Large Liner sank with one torpedo?

[MercurySeven]

Originally Posted by cardiff

yes it is lusitania, WW1. An investigation found no munitions but the torpedo ignited years of coal dust build up that caused a secondary explosion that foundered the ship. It listed quite a bit and resulted in the lifeboats being unusable resulting in large loss of life.

Actually later on quite a bit of ammunition was found around the wreckage. However, those were small caliber rounds for rifles and machineguns which probably didn't cause the secondary explosion. Larger ammunition (eg for artillery) was not found. The coal dust story is one possible explanation for the Lusitanias tragedy but as of now no team of experts could really determine what sank her in the end.

[cardiff]

The most likely cause was coal dust, the ark royal was sunk with 1 torpedo, the tahio (japanese aircraft carrier) was sunk with 1 torpedo, ww1 dreadnaughts were sunk with 1 torpedo, etc etc.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by cardiff

The most likely cause was coal dust, the ark royal was sunk with 1 torpedo, the tahio (japanese aircraft carrier) was sunk with 1 torpedo, ww1 dreadnaughts were sunk with 1 torpedo, etc etc.

The only problem I see with this statement is that there is a reason behind taiho's sinking due to one torpedo. Yes one torpedo did indeed hit it (and it subsequently sank from the actions that followed thereafter), but it was not from the damage inflicted by only this torpedo that sank it. Rather a combination of poor damage control (venting fumes from the breached fuel tanks throughout the ship which in effect created a time bomb) and bad timing (one spark = kaboom) that resulted in the sinking of Taiho.

Also, you cannot compare the sinking of a WWONE dreadnought/battleship to the sinking of a WWTWO battleship/battlecruiser, etc because the armor schemes, torpedo warheads, damage control techniques, all of it, was different in the two wars.

If you're going to tell a story, tell the whole story or not at all.

[cardiff]

Well the story is that large ships can be sunk with 1 torpedo whether ww1, ww2 or any other war. The lusitanias sinking was aided by open port holes, Tahio by poor damage control and similarly the Ark Royal. If the situation is right (or wrong if you are a sailor) then all ships can sink with semingly low damage. Britanic also sank under conditions it was meant to survive, a single mine or torpedo would not have been enough to founder the ship yet it did. Lusitania was built as a ship that could be converted to a armed cruiser, with money loaned from the goverment to cunard, so that in times of war the ships could be requisitioned.

[Tigershark624]

Wasn't the Shinano sunk with one torpedo, seventeen hours after being struck? I'm referring to the sister of the Yamato and Musashi that was converted to an aircraft carrier (in case I got the name wrong). Of course, she left port unfinished, with open holes in the watertight bulkheads where conduit was supposed to be.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tigershark624

Wasn't the Shinano sunk with one torpedo, seventeen hours after being struck? I'm referring to the sister of the Yamato and Musashi that was converted to an aircraft carrier (in case I got the name wrong). Of course, she left port unfinished, with open holes in the watertight bulkheads where conduit was supposed to be.

Nope, four torpedoes, of six fired. And because she was unfinished she was running shallow, which caused all four to hit right on the seam between the anti-torpedo bulges and the hull, which made it worse.

[Tigershark624]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Nope, four torpedoes, of six fired. And because she was unfinished she was running shallow, which caused all four to hit right on the seam between the anti-torpedo bulges and the hull, which made it worse.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

[Lemke]

In 1993, Dr. Robert Ballard, the famous explorer who discovered Titanic and Bismarck, conducted an in-depth exploration of the wreck of Lusitania. To explain the second explosion, Ballard advanced the theory of a coal-dust explosion. He believed dust in the bunkers would have been thrown into the air by the vibration from the explosion; the resulting cloud would have been ignited by a spark, causing the second explosion.

In the years since he first advanced this theory, it has been argued that this is nearly impossible. Critics of the theory say coal dust would have been too damp to have been stirred into the air by the torpedo impact in explosive concentrations; additionally, the coal bunker where the torpedo struck would have been flooded almost immediately by seawater flowing through the damaged hull plates.

More recently, marine forensic investigators have become convinced an explosion in the ship's steam-generating plant is a far more likely cause for the second explosion.

The original torpedo damage alone, striking the ship on the starboard coal bunker of boiler room no. 1, would probably have sunk the ship without a second explosion. This first blast was enough to cause, on its own, serious off-centre flooding, although the sinking would possibly have been slower. The deficiencies of the ship's original watertight bulkhead design exacerbated the situation, as did the many portholes which had been left open for ventilation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lus...#Controversies