Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[Obi Wan Russell]

Charts !!!
View attachment 35685View attachment 35686 View attachment 35687 View attachment 35688 View attachment 35689
Number for losses

Argentinians ships Intrepida, Indomita and the 2 others what is it a link for see ?

Very good charts, but also a little misleading; They fails to show the disparity in numbers of combat aircraft, one area the Argentines vastly outmatched the British. Also the inclusion of Atlantic Conveyor amongst the British Carriers when as already stated ad nauseum she was not an operational carrier, just an aircraft transport with no maintenance facilities and no capacity to refuel or rearm aircraft.

At the same time there were three ships which could and should be included on this chart, MVs Astronomer, Contender Bezant and Atlantic Causeway, which were all fitted out to operate four Sea Kings each as auxiliary helicopter carriers in the ASW role, receiving hangars, fuel supplies and magazine stores for torpedoes and depth charges. It's this sort of error that keeps encouraging our friend to mistakenly make claims about the Atlantic Conveyor whilst ignoring three ships that meet the criteria for being 'operational warships taken up from trade'. Conveyor was a cargo ship, with valuable cargo, but never a warship.

 

[Miragedriver]

Although only a few of the British ships were sunk but that is a lot of damage and scores done by the Argentina forces. But yet still didn't stop the British from retaking those islands. Now with that in mind how much did it cost to the British tax payers in this war as compare to the Argentinians? My guess is it cost the UK a lot more money definitely, but it's the lives that the Argentinians lost in both air men, soldiers, and sailors.

Interestingly the majority of Argentine (human life) losses were on the cruiser Belgrano. The tactic used by the FAA in attacking at low altitude worked well to evade British AA defenses, however this did not permit the munitions from fully arming themselves. This resulted in many bombs (some estimate between 50% and 70%) from not detonating upon impact and just traversing the vessel (this is evident in many photographs). If the FAA had realized this situation one wonders if the additional loss of vessels would have resulted in a change in British public opinion, or would it have caused a more serious escalation, such as bombing mainland bases. Something to consider.
The economic aspect of the war (replacement cost of lost or damaged equipment) was won by Argentina, however at a more costly loss in national prestige and a ruined economy.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Interestingly the majority of Argentine (human life) losses were on the cruiser Belgrano. The tactic used by the FAA in attacking at low altitude worked well to evade British AA defenses, however this did not permit the munitions from fully arming themselves. This resulted in many bombs (some estimate between 50% and 70%) from not detonating upon impact and just traversing the vessel (this is evident in many photographs). If the FAA had realized this situation one wonders if the additional loss of vessels would have resulted in a change in British public opinion, or would it have caused a more serious escalation, such as bombing mainland bases. Something to consider.
The economic aspect of the war (replacement cost of lost or damaged equipment) was won by Argentina, however at a more costly loss in national prestige and a ruined economy.

The FAA DID realize this, after watching British press reports about the bombed ships in San Carlos Water revealed the high level of failed detonations. Unfortunately this was a few weeks later and by this time the bulk of the British land forces were already ashore and engaged in battle, so although the error in fuse setting was corrected, it was too late to make a difference to the outcome of the war.

The main tactical error made by the pilots (understandable as they hadn't been trained in anti shipping attacks) was that when they 'unmasked' (came over the surrounding hills and began their bombing runs) they went for the grey painted warships, not the merchant transports carrying the troops and equipment. The warships were there to defend the transports, even at their own expense. They were 'bodyguards' and as such they did their job. Had the FAA hit Canberra before she off loaded her troops the land campaign could have been stalled, if not ended before it began.

 

[Miragedriver]

The FAA DID realize this, after watching British press reports about the bombed ships in San Carlos Water revealed the high level of failed detonations. Unfortunately this was a few weeks later and by this time the bulk of the British land forces were already ashore and engaged in battle, so although the error in fuse setting was corrected, it was too late to make a difference to the outcome of the war.

The main tactical error made by the pilots (understandable as they hadn't been trained in anti shipping attacks) was that when they 'unmasked' (came over the surrounding hills and began their bombing runs) they went for the grey painted warships, not the merchant transports carrying the troops and equipment. The warships were there to defend the transports, even at their own expense. They were 'bodyguards' and as such they did their job. Had the FAA hit Canberra before she off loaded her troops the land campaign could have been stalled, if not ended before it began.View attachment 35706

Thank you for the claification Obi Wan. In my post I should have said, "if the fuse timing was set correctly from the beginning". Regardless it was a war that should never have been fought to begin with.

 

[FORBIN]

The FAA DID realize this, after watching British press reports about the bombed ships in San Carlos Water revealed the high level of failed detonations. Unfortunately this was a few weeks later and by this time the bulk of the British land forces were already ashore and engaged in battle, so although the error in fuse setting was corrected, it was too late to make a difference to the outcome of the war.

The main tactical error made by the pilots (understandable as they hadn't been trained in anti shipping attacks) was that when they 'unmasked' (came over the surrounding hills and began their bombing runs) they went for the grey painted warships, not the merchant transports carrying the troops and equipment. The warships were there to defend the transports, even at their own expense. They were 'bodyguards' and as such they did their job. Had the FAA hit Canberra before she off loaded her troops the land campaign could have been stalled, if not ended before it began.View attachment 35706

Several points to consider for air missions mainly argentinians :

- At the time,the Argentine Navy and British carrier task forces did not possess early-warning aircraft. RN ships performing radar picket duties, the Sheffiled do when attacked.
Land airbases have ground radars not ideal vs low altitude aircrafts but sufficient, more a problem for ships coz they have less powerfuls radars.

- During the Falklands campaign, Argentina pilots utilized low level bombing to the extent that they were known to regularly pass below the mast of surface vessels in order to avoid long range antiaircraft missiles. However, due to bombing at super low altitudes, the bombs did not have time to arm and unexploded ordinance occurred frequently.
The Argentina A4, Dagger and IA58 are the only units perform ultra-low level bombing

- The effectiveness of the air-launched Exocet anti-ship missile drew worldwide attention after the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor container ship and the British destroyer Sheffield in the Falklands War. It is an example showing that measures against anti-ship missiles were not performed

And also Argentinians detect quite easily UK CVBG with Pt Stanley radar they detected Sea Harriers and by cross-checking localized UK ships.

Question fighters-bombers night operations occured for UK or i don' t think for Argentina ?

 

[FORBIN]

 

[b787]

Pucara the anti-helicopter aircraft, showing its dinner, a british helo downed in the Falklands

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[b787]

Argentina`s air force video
it says that the air base Condor was attacked by a Squadron of Harriers attacked the base in the Falklands/Malvinas on May 1st, but by May 4th two Harriers were downed Minute 16:00 to minute 19:00, The British Pilot was killed in action

 

[Air Force Brat]

Her Steam Catapult was discovered in 1981 to be in need of a major overhaul. The ship had just come out of a big refit to prepare her for the embarkation of Super Etendards which Argentina was buying to replace her Skyhawks. Although the trials were successful, it was discovered the catapult, which had been installed by the Dutch Navy back in 1958, was showing signs of wear and couldn't operate at full power reliably.

The catapult was a 145ft BS4A, the longest fitted to a former RN 'light fleet' (most other such ships had the 103ft BS4 cat, whilst Brazil's Minas Gerais received a McTaggart Scott C1, which was just a commercial designation for the BS4 as it wasn't sold through the UK Government!), essentially the same as fitted to Victorious (two at the bow) 1958-67, Hermes (one to port) 1964-70 and Ark Royal (two at the bow) 1955-67, starboard one removed and port one lengthened to 151ft during her Phantomisation refit. On those RN ships the cat had no problem launching Buccaneers and Sea Vixens, much larger and heavier than the Super Etendard, but it had been in service a very long time (24 years by 1982) and needed some major components replacing. These were ordered from the original manufacturer, and at the start of the war in April were almost ready for delivery, but had not left the UK yet. And never did because of the embargo imposed. View attachment 35667 View attachment 35669

Post War the Argentine Navy had plans to overhaul the carrier, including replacing her worn out Boilers and Steam Turbines with commercially available Diesel engines (presumably a small steam plant would have been retained/replaced to provide steam for the catapult, but funds were never available and the ship was reduced to reserve in the late 80s, finally being scrapped in India in 1999.View attachment 35663 View attachment 35664 View attachment 35665 View attachment 35666

Oh My, I hate these pictures!

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Oh My, I hate these pictures!

Which ones and why? I little more detail mate!