Panama chip composition in NA and Car convoys?

jasonb885 · 03-20-06, 05:29 PM

Does anyone have information on nationality composition in convoys with respect to the inclusion of Panamanian ships? I know many ships were brought into service with a Panama registry and I'd like to add that representation to ImprovedConvoys.

Actually, Observer had run the numbers last Summer, but I failed to save the images, I don't have the Excel sheets, and the links are long since dead.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

jasonb885 · 03-21-06, 07:34 PM

No one has any thoughts?

I'm going to give it a guess and add Panama to tanker convoys in '43+ and maybe in some HX and SC convoys, then, I guess.

:hmm:

Der Teddy Bar · 03-21-06, 08:45 PM

I think that the French Fry reference has deep fried everyones thought processes :rotfl:

Happy Times · 03-21-06, 10:30 PM

Put Panama on the search engine. Looking at the map in the bottom and reading about the routes or convoys they were sailing when sunk, they should be evenly distriputed to all North Atlantic and Caribian convoys. :hmm: http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/

jasonb885 · 03-21-06, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Put Panama on the search engine. Looking at the map in the bottom and reading about the routes or convoys they were sailing when sunk, they should be evenly distriputed to all North Atlantic and Caribian convoys. :hmm: http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/

From that it looks like they should appear from 1942 - 1945 mostly.

Stiebler · 03-22-06, 02:30 AM

The fact that the sinkings of Panamanian ships were mostly in 1942-3 might reflect only the high number of *all* Allied losses in that period.

The *proportion* of Panamanian ships in convoys could have remained the same throughout the war. Indeed, statistically it is possible (although unlikely) that there were fewer Panamanian ships under charter during this period. The figures prove little. You should compare them with all Allied losses during the same period. And even this might prove only that Panamanian ships were better/worse constructed and therefore less/more likely to sink. Or that they were less likely to be found in convoys for their protection than the registered ships of the Allies. You can argue this all ways round - insufficient information.

Stiebler.

Happy Times · 03-22-06, 02:42 AM

Its because most of these ships were taken over 1941 by US on an Executive Order, renamed and registered in Panama.

jasonb885 · 03-22-06, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiebler

The fact that the sinkings of Panamanian ships were mostly in 1942-3 might reflect only the high number of *all* Allied losses in that period.

The *proportion* of Panamanian ships in convoys could have remained the same throughout the war. Indeed, statistically it is possible (although unlikely) that there were fewer Panamanian ships under charter during this period. The figures prove little. You should compare them with all Allied losses during the same period. And even this might prove only that Panamanian ships were better/worse constructed and therefore less/more likely to sink. Or that they were less likely to be found in convoys for their protection than the registered ships of the Allies. You can argue this all ways round - insufficient information.

Stiebler.

Absolutely.

In the past I simply relied on Observer's information and any caveats like the above that he mentioned.

In either case, baring any additional information I may go with a 10% figure just to get things rolling. Odds are, no one will ever say a word because of the nature of the statistical analysis required to determine what's really most realistic. Unlike the RuB deckgun reload time, the nationality of a ship you sink really doesn't matter that much, except for immersion, so I think few will care if the number is actually 20% for one month in 1943 and 17% in 1945 in some other convoy.

Such is life.

andy_311 · 03-22-06, 05:26 PM

Never seen a Panamainian ship ever,but I also never seen Panama on the SH3 map until i installed GW, but fist thing first got to work out where the bloody subnets are.

jasonb885 · 03-22-06, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_311

Never seen a Panamainian ship ever,but I also never seen Panama on the SH3 map until i installed GW, but fist thing first got to work out where the bloody subnets are.

Neat. They're using Sergbuto's Nationality Mod v3.0, then, which included Panama.

As far as I know there aren't any floating around in the campaign yet, though.

03-20-06, 05:29 PM	#1
jasonb885 Samurai Navy Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 580 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Panama chip composition in NA and Car convoys? Does anyone have information on nationality composition in convoys with respect to the inclusion of Panamanian ships? I know many ships were brought into service with a Panama registry and I'd like to add that representation to ImprovedConvoys. Actually, Observer had run the numbers last Summer, but I failed to save the images, I don't have the Excel sheets, and the links are long since dead. Thoughts? Thanks! __________________ X1 = Thieves Starforce officially promotes piracy of unprotected game, Galactic Civilizations II! eh? Improved Convoys mod!

03-21-06, 07:34 PM	#2
jasonb885 Samurai Navy Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 580 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	No one has any thoughts? I'm going to give it a guess and add Panama to tanker convoys in '43+ and maybe in some HX and SC convoys, then, I guess. :hmm: __________________ X1 = Thieves Starforce officially promotes piracy of unprotected game, Galactic Civilizations II! eh? Improved Convoys mod!

03-21-06, 10:30 PM	#4
Happy Times Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 2,950 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Put Panama on the search engine. Looking at the map in the bottom and reading about the routes or convoys they were sailing when sunk, they should be evenly distriputed to all North Atlantic and Caribian convoys. :hmm: http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ __________________

03-22-06, 02:42 AM	#7
Happy Times Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 2,950 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Its because most of these ships were taken over 1941 by US on an Executive Order, renamed and registered in Panama. __________________

03-21-06, 08:45 PM	#3
Der Teddy Bar Blade Master Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,388 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I think that the French Fry reference has deep fried everyones thought processes :rotfl:

03-22-06, 02:30 AM	#6
Stiebler Fuel Supplier Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,237 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 4	The fact that the sinkings of Panamanian ships were mostly in 1942-3 might reflect only the high number of all Allied losses in that period. The proportion of Panamanian ships in convoys could have remained the same throughout the war. Indeed, statistically it is possible (although unlikely) that there were fewer Panamanian ships under charter during this period. The figures prove little. You should compare them with all Allied losses during the same period. And even this might prove only that Panamanian ships were better/worse constructed and therefore less/more likely to sink. Or that they were less likely to be found in convoys for their protection than the registered ships of the Allies. You can argue this all ways round - insufficient information. Stiebler.

03-22-06, 05:26 PM	#9
andy_311 The Old Man Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Oldham, Lancs,England Posts: 1,312 Downloads: 82 Uploads: 0	Never seen a Panamainian ship ever,but I also never seen Panama on the SH3 map until i installed GW, but fist thing first got to work out where the bloody subnets are.