Originally posted by Badbru:
Being a West Aussie I've heard about the Kormoran v Sydney story before and have long been interested in this "style" of conflict.
As far as I know
Kormoran is actually the only auxiliary ever to have destroyed a major warship. The battle, however, IMHO illustrates quite nicely why a converted merchantman will always be markedly inferior to a proper warship. It is neither about armaments, nor armor, nor fire control, nor speed, but the structural capacity to sustain damage.
Kormoran suffered a mere four hits, but nevertheless the damage to the engine room and the fires proved too much to handle for her, in spite of having a well-trained, large military crew. OTOH
Sydney needed to be basically pumped full of metal to effect her eventual sinking.
I don't think that any Traveller rules (except for 2300, but that doesnt really count

) properly take this difference, which stems from lack of damage control facilities, compartmentalization, system redundance etc., into account.
Regards,
Tobias