Warship forum
A forum for the Allied Warships section.
Re: HMSAS NATAL
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: September 18, 2003 02:08AM
<HTML>Credit should be given to those who deserve it. There is ample evidence to the effect the sub was still moving following the SINGLE attack by Natal. A 3-DC salvo from her Squid could not be expected to do the trick unless aimed with absolute precision. The sub was heard running for several more hours and was eventually sunk several miles from the spot where Natak fired.
There certainly are instances where a single DC sank a sub, USCGC Campbell did it, but this was not the case with Natal, and I don't mean to slander the South Africans, just stating some facts that may have been intentionally overlooked by the Historical Branch, it would not be the first time.....
Regards, Brian</HTML>
There certainly are instances where a single DC sank a sub, USCGC Campbell did it, but this was not the case with Natal, and I don't mean to slander the South Africans, just stating some facts that may have been intentionally overlooked by the Historical Branch, it would not be the first time.....
Regards, Brian</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
HMSAS NATAL | Patrick Mooney | 09/08/2003 12:22AM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Peter | 09/13/2003 07:57AM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Brian | 09/15/2003 02:06AM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Peter | 09/17/2003 06:29PM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Brian | 09/18/2003 02:08AM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Peter | 09/18/2003 07:01PM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | FNE | 09/30/2003 05:31PM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Pepin | 10/01/2003 02:28AM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL leading stoker ducthy glass | martin langford | 11/11/2007 04:36PM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | martin langford | 12/26/2007 09:51PM |
Re: HMSAS NATAL | Richmond Wilmot | 05/10/2008 11:25AM |