Warship damage control issue

[Kincham]

Obviously, the survivibilty of a warship not only depends on the thickness of her armor but also her damage control capability.
I think that there should be some research about damage control.If the research is done, Naval ships can sustain more damage and the Org recovers faster(Simulate less crew loss).

Historical examples:
1.Generally, the damage control capability of the USN ships were better than the IJN ships. Many USN ships heavily damaged survived and had a chance to fight another days, while the IJN ships can't.
2.In Falkland War, HMS Sheffield was sunk not because the Exocet missile blew her apart, it's because RN couldn't control the fire raging in the ship.
Well, I think RN learned the lessons.

 

[Iridium]

No idea how this would be modeled at this level of organization but here's another example I can think of.

The Ark Royal sinking after a single torpedo and the lack of aux. power systems in British ships till post war.

On 10 November Ark Royal ferried more aircraft to Malta before returning to Gibraltar. Admiral Somerville had been warned of U-boats off the Spanish coast, and reminded Force H to be vigilant.[82] Also at sea was Friedrich Guggenberger's U-81, which had received a report that Force H was returning to Gibraltar.[81] On 13 November, at 15:40 hours, the sonar operator aboard the destroyer HMS Legion detected an unidentified sound, but assumed it was the propellers of a nearby destroyer. One minute later, Ark Royal was struck amidships by a torpedo,[83] between the fuel bunkers and bomb store, and directly below the bridge island.[84] The explosion caused Ark Royal to shake, hurled loaded torpedo-bombers into the air, and killed Able Seaman Mitchell.[84] A 130 feet (40 m) long by 30 feet (9.1 m) deep hole was created on the starboard side, which caused flooding of the starboard boiler room, main switchboard, oil tanks, and over 106 feet (32 m) of the ship's starboard bilge. The starboard power train was knocked out, causing the rear half of the ship to lose power, while communications were severed shipwide.

Immediately after the torpedo strike, Captain Maund attempted to order the engines to full stop, but had to send a runner to the engine room when it was discovered communications were down.[85] The hole in the hull was enlarged by the ship's motion, and by the time Ark Royal stopped she had taken on water and begun to list to starboard, reaching 18° from centre within 20 minutes.[85] Considering the lean of the carrier, as well as the fates of other carriers, including HMS Courageous and HMS Glorious, which had sunk rapidly with heavy loss of life, Maund gave the order to abandon ship. The crew were assembled on the flight deck to determine who would remain onboard to save the ship while HMS Legion came alongside to take off the rest; as a result, comprehensive damage control measures were not initiated until 49 minutes after the attack. The flooding spread unchecked, exacerbated by covers and hatches left open during evacuation of lower decks.[86]

Water spread to the centreline boiler room, which started to flood from below, and power was lost shipwide when the boiler uptakes became choked; Ark Royal had no backup diesel generators.[87] About half an hour after the explosion, the carrier appeared to stabilise. Admiral Somerville, determined to save Ark Royal, ordered damage control parties back to the carrier before taking the battleship HMS Malaya to Gibraltar to organise salvage efforts. The damage control parties were able to re-light a boiler, restoring power to the bilge pumps. The destroyer HMS Laforey came alongside to provide power and additional pumps, while Swordfish aircraft from Gibraltar arrived to supplement anti-submarine patrols.[88] The tug Thames arrived from Gibraltar at 20:00 hours and attached a tow line to Ark Royal, but flooding caused the angle of list to increase rapidly. Water had reached the boiler room flat, an uninterrupted compartment running the width of the ship, which forced the shutdown of the restored boiler.

The list reached 20° between 02:05 and 02:30 hours, and when 'abandon ship' was declared again at 04:00 hours, had reached 27°.[89] Ark Royal's complement had been evacuated to Legion by 04:30 hours; with the exception of Mitchell, there were no fatalities. The 1,487 officers and crew were transported to Gibraltar.[90] The list reached 45° before Ark Royal capsized and sank at 06:19 hours on 14 November.[91] Witnesses reported the carrier rolleing to 90°, where she remained for three minutes before inverting. Ark Royal broke in two, the aft sinking within a couple of minutes, followed by the bow.[92]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(91)

 

[unmerged(12217)]

It's pretty simple to model in a game like this - research the appropriate technologies and your ships are more resistant to taking damaging hits and recover from them faster if they are hit.
There should be two levels to this:
1. Ship design. Once built, this is permanent. It correlates to ship subdivision, number of hulls (single or double), basic armoring, etc. Improve this technology and you will build tougher, more resilient ships that are built to take more damage and still survive and function.
2. Crew training and firefighting equipment. This can be upgraded, even in older ships. You can better train your crews to fight fires, combat flooding, etc; and you can equip them with firefighting foam, oxygen breathing apparatus, etc. This can improve with crew experience as well, if that is being tracked.

 

[Iridium]

It's pretty simple to model in a game like this - research the appropriate technologies and your ships are more resistant to taking damaging hits and recover from them faster if they are hit.
There should be two levels to this:
1. Ship design. Once built, this is permanent. It correlates to ship subdivision, number of hulls (single or double), basic armoring, etc. Improve this technology and you will build tougher, more resilient ships that are built to take more damage and still survive and function.
2. Crew training and firefighting equipment. This can be upgraded, even in older ships. You can better train your crews to fight fires, combat flooding, etc; and you can equip them with firefighting foam, oxygen breathing apparatus, etc. This can improve with crew experience as well, if that is being tracked.

Unless I missed a DD about ship design and how far it went into detail of ship damage in general, I'll assume there is no detail of ships beyond stat numbers. This is far beyond the scope of HOI2 and if they have improved the naval model this much then great but I won't hold my breath.

 

[unmerged(122939)]

It's pretty simple to model in a game like this - research the appropriate technologies and your ships are more resistant to taking damaging hits and recover from them faster if they are hit.
There should be two levels to this:
1. Ship design. Once built, this is permanent. It correlates to ship subdivision, number of hulls (single or double), basic armoring, etc. Improve this technology and you will build tougher, more resilient ships that are built to take more damage and still survive and function.
2. Crew training and firefighting equipment. This can be upgraded, even in older ships. You can better train your crews to fight fires, combat flooding, etc; and you can equip them with firefighting foam, oxygen breathing apparatus, etc. This can improve with crew experience as well, if that is being tracked.

Although been a good idea I think that isn't the solution, that this comes from correcting a serious flaw that have HoI2, that is that the only way of sinking a ship is getting its str to 0. As I understand a ship with only a 10% of str should be so damaged that should hit the bottom of the sea in few hours.

What I propose is the next:
The ship chances to survive each turn (1hr) should be defined by the equation x(100-str), being x the sum of all bonuses, which included positive bonuses like technology (both that you say, which could infinite techs) and experience, and negative like bad weather conditions, also org should be a bonus but could be negative or positive depending of how high it is. So while a ship with 95% str and at 3hrs from the nearest base should have a base chance (without any bonus) of 85,57375% of getting home while one with 15% str would have a 0,3375% base chance of getting home.

 

[Kincham]

Although been a good idea I think that isn't the solution, that this comes from correcting a serious flaw that have HoI2, that is that the only way of sinking a ship is getting its str to 0. As I understand a ship with only a 10% of str should be so damaged that should hit the bottom of the sea in few hours.

What I propose is the next:
The ship chances to survive each turn (1hr) should be defined by the equation x(100-str), being x the sum of all bonuses, which included positive bonuses like technology (both that you say, which could infinite techs) and experience, and negative like bad weather conditions, also org should be a bonus but could be negative or positive depending of how high it is. So while a ship with 95% str and at 3hrs from the nearest base should have a base chance (without any bonus) of 85,57375% of getting home while one with 15% str would have a 0,3375% base chance of getting home.

I agree with your viewpoint.The survival of a ship in battle is also decided by pure luck and many other factors, just didn't think that much when posting this.
But if a ship is damaged too heavily(say 20% Str.)and other vessels are relatively intact, there should be a chance that the ship doesn't take a part in the battle anymore.
It's reasonable when the enemy fleet has many other ships to handle they may ignore a ship which losed ability to combat.
So the heavily damaged ship has a chance to focus on repairing themselves and regain some Str. and Org.(of course not to 100%), instead of just sitting there and waiting random number to decide their fate.
Include more random factors should make naval battle more unpredictable and breathtaking.
Even that means I may see my CV's blew apart when all seem's going well(like at Midway, haha), that's worth it.

 

[Wraith11B]

Iridium: Honestly, that's more a definite lack of smarts on the RN sailors part to not batten down the hatches after the last man went through them: flooding could probably have been much better controlled were that the case.

Honestly, I think that this is reaching a bit too far, and I'd say that just because the USN was really good at DC doesn't mean it should be modeled in the game. I've never read anything saying that that IJN was not competent with regards to DC; indeed, ask any sailor what his worst fear is and he'll probably tell you that its his ship sinking. Most professional navies put so much emphasis on DC that it becomes almost-first-nature.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

...snip...
Honestly, I think that this is reaching a bit too far, and I'd say that just because the USN was really good at DC doesn't mean it should be modeled in the game. I've never read anything saying that that IJN was not competent with regards to DC; indeed, ask any sailor what his worst fear is and he'll probably tell you that its his ship sinking. Most professional navies put so much emphasis on DC that it becomes almost-first-nature.

The point being made is that, while no sailor wants to go down with his ship, some navies were far better prepared than other to deal with catastrophic damages. That was part policy, part procedure, part equipment and part training.
War severely limits a lot of things but one of the most critical is time. In the game we are simulating the critical decisions that leaders have to make, choosing one thing versus another. Given an opportunity to research improved damage control vs another choice (say, improved radars), what will you choose? Yes, warning is important, but if you can improve damage control by some percentage (say, 5 per cent) across the board by researching firefighting techniques and improved training, that's a valid choice to have to make...and a tough one.
I am not saying that all US ships automatically get a DC bonus, but that it should be one thing more that can be researched - as it was, historically. And this includes subtle improvements in ships, like fire-proofed paints, cable harnesses and fuel lines. Better to learn in the lab, than in the field!

 

[unmerged(122939)]

Damage Control could be not modeled (although I think that it should), but I think that the system that I propouse is a must, I really hate to see how a ship with only 10-20% os str manages to travel across the whole Pacific ocean when it should be at the bottom of the sea.
Now in respect to the bad weather bonus, I think that the smaller the vessel the worse the bonus, a BB should have no major problems with waves that can send to hell a destroyer.

 

[dsteve3]

Interesting ideas. I have to say, I'd rather have a more generic naval doctrines research, with survivability built in, but I do want to see the mechanics of naval combat changed.

Naval combat was days of manuevering with minutes of combat (from what I'm told). Someone in another post mentioned that a two-hour gun fight would be about the max in terms of ammo and gun endurance. CVs fly in sorties, with only a few being possible in a day.

What we should see in game is a series of events. First, the small ships or planes spot a ship or fleet, and contact the larger hunters to give directions. Within a few hours the hunters will either find their prey or they won't . If they make contact, they enter combat. The next hour-tick should provide an opportunity to enact some basic options like evade or attack and maybe some kind of counter-manuever to bring more ships into range.

The combat should only last a few hours. There really shouldn't be any movement of organization or strength bars during the combat - that should be another element of "fog of war".

After the combat, there should be messages defining what each side is doing. Fleet and ship commanders will decide what is appropriate based on the actual combat calculations and some pre-set stances that players enter for their forces before combat begins. Either a force is committed to combat or its not - thats something that should be determined before the fleet begins its mission.

Once it has been determined that each side has separated, then information on ship status can be given. Then players decide if they need to redirect their fleets to try and save damaged ships by sending them to a closer port. That may also be an opportunity to redirect air factors to provide cover for a retreat or scout further for retreating ships.

The combat should be fast and a ship's fate should remain uncertain for a time after the battle. If ships are sunk, that information should only become available after a fleet commander has responded to the immediate situation.

This is a grand-strategy game - we can't have total control over naval battles. The mechanics would be too hairy.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Iridium: Honestly, that's more a definite lack of smarts on the RN sailors part to not batten down the hatches after the last man went through them: flooding could probably have been much better controlled were that the case.

Honestly, I think that this is reaching a bit too far, and I'd say that just because the USN was really good at DC doesn't mean it should be modeled in the game. I've never read anything saying that that IJN was not competent with regards to DC; indeed, ask any sailor what his worst fear is and he'll probably tell you that its his ship sinking. Most professional navies put so much emphasis on DC that it becomes almost-first-nature.

To be even more honest it is not 'lack of smarts' bur rather when you are ordered to abandon ship your assumption is the damn thing is sinking so closing doors is

a) An irrelvance
b) An impediment to the evacuation

What happend to Prince of Wales is more apposite here I think. Near misses crated vibrations that knocked out her rigidly-mounted auxiliary motors. That shut down power to her 5.25" AA which had been doing well up to that point.

The lessons learned; having flexible mountings, were incorporatd into Anson and Howe that were still on the stocks.

In other words any DC bonus should be garnered from experience, not crystal ball prediction. The US learned a lot from Lexington's loss that were then incorporated into the essex class.

Also, re: Sheffield, the RN learned that having flammable paint, which was designed to cut down rust, was a poor idea in wartime.

K

 

[Alex_brunius]

Here are two Interresting reads on IJN incompetence in dmg controll.

Taiho

On 19 June 1944, she was flagship of Vice-Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa's carrier force in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. As Taihō turned into the wind and launched an air strike, she was herself attacked by a spread of six torpedoes from the US submarine USS Albacore (SS-218). One of the Taihō's strike pilots, Sakio Komatsu, had just taken off when he saw the torpedo wakes and deliberately dived his plane into the path of a torpedo; the weapon detonated short of its target, and four of the remaining five missed.

The explosion of the torpedo that hit jammed the ship's forward aircraft elevator; its pit filled with gasoline, water, and fuel. However, no fire erupted, and the flight deck was unharmed.[1]

Ozawa was unconcerned by the hit and launched two more waves of aircraft.

Meanwhile, a novice took over the damage-control work. He thought the best way to handle gasoline fumes was to open up the ship's ventilation system and let them disperse. When he did, the fumes spread all through the ship. Unknown to anybody on board, Taihō became a floating time bomb. About 3:30 that afternoon, Taihō was jolted by a severe explosion. A senior staff officer on the bridge saw the flight deck heave up. The sides blew out. Taihō dropped out of formation and began to settle in the water, clearly doomed. Though Admiral Ozawa wanted to go down with the ship, his staff prevailed on him to survive and to shift his quarters to the cruiser Haguro. Taking the Emperor's portrait, Ozawa transferred to Haguro by destroyer. After he left, Taihō was torn by a second thunderous explosion and sank stern first, carrying down 1,650 officers and men.[1]

Shinano

Though severe, the damage to Shinano was at first judged to be manageable, and the carrier continued under way.[4] However, progressive flooding over the next four hours caused Shinano to list to starboard. Archer-Fish's crew later reported that Shinano was already listing only minutes after the last torpedo hit.[6] At dawn, Captain Abe ordered three of the outboard boiler rooms counter-flooded. Thirty-six miles from where the torpedoes struck, Shinano's boiler water feed failed shortly afterwards.[4] All efforts to control the flooding failed, in part because most of the crew wasn't well-trained in damage control.[6]

Note: 4 torpedoes would have been enough to doom any other Carrier, but Shinano was a Yamatoclass hull with 3times the displacement and comparing how many torpedo hits it took to sink Musashi (18hits) or Yamato (10hits) the damage controll performance looks weak.

Id want to see a section in either the capital/escort tech screens or the sea doctine where we can research damage controll for ships separately. At least there should be unique damage controll techs for Carriers, Subs & Surface ships since they all have different vunerablities and dmg controll tactics.

I do agree that experience was important, but since the game lacks theorical/practical values equivalent to experience Im in doubt as to how it should be implemented.

 

[Khevenhuller]

HoI3 will link exprience to research, unlike HoI2. In essence you could gain bonuses to researching DC the more ships you had sunk or badly damaged.

K

 

[Alex_brunius]

HoI3 will link exprience to research, unlike HoI2. In essence you could gain bonuses to researching DC the more ships you had sunk or badly damaged.

K

Thats good news for me! Got a source?

So far Ive only understood that HoI3 would link Production experience with research (through practical values). Not actual field experience.

 

[zeekater]

Thats good news for me! Got a source?

So far Ive only understood that HoI3 would link Production experience with research (through practical values). Not actual field experience.

For doctrines, the practical values are gained from general combat, but this is simply one value that goes up with each naval battle. It doesn't take into account damage, win/loss or types of ships engaged

 

[Alex_brunius]

For doctrines, the practical values are gained from general combat, but this is simply one value that goes up with each naval battle. It doesn't take into account damage, win/loss or types of ships engaged

Ah cool, Seems Ive missed some info.

Wouldn't that mean it makes alot of sence to just have a doctrine for dmg controll then? Following the general principe that the more combat (and experience) you have seen the more you know about how to improve damage controll.

 

[Iridium]

Shinano

Note: 4 torpedoes would have been enough to doom any other Carrier, but Shinano was a Yamatoclass hull with 3times the displacement and comparing how many torpedo hits it took to sink Musashi (18hits) or Yamato (10hits) the damage controll performance looks weak.

Shinano was not completely fitted out yet, had only a civilian skeleton crew on board (moving her to Kure for fitting iirc) and had no WTC doors. She sank due to a lack of subdivision.

When electricity goes out on a ship, you lose lights, communications, pumps, etc. Due to a lack of British aux. power these circumstances occurred more frequently than other navies. People tend not to follow orders they don't hear or it takes to long to run a guy down to the engine room from the bridge in time to save the ship etc. Meanwhile your trying to work in pitch black darkness with a small flashlight (if your lucky). One can only hope flooding hasn't gotten to your section yet and panic could be making the crew abandon their posts with little information from the bridge and the ship clearly taking on lots of water.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Shinano was not completely fitted out yet, had only a civilian skeleton crew on board (moving her to Kure for fitting iirc) and had no WTC doors. She sank due to a lack of subdivision.

Well I still blame IJN dmg controll regulations for allowing a ship not fitted out or without a full crew to go to sea where both enemy Submarines and Carrier strikeplanes are known to prowl. If DMG controll was more prioritized or leaders had paid more attention to it such things wouldn't happen.

 

[Iridium]

Well I still blame IJN dmg controll regulations for allowing a ship not fitted out or without a full crew to go to sea where both enemy Submarines and Carrier strikeplanes are known to prowl. If DMG controll was more prioritized or leaders had paid more attention to it such things wouldn't happen.

It was more of a situation where they couldn't do anything else but move the CV. She was dead sitting in one place or dead moving.

On 19 November 1944, Shinano was formally commissioned at Yokosuka, having spent the previous two weeks fitting out and performing minor trials. As a result of growing worry for her safety, Japanese Naval Command ordered Shinano to Kure, where the remainder of her fitting-out would take place. On 28 November 1944, Shinano departed Yokosuka, with an escort of three destroyers, bound for Kure.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It was more of a situation where they couldn't do anything else but move the CV. She was dead sitting in one place or dead moving.

Im not really buing that argument. Why would Shinano be more safe in Kure than Yokosuka? She could hide from bombers or Carrier planes in neither port but moving her would put her in even more danger.

Ofcourse we have the benefit of hindsight knowledge but I doubt American regulations in a similair situation would allow moving a ship without dmg controll, crew or bulkheads into the face of possible enemy attack.