Should submarines get armor ratings?

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i will point out (once again): this is a game, not a faithful simulation of what went on in the war.

If you lose a DD to a freak encounter with a PT boat, maybe you could just IMAGINE the DD was sunk by having a torpedo being hit by a MG round, rather than fretting that the game engine did not generate a report that a torpedo was hit and then exploded...

There are plenty of things in the game that don't make sense in terms of real life that are in the game that people don't seem to notice: i.e. - fighters didn't break off when the bombers drop their bombs springs to mind.

If you use a little imagination, things in the game don't seem nearly so bothersome... however, when you have MAJOR things go wrong, sometimes you need a lot more imagination (such as Mandrake's AAR where he had a Stargate transport a brigade across the map... [X(] [:'(] )

For an interesting example of such Bad Things Happening At Sea, take a look at the circumstances surrounding the loss of HMS Khartoum in 1940.

On the same day as she was involved in the action leading to the sinking of Italian submarine Torricelli, Khartoum suffered an explosion in the air vessel of one of her torpedoes. This expelled the warhead from the front of the tube into the officers' galley, where (without exploding) it started a fire, shattered the aft rising main, and probably also destroyed the aft magazine flooding controls (thought the intensity of the fire made them inaccessible anyway). With her firefighting ability severely impaired, attempts were made to beach Khartoum close to harbour, but a magazine explosion aft probably severed her stern. Anyhow, she settled on the bottom with part of her upperworks awash.

The Italians claimed that she had been sunk by Torricelli. No such admission was made by the RN. It's possible that there was a defect in the torpedo's air vessel such that it failed explosively without any Italian intervention whatsoever. It's also possible that the fault was induced by a splinter from an exploding shell fired by Torricelli's gun, though RN accounts do not accept that this was what took place. Almost certainly we shall never know for sure. What is clear is that such Bad Things do happen, and the chance impact of a shell fragment seems as plausible explanation of the cause as one of spontaneous failure.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The difference between you and me, well one of many, is that I'm only wrong most of the time. You've never been right about anything.

Well, obviously, among the many differences between you and Castor Troy, is that the latter is a helpful, polite, courteous, respectful, civilized, interesting guy. Who is really pissed off by your rude, impolite, insulting behaviour.


And so that you're not surprised, official complain has been sent to the moderators.

thanks for your support Ambassador but don´t let him get you on his list, the list is long enough already anyway and there are enough people already that get upset about him often enough.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Example:

Commander McIntyre having just decided to take a rest, was called to the bridge and pronounced it a non-sub, but he changed his mind when after passing over the contact the echo reappeared on a different course, the ship was immediately turned and rushed in at speed to drop a full pattern of depth charges, and to everyones surprise shortly after the U-Boat broke surface. Once again it was proved that the main armament of 3 inch guns were useless their shells once again bounced off the U-Boat, but the close range guns were picking off the crew of the U-Boat as they scrambled out of the conning tower, its survivors were picked up with the help of the ships searchlight, and within minutes the U 269 slid stern first to the bottom of the channel.

http://www.captainclassfrigates.co.uk/ops/5eg.html

This is more of an indication of the useless weapons that the RN captain frigates were armed with. The same 3" guns in another documented incident failed to have any effect on an unarmoured merchant ship. I forget which one, but iirc it was an ammunition ship in a convoy that was damaged.

[engineer]

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: engineer

It seems to me that the question is whether the structural steel necessary for a given hull would have enough thickness to stop small caliber rounds.  A 0.50 cal would punch through a fishing boat converted to a minesweeper, but will it penetrate the hull of the Queen Mary?  Consequently some large merchant ships might warrant some nominal "armor" to proof them against machine guns just based on the marine engineering that went into their design. 

[/blockquote]

According to what i've read from current Naval special forces accounts, a .50 cal (sniper) rifle is enough to shoot through the hull of a freighter and disable the engine with a few shots.

Also, at least one DD was of Wake (supposedly) sunk by a .50 mg gun (strafing attack) - the mg round(s) hit a torpedo and touched it off, sinking the ship... we've also had the example (recently given on the forum) of the Brazilian CL sinking itself with a 20 mm gun (by shooting into its own depth charges)...

So, even though it was a rare event, sinking a fair size warship by MGs could and did happen.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/16/2009 2:19:41 AM >

&nbsp;
Thanks, questions asked and answered.&nbsp;

[Dili]

This is more of an indication of the useless weapons that the RN captain frigates were armed with. The same 3" guns in another documented incident failed to have any effect on an unarmoured merchant ship. I forget which one, but iirc it was an ammunition ship in a convoy that was damaged.

A merchant can be big ships, doesn't suprise me that there aren't much effects.