Death
gh0d (Administrator)
On a mailing list I participate on, a discussion on the HMS Sheffield came up, about its damage from the Argentine-fired Exocet missile it took during the Falkland Islands campaign. The old saw about "the aluminum superstructure was the problem" came up, so I did some digging to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks on me.
Anyhow, in looking up an online reference, I found something else.
What does this have to do with WC? Good question.
For the longest time, there's been some head-scratching about WC frigates being larger than WC destroyers, even though in real life modern navies (especially USN) the reverse is true.
It turns out that prior to 1975, it was the case that figs were bigger than destroyers. However, in 1975 the classifications were shuffled around to straighten things out, and bring USN practice more into line with other navies, as well as to eliminate a perceived "cruiser gap" caused by the designation confusion.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that WC wasn't quite pulling something out of its ass.
(And yeah, maybe a bit of "look at me, I'm so S-M-R-T smart!" )
Anyhow, in looking up an online reference, I found something else.
What does this have to do with WC? Good question.
For the longest time, there's been some head-scratching about WC frigates being larger than WC destroyers, even though in real life modern navies (especially USN) the reverse is true.
It turns out that prior to 1975, it was the case that figs were bigger than destroyers. However, in 1975 the classifications were shuffled around to straighten things out, and bring USN practice more into line with other navies, as well as to eliminate a perceived "cruiser gap" caused by the designation confusion.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that WC wasn't quite pulling something out of its ass.
(And yeah, maybe a bit of "look at me, I'm so S-M-R-T smart!" )