Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS IOWA
Message-ID: <1990Jun27.021037.1449@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 27 Jun 90 02:10:37 GMT
References: <1990Jun11.211201.18187@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jun13.064652.24021@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jun18.005947.28926@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jun20.043246.17762@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jun20.232924.1738@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jun26.024846.15054@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



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