If I am not mistaken it is very rare to find a Great White in the Atlantic.

How many people can be eaten by a shark, one, maybe 2 if it's really hungry. I know it did happen. But that was not common and you dont find Great whites in groups unless it's mating season.

Sharks and poisonous snakes are more of a psychological factor more than anyting else.

We had the same 'fear' in the Persian gulf with those poisonous eels. But the truth is casualties are very low and you have to be 'unlucky' to get biten by one because they have small mouths and can't get a bite unless it's your fingers. We were told to make a fist and roll into a ball if they were around.

But hypothermia within 5 to 10 mins in the atlantic, now that was common and no one was spared.

[Sailor Steve]

"At 0201 hours on 23 September 1943 the German submarine U-666 (http://www.subsim.com/boats/u666.htm) fired a Gnat torpedo, which hit HMS Itchen (Cdr. Clement Edward Bridgman, DSO, RNR) after 1 minute and 10 seconds. The frigate blew up after the hit in position 53º25'N, 39º42'W. Debris from the vessel was later found on the conning tower of the U-boat and on HMCS Morden (http://www.subsim.com/allies/warships/ship/829.html)."
I said "difficult", not "impossible". My initial response was to you using the word "normally" in quoting a high death rate. Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?

"HMCS Athabaskan (Lt.Cdr. John Hamilton Stubbs, DSO, DSC, RCN) was sunk in the English Channel north-east of Ouessant by two torpedoes from the German torpedo boats T-24 and T-27. The magazine and a boiler blew up in an explosion that was seen 20 miles away."

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4440.html
Again, I didn't say it couldn't, or didn't, happen. You said it was a normal thing. It's not. By-and-large torpedoed frigates did not suffer secondary explosions.

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives.
Which says the depth charges did not explode.

[Mouftic]

I said "difficult", not "impossible". My initial response was to you using the word "normally" in quoting a high death rate.

I did a research on Canadian escorts death during torpedoes attacks.
689 dead and 383 survivors...

I think this classifies in "high death rates" section and thats not to mention the others that perished due to collisions, fire or storms because it is not really the subject we are in.

Again, I didn't say it couldn't, or didn't, happen. You said it was a normal thing.

bah.... i said quite often in my first post and then normally in another. Sue me. :D

Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?

I only researched the Canadians implications and found two out of ten that "did" mentionned it. We can only speculate on the others, but let's be realistic here. There are 2 others that were lost with all hands.

Let's say 4 out of 10, that could be considered "quite often".
Let's add 2 more and we have "normally".

But your "difficult" doesn't apply, does it?

By-and-large torpedoed frigates did not suffer secondary explosions.

I'll repeat a quote someone once told me: "Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?"

Not sure I remember who though.:hmmm:

Which says the depth charges did not explode.

Nope, not on that occasion. You are right. But what was in big bold letters was what I was reffering to. Here, i"ll make it bigger for you.

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives. But he himself was not one of the survivors. Malone received no official recognition for doing his duty but he is remembered with gratitude by those who were rescued. In other rapid sinkings many Canadian sailors were lost while they were in the water, through the explosion of depth charges of foundering ships."


Edit: HMCS Louisburg sank in four minutes. The torpedo itself apparently killed a small number of sailors. Most of the crew made it into the water, but many died there, either by being sucked down with the ship or when the boilers and some depth charges exploded.

Page 139.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ig-A36yZ4rMC&pg=PT149&lpg=PT149&dq=hmcs+louisburg+sinking&source=bl&ots=jHkOBL_5T5&sig=w4EyyOqIB9AH3ckWRPvecvjtzZE&hl=en&ei=1dKeTaKNL5DTgQewiPnbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ig-A36yZ4rMC&pg=PT149&lpg=PT149&dq=hmcs+louisburg+sinking&source=bl&ots=jHkOBL_5T5&sig=w4EyyOqIB9AH3ckWRPvecvjtzZE&hl=en&ei=1dKeTaKNL5DTgQewiPnbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false)




:88)

Either you are a politician or a journalist.... not sure which one.:O:

ok, your turn....

:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

I did a research on Canadian escorts death during torpedoes attacks.
689 dead and 383 survivors...

I think this classifies in "high death rates" section and thats not to mention the others that perished due to collisions, fire or storms because it is not really the subject we are in.
I can't argue about death rates, but we were talking about explosions. They did happen, but weren't all that common. That was my only point.

bah.... i said quite often in my first post and then normally in another. Sue me. :D
I'm not a lawyer, but I have played one at Subsim. It wasn't pretty. :O:

I only researched the Canadians implications and found two out of ten that "did" mentionned it. We can only speculate on the others, but let's be realistic here. There are 2 others that were lost with all hands.

Let's say 4 out of 10, that could be considered "quite often".
Let's add 2 more and we have "normally".

But your "difficult" doesn't apply, does it?
"Let's say"? Speculation is not fact.

I'll repeat a quote someone once told me: "Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?"

Not sure I remember who though.:hmmm:
My point was that there were far (and I mean vastly far) more sinkings of small warships in which secondary ammunition detonations played no part. Your original statement "normally" which I commented on made it sound (to me, at least) as if this happened almost every time an escort was sunk. My observation is that that is not even close to being true, so I objected.

Nope, not on that occasion. You are right. But what was in big bold letters was what I was reffering to. Here, i"ll make it bigger for you.
Now we have a different problem. The author of that article doesn't site the "other rapid sinkings", which results in what is known as an unsubstantiated claim. It would be no different if he had said that other rapid sinkings happened because there was a problem with hatch seals on all those ships. Unless he shows that that was actually a cause, he's just guessing.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ig-A36yZ4rMC&pg=PT149&lpg=PT149&dq=hmcs+louisburg+sinking&source=bl&ots=jHkOBL_5T5&sig=w4EyyOqIB9AH3ckWRPvecvjtzZE&hl=en&ei=1dKeTaKNL5DTgQewiPnbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ig-A36yZ4rMC&pg=PT149&lpg=PT149&dq=hmcs+louisburg+sinking&source=bl&ots=jHkOBL_5T5&sig=w4EyyOqIB9AH3ckWRPvecvjtzZE&hl=en&ei=1dKeTaKNL5DTgQewiPnbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false)


And again I have the same problem. The author also mentions the boilers exploding, presumably at the same time he mentions crew being "sucked down with the ship". Boiler explosions are indeed a common occurence, but I can find no other source which uses that phrase. In fact Uboat.net's article http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/824.html states that Louisburg was hit by "bombs and torpedoes", plural, which implies a different story than the one in that book.


Either you are a politician or a journalist.... not sure which one.:O:
Neither. What I am is a careful researcher who doesn't like phrases that suggest that something happened all the time when in fact it was uncommon at best. In game design features should always be based on facts. Generalities will bite you every time.

[Mouftic]

I can't argue about death rates, but we were talking about explosions. They did happen, but weren't all that common. That was my only point.

Well you are making progress at least. You started with 'difficult' and now you are at 'not that common'.

And yes you did argue the "normally" for high death rates in the following quote.
I said "difficult", not "impossible". My initial response was to you using the word "normally" in quoting a high death rate

-----------

"Let's say"? Speculation is not fact.

So you are saying that in all the unrecorded sinkings, there was not secondary explosions from ammunitions or depth charges.
By saying "let's speculate", I mean it surely did happen. I highly doubt they were quiet sinkings.

Now if you want facts, you cant get any either that it didn't happen and yet you are saying that:
-"By-and-large torpedoed frigates did not suffer secondary explosions."
-"They did happen, but weren't all that common."
-"My point was that there were far (and I mean vastly far) more sinkings of small warships in which secondary ammunition detonations played no part."
-"My observation is that that is not even close to being true, so I objected."

Now those are strong statements without facts.

Now we have a different problem. The author of that article doesn't site the "other rapid sinkings", which results in what is known as an unsubstantiated claim. It would be no different if he had said that other rapid sinkings happened because there was a problem with hatch seals on all those ships. Unless he shows that that was actually a cause, he's just guessing.

Why would you say he's just guessing? If he is mentionning it, it must be because it did happen. He clearly didnt say it was because of "that other rapid sinkings happened because there was a problem with hatch seals on all those ships." now did he.

Remenber this quote:

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives. But he himself was not one of the survivors. Malone received no official recognition for doing his duty but he is remembered with gratitude by those who were rescued.

Why would they even mention it if it was not a common occurence.

And again I have the same problem. The author also mentions the boilers exploding, presumably at the same time he mentions crew being "sucked down with the ship". Boiler explosions are indeed a common occurence, but I can find no other source which uses that phrase. In fact Uboat.net's article http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/824.html states that Louisburg was hit by "bombs and torpedoes", plural, which implies a different story than the one in that book."

"That book" you are reffering too is called: Corvettes Canada,Convoy Veterans of WW2 tell their true stories

I think thats good enough facts for me, unless all they said was true except for the depth charges exploding in the water after a sinking.


What I am is a careful researcher who doesn't like phrases that suggest that something happened all the time when in fact it was uncommon at best.

Well mister careful researcher, I would be very interessted to see you prove that fact that they where uncommon at best.

From all my research so far, there is nothing uncommon about it.

You can keep playing the devil's advocate, I find this rather amusing.:up:

[Sailor Steve]

And yes you did argue the "normally" for high death rates in the following quote.
Yes, you're correct. I misspoke, or mistyped. My objection was to the use of the term for depth charge explosions.


So you are saying that in all the unrecorded sinkings, there was not secondary explosions from ammunitions or depth charges.
By saying "let's speculate", I mean it surely did happen. I highly doubt they were quiet sinkings.
Again the speculation. "Highly doubt" is not a reference.

Now those are strong statements without facts.
Okay, I'll rephrase.
By-and-large, accounts don't mention secondary explosions. No, that doesn't mean they didn't happen, but you can't prove a negative, and if they weren't mentioned there is no cause to assert that they did happen.
If they were all that common, why weren't they mentioned?
There are far more accounts that don't mention it than there are that do.

Without facts? Okay.
With:
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1207.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2167.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2666.html


Without:
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3326.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2142.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3358.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1111.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3359.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1326.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3070.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3482.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3449.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3245.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1313.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3216.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1303.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2856.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3329.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3263.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2502.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2641.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1167.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3385.html

Possibles:
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2167.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3379.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1626.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3442.html

I stopped after the 'B's, but will gladly proceed if you like.

Why would you say he's just guessing? If he is mentionning it, it must be because it did happen. He clearly didnt say it was because of "that other rapid sinkings happened because there was a problem with hatch seals on all those ships." now did he.
Because he provides no evidence or examples. My point was that anyone can say anything. Without evidence it's just noise. Just because he got a book published doesn't mean his research was thorough, or his unsupported statements should be taken as fact.

Remenber this quote:

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives. But he himself was not one of the survivors. Malone received no official recognition for doing his duty but he is remembered with gratitude by those who were rescued.

Why would they even mention it if it was not a common occurence.
A valid question, but a question is not an answer. He could have mentioned it to give praise to a fallen hero, or you could be right. Was it a common practice to have depth charges not set to 'safe' when just cruising? I don't know. It seems odd to me, but there I'm just speculating.

Well mister careful researcher
Are we stooping to insults now? I don't trust anything until it's shown.

I would be very interessted to see you prove that fact that they where uncommon at best.
I think I've done that adequately. Out of 27 examples (and I didn't pick and choose, I went straight down the list, which is easily verifiable), 20 made no mention of depth charges exploding, 3 did, and 4 mentioned that the ship immediatedly exploded, which implies a magazine detonation.

From all my research so far, there is nothing uncommon about it.
All your research so far consists of one book and two or three references which agree with you. Until you look at every single example and list the good with the bad you've done no research at all.

You can keep playing the devil's advocate, I find this rather amusing.:up:
This isn't politics or religion. There's no need to be rude, smug or superior. I like a good debate, and believe it or not I don't mind being proven wrong. The only time I get like this is when someone makes a claim I find questionable, and then I question it.

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert

[Mouftic]

If they were all that common, why weren't they mentioned?
There are far more accounts that don't mention it than there are that do.
Without facts? Okay.

-list here-

I think I've done that adequately. Out of 27 examples (and I didn't pick and choose, I went straight down the list, which is easily verifiable), 20 made no mention of depth charges exploding, 3 did, and 4 mentioned that the ship immediatedly exploded, which implies a magazine detonation.

If you look at your list of 'withouts', not because they dont mention it means that it didn't happen. HMCS Louisburg is a perfect example. U-boat.net doesn't mention anything, but survivors of the sinking specificly mention the depth charges going off.
I would not call those 'whithouts', facts to contredict what was told.
Most are just partial accounts of the sinking and dont go into details.

Most of your withouts, should be in the possible section.

Although the facts I showed you cannot be denied because they are clearly stated.

Because he provides no evidence or examples. My point was that anyone can say anything. Without evidence it's just noise. Just because he got a book published doesn't mean his research was thorough, or his unsupported statements should be taken as fact.

Althought I agree with you that anyone can publish a book... I dont think its in his favor to lie. Also, did you check his sources before implying this?

Are we stooping to insults now? I don't trust anything until it's shown.

Never! Sorry if took it that way. Maybe because English is my second language, it sounded like an insult to you. I have much respect in life for anyone and I can see that you are an esteemed part of this community and did much for it. (And I also use your ship names list:03:)

All your research so far consists of one book and two or three references which agree with you. Until you look at every single example and list the good with the bad you've done no research at all.

What do you know about my researches? I am pretty well versed in the subject being a sonar operator myself while I was in service, we did have history courses on the matter of ASW weapons and yes it was mentionned that they were a cause for many deaths after own ship sunk. I also have my own little library of books here. Mostly on Canadian naval history. I was (and still am) a passionate person for naval history, and that for personnal reasons which I mentionned in my first post.


This isn't politics or religion. There's no need to be rude, smug or superior.

Again sorry if it sounds that way to you, but not my intention at all.:D

I like a good debate, and believe it or not I don't mind being proven wrong.
Well, you are 'rephrasing' some of your arguments and yet you put a lot of emphasis on my "normally".
To be honest, althought I dont know you much, I think you don't like being proven wrong. :03:

The only time I get like this is when someone makes a claim I find questionable, and then I question it.

Again you are making progress like your quote below. At first it was "Nope" in your initial reply and now its "questionable".

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert

I am not trying to be 'victorious', I just dont like people questioning me when they themselves are not versed in the subject. Maybe you need proof for everything (you must not believe in books), but for me being in the business myself, find that it's just common knowledge to me. I could do extensive research on the subject I suppossed but it would be very hard to convice you since you would need every sources from every author's and still I think it would'nt be good enough :O:.

I sincerely find this discussion or "argument" very interesting and I hope you escuse me if you think I am being rude with you.

I am actually a very easy going person and was labeled the joker of the ship while in service.:arrgh!:
As you can see my signature below, I really told the Captain to shhhh while I was tracking a submarine and he found that pretty funny. That's just the kind of guy I am.

Note to anyone following this thread: I have no grudge against Sailor Steve. I have most respect for what he does in this community. May this discussion be educationnal to all.:yeah:

[Gargamel]

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/basic/thumb_smileyvault-popcorn.gif


/shares popcorn with desirableroasted

[Sailor Steve]

If you look at your list of 'withouts', not because they dont mention it means that it didn't happen. HMCS Louisburg is a perfect example. U-boat.net doesn't mention anything, but survivors of the sinking specificly mention the depth charges going off.
I would not call those 'whithouts', facts to contredict what was told.
Most are just partial accounts of the sinking and dont go into details.
Granted, some of that is true. Is it all. I'm not claiming it didn't happen, just that your use of the word "normally" is without merit.

Most of your withouts, should be in the possible section.
"Most"? You're generalizing. Unless every single case is examined there is no way to know, and if you have to make assumptions it's always better to assume something didn't happen than that it did.

Although the facts I showed you cannot be denied because they are clearly stated.
No, statements given without proof are not facts, just claims.

Althought I agree with you that anyone can publish a book... I dont think its in his favor to lie. Also, did you check his sources before implying this?
I didn't say he lied. He did, however, make an unsubstantiated claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Never! Sorry if took it that way. Maybe because English is my second language, it sounded like an insult to you. I have much respect in life for anyone and I can see that you are an esteemed part of this community and did much for it. (And I also use your ship names list:03:)
I'm sorry if I took it that way too.

What do you know about my researches? I am pretty well versed in the subject being a sonar operator myself while I was in service, we did have history courses on the matter of ASW weapons and yes it was mentionned that they were a cause for many deaths after own ship sunk. I also have my own little library of books here. Mostly on Canadian naval history. I was (and still am) a passionate person for naval history, and that for personnal reasons which I mentionned in my first post.
You're right, but all I have to go on is what you presented.

Well, you are 'rephrasing' some of your arguments and yet you put a lot of emphasis on my "normally".
To be honest, althought I dont know you much, I think you don't like being proven wrong. :03:
A little bit about myself. I have a very long history (30+ years) of dealing with gamers who constantly want to change rules because of one thing they read somewhere, and a fairly long history here of watching people come up with all kinds of reasons why this or that thing should be changed or "fixed" in one of these games. You said that "normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives"[/quote]
Normally they did not have such a high death rate. Yes, you showed examples of all hands being lost, but there are many more examples of a low death rate. Second was the depth charge explosions. Yes, it happened, but you need to show that it happened more often than not, or "normally doesn't apply.

Again you are making progress like your quote below. At first it was "Nope" in your initial reply and now its "questionable".
And again you're making this personal. It's not.


I am not trying to be 'victorious', I just dont like people questioning me when they themselves are not versed in the subject.
I challenged your statement. That's not the same as questioning you.

Maybe you need proof for everything (you must not believe in books), but for me being in the business myself, find that it's just common knowledge to me.
I do believe in books, but I expect the authors not to make unsubstantiated claims. If you accept those claims without questioning, then maybe you need to be more careful. Something you consider "common knowledge" may be nothing of the kind.

I could do extensive research on the subject I suppossed but it would be very hard to convice you since you would need every sources from every author's and still I think it would'nt be good enough :O:.
You think wrong. If you can show positively that it happened more often than not you'll be surprised how quickly I apologize. If you think otherwise then you haven't read many of my threads.

I sincerely find this discussion or "argument" very interesting and I hope you escuse me if you think I am being rude with you.

I am actually a very easy going person and was labeled the joker of the ship while in service.:arrgh!:
As you can see my signature below, I really told the Captain to shhhh while I was tracking a submarine and he found that pretty funny. That's just the kind of guy I am.

Note to anyone following this thread: I have no grudge against Sailor Steve. I have most respect for what he does in this community. May this discussion be educationnal to all.:yeah:
Why thank you. That's actually gracious of you. I am quite the doubter myself. I don't trust myself, and I don't trust any source. I once asked the question of whether Thomas Jefferson really wrote our Declaration of Independence in 1776. After all, I have no direct proof of that either. Sure, it's been around as long as I can remember, but before that? I accept it at face value solely because I have no reason not to. But beyond that? I want proof for everything, including my own existence. I don't believe anything until it's absolutely, undeniably proven.

But that's just me. :sunny:

[Mouftic]

:rotfl2:@ gargamel

[desirableroasted]

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/basic/thumb_smileyvault-popcorn.gif


/shares popcorn with desirableroasted

/shares sample of latest Jamaican cargo with Gargamel.

And thinking Uncle Karl is going to send some boys back to a IIA any day now.

[Sailor Steve]

And thinking Uncle Karl is going to send some boys back to a IIA any day now.
Me? Type II?

"Please, Br'er Fox, pleeease don' t'row me in dat briar patch!"

[desirableroasted]

Me? Type II?

"Please, Br'er Fox, pleeease don' t'row me in dat briar patch!"

Zipeedee-do-dah, zipeedeeay. My, oh my, what a wonderful day! Plenty of tankers coming my way! Zipeedee-do-dah, zipeedeeay!

(painting a portrait of Uncle Remus on the conning tower)

[Mouftic]

I am quite the doubter myself. I don't trust myself, and I don't trust any source. I once asked the question of whether Thomas Jefferson really wrote our Declaration of Independence in 1776. After all, I have no direct proof of that either. Sure, it's been around as long as I can remember, but before that? I accept it at face value solely because I have no reason not to. But beyond that? I want proof for everything, including my own existence. I don't believe anything until it's absolutely, undeniably proven.

But that's just me. :sunny:

Well, it seems that whatever I give you for proof will never be good enough unless it's a documented video of the events with the number of the hull number cleary visible.
I mean you can't just go around and say "nope it didn't happen that way..." unless you yourself have proof of the contrary, which by you standard is almost impossible. The "proofs" you showed me are far from proofs by your standard.

It's has if I said "fighter pilots had parachutes in their planes." and your response would be, "That can't be proven. Can you prove to me that so and so had a parachute with him?" Certainly not, but we all know it because it is common knowledge.


Granted, some of that is true. Is it all. I'm not claiming it didn't happen, just that your use of the word "normally" is without merit.

Why are you so stuck on the word "normally". Let's see the definition:

nor·mal
[nawr-muhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl]
–adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal

So I think that the word normal does applies here. Because it was not abnormal and it was usual. We could even push it to regular. So i think the word 'normally' does have a merit.
If we can also put a standard in numbers it would be 60%. Here in the province of Quebec, as a student if you have an average of 60% you are in the norm.
Some provinces have 50% has the norm, but even me, would not call that normal.




Most"? You're generalizing. Unless every single case is examined there is no way to know, and if you have to make assumptions it's always better to assume something didn't happen than that it did.

:) We are talking about sinkings. In the first 6 examples of you withouts, 3 of the ships didn't even sink. I even researched some of them and looking by the extensive damage to the aft of the vessel, I'm pretty sure the depth charges that were there 'did' exploded.
Hey, but again I'm speculating, right.:DL
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/navy/objects_photos_search-e.aspx?section=4-A&id=193&page=8

The discussion we are having is about sinkings.

Although the facts I showed you cannot be denied because they are clearly stated.
No, statements given without proof are not facts, just claims.

They are from veterans who were there, but I guess they forgot to film the event. So yes they are just statements.

A little bit about myself. I have a very long history (30+ years) of dealing with gamers who constantly want to change rules because of one thing they read somewhere, and a fairly long history here of watching people come up with all kinds of reasons why this or that thing should be changed or "fixed" in one of these games.

I am not trying to change rules, I was just saying that in all the sinkings I had none came with all hands lost. Merely an observation.

You said that "normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives"

Yes, and I am still claiming it.

Normally they did not have such a high death rate.

Wrong, I showed you that almost 75% of the crew were lost. And then again you agreed with me.

Yes, you showed examples of all hands being lost, but there are many more examples of a low death rate.

I never said that all hand lost was normal.

Second was the depth charge explosions. Yes, it happened, but you need to show that it happened more often than not, or "normally doesn't apply.

This is the initial quote I gave that you questionned: "Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."

Now you are trying to say that I said depth charges explosions were normal.

I said:"Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death" and then mentionned why.

And again you're making this personal. It's not.

Sorry, I don't understand why you say that.:06:

I'm just saying that your position or wording is changing throught the tread.

I challenged your statement. That's not the same as questioning you.

You are not challenging it, you said "nope". Thats more like saying that I am wrong.


I do believe in books, but I expect the authors not to make unsubstantiated claims. If you accept those claims without questioning, then maybe you need to be more careful.

How can you be sure his sources are right? I am not sure that when you read a book, you go check every sources the author stated now.

Something you consider "common knowledge" may be nothing of the kind.

See the pilots with parachutes above.

You think wrong. If you can show positively that it happened more often than not you'll be surprised how quickly I apologize. If you think otherwise then you haven't read many of my threads.

Of course I think you are wrong and I will say it again:"normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."


With all that discussion about big explosions and depth charges talking, I am very tempted to research the subject myself. Another project in queue. :D

[desirableroasted]

I'll go get some more popcorn, Gargles. You want me to get Milk Duds, too?

[Mouftic]

I'll go get some more popcorn, Gargles. You want me to get Milk Duds, too?

Lucky you guys....

All I have here is water and stale unsalted crackers.

:cry:

[Gargamel]

I'll go get some more popcorn, Gargles. You want me to get Milk Duds, too?

Yes please...

[iambecomelife]

I see this is getting a little spirited; I hope there aren't any hard feelings guys...

"Normally they did not have such a high death rate. Yes, you showed examples of all hands being lost, but there are many more examples of a low death rate."

Is this the case? I was under the impression that escorts were very dangerous in the event of a torpedoing (this is an admittedly non-expert opinion) and had a high death rate.

Many DD's, corvettes, frigates, & sloops were basically unarmored tubes crammed with men - sometimes nearly 300 crewmembers. This meant that a torpedo that struck at any point on the hull could wreak havoc with the structure and kill quite a few people instantly.

On any good sized merchant vessel, the cargo holds (usually empty of men) ran the length of the ship and would absorb much of the blast. As long as you weren't loaded with ammo etc that would be fortuitous. In fact, certain cargoes like rubber could absorb the blast and reduce structural damage.

I acknowledge that a loss of an escort with all hands was rare in WWII. The only examples I can think of in the USN and RN are "HMS Exmouth" and "USS Jarvis". Still, there were lots of incidents where casualties were very heavy (most or nearly all of the crew):

-HMS Somali
-HMS Cossack
-USS Reuben James
-USS Jacob Jones
-HMS Lapwing
-HMS Bluebell

And that's off the top of my head. Come to think of it, researching casualty rates for Allied escorts would be an interesting project.

Fire away.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, it seems that whatever I give you for proof will never be good enough unless it's a documented video of the events with the number of the hull number cleary visible.
Oh, we're doing this again. No, I don't need all those things, and you're reaching, because I never said anything of the kind. What is required if something is said to happen most of the time is evidence that it did happen most of the time. You've provided a very small handful of examples, and claimed normality based on those.

I mean you can't just go around and say "nope it didn't happen that way..." unless you yourself have proof of the contrary, which by you standard is almost impossible. The "proofs" you showed me are far from proofs by your standard.
As I've said before, you can't prove a negative. If a couple of pieces of information are used to justify a claim, and all the other evidence says nothing one way or the other, do you assume that the small amount of evidence is common, or do you look for more. You seem willing to accept a few accounts as "normal". I don't.

It's has if I said "fighter pilots had parachutes in their planes." and your response would be, "That can't be proven. Can you prove to me that so and so had a parachute with him?" Certainly not, but we all know it because it is common knowledge.
No, it's as if you said "parachutes normally failed to open". My response would be "No, only a handful failed to open". Your example is a perfect strawman argument, making up a new argument and claiming I would say one thing or the other. It means exactly nothing.

Why are you so stuck on the word "normally". Let's see the definition:

nor·mal
[nawr-muhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl]
–adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal

So I think that the word normal does applies here. Because it was not abnormal and it was usual. We could even push it to regular. So i think the word 'normally' does have a merit.
So the vast majority of frigates that were torpedoed blew up due to ammunition explosions and had a high loss of life, and had depth charges explode? That would fit the definition of "normally".

If we can also put a standard in numbers it would be 60%. Here in the province of Quebec, as a student if you have an average of 60% you are in the norm.

Some provinces have 50% has the norm, but even me, would not call that normal.
So 60% of all frigates torpedoed had magazine explosions, or depth charge detonations? High loss of life? You do need to show actual evidence for a claim like that.

:) We are talking about sinkings. In the first 6 examples of you withouts, 3 of the ships didn't even sink. I even researched some of them and looking by the extensive damage to the aft of the vessel, I'm pretty sure the depth charges that were there 'did' exploded.
Hey, but again I'm speculating, right.:DL
More like reaching. Torpedoes cause a lot of damage. Looking at it tells nothing, other than the torpedo did a lot of damage. What's your point?

The discussion we are having is about sinkings.
Your first statement was that "Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives...". That suggests that it was common for the ammunition to explode, causing the high death rate. If that's not how you meant it, I'm sorry for taking it wrong.

They are from veterans who were there, but I guess they forgot to film the event. So yes they are just statements.
Again you're ignoring the fact that I never questioned the eyewitness accounts, just the book's author making a claim (you know, the one you quoted in huge red letters) and providing no reference for it. "In other rapid sinkings"? Which ones? Doesn't he document all of them? If he has the fate of every single ship, why not show them?

I am not trying to change rules, I was just saying that in all the sinkings I had none came with all hands lost. Merely an observation.
Fair enough. I mistook your meaning, and I apologize.

Yes, and I am still claiming it.
So most frigates which sank suffered magazine explosions? And this caused a high death rate? Both claims need to be substantiated.

Wrong, I showed you that almost 75% of the crew were lost. And then again you agreed with me.
Where did you show me that? Were 75% of the crew of every ship that sank lost? Where did I agree with you on that?

I never said that all hand lost was normal.
I didn't say you did. I said you showed examples of it, and I said that there are many more examples of a low death rate. You're arguing with something I didn't say.

This is the initial quote I gave that you questionned: "Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."

Now you are trying to say that I said depth charges explosions were normal.

I said:"Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death" and then mentionned why.



Sorry, I don't understand why you say that.:06:
If I got your meaning wrong then I apologize. But when you say something is normal it implies that it happened a majority of the time. Did it? I don't think the evidence supports that.

I'm just saying that your position or wording is changing throught the tread.
Where has my position changed? Wording? That is personal, deny it all you want.

You are not challenging it, you said "nope". Thats more like saying that I am wrong.
Wrong wording on my part? So I'll apologize again. Let's just say I strongly disagree, and would like to see more evidence.

How can you be sure his sources are right? I am not sure that when you read a book, you go check every sources the author stated now.
Actually I do. I've read too many claims in reference books that turned out to be wrong, and when I see something unsubstantiated, then yes, I do check every source I can. I also write comments to websites when they say something that several sources disagree with. I'm also careful to check when several sources agree, but seem to be quoting each other rather than primary material. I believe in facts, and unless an author provides them I don't trust him.


See the pilots with parachutes above.
See my comment directly above. Anybody can claim anything, and unless times, dates and facts are provided the claim isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Of course I think you are wrong and I will say it again:"normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."


With all that discussion about big explosions and depth charges talking, I am very tempted to research the subject myself. Another project in queue. :D
You should. I'm told that statisticians are fond of saying "Once is not a trend."

[Sailor Steve]

Still, there were lots of incidents where casualties were very heavy (most or nearly all of the crew):

-HMS Somali
-HMS Cossack
-USS Reuben James
-USS Jacob Jones
-HMS Lapwing
-HMS Bluebell

And that's off the top of my head. Come to think of it, researching casualty rates for Allied escorts would be an interesting project.

Fire away.
Yes, it was a dangerous job. I served on a destroyer myself, and even a grease fire in the steering room was cause for alarm.

Research would indeed be good, because that list is short (I realize it was, as you said, off the top of your head. How many total sank with high loss of life, vs how many sank total? I admit I don't know.

[Mouftic]

I see this is getting a little spirited; I hope there aren't any hard feelings guys....

Absolutly no hard feelings on my side.

But I can't prove beyond a doubt that 'sailor steve' feels the same way. <---- This is a joke :)

[Mouftic]

So the vast majority of frigates that were torpedoed blew up due to ammunition explosions and had a high loss of life, and had depth charges explode? That would fit the definition of "normally".

Too many 'ands' in there. I didnt say in all the sinkings the ammunitions would blow AND the depth charges exploded.


So 60% of all frigates torpedoed "and sink" (Mouftic's edit) had magazine explosions, or depth charge detonations? High loss of life? You do need to show actual evidence for a claim like that.

I will be happy to show you that. Like I said before, I am using the Canadian navy to base my claim.


Your first statement was that "Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives...". That suggests that it was common for the ammunition to explode, causing the high death rate. If that's not how you meant it, I'm sorry for taking it wrong.

Why did you stop the quote... "and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."


And if I can add to this: "and even when they (Depth charges) were set to safe mode, sometimes they did have malfunctions and would explode anyway."


Again you're ignoring the fact that I never questioned the eyewitness accounts, just the book's author making a claim (you know, the one you quoted in huge red letters) and providing no reference for it. "In other rapid sinkings"?

He must be claiming that just to add words to his book.


Which ones? Doesn't he document all of them? If he has the fate of every single ship, why not show them?

This is unrealistic on your part. Some ships were lost with all hands, so survivors statements would be hard to get.

Where did you show me that? Were 75% of the crew of every ship that sank lost? Where did I agree with you on that?

Now we are talking about every ship had high death rates?!?! You are making me say stuff I didn't say.

The numbers of death I calculated was "689 dead and 383 survivors..."
I didn't go back and calculate the percentage when iI wrote my post, so I said "almost 75%", after calculating, the exact number is 64.27%.

But i'm pretty sure you did agree right here in post #26. I can't argue about death rates...


I didn't say you did. I said you showed examples of it, and I said that there are many more examples of a low death rate. You're arguing with something I didn't say.

Again, I didnt say "every ship" had a high death rate, I said frigates has a whole and saying "many more with low death rates" is a claim you can't back.

Actually I do. I've read too many claims in reference books that turned out to be wrong, and when I see something unsubstantiated, then yes, I do check every source I can. I also write comments to websites when they say something that several sources disagree with. I'm also careful to check when several sources agree, but seem to be quoting each other rather than primary material. I believe in facts, and unless an author provides them I don't trust him.

Well my friend, if that is true then you are the exception to the rule and by saying all that stuff, I would excpect that every claim you say in this forum are backed up by proof... It would be interesting to go check your other 31 000+ posts. :O:

You should. I'm told that statisticians are fond of saying "Once is not a trend."

Yep, but I showed you more than once.

Like I said before, I will do the research on Canadian vessels that were used for ASW that sank if they had a high death rate and if they would have huge explosion (ammunition exploding) and depth charges blowing up in the water.

But right now I am reading a rather interesting book called: The U-Boat War. The german Submarine Service and the Battle of the Atlantic. 1935-45.

And yes, I am still claiming....

"Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."

:salute:

:O:

[Sailor Steve]

Too many 'ands' in there. I didnt say in all the sinkings the ammunitions would blow AND the depth charges exploded.
But you did cite those reasons for a "normally" high death rate. If you meant that when those events happened then that ship had a high death rate, then you are absolutely right. If, however, you meant that there was a high death rate in all sinkings, then I disagree. It looked to me like you were claiming there was a high death rate overall, and magazine explosions were the contributing cause, and were common.

Likewise the after-sinking depth charge explosions. When they happened there was a good chance of heavy casualties, but they didn't happen all that often.

I will be happy to show you that. Like I said before, I am using the Canadian navy to base my claim.
Please do. I'll be curious to see if Canadians had more of these problems than other nations.

Why did you stop the quote... "and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."
Because I was specifically addressing the 'magazine explosions' claim. You have two separate statements in the same sentence, and including the second phrase would have distracted from discussing the first.

And if I can add to this: "and even when they (Depth charges) were set to safe mode, sometimes they did have malfunctions and would explode anyway."
Sometimes, yes. How often? One in ten? One in one hundred? One thousand? Unless it happened fairly regularly it's a useless diversion to the discussion.

He must be claiming that just to add words to his book.
"Must be"? Again you assume that what somebody says is fact just because he says it. I don't even dispute the claim. He may be right. On the other hand, he offers no evidence, so the claim itself cannot be used to back an argument. Why he makes the claim becomes irrelevant; it's just a claim, and nothing more.

This is unrealistic on your part. Some ships were lost with all hands, so survivors statements would be hard to get.
And I put those in the "possibles" category. If the ship was seen to sink but no massive explosion was reported, then it probably didn't happen. But if the ship was sunk out of sight of anyone else, then it may have happened or it may not. Hence "possible".

Now we are talking about every ship had high death rates?!?! You are making me say stuff I didn't say.
Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because etc...
Not every ship, but most frigates. You did say that.

The numbers of death I calculated was "689 dead and 383 survivors..."
I didn't go back and calculate the percentage when iI wrote my post, so I said "almost 75%", after calculating, the exact number is 64.27%.
Really? Overall the loss rate for Canadian frigates sunk was 64.27%? That's interesting. How does that compare with other Allied navies' figures?

But i'm pretty sure you did agree right here in post #26.
Saying I don't know that particular number is not the same as agreeing.

Again, I didnt say "every ship" had a high death rate, I said frigates has a whole and saying "many more with low death rates" is a claim you can't back.
You're limiting your argument to ships that were sunk. If you include ships that were torpedoed and didn't sink then the number goes way down. Why would I include those ships? Because your original claim didn't only say "among frigates that were sunk", but just generally said frigates.

My original dispute, it you'll read it again, wasn't with the death rate, but with the claim of magazine explosions and depth charge explosions. You accuse me of jumping all over the place with my arguments, but here you are doing that very thing.

Well my friend, if that is true then you are the exception to the rule and by saying all that stuff, I would excpect that every claim you say in this forum are backed up by proof... It would be interesting to go check your other 31 000+ posts. :O:
And you will find that, as a general rule, I do exactly that. You will also find examples you can point to and say "See? He didn't do it there!" I'm not perfect, nor have I ever claimed to be. But I do question everything, and don't accept unsupported claims as "fact".

Yep, but I showed you more than once.
You showed me three or four times, out of many dozens. My point stands.

Like I said before, I will do the research on Canadian vessels that were used for ASW that sank if they had a high death rate and if they would have huge explosion (ammunition exploding) and depth charges blowing up in the water.
Don't worry about the overall death rate. As I said to Iambecomelife, I agree it was a dangerous job. I'll even accept your percentage number, as you did the calculations and I have no reason to doubt your number. The other two will be interesting.

But right now I am reading a rather interesting book called: The U-Boat War. The german Submarine Service and the Battle of the Atlantic. 1935-45.
Cool. One can never read enough books.

And yes, I am still claiming....

"Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."

:salute:

:O:
Fair enough. :sunny: