Ever destroy a ship with all hands?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mouftic

Yeah, and normally frigates would have a high death rate because of the size of the ship containaing so much explosives,

Nope. Small-calibre ammunition was in one-piece casings, and it was very hard to generate enough heat to make them cook off. Even a magazine hit on a destroyer, frigate or corvette was unlikely to make any massive explosion. Battleships were prone to this sort of thing because the powder was all bagged, and would tend to go off with one big boom.

and even worst if the ship sank and the depth charges were not set to safe mode.

Unless the ship was sunk while making a depth charge attack, the charges wouldn't be primed. No depth setting, no boom.

[desirableroasted]

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

While researching this feature with JSCones I asked if it would be possible to factor in these casualty trends but unfortunately it was not. I understand; all in all, SH3Commander has many amazing (and much more important) features.

If there is enough interest and I get permission, I could fiddle with the program and try to replace numerical casualties with percentages...

Probably not worth tinkering with a very, very good Mod.

I think at best you would end up with (typical crew for ship type) * (multiplier based on location, cargo, sea state) = crew loss. Since SH3 Commander randomizes the cargo and cannot know the sea state at the time of sinking, you'd just be adding a another layer of randomization.

That might "smooth" the results out some, but it is all eye candy in the end -- all generated post-patrol. I do chuckle a little when I learn that a merchant that exploded so spectacularly was only carrying mail, but by the next patrol, I cannot remember which one it was.

[Missing Name]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Unless the ship was sunk while making a depth charge attack, the charges wouldn't be primed. No depth setting, no boom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hammann_%28DD-412%29

The USS Hammann was torpedoed during the Battle of Midway while attempting salvage work on the USS Yorktown. The depth charges detonated as the ship sank below the preset depth.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Missing Name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hammann_%28DD-412%29

The USS Hammann was torpedoed during the Battle of Midway while attempting salvage work on the USS Yorktown. The depth charges detonated as the ship sank below the preset depth.

If you had followed the reference link to the original source http://destroyerhistory.org/goldplat...1200&pid=41210 , you would have seen that the quote "from the destroyer's depth charges and torpedoes going off" isn't there, which means that the Wiki article author was guessing. Also you're guessing, as even the Wiki article doesn't contain your phrase "preset depth".

On the other hand, the Captain's and Gunnery Officer's official reports http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/mid9.htm does raise the possibility of a faulty depth charge or torpedo, but also insists that all depth charges were set to 'safe'.

[flag4]

the depth of knowledge here at subsim is amazing and always a pleasure to read

[VONHARRIS]

Originally Posted by Mouftic

But definately some area were worst than other. Would'nt have not liked being sunk in the North Atlantic during winter time. But I guess in the middle pacific would be better if some ships were around.
.

What about the sharks in the Pacific? Their numbers and kinds are many more in the Pacific than the Atlantic.
If I am not mistaken it is very rare to find a Great White in the Atlantic.

[Mouftic]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Nope. Small-calibre ammunition was in one-piece casings, and it was very hard to generate enough heat to make them cook off. Even a magazine hit on a destroyer, frigate or corvette was unlikely to make any massive explosion.

"At 0201 hours on 23 September 1943 the German submarine U-666 fired a Gnat torpedo, which hit HMS Itchen (Cdr. Clement Edward Bridgman, DSO, RNR) after 1 minute and 10 seconds. The frigate blew up after the hit in position 53º25'N, 39º42'W. Debris from the vessel was later found on the conning tower of the U-boat and on HMCS Morden."

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/100.html

"HMCS Athabaskan (Lt.Cdr. John Hamilton Stubbs, DSO, DSC, RCN) was sunk in the English Channel north-east of Ouessant by two torpedoes from the German torpedo boats T-24 and T-27. The magazine and a boiler blew up in an explosion that was seen 20 miles away."

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4440.html

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Unless the ship was sunk while making a depth charge attack, the charges wouldn't be primed. No depth setting, no boom.

"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. In other rapid sinkings many Canadian sailors were lost while they were in the water, through the explosion of depth charges of foundering ships."

http://www.magma.ca/~leprecha/casualty_invasion.htm


Also from reading many books, I have observed that remark.

[Mouftic]

Originally Posted by VONHARRIS

What about the sharks in the Pacific? Their numbers and kinds are many more in the Pacific than the Atlantic.
If I am not mistaken it is very rare to find a Great White in the Atlantic.

How many people can be eaten by a shark, one, maybe 2 if it's really hungry. I know it did happen. But that was not common and you dont find Great whites in groups unless it's mating season.

Sharks and poisonous snakes are more of a psychological factor more than anyting else.

We had the same 'fear' in the Persian gulf with those poisonous eels. But the truth is casualties are very low and you have to be 'unlucky' to get biten by one because they have small mouths and can't get a bite unless it's your fingers. We were told to make a fist and roll into a ball if they were around.

But hypothermia within 5 to 10 mins in the atlantic, now that was common and no one was spared.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mouftic

"At 0201 hours on 23 September 1943 the German submarine U-666 fired a Gnat torpedo, which hit HMS Itchen (Cdr. Clement Edward Bridgman, DSO, RNR) after 1 minute and 10 seconds. The frigate blew up after the hit in position 53º25'N, 39º42'W. Debris from the vessel was later found on the conning tower of the U-boat and on HMCS Morden."

I said "difficult", not "impossible". My initial response was to you using the word "normally" in quoting a high death rate. Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?

"HMCS Athabaskan (Lt.Cdr. John Hamilton Stubbs, DSO, DSC, RCN) was sunk in the English Channel north-east of Ouessant by two torpedoes from the German torpedo boats T-24 and T-27. The magazine and a boiler blew up in an explosion that was seen 20 miles away."

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4440.html

Again, I didn't say it couldn't, or didn't, happen. You said it was a normal thing. It's not. By-and-large torpedoed frigates did not suffer secondary explosions.

"AB T.D.H. Malone had set the depth charges to “safe” before the ship was struck and this action undoubtedly saved many lives.

Which says the depth charges did not explode.

[Mouftic]

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.

I did a research on Canadian escorts death during torpedoes attacks.
689 dead and 383 survivors...

I think this classifies in "high death rates" section and thats not to mention the others that perished due to collisions, fire or storms because it is not really the subject we are in.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Again, I didn't say it couldn't, or didn't, happen. You said it was a normal thing.

bah.... i said quite often in my first post and then normally in another. Sue me.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?

I only researched the Canadians implications and found two out of ten that "did" mentionned it. We can only speculate on the others, but let's be realistic here. There are 2 others that were lost with all hands.

Let's say 4 out of 10, that could be considered "quite often".
Let's add 2 more and we have "normally".

But your "difficult" doesn't apply, does it?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

By-and-large torpedoed frigates did not suffer secondary explosions.

I'll repeat a quote someone once told me: "Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?"

Not sure I remember who though.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Which says the depth charges did not explode.

Nope, not on that occasion. You are right. But what was in big bold letters was what I was reffering to. Here, i"ll make it bigger for you.

"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. In other rapid sinkings many Canadian sailors were lost while they were in the water, through the explosion of depth charges of foundering ships."


Edit: HMCS Louisburg sank in four minutes. The torpedo itself apparently killed a small number of sailors. Most of the crew made it into the water, but many died there, either by being sucked down with the ship or when the boilers and some depth charges exploded.

Page 139.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ig-A36yZ4rMC&pg=PT149&lpg=PT149&dq=hmcs+louisburg+sin king&source=bl&ots=jHkOBL_5T5&sig=w4EyyOqIB9AH3ckW RPvecvjtzZE&hl=en&ei=1dKeTaKNL5DTgQewiPnbDw&sa=X&o i=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v =onepage&q&f=false






Either you are a politician or a journalist.... not sure which one.

ok, your turn....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mouftic

I did a research on Canadian escorts death during torpedoes attacks.
689 dead and 383 survivors...

I think this classifies in "high death rates" section and thats not to mention the others that perished due to collisions, fire or storms because it is not really the subject we are in.

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.

bah.... i said quite often in my first post and then normally in another. Sue me.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have played one at Subsim. It wasn't pretty.

I only researched the Canadians implications and found two out of ten that "did" mentionned it. We can only speculate on the others, but let's be realistic here. There are 2 others that were lost with all hands.

Let's say 4 out of 10, that could be considered "quite often".
Let's add 2 more and we have "normally".

But your "difficult" doesn't apply, does it?

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

I'll repeat a quote someone once told me: "Do you have a record of the number of frigates exploding vs. those not exploding due to ammunition?"

Not sure I remember who though.

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. Your original statement "normally" which I commented on made it sound (to me, at least) as if this happened almost every time an escort was sunk. My observation is that that is not even close to being true, so I objected.

Nope, not on that occasion. You are right. But what was in big bold letters was what I was reffering to. Here, i"ll make it bigger for you.

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.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ig-A36yZ4rMC&pg=PT149&lpg=PT149&dq=hmcs+louisburg+sin king&source=bl&ots=jHkOBL_5T5&sig=w4EyyOqIB9AH3ckW RPvecvjtzZE&hl=en&ei=1dKeTaKNL5DTgQewiPnbDw&sa=X&o i=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v =onepage&q&f=false

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.

Either you are a politician or a journalist.... not sure which one.

Neither. 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. In game design features should always be based on facts. Generalities will bite you every time.

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mouftic

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

Yes, you're correct. I misspoke, or mistyped. My objection was to the use of the term for depth charge explosions.

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.

Again the speculation. "Highly doubt" is not a reference.

Now those are strong statements without facts.

Okay, I'll rephrase.
By-and-large, accounts don't mention secondary explosions. No, that doesn't mean they didn't happen, but you can't prove a negative, and if they weren't mentioned there is no cause to assert that they did happen.
If they were all that common, why weren't they mentioned?
There are far more accounts that don't mention it than there are that do.

Without facts? Okay.
With:
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1207.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2167.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2666.html


Without:
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3326.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2142.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3358.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1111.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3359.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1326.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3070.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3482.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3449.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3245.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1313.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3216.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1303.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2856.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3329.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3263.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2502.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2641.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1167.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3385.html

Possibles:
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/2167.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3379.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/1626.html
http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/3442.html

I stopped after the 'B's, but will gladly proceed if you like.

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.

Because he provides no evidence or examples. My point was that anyone can say anything. Without evidence it's just noise. Just because he got a book published doesn't mean his research was thorough, or his unsupported statements should be taken as fact.

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.

A valid question, but a question is not an answer. He could have mentioned it to give praise to a fallen hero, or you could be right. Was it a common practice to have depth charges not set to 'safe' when just cruising? I don't know. It seems odd to me, but there I'm just speculating.

Well mister careful researcher

Are we stooping to insults now? I don't trust anything until it's shown.

I would be very interessted to see you prove that fact that they where uncommon at best.

I think I've done that adequately. Out of 27 examples (and I didn't pick and choose, I went straight down the list, which is easily verifiable), 20 made no mention of depth charges exploding, 3 did, and 4 mentioned that the ship immediatedly exploded, which implies a magazine detonation.

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

All your research so far consists of one book and two or three references which agree with you. Until you look at every single example and list the good with the bad you've done no research at all.

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

This isn't politics or religion. There's no need to be rude, smug or superior. I like a good debate, and believe it or not I don't mind being proven wrong. The only time I get like this is when someone makes a claim I find questionable, and then I question it.

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert

[Mouftic]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If they were all that common, why weren't they mentioned?
There are far more accounts that don't mention it than there are that do.
Without facts? Okay.

-list here-

I think I've done that adequately. Out of 27 examples (and I didn't pick and choose, I went straight down the list, which is easily verifiable), 20 made no mention of depth charges exploding, 3 did, and 4 mentioned that the ship immediatedly exploded, which implies a magazine detonation.

If you look at your list of 'withouts', not because they dont mention it means that it didn't happen. HMCS Louisburg is a perfect example. U-boat.net doesn't mention anything, but survivors of the sinking specificly mention the depth charges going off.
I would not call those 'whithouts', facts to contredict what was told.
Most are just partial accounts of the sinking and dont go into details.

Most of your withouts, should be in the possible section.

Although the facts I showed you cannot be denied because they are clearly stated.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Because he provides no evidence or examples. My point was that anyone can say anything. Without evidence it's just noise. Just because he got a book published doesn't mean his research was thorough, or his unsupported statements should be taken as fact.

Althought I agree with you that anyone can publish a book... I dont think its in his favor to lie. Also, did you check his sources before implying this?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Are we stooping to insults now? I don't trust anything until it's shown.

Never! Sorry if took it that way. Maybe because English is my second language, it sounded like an insult to you. I have much respect in life for anyone and I can see that you are an esteemed part of this community and did much for it. (And I also use your ship names list)

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All your research so far consists of one book and two or three references which agree with you. Until you look at every single example and list the good with the bad you've done no research at all.

What do you know about my researches? I am pretty well versed in the subject being a sonar operator myself while I was in service, we did have history courses on the matter of ASW weapons and yes it was mentionned that they were a cause for many deaths after own ship sunk. I also have my own little library of books here. Mostly on Canadian naval history. I was (and still am) a passionate person for naval history, and that for personnal reasons which I mentionned in my first post.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This isn't politics or religion. There's no need to be rude, smug or superior.

Again sorry if it sounds that way to you, but not my intention at all.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I like a good debate, and believe it or not I don't mind being proven wrong.

Well, you are 'rephrasing' some of your arguments and yet you put a lot of emphasis on my "normally".
To be honest, althought I dont know you much, I think you don't like being proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The only time I get like this is when someone makes a claim I find questionable, and then I question it.

Again you are making progress like your quote below. At first it was "Nope" in your initial reply and now its "questionable".

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Joseph Joubert

I am not trying to be 'victorious', I just dont like people questioning me when they themselves are not versed in the subject. Maybe you need proof for everything (you must not believe in books), but for me being in the business myself, find that it's just common knowledge to me. I could do extensive research on the subject I suppossed but it would be very hard to convice you since you would need every sources from every author's and still I think it would'nt be good enough .

I sincerely find this discussion or "argument" very interesting and I hope you escuse me if you think I am being rude with you.

I am actually a very easy going person and was labeled the joker of the ship while in service.
As you can see my signature below, I really told the Captain to shhhh while I was tracking a submarine and he found that pretty funny. That's just the kind of guy I am.

Note to anyone following this thread: I have no grudge against Sailor Steve. I have most respect for what he does in this community. May this discussion be educationnal to all.

[Gargamel]

/shares popcorn with desirableroasted