Talk:HMS Sheffield (D80)
 | Shipwrecks Unassessed | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
It is said there were two nuclear warhead on-board when it sank. The Exocet missile that sunk the HMS Sheffield actually belonged to Venezuela´s arsenal. Venezuela gave the exocets to Argentina just few weeks before one of them managed to sink the Sheffield.
Uh-huh, so if there were two nuclear warheads on board, where's the cleanup crew? Beyond which, why would anyone put nuclear weapons on an Air Warfare Destroyer? The ship was designed to shoot down incoming planes, not to carry out nuclear attacks. About the exocets: Argentina was believed to have five exocets before the war, and fired four. So if the one that hit Sheffield was Venezuelan, what did they do with the unaccounted for missiles? Biscuit Knight 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The reason that one might have been there is that the WE177 nuclear weapon was deployed on RN escorts as a nuclear depth bomb for helicopters. Apparently (WE177#Falklands_War) Broadsword, Brilliant, Coventry and Sheffield were carrying them when they sailed south but later had them removed. Emoscopes Talk 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Warhead Exploded
I'm writing in that the warhead exploded. The crew and members of the Task Force believe the warhead exploded, I believe the Navy's official stance is that the exocet didn't explode, but there you are. If it didn't explode on impact, why didn't it explode due to extreme heat of the fire? Biscuit Knight 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Because modern explosives don't detonate when subjected to heat - they just burn. If you want a missile to detonate you have to use a detonator – real world explosives don't function quite like those depicted in cartoons which detonate when struck with a comedy mallet.
I don't think the issue is quite as closed as the article would try to make out. The Navy's official stance after experts have reviewed all of the available facts is certainly worthy of note; especially when the only evidence to the contrary that is discussed in the article is the personal belief of some of the servicemen present at the time.
Somehow I don’t think justice is done to the respective weight of each of those pieces of evidence. --62.173.76.218 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Aluminium Hull
I have heard conflicting reports about the hull of the Sheffield, and I am curious as to what weight the citation (reference number 3) carries. What is the evidence that the superstructure was steel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.78.204 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Contradiction
The British version suggests a single missile launched at 6 miles. The Argentine version here suggests mutliple missiles launched at a far greater distance. Emoscopes Talk 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the article do not contradict itself due both claims are in different sections and reflect the differents points of view Jor70 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the article needs to be redrafted accordingly if these are both the official accounts. Emoscopes Talk 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have you any suggestion ? Jor70 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the article needs to be redrafted accordingly if these are both the official accounts. Emoscopes Talk 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Doubt
Will be nice to hear (read) opinions on why the British reported her sunk so quickly on May 4 when its actually sank on May 10. Also the Argentines have no other way to know of the effectiveness of the super etendard/exocet strikes. The system was still being studied (5 of the 14 planes were arrived) without the french technicians help and its not success could led to the airplanes being grounded. --Jor70 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
