Re: Mark-48 Test

[Bill McClain]

"L. P. LePage" > wrote in message news:<bYaXb.30316$_44.28198@attbi_s52>...
> This link will lead to a test of the mark-48 torpedo on a old destroyer by
> the Ausys.
> This is a must see.
>
> http://www.vetsoutreach.com/GNey/Mark48/
>
> Have fun.

(This was originally misposted to sci.military.naval.AVIATION,
unfortunately)

Question: Would the remaining forward half be mission-killed due to
shock damage if this had been an in-commission warship? I say yes, my
eight-year-old son says no, I really am no more knowledgeable than he
when it comes to this stuff.

[Thomas Schoene]

Bill McClain wrote:

> Question: Would the remaining forward half be mission-killed due to
> shock damage if this had been an in-commission warship? I say yes, my
> eight-year-old son says no, I really am no more knowledgeable than he
> when it comes to this stuff.

That ship is definitely mission killed, for several reasons.

1) Major shock damage (as you noticed) and massive flooding. What the
pictures don't show is that the forward half of the ship sank a little bit
later.

2) No mobility (obviously). If a ship can't move, it's mission killed.

3) No electricity. The machinery spaces are all near the point of impact or
aft of it. They're either gone or flooded. That means all the major combat
systems are dead, even if they can recover from the shock and flooding.

At this point, it's a survival situation for the crew. It's possible (just
barely) that they could have saved the forward section, but not as a
combat-capable platform.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)