Ships sinking time

[AVGWarhawk]

This weekend I watch a Discovery Channel program of the dismantling and sinking the the 'BIG O' off the coast of Florida. The crews cut holes for the water to come into the aircraft carrier. The bilges that run the outside of the hull were filled with water. They used explosive from stern to bow to blow the covered holes to the sea. Everything was set up to make this ship sink.....my point is, it took 37 minutes for the carrier to sink.....................so you SH3 players who complain that GW makes the sink time of ships unrealistic I say they are realistic. Here we have an aircraft carrier that is cut up, blown up and set in every way to sink like a rock and it took 37 minutes to sink.:rock:

What say you?:arrgh!:

[Finnbat]

Hit the boilers !
noproblemo...:rock:

[AVGWarhawk]

Hit the boilers !
noproblemo...:rock:

Boilers smoilers.....they had explosives blowing holes along the entire keel. Six by six holes cut along the sides. Large valves that let the sea in for ballast were blown open. Still 37 minutes to go down:o

[Warmonger]

Hit the boilers !
noproblemo...:rock:
Boilers smoilers.....they had explosives blowing holes along the entire keel. Six by six holes cut along the sides. Large valves that let the sea in for ballast were blown open. Still 37 minutes to go down:o

Was there any mod installed?

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Hit the boilers !
noproblemo...:rock:
Boilers smoilers.....they had explosives blowing holes along the entire keel. Six by six holes cut along the sides. Large valves that let the sea in for ballast were blown open. Still 37 minutes to go down:o

Was there any mod installed?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Respenus]

DO you even realise what cold sea water does to how steam inside the boilers.

"BOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!" :rock:

Plus I used for fish, hit the stern of the carrier (my gooddamn weapons officer :damn: miscalculated again) and she sank in under 30 min. And I didn't hit the boilers.

Hit the boilers, you can see her sink before the even start DC-ing you.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hit the boilers !
noproblemo...:rock:
Boilers smoilers.....they had explosives blowing holes along the entire keel. Six by six holes cut along the sides. Large valves that let the sea in for ballast were blown open. Still 37 minutes to go down:o
Was there any mod installed?

Yes, modded TNT so the sea water would not put out the fuse:rotfl:

[HunterICX]

Are we talking about some firecrackers. I say lets test it with an Nuke see, just to see how fast sinks

[AVGWarhawk]

Are we talking about some firecrackers. I say lets test it with an Nuke see, just to see how fast sinks

Not to many nukes coming out of my torpedo tubes SH3:lol:

[SteamWake]

I saw this piece.

It was a "controlled" explosion or rather a series of explosions carefully crafted so tha the ship would settle on the bottom sitting upright. This was important because if the ship layed on its side it would only clear the surface by 20 or so feet.

One of the things mentioned was that certain chambers had to be filled at a controlled rate to avoid the ship rolling on its side.

Im pretty sure that if they wanted to sink her faster they certainly could have.

One of the interesting side notes they did explain how the ship was protected against torpedo damage by a triple layer of ballast tanks like this. Generally speaking the torpedo would breach only the first or second blukhead. The bulkheads were also segmented fore to aft.

View in section

Torpedo Hull Water or air
>>---> | | ~~


>>---> |~~|~~|~~| (people and equipment) |~~|~~|~~|

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, I recall that they flooded these bulkheads before detonation so she would sink on an even keel. She was the unsinkable ship for sure! No matter as they blown holes throughout the entire keel. I believe with that many holes at the exact same time blown she would have gone down quickly. My point here is the people who believe that GW sinking model is off. I think it is darn close to the real thing. People always say I read this ship or that ship went down with one torpedo. Sure, the writer wants excitment so the one torpedo fireworks is a great read. I'm sure most do not want to read about 5 hours of chasing a half sunken ship around. I believe GW is dead on with the sinking model(with exception of that darn tramp steamer with the Klingon cloaking device or something to keep it floating:nope:).

[Respenus]

Yes, I recall that they flooded these bulkheads before detonation so she would sink on an even keel. She was the unsinkable ship for sure! No matter as they blown holes throughout the entire keel. I believe with that many holes at the exact same time blown she would have gone down quickly. My point here is the people who believe that GW sinking model is off. I think it is darn close to the real thing. People always say I read this ship or that ship went down with one torpedo. Sure, the writer wants excitment so the one torpedo fireworks is a great read. I'm sure most do not want to read about 5 hours of chasing a half sunken ship around. I believe GW is dead on with the sinking model(with exception of that darn tramp steamer with the Klingon cloaking device or something to keep it floating:nope:).

Klingon Cloaking Device?! I'm sure I'm not mistaken that you're not a Trekkie?

But sure, those steamers are made from something that doesn't exist anymore.

There once was a company a Tramp Steamer makers and they decided that to make influence on the world market, their ships needed to be made out of something special. While they were thinking about it, a spacial rift opened into another dimension and out came a peace of Trinium and a Replicator. With the Replicator, they created tons of Trinium and this is how their ships are so hard to sink.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

The second image of my siggy is the USS Barr. Under action her entire stern was blasted apart and off by an acoustical torpedo, yet she remained not only afloat but on QC for hours.(http://www.de220.com/Armament/Decoys/Decoys.htm)

[AVGWarhawk]

The second image of my siggy is the USS Barr. Under action her entire stern was blasted apart and off by an acoustical torpedo, yet she remained not only afloat but on QC for hours.(http://www.de220.com/Armament/Decoys/Decoys.htm)

No more questions you Honor.....you have solved the case of the slow sinking merchants in SH3 GW modded. I believe the sinking mod is darn good and darn close to the actual reality of it. :up:

[Hueywolf123]

The second image of my siggy is the USS Barr. Under action her entire stern was blasted apart and off by an acoustical torpedo, yet she remained not only afloat but on QC for hours.(http://www.de220.com/Armament/Decoys/Decoys.htm)

No more questions you Honor.....you have solved the case of the slow sinking merchants in SH3 GW modded. I believe the sinking mod is darn good and darn close to the actual reality of it. :up:

All those who consider sinking times unrealistic, have never heard of damage control. Ships are not a completely hollow vessel. They have watertight bulkheads at regular distances throughout the hull. Blew off part of the stern? Shut the door! I was a 'Chippy' in the RAN and damage control was a big part of my duties. Just so long as the remaining part of the ship remains watertight and can maintain a positive bouyancy, bad luck for Herr Kaleun.
I have read WWII reports of tankers taking seven torpedoes and still only being classed as a write-off, not an actual sinking. If your AI units are set at expert, good luck sinking them, this is random in the game but the higher difficulty level you play at, the more common it is to find expert AI units.:|\\

[IceGrog]

Yes, I recall that they flooded these bulkheads before detonation so she would sink on an even keel. She was the unsinkable ship for sure! No matter as they blown holes throughout the entire keel. I believe with that many holes at the exact same time blown she would have gone down quickly. My point here is the people who believe that GW sinking model is off. I think it is darn close to the real thing. People always say I read this ship or that ship went down with one torpedo. Sure, the writer wants excitment so the one torpedo fireworks is a great read. I'm sure most do not want to read about 5 hours of chasing a half sunken ship around. I believe GW is dead on with the sinking model(with exception of that darn tramp steamer with the Klingon cloaking device or something to keep it floating:nope:).
I saw that show too, you are right, and didn’t they say at the time she was built she was the most unsinkable ship, but they said that about the Titanic too. The big “O” a great show.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

All those who consider sinking times unrealistic, have never heard of damage control. Ships are not a completely hollow vessel. They have watertight bulkheads at regular distances throughout the hull. Blew off part of the stern? Shut the door! I was a 'Chippy' in the RAN and damage control was a big part of my duties. Just so long as the remaining part of the ship remains watertight and can maintain a positive bouyancy, bad luck for Herr Kaleun.
I have read WWII reports of tankers taking seven torpedoes and still only being classed as a write-off, not an actual sinking. If your AI units are set at expert, good luck sinking them, this is random in the game but the higher difficulty level you play at, the more common it is to find expert AI units.:|\\

Not just that, but they have damage control personnel who, I'm sure, are just as motivated to contain flooding and pump compartments dry as we U-boat drivers are. It's not like their crews are just twiddling thumbs and helplessly waving their hands in distress; they're actively striving to contain, and repair, their damage.

[Hueywolf123]

Exactly, while ever she floats you have shelter and stay dry. If she goes under, there goes your primary life support. They are not going to just flap about like untrained seals, they will work damn hard to stay up

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

McKeesport had a hole opened up by the torpedo abreast No.1 hold which was filled with sand as ballast. It quickly filled with inrushing sea water, and the ship lurched off to port, almost running down the British Baron Graham, which took avoiding action.For another 50 minutes the torpedoed freighter maintained her station and the speed of the convoy, but with her engine room now flooding, at 0815 ( 8.15 AM ) she started to sink, and her Master ordered "ABANDON SHIP." There was but one fatality on board, a Swede, John A. Anderson, now Northern Gem came alongside and picked up 43 seamen and 25 naval personnel, she now tried to sink the wreck by gunfire, but without result, Tay was ordered by Gretton to dispose of the sinking ship, which she did by use of depth charges blasting another hole in her hull.

Interesting article this came from. I think we'd all find it interesting reading.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheBattleForConvoyONS5.26.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Hesse, you have driven the point home:up::rock::rock:. I started this post because of the complainers that GW sinking model is unrealistic and golly gee my one torpedo did not sink a 25000 ton BB:cry:. Total arcade in my view with the golden torpedo. Again, I feel that GW is dead on with the realistic sinking model:up::up:

They need to fix two things, the unrelenting tramp steamer and make the cannon a bit stronger;)

[HunterICX]

Well to sink an BB you really need to get ur 4 eels beeing an hit....ofcourse if ur lucky you hit the ammo bunker. but the 4 eels give you the chance that you criple it heavy and that it stops moving:rock: then I,ll say wait if she is going to lean very heavy towards 1 side and get ur sub to the oposite position surface and finish her of the Deck gun :up:

[Hartmann]

The ships are made of iron and despite the effort of a damage team it would sink if the damage is too severe or the forces of the sea break the ship structure

http://www.greatoceanliners.net/Images/Jpegs/titanic08.jpg

also depends of the circunstancies like fire, burnig fuel ,electric failures,or not working pumps,

[AVGWarhawk]

The ships are made of iron and despite the effort of a damage team it would sink if the damage is too severe or the forces of the sea break the ship structure

http://www.greatoceanliners.net/Images/Jpegs/titanic08.jpg

also depends of the circunstancies like fire, burnig fuel ,electric failures,or not working pumps,


True on the circumstances so I would suspect that the sinking model in GW takes some of this into consideration. Sometimes that one golden torpedo hits the ammo bunker and she goes down in two pieces:up:. Sometimes you hit the latrines and she stays afloat requiring more torpedos to finish her off. Yep, GW has modeled the sinking times and damaged very well.:yep:

[Respenus]

I'm perfectly happy with the damage model in GW. I hit an Auxiliary Cruiser once and 2 torps were enough to sent her sky high. I used 4 fish (for fun), but she was already blowing apart after the second (or maybe even first, didn't look too well) shot! :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, I'm happy with the damage model in GW. It is a few that just keep whining because they cannot get the one torpedo kills all the time like the original version out of the box. Sure it sucks getting two torpedos into a ship and she keeps her speed and keeps on chugging away. But hey it happend in the war and happens here.

[KeybdFlyer]

I agree with the comments that GW has the damage modelling just about perfect... but I've also had some not-so-great experiences. The Large Tanker that absorbed 7 hits and barely slowed, the Troopship that took 6 good hits to go down and of course, the almost indestructible Tramp Steamer, lol. But on the other hand, you get the occasional "one hit wonders" where a single hit destroys the target - so it's swings & roundabouts. All in all, GW is a hell of an improvement over the stock game - all power to the GW dev team, thanks for giving me a whole new game!