# Falkland Islands War, Would aerial torpedoes have worked better than bombs?



## pinsog (Apr 9, 2012)

We have all read or been told that aerial torpedoes have been obsolete since the end of WW2. But, would the Argetine airforce have been better off if they had been carrying air dropped torpedoes instead of bombs? They would have given maybe a 2 mile standoff capability to the Argentine airforce against a fleet riding at anchor. All of us have also seen what a modern torpedo does to a warship in tests. I think and A4 carrying a self guiding torpedo on the centerline, that was slowed by a parachute when dropped, rerleased say 2 miles from the fleet would have been a devistating weapon. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## PJay (Apr 9, 2012)

The Argentines would have got more hits if they had been using unguided rockets.


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2012)

They got a lot of hits with their bombs anyway. It's fortunate for the British that several did not explode for one reason or another,or passed right through the ships. There were some very brave,determined and professional men flying those aircraft.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pinsog (Apr 10, 2012)

stona said:


> They got a lot of hits with their bombs anyway. It's fortunate for the British that several did not explode for one reason or another,or passed right through the ships. There were some very brave,determined and professional men flying those aircraft.
> Cheers
> Steve



I agree 100%. They sank 6 as it was, and I read if all their bombs had exploded they would have sank another 6 and won the war. 

Still, that being said, would torpedoes dropped from 1 or 2 miles out been more effective? Did the British have any kind of protection from a homing torpedo? I would think that if the Argentine Air Force would have had homing torpedoes that they could have dropped from 1 or 2 miles, they could have decimated the British fleet resting at anchor.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 10, 2012)

I'd use our RB15...


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 10, 2012)

I think the bombs were dropped so low they couldn't arm before they struck. The Argentines didn't have the intelligence feedback to tell them what was going wrong,


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I think the bombs were dropped so low they couldn't arm before they struck.



That is certainly thought to be the case in several instances.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Florence (Apr 10, 2012)

Torpedo vs bomb vs Exocet missle? Did the Argies really run out of Exocets? Remember reading somewhere that they only had a dozen or so in their inventory - fact or fiction?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 10, 2012)

Argentines had 5 and used 5. 2 misses 1 accounted for HMS Sheffield and 2 hit the Atlantic Conveyor.

They could have stockpiled them by the dozen or even allow the ones they had ordered to come. Top of head they ordered 14 for the 14 Super Etendards.

No torp or exocet would have done much in San Carlos. Ironic to land British forces on a British island and choose the most Spanish of names.


----------



## PJay (Apr 10, 2012)

Argentines also got a hit with a ground launched Exocet. (Naval missile on extemporized launcher near Port Stanley).

In my earlier post I should have said 'effective hits'.
The Argentine pilots were certainly brave.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 10, 2012)

No torp or exocet would have done much in San Carlos. Ironic to land British forces on a British island and choose the most Spanish of names.[/QUOTE]

If the fleet was wiped out, the troops couldn't hold out for long. 

I suggested in my original post the torpedo having a standoff range of 1 or 2 miles. Turns out an American MARK 48 torpedo has a range of 20 to 30 miles. Now THAT is a standoff weapon.


----------



## stona (Apr 11, 2012)

pinsog said:


> I suggested in my original post the torpedo having a standoff range of 1 or 2 miles. Turns out an American MARK 48 torpedo has a range of 20 to 30 miles. Now THAT is a standoff weapon.



I know absolutely nothing about these weapons but the geography of the bay looks challenging.
Steve


----------



## The Basket (Apr 11, 2012)

San Carlos was deliberately chosen as difficult for air attack....for obvious reasons.

An exocet....for all its fear factor is easy to decoy.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 12, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I think the bombs were dropped so low they couldn't arm before they struck. The Argentines didn't have the intelligence feedback to tell them what was going wrong,


 
They had, they worked on the problem but itswasnt fully solved. here post 536 and 537.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm-Yb0sLUEw_


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 12, 2012)

You guys are making suppositions of 1980s technology with 2010 technology capabilities.

If... and I say IF... Argentina had torps with such long range capabilities, then the UK would commensurately have likely had equivalent or better defensive capabilities for the times.

In short, this question should be a separate thread of the "What if" kind.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 12, 2012)

The guided torpedo is not a so new technology, again I am getting in muddy waters here because the naval systems are not my bag, but here I found the characteristics of the Mk44 and Mk46, the only operational air dropped torpedos of Air Force and Navy Air Service in 1982 (today italian and german torpedos are used instead)

MK 44 Torpedo

MK-46 Torpedo

Note the range of every item, 3,5 miles for the Mk44 and 11 miles the Mk46, both are 1960s-1970s tech and not bad at all, the explosive warhead in quite small compared with submarine launched weapons but the british ships deployed in 1982 were not the Bismack aniway.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> You guys are making suppositions of 1980s technology with 2010 technology capabilities.
> 
> If... and I say IF... Argentina had torps with such long range capabilities, then the UK would commensurately have likely had equivalent or better defensive capabilities for the times.
> 
> In short, this question should be a separate thread of the "What if" kind.



Its worth remembering that the Belgrano was sunk using a WW2 Mk 8 torpedo.


----------



## PJay (Apr 13, 2012)

Possibly because HMS Conqueror hadn't successfully launched a 'Spearfish' when the Falklands happened.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2012)

Nope she had the Tigerfish as well as the Mk 8, but these in the early version were unreliable and a second version was on board but was untried, so they went with the safe option, the Mk 8


----------



## pinsog (Apr 13, 2012)

Glider said:


> Nope she had the Tigerfish as well as the Mk 8, but these in the early version were unreliable and a second version was on board but was untried, so they went with the safe option, the Mk 8



I read that they used the older torpedoes on the Belgrano because they thought the larger warhead on the old torpedo would do better against a well compartmented and rather heavily armored, at least for 1982.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 13, 2012)

The Mk8 had almost 300 kg of explosive warhead, 6 times more than the 12,5 inches guided torpedos quoted above, it blew apart the good old Belgrano with no mercy.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2012)

Torpedo's were are and always will be lethal against shipping. The warhead of the Spearfish was a little smaller than the mk 8, 750 lbs of torpex vs 800 lbs but not enough to make any difference, it was the reliability that made the difference.


----------



## PJay (Apr 14, 2012)

Glider said:


> Nope she had the Tigerfish as well as the Mk 8, but these in the early version were unreliable and a second version was on board but was untried, so they went with the safe option, the Mk 8



Quite right sir. Memory is a fickle thing.


----------

