With all this discussion of damage modelling, I hope they don't get conned by 'exception memory' syndrome.
What I mean is that people tend to remember exceptions. Why? Because they are exceptional! For example, people remember the destruction of HMS Hood in a catastrophic explosion following a short exchange of fire with KMS Bismarck and KMS Prinz Eugen. Is it right to conclude battleships (or battlecruisers if you want to be picky) are prone to blow up with little provocation (and please save yourself the trouble of discussing battlecruiser destruction in Jutland etc, as it's off topic - even though it's an interesting topic)?
What's needed is an accurate analysis of available data.
As an example, the majority of light cruisers sunk by torpedo in WWII took only 1 hit to sink. Same with escort vessels, they almost always sank after a single torpedo.
With merchantmen, there was variation based on the size and class of vessel (tanker v general cargo v bulk carrier), its age etc. Tankers benefit from their construction but suffer from the problem of the nature of their cargo. If you look through the data on ships sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic, you'll find they were considerably smaller on average than that depicted in SHIII, took 1 torpedo to sink, and often did so in fewer than 15 minutes.
Yes it is good to allow for 'statistical outliers' (look up the Ohio in Operation Pedestal for a good example!), and variations based on some of the factors mentioned in this thread and my post, but NOT at the expense of the overriding fact that MOST vessels sank within fairly predictable times based on farily predictable damage.
What I wouldn't want to see is an ocean full of bows and sterns bobbing around like oversized corks waiting for a few deck gun shells to dispose of them.
Cheers all
|