[Gorjus]

Well, you've got a good source. It was my understanding that as they abandoned, they were trying to open scuttles so that she'd go down more quickly. In my mind, that qualifies as sinking not 'solely due to enemy action.'

I realize that's splitting hairs, but my point was to the posters who were saying how easy it is to sink a US warship, and in particular a carrier. As I expect you knew.

[Bender2]

Re: It was my understanding that as they abandoned, they were trying to open scuttles so that she'd go down more quickly.

As far as I can recall, I have never heard that in regard to the sinking of the Yorktown. When the Japanese torpedoes hit both the carrier and the destroyer by her side, the repair crews were having some success in righting the flattop's list. With the new damage and the quick breakup and sinking of the Hammann, the men of the repair crew were ordered to abandon ship, not go down deeper into the ship to open scuttles...

The source I used here on FR was just one of many I could quote that would say the Yorktown was sunk by a combination of Japanese aircraft and the later torpedoes of I-168.

I understand you wanted to point out that large carriers are not that easy to sink. Last year the US Navy used the USS America as a target to see how much damage a large carrier could take before sinking. Admittedly, a empty hulk is not the same as a fully armed and manned carrier. The results are classified, but anyone with a lick of sense would admit if it floats, it can be sunk.

I just hope and pray we don't get too arrogant and put our carriers in harms way from over confidence...