Should submarines get armor ratings?

Should submarines get armor ratings? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Dili -> Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/15/2009 3:12:36 AM)
Example: quote: 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

kaleun -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/15/2009 3:48:31 AM)
I guess so. At least the U-boats[8\|]

rtrapasso -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/15/2009 10:22:48 AM)
Folks have tried mods with armor ratings on subs... the game engine did not handle it well.

Dili -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/15/2009 11:43:23 PM)
Thanks rtrapasso.

jwilkerson -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/15/2009 11:48:53 PM)
After seeing a destroyer sunk by PT boat 50 cals ... I asked the same question ... our "resident expert" on (in game) naval devices (tankerace) recommended against it ... so you still might see a very rare event such as this.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:11:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Folks have tried mods with armor ratings on subs... the game engine did not handle it well. Subs don't really have armor..., but the thick cylindrical pressure hull could provide a good imitation.

engineer -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:27:37 AM)
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. Subs are special because the pressure hull gives some protection on the surface, but at depth, it's the overpressure from the depth charges that can rupture the hull and I can see where you might have to dig into the engine instead of just simple mods to get that right.

XENXEN -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 1:03:36 AM)
Are there "Armour" not represented by there high durability in the game ??

rtrapasso -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 1:52:36 AM)
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. 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.

Misconduct -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 3:01:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso 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. 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. Given the Japanese warships (some) carried the Long Lance Torpedo's - wouldn't it be a possibility to have say a P-40 on a strafing attack set off the warheads? I managed to hit a Japanese DD with a 250lb bomb and seen the "Torpedoe tube destroyed" and questioned if it would sink it or not. I can't remember if it did, however I would think thats a critical damage hit. Imagine what would happen if we had the B-25-H with 75mm pack howitzer, what happens when a single round hits a rack of depth charges. Probability would be extremely low this ever happened, nevertheless a possibility.

castor troy -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 7:55:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso 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. 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. Given the Japanese warships (some) carried the Long Lance Torpedo's - wouldn't it be a possibility to have say a P-40 on a strafing attack set off the warheads? I managed to hit a Japanese DD with a 250lb bomb and seen the "Torpedoe tube destroyed" and questioned if it would sink it or not. I can't remember if it did, however I would think thats a critical damage hit. Imagine what would happen if we had the B-25-H with 75mm pack howitzer, what happens when a single round hits a rack of depth charges. Probability would be extremely low this ever happened, nevertheless a possibility. The DD that had his LL disabled didn´t sink (at least not because the LL went off). It only lost it´s weapon, this didn´t create and fire, float or sys damage. Of course the bomb itself die create damage as a DD isn´t bomb prove.

Terminus -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 8:14:14 AM)
Didn't sink, huh? That's funny, history seems to think there were TWO Japanese destroyers sunk in the first invasion attempt at Wake. Guess you were wrong, as usual. The Hayate was sunk by coastal guns, and the Kisaragi by air attack, although there's some controversy as to whether or not the fatal explosion occurred at the middle or rear of the ship. Either way, none of the two ships carried those oh-so-fantastic[8\|] Long Lances.

castor troy -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 8:36:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Didn't sink, huh? That's funny, history seems to think there were TWO Japanese destroyers sunk in the first invasion attempt at Wake. Guess you were wrong, as usual. The Hayate was sunk by coastal guns, and the Kisaragi by air attack, although there's some controversy as to whether or not the fatal explosion occurred at the middle or rear of the ship. Either way, none of the two ships carried those oh-so-fantastic[8\|] Long Lances. I guess you are the usual stupid asshole that you were born as. Knowing about the consequences I tell you now something once and for all you stinking stupid rat: PISS OFF! Use the green button on me or do whatever you want. Heck, with the Matrix friends you seemingly have found you seem to be allowed to do whatever you want anyway you stupid dork. Amazingly enough that the only one that has been a pain in the a$$ on this forum for years manages to become a friend of the moderators that obviously allow him to piss off people in the dozen weekly. How stupid are you really? I answered Misconducts statement you silly guy: I managed to hit a Japanese DD with a 250lb bomb and seen the "Torpedoe tube destroyed" and questioned if it would sink it or not. I can't remember if it did, however I would think thats a critical damage hit. so now tell me what was wrong about my replay: The DD that had his LL disabled didn´t sink (at least not because the LL went off). It only lost it´s weapon, this didn´t create any fire, float or sys damage. Of course the bomb itself did create damage as a DD isn´t bomb prove. I didn´t know that someone would refer to sys, flt and fire damage when speaking about historic events. But perhaps you do it like that, hey Arizone suffered 93 sys, 48 fire and the 100 flt put her down... [8\|] I do only for in game events, of which I obviously know more than you do, while you have tried to comment ingame things all the time, you have more or less no clue about them. Even more frustrating that you could influence AE. Scary. gosh, get off me once and for all...

Terminus -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 11:23:25 AM)
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.

castor troy -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:07:00 PM)
quote: 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. yeah for sure stupid geek. Hopefully I´m as helpful as you. Oh sorry, what you think would be helpful is in 99% cases stupid spam or other bullshit. And lucky me, I´m only one of many that thinks so.

rtrapasso -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:09:56 PM)
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(] [:'(] )

Ambassador -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:12:05 PM)
quote: 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.

rtrapasso -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:14:29 PM)
Guys: let's cool it...

Misconduct -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:15:50 PM)
quote: 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(] [:'(] ) Incorrect sir, he used the U.S.S enterprise and had scotty beam them up. Question when does the transporters enter the game? 8/41?

rtrapasso -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 12:21:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct quote: 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(] [:'(] ) Incorrect sir, he used the U.S.S enterprise and had scotty beam them up. Question when does the transporters enter the game? 8/41? [:D] [:D] Well, this was his prior AAR (not the current one)... Mandrake went to some trouble to recreate the Stargate Portal design into the AAR... As for the USS Enterprise (NCC1701 or whatever): she was clearly capable of time travel... so transporters could enter the game at any time. [:'(]

Local Yokel -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 2:06:14 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 5:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: 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 -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 6:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Example: quote: 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 -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 6:55:03 PM)
quote: 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. 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 > Thanks, questions asked and answered.

Dili -> RE: Should submarines get armor ratings? (7/16/2009 7:34:34 PM)
quote: 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.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.1875