Talk:HMS Sheffield (D80)/Archive 1

Archive 1

New Commons image

File:HMSSheffieldhit.jpg

Really? that looks suspiciously identical to the MoD images, which are crown copyright... (see here) Emoscopes ^Talk 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

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.

Said by whom? also, France has sold exactly five Exocets to Argentina at that point, which is (plus the ship-to-ship Exocet dismounted from one of their destroyers) the number used. Peru (not Venezuela), during the conflict, requested early shipment of the Exocets they were buying, with the obvious goal of giving them to Argentina; the French didn't fufill the shipment. Toby Douglass 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yup, British destroyers in general carried a nuclear depth charge. I don't know if they really went down to the Falklands or not though; the general idea was to unload them at Ascension Island. Toby Douglass 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All RN ships of the period would have had the WE177 depth bomb. However, in the case of the Falklands War, these were removed and returned to the UK aboard a RFA before the ships left Ascension Island. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By April 1982 the Argentine Navy had received directly from France 5 of their 14 AM39 Exocets (plus 5 Super Etendards) bought in 1980. After the war broke out and due the temporal embargo settled by the French against Argentina, Peru urged France to deliver their already bought AM39 but the French refused too. For the Argentine version of the facts see [1]. However, its true that the FAV (like the FAP) supplied the FAA with spare parts for their Mirage fleet and particulary long range fuel tanks to allowed the deltas operate over the islands Jor70 14:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

Currently the article says; After the ship was struck, her crew, waiting to be rescued, sang "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" from Monty Python's Life of Brian.

However it's source actually says; This song was sung at Graham Chapman's funeral and by British sailors forming a bucket chain on the HMS Sheffield.

I thought it was Coventry's crew who sang this in the lifeboats? LOL not that it's an exclusive tune of course, and the Type 42 community is pretty tight, so word of this event could've definitely made it to Coventry. Basically I wanna change the text in this article to reflect the source accurately, however I reckon the source is probably mistaken. I guess for a non-military site it's an easy mistake to make, both are type 42's, doing the same job, in the same war, together. Anyone know of any other sources to back this one up? Ryan4314 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this song was actually sung by survivors from HMS Antelope. See Task Force by Martin Middlebrook, in which a witness is cited on this. p234-235. --Vvmodel (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that on several occasions during the war British forces sang this song. Justin talk 14:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since I posted this question, I have done some looking into it. I believe lots of the British forces sung the song. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can honestly report to you that that is the correct song that was sung when the ship sank, and my sources for this is that my father is Clive Carrington-Wood and after finding this article and the speculation behind this i asked him personally.

References

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)

Not sure why the British version indicates a single launch. Two were launched, one was seduced by chaff, the other hit Sheffield. This is all well known. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought so, the official British report describes a second missile splashing into the sea 1/2 mile in front of Sheffield.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FFD53355-BDCD-437F-BD58-6681867E44BA/0/phase2_part2_analysis_of_attach_and_response.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, I can recommend Martin Middlebrook's account, initially published as Operation Corporate and then in a revised edition as Task Force. The author used both British and Argentinian sources and it seems a well-balanced, well-researched account.

According to Middlebrook, two Argentine aircaft each released a single Exocet at 11.04 local time. The first Task Force awareness of the danger began when Able Seaman Rose, radar operator on Glasgow, identified Super Etendard emissions. Glasgow had a fleeting radar identification on the aircraft. Sheffield did not detect the attack because it coincided with some routine SCOT transmissions. The flight time of the Exocets was less than two minutes, and the missile heading for Sheffield was, in any case, too low to be picked up on radar. There was not even enough time for a warning to be broadcast.

As Middlebrook puts it, "the exact path taken by the second Exocet is not known but two ships protecting the main group, Yarmouth and Glamorgan, reported that they had seen or detected a missile". It would appear, then, that two missiles were launched, and that, as Middlebrook puts it, "it can be assumed that the second Exocet ran out of fuel and fell harmlessly into the sea, but it had probably approached the western edge of the main group of ships. If this is true, then the Argentine pilots had not pressed home their attacks hard enough".

As a footnote, here's a quotation from Yarmouth's daily orders the following day:

"The Argentinian missile that passed Yarmouth was on a training mission and has returned safely to base" --Vvmodel (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Argentine and British Versions

Can anyone tell me why there is two versions, as the facts are essentially in agreement?

As noted above, why are there "two" versions, the facts are essentially in agreement. Justin talk 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea I think we should just merge them, the only disputed thing in the sinking of HMS Sheffield, was did the Exocet explode? Which is kind of irrelevant as, an anti-ship missle hit a ship and it sunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow look it's nearly been a year to the day that I gave support for getting rid of the versions! Dammit, after I've finished my article on XX377 and the signatory list the CCWC, then I'll do it lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Explosion during construction

There was an accident during construction (1970/1971?) involving an oxygen explosion killing four (?) men and damaging the side of the hull leading to the back section being rebuilt, can anyone find a source for this? It is maybe classified? It may have been on 2 May 89.107.6.31 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the Sheffield, that was another Type 42 and it was in Swan Hunters, Newcastle not Barrow. Its not classified. Justin talk 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It must be another one which is similar. The wing tanks were blown out, certainly Barrow and certainly the Sheffield. Had to build a new aft. It was around midnight, I remember clearly because I was there. It was well reported in regional news if anyone has the patience to research it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.6.31 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[2] mentioned in Hansard, it was May 1971. Find a source for you [3], Navy News 2007. Justin talk 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.6.159 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Range at Launch of Exocets

The official MoD report at page 2 indicates that the Super Etendards turned approximately 15 miles from Sheffield. Typically you'd only turn after missile launch, so the point blank comment appears to be BS. At least 15-20 miles seems more appropriate. Justin talk 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my names Paul Foster, I was the "992" operator on board the Sheffield on the day of the attack. All of this talk about Sheffield not detecting the attack is wrong. Yes the main RADAR was down but"992" was still operating, Myself and my fellow Air defence operator picked up two contacts at about twenty miles. We had time to generate a track label and raise the contact with the CPRI of the ops room. He came over looked and then went away, soon after generating the track labels one of the contacts turned away and the second continued towards us. We still had time to hand over the track to the gun control team who took over the management of the track up until impact,so to say we only had a minute between visual identification and impact is a lie. As to total loss of power this is also inaccurate as the ship continued to make way through the water for some time, if you look at the photos available you can see the ships Gemini(rubber boat) under power with a crew trying to firefight into the gash from the sea. Although firemain was lost almost immediately power remained on in some sections of the ship for some time as whilst I was gathering up fire extinguishers from my mess deck the lights were still on and this was some two hours after the initial impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.210.156 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul, this is fascinating, and accords with the "scuttlebut" that I have picked up (you are obviously in a position to know vastly more about this than me). Any comments on (a) single firemain, (b) CO, (c) firefighting masks - number and duration (I understand 9, 20 mins duration, hopelessly inadequate if true), (d) combustible materials, i.e. mattresses, wiring, work surfaces (latter were formica and turned into sharpnel under heat, I understand) (e) damage control?--Vvmodel (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed pilot interviews confirm that the exocets were released (launched) at 20 nmiles at a target or radar echo seen on the Agave radar screen in the SuE. There are technical reasons why a launch 6 nmiles would not result in a hit on the Sheffield. However it is fair to say that the incoming missiles were sighted at 6 nmiles. Remember one missile was seen ditching into the sea as it ran out of propellant. This infers that the missiles were launched at their maximum range possible. Aquizard (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (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)

In the past it was said that the ship was scuttled (deliberately sunk) rather than as stated here flooding due to high seas, while in tow. I think this is worthy of clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.176.249 (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In many ways the British didn't control the media and information well. Announcing every scratch provided instant Battle Damage Assessment to the Argentine military, also some things were just plain stupid like telling the Argentine Air Force they were hitting the ships but the bombs weren't going off due to incorrect fuze settings (and the correct tactics to use). Why did they report it so quickly? Well there was 20 next of kin to inform and that story wasn't going to stay buried for long, in the long run honest reporting worked in the British favour. The British media's neutral reporting came to be readily believed, whilst the fanciful stories appearing in the Argentine media destroyed any credibility. An example of this is the continued claim to have hit or even sunk HMS Invincible. It never happened, yet the Argentine Navy to this day claims that it did. Just my opinion. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

An Argentinian submarine claimed to have hit Invincible with a torpedo which failed to explode and according to a British newspaper at the time the Argentinians carried out an enquiry. I don't believe this was denied by the British though as prime target, Invincible was well defended.

This is quite different from bombs not exploding. Bombs were dropped at very low height so the aircraft could fly under the Type 42's Sea Dart defence and are designed NOT to explode near the aircraft. The Type 42 was an anti aircraft ship intended to provide an area defence for the fleet against long range relatively large air or sea targets. Sea Wolf, which it didn't carry, was a close range point defence system designed to deal automatically with nearby missiles or aircraft attacking own ship. Of course, an anti aircraft ship needs both types of defence. Whilst dud bombs helped morale, the British would have been delighted if Argentinian aircraft subsequently flew a little higher!

JRPG 10:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dud bombs were caused by the aircraft flying too low and the armourers incorrectly setting the fuze. The BBC actually broadcast the error in Argentine Air Force tactics and subsequently they became more effective. The difference in altitude wouldn't have made a Sea Dart engagement possible, 1. the aircraft is within minimum range and 2. Still way too low. However, I'm sure that the British would have been delighted if the FAA had assumed it was just propaganda and carried on the same way but they didn't.

ARA San Luis did carry out a patrol near the task force and did attempt to launch torpedoes twice. All malfunctioned. There is no recorded attack on the Invincible and no sign of damage from a dud torpedo either but the attempted attacks on two warships tie with British records. The British admitted to every scratch received, sorry but there was no attempt to torpedo the Invincible just more propaganda. Justin talk 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not entirely British media fault telling the FAA about the wrong fuses. The same pilots realized about this ( planes attacked in groups so they saw each other ) and the FAA did great efforts to replace them something they achieved late may/june via Spain and yes the military gov manipulated the media and really misinform during the war (pucaras bombing hermes,etc) unfortunately leading to judge beforehand Argentine post war publications. --Jor70 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the Argentine "torpedoing" of Invincible, a clearly-fabricated photograph was published showing the ship in flames. This has been widely used in the Royal Navy as a damage control poster, with the caption "Damage control saved Invincible" --Vvmodel (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More RE Argentina Torpedo & Invincible. I recall a British ship- perhaps Invincible had their towed torpedo countermeasure/ decoy (Nixie) blown up by an Argentinian torpedo. Wfoj2 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

British Version

I'm under the impression the Sheffield did NOT detect the Exocet because she was using her satellite comms gear at the time; a design flaw meant she couldn't use satellite comms and radar concurrently.

Toby Douglass 12:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed correct. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Horizon(?) documentary on the Sheffield also said she couldn't use both satellite and 965 but didn't say why. However a sea skimming missile is too small and fast to be seen by a 965 in sea clutter though one would hope to see the Super Etendards -or detect via ESM any radar switched on post launch when missiles look for their target. The Navy expected to operate against Warsaw pact forces and it is possible that anti-missile counter measures available to the task force in the very early days didn't respond to a 'friendly' weapon system! JRPG 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Partially correct. The Type 965 should have been able to pick out a sea skimmer as it came over the radar horizon but its weapon system was not capable of engaging it. The only system capable of doing so was the Sea Wolf, which was designed to engage such targets. Also part of the problem was that RN doctrine was prejudiced against automatic systems and the only chance Sheffield really had was to launch Chaff promptly to seduce the missile away. An automatic system could have done this but the system on Sheffield required manual intervention to launch Chaff rockets. With seconds to react there is little chance it would have worked.

All academic anyway because the Satcom and Type 965 had EMC problems and couldn't be used together. At the time of the attack Sheffield was using Satcom and the radar was switched off in stand by mode. Sheffield never saw it coming.

Anyways there is also the question if the Chaff could've helped anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllStarZ (talk • contribs) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, when using SATCOM on a 42 back in 1982 it did not affect radar one bit! What it did do is mask the signals on the UAA1 display (Electronic Warfare ESM). It made Sheffield 'deaf' not blind. Again, when using SATCOM the radars on the Type 42 were NOT affected. UAA1 would have alerted the lads that (i) Someone in a SuE has popped up and is looking at you...down that bearing. (ii) An Exocet radar is radiating down that bearing. 'Heads up guys, turn towards, launch chaff'...and pray.Griffiths911 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Horizon documentary was; In the Wake of HMS Sheffield and it was aired in 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.183 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Depth

How deep is it where she lies? --130.83.161.89 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2015 (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)

Warheads of that era were not Insensitive Munitions. Subjected to an intense fire, the warhead would have exploded. Even if it initially deflagrated, it would soon transition to detonation. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exocet missiles do not explode on impact, and are designed not to. Also it is a very common misconception to assume that it does. It is also very POV and not fair to assume that this view was shared by others in the RN fleet. Indeed on GLAMORGAN it was not, and this ship was the only RN ship to be hit by an Exocet and survive. Remember 15 of the surface combatant ships in the RN task force were exocet armed, carrying the MM38/40 ship launched version of Exocet. Exocet is a fire and forget anti ship cruise missile, and fitted with a delay proximity fuse, which means that the missile detonates a short time after penetrating the ship, usually amidships with the delay fuse winding down a fraction of a second later (0.001 s) the missile penetrates the ship usually amidships. The angle at which the missile hits the ship is critical, too shallow and it will bounce off the ships side, this is why the missile's radar seeker head always looks to hit the target ship at right angles and amidships. There is also an arming circuit which arms the warhead in flight priming the warhea for detonation, and such safety features are present within missiles, torpedoes and air dropped bombs. If as has been stated the missile was launched from 6 miles then the missile would not arm, so detonation of the warhead does not ocurr. Looking at all the information there were 5 salvage examinations of Sheffield in the 6 days from when she was abandoned to when she sank, due to rough seas when she was under tow, and water ingressing through the gash in her starboard side. Visually after all the fires had died down there is too much superstructure in place in the vicinity of where the missle hit to reliably confirm that detonation of the high explosive fragmentation warhead occurred. It is reported that the missile broke up on entry into the ship, in part due to the angle it hit the starboard side (30-45 degrees) and the topology of the ship at the location of the hit, with the bulk of the casualties in the galley and computer room. It was the due to the amount of burning propellant and the severed diesel line that caused the smoke and associated fires that were to cause abandoning the ship some 4 hours later. It is worth reading the Board of Inquiry Report as there are certain facts mentioned in it. Aquizard 13:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A technical re-analysis by the MOD of the loss of the SHEFFIELD was presented to the RINA Warship Conference in june 2015. The conclusion drawn was that the warhead did detonate. The conclusion of the original Board of Inquiry was discussed in the paper, in particular the evidence that they used to draw the original conclusion (which was based predominantly on the damage caused by Exocet to HMS UNDAUNTED in trials in the 1970s). The paper discussed the differences in size, design and quality of construction of UNDAUNTED and SHEFFIELD, and also considered evidence from trials and action damage that occured in various ships after the BOI was published (e.g. HARDY, STARK) and showed how that evidence alone would have produced a different conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.32.34 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[4] I presume you mean this conference? Do you have a copy of the paper? Depending on the status of the individual concerned it may be appropriate to add a note that in the opinion of this author the warhead detonated. However, it would be inappropriate given the variation in opinion to state it as an undisputed fact. The original Exocet warhead design proved to be a problem with a number failing to detonate. WCM_email 12:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a copy of the paper. The author heads up the MOD survivability team and the detailed analysis was carried out by the QinetiQ vulnerability assessment experts using state of the art analysis codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.132 (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of pilots who sunk the Sheffield.

I remember this incident from the news when it occurred. I seem to recall both the U.K. and the U.S. governments criticizing the pilots for engaging a target that couldn't defend itself, even though it was a legitimate target. Later in life while in the U.S. Army, I discussed this with an Argentine First Sergeant while we were part of Cabañas '97. He was a veteran of the Falklands War and he informed me that the pilots gave warning passes before engaging. Does anyone else remember or know of this? Solri89 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs a reliable secondary source. Hopefully there's an Argentinian version of the event written in a scholarly journal, article or book to corroborate yours and that sergeant's memory. Unfortunately, primary sources such as you or the sergeant are not acceptable because you would come under the heading of original research. Llammakey (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Umm, can anyone tell me why this "icons of england" link is beneath my post and how to get rid of it? Because I didn't put it there. Solri89 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a reference from further up the page. The Wiki places all cited materials at the bottom of the page automatically. Llammakey (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say its nonsense. UK didn't criticise the pilots and if the pilots had made a warning pass they'd have been blown out of the sky. The pilots made a text book attack, fair play to them, they were professionals doing what they were trained to do. The British only had praise for the bravery of the Argentine pilots. WCM_email 19:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that and looked around the Internet for the answer to no avail. That's why I asked. Thanks about that link info though, it was driving me bonkers. Solri89 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are probably correct. I was only 10 y/o when it happened. Even though I was only 10 (if my memory is correct, which I'm sure it's wrong in some manner... as in maybe it was Peter Jenning's opinion) it seemed more like they were (whoever they may have been, if there was a "they") using the sinking as anti Argentina propaganda. (I do, without a doubt remember thinking that) Nevertheless, about the warning pass(es), if they could've blown them out of the sky, then why didn't they? The article says their radar was screwed up. If so, a pass could have been possible. I am in no way saying I or the First Sergeant were correct, but let's not dismiss it quite yet until it can be verified either way. I was hoping this article would answer my questions. Does anyone have actual verifiable information either way? Cuz I cannot confirm nor deny after a search. Solri89 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I apologize. I did not know that two type 42's were sunk. The other being the HMS Coventry. Regardless, if my little kid memory was correct and the First Sergeant was correct, it concerned one of these ships. Actually, maybe it was a whole different class of ship. My little kid memory did recall it was some sort of troop transport but after my original search I only found the Sheffield as the only ship being sunk. Someone, anyone know? Solri89 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Both the Argentine and British version of events corroborate one another. The two Super Etendard launched their weapons at extreme range, where the launch aircraft was below the radar horizon. There is an excellent documentary out there, produced by the BBC called "In the wake of HMS Sheffield", it explains the way the pilots flew their aircaft to avoid detection. They didn't overfly the Sheffield and absence of evidence either for or against your theory is not significant. WCM_email 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I give up! My original search query was "U.K. ships sunk during Falklands War". Now after another search I found six were sunk! My next search will probably show ten! I'm moving this question to the Falklands War page. Unless someone can help me here, which I would definitely appreciate, I'll be there. I will check back here later though. Thanks all. Solri89 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. WCM, you, while providing very useful information, of which I appreciate, don't seem to realize I am NOT trying to get some sort of consensus to change this page. I am merely discussing this article in an attempt to answer a question I've had for quite a very long time. I realize now, thanks to everyone's input -including yours- that I probably have the wrong ship (If my little kid memory is even remembering this possible incident correctly). I'm not putting a theory out there. Please review my posts again if you were confused. Solri89 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also add that when the pilots were interviewed (and these are on YouTube) they state that once they had fired their missiles, they returned back to low level and set a course back to their base. Solri89 this is one of those invented stories that is ill thought out and does not match up to what actually happened. I too have heard other stories like the one where all the exocets were removed off the RN exocet armed warships. When the individual was challenged, it was because some army officer said so. Complete rubbish as a number of RN ships were on exercise off Gibraltar and ordered southwards. No facilities at Ascention Island as it was an open anchorage. the RN exocet armed ships came back to the UK with their exocets, as none were fired. Aquizard (talk) 14:30, 03 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusto Bedacarratz

FYI. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on HMS Sheffield (D80). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223051413/http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223051413/http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206212020/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228225855/https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNE%20Day%202012/Papers/Crum.pdf to https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNE%20Day%202012/Papers/Crum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116134653/http://www.austal.com/Libraries/Newsletters-Presentations-Presentations-and-Publications/Aluminium---Hull-Structure-in-Naval-Applications.pdf to http://www.austal.com/Libraries/Newsletters-Presentations-Presentations-and-Publications/Aluminium---Hull-Structure-in-Naval-Applications.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206212020/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New revelations Oct. 2017

The recent declassifying of the inquiry report is featured as though it’s a minor footnote. It is much more than that.

1. The top team had been poorly selected. The captain was a submariner by background, and the second-in-command had mostly worked on helicopters. Neither had significant experience of command in surface vessels.

2. The principal warfare officer and the anti-air warfare officer were both found negligent, and would normally have been court-martialled. But the Navy did not press charges, for fear that it would spoil the post-victory euphoria. The two of them got away with just a stern talking-to.

3. Deficiencies in the firefighting equipment aboard type 42 destroyers had also gone unreported, possibly because UK shipyards were trying to export other vessels of this class.

These were major controversies, which is why they were hushed-up for 35 years. I do not understand why Wee Curry Monster reverted my edit to this effect (21/10/17).

WP:GREATWRONGS Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to be a platform for advocacy. Your edit was reverted because it introduced weasel words and phrases that expressed in wikipedia's voice an opinion on the matter. I'll remind you wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is written to a neutral point of view. This is not a major controversy, its one reported in the Grauniad, which has not been without criticism. Further, the problems with the fire fighting equipment on Sheffield have been widely known for some time, its nothing new. The fact that the captain was a submariner previously, really not relevant, the commander of the British Task Force Sandy Woodward was also a submariner. They happen to be the most highly trained officers in the Royal Navy. And the fact that two officers were accused of negligence is actually in the article. All in all, your edit was pretty much in the vein of the Grauniad article, overblown and written from an advocates perspective. About the only thing you could describe as "new" was the suggestion of negligence, which has been added. Next? WCM_email 09:52, 22 October 2017 (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).

Type 42 was all steel construction, the Type 21 was the only RN ship to have an Aluminium superstructure. Justin talk 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the bald statement that the ship was steel, since this appears to come from the US Aluminum Industry [determined to defend their profits] in a letter to the New York Times, which has repeated the story as outlined here, so I assume this is the source for the Wikipedia author. The NYT stands judged as publishing fale news on several occasions recently on different topics, so who knows its veracity back in the '80s in the face of a multi-billion dollar industry and its paid shills? I'm hoping Wikipedia isn't unwittingly one of those. Since no one has explained why Sheffield burned so fiercely, which steel ships don't normally do, and since it is a fact that aluminium melts at a much lower temperature to steel, then gives off gas, this seems the perfect scenario, and a logical explanation. We now have aluminium cladding on tower blocks in London as the burning issue, and the cladding in these cases was aluminium. Anyone believe in coincidence? Perhaps author should check this out properly with a materials physicist and a reliable source from the Defence Department, rather than the New York Times? PetePassword (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Picture of an aluminium superstructure after a fire (USS Belknap):

http://nextnavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/USS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg

HMS Sheffield after the fire:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/G9R14J/falklands-war-hms-sheffield-G9R14J.jpg

The difference being Sheffield was all steel. Please can we put this nonsense to bed. WCM_email 11:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Sheffield (D80). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425070019/http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/may04b.html to http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/may04b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212000955/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D5E979F4-CD1D-4626-86B5-F432355861EA/0/phase2_part2_narrative_of_attach.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D5E979F4-CD1D-4626-86B5-F432355861EA/0/phase2_part2_narrative_of_attach.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)