PDA

View Full Version : How much damage can a tanker take before a tanker becomes fodder?



MJEber
11-05-2007, 07:24 AM
I was on a patrol and encountered a pair of Large Tankers. (both modern) I put 3 torpedoes into each tanker but was unable to finish them off. (Surfacing was dangerous having both ships firing on me)

I sank the 3rd companion and then began dogging these two. 1 1/2 days later, these ships had sustained tremendous damage. They still had raging fires, they were both leaving oil slicks, they both listed towards the torpedo side. Yet, even when I succeeded in getting additional surface rounds into them, neither ship sank.

It seemed that after some time they should have sunk...and me without any ammo of any type. Yet even after dogging them for 3 days and avoiding several called in air strikes, they refused to sink.

So just how much damage can a tanker handle before it is a gonner???

MJEber
11-05-2007, 07:24 AM
I was on a patrol and encountered a pair of Large Tankers. (both modern) I put 3 torpedoes into each tanker but was unable to finish them off. (Surfacing was dangerous having both ships firing on me)

I sank the 3rd companion and then began dogging these two. 1 1/2 days later, these ships had sustained tremendous damage. They still had raging fires, they were both leaving oil slicks, they both listed towards the torpedo side. Yet, even when I succeeded in getting additional surface rounds into them, neither ship sank.

It seemed that after some time they should have sunk...and me without any ammo of any type. Yet even after dogging them for 3 days and avoiding several called in air strikes, they refused to sink.

So just how much damage can a tanker handle before it is a gonner???

lane2512
11-05-2007, 07:46 AM
Well....no correct answer...

I've sunk em with one (splitting them in half) and then again I've put 6 fish into them and not get a sinking.

Best shot is below the stack (or a bit fore-aft) of it. Another good first shot is about 1/4 way back from the bow. This noses them down.

lane2512
11-05-2007, 07:50 AM
One thing skippers forget is the torps do not exploded in a consistant manner.....

You might have two fish 'hit' but one might only impart 10% of it's destructive force on the target while the next maybe 75%. The damage radius and effects vary....just like the U.S. torps had problems, so do SH4s.

klcarroll
11-05-2007, 01:32 PM
....That, .....and the basic truth that there's nothing harder to sink than an empty Tanker.

The ship is, after all, nothing but a collection of watertight tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

klcarroll

tallinn1960
11-06-2007, 05:08 PM
Maybe I hold the record: 12 torpedos (each hit perfectly) and one shot of the deck gun to sink a single 10k tanker.

That was a day of frustration. The deck gun crew got a medal each. The torpedo crew, well, I did not sack them.

However, as my crew gained experience I have now about 8 guys on board that have the ability to increase torpedo damage. On my last patrol I did need never more then two torpedos to sink the beast. But they were probably all full of fuel. Tipp: if a tanker is heading north (toward Japan) it is probably empty. If it is heading south you may engage. Speed is an indication as well.

DRAGONFIRE-AWG-
11-07-2007, 05:27 AM
Actually northbound tankers would be full, Japan has no oil prodution of its own. That is why they invaded the east Indies, for the OIL!!!!!

Maverick_U2007
11-07-2007, 05:47 AM
There is something else to be remembered in that when a ship is not full of oil it will have ballast in it's tanks which will be 'water'. To the best of my knowledge water doesn't ignite or we would all be filling cars with the stuff.

I don't know about during the second world war period, but tankers also fill the 'void' space with 'inert gas' (am ex merchant navy amongst other things). I doubt very much whether the people at UBIsoft could have built such a thing into the game but I would suggest that you should think along the lines of 'well if it sinks it's a bonus!!!.'

Maverick

GerritJ9
11-07-2007, 06:08 AM
Inert gas systems only came into widespread use after three VLCCs suffered from explosions during tankcleaning in December 1969: "Marpessa", "Mactra" and "Kong Haakon". During WW2 IG systems were simply non-existent.
Ballast is only carried in some of the cargo tanks during ballast voyages. The others may or may not be gasfreed during the ballast passage, but in any case are empty. This gives tankers in ballast their tremendous reserve bouyancy.

lane2512
11-07-2007, 06:46 AM
Actually one of the lessons of the Coral Sea and Battle of the Eastern Solomons was the benefits of the inert gas (C02) system. U.S. Carriers, after Lex went down, routinely flooded their AVgas lines with CO2. It was one of those tactical decisions a skipper had to make. While it protected the ship from fire it also delayed the launching of strike and CAP aircraft until the lines could be recharged.

Now as far as commercial/merchant traffic...that I dunno.

tallinn1960
11-07-2007, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DRAGONFIRE-AWG-:
Actually northbound tankers would be full, Japan has no oil prodution of its own. That is why they invaded the east Indies, for the OIL!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds logical but my observation in the game is different. All southbound tankers were full so far, all northbound tankers empty. Where the refineries in Japan? After all I think the tankers deliver fuel to the troops in the south pacific.

tenakakhan_1981
11-07-2007, 10:24 AM
Now i'm hunting just east of Rabaul, every tanker I hit goes boom with one torpedo. I love watching them rip themselves to pieces, especially at night; the effects are gorgeous.

CRSutton
11-13-2007, 10:16 AM
Actually, I sailed in the American Merchant Marine from 1975 to 1985. It really was not until the mid to late 1980s before the majority of American carriers all had inert gas systems.

Most dangerous tanker was an empty tanker. Full tanks do not generally have enough oxygen in the tanks to cause an explosion. Empty tanks-especially the older tankers with unlined tanks were very dangerous. One tanker that I sailed on blew up and sank while sailing empty in 1982 (Golden Dolphin). She did not have inert gas, yet was a fairly modern ship (built in 1974)

A fully loaded tanker, if it does not burn, is harder to sink than an empty one. Because the cargo itself floats. Very hard to burn or sink a tanker carrying crude. Gasoline carriers are another story. I stayed away from them.