Ever destroy a ship with all hands?

[Mouftic]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I can't argue about death rates, but we were talking about explosions. They did happen, but weren't all that common. That was my only point.

Well you are making progress at least. You started with 'difficult' and now you are at 'not that common'.

And yes you did argue the "normally" for high death rates in the following quote.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I said "difficult", not "impossible". My initial response was to you using the word "normally" in quoting a high death rate

-----------

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Let's say"? Speculation is not fact.

So you are saying that in all the unrecorded sinkings, there was not secondary explosions from ammunitions or depth charges.
By saying "let's speculate", I mean it surely did happen. I highly doubt they were quiet sinkings.

Now if you want facts, you cant get any either that it didn't happen and yet you are saying that:
-"By-and-large torpedoed frigates did not suffer secondary explosions."
-"They did happen, but weren't all that common."
-"My point was that there were far (and I mean vastly far) more sinkings of small warships in which secondary ammunition detonations played no part."
-"My observation is that that is not even close to being true, so I objected."

Now those are strong statements without facts.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Now we have a different problem. The author of that article doesn't site the "other rapid sinkings", which results in what is known as an unsubstantiated claim. It would be no different if he had said that other rapid sinkings happened because there was a problem with hatch seals on all those ships. Unless he shows that that was actually a cause, he's just guessing.

Why would you say he's just guessing? If he is mentionning it, it must be because it did happen. He clearly didnt say it was because of "that other rapid sinkings happened because there was a problem with hatch seals on all those ships." now did he.

Remenber this quote:

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives. But he himself was not one of the survivors. Malone received no official recognition for doing his duty but he is remembered with gratitude by those who were rescued.

Why would they even mention it if it was not a common occurence.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And again I have the same problem. The author also mentions the boilers exploding, presumably at the same time he mentions crew being "sucked down with the ship". Boiler explosions are indeed a common occurence, but I can find no other source which uses that phrase. In fact Uboat.net's article http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/824.html states that Louisburg was hit by "bombs and torpedoes", plural, which implies a different story than the one in that book."

"That book" you are reffering too is called: Corvettes Canada,Convoy Veterans of WW2 tell their true stories

I think thats good enough facts for me, unless all they said was true except for the depth charges exploding in the water after a sinking.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

What I am is a careful researcher who doesn't like phrases that suggest that something happened all the time when in fact it was uncommon at best.

Well mister careful researcher, I would be very interessted to see you prove that fact that they where uncommon at best.

From all my research so far, there is nothing uncommon about it.

You can keep playing the devil's advocate, I find this rather amusing.