|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Re:Yimmy
Arbalest
1/4/2006 2:11:29 AM
|
| Let?s try this one more time, but with a slightly different approach.
You spent 3 posts arguing that
(12/30/2005 9:20:25 PM) "Missiles do it with fire from the fuel not used in the flight to the target ...."
(1/1/2006 12:01:50 PM) "OK then, back to business. How can I say this again more clearly... The fuel carried by the missile IS the incendiary (helped by consumables onboard the target). "
(1/1/2006 12:01:50 PM) "From "World Naval Weapon Systems 1997-98" "The large shaped-charge warhead (of Styx) is carried just abaft the fuel tank (forward of the oxidizer tank). In theory, then, the effect of a hit is to blast a hole deep into the target while filling it with burning fuel." "
We now seem to agree that, indeed, the designers specify a certain type and size of warhead for a missile, and intend that it be the primary kill device. The users, then, use the missile as per doctrine and training.
I, and your sources, realize the effect of fire on a ship. The fact that a fire can get out of control and severely damage a ship is self-evident (or as I put it, early on, "gravy"). It is also true that explosions can start fires on ships, and the designers seem to prefer larger explosives.
Now that I think about it, the Exocet that hit the Stark, and passed through without exploding, seems to have started no fires. I?m also curious about the rocket motor on the Exocet that exploded on the Stark; 1) did it continue to burn, 2) was it ejected back out the missile entry hole, 3) was it mainly consumed as part of the explosion, 4) some of 1, 2 and 3, or 5) does anyone know?
As for the Sheffield and Stark being prepared for battle, the reports indicate that neither ship was at maximum readiness.
If "HMS Sheffield was at full action stations with watertight doors closed.", then why does Max Hastings (as per your quote) write that there were issues with watertight doors not closing after the hit? If they had been closed when the hit occurred, how were they opened? This is a detail.
Various reports indicate Cpt. Brindel as being not particularly alarmed with the Mirage?s behavior, even though a Cypriot tanker had been attacked earlier that day. The fact that many of the crew died in the crew quarters, where the Exocet hit, suggests that the Stark was not at maximum readiness. Two more details.
Then there?s "How many of the FFG-7 class were taken in, completely guttted, and fitted with new, fictional bulkheads that don't buckle ...".
I seem to have made an error in assuming that your references mentioned the knot that many admirals acquired in their intestines based on the Sheffield events.
I seem to recall a considerable amount of interest in putting Phalanx weapons (and competitors) on everything, as these were billed as the magic talismans that would ward off the deadly Exocets. Also, a cheap re-fit.
The public outcry in Britain about the loss of the Sheffield, the various news bites of the time, military and ex-military commentators, were about as public as could be. Mundane things like ECM, decoys, etc., and even fire-fighting, were suddenly interesting. There was a fair amount of press on Prince Andrew piloting a decoy helicopter during the Falklands war.
As for "Every time I post something, and back it up with hard evidence from reputable sources you come back with "I don't think so" and scant else." and "Do you have anything other than uninformed opinion about any of this or do we have to keep going around and around in circles? Frankly it's starting to get on my nerve's.", I again point out that we?ve been through this. Fortunately, we seem able to avoid ad-hominem "stuff".
I decided to use your sources because you had your sources in front of you, you posted them, you seem to have ignored my sources (not just Wiki), and I didn?t want to argue sources (Internet or other). If you frequent naval sites, then my statements concerning the Seydlitz, Kirishima, etc, should be already known to you. Same with my source for naval armor penetration data; otherwise, ask about link
My attention to detail may annoy you, but details usually change the Broader Picture.
There?s a report that indicates that the Sheffield in second-degree readiness rather than at full action-stations. Apparently it took the Sheffield 4 minutes to close all hatches, but they only had one minute before the Exocet hit.
I don?t know the reliability of this report, so I only mention it. If true, or only partly true (some of the ship was still at second-degree readiness), it helps explain why the fire was not contained.
As anyone familiar with accident investigation will tell you, this sort of detail can change the Broader Picture completely.
"When? By whom?" Kindly check the relevant sections of my previous posts:
First: link "One RPG-7 should be able to penetrate |
| |
|
|
|
