www.ditl.org

+1 to McAvoy.

Captain Seafort wrote:Fair enough, three that deserve it - that's still a sight fewer than the dozens you've got.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'm sure there is, but simply sharing a name doesn't mean the ship's important enough to hang onto.

Captain Seafort wrote:you hang onto almost everything and lost your greatest warship of the 20th century. Given that, I'd rather fall back on the ship's equivalent of a decent human burial - scrap.

Why? The decision to keep one, or 100, other ships had absolutely zero bearing on the decision to not to do so with the CV-6. Simply sharing a name is more than enough reason to keep a ship, because there's no opposing reason not to keep it. Now, there's a battleship museum on the East Coast for folks who can't just casually make the $5,000+ vaca to Hawai'i to see the Mo... can you provide any good reason to scrap any of these "dozens" of which you speak?

Mikey wrote:can you provide any good reason to scrap any of these "dozens" of which you speak?

For the reason I mentioned above - to give them the ship's equivalent of a decent human burial.

Which purpose, as I understand it, would be for the ship to see off its career with dignity. So please remind me how, exactly, being used to educate the public about our history; about our military; and about the ships themselves - not to mention the fact of raising money and awareness for educational, veterans' assistance, and other charities - equals "indignity" or "lack of purpose."

*EDIT* Following your logic, we should just dynamite the hull of the USS Arizona, because hey - it's not doing anything but leaking oil, making people throw flowers, and forcing Navy divers to bring cremains of former crew who survived Pearl Harbor to rest with their shipmates. Hopefully, this sounds as asinine in print as it does in my head.

Mikey wrote:Which purpose, as I understand it, would be for the ship to see off its career with dignity. So please remind me how, exactly, being used to educate the public about our history; about our military; and about the ships themselves - not to mention the fact of raising money and awareness for educational, veterans' assistance, and other charities - equals "indignity" or "lack of purpose."

The phrase was Admiral Sir Henry Leach's response to various suggestions that the old Ark be preserved. When someone like him says "this is how ships should be treated", that's good enough for me.

*EDIT* Following your logic, we should just dynamite the hull of the USS Arizona, because hey - it's not doing anything but leaking oil, making people throw flowers, and forcing Navy divers to bring cremains of former crew who survived Pearl Harbor to rest with their shipmates. Hopefully, this sounds as asinine in print as it does in my head.

We're talking about ships that have reached the end of their effective lives through obsolescence or wear-and-tear, not war graves.

Captain Seafort wrote:The phrase was Admiral Sir Henry Leach's response to various suggestions that the old Ark be preserved. When someone like him says "this is how ships should be treated", that's good enough for me.

Bullshit. I'll happily defer to his advice on how to fight with ships... whether they ought to be preserved by, and for, the public is out of his domain.

Captain Seafort wrote:We're talking about ships that have reached the end of their effective lives through obsolescence or wear-and-tear, not war graves.

So, the Arizona isn't the inoperational remains of a battleship? Believe me, I know exactly what she is, because I've visited and been moved close to tears for men I never met. But, the fact remains that your reasoning requires an arbitrary distinction based on sentimentality.

Mikey wrote:Bullshit. I'll happily defer to his advice on how to fight with ships... whether they ought to be preserved by, and for, the public is out of his domain.

Why? As 1st Sea Lord, the proper disposal of warships was entirely his domain. Incidentally, Canberra's Captain during the Falklands War expressed the hope that the same happen to her, on the grounds that "that's the proper end for a ship". Unless you've got more expertise in how ships should be disposed of than the professional head of the Royal Navy and the Commodore of the Cunard Line, their views carry substantially more weight than yours.

Again... bullshit. I don't know what "1st Sea Lord" means, but the dude you referenced was an accomplished admiral. I absolutely wold take his word on fighting fleet engagements, or even single boats. When it comes to how the public wants its purchases disposed, his opinion is merely one man's opinion. In fact, your citation of the Canberra's skipper is a pure, unabashed expression of an opinion that has no roots - nor any possible roots - in any sort of "fact." Neither of them have any "expertise" in how ships should be disposed of, save that of their own opinions which are themselves based ONLY on the weight of tradition. Guess what? We don't have to carry the weight of your tradition.

Actually scrapping ships is considered to be the least dignified way for a ship to be disposed of. All you have to do is read reports on various famous ships from WW2 about going to the scrap yard. British or American, it's the same idea.

If you really think about it, we are talking about a ship that is being literally torn apart in chunks without any regard or care to the ship. There is nothing dignified for the ship. Better to sink the ship as coral reef IMO.

Going to have to agree with McAvoy, as far as I've ever heard. Selling a ship for scrap is the most disgraceful way any ship can be retired. If this 1st lord thinks that just chunking a ship to earn some cash is a "dignified" end, I wouldn't trust that inbred fool with a can opener.

I lurk on a couple of military forums that have a high membership from service and ex-service types, and their attitude is almost universally that scrapping is an undignified end to a ship. They far prefer to see them converted to museums.

I've always wondered... given that it's not really very realistic to expect every ship to become a museum, what is considered the best end for a ship other than that? Used in a sinkex? Sunk as an artificial reef?

GrahamKennedy wrote:I lurk on a couple of military forums that have a high membership from service and ex-service types, and their attitude is almost universally that scrapping is an undignified end to a ship. They far prefer to see them converted to museums.

I've always wondered... given that it's not really very realistic to expect every ship to become a museum, what is considered the best end for a ship other than that? Used in a sinkex? Sunk as an artificial reef?

Both. I posed that question before in a forum before. Basically the answers were: the ship rests in peace and at least people can visit the ship while supporting the ocean as a reef. A sinkex will do the same thing (assuming of course the ship is sunk is shallow waters unlike the America) but at least the ship serves her country one last time. Ultimately the ship survives for a period of time before being absorbed by the ocean.

Its burial at sea.

Deepcrush wrote:Its burial at sea.

Or... that simple.

It seemed to be the one phrase that everyone didn't use but should have used.

Deepcrush wrote:It seemed to be the one phrase that everyone didn't use but should have used.

You're absolutely right. The least dignified end for a ship is to be torn up for scrap, while one of the most dignified ends (other than still being useful in some capacity) is in the element in which she served.