Tough tanker beast

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Post Reply
User avatar
qsmiron
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:38 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Tough tanker beast

Post by qsmiron »

Hellow,
it's possible that such a Ship Commercial Commercial Tanker - Large Range 1 [75,000t DWT] (https://cmano-db.com/ship/339/), after being hit with 3-4 MK48 torpedoes and one tomahawk missile, would still sail and not sink?

Image
Attachments
taknko.jpg
taknko.jpg (270.38 KiB) Viewed 433 times
thewood1
Posts: 10132
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by thewood1 »

Around the time of the "Tanker Wars" in the Persian Gulf, several large tankers hit multiple mines and continued on to their destination. At the time, the USN stated that the mines were powerful enough to break a Perry-class frigate in two. The tankers are very resilient because they are heavily compartmentalized. And if a breach happens, you are basically putting seawater where oil would go anyway. But damaging the keel or engines can eventually kill it.

So I think its plausible.
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5966
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by Gunner98 »

Remember the SS Ohio on her Operation Pedestal run to Malta in 1942. A much smaller ship, one torpedo and multiple bomb hits and underwater near misses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Ohio

Tough ships but watch out for fire.



Image
Attachments
ssohioen..646x640.jpg
ssohioen..646x640.jpg (62.73 KiB) Viewed 433 times
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
BDukes
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: qsmiron

Hellow,
it's possible that such a Ship Commercial Commercial Tanker - Large Range 1 [75,000t DWT] (https://cmano-db.com/ship/339/), after being hit with 3-4 MK48 torpedoes and one tomahawk missile, would still sail and not sink?

Image

Did you let the flooding and fire cycle play out? Sometimes ships don't go kablooey but take hours dealing with critical fires and flooding. Sometimes the crew saves the ship. Think I had a cruiser that was like 80% or something and damaged control saved it.

Mike
Don't call it a comeback...
User avatar
kevinkins
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:54 am

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by kevinkins »

I have always found that very large commercial ships are very difficult if not impossible to outright sink. If you really need the ship based on the scenario, simulate a "boarding" operation with "special ops" and helos. You would have to use events, triggers, and actions to pass control to the friendly side and award points to that side for the successful capture. There has been recent talk of arming commercial containers ships and declaring them to be potential combatants. Or not declaring them at all. It's an interesting situation to sandbox and might have relevance in the western Pacific sea lanes.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... -ships-win
“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5966
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by Gunner98 »

go kablooey

I like the technical term Mike [:D]
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
boogabooga
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:05 am

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by boogabooga »

Also, those large tankers are usually double-hulled.
The boogabooga doctrine for CMO: Any intentional human intervention needs to be able to completely and reliably over-ride anything that the AI is doing at any time.
User avatar
qsmiron
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:38 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by qsmiron »

Thank you all for the answer. From what you've said, the big commercial ships are really tough bastards after all. So, in the DB3000, high DP values for these ships are actually real.
sirfulcrum
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:21 am

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by sirfulcrum »

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

I have always found that very large commercial ships are very difficult if not impossible to outright sink. If you really need the ship based on the scenario, simulate a "boarding" operation with "special ops" and helos. You would have to use events, triggers, and actions to pass control to the friendly side and award points to that side for the successful capture. There has been recent talk of arming commercial containers ships and declaring them to be potential combatants. Or not declaring them at all. It's an interesting situation to sandbox and might have relevance in the western Pacific sea lanes.

That's no joke. I played 688 Attack Sub 4 scenario, the one where you're tasked with sinking four Libyan tankers. I run out of torpedoes and Harpoons and can't win.

Those were tankers, but I also recently played Seawolf #2, Duckshoot, and a container ship needed 9 Mk48s before it went down. Seriously?
Dimitris
Posts: 15371
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: sirfulcrum
That's no joke. I played 688 Attack Sub 4 scenario, the one where you're tasked with sinking four Libyan tankers. I run out of torpedoes and Harpoons and can't win.

Those were tankers, but I also recently played Seawolf #2, Duckshoot, and a container ship needed 9 Mk48s before it went down. Seriously?

Not surprised. The Russians developed huge 650mm torpedoes primarily to sink US supercarriers but also to attack heavy commercial shipping in the context of WW3. Such a target would certainly warrant a couple of 65-73s.
BDukes
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by BDukes »

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
go kablooey

I like the technical term Mike [:D]

Not surprised. Does have an Arty ring to it![:)]

Mike
Don't call it a comeback...
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by ultradave »

ORIGINAL: boogabooga

Also, those large tankers are usually double-hulled.

Yeah, this is a key thing. Double hulls as protection against oil spills makes them tough to sink. They are already designed to have that outer hull breached, fill an intermediate compartment with seawater and keep on chugging.

Dave
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
slimatwar
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:22 pm
Location: Hellas

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by slimatwar »

IMHO, the fact that a ship takes a lot of torps to sink doesn't mean necessarily that it couldn't be sunk with fewer torps. With fewer torps maybe it takes a longer time to sink but eventually it's going to the bottom of the sea for sure. You'll have to wait for flooding to do the job.
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: Tough tanker beast

Post by SeaQueen »

It might be a little bit exaggerated, but not necessarily. Mk.48s are pretty big. Even so, tankers are also pretty resilient. They even used and one for a minesweeper during the Gulf War. Every ship can be a minesweeper once, after all.

The thing to remember, though, is that these are civilian crews. They're not necessarily trained to control damage the same way that the crew of a warship is. Therefore it's much more limited what their response can be. During the Tanker Wars, the shipping companies hired PMCs to train civilian crews in damage control techniques and it greatly improved their survivability.

The big threat to a ship like that probably isn't sinking (at least not immediately). It's probably fire. Tons of petroleum in the holds would be a nightmare to put out. A fire like that would spew toxic fumes all over the place and create unimaginable heat.

Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”