“It’s not smart to build your warships like tinderboxes.”
If I recall the rationale, they built them that way because they were not expected to survive a war with the Soviets. The Soviets would use nukes and heavy armor wouldn’t help. Therefore, why not build them faster, lighter, and able to deliver a significant punch before they got hit? Then, as with everything military, they got used in a different conflict environment than they were intended for.
I’m certain that there are other calculations involved as well. For example, how much more money would it take to armor and operate an armored ship with no aluminum? How many more lightly built ships could you build with cheaper material? Then, there’s politics, I’m sure aluminum suppliers were big spenders on the campaign trail and offered jobs to retiring well-placed procurement types. The safety of the crew is probably WAY down the list of considerations.
Well stated, General. That probably summed it up perfectly over there.
Two things contributed to the fiasco.
One was the tinderbox ship.
The other was a networked fire control system which was amazingly incompetent and buggy, it more or less went catatonic at the enemy approach and allowed clear shots.
This is not the only unfortunate British navy design - the used subs they sold to the Canadians are another example.
Aluminium was not the problem. HMS Sheffield was all steel. Look at the photo - no structural damage.
The problem was use of flammable materials and internal fires.