May 25 1982

Naval discussions covering the latter half of the 20th Century.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

May 25 1982

Postby RF » Fri May 25, 2007 2:15 pm

Today marks the sinking by Argentine aircraft 25 years ago of the British destroyer HMS Coventry during the Falklands conflict.

Coventry is a name with some meaning for me, as it is the name of a city in the English Midlands, not far from where I live, whose cathedral was burned down by German bombers in WW2.

Fortunately the great majority of her crew were saved.

Can I mark in the same spirit of remembrance and to demonstrate there is no bias in this post that today is Argentina's national day of independence and offer Marcelo and all other Argentine members of this forum the full complements for this day.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Postby Bgile » Fri May 25, 2007 2:20 pm

For sure! But I was thinking that was the 5th of May.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Fri May 25, 2007 3:16 pm

Thanks Robert. As usual I am surprised by your knowledge of Latin America, I hope someday you pay a visit to us. The Falklands/Malvinas war is almost forgotten here, the only day remembered is April 2dn, the landing itself. I believe that today the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk too, in the same attack but with 2 Exocets missiles. As she was capable of operating aircraft from her deck and was a merchant ship, we can consider she an escort carrier, what makes her the only carrier sunk postwar. On May 5th there was no ship sunk, but on May 4th the Sheffield received the Exocet that ultimately doomed her.

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Postby ostriker » Sat May 26, 2007 8:12 pm

marcelo_malara wrote: On May 5th there was no ship sunk, but on May 4th the Sheffield received the Exocet that ultimately doomed her.


With a great lack of luck! This exocet failed and didn't explose. It was the fuel of the missile, which started the fatal fire which burned the ship.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Sat May 26, 2007 11:14 pm

Yes, I heard that many times, but I am not sure, in fact I think nobody can say that for sure. The Exocet sustainer burns for 150 s (see http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... exocet.htm), so that at a speed of 300 m/s means that it will be totally depleted after 45km. I don´t know the exact distance at which the missile was fired, but I presume that it must be in the order of 40 km, what would left very little fuel to cause the alleged fire.

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Postby ostriker » Sun May 27, 2007 11:08 am

In fact, that i heard is that the small fire at the impact, transmitted a lot of heat inside the aluminium structure, which put the fire to the ship. :think: :?:

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Sun May 27, 2007 2:29 pm

Type 42 destroyers are made of steel, not aluminium, that is another urban (or sea!!!) legend.

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Postby ostriker » Sun May 27, 2007 11:20 pm

Ahhhhhhhhhh OK! :oops:

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Mon May 28, 2007 2:48 am

No problem. In fact I learnt it this month!!!

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Postby ostriker » Mon May 28, 2007 10:36 am

I found this in Wikipedia

The sinking of the Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel. The confusion is related to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires in the 1970s involving ships that had aluminium superstructures. The sinking of the Type 21 frigates HMS Antelope and Ardent, both of which had aluminium superstructures, probably also had an effect on this belief though these cases are disputed


This is the reason of the mistake.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon May 28, 2007 2:20 pm

If the exocet missile had made impact on the precise same place but on Bismarck, what damaged could have been expected? :think:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Mon May 28, 2007 2:35 pm

None. The warhead weight is 160 kg (I think we can disregard the rest of the missile due to its soft nature) and travels at 300 m/s. That would make it equal to a shell between 8" and 11".

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Postby ostriker » Mon May 28, 2007 2:41 pm

The exocet is built to engage large modern warship. Not à battleship. Today warship are built of wood, composite, resin etc...

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Mon May 28, 2007 2:56 pm

True Ostriker. If battleships were present in these days, they would design a large missile, 1 ton warhead, may be with a shaped-charge (the non-rotating missile would allow this) or with a diving final trajectorie (to impact below the belt).

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon May 28, 2007 5:59 pm

Marcelo:

None. The warhead weight is 160 kg (I think we can disregard the rest of the missile due to its soft nature) and travels at 300 m/s. That would make it equal to a shell between 8" and 11".


ostriker:
The exocet is built to engage large modern warship. Not à battleship. Today warship are built of wood, composite, resin etc...


Marcelo:
True Ostriker. If battleships were present in these days, they would design a large missile, 1 ton warhead, may be with a shaped-charge (the non-rotating missile would allow this) or with a diving final trajectorie (to impact below the belt).


Hi Marcelo, hi Ostriker! What Marcelo says is very interesting and something I have been thinking about from some time. A WWI or WWII BB is better protected for nowadays weapons than actual warships like USS Cole that was nearly blown by a homemade (non AP) "bomb". This brings a new scope to the fact that a 14" or 15" (or 16" and obviously 18") AP shell is more dangerous to a BB than the shipwreck missile. So, using the same logic, the AP shell could be, potentially, more dangerous to a modern warship than the actual missiles?

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill


Return to “Naval History Post-1945”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest