Shackleton escribió:
La sheffield, siempre se ha comparado con el ataque a la Stark, que si en uno la cabeza de combate no explotó y aun asi se fue al fondo, que si La Stark se comio dos y aguanto , que si construccion Acero vs aluminio. Pero siempre se olvida una cosa que yo creo que fue determinante en que se hundiera al Sheffiled, ..........El ATLANTICO SUR. Los cuarenta ruguientes. Cada vez que leo lo que paso Shackelton en la James Caird en el viaje a las georgianas, los pelos de punta
Se perdio cuando la remolcaban como el Santa Fé.
No creo que sea lo mismo luchar contra el fuego producido por dos misiles en el Golfo persico, que en el Atlantico Sur.
Y aunque, no se como considerearlo, la Sheffield se hundió una semana despues del impacto cuando la remolcaban a puerto.
Sacado del wiki con todas las reservas y criticas que se puedan hacer.
The burnt-out hulk was taken in tow by the Rothesay class frigate Yarmouth but was scuttled at 53°04'S, 56°56' W on 10 May 1982 because of bad weather turning the ship into a waterlogged hulk, making it the first Royal Navy vessel sunk in action in almost forty years. Twenty of her crew (mainly on duty in the Galley-area) died during the attack. The wreck is a war grave and designated as a controlled site under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.
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[3]. 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. In both cases, it is likely the ships would have been lost in any event, due to amount of explosives involved in such small ships, though aluminium fires did break out. Ardent in particular took a severe pounding, suffering eleven bomb hits, five of which exploded; no ship of her type of any era would have been able to survive such an attack. The fires on these ships did result in one clear change, which was the shift away from the nylon and synthetic fabrics then worn by British sailors. The synthetics had a tendency to melt on to the skin causing more severe burns than if the crew had been wearing non-synthetic clothing. The official report into the sinking of Sheffield, recently disclosed under UK Freedom of Information laws after an extensive campaign by ex-RN personnel [4], severely criticised the ship's fire-fighting equipment, training and procedures and certain members of the crew.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hms_sheffield
La cita [3] es http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7
y como diria Javier Arroyo, humor marinero
After the ship was struck, her crew, waiting to be rescued, sang "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" from Monty Python's Life of Brian.
Más del incidente del Missouri sacado tambien del wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29
Missouri then fired another 60 rounds off Khafji on 11-12 February before steaming north to near Faylaka Island. After minesweepers cleared a lane through Iraqi defenses, Missouri fired 133 rounds during four shore bombardment missions as part of the amphibious landing feint against the Kuwaiti shore line the morning of 23 February.[4] The heavy pounding attracted Iraqi attention; in response to the battleship’s pounding, the Iraqi’s fired two HY-2 Silkworm missiles at the battleship. One of the two missiles launched missed Missouri,[19] while the other Silkworm Missile was intercepted by GWS-30 Sea Dart missiles launched from the British air defence destroyer HMS Gloucester,[4] and crashed into the sea roughly 700 yards in front of Missouri.[20]
During the Gulf War Missouri was involved in a friendly fire incident with the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate Jarrett. According to the official report, on 25 February Jarrett’s Phalanx engaged the chaff fired by Missouri as a countermeasure against enemy missiles, and stray rounds from the firing struck Missouri, one of which penetrated through a bulkhead and embedded in an interior passageway of the ship. Another round struck the ship on the forward funnel, passing completely through it. One sailor aboard Missouri was struck in the neck by flying shrapnel and suffered minor injuries. Those familar with the incident are skeptical of this account, however, as Jarrett was reportedly over 2 miles away at the time and the characteristics of chaff are such that a Phalanx would not normally regard it as a threat and engage it. There is no dispute that the rounds that struck Missouri did come from Jarrett, and that it was an accident. The suspicion is that a Phalanx operator on Jarrett may have accidentally fired off a few rounds manually; however, no evidence to support this theory has ever been discovered.[19][21]
leyendo me hace dudar de si no fueron dos incidentes diferentes.
uno el 23 de febrero, con el HMS Glochester derribando un Silkworm
y otro el 25 de febrero con la USS Jarret. Que lanzaron, C801???
ademas leyendo al entrada del a Jarret en el wikipedia, consideran que el lanzamiento de los Silkworm y el impacto en el Missouri fue el mismo.
Me echo un lio
Saludos
PD. aceptare, la consabida respuesta ............" el wikipedia es una mierda y los datos estan todos mal"
, pero claro como no hay filmaciones ni fuentes nada es seguro , pero que de seguro si un 2do exocet impactaba tambien al HMS Invinsible , ahi si lo veriamos quiza en el fondo del mar o como un gran arresife hoy dia en el atlantico sur , lo que si es verdad que digan lo que digan el Seffield se hundio con el impacto del exocet , al igual que el atlantic Conveyor , y lo que tambien es cierto que tanta tecnologia para la epoca de los Ingleses , pero si flota volvio por la mitad , cuando los Argentinos hundieron gran parte de la Royal Navy desde Fragatas hasta destructores , y que de haber 10 misiles exocet mas en el inventario Argentina de seguro la Royal Navy termina toda bajo el mar y sus marineros volvian nadando al Reino Unido , pero tambien es verdad que en caso que esto hubiera ocurrido el Reino Unido tenia un segundo plan que era un bombardeo Nuclear sobre Cordoba y Buenos Aires , y la ayuda Norteamericana fue vital para los Ingleses en el Atlantico sur , ya que se le dio todo tipo de asistencia logistica ademas de regalar unos 100 misiles aire aire de ultima generacion para la epoca como eran los Aim9 SIDEWINDER , donde fueron los que defendieron a los Harrier y causaron grandes bajas en la Fuerza Aerea Argentina , que a proposito luchaba en total inferioridad pero con gran valentia , esto fue lo que causo grandes perdidas al Royal Navy , donde nuevamente vemos casas volando al raz de las Olas , Suet , A4 , Mirage III , y con bombas de caida libre y solo 7 exocet en todo el inventario y algun que otro misil aire-aire Matra Magic , solo con esto y mucha valentia gran parte de la flota Inglesa se fue a pique.
HOLA A TODOS SOY NUEVO POR ACA Y AQUI LES MANDO ALGO DEL MISIL POR EL CUAL VOTÉ.
