|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Proper sources and quotes
Arbalest
1/7/2006 12:50:22 AM
|
| F- Here is a list:
1) Your words, from link
"I'm not sure how you conclude that things would have gone better on Sheffield had the warhead actually detonated."
My original words, from link
"My opinion and conclusions are that had the Exocet warhead detonated, events on the Sheffield would have ended very much sooner. Given that it did not explode, had the watertight doors still closed, the fire would have been contained very much sooner, with much less damage."
My reminder to you, from link
"The use of the word "sooner" does not equal "better", and my statement context is clear and does not make such an implication."
I then included a reprint of my original posted section.
2) Your words, from link
"Earlier you were discussing how there would have certainly been STRUCTURAL changes made to the Stark to make it more resistant to damage."
My original words, from link
"The Stark, as designed, may have been no better than the Sheffield, but after the Sheffield results were examined, and lessons learned, the Stark, and every other US and UK warship, was likely much better prepared."
My followup words, from link
"You are inventing the "structural changes" strawman. My written words were "was likely much better prepared", and I was thinking more along the lines of system redundancy (so systems are less likely to go down), tactics, and fire control (procedures, halon suppression systems, things to force doors closed/plug gaps), although I admit to having assumed that some work was done on ensuring watertight door close, and minor things of this nature."
You first suggested structural issues.
You posted link
"Great, whre's the evidence for this? How many of the FFG-7 class were taken in, completely guttted, and fitted with new, fictional bulkheads that don't buckle under shock and pressure and whose watertight doors never fail? Whre is your evidence that these alleged changes prevented Stark's loss? In what fiscal years were these changes budgeted for and how much did they cost? When did Stark go into the yard and which yard did the work?"
You seem to wonder why I take issue with your conclusions. It is because you read things the way you want to read them, and then make conclusions that may or may not be correct.
3) Your words, from link
"Fire clearly did more damage than the warhead in the Sheffield and Stark attacks. All the sources indicate this is so. You still deny it."
Show me where I deny that the fire did more damage than the warhead in the Sheffield and Stark attacks.
The context of the discussion was primary kill mechanism, at least as I wrote my posts. The Sheffield fire was never controlled, and the results speak for themselves. The Stark fire eventually was controlled.
4) Your words, from link
"You assume that the first missile that hit Stark started no fires."
My original words, from link
"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?"
But, as per my clarification, link
"My "Now that I think about it, . . . , or 5) does anyone know?" paragraph is indeed poorly worded. It ends with a question, which I assumed would be applied to the entire paragraph. I did not have the detailed information. Therefore, this one is on me."
"Therefore, this one is on me". Excluding the question in my paragraph, did you at least bother to read this, at the end?
5) Your words, from link
"You assume (even when I had already posted otherwise) that Sheffield's fire spread only because of open watertight doors."
The quote you provided from Max Hastings link
"Damage control teams at once began to try to establish smoke boundaries to stem the spread of the fire raging around the area o fimpact, but many of the watertight doors would no longer close. It was impossible to move between the forward and aft areas of the ship below decks. The heat was already intense."
The |
| |
|
|
|
