Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

Here are some fun comparisons between merchant vessels of the two sides. One group is what’s considered 2000 and 3000 tonners, the next group is what’s considered 6000 and 7000 tonners. Interesting how similar they were, eh?

We didn’t build anything in the dinky ranges pre-war, so I used 1943 N3 data for the US. Be careful, though, because there were 3 different types of N3s; recip-oil, recip-coal, and diesel. They were way different from one another.

Included the measured hold capacity from the US builder’s records, for both bale and grain cubic. I expressed it in register tons of 100 cubic feet. If you need or want measurement tons, just multiply by 2.5

There are two design differences between Japanese and US designs; one minor and one major. The minor one is that the Japanese prewar diesel installations tended to be heavier than average, thereby adding some extra poundage onto light ship displacement. That’s why the pre-war Japanese vessels required a larger load displacement for a given deadweight.

The major one is the difference between the moulded load draft and the depth at height of weather deck: ours were about 15’ for C2s and C3s, Japanese were about 12’ for contemporary Yamashita and Nippon designs. A USMC C2 or C3 design could overload by 16-17% and still retain the reserve buoyancy of a contemporary Yusen-S or Yusen-N type vessel.

Have fun!


Image
Attachments
VesselData.jpg
VesselData.jpg (42.25 KiB) Viewed 353 times
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by el cid again »

Since our game ships haul all different sorts of cargos, but only get a single load value, would you like to take a stab at creating a "game cargo rating" - or possibly "Allied cargo rating" and "Axis cargo rating" since the average loads were not the same for both sides? This would presumably take the form of assuming some statistically weighted average of weight limited and space limited cargos - and either we could assume each ship carried a mixed cargo - or we could assume the aggregate fleet total would be about right and we don't care what each ship carried. Having specific examples of what you think these ratings should be for specific ships might be useful.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

For Dili's WiTM project; Japanese used MAN installations, but built under license, so theirs had lower BHP and higher installation weight than the equivalent German plant.

The posted large ships were all midship engine, composit superstructure designs from 1937 on. I probably should do a matrix of large and small, split superstructure designs. I definititely should do a matrix of Lg. & Sm. designs from the 1920s period; superficially similar, but in detail, way, way, different. Probably should dial in the Orseolo for you.

Anyway, what the details show is that a ship is, basically, a ship. For similar gross tonnage, the Lecchi Losputo should look a lot like the Empire Lickspittle. I'll try to get the relative mix of world trade vs local Med. trade types for the Regia Marina.

Ciao.

User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Since our game ships haul all different sorts of cargos, but only get a single load value, would you like to take a stab at creating a "game cargo rating" - or possibly "Allied cargo rating" and "Axis cargo rating" since the average loads were not the same for both sides? This would presumably take the form of assuming some statistically weighted average of weight limited and space limited cargos - and either we could assume each ship carried a mixed cargo - or we could assume the aggregate fleet total would be about right and we don't care what each ship carried. Having specific examples of what you think these ratings should be for specific ships might be useful.

Wouldn't mind at all.

Game, axis, & allied cargo ratings might take a bit of thought because different size ships, on different sides, can overload more others and I am not familiar with your gaming philosophy as to what constitutes a "nominal" vessel capacity.

To put things on an absolutely level playing field would require differentiation between older/newer designs, large/medium/small designs, power plant designs, basically 32 different entries. What I can give you is a mean & sigma of CDwT for various GRT groupings of vessels; 1000, 1900, 2500, and so on, without differentiation. If this isn’t satisfactory, just give me your parameters; I’ll let you know what I can do.

Cargo mix does not seem to be major issue, since the bale/grain cubic is substantially within 10% of the design Load Net Cargo Deadweight. So, 5000 volumetric tons of toilet paper will equate to 5000 metric tons of bauxite (volume limited vs weight limited); c'est la même chose.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Since our game ships haul all different sorts of cargos, but only get a single load value, would you like to take a stab at creating a "game cargo rating" - or possibly "Allied cargo rating" and "Axis cargo rating" since the average loads were not the same for both sides? This would presumably take the form of assuming some statistically weighted average of weight limited and space limited cargos - and either we could assume each ship carried a mixed cargo - or we could assume the aggregate fleet total would be about right and we don't care what each ship carried. Having specific examples of what you think these ratings should be for specific ships might be useful.


I believe the US found that 1 ton of "average military cargo" occupied 236 cu ft of cargo space.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by Dili »

So with this data below for Orseolo is it possible to have some calculation of it's cargo capacity?
 
In excelent but Italian  Museo della Cantierística:
 
Orseolo Class   http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php?&content_type=nave&goto_id=836 (if you cant see it the search page: http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php )
 
6344 tsl-Tonnellate stazza lorda (Grt) - 3715 tsn-Tonnellate stazza netta(Net) - 10307 tpl-Tonnellate Portata Lorda(Dwt) - 134,11 x 18,44 x 11,34 m -
1 diesel - 5000 CA(cv) - 1 elica  15kt
 
For fuel tonnage  the similar but tinier Monginevro http://www.regiamarina.net/others/raiders/raiders_us.htm  had 5324 Grt and 8600 Dwt and a typical 770t of fuel (for a 12000nm range at 15kt)
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I believe the US found that 1 ton of "average military cargo" occupied 236 cu ft of cargo space.

That sounds like a good number Mike. 6x measurement ton scales, are just 2x the max commercial scale. Makes a lot of sense. Ammo, chewing gum, trucks, jeeps, rats, barbed wire, mines, electronics, paper, howitzers, clothing .. some high, some low, density stuff. Once you start puttting the ammo on top of the toilet paper, I think your take is lookin pretty smart.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Dili

So with this data below for Orseolo is it possible to have some calculation of it's cargo capacity?

In excelent but Italian  Museo della Cantierística:

Orseolo Class   http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php?&content_type=nave&goto_id=836 (if you cant see it the search page: http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php )

6344 tsl-Tonnellate stazza lorda (Grt) - 3715 tsn-Tonnellate stazza netta(Net) - 10307 tpl-Tonnellate Portata Lorda(Dwt) - 134,11 x 18,44 x 11,34 m -
1 diesel - 5000 CA(cv) - 1 elica  15kt

For fuel tonnage  the similar but tinier Monginevro http://www.regiamarina.net/others/raiders/raiders_us.htm  had 5324 Grt and 8600 Dwt and a typical 770t of fuel (for a 12000nm range at 15kt)

Thank you, and, Yes, sir, a vostro servicio. Should be able to cover most of the Regia Marina, but I'll be sure to take especial care of the Orseolo (I really like her lines, too. Really pretty boat).
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by el cid again »

The Japanese produces marine diesels from three different European manufacturers. They then proceeded to devise their own "bureau" (Kampon) system based on one of them - and this resulted in a family - where everything was common except the block length and number of cylindars - so you got more power with a longer engine. During the war, demand for engines was so high, it became SOP to substitute engines that normally would be used on smaller vessels, and accept lower speeds in consequence: but a side effect was a rather dramatic increase in fuel efficiency/range.
As in the USA, there was demand for diesel engines to drive submarines, escort ships, auxiliary ships, and shore diesel-electric plants for isolated locations. But there was no competition for diesel railroad engines. There was a very slight demand for motor vehicles/tanks near the end of the war - when a few designs specified using the smaller marine diesels - because Japanese otto cycle engines didn't have enough power for heavy vehicles. It appears that Japanese marine diesel plants were operating at full capacity most of the time, limited mainly by lack of steel, until the late war period, when lack of power, damage, or sub-assemblies became major problems. Further, only a handful of the plants could produce the really large engines: most were smaller. Further, Japanese practice did not permit connecting more than one engine per shaft until 1945 (when it was done for I-400, which had four main engines, but only two shafts). There was an old oiler using US electric motors used as an engineering test bed - and it might have been possible to create a diesel electric drive using multiple motors - but in the event this was always done with steam turbine generators instead - and only rarely or experimentally. I do have a list of the locations of the diesel plants if required for any reason. Two of the manufacturers were MAN and Sulzer, I forget the third. {EDIT Daimler-Benz] If the engine is listed as Kampon, that means a Japanese design.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I believe the US found that 1 ton of "average military cargo" occupied 236 cu ft of cargo space.

That sounds like a good number Mike. 6x measurement ton scales, are just 2x the max commercial scale. Makes a lot of sense. Ammo, chewing gum, trucks, jeeps, rats, barbed wire, mines, electronics, paper, howitzers, clothing .. some high, some low, density stuff. Once you start puttting the ammo on top of the toilet paper, I think your take is lookin pretty smart.

I have seen this value before - and I think we used it when working out cargo values a year ago. Anyway, it also sounds like it is in the right ball park for general military cargo to me.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Dili

So with this data below for Orseolo is it possible to have some calculation of it's cargo capacity?

In excelent but Italian  Museo della Cantierística:

Orseolo Class   http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php?&content_type=nave&goto_id=836 (if you cant see it the search page: http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php )

6344 tsl-Tonnellate stazza lorda (Grt) - 3715 tsn-Tonnellate stazza netta(Net) - 10307 tpl-Tonnellate Portata Lorda(Dwt) - 134,11 x 18,44 x 11,34 m -
1 diesel - 5000 CA(cv) - 1 elica  15kt

For fuel tonnage  the similar but tinier Monginevro http://www.regiamarina.net/others/raiders/raiders_us.htm  had 5324 Grt and 8600 Dwt and a typical 770t of fuel (for a 12000nm range at 15kt)

Hi Dili.

It's not ideal, but close. Monginevro was very similar to a diesel C1-A, so ...

Couldn't get a quick read on Orseolo, but Andrea Gritti was same class (same yard). There might have been a Gritti II, built in '43? as part of the war program, but don't take my word for it. There was a war-built Carlo Del Greco, one of the 7,000 tonners, that's in the pile. Looks like the Orseolo/Gritti might well represent the 6,000 tonners, & the greco, the 7,000 tonners.

They look real similar to C2s, Yamashitas, and Nippon Yusens, so I would guess 5,600 - 5,800 net cargo deadweight would be a very comfy number; 5,600 for the Grittis & 5,800 for the Grecos. I would guess the Monginevro at 5,000. Anyway ...




Image
Attachments
Italians.jpg
Italians.jpg (20.37 KiB) Viewed 351 times
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by Dili »

Thanks.
 
Yes they were the same class and yes there was a Gritti 2.  Greco was from sometimes called Gino Allegri class(5 in class).
 
Other war time productions(number in class): Sestriere(3* some mod between them), Nino Bixio(2),  Rosolino Pilo(2), Poeti(8) http://steelnavy.com/RM%20PoetitMotonavi.htm , Napoli(6).
 
War time build Tankers: Sergio Laghi (10495Grt 6182net 14582Dwt )  150,30 x 20,83 x 11,12 m - 1 diesel - 5500 CA(cv) - 1 elica - 13 nodi(kt)
 
Zanibon: 1622 Grt - 833 net - 2611 dwt - 73,02 x 12,40 x 5,61 m - 1 diesel - 1730 CA(cv) - 1 elica - 12 nodi(kt)
 
Tankers here http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php  you just have to put the name in "nome" and click "cerca".
 
If you want i can give you the lists of merchants.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks.

Yes they were the same class and yes there was a Gritti 2.  Greco was from sometimes called Gino Allegri class(5 in class).

Other war time productions(number in class): Sestriere(3* some mod between them), Nino Bixio(2),  Rosolino Pilo(2), Poeti(8) http://steelnavy.com/RM%20PoetitMotonavi.htm , Napoli(6).

War time build Tankers: Sergio Laghi (10495Grt 6182net 14582Dwt )  150,30 x 20,83 x 11,12 m - 1 diesel - 5500 CA(cv) - 1 elica - 13 nodi(kt)

Zanibon: 1622 Grt - 833 net - 2611 dwt - 73,02 x 12,40 x 5,61 m - 1 diesel - 1730 CA(cv) - 1 elica - 12 nodi(kt)

Tankers here http://www.archeologiaindustriale.it/sez_produzione_it.php  you just have to put the name in "nome" and click "cerca".

If you want i can give you the lists of merchants.

Couple different imperatives for the WiTM folks and the WiTP folks; you guys just need to hump gas and bullets and bears (oh my) from Italy to No. Africa, the WiTP folks have to deal with “oil”, “fuel”, “resources”, etc .. Different paradigms and different solutions. I’ll try to give you the math, but you are on your own as to the implementation.

Tankers can carry refined fuel (gasoline), bunker oil, crude oil, raw grains, and ores, in increasing densities. The barrel capacity of a tanker is the volumetric capacity of her holds, it is not her net cargo deadweight.

Your typical US T2-SE had a Dwt of 16,600. She had a liquid capacity of 141,150 barrels. A barrel is equivalent to 5.62 cubic feet, so 141,150 barrels is equivalent to about 790,500 cubic feet.

Gasoline (including avgas) is about 8.5 barrels per metric ton. This gives 16,600 metric tons at full capacity; no fuel, no water, no crew, no nothing. Not likely.

Bunker fuel is about 6.6 barrels per metric ton. This gives 21,386 metric tons at full capacity; about 4,800 tons more than she can carry before she sinks.

Crude (Borneo Light, Sweet) is about 6.15 barrels per metric ton, or 22,950 metric; about 6,350 more than she can carry before she sinks.

Anything else, like dry bulk, is worse.

I.e., a 141,150 barrel tanker cannot carry 141,150 barrels (effective equivalent capacity). The math is up to you. I use 75-78% of cubic/volumetric/metric for the capacities of US and Japanese TKs.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by Dili »

Okay thanks.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by el cid again »

Why would anyone actually build a tanker with more capacity in tanks than the ship could actually carry under all conditions?

Also, there is the matter that all forms of petroleum are less dense than water: If you fill a tank with ANY petroleum product, it will "weigh" less than it does if you fill it with water (ignoring for the moment that not all water is created equal - it isn't the same for ships on the great lakes as in the ocean - but it is almost the same).

Now a ship "displaces" actual water - sea water to be sure - but water nonetheless. If you fill the spaces with something LESS dense than water - you still end up with a net positive buoyancy. A tanker should be able to fill 100% of her tanks with petroleum products and float very well. And indeed, that is so true that tankers are notoriously difficult to sink. The tanks give them many compartments, and the pumps permit moving water (and petroleum) from one space to another on a scale no other ship can contemplate. As the weight of the cargo increases, the ship should ride lower and lower in the water, displacing more water - until equilibrium is reached. And since the cargo is less dense than water, this should always happen for any reasonably designed ship.

Something about the above discussion has confused me - because these principles do not appear to be part of what is being said. It does not sound right to say a tanker can hold more than she can stay afloat with - since even if 100% loaded she should have some reserve buoyancy.

It is unusual to rate the same ship in military, commercial and regulatory terms, but we have some cases of naval auxiliaries that were so rated. The clearest case is the Shiretoko oilers - more or less ten (one converts back and forth to seaplane tender) IJN fleet tankers. These ships have a 14,050 ton standard displacement and a 15,450 ton normal displacement. They carry 1000 tons of oil as fuel in addition to 1350 tons of coal as fuel and 8000 tonnes (use to mean metric tons I think) as oil cargo. They are also rated at about 5000 grt. I estimate full load tonnage to be about 16,500 tons. I estimate the ship structure itself to weigh about 5314 tons.

Another example is the Kamoi. Rated at 10,222 grt, she displaces 19,550 tons normal and 17,000 standard. She carries 2500 tons of coal as ships fuel. I estimate her full load displacement at 20,500 tons. She carried 9848 tons of petroleum products as cargo.

Reviewing specifically Japanese standard tanker designs, it appears the liquid cargo (not ships fuel) by weight is on the order of 87.5% of the dwt of a ship, and that the dwt is about 152% of the grt of the ship - if the ship is a tanker of significant size. Even though a ship serving as an auxiliary has significantly extra weight for crew and equipment (compared to a true merchant tanker), the Japanese appear to have exceeded these averages in auxiliary service as the normal case.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

2 questions, 2 answers.
ORIGINAL: el cid again

Why would anyone actually build a tanker with more capacity in tanks than the ship could actually carry under all conditions?

Because they had to given the laws of physics.

Ships are built in accord with standards of the time. A ship has a length, breadth, and height of depth, in accord with her planform design. A ship is designed to conform to a registry tonnage. A ship is a rectangular steel box in the water, informed by her block and (mostly) prismatic coefficients. What develops in terms of a volumetric capacity, develops.

California crude oil density is about 915 kg/cu.m (American Petroleum Institute)
Sea water is about 1025.18 kg/cu.m (Duh)
Steel is about 7850 kg/cu.m (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics)

K(7850) + 915 = 1025.18
K(7850) = 110.18
K = .014

Therefore 0.014 (oil) = 5108
Therefore 36,485.71 tons of oil => 5108 tons of steel for neutral density in 25 C salt water. Anything less requires reserve buoyancy.

A T2-SE-A1 tanker has a builder’s light ship tonnage of 5108 metric tons. A T2-SE-A1 tanker has a builder’s capacity of 141,158 barrels. 1 American barrel = 0.15899 cubic meters. A T2-SE-A1 has a volumetric capacity of 22,442.71 cubic meters. A T2-SE-A1 has a spatial capacity for 20,535.1 metric tons. A T2-SE-A1 has a deadweight capacity of 16,722 metric tons. A T2-SE-A1 loads about 2,838 tons of fuel, fresh water and dunnage. This does not include guns, ammunition, or ballast. A T2-SE-A1 has a commercial cargo deadweight of about 13,884 tons. A T2-SE-A1 cannot, therefore, load 20,535.1 of California crude. A T2-SE-A1 can load 83.0283% of her volumetric capacity in California crude. The US API standard loadout for a tanker (as of NVLCR-2001) is 83% of net volumetric deadweight ton ratio (what a surprise).
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by JWE »

Answer 2.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Reviewing specifically Japanese standard tanker designs, it appears the liquid cargo (not ships fuel) by weight is on the order of 87.5% of the dwt of a ship, and that the dwt is about 152% of the grt of the ship - if the ship is a tanker of significant size. Even though a ship serving as an auxiliary has significantly extra weight for crew and equipment (compared to a true merchant tanker), the Japanese appear to have exceeded these averages in auxiliary service as the normal case.

I choose to use design values across the board. This is for purposes of consistency across all types of cargo carrying vessels.

Yes, the IRL numbers for cargo loadouts for certain vessels will be larger than nominal under certain conditions. But I do not wish to differentiate between the Hu Flung Poo Maru and the Yu Flung Poo Maru as to capacity. I believe that in a game of this scale, design values are as appropriate as any other measure for a touchstone standard, and given design values, and a rational ratio extended to other vessels, vessels may be categorized appropriately; particularly, vessels may be characterized in relative relationships to one another.

You don't like it, use your own percentages.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by el cid again »

It is very likely WITP was intended to use more or less standard concepts of loading. But it also is entirely feasible to use actual data - if the data is available and if we bother to take the time to enter it (which, for literally thousands of ships, is a big deal IMHO). So I tend to use the same % ratios for similar vessels - and I don't object to it a whit (not sure why the injured tone - or even the idea I might not do so???). Nevertheless, the % isn't the same for all vessels, and it is probably more sophisticated to give a different one to smaller ones than to larger ones. The basic game seems to have tried to classify transports and tankers in three sizes (large, medium and small) - and I have gone only a slightly more complex route - adding jumbo to the tankers at the top end - adding sea trucks, junks and other very tiny vessels to AKs at the bottom end - and then adding any specific case we have good data for. But each of the broad size ranges is better modeled by a different % - to reflect the inherant efficiency of that hull size - in my view. In spite of this complexity, I still must admit to using basic % across broad ranges of ships - and I endorse anyone and everyone who does so. Just where you make the trade off choices is inherently a matter of taste (and perhaps also time - at least if you want to finish this decade). Modding is the art of compromise - and compromise implies everything comes at a price. Beyond a certain point - and in many cases WITP goes beyond that point - you gain very little by becoming more specific. It is - however - always neat chrome to have the most accurate possible information. We could - after all - have ALL tankers represented by a single art image - but we don't. And there is great merit in seeking consistency - something WITP badly needed - so I have not the slightest objection to using it as a major consideration in your compromise choices.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by m10bob »

I might be off base here, but just commenting.
I have never liked the use of a percentage% of this or that to represent a ships' carrying capacity, especially when some modders have admitted they are doing so to either "balance" the game, or slow it down.
I feel in giving historical capacities, the player is given the option of placing a verifiable value on his cargo ships and may choose to protect them more often.
Maybe having less of them can both "slow down" the game, and open slots for other ships, or types??
BTW, Liberty ships were a true marvel, for many reasons, but being assembled in sections, the hulls had a risk of coming apart at the seems from wear or rough seas.
(I know at least one came apart.)
Is this something that is simulated in the game in any way, and if not, is it feasable?
If it were in game, and had a lesser durability figure, maybe the owning player would keep them from harms way as he should his "super passenger liners"??
Image

Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Merchie Fun Facts - part ...

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: m10bob

BTW, Liberty ships were a true marvel, for many reasons, but being assembled in sections, the hulls had a risk of coming apart at the seems from wear or rough seas.
(I know at least one came apart.) Is this something that is simulated in the game in any way, and if not, is it feasable?


This "defect" was corrected and retro-fitted after that one occurance..., and was only a problem in the "all-welded" ones to begin with.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”