Naval History Forums

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ahhhhhhhhhh OK!

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

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.

If the exocet missile had made impact on the precise same place but on Bismarck, what damaged could have been expected?

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".

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

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).

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.