Quote:
Originally Posted by Bothersome
... It was my understanding that merchant ships were built to move cargo and not built for surviving battles at sea. If it was ship worthy enough to survive high waves and weather that was expected, it was built to those specifications. So a merchant ship was generally very susceptible to sinking from taking torpedo damages. Basically, the ship may be rusty and in need of some repair and spit and polish. But, if it could haul cargo, then it sails, even if it is only one torpedo away from sinking...
|
Merchant ships could also prove remarkably tough and some cargos helped keep a damaged ship afloat even as other doomed a torpedo victim to rapid sinking. The vast majority certainly had watertight compartments and in some cases double hulls, double bottom's and hulls reinforced for operations in ice were incorporated into the original design.
The comments about the crews may be generally accurate but also lack context, Navy crews were disciplined and trained to save the ship but merchant seaman were inculcated into saving themselves. When the best chance of the latter coincided with doing the former they were capable of outstanding feats of damage control that are known and probably many that are unknown because they might not have been ultimately successful.
As for defensive guns, many ships, particularly passenger liners built pre-war outside the USA were government subsidized and had areas of the decks strengthened to take guns built into the design for use in the event of war. This was common in the British merchant marine and since much of Japanese maritime practice mirrored that of the UK it is reasonable to infer that they did something similar. Tater's links certainly point that way.