WI USS Forestall is lost in 1967?
- Thread starter bard32
- Start date
Not if you don't tell us what your analogy is. The Franklin's sinking was like getting shot with a shotgun, the Forestall's bombs going off is like someone throwing the pellets at you. Very different in the effects.
The Forestall, like most other naval ships, was designed not to sink if a fire broke out. It would take more than a few detonated magazines and a lot of exploding fuel before anyone would even think she might be sunk. And the US Navy wasn't entirely incompetent, they do have some knowledge of shipboard fires, and no idiot wants a fire next to explosives. They're going to do their absolute best to keep the fire out of the areas filled with fuel and explosives!
Now, if, due to some sort of mumble-mumble, the Forestall was sunk in 1967, most of the crew would probably be saved. There would be a morale drop inn the US, a moral boost in the NVA and VC, and the US would have more determination to pull through. It's also very likely that US aircraft get a couple, just a couple, bombing restrictions lifted. (Maybe we can bomb a SAM site before it fires at us!) We still likely pull out of Viet Nam on schedule, and no real butterfly effects, excepting the need to shuffle a couple of carriers around the ocean. The only time this will really make a difference is come 2000, where either McCain won't be present (due to death, diffrerent career choice, etc., likely) or he will be a still be there, with a different personality (surviving a sinking can do that to you) (less likely). Either that, or there's some other Senator in his place. The election may very vell swing to Gore or to Bush, I don't know, it was close enough in OTL. I really don't know what the 2000-2008 election cycles would be like without McCain. That's for someone other than me to describe.
bard32
Banned
You can, but when it's irrelevant and has nothing to do with what we're discussing, then it's to no avail. The Franklin was hit by a bomb, not sunk by a fire.
It was almost sunk by a fire. That's the point. The Forestall was also almost sunk by a bomb, or bombs, in Vietnam. Trust me, bringing up the Franklin is
relevant.
No, actually, the Franklin is not. The Forrestal involved a fire and several bomb explosions up on the flight deck. The Franklin suffered a strike on a hangar that was full of gassed up and bombed up airplanes, avgas being far more dangerous than the JP-5 aboard Forrestal. If you don't understand why internal explosions and fires are very different from ones on the flight deck then we really can't help you.
I shall say it for all of us, again:
A FIRE WILL NOT SINK THE FORRESTALL.
It may cause heavy damage, it may take the lives of many of her crew. But US Navy ships do not sink because of fire. Steele does not burn, and since that's what the entire hull is made of...
Bombs are purposefully stored in extremely safe areas, for obvious reasons. For the fire to cause the stored bombs to go off and sink the ship, it's going to have to magically transport these bombs down to a critical area, overcome every safety measure the US could put on those bombs (not least fuses and steel), and cause high explosives to detonate. Then, these magically moved bombs would have to go off in that teleported-to spot and make the ship take on water. Now, the ship isn't designed to take on water. That's what bulkhead doors are for. So we're going to need these bombs to be transported all over the ship, to blow so many holes in her, she'll never get out.
So, if you can come up with a convincing reason why the fire would go everywhere on the ship (despite the excellent efforts of very competent people who are doing their best not to let that happpen), exploding bombs that were somehow transported around the ship into places where no idiot would put a bomb, and doing so in a manner that will sink the ship, I will listen. But if you can't, don't just tell me that the Franklin was destroyed by bombs (an entirely different case, as myself and others have noted), or that the Forrestall was almost sunk by a fire. Repeating yourself doesn't prove your point. I want to see a reason why I should try to do more than I have already given you in my posts. Please, let me know that my work here was not in vain.