The Falklands

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

FLYBOYJ said:
This might of been mentioned, but didn't the Argentines have a problem with "dud" 500 pound bombs? I remember reading that a number of A-4s hit their targets just to have their bombs bounce off the deck of the ship..
Click to expand...

A few didn't go off but I read that the bombs were not fused correctly. the bombs were functional but were not armed..

dropped too low
 
Yes that's my recollection too.

Unless my memory is playing tricks the 'non-exploding' factor was mentioned on the BBC and the Argentinian forces corrected the problem.

Safe to say the Navy weren't too impressed.
 

The problem was that the pilots didnt attack the ships they want the most, but the ones more likely to hit, if you emerge in mid a heavy flak at low altitude and saw a frigate ahead is very likely you try to hit this and get the hell out of there and no searching for a more valuable ( but no visible at list no in that moment ) ship.

Aniway, the HMS Tristam, HMS Galahand, HMS Fearless, RFA Sir Lancelot and Atlantic Conveyor were hit, the Lancelot survived because the bomb dint explode.

The problem with bombs was no a easy solving one, there was a complicated balance to gave the bomb the time fuse correct enough to explode inside the ship and not passing it trough and also let the Aircraft go away enough to not being blasted with the explosion.

Hole is HMS Antelope, the bomb explode later while was try to defuse.




Bomb inside the HMS Argonaut



 
CharlesBronson said:
Aniway, the HMS Tristam, HMS Galahand, HMS Fearless, RFA Sir Lancelot and Atlantic Conveyor were hit, the Lancelot survived because the bomb dint explode.
Click to expand...

Just a small point but the Atlantic Conveyor was of course hit by an Exocet not a bomb and the Fearless wasn't hit at all but one of her landing craft was sunk by air attack some miles from the Fearless.

By the way they are excellent photographs, well done
 
The Atlantic Conveyer wasn't even the target but its destruction was the single most effective attack by the Argentines and the biggest setback for the British.

The Argentines should have tried to push the British back at San Carlos.
 
The Argentine Air Force flew into the British bait almost everytime. which were the destroyers and frigates. The only ship on your list which was the right one to hit was the Atlantic Conveyor.

The Argentines should have been aiming for the tankers, supply ships and LSLs in that order. The British warships should have been considered unimportant in the battle. The targets were all wrong, it was the same mistake made by the Japanese in World War II.

I don't know what the Argentine pilots were told before operations but it should have been to hit the supply ships in sight, ignore the warships.

"HMS Tristam, HMS Galahand, HMS Fearless, RFA Sir Lancelot and Atlantic Conveyor were hit"

I do have to point out here that it's Sir Tristram and Sir Galahad, none of which need the HMS because they're both RFA ships like Sir Lancelot. And they're not supply ships; they're LSL or LSTs.

The Argentines had chances on the Canberra, Stromness, Europic Ferry and Norland on the first days of the landings. I believe the Canberra was attacked that morning unsuccessfully by a Pucara.
 
The Argentines should have been aiming for the tankers, supply ships and LSLs in that order. The British warships should have been considered unimportant in the battle.
Click to expand...

The problem with the frigates was the they posed a serious treath to the aircraft operation of supply and recce aircraft, so in that way there was also a strong need to destroy those.

The targets were all wrong, it was the same mistake made by the Japanese in World War II.
Click to expand...

I suppose this must be the fashionable and elegant way to forget the loss of 4 first class frigates.

The Canberra was always sought, I had heard some intercom tapes of argentine pilots and that big ship is always in the mouth of everybody, but in the end it remain a esquive target.




I am not saying anything new but to me the war was lost in the soil of the islands, in there the Brits make the difference.
 
"The problem with the frigates was the they posed a serious treath to the aircraft operation of supply and recce aircraft, so in that way there was also a strong need to destroy those."

The only warships that truly posed a threat to the supply aircraft was the aircraft carriers. But you're right, the ships were there for defence and that does pose a threat to aircraft - but they're not going to swing the war. The strong need was to destroy the supply.

"I suppose this must be the fashionable and elegant way to forget the loss of 4 first class frigates."

No, Britain doesn't need to forget the loss of its vessels. We won the war, or have you forgotten that. There's still a Union Jack flying above the Falkland Islands. That might be a bitter pill for you to swallow.

I'm just looking at the tactics of the Argentinians and they were wrong. Maybe Argentina have studied them for the next time your government tries for the islands.

By the way, if you're going to claim to be the knowledge on the war at least get the ship types right. HMS Sheffield and Coventry were Type 42 Destroyers; HMS Ardent and Antelope were Type 21 (Amazon Class) Frigates. So, to be correct, the Royal Navy lost two frigates and two destroyers.

"The Canberra was always sought, I had heard some intercom tapes of argentine pilots and that big ship is always in the mouth of everybody, but in the end it remain a esquive target."

The Canberra was a target for a propaganda value. How embarassing for the Argentine soldiers to be taken off the islands by the ship that Argentine propaganda had claimed to be sunk.
 
I think its worth rememberng that the role of the RN was to defend the merchant/assult and other various support vessels from attack. In this they achieved their aim. No ship in the defended are was hit.
The aircraft that made it past the outer defences, were under such pressure that they missed all their targets.
How they missed the Canberra which was such a massive, obvious, stationary and unarmed (apart from some small arms) target was almost a wonder.
 
Great pics as always, CB
Click to expand...

More to come..

No, Britain doesn't need to forget the loss of its vessels. We won the war, or have you forgotten that. There's still a Union Jack flying above the Falkland Islands. That might be a bitter pill for you to swallow.
Click to expand...

The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain, I never claimed that the Uk did loss the war.



Thank you for sharing you overwhelming naval esxpertise.

The Canberra was a target for a propaganda value. How embarassing for the Argentine soldiers to be taken off the islands by the ship that Argentine propaganda had claimed to be sunk.
Click to expand...

I find more embarrasing the last 0-3 agaist Brasil in Copa America.

Actually a more valuable target for the so called "Argentine propaganda" was the carrier HMS invincible, because his name (undefeatable) it was attacked by a mixed flight of Navy and Air Force aircrafts the 31th may but the damage never could be clearly confirmed and it gave place to a lot of speculations.




How they missed the Canberra which was such a massive, obvious, stationary and unarmed (apart from some small arms) target was almost a wonder.
Click to expand...

it was a extremely lucky ship I guess.
 

The Invincible wasn't attacked on the 31st and certainly wasn't damaged at all at any time.

I left the FAA before the conflict but had a number of friends on board the Invincible, plus some of the other vessels and can promise this was the case.
 
No problem but the Invincible wasn't hit of that I am sure.
Re the posting its interesting and some bits I can help with others I cannot.

I do not know about the Avenger putting up a white smokescreen but I do know that at full power the Type 21 does pump out a fair amount of dark smoke as does the 4.5in gun. I have flown in a Hunter using an attack profile at sea level against a number of RN vessels and it was one thing that always suprised me. It happens when they increase speed at maximum power. That may explain the smoke colour question.
Re the Black line painted down the side. At the end of the conflict the Invincible was replaced on station by another ship of the same class. The Black line (on both sides of the ship) was a quick and easy method of ensuring that the crews could identify one from another at long distance. Harrier crews would often take off and land in radio silence and it cut out some of the confusion.
How were they misidentified, no idea.

Hope this is of interest
 
Not getting into this argument but:

"The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain"

Great line!!

Sure you were never a British NCO ??
 
The Argentine Navy A-4Q Skyhawks had Mk-82 Snakeyes which were well suited for the type of attack in San Carlos. Their pilots were also trained for anti-shipping attacks. The successful attack on HMS Ardent was a clear demonstration of the lethality of this combination.

The Fuerza Aérea Argentina pilots had to have a "crash course" (pardon the pun) on anti-shipping attacks. Ironically, it was British design 1,000lb bombs (Mk-17) which were not going off due to being dropped at lower than intended altitude at too high a speed.

There had been suggestions that the attack on HMS Coventry by Fuerza Aérea Argentina A-4B was successful because because parachute-retard bombs were used. However, official accounts indicate that standard Mk-17 were used. The difference may have been that the attacks (in more open waters) were conducted at high enough altitude for the fuse to function. Nevertheless, HMS Broadsword had a close call in the same action when a Mk-17 skipped off the water, passed upwards through the flight deck, knocked off the nose of the Lynx helo and landed in the sea on the other side without going off.
 
Not getting into this argument but:

"The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain"

Great line!!

Sure you were never a British NCO ??
Click to expand...

No, and If there is a god, he will save me of that asignment.

I liked that line too
Click to expand...

The good lines seems to fluently came out of me in this last times


Yea, If you read some earlier pages you will find some post of mine about the snakeye issue.

Aerospatiale Gazelle in action:




Detail of the armament.

 
Charlie, several months ago i had the chance to meet someone from your country, and it was his opinion that the Argentina vs. England thing for the Falklands will re-erupt sooner or later; it was also his view that next time England will not be in such position to assemble a task force like the one they sent during the first war in the 80s.

What you think?
 
Nice lingerie there Udet

Well, in my opinion another war is very unlikely, however the military option could not be completely trown away given the lack of undestanding of both parts involved in the Malvinas conflict.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
If the Pilot Breaks......
Replies
5
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
F-16C Block 30 "The Bats"
Replies
4
Views
830
Martin06
N
Is the Super hornet much better than F-16?
Replies
5
Views
112
tomo pauk
Jets and aircraft after the Cold War
35 36 37
Replies
727
Views
26K
Viking1066
the RV-10 Pfeil ***Updated***
Replies
1
Views
1K
_PabloSniper_
Menu
Log in
Register