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"? 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.

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

I didn't say he lied. He did, however, make an unsubstantiated claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

I'm sorry if I took it that way too.

You're right, but all I have to go on is what you presented.

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.

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


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

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.

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.

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:

:rotfl2:@ gargamel

/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.

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)

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.


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

nor·mal
[nawr-muhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/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.




:) 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/exhibiti...&id=193&page=8

The discussion we are having is about sinkings.

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

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.

Yes, and I am still claiming it.

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

I never said that all hand lost was normal.

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:

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

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


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.

See the pilots with parachutes above.

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

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:

Yes please...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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?

Fair enough. I mistook your meaning, and I apologize.

So most frigates which sank suffered magazine explosions? And this caused a high death rate? Both claims need to be substantiated.

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 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.

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.

Where has my position changed? Wording? That is personal, deny it all you want.

Wrong wording on my part? So I'll apologize again. Let's just say I strongly disagree, and would like to see more evidence.

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 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.

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

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.

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 :)

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


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


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."


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


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

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.
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.

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:

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:

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.

Please do. I'll be curious to see if Canadians had more of these problems than other nations.

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.

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.

"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.

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".

Not every ship, but most frigates. You did say that.

Really? Overall the loss rate for Canadian frigates sunk was 64.27%? That's interesting. How does that compare with other Allied navies' figures?

Saying I don't know that particular number is not the same as agreeing.

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.

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".

You showed me three or four times, out of many dozens. My point stands.

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.


Cool. One can never read enough books.

Fair enough. :sunny: