From: Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 05:47:10 PDT
Forwarded to the list for Doug who's having list mail problems.
>Status: U
>Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:15:44 +0930
>From: dgrev <dgrev@iinet.net.au>
>Reply-To: dgrev@iinet.net.au
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
>CC: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
>Subject: Re: [MV] USS America scrap
>X-ELNK-AV: 0
>
>Ryan
>
>Can you post this reply to the list for me please as for some reason, I
>cannot post anything.
>
>The America is better off being used for
>reasearch and testing...and ultimatly as an
>artificial reef. If it helps us design better
>carriers then so be it. Computer models just
>can't simulate the real thing. The ONLY way to
>find out how survivable something like an
>airplane, armored vehicle or warship is, is to
>shoot at it, set it on fire and blow it up.
>
>BUT and I think it is quite a big BUT, something as big and complex as a
>carrier is only going to provide very limited data without crew and
>fire fighting systems. Any really sophisticated manned device is a
>synergy of the people and the machine. It is a
>bit like when Billy Mitchell sunk that
>battleship, the only problem was it wasn't
>fighting back! As real war experience would
>show, how vulnerable a ship is has a
>lot to do with the way it is operated and the people on board.
>eg Bunker Hill in WW2.
>This sort of test is really only going to show up any fundamental
>design flaws. Even such basic errors like the
>crazy one the Brits had with aluminium
>superstructures take real world combat damage
>(the
>Falklands) to reveal themselves because static tests are just that,
>they are not dynamic.
>At the end of WW2 the US conducted nuclear tests using lots of old
>warships eg, Prinz Eugen, this German warship survived all the way
>to the end of the war despite the odd ramming etc. But it didn't survive
>being flipped over whilst stationary. We all
>know that a ship under way will take on much
>heavier seas on bow or stern or even over the
>side than it can stationary, so what exactly did
>these tests prove? Not much
>more than if you nuke stationary warships you can flip them over, which
>I daresay came as a surprise to no-one.
>
>For an in depth account of just how unrealistic US survivability tests
>can be, get yourself a copy of the book "Pentagon Wars".
>
>So perhaps the real reason USS America was sunk is to keep out prying
>eyes and fingers..........
>
>Regards
>Doug
--
--
Ryan Gill rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | -==----
| O--=- | | /_8[*]°_\
|_/|o|_\_| | _________ | /_[===]_\
/ 00DA61 \ |/---------\| __/ \---
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_ // [_] o[]\\ _oO_\ /_O|_
|: O(4) == O :| _Oo\=======/_O_ |____\ /____|
|---\________/---| [__O_______W__] |x||_\ /_||x|
|s|\ /|s| |s|/BSV 575\|s| |x|-\| |/-|x|
|s|=\______/=|s| |s|=|_____|=|s| |x|--|_____|--|x|
|s| |s| |s| |s| |x| |x|
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)
----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 22:42:55 PDT