RF wrote:neil hilton wrote:Are you suggesting that RN damage control procedures during the Flaklands was defficient? If so have to disagree. The effectiveness of British DC in the Flaklands was very good. What the real problem was was poor and chaep ship design, ship superstructures made from aluminium (which can burn if hot enough) to save weight. Ships constructed especially to be light and therefore cheap, so much so that many actually started to break up in the heavy seas in the south Atlantic swell. Older better made ships didn't have that problem. The Type 21 Amazon class was a deliberatly over loaded design (too much equipment, too much weight for its undersized cheap hull). The Type 22 batch 1 Broadswords designed without a main gun and only four exocet AS missiles ready to fire.
Years and years of underfunding resulted in the RN being equipped about as poorly as it ever has
Clearly yes, and the quote above answers that question for me.
I think I may be misunderstanding your definition of damage control? To me DC is the actions and procedures carried out by the crew in order to stop the ship from sinking and to prevent further damage. This means counterflooding, firefighting, blocking holes in the hull etc etc. This is affected by the ship desing and construction but they are not the same thing.