JD>VH> The ship in question (HMS Antilope) did NOT suffer burning of the
JD>VH> aluminium superstructure, although that was stated as a "fact" at the
JD>VH> time.  Most of the damage to Antilope was due to the rocket motor, 
which
JD>VH> continued to burn after impact.  Melting of some aluminium
JD>VH> bulkheads contributed to the failure of the damage control systems to
JD>VH> function as they were supposed to function.
JD>I am not doubting what you are saying, but since you obviously have a
JD>source, how about letting me in on it. I am very interested in obtaining a
JD>more factual account of that incident. In the meantime, I'm checking my 
RC
JD>handbook to find out if I've stuck my foot in it.
In 1985 (just after I retired from the Army) I was contracted to do a
detailed study on the relationship between combat performance and
training.  This study required -- among other things -- a comparison
amongst several wars and several armed forces.  The Falklands War was
quite fresh and was included.
Right after that was the great "under armor effects" brouhaha about the
effects of aluminium armor on the Bradely Infantry Fighting Vehicle -- I
got called in to do a bit of study on that -- probably because I am one
of the few living people to actually SEE the jet of a shaped charge pass
through the armored vehicle he was riding. :-)
I dipped back into the research I did on the Falklands War for the data
on HMS Antilope -- because some people were trumpeting how the
aluminium superstructure had "enhanced" the warhead effect.
I'm in Michigan now, and my notes and so on are in the attic in Virginia
-- rather inaccessable.
But if you have access to the US Army's Military History collection at
Carlysle Barracks, PA, you can find quite a bit on the HMS Antilope
there.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.21/M 2
---------------