Question about sinking

[sea knight]

I have seen that ships tends to capsize in the direction opposite to the shelled side, i have read something about that, but in my opinion it is quite obvious.

The first thing i thought was to compare the sinking to those excellent of silent hunter III, but i realized that this could be a mistake because there the sinking occours mainly by 280 kg explosives under the buoyacy line. I' m no naval engeneer but this lead me to think that the sinking speed is linear Y= aX where X is the difference between flooding and pumping capacity ( know this is a too rough approx but should be enough to evidence the diffierence ). If sinking occurs by shelling as the ship start flooding the water start entering from the holes that WERE over the buoyancy line so sinking time should be something similar as Y=ae^X. The flooding speed increses exponentially.
A way to avoid this is to try to keep the shelled side a long as possibile over the buoyancy line, at the expense of the unshelled size.
As long as possibile probably lead to a "until out of control" so casize on the other side occurs.

It is just a opinion, and keep note that my approch is an economist and no a engeneer oriented.

[Bullethead]

I've also noticed that ships tend to capsize away from the the direction the damage came from, and it's puzzled me, too. The expectation is that there'd be more water on the side with the holes in it, especially as in RJW times many ships had a longitudinal bulkhead down the centerline, which kept water isolated to one side, and they often lacked the counterflooding capacity to even things out quickly. But like you, my expectation is based on watching a lot of footage of torpedoed ships. And most ships in DG sink from shell damage, not torps.

When it comes to shells, I've noticed that the damage model allows them to penetrate into and even completely through the target. In fact, they sometimes do more damage on the far side of the ship than on the near side, presumably because that's where they were when they exploded. I've also noticed other things, such as at the close ranges where most hits are scored, most of these hits are well above the waterline on the near side. But because the shells are always heading down as they hit the ship, those that penetrate will be lower down on the far side of the ship than on the near side, at or possibly below the waterline. And if they explode there, the exit holes will be bigger than the entrance holes, too.

Thus, I can now understand why ships sunk by gunfire tend to capsize away from the shooter. The far side usually has more holes low down on the hull. Thus, more water comes in on that side and pulls the ship over that way.

BTW, your thinking that capsizing rates increase as the list increases is quite correct. There are many historical examples where slowly increasing list eventually brought various hull openings down to the water, which led to a rapid increase in flooding rates. Perhaps the most interesting was the Brit WW2 CV Ark Royal.

[sea knight]

I think you are right, in fact i used formulas for capitalizing interest rate, that was business of the administrative section of the costructors of the ship, not of the designers.:laugh:
Anyway they still can explain why ships shelled have the tendency to sink faster as they start accumulating water, it looked for me quite strange how models used to a completely different sort of thing still can be adapted
Cheers

[SunScream]

Has anyone seen one go down bows or stern first?
I managed to put four torpedoes into the aft end of Bayan and it still capsized.

[Bullethead]

Has anyone seen one go down bows or stern first?
I managed to put four torpedoes into the aft end of Bayan and it still capsized.

I've seen ships stay upright and go down, with 1 end sinking a bit faster than the other, several times. Seems pretty rare, however. And never an Titanic-style vertical stand on bow or stern, only about a 20-30^ difference between the end levels.

I suppose the damage model keeps track of which side a hit is on even down to the end-most pixels of the ships, so if all 4 torps hit the same side of Bayan, I figure she'd capsize even if all hits were very near the stern.

[WallysWorld]

I've seen ships stay upright and go down, with 1 end sinking a bit faster than the other, several times. Seems pretty rare, however.

Chen Yen did that when I hit it with a single torpedo in the port rear. It slowly listed to port and I swear the bow tilted upwards a little. After ten or fifteen minutes, she finally rolled over completely to port and sank. It was interesting to watch as the water reached the gun ports as she slowly listed over more and more.

[Zakalwe]

I saw one Japanese Auxiliary Cruiser go down bow first after the magazines exploded. No Titanic style though.

But I haven`t seen ships capsizing to the wrong side since the demo.

Z.

[KGB]

I have seen that ships tends to capsize in the direction opposite to the shelled side, i have read something about that, but in my opinion it is quite obvious.

The first thing i thought was to compare the sinking to those excellent of silent hunter III, but i realized that this could be a mistake because there the sinking occours mainly by 280 kg explosives under the buoyacy line. I' m no naval engeneer but this lead me to think that the sinking speed is linear Y= aX where X is the difference between flooding and pumping capacity ( know this is a too rough approx but should be enough to evidence the diffierence ). If sinking occurs by shelling as the ship start flooding the water start entering from the holes that WERE over the buoyancy line so sinking time should be something similar as Y=ae^X. The flooding speed increses exponentially.
A way to avoid this is to try to keep the shelled side a long as possibile over the buoyancy line, at the expense of the unshelled size.
As long as possibile probably lead to a "until out of control" so casize on the other side occurs.

It is just a opinion, and keep note that my approch is an economist and no a engeneer oriented.
In fact, flooding is not a linear process, involving such things as watertight bulkheads durability, pumping capacity (also not linear process) , etc.
This means that simple Y=F(X) formulas do not work.

Also, the mechanism of flooding the Silent Hunter III have is very far to reality, cuz the mathematical models of ships there haven't got the internal tanks structure, meaning the whole unrealism of model of flooding.