> As part of an on-going discussion of the efficacy of
In Napoleonic times you'd bring a frigate to a fleet action in order to read
the admiral's signals and repeat them, but that's not relevant to modern
communications unless you want to build rules to make it happen that way.
Jutland had destroyer and light cruiser squadrons engaging
each other, if I recall--the big boys were preoccupied with
each other, and probably would have had trouble hitting the small fry anyway.
There was an action in WW2 in which the Americans had an ambush. Japanese
fleet came steaming through a channel, USN DD's on either side engaged with
torpedoes while the American heavy ships crossed the Japanese T and
obliterated them.
I can't think of an occasion (which may mean nothing as I'm not a naval
historian) when DD's were worth bringing to the
party--except for the threat of torpedoes. The equivalent,
I'd say, is a rack of SM's, capable of doing heavy damage in
one punch--but torps don't take up as much space on a real
DD as a SMR would on a FTFB ship. But if you allocated each DD a MT missile,
or figured out some way to split a SMR rack among a DD squadron, you could
make it work.
> Laserlight wrote:
> In Napoleonic times you'd bring a frigate to a fleet action
(Snipped historical examples.)
> I can't think of an occasion (which may mean nothing as I'm
If you think about it, the "wet navy" torpedos don't do all that much actual
damage to a "wet navy" ship. All it takes is a small hole to sink a "wet navy"
ship. In space, a small hole may kill a few unprotected crew, but otherwise
will do nothing to the functioning of the ship. Unless it hits some equipment
or the bridge...
***
In Napoleonic times you'd bring a frigate to a fleet action in order to read
the admiral's signals and repeat them, but that's not relevant to modern
communications unless you want to build rules to make it happen that way.
Jutland had destroyer and light cruiser squadrons engaging
each other, if I recall--the big boys were preoccupied with
each other, and probably would have had trouble hitting the small fry anyway.
There was an action in WW2 in which the Americans had an ambush. Japanese
fleet came steaming through a channel, USN DD's on either side engaged with
torpedoes while the American heavy ships crossed the Japanese T and
obliterated them.
***
I believe the action Laserlight refers to, and there were others similar, was
during the battle of Leyte Gulf, and contradicts, though only slightly, his
first analysis.
The Japanese were moving a large battleship and cruiser force at night through
a relatively narrow straight at night. The US commander strung his large ships
across a particularly narrow point they'd have to cross. Groups of destroyers
AND PT. boats hid to the sides as the Japanese progressed up the straight.
Time and again, the smaller ships dashed out to attack the larger ships with
torpedoes, at first doing no damage and receiving terrible in return. However,
the reports from those brave fellows kept the US commander fully aware of the
oncoming forces disposition. The carnage when those picket US ships fired was
terrible.
It should be noted that DD's were pressing the attack even as the big guns of
their own fleet were firing.
As for Jutland, there were several opportunities that Jellicoe failed to press
due to an apparent fear of those torpedoes. The Grand Fleet was bottled up
much of the time in fear of submarines, and at Jutland, several times large
units turned tail, as the prop wash was supposed to lessen the impact, the
face of oncoming torpedo destroyer boats.
***
I can't think of an occasion (which may mean nothing as I'm not a naval
historian) when DD's were worth bringing to the
party--except for the threat of torpedoes.
***
When the Lister Bio comes out, I'll be notable in my absence, being neither
experienced personnel nor learned historian, so you will be forgiven the
temptation to totally ignore what I
say, or at least confirm for yourself. ;->=
If you mean that the deck guns were basically useless in a large furball, I
can't think of a counter example, but I
point out that that fear/use of torpedoes has been very
useful, often to finish off cripples, and the advent of subs and naval air has
the destroyers often used as perimeter defense against both. And, of course,
scouting and shaking off the other 'fleas'.
The_Beast
> Jutland had destroyer and light cruiser squadrons engaging
Not true. Several German DD's were hit by heavy guns during the withdrawl.
> There was an action in WW2 in which the Americans had an
The reason for bring the DD's, etc., along was to have screens. These screens
would protect you from enemy DD's and in certian situations, his battle
line... Basically, if the enemy was withdrawing, your DD's would dash out to
attack him with torpedoes. Any hits would slow down his ships so they couldn't
get away. If you were withdrawing, your DD's would turn into the enemy battle
line and make torpedo attacks. This would force him to either break off the
attack, or accept damaged ships that would be able to pursue effectively...
The DD's in the Fleet Book are actually DDE's designed to escort convoys and
to protect against tropdeo boats, etc. A real DD would have one or two class 1
beams and as many submunitions as possible. 4 to 6 submunitions can do a lot
of damage at short range...
Some thoughts on small ships in combat.
> Jutland had destroyer and light cruiser squadrons engaging
The battle of Jutland saw several actions of destroyers vs destroyers and
cruisers versus cruisers. There was also some action where destroyers went in
to attack with torpedoes on the capital ships. This had two effects 1) They
took lots of hits (the destroyers) 2) the battleships did get hit by torpedoes
(not many) and it caused the capital ships to do alot of turning. See
http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/wwi.html
http://www.richthofen.com/scheer/
> There was an action in WW2 in which the Americans had an
This was one of the four seperate battles that made up the Battle of Leyte
Gulf. There were two battles that involved small ships shooting torpedoes at
big ships (Battle of Surigao Strait and Battle of Samar). The Battle of Surigo
Straights the torpedoes gravely damaged the Japanese fleet before the cruisers
and BB got to fire. In the Battle of Samar the torpedoes cause some damage but
bought time for the planes to get in and also the ships to get away See
http://www.escortcarriers.org/bosamar/index1.html
http://ac.acusd.edu/History/WW2Timeline/LUTZ/leyte.html
> I can't think of an occasion (which may mean nothing as I'm
The other item that no one has mentioned is that the small ships were used for
alot of the day to day actions of the navies. during WWII the US built 10
battleships but over 400 destroyers snd destroyer escorts. They were used for
antisub, escort, shore bombardment, landing direction, carring supplies
(admittedly only in emergencies), picket duty, message relaying and other
stuff.
One of the areas that does not get much press is logistics. Most of the
convoys had small ship escorts (exception were runs to Russia had BB due to
the Tirpitz) with maybe an escort carrier and a cruiser.
> If you think about it, the "wet navy" torpedos don't do all that much
As a Naval Officer and a weapons person, I must strongly disagree with this
statement. Torpedoes are deadly weapons. The Destroyer came from "Torpedo Boat
Destroyers" Whose job it was to screen out small & fast torpedo boats that
could sink a battleship. In World War II the Japanese inflicted incredible
casualties to American ships in Night Torpedo Attacks
(Captain Hughes USN-R 1999). The Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo is well known as
a ship killer today and during the FAlklands war the General Belgrano was sunk
by single kingfish torpedo....
I have to agree with Mr.Pournelle. The torpedo is HUGELY effective. they did
very large amounts of damage and were surprisingly accurate. During the
Solomons campaign, a spread of Japanes long lance 21" unguided torpedoes hit a
US destroyer group at 12 miles, sinking one and damaging two others. Most ship
kills in WWII were Torpedo kills either by Aircraft, ships or Submarines.
> -----Original Message-----
Hi Guys,
I really don't like the idea of 1d3 salvo missiles. The reason is that it
screws up the averages. Each salvo missile will have an average of 3.5
missiles lock onto target and each missile will do an average of 3.5 points of
damage for an average damage per SM of 12.25. Two half sized salvo missiles
will average 4 missiles, and 14 points of damage. On top of that, they can
also cover a larger
area...
I don't have a problem with just 1xSMR (or 4xSubMunitions), 2xClass 1, and
2xPDAF's on a DD. It acurately represents a torpedo destroyer. Not much
endurance, but one ugly punch. Too much to ignore if there close.
How to use them? I would like to try WWI fleet tactics. Keep the DD's about
12" off the side of your battleline AWAY from the enemy. Close enough that
they can turn in when they need to, but far enough away to discourage the
enemy from shooting at them (one range bracket farther away). If anybody tries
this, tell us what happens.
Imre said
> I really don't like the idea of 1d3 salvo missiles. The
So increase the cost a bit, since you're paying for two launchers or some
such.
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Phillip Pournelle wrote:
> As a Naval Officer and a weapons person, I must strongly disagree
The Japanese Long Lance Torpedo that was fitted to their cruisers out ranged
the 8 inch guns they (and our cruisers) were armed with. The japanese were
great at night engagements. Until we wised up with the use
of RADAR. Then they couldn't hold a Flare to us.
Gonna handle two messages with one answer, so please bear with me...
:-)
> Phillip Pournelle wrote:
> >If you think about it, the "wet navy" torpedos don't do all that much
> RE: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle
they
> did very large amounts of damage and were surprisingly accurate.
During the
> Solomons campaign, a spread of Japanes long lance 21" unguided
Most
> ship kills in WWII were Torpedo kills either by Aircraft, ships or
Let me clear things up before anyone gets bent out of shape.
Imagine this:
"Wet Navy" ship in water takes a torpedo hit. Result massive hole,
casualities, damaged equipment, ect. Ship will (very probably) go to the
bottom. The torpedo has been the bane of the ship since it was invented.
Now imagine this:
"Space Navy" ship in space takes a torpedo hit. Result massive hole,
casualities, damaged equipment, ect. Ship will not sink (no water). Only those
compartments effected by the torpedo blast, will be disrupted. The rest of the
ship will fight on just fine.
The differance between space combat and "wet navy" combat is this: All of the
equipment aboard a space ship must be
distroyed/incapacitated to
compleatly shut down that ship. A "wet navy" ship only has to have enough hull
damage to sink it to shut it down.
This is why I said: "If you think about it, the "wet navy" torpedos don't do
all that much actual damage to a "wet navy" ship." I didn't say anything about
them being ineffective...
Please note: I am not a military person, I just noted the differance between
space combat and water combat.
Sorry if anyone took this the wrong way...
> Let me clear things up before anyone gets bent out of shape.
The
> torpedo has been the bane of the ship since it was invented.
I don't buy it. You don't have to destroy every system to kill a spaceship. If
you destroy the control system to the drives, the drives are as good as dead
for that battle. If you destroy the data link with the drives, the drives are
as good as dead for that battle. The only difference between a wet navy and a
space navy is not what you think. Most large wet ships with good
compartmentalization and decent damage control can take a torpedo hit and not
be sunk. The difference between wet ships and space ships is that wet ships
will be slowed down do to all the extra mass of sea water and loss of
hydrodynamic streamiling. That's it.
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> Imagine this:
You are assuming that a space navy ship is better compartmentalized than a
modern US Warship. I can, without a doubt, say this is untrue. A modern US
ship pretty well has to have a hole (or holes) big enough to remove 50% of its
flotation ability. I would claim that any ship, space navy or wet navy, that
has had 50% of its hull space destroyed is going to be a hulk in space.
The reason I say US ships is the Brits do things like build ships with metal
that burns and is soft (aluminum in a warship?) If you can find it (brain fog,
sorry) there was that US tin can that ran afoul of a mine, you should look at
the pictures. What keeps ships running is partialy design, but mostly a well
trained and couragous crew, and I can't really believe a space navy ship is
going to be that much more survivable than a wet navy ship.
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:10:13AM -0400, Donald Hosford wrote:
Except if the ship's structure's been damaged enough to "break the keel", or
if shock damage has knocked out systems outside of the impact area. If the
torpedo's nuclear or somehow "radiation enhanced", you have to deal with its
effects on the ship's equipment. Also, the hull damage probably destroyed some
sensors, so the volume of space in the direction you took the hit will be
"fuzzy" until you can make repairs.
It also depends on the relative sizes of the warhead and the ship. A torpedo
that would cripple the Millenium Falcon probably would break a few light bulbs
on the Death Star.
I would be _very_ careful before I assumed a solid hit
wouldn't cause problems for the entire ship.
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> Let me clear things up before anyone gets bent out of shape.
Ship *may* go to the bottom if not properly compartmentalized (or if the crew
was too untrained to close the blast doors in time, but that amounts to the
same thing). If ship is spaceship instead, ship loses
atmosphere if not properly compartmentalized. Modern wet-navy warships
are generally properly compartmentalized.
Wet-navy ship will almost certainly lose speed and maneuverability due
to changed hull shape and extra mass even if the drive line and rudders
(including all control runs) weren't damaged. The spaceship won't lose
maneuverability unless its engines (including control runs) are damaged,
unless the safety factor between structural stress under full emergency power
and the actual structural strength of the ship was way
too low to begin with :-/
I'm pretty sure there are examples of WWII ships that survived single torpedo
hits. I know there are examples of modern ships which has survived such hits.
Sorry, I don't have any references handy.
(BTW, this is why several modern anti-ship missiles are designed to
literally break a ship in half instead of merely blowing a hole in it. Not
sure if there are any torps or mines with similar warheads in use today (nor
if the warheads in question actually work as intended), but sooner or later
they will be (...provided my esteemed collegues are
correct in their predictions and no-one manages to design a ship able
to survive those warheads as well :-/ ).)
> The differance between space combat and "wet navy" combat is this:
It seems to me that the difference between amount of damage necessary
to incapacitate all equipment aboard a modern wet-navy warship and to
actually sink it is a lot smaller than you think.
Or, to put it the other way, the amount of damage necessary to incapacitate
(but not destroy) a complex weapon system such as a
warship - wet-navy or space, doesn't matter - is much smaller than you
seem to think. "All" you have to destroy on a warship in order to
incapacitate it is the fire control and/or bridge, but it takes a lucky
hit (or several, depending on the size and design of the ship) to do that.
Indeed, it is possible knock many modern (OK, built within the last 20 years)
frigates and smaller out of the fight with a single hit
from a light shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon... you just have to get
close enough (which is very difficult on the high seas, but a lot easier in an
archipelago), and know exactly where to aim (difficulty depends on how
good your spies are) :-/
> This is why I said:
But IMO you were wrong saying that. Torpedoes *do* that much actual
damage to wet-navy ships, but modern wet-navy ships are designed to
survive that kind of damage. Unless something really critical - keel,
CIC, engines or similar - is destroyed, the ship will survive, and may
able to fight on at a reduced level... and spaceships are just as
vulnerable to such critical hits as wet-navy ones.
> Please note: I am not a military person, I just noted the differance
> between space combat and water combat.
Sure. It's just that this difference isn't as important as you make it.
Regards,
> Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> writes:
[response on debate/comparison re: wet navy ships and space ships]
> You are assuming that a space navy ship is better compartmentalized
The ship you are referring to is the US FFG "Reuben James". My brother served
on her immediately after the mine incident. I made mention of this in another
post a month or so ago with more details (for anyone who's interested, you
prolly can find it in the archives somewhere;
but under what topic - I don't remember! :-/ )
Mk
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Hi Guys,
True. The small salvoes are also better at bypassing point defences
(since you don't get as many re-rolls if there aren't any missiles in
the salvo for the re-rolls to kill), so the better defended the target
is the further ahead the smaller salvoes will be of the larger ones. (Hm...
Either I'm tired, or I've seen Yoda too much on the screen...).
All in all, these half-size missiles are worth approx. 5*Mass (assuming
they're launched from normal SMLs).
> On top of that, they can also cover a larger area...
Which, if you use that option, either means that more of them miss completely
or that more PDSs will be able to shoot at them before they
fire :-/
> I don't have a problem with just 1xSMR (or 4xSubMunitions), 2xClass
In my book, "close" means the 1st or at most 2nd range band - certainly
no more than 18 mu. If a single-SMR DD gets that close without having
launched already, it has screwed up. (SMP-armed DDs need to close in
order to be dangerous, but when you fly at the speeds necessary to suddenly
close through a couple of range bands in one turn you have to
be a very good helmsman to aim your short-ranged, single-arc weapons at
the enemy... been there, tried to do that the last five years, and I still
don't get Needle beam and subpack attack runs right more than about half the
time.)
If is that close *after* launching, I can usually knock down more than
2 Class-1 batteries by inflicting the 10-12 damage points necessary to
kill the DD on a nearby cruiser or capital instead anyway...
> How to use them? I would like to try WWI fleet tactics. Keep the
> enough that they can turn in when they need to, but far enough away
See above. This has been the main doctrine for my main fleet (the Eldar, who
else) for five years now... SMRs work better than subpacks
IMO - they're easier to defend against of course, but more of my SMR
strike craft survive than the subpack ones used to do :-/
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Roger Books wrote:
> You are assuming that a space navy ship is better compartmentalized
One Point. When a Wet Navy ship looses 50% of its volume to flooding it
capsizes. Damage control has to counter flood compartments to keep it up
right. If a damaged ship capsizes, its death for that ship and most of the
crew.
A space navy ship will not capsize. You can loose quite a bit of internal
pressure and still keep quite happy and nice. Assuming you have crew to
operate and repair critical systems. The crew most certainly fight in
hardsuits in most cases I'd think.
> The reason I say US ships is the Brits do things like build ships with
The ship structure is not germain at all. Go talk to the folks on
sci.mil.naval. They have rehashed the Al superstructure thing more than a few
times. The Reason the Stark and the Sheffield were in such bad shape
was the missile's motor was still burning. The Sheffield lost its fire main in
the impact. The Stark was able to continue under its own power.
Wet navy ships have to contend with sinking. Space navy ships don't. that is
why they'd be more capable even after some damage.
The Royal Australian Navy uses this sort of 'backbreaker' torpedo. There was a
publicity test about 2 months ago here, where the fired a torpedo over the
horizon from our new Collins class submarine in trials (they're still not as
good as the ol' reliable Oberon class yet, which FYI has sunk US carriers in
wargames & escaped the fleet). The frigate which was targetted broke it's back
from the single detonation underneath the keel. It sank in about 4 minutes.
Although a few of my
ex-military friends reckon that they had a demolition charge in the
engine room just to make sure it DID sink... (embarrassing if it it didn't
work).
'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
> -----Original Message-----
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Robert A. Crawford wrote:
> Except if the ship's structure's been damaged enough to
Any ship that has a torp go off under its keel is going to have major major
problems. Any kind of rough seas and it will be on the bottom fast.
> I would be _very_ careful before I assumed a solid hit
Depends on the kind of hit. There was a destroyer in WWII that suffered
something like 5 Kamikaze hits before finnaly sinking. There was a battleship
in WWI that was struck by a torpedo and capsized. I can't remember the damn
name. One torp did her in. She capsized and sank. The dying throws were
captured on film, crew streaming all over her hull and
clambering up onto the side as it rolled over. Some made it to the underside
as it rolled over completely.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Roger Books wrote:
that
> is why they'd be more capable even after some damage.
This is exactly my point! What is all the noise about? Ryan's last comment is
the basic differance. When building space ships based on wet navy ships, one
should keep this in mind. That was it. Why is it that only a few seem to
understand this?
I was not running down any of the following: Level of Compartmentalization,
Torpedo efficency, or capabilities, Amount of flooding a ship can take, or the
proceedures involved, ect. Or anything else for that matter!
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Donald Hosford wrote:
> This is exactly my point! What is all the noise about? Ryan's last
I think folks are missing the importance of damage control in wet naval
operations to keep the ship from dying.
The Stark was able to stay afloat due to excellent damage control. Other
Ships of earlier navies were more prone to sinking from less damage to the
whole of the ship. (see the BB of WWI that died from one torpedo).
Capabilites in damage control enhance the survivability of a ship. The
compartmentalization will help, but not make it easy.
I don't think its a bad idea to take doctrine, it seems like it would
carry over. Especially considering the range/size/speed diffs between
larger/smaller craft.
I am familiar with the incident and footage you're referring to, but the exact
name of the ship escapes me. IIRC it was just a few weeks before the end of
WWI and it was an Austrian BB and a Greek (?) torpedo boat. If I also remember
correctly that particular ship was one of the worst BB's ever designed being
deficient in speed, armor, and freeboard, although I wouldn't swear to that.
It
was still sunk by a single torpedo though. :-) The History channel
refers to the incident in both the Battleship and Torpedo boat episodes of
Great Ships. I think Discovery might show it in their Battleship episodes
also. It's probably one of the few pieces of video available that shows a
battleship capsizing.
(Geez did I just totally brand myself a geek or what?) :-)
Bill
Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com> on 09/14/99 07:14:09 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject: Re: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Robert A. Crawford wrote:
There was a battleship in WWI that was struck by a torpedo and capsized. I
can't remember the damn name. One torp did her in. She capsized and sank. The
dying throws were captured on film, crew streaming all over her hull and
clambering up onto the side as it rolled over. Some made it to the underside
as it rolled over completely.
Through the miracle of the Internet I was able to find info on the incident
referenced below (with 10 minutes to spare until bed). Here is the relevant
paragraph:
***************Begin quote*************************
By chance, two Italian M.A.S. motor boats, which had been hunting for mines,
were waiting near the Island of Premuda for their tow home. Luigi Rizzo was in
No. 15 and Midshipman Aonzo commanded No. 21. At 3.15 in the morning smoke was
sighted on the horizon and soon the shapes of two large ships became visible.
Rizzo passed through the destroyer screen and hit the SZENT ISTV ÃN amidships
with two torpedoes. The battleship slowly rolled over and sank as the M.A.S.
made their escape. Rizzo, timing it exactly, released his depth charges under
the bows of a closing destroyer, and forced it to give up the pursuit.
******************End quote*************************
The link to the site is: http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/ah1.htm
Bill
Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com> on 09/14/99 07:14:09 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject: Re: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Robert A. Crawford wrote:
There was a battleship in WWI that was struck by a torpedo and capsized. I
can't remember the damn name. One torp did her in. She capsized and sank. The
dying throws were captured on film, crew streaming all over her hull and
clambering up onto the side as it rolled over. Some made it to the underside
as it rolled over completely.
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
> I am familiar with the incident and footage you're referring to, but
The Szent, Not an easy name to remember...
> (Geez did I just totally brand myself a geek or what?) :-)
I think we all are, after all, we'd not be on this list posting at 1:30 am EST
if we weren't....:)
I think you guys are missing the point. Space combat has been best compared to
submarine combat. Why? You are completely submerged in a hostile environment.
Space is not a benign environment. There are radical temperature variations,
hard radiation, etc. Space ships are not going to be any more survivable then
surface navy ships.
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Robert A. Crawford wrote:
The
> dying throws were captured on film, crew streaming all over her hull
The one refered to is the sinking of the HMS Barham in the Med during
WWII, lost 25/11/41.
Bye for now,
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> I think you guys are missing the point. Space combat has been best
Granted it is a hostile environment. However, submarines will sink if a
portion of their internal mass becomes flooded. See the Squalus.
A Space craft that is holed in 50% of its internal volume is still able do
function fine depending on the damage. It is easier to operate at zero
pressure than it is to operate at 6 atmospheres or more. 33 feet of depth
under water is 2 atmospheres of pressure absolute, Sea level is one
atmosphere. 66 feet of depth under water is 3 atmospheres of pressure
absolute.
Said space craft will still be able to operate and fight. Compartments not
holed will be a refuge for crew to doff suits and areas
that are not pressurized will requre space suits. You can't tell me that
by 2100 we won't have better material to make space suit gloves out of.
A sub or ship that looses close to 50% of its internal volume to flooding is
going to the bottom. It will not operate in that form in any conceivable form.
Computer systems can operate fine in a vacum if designed for it. Its a
minimal (compared to hardening/pressuresealing) amount of change design
wise. If a space craft has a fire, one way to fight the fire is to vent the
compartment. Flood a computer compartment with water and its going to be
nonfunctional.
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, John Leary wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Robert A. Crawford wrote:
First off this was me, not Robert.
> > There was a battleship in WWI that was struck by a torpedo and
The
> > dying throws were captured on film, crew streaming all over her hull
> The one refered to is the sinking of the HMS Barham in the Med
Actually, I was referring to the Austrio-Hungarian ship that was covered
under this thread.
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Yes, it was a Mk48 Mod 3,4 or 5
> The frigate which was targetted broke it's back from the single
The brown smoke emitted through the stack at detonation is a dead giveaway
that the torpedo did most, if not all, the damage. I've seen a number of tests
of Mk 48s, UK Spearfish, and others which had the same
sequence. Initial explosion under keel (warhead combustion by-products
exit upwards as brown gas that goes up rapidly through all ventilation
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> > I would be _very_ careful before I assumed a solid hit
The
> dying throws were captured on film, crew streaming all over her hull
This famous sequence is of the HMS Barham, a Queen Elisabeth class
battleship. Torpedoed by a U-boat in the Indian Ocean. (I forget the
date but can look it up if you wish). She capsized very rapidly, and the steam
explosion when the water went into her stack blew her apart.
> bbrush@rev.state.ne.us wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo was in No. 15
> Rizzo passed
What's more amazing about the Esteemed Captain Rizzo was that he'd already
sunk the AH Battleship WIEN earlier on in the war...
I've often wondered what he could have done if given the command of say,