That's not going to save your life.

I'm sorry, that one seems weak. It won't float the boat of an old salt like me. Are you a little wet behind the ears?

All it took was one and now the puns own this thread, hook, line, and sinker

there she blows!

Was there ever a topic to this thread? Oh right, who can think of the most puns.

Well, the Titanic, the Bismark and the Yamato will have some good company now that this thread has sunk this low . .
If it had ballast tanks, then it could appear to be afloat again in some posts.

We should take the wind out of the sails of those who flood it with these nautical puns and steer it back on course .

I would have taken it seriously if you hadn't added more fuel to the proverbial maritime oil spill.

"I'm sorry Capt'n, i cannae do that!"

How about some seedy jokes about seamen then? You know, those guys who often appear as one white mass...

Ow! My seamen!

The amount of jokes to be made about this are vas. I will leave a few in deferens to someone else.

Screw that. I won't keel to your jibs.

-- A bit more on-topic ...

There are an inordinate number of ships that have Ballast Tank 2 (full deep-diving pressure hulls) and no life support and no note regarding that fact. It always struck me as odd that Shadowrun submersibles don't suffer a speed penalty underwater despite the MUCH higher drag and largely incompatible hydrodynamic streamlining requirements ... but anyways.

See Arsenal, , p. 133-145 for the Ballast Tank description. Ballast tanks do not affect ship survivability in combat. See War!, p. 171

No Shadowrun naval ship has compartmentalization. Once a ship hull is breached you better repair it or you will sink no matter what as nothing contains the flooding. On the plus side Shadowrun naval damage control is incredibly easy -- you can repair a multi-meter hole in one minute outside of combat (see War!, p. 172). It takes about one minute per meter of repairs in combat. Note that placement of the hole doesn't matter (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Aside from the freaky things Tzeetch discovers here, is it not true that some if not all submarines can actually travel faster when fully submerged?

Yes, but that's because they're shaped like submarines and powered by a system that doesn't like low depth/speed ratios allowing cavitation; assuming that the ships in WAR! are actually boat-shaped (and yes, I recognize that with all the other weirdness in that section, it's a stretch) there should be a massive speed penalty.

Also, this might be a very cleverly hidden way of subtly encouraging competence: after the ship sinks and washes off the crew who were so inconsiderate of the bottom line that they got in the way of enemy shells (after all, if they get hit, better to let the ship sink with that damage than to compartmentalize it and let one's competitors shoot more of the very expensive ship away), the megacorps can inflate the ship to bring it to the surface and reload/rearm it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

Well, Tzeentch was specifically talking about submersibles. That's what I was asking about.

My apologies for my misunderstanding; for some reason I read "submersibles" as "anything that can submerge, including these new warships".

-- Hulls optimized for underwater travel are not very good at the surface (largely due to swamping and roll) because ideally you want something shaped like a short spike with minimal surface area to control parasitic drag as water moves over the hull. Surface vessels want to minimize their water contact surface as well, but they can spread it out more (catamarans, hydrofoils, SWATH, etc) and benefit from their buoyancy more easily. Strictly speaking you are highly unlikely to be able to design a hull that operates well at the surface and underwater at the same effectiveness, one will have to lose out in some way (speed, handling, stability).

-- Shadowrun vehicle "design" has bigger problems than this though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

See also:

Burcher, Roy, and Rydill, Louis. Concepts in Submarine Design (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Agreed... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

I hate it when fleas dress as the opposite gender.


There's no argument - I'm just pointing out something interesting in the RAW. Just remember: not allowing an aircraft carrier to fully submerge is going away from RAW and implementing house rules.

Quick question - are the aircraft also designed to submerge? Or are they just left floating on the surface?

-- If it is really supposed to be a submersible or semi-submersible vehicle, then the aircraft are probably stored in a sealed hangar area as they lack Ballast Tanks.

So can the "submerged" aircraft subsequently be launched from "all but the deepest" areas of the ocean ,into the air instantly? No ballast tanks means no sumersion, after all.
Also, can I assume that instant acceleration takes my T-bird to its full Speed characteristic, or does it go beyond safe limits?

Seems like a proper balancing factor for Slows instant deceleration.

That's an excellent question. I haven't seen any rules which say you can't do it...