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

[pinsog]

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]

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

 

[stona]

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]

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]

I'd use our RB15...

 

[tyrodtom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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.