Front bow of ship should be capable of ramming without too much damage to self ?

[SkybuckFlying]

Front bow of ship should be capable of ramming without too much damage to self ?

[Nechrom]

Might be interesting from a gameplay perspective, but it sure isn't realistic. The bow is generally a weaker part of the ship.

[TheLordFlash]

Even ramming of a U-boat could severely dmage a ship.

 

HMS Alymer after raming U-1501 in 1945:

 

(Yet another useless thread by Skybuck)

[Deamon93]

This is USS Washington(the sistership of North Carolina) after a collision with USS Indiana. Granted this is a BB on BB collision but there are multiple cases of collisions recorded

[Admiral_noodle]

No. Ramming went out of fashion after the turn of the 20th century and ship bows weren't designed to ram.

 

[Egoleter]

Ship bows are not made to ram other ships. We not in the roman empire anymore where ships were designed with a ramming device.

[Kenliero]

Ramming ships is like trying to win groundwars with chainsaws, looks really good on white screen... but then there is reality and the laws of physics...

[N00b32]

Front bow of ship should be capable of ramming without too much damage to self ?

 

How about you formulate you postulation in a better way ? Because if you ram with the bow, you should damage your bow. Because Newton.

 

I guess what you want to say is "Ship should be capable of ramming another ship with loss of front bow only ?"

[Historynerd]

No. Ramming went out of fashion after the turn of the 20th century and ship bows weren't designed to ram.

 

Besides, it's not like that in the previous conflict it was a ramming fest in every battle.

At Lissa, it worked just once against a ship that was almost stationary, and during the War of the Pacific it happened the same (during the battle of Iquique, the Peruvian Huàscar rammed three times the Chilean Esmeralda, but by then the Chilean ship couldn't make more than 2 knots, so it was an easy target).

 

If even a battleship rams a destroyer, it should expect considerable damage, period.

 

Besides, who voted in favour, saying that it is realistic? 

[Sander93]

This is USS Washington(the sistership of North Carolina) after a collision with USS Indiana. Granted this is a BB on BB collision but there are multiple cases of collisions recorded

 

Sure looks bad, but she still managed to sail back to port? When we translate into the game's HP, I actually think this wouldn't be that much of a chunk of damage HP-wise.

The ship still looks largely combat effective (except for manouvrability). Most other examples show simular results; the sinking of the rammed ship while the ramming ship sustains bow damage but remains afloat and could theoretically continue the fight at a reduced effectiveness. 

 

I actually wouldn't mind a change that ramming a ship with the bow doesn't cost as much HP for the rammer as it does now, but results in a reduced speed and/or manouvrability for the rest of the game with perhaps a risk of destroying the front turret. 

[Deamon93]

 

Sure looks bad, but she still managed to sail back to port? When we translate into the game's HP, I actually think this wouldn't be that much of a chunk of damage HP-wise. The ships still looks largely combat effective (except for sailing).

 

I actually wouldn't mind a change that ramming a ship with the bow doesn't cost as much HP for the rammer as it does now, but results in a reduced speed and/or manouvrability for the rest of the game with perhaps a risk of destroying the front turret. 

 

Well as far as I recall USS Washington tried to avoid the ram so the damage aren't as severe as they may have been(ie the speed was relatively low). Would have been a different story at max speed, which is usually the speed of choice ingame.

 

She may be combat effective but she had to slow down and sail at low speeds so she was pretty much a sitting duck. Granted that happened very far away from the action so, other than the damage caused by the ram itself, it was inconsquential.

[Historynerd]

Sure looks bad, but she still managed to sail back to port? When we translate into the game's HP, I actually think this wouldn't be that much of a chunk of damage HP-wise.

The ship still looks largely combat effective (except for manouvrability).

 

I actually wouldn't mind a change that ramming a ship with the bow doesn't cost as much HP for the rammer as it does now, but results in a reduced speed and/or manouvrability for the rest of the game with perhaps a risk of destroying the front turret. 

 

But she did not remain in the operations zone, did she? She was immediately withdrawn to be repaired. So, looks can be deceiving. Also, maneuverability, especially for fast battleship, it's not exactly an optional even against a similar opponent, and it is so even less when you think about possible aerial and torpedo attacks.

 

Besides, if you are not forced, you don't push into battle one of your first-line ships, worthy pretty a penny of taxpayer's dollars and that it took years to build, when it's not in tiptop shape.

[22cm]

It has a point.  When 2 ships collide,  the bow is stronger than the bord,  so the damage received should be different. 

[HMS_Worcester]

I am strongly against anything that makes ramming a more attractive option for people. Ramming should be a last resort "I'm taking you with me" sort of thing.

I don't often see people ramming, but the last thing this game needs is more people doing it.

[Historynerd]

It has a point.  When 2 ships collide,  the bow is stronger than the bord,  so the damage received should be different. 

 

In my opinion, no.

Look at the image provided above. These two battleships didn't sink, but they were effectively neutralized for the time being. It happened on 1 February 1944, Washington did not return to Pearl Harbour till mid-June, while Indiana was back in action by the end of April (which might also say that sometimes repairing a bow is worse, or maybe even just longer, than repairing a hull).

It is coherent to me that after ramming a similar-sized ship, you are considered sunk as well, even if you rammed by the bow.

[robihr]

to anyone owning tirpitz this would be a nice buff

 

[Spuggy]

Even ramming of a U-boat could severely dmage a ship.

 

HMS Alymer after raming U-1501 in 1945:

 

(Yet another useless thread by Skybuck)

 

 

You disapoint  me Lord Flash. Some one is talking about "ramming" and you don't talk about "ramming", if you know what I mean

[Hanszeehock]

No. Ramming went out of fashion after the turn of the 20th century and ship bows weren't designed to ram.

 

 

I think ship bows where designed for ramming up to and including the early dreadnoughts. They where discontinued to save weight and when it was realised that larger guns meant close quarter combat was unlikely. The only thing I would change in game is animation when ramming. Both ships blowing up simultaneously looks silly. 

[T0byJug]

 

But she did not remain in the operations zone, did she? She was immediately withdrawn to be repaired. So, looks can be deceiving. Also, maneuverability, especially for fast battleship, it's not exactly an optional even against a similar opponent, and it is so even less when you think about possible aerial and torpedo attacks.

 

Besides, if you are not forced, you don't push into battle one of your first-line ships, worthy pretty a penny of taxpayer's dollars and that it took years to build, when it's not in tiptop shape.

 

Also damage like the type in the picture would require the ship to stop and reduce speed to a crawl till the bow can be shawerd up in order to allow her to go for would (still at a reduced speed or her for would Bulkheads would collapse. Its also worth noting though the damage to the Indiana was extensive it was not so much more than Washington 

[22cm]

Uhh,  ok…  I ll explain then.  Ships are divided in flooding compartments,  which can be sealed when flooded. The bow is usually a single flooding compartment. Hitting with the bow means a single flooded compartment,  which can be sealed off and the ship will still float.  Because of their inertia,  ships will tend follow their original path,  so the one that hits with the bow will rake more flooding comparments on the ship that is hit on one of the bords.

[T0byJug]

 

 

I think ship bows where designed for ramming up to and including the early dreadnoughts. They where discontinued to save weight and when it was realised that larger guns meant close quarter combat was unlikely. The only thing I would change in game is animation when ramming. Both ships blowing up simultaneously looks silly. 

 

Read 

Camperdown strikes Victoria

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887)

 

Camperdown HAD a ram. The collision almost  wrenched the Ram form the ship  She took on a lot of water. and for a short time was in risk of sinking. Ok Camperdown had not closed up ship (watertight compartments were open) But i think this proved the sheer weight of steel ships made ramming not viable as the damage to the rammer was also extensive and put the ship in risk of sinking

 

as for the animation!! Well they have improved the sinking animation significantly! maybe they will do the same for ramming

 

[T0byJug]

Uhh,  ok…  I ll explain then.  Ships are divided in flooding compartments,  which can be sealed when flooded. The bow is usually a single flooding compartment. Hitting with the bow means a single flooded compartment,  which can be sealed off and the ship will still float.  Because of their inertia,  ships will tend follow their original path,  so the one that hits with the bow will rake more flooding comparments on the ship that is hit on one of the bords.

 

True But those Bulkeads that stop the water are not designed to take the pressure of a ship moving forwould through the water. Could make an interesting game metric. Ship rams enemy and survives. It has extensive damage and can only go forwould at 1/4 speed if she is lucky or more  likely has to spend the rest of the battle in reverse  In the Picture above USS Washington had to stop for a day or more to strengthen (shore up) the forwould Bulkheads in order to sail home. and that was with the  deck of the bow section folding down across the damage , something that would significantly reduce the Pressure on the bulkheads as said deck plating would act as a brake for the water against the said bulkhead

[Historynerd]

Uhh,  ok…  I ll explain then.  Ships are divided in flooding compartments,  which can be sealed when flooded. The bow is usually a single flooding compartment. Hitting with the bow means a single flooded compartment,  which can be sealed off and the ship will still float.  Because of their inertia,  ships will tend follow their original path,  so the one that hits with the bow will rake more flooding comparments on the ship that is hit on one of the bords.

 

This is not just about flooding, it's about damage, and the time it takes to repair said damage. And as I pointed to, the Indiana (that was struck on the side) took less time to repair than the Washington (which rammed her with the bow).

Anyway, we are talking about a massive force (imagine, tens of thousands of steel going at a considerable speed, it's a monstruous force we're talking about). And then, such force can reverberate through the hull and cause damage to the whole structure of the ship, maybe even fatally compromise her. It's not like the bow was some sort of "crushable structure" like a today's car front; the shock was felt throughout the whole ship.

[Egoleter]

Uhh,  ok…  I ll explain then.  Ships are divided in flooding compartments,  which can be sealed when flooded. The bow is usually a single flooding compartment. Hitting with the bow means a single flooded compartment,  which can be sealed off and the ship will still float.  Because of their inertia,  ships will tend follow their original path,  so the one that hits with the bow will rake more flooding comparments on the ship that is hit on one of the bords.

 

Flood compartments help you stay afloat if one compartment is breached. They are not meant to keep a ship seaworthy. There are plenty of stories of warships that took a torpedo hit somewhere and had to seal of the compartment. They all have in common that the ships subsequently had to slow down significantly or risk sinking. They didn't slow down because of he extra mass of water in the hull or because they gained draught. They slowed to reduce the pressure on the working bulkheads to prevent further breaches.

[22cm]

Ok…  I ll explaiin again. It is about the momentum of the force.  It is much easier to balance and keep afloat a single flooded compartment,  sealed off,  then more flooded compartments amidship when the ship will have a tendency to list to one side and roll. Ramming a lighter ship could cut it in half,  like the destroyer Amagiri did with JFK's torpedo boat.