Ever destroy a ship with all hands?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mouftic

Too many 'ands' in there. I didnt say in all the sinkings the ammunitions would blow AND the depth charges exploded.

But you did cite those reasons for a "normally" high death rate. If you meant that when those events happened then that ship had a high death rate, then you are absolutely right. If, however, you meant that there was a high death rate in all sinkings, then I disagree. It looked to me like you were claiming there was a high death rate overall, and magazine explosions were the contributing cause, and were common.

Likewise the after-sinking depth charge explosions. When they happened there was a good chance of heavy casualties, but they didn't happen all that often.

I will be happy to show you that. Like I said before, I am using the Canadian navy to base my claim.

Please do. I'll be curious to see if Canadians had more of these problems than other nations.

Why did you stop the quote... "and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."

Because I was specifically addressing the 'magazine explosions' claim. You have two separate statements in the same sentence, and including the second phrase would have distracted from discussing the first.

And if I can add to this: "and even when they (Depth charges) were set to safe mode, sometimes they did have malfunctions and would explode anyway."

Sometimes, yes. How often? One in ten? One in one hundred? One thousand? Unless it happened fairly regularly it's a useless diversion to the discussion.

He must be claiming that just to add words to his book.

"Must be"? Again you assume that what somebody says is fact just because he says it. I don't even dispute the claim. He may be right. On the other hand, he offers no evidence, so the claim itself cannot be used to back an argument. Why he makes the claim becomes irrelevant; it's just a claim, and nothing more.

This is unrealistic on your part. Some ships were lost with all hands, so survivors statements would be hard to get.

And I put those in the "possibles" category. If the ship was seen to sink but no massive explosion was reported, then it probably didn't happen. But if the ship was sunk out of sight of anyone else, then it may have happened or it may not. Hence "possible".

Now we are talking about every ship had high death rates?!?! You are making me say stuff I didn't say.

Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because etc...

Not every ship, but most frigates. You did say that.

The numbers of death I calculated was "689 dead and 383 survivors..."
I didn't go back and calculate the percentage when iI wrote my post, so I said "almost 75%", after calculating, the exact number is 64.27%.

Really? Overall the loss rate for Canadian frigates sunk was 64.27%? That's interesting. How does that compare with other Allied navies' figures?

But i'm pretty sure you did agree right here in post #26.

Saying I don't know that particular number is not the same as agreeing.

Again, I didnt say "every ship" had a high death rate, I said frigates has a whole and saying "many more with low death rates" is a claim you can't back.

You're limiting your argument to ships that were sunk. If you include ships that were torpedoed and didn't sink then the number goes way down. Why would I include those ships? Because your original claim didn't only say "among frigates that were sunk", but just generally said frigates.

My original dispute, it you'll read it again, wasn't with the death rate, but with the claim of magazine explosions and depth charge explosions. You accuse me of jumping all over the place with my arguments, but here you are doing that very thing.

Well my friend, if that is true then you are the exception to the rule and by saying all that stuff, I would excpect that every claim you say in this forum are backed up by proof... It would be interesting to go check your other 31 000+ posts.

And you will find that, as a general rule, I do exactly that. You will also find examples you can point to and say "See? He didn't do it there!" I'm not perfect, nor have I ever claimed to be. But I do question everything, and don't accept unsupported claims as "fact".

Yep, but I showed you more than once.

You showed me three or four times, out of many dozens. My point stands.

Like I said before, I will do the research on Canadian vessels that were used for ASW that sank if they had a high death rate and if they would have huge explosion (ammunition exploding) and depth charges blowing up in the water.

Don't worry about the overall death rate. As I said to Iambecomelife, I agree it was a dangerous job. I'll even accept your percentage number, as you did the calculations and I have no reason to doubt your number. The other two will be interesting.

But right now I am reading a rather interesting book called: The U-Boat War. The german Submarine Service and the Battle of the Atlantic. 1935-45.

Cool. One can never read enough books.

And yes, I am still claiming....

"Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containing so much explosives, and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode."

Fair enough.