malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (04/21/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) >My guess would be that the most likely cause was residual embers in the >gun barrel (despite precautions, such as air blowout, to prevent such >from occurring). I wonder, though, if the cause may have been the old >(WWII-vintage) powder used. While the powder was supposedly sorted and >rebagged before use, it's not inconceivable that some unstable powder >may have slipped through... >From _Principles of Naval Ordinance and Gunnery_, NAVEDTRA 10783-C, published by the Naval Education and Training Support Command: | Bag Type Propelling Charge | | A complete round of bag ammunition consists of three separate | ammunition details as follows: | | 1. A lock combination primer (so called because it fits into a firing | mechanism called a firing lock, and has a combination arrangement | which enables it to fire either on an electric firing impulse or by | percussion) | 2. Two or more powder bags. | 3. A projectile. | | Large guns must burn large quantities of propellant to develop the | projectile initial velocity required. In a gun as large as 16-inch, | several hundred pounds of propellant are needed for one full service | round. By dividing this into several fabric bags, each of which can be | handled by one man, the gun can be loaded in a relatively brief time. | Each bag is made of silk (because silk burns without leaving a | smoldering ash), has silk straps for handling and silk lacing to cinch | it up, and in red-dyed quilted silk pockets at one end has coarse | black powder to serve as the igniter in the propellant train. The bags | are kept in airtight steel tanks until just before use. The normal loading procedure specifies that the primer is loaded into the firing lock before the shell and propellant is loaded. It is more likely that a defective primer detonated as the breech was being closed and ignited the aftermost powder bag in the barrel than that the propellant was unstable and spontaneously ignited. According to the section on propellants in _Principles of Naval Ordinance and Gunnery_, there are two types of deterioration of smokeless powder. The first, decomposition due to ageing, simply reduces the power of the propellant. The second, loss of volatile components (ether and alcohol), increases the burning speed, and causes the propellant to develop excessive pressures in the gun when fired. If the charges in the gun had suffered from extreme loss of volatiles, it is possible that the actual circumstance was the failure of the breech mechanism when the gun was fired, which would blow the breech back into the turret and allow the burning propellant to expand back inside the turret. [mod.note: I stand corrected ! Thanks, Sean, for the clarification. - Bill ] Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (04/22/89)
From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm I heard on TV that the powder used to fire the guns was packed in the 1950's. Is it really that old? [mod.note: Yup. Properly stored, the powder isn't supposed to decompose. - Bill ] A friend of mine said the gun barrels on most warships are much older than the ship itself, some dating back to WW1. Could that be true? [mod.note: (please, folks, indulge me... this is a great interest of mine 8-) Often, but not always. HMS Vanguard, the last battleship built by the Royal Navy, used 15" turrets which were removed from the WWI-built "Courageous" class large light cruisers (a story in themselves). Gun design takes many years, and turret construction is also a major undertaking; the Vanguard would have been delayed by a year or more if new turrets (even of proven designs) had to be built. Likewise, the WWII German Gneisenau class battleships used 11" triple turrets, originally designed and built for the Deutschland class panzerschiffes (a.k.a. "Pocket Battleships"). This was, in part, an effort to appease the British (who opposed large guns), and also hastened their commissioning. The Iowa's turrets, though, were contemporary with the ships themselves; built at about the same time (as were the guns; developed about 1939, I believe). - Bill ]
czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu (craig zwicky) (04/22/89)
From: czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu (craig zwicky) A few thoughts on the Iowa 'situation': I have heard some talk on the relevance of battleships in todays world, but much of it misses some points I consider relevant. I think that the ships do have a purpose of 'showing the flag'. Yes, they do look impressive. I think they will impress a 3rd world leader who takes a tour of one. No, I don't think they are going to make them behave. I think they have more effect on one's friends than they do on one's adversaries. I, personally, think that the recommisioning of the ships was a good move, but not from the diplomatic perspective. As far as I know, they are just about as unsinkable as any ship afloat (save for something like the Nimitz). In the past, this was a bragging point of admirals and these same admirals were proved wrong with airpower. Yes, they are sinkable, but they are more survivable than most everything else. They are vulnerable to armor-piercing bombs (as all ships are), but I don't believe that an Exocet will cause severe damage. There is also the issue of economics: The first of these ships was brought back into service for $326 million. If one looks at the price of other ships, like the Ticonderoga class, 326 meg. starts to look cost effective. Yes, a great deal of the cost is in the electronics, but the battleship is a much more survivable platform in which to place those electronics and will be around longer in a serious conflict. On the issue of the effectiveness of the guns: I have doubts concerning the relevance of the guns in the modern world. I'm not sure how much they are going to really do. However, when they are used, they are an effective bombardment tool. The inaccuracies when they were used in Lebanon were partly as a result of spotting problems when one starts. And also, from what I read, that it takes experience to use them properly, and the crews have not had as much chance to train as they would, say, in 1944. As to the accident: Yes, accidents happen and they are unfortunate. One must learn from the mistakes that occur, even if they are painful as this on has been (and is). Does anyone think that the Navy sold Reagan on the idea of the ships from the perspective of 'showing the flag' while having some of the points I have mentioned in the background, a hidden agenda, if you may (though let us not discount the Navy feeling some of pride of having such neat ships as their new toys). Questions, thoughts, comments? c. zwicky czwicky@ub.d.umn.edu Duluth, Minn
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (04/24/89)
From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm My friend who told me the guns on warships are real old says his dad was on the USS Massachusetts, and he said the gun barrels had dates on them, dates from 1916 to 1922. Compare this with the V-2 rocket. According to Willy Ley, the standard rule was to launch a V-2 with 72 hours of final assembly. (I know this is comparing apples and oranges, but be reasonable. Do you want to fire a massive amount of chemical explosives which were put together before you were born?)
anderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu (David G Anderer) (04/26/89)
From: David G Anderer <anderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu> In article <5858@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > > >From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm >My friend who told me the guns on warships are real old says his dad >was on the USS Massachusetts, and he said the gun barrels had dates on >them, dates from 1916 to 1922. > When I first saw this I assumed the South Dakotas used the 16" guns built for the cancelled battleships and battlecruisers in the early '20s. However, those were 16"/50 guns and BB57 et. al. used a 16"/45 gun. [ mod.note: And before anyone asks, I'll point out that those early 16"/50's were *not* used on the Iowas; they only saw service in shore batteries. The Iowas used a new "light" 16"/50, which, in addition to saving weight, had a smaller breech diameter, allowing them to be more closely spaced in the turret, decreasing turret size, which was a critical factor. - Bill ] So, I'm skeptical of those gun barrel dates. -- Dave Anderer Academic Computing and Instructional Technology University of Delaware
bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (04/27/89)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) In article <5940@cbnews.ATT.COM>, anderer@vax1.acs.udel.edu (David G Anderer) writes: > >From: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm > >My friend who told me the guns on warships are real old says his dad > >was on the USS Massachusetts, and he said the gun barrels had dates on > >them, dates from 1916 to 1922. > > > > So, I'm skeptical of those gun barrel dates. Good going Bill, a lot of people don't realise that the older 16/50 was a different gun ( and a lot more powerful) from the WW2 16". I have two possible explinations for the barrel dates 1) The ship in question is actually the USS Mississippi a New Mexico class BB (and the guns were 14" but when its that big who notices a couple inches :-)) 2) the Massachuusetts usedd old barrels from the Maryland class 16/45 at some point. I think that 1 is more likely however it should be easy to check, The Massachusetts is on display I believe at Fall River. can someone in New England check it out? ( checking Alabama at Mobile and North Carolina at Wilmington might be interesting to) Good references for this discussion are Breyers Battleships and Battlecruisers and Seacoast fortifacations of the United States ( I can't remember the author but can check on the next trip to the library) Thatswhere the best data on the old 16"/50 I've seen is. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com) [mod.note: In "Warship International," No.4, 1974 (V13), an article entitled, "American Battleship Main Armament: The Final Generation" by Emanuel R. Lewis gives the design history of the various 16" guns, as well as the 18" weapons that were tested. It includes lots of data, as well. - Bill ]
ljw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (les.j.wu) (05/03/89)
From: ljw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (les.j.wu) >From postnews Tue May 2 16:03:28 1989 In article <5833@cbnews.ATT.COM>, military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > > A friend of mine said the gun barrels on most warships are much older than > the ship itself, some dating back to WW1. Could that be true? As a interesting bit of trivia, the April 1989 National Geographic contains an article on the Sweedish ship "Kronan" which sunk during the battle of Oland on 1 June 1676. >From p 459 (w/o permission): A trophy from Europe's Thirty Year's War, a bronze 30-pounder was cast in Austria in 1627. Records show that the Swedes captured it from the Germans in 1631 and deployed it against its former owners in the 1660s. I guess this is another case of guns with a long service life. I imagine that there are many more examples. Les Wu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Les J. Wu AT&T Bell Laboratories (UUCP) att!whuxr!ljw One Whippany Road (arpa) ljw%whuxr@research.att.com WH 14A-260 Whippany, NJ 07981 *** STANDARD DISCLAIMERS APPLY *** Tel: (201)386-3495 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ferrel@uunet.UU.NET (Roger Ferrel) (05/12/89)
From: btni!ferrel@uunet.UU.NET (Roger Ferrel)
A question came to mind shortly after the expolsion on the U.S.S
Iowa. Since I have not seen it addressed here it is.
My understanding is that most of the deaths (espically on the
decks below the guns) were due to asphyxiation. My question is
why not have oxygen masks on the wall for everyone in the
turret? It seems to me a supply lasting only a few minutes is
needed. (Just long enough for air from that outside to resupply the
oxygen.)
Perhaps these are already there and the concussion from the
expolsion kept the men from putting the masks on. Does anyone
know? Could this simple addition reduce the deaths the next
time this happens or increase the hazard?
--
Roger L. Ferrel (402) 498-6618
INTERNET: ferrel%btni.uucp@uunet.uu.net
UUCP: ferrel@btni.uucp
PATH: !uunet!btni!ferrel
[mod.note. Beats me. Sounds like a pretty good idea, to me,
though I'd want to use compressed air rather than oxygen. - Bill ]greg%ncelvax.UUCP@nosc.mil (Greg Ramsey) (05/16/89)
From: greg%ncelvax.UUCP@nosc.mil (Greg Ramsey) In article <6502@cbnews.ATT.COM>, btni!ferrel@uunet.UU.NET (Roger Ferrel) writes: > A question came to mind shortly after the expolsion on the U.S.S > Iowa. Since I have not seen it addressed here it is. > My understanding is that most of the deaths (espically on the > decks below the guns) were due to asphyxiation. My question is > why not have oxygen masks on the wall for everyone in the > turret? It seems to me a supply lasting only a few minutes is > needed. (Just long enough for air from that outside to resupply the > oxygen.) > Perhaps these are already there and the concussion from the > expolsion kept the men from putting the masks on. Does anyone > know? Could this simple addition reduce the deaths the next > time this happens or increase the hazard? > -- All the navy ships I have been on or worked on the last ten years have been equipped with an emergency escape system called either a Survival Support Device (SSD) or Emergency Escape Breathing Device (EEBD). This is a plastic hood with a compressed oxygen source good for either 15 or 30 minutes. It is usually provided near each rack and in spaces such as the main enginerooms. None of the ships I served on had manned gun mounts so I can only assume that a turret would be a logical location. Greg -- ___ Greg Ramsey _n_n_n____i_i ________ Naval Civil Engineering Lab (____________I I______I Code L54 805/ /ooOOOO OOOOoo oo oooo Port Hueneme, CA 93043 982-4619
carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) (05/20/89)
From: carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) In article <6502@cbnews.ATT.COM> btni!ferrel@uunet.UU.NET (Roger Ferrel) writes: >A question came to mind shortly after the explosion on the U.S.S Iowa. >My understanding is that most of the deaths (espically on the >decks below the guns) were due to asphyxiation. My question is >why not have oxygen masks on the wall for everyone in the >turret? >Roger L. Ferrel (402) 498-6618 One guess is that the oxygen in the air is burned so quickly that there is no time to put on any mask. From what I remember reading about Napalm, many/most of the deaths are due to asphyxiation because the intense fire takes all the oxygen from the air. Burning powder probably doesn't burn as "cleanly" as Napalm, but in an enclosed area I'm sure it flashes and burns very quickly. Bruce Carlson
roth@smoot.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) (06/05/90)
From: roth@smoot.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) When the number two turret on USS Iowa (BB61) suffered damage last year, I wondered if the US Navy still had the ability to repair the 16" guns. The four Iowa's were the only US ships to mount 50 cal. guns, so spare parts are unlikely to be found on the surviving South Dakota class units as they mounted 45 cal. guns. This brings me to a question I have been unable to have answered. When and why were the optical range finders removed from turret one of the four Iowa class battleships? Photos of the ships clearly show them in 1945, but missing during Korea. I've read that a Navy unit in Kentucky recently repaired Iowa's damaged range finder. While this is great news, I would like to know if the removed range finders were torched or saved. Terry L. Fouts +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "No mattter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney." | | | | - Rube Goldberg | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (06/05/90)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) In article <16213@cbnews.ATT.COM>, roth@smoot.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes: > From: roth@smoot.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) > > When the number two turret on USS Iowa (BB61) suffered damage last year, > I wondered if the US Navy still had the ability to repair the 16" guns. > The four Iowa's were the only US ships to mount 50 cal. guns, so spare > parts are unlikely to be found on the surviving South Dakota class units > as they mounted 45 cal. guns. After the accident, assorted officials were quoted in the media as saying yes, it could be repaired. (And as I recall, the subject was discussed extensively in this newsgroup.) However, since the Iowa is being mothballed later this year, it's doubtful that any repairs will ever take place. --Steve Bellovin
root@uunet.UU.NET (rb duc) (06/05/90)
From: grumbly!root@uunet.UU.NET (rb duc)
In article <16213@cbnews.ATT.COM> roth@smoot.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes:
-> ...
->I wondered if the US Navy still had the ability to repair the 16" guns.
->The four Iowa's were the only US ships to mount 50 cal. guns, so spare
->parts are unlikely to be found on the surviving South Dakota class units
->as they mounted 45 cal. guns.
->Terry L. Fouts
What does 45 cal. and 50 cal. mean? I always thought caliber was a decimal
inch measurement. You would either talking about machine guns or
50" guns !!!
rb duc
[mod.note: For small arms, a "caliber" does mean an inch; a .50-cal
machinegun fires a bullet 1/2 inch (12.7mm) in diameter.
For larger ordnance, though, the term "caliber" is used instead
to refer to the diameter of the barrel. The Iowa's main guns are 16"
caliber. Now, if you divide the length of the gun by its caliber, you
get its length in (are you ready ?) calibers. A 16"/50 is 16" diameter
(caliber) and (16x50) 800 inches long.
The reason this confusing nomenclature is popular is because,
at a glance, you get an idea of the gun's ballistic performance. If I
speak of the 5" Mk. 10 versus the 5" Mk. 9, you'd have to be an expert to
know the difference; but if I speak of a 5"/25 versus a 5"/51, you'd
immediately expect a higher muzzle velocity, among other things, from
the latter gun. - Bill ]
--
\\\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
- - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root
_] Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com
U rlister@uunet.UU.NET (Lister) (06/05/90)
From: cti1!rlister@uunet.UU.NET (Lister) In article <16213@cbnews.ATT.COM> roth@smoot.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes: >When the number two turret on USS Iowa (BB61) suffered damage last year, >I wondered if the US Navy still had the ability to repair the 16" guns. >The four Iowa's were the only US ships to mount 50 cal. guns, so spare >parts are unlikely to be found on the surviving South Dakota class units >as they mounted 45 cal. guns. I saw a television news report marking the anniversary of the explosion. It said that the Iowa would be decommissioned without repairing turrent number two. Russ Lister ======================================================================= Comprehensive Technologies Int'l Inc. Arlington, VA uunet!cit1!rlister =======================================================================
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (06/05/90)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <16084@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Lee Roth writes:
*When the number two turret on USS Iowa (BB61) suffered damage last year,
*I wondered if the US Navy still had the ability to repair the 16" guns.
*The four Iowa's were the only US ships to mount 50 cal. guns, so spare
*parts are unlikely to be found on the surviving South Dakota class units
*as they mounted 45 cal. guns.
the guns themselves are not the issue; there are approximately two to
three times as many barrels in existance as are needed. normal practice
is to swap barrels with worn out liners for recently refurbished ones,
and then ship the barrels to the Watervliet Arsenal for relining.
the heavy equipment needed to manufacture entirely new gun barrels no
longer exists, but everything needed for refurbishment still exists
on the Watervliet Arsenal grounds, including the vertical shrink pits
and the enormous lathes in the high bay building.
*This brings me to a question I have been unable to have answered. When and why
*were the optical range finders removed from turret one of the four Iowa class
*battleships? Photos of the ships clearly show them in 1945, but missing during
*Korea.
you got me on this one. they are clearly missing from Missouri in a
June, 1950 photograph i dug up, but still present on New Jersey when
she was recommissioned in November of 1950. my source claims that
they were removed from New Jersey before she was sent to Korea for
her first tour there. Wisconsin apparently did still have her
rangefinder on her tour in Korea, though. From the text, i infer
that Iowa's turret one rangefinder was removed before she was sent
to Korea.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``If this is Paradise, I wish I had a Lawnmower'' -- David Byrnecreps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) (06/27/90)
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) In article <1990Jun26.024846.15054@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >The most effective missile attack against most any modern warship would >not use a blast/frag warhead, but rather an incendiary warhead. Remember >HMS Sheffield, destroyed completely by an Exocet whose warhead did not >detonate. This form of attack might be quite effective even against a BB. I thought Sheffield was lost because she was made of aluminum, which was ignited by the burning missile (metallic Al will burn at high enough temperature- you can ignite an aluminum can with a blowtorch, for example). This isn't going to happen with a steel ship like the Iowa. --Steve - - - - - - - - - - Steve Creps creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (129.79.1.6) {inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!creps
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (06/27/90)
From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1990Jun26.024846.15054@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... ^ ^ ^From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) ^>From: boulder!snoopy!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) ^> ...the ship could be conceivably "mission killed" by topside ^> blast frag hits to the radars, etc, but the armored optical ^> rangefinders would be intact; the fire support could continue. ^ ^The most effective missile attack against most any modern warship would ^not use a blast/frag warhead, but rather an incendiary warhead. Remember ^HMS Sheffield, destroyed completely by an Exocet whose warhead did not ^detonate. This form of attack might be quite effective even against a BB. ^ ^ Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology ^ henry@zoo.toronto.edu uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry Hmmm...isn't steel harder to ignite than aluminum? Isn't this why the Navy is starting to steer away from aluminum superstructures? I've heard that's its near impossible to put out an aluminum fire but I have noidea how true this is...anyone who knows for sure? The Stark seemed to have survived a fire but the Sheffield didn't. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
rollhaus@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Rollhauser) (06/28/90)
From: rollhaus@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Rollhauser)
Steve Creps writes, "I thought Sheffield was lost because she was
made of aluminum, which was ignited by the burning missile (metallic Al
will burn at high enough temperature.)"
The Type 42 Destroyer (Sheffield) was not constructed with
extensive aluminum structure, so the fire resistance of aluminum did
not really affect the performance of this ship. (Lots of people are
under the impression that the Sheffield was aluminum.)
The missile that hit Sheffield hit in an unfortunate place (the
junction of three fire zones. It did not explode but spread fire over a
large area. Being a modern ship, Sheffield was equipped with
miles of electrical cable, tons of paint, and lots of "habitability
materials," all of which was closely compacted for easy ignition. (This
stuff helped cause enough smoke and toxic fumes to impede the most
dedicated firefighters.) Key control positions had to be abandoned due
to smoke.
Some fire pumps couldn't be operated, and there wasn't enough
pumping capacity remaining to fight the fire. Breathing apparatus ran
out of air. Eventually, fire spread near the magazines, and Sheffield
was abandoned. She was finally sunk by the Royal Navy.
[mod.note: I recall an article some time ago in USNI Proceedings, which
gave a large share of the credit for saving the USS Stark to the timely
arrival (by helicopter) of extra air tanks for the firefighters. - Bill ]
Aluminum does burn, but I haven't seen any evidence of this
happening in a shipboard fire. Aluminum melts at about 1200 degrees F.
In the fires I've set, it just drips down onto the deck and forms a
puddle. (BTW there are two ways to extinguish a metal fire: 1) exclude
air by covering with sand or special Class "D" extinguishing agents, 2)
cool it by applying lots of water (from a distance.))
Nigel Tzeng writes, " Hmmm...isn't steel harder to ignite than
aluminum? Isn't this why the Navy is starting to steer away from
aluminum superstructures?
"I've heard that's its near impossible to put out an aluminum fire
but I have no idea how true this is...anyone who knows for sure? The
Stark seemed to have survived a fire but the Sheffield didn't."
The official reason for the USN's decision to discontinue
use of aluminum in deckhouses is the poor performance of the material
in a marine environment. Several ship classes had stress cracking
and/or corrosion problems that were a maintenance headache. Modern
corrosion resistant steel designs were seen as a way to reduce life
cycle costs. Increased survivability of a steel deckhouse... well at
least the steel won't melt.
Chuck
Standard Disclaimer: My opinions, not the Navy'shamish@waikato.ac.nz (06/29/90)
From: hamish@waikato.ac.nz > Some fire pumps couldn't be operated, and there wasn't enough > pumping capacity remaining to fight the fire. Breathing apparatus ran > out of air. Eventually, fire spread near the magazines, and Sheffield > was abandoned. She was finally sunk by the Royal Navy. [deleted] > Standard Disclaimer: My opinions, not the Navy's >From memory, the RN didn't sink the Sheffield, it was taken under tow and bad weather developed, which caused the ship to be swamped. By this stage all that was left was a burnt out hull (seen from photos). The irony of all this was, that the ships that were actually in the front line had no anti missile missiles, while those that did, were kept back with the rest of the fleet. Maybe if they'd had a couple up front, it would have been different. -- ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================