Re: [FT] Re: Small vessels and the Line of Battle

Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> writes:
>
[response on debate/comparison re: wet navy ships and space ships]
>
>You are assuming that a space navy ship is better compartmentalized
than
>a modern US Warship.  I can, without a doubt, say this is untrue.  A
>modern US ship pretty well has to have a hole (or holes) big enough to
>remove 50% of its flotation ability.  I would claim that any ship,
space
>navy or wet navy, that has had 50% of its hull space destroyed is going
>to be a hulk in space.
>
>The reason I say US ships is the Brits do things like build ships with
>metal that burns and is soft (aluminum in a warship?)	If you can find
>it (brain fog, sorry) there was that US tin can that ran afoul of a
>mine,
>you should look at the pictures.  What keeps ships running is partialy
[...]

The ship you are referring to is the US FFG "Reuben James". My brother
served on her immediately after the mine incident. I made mention of
this in another post a month or so ago with more details (for anyone
who's interested, you prolly can find it in the archives somewhere;
but under what topic - I don't remember! :-/ )

Mk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
   o/		      ..     .
  /@		       .  .	      If you insist on reaching for a
  <|\			  .  )	      star, be prepared to take a long,
   |		     /\ 	      hard fall.
   |		    //
   /		 o //*		      Indy - climber, astronomer,
adventurer
  /		<%- /|\ 	      supreme. Have rope, will travel.
 /		/\ / | \