Matrix Games Forums

The Sara was not nuclear, however she would have been carrying nukes if she was west of Pearl. All carriers have lots of small arms as well as a det of marines. The only bombs that need guarding are the nukes.

D'OH! I think it was past my bedtime when I made that post.[:(]

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

I'll ask him when I see him next, but I assume they were under orders to use the grenades. [:)]

Although I just used the assume word, that word always got me into trouble while I was in the military[X(]

lol. True.....still, I have to have more faith in the Military than THAT. [:D]


Grenade.....carrier.....avgas.....GRENADE......carrier....Jet Fuel......

Grenades are the least of carrier problems, Zuni rockets now are another kettle of fish. USS Forrestal proved that[:(].

As did the Enterprise.

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Grenades are the least of carrier problems, Zuni rockets now are another kettle of fish. USS Forrestal proved that[:(].

That was nasty from what little i've read on it.

You should watch the whole flight deck film. Showed it to us twice a day in fire fighting school.

I think i actually did. scary.

The Sara was not nuclear, however she would have been carrying nukes if she was west of Pearl. All carriers have lots of small arms as well as a det of marines. The only bombs that need guarding are the nukes.

The Saratoga was very west of Pearl!!! We were in the Atlantic, probably between Florida and Bermuda.

Not to shake things up, but looking into the Forrestal fire I found the following article. I have no idea how authentic it is...

McCain to blame for the USS Forrestal mishap?
Quote

The claim has been made:

"Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E Skyhawk to shake up the guy in the F-4 Phantom behind his A-4. 'Wet-starts', done either deliberately (the starter motor switch allowed kerosene to pool in the engine and give a wet start) or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.


"134 sailors were killed on the USS Forrestal in 1967.

It is believed by many crewmen and investigators that John McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E to shake up the guy in the plane behind his A-4. 'Wet-starts' shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.

In McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions."

That's so beneath contempt it's not worth commenting on.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's so beneath contempt it's not worth commenting on.

Also easily disproved... McCain's plane (#416 in the diagram below) was on the other side of the deck parked with its tail pointed away from the aircraft that fired the rocket (F4B - #110 in the diagram - you can also see what was going on in the video):



EDIT: YouTube has a bad copy of it - the ones i've seen are much more clear, and (iirc) the positions of the aircraft correspond to the diagram. The USN investigation into the accident finally assigned fault of the rocket firing to multiple failures in the grounding system for the Zuni.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I

Since all the tails of the aircraft were pointed pretty much away from any other aircraft, and McCain's aircraft had it's tail pointed away from the firing F4B by at least 90 degress and was on the OTHER side of the ship, this sounds like someone with an agenda making up stuff.

McCain was a bit of a rebel in the military (he got lots of demerits at the Academy), but I doubt he started the Forrestal fire.  He was in in the A-4 that was hit though.  Kind of an interesting coincidence that he was in the middle of the worst carrier fire since WW II.

Bill

How the hecque did we go from Japanese ASW mortars to McCain's Rockets? I'd move this to the "Political Rocket" sub-forum - but I do not have that ability - so I will shut it down. If you guys want to talk politics, go to the Garbage Dump!