Super tankers?

[Rockin Robbins]

No clue, I'm using Mark 23's also and sinking just about anything with 2 hits. If they premature a very short distance from the target it will sometimes look like a hit, but not inflict damage. It's hard to imagine that happening to all six though.

[FreddaH]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

No clue, I'm using Mark 23's also and sinking just about anything with 2 hits. If they premature a very short distance from the target it will sometimes look like a hit, but not inflict damage. It's hard to imagine that happening to all six though.

I am quite sure they all hit, but even if one or two did detonate prematurely, that still leaves four hits. Perhaps I encountered a new kind of Japanese TANKer?

/Fredda

[GerritJ9]

Tankers can actually take a tremendous amount of punishment compared to dry cargo vessels, because of their much greater subdivision- the "Ohio" (operation Pedestal Malta 1942) is a prime example. Much would depend on whether it was loaded at the time, and where you hit it. A tanker in ballast is a pretty tough customer.
When did you attack it- 1942? A large percentage of failures (prematures/duds/deep runners etc) was, unfortunately, "standard" at that time, so it is by no means unrealistic that all six were failures; the absence of any holes in the hull would tend to confirm the torpedoes exploded short.

[theluckyone17]

Got curious about the Ohio... and found this link. Good reading.

[Lafferty]

yeah thanks for posting that link it does have some good info.

[bookworm_020]

Tankers can be hard beast to take down, with many internal bulkheads and large pumps and can take alot of damage before giving up!

But if it's laded with avgas, the just fire a couple of deck gun round into it!

[FreddaH]

Originally Posted by GerritJ9

Tankers can actually take a tremendous amount of punishment compared to dry cargo vessels, because of their much greater subdivision- the "Ohio" (operation Pedestal Malta 1942) is a prime example. Much would depend on whether it was loaded at the time, and where you hit it. A tanker in ballast is a pretty tough customer.
When did you attack it- 1942? A large percentage of failures (prematures/duds/deep runners etc) was, unfortunately, "standard" at that time, so it is by no means unrealistic that all six were failures; the absence of any holes in the hull would tend to confirm the torpedoes exploded short.

I attacked it in March 1943, and it was headed to Japan. I suppose it might have been empty, didn't think about that.

The torpedoes I used where mark 23s. Do they also have the problem that the mark 14 has? In any case, all six would have to have exploded prematurely within half a meter of the tanker's hull, so the odds must be astronomical.

Anyway, he's dead now. Just got to go back to Midway and restock as the bastard ate up all my deck gun ammo.

/Fredda

[GerritJ9]

If the tanker was proceeding TO Japan, then in real life it would undoubtedly have been carrying a cargo, most probably either crude or fuel oil, if coming from the NEI.
From Japan, it would have probably been carrying diesel, petrol in various grades and other refined products to the various operational areas; after discharging the cargo, possibly proceeding to the NEI to load another cargo of crude, or alternatively, returning back to Japan for another refined cargo- in this case, it would probably be in ballast.
As the "Ohio" shows, even when carrying a cargo tankers are very tough. In ballast, you'd need a lot of ammo to sink it- unless you cause an explosion when the tanks haven't been cleaned yet. Once the tanks are gasfree, they are even harder to sink as causing a fire is almost impossible. And, unlike most dry cargo vessels of similar size, one or two torpedo hits won't do the job- as another tanker, the "Ondina", proved.