Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Nemo
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...