> OK, I'll agree that aviation fuel and other flammable stuff stored in their hangars certainly contributed to the loss of the 3 CAs at Savo, but saying that they were doomed by the presence of avgas onboard is a bit like saying HOOD was doomed by the cordite she carried in her aft magazine. >
Well, YEAH, I would say that. Warships do carry flammable and explosive stuff, and baby, you'd just better be damned careful in the manner in which you do it! Handsome Hood was not designed well, and one of a very few German shells found its way to that cordite with remarkable ease. Same thing with the Yankee treaty cruisers. You put aircraft hangars amidships in most of your heavy cruisers, and stock it with all sorts of flammable and explosive stuff--worst of all high octane petrol--and it's déjà vu HMS Hood all over again. None of these ships which either blew up or burned up was adequately designed and protected against the hellish stuff they carried. You gonna schlep volatile gasoline or touchy powder, then you need to protect 'em real good from mischance.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but there was never a similar recurrence - at Tassafaronga, Treaty cruisers suffered again but this time had their bows blown off! >
We oughtn't forget that during the battle of Jutland in WWI, three British battlecruisers blew up in virtually the same way that Hood did one war later. But you'll insist I digress. Again, whereas there was no massive repetition of cruiser loss due to gasoline fires of the like at Savo Island, I suspect that not long afterward Northampton (CA 26) succumbed to much the same fate--i.e., avgas ignition was contributory. One cannot of course attribute the loss of treaty cruisers Chicago (CA 29) or Indianapolis (CA 35) to such inherent design flaws or gasoline fires. I cannot at this time contribute any more to the particulars of the gasoline lines feeding the ready tanks in the aircraft hangar. I imagine changes were...HAD TO HAVE BEEN...made in such supply feeders after the disaster at Savo Island.