Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[plawolf]

For hitting warships C802 is good but for high value targets like carriers and LHA/LHD a CM-400AKG would be the missiles used

I would have actually done it the other way around - CM400 takes out the escorting warships, while C802s come in and mop up the now far less well defended high value targets.

The British, or rather, Argentine experience from the Falklands is a good case study here.

The Argentine forces were so fixated with trying to take out a British carrier, they tried to ignore other lesser defending assets, which exposed their attackers to far more risk and defensive fire (because they were always trying to hit the very centre of the RN task group's defensive perimeter so had to get within range of the picket ships and RN air cover), resulting in more losses and zero carriers ultimately hit.

Had they taken a more systematic and conservative approach of methodically stripped away the RN task force's surface and air defences by specifically targeting and killing British warships on picket duty and hunting down Harriers as an end in itself, that could have left the carriers far more vulnerable, and could potentially have allowed them to pick one or both off eventually, or forced the British to withdrawn if they feel their carriers are being put at too much risk.

With war, as with boxing, sure, the big haymaker knock-out punches are spectacular, devastating and highly satisfying, but they are hard to pull off right off the bat, especially if against the run of play.

Often, it is the steady attrition of repeated solid body blows that eventually adds up and counts to either wears down the opponent, or weaken them sufficiently to allow you to land your big knock-out blow to finish them off.

 

[asif iqbal]

I don't think the PAF would limit itself by type of missile being used

If they come across a target it would most likely be attacked by what ever means even bombs if it came to it

But CM-400AKG is faster, longer range, bigger and has a larger punch than the much slower sub sonic C802

A carrier in a hot zone will be moving fast with escorts and CM400 would be almost very difficult to knock down considering it's extremely fast speed

And lastly Argentina did not manage to hit any RN carriers as the carriers were operating much further east outside the range of the Exocet equipped fighters

The ships they hit were the ones in outer defence and the ones gaurding entrance to Carlos

Reason they didn't sink any more was because the bombs failed to go off

 

[plawolf]

I don't think the PAF would limit itself by type of missile being used

If they come across a target it would most likely be attacked by what ever means even bombs if it came to it

But CM-400AKG is faster, longer range, bigger and has a larger punch than the much slower sub sonic C802

A carrier in a hot zone will be moving fast with escorts and CM400 would be almost very difficult to knock down considering it's extremely fast speed

And lastly Argentina did not manage to hit any RN carriers as the carriers were operating much further east outside the range of the Exocet equipped fighters

The ships they hit were the ones in outer defence and the ones gaurding entrance to Carlos

Reason they didn't sink any more was because the bombs failed to go off

The CM400 also flies an almost ballistic trajectory, making detection almost a certainty.

C802s are slower, but also flies much lower, making detection a great deal harder and could potentially give the defenders less advanced warning.

In addition, C802s are likely to be considerably cheaper, meaning you can fire a great many more of them at opponents for the same cost.

Both missiles have their respective strengths and weaknesses compared to each other.

However, my point wasn't about the strengths and weaknesses of the missiles, but rather target priority.

Even the most heavily defended carrier strike group only have relatively small number of escorts.

The fleet is arrayed to give the carrier the best protection possible, meaning overlapping defensive support from most if not all ships in the fleet.

OTOH, the escorts are array such to give best advanced warning coverage while still being able to lend the carrier defensive support.

That means that the escorts individually are not nearly as well defended as the carrier.

Thus striking at the escorts would have a significantly higher success rate compared to targeting the carrier.

In addition, each escort killed or taken out of the fight weakens the defences of the entire remaining enemy fleet, thus making the carrier itself more vulnerable to following on attacks.

I would suggest that rather have 10 fighters launch 20 missiles at the carrier and have a 20% success rate, you have a wave of 3 fighters fire 6 missiles at an escort with a 90% success rate, kill it, then have the rest of your strike force follow on and unload their missiles on the now less well defended carrier and have a 60% chance of a successful hit/kill.

As for the Falklands, well, as I remember, on at least one occasion an exocit actually locked onto a carrier (can't remember which one), but then lost the lock after successful British jamming only to re-acquire the Arctic Conveyer and kill her along with the British expeditionary force's rotor wing complement of Chinooks.

The British Carriers were very much in harms way for much of their time on station.

Most of the iron bomb attacks which failed occurred after the British landed ground forces and brought their fleet in close to the islands to land the amphibious fleet covering fire.

The Iron bombs mostly failed because they were regular bombs, not the special low level retarded bombs needed, so they often didn't have time to arm before impact.

Why the Argentine forces didn't use rocket pods instead is beyond me.

 

[thunderchief]

Had they taken a more systematic and conservative approach of methodically stripped away the RN task force's surface and air defences by specifically targeting and killing British warships on picket duty and hunting down Harriers as an end in itself, that could have left the carriers far more vulnerable, and could potentially have allowed them to pick one or both off eventually, or forced the British to withdrawn if they feel their carriers are being put at too much risk.

As far as I know, Argentinians actually did hit and sunk mostly pickets . Of course, most of the "kills" were with dumb bombs, but strategy was actually to conserve Exocets for high value targets and use cheaper munition on escorts . Japanese kamikaze attacks (technologically anti-ship missile with human guiding unit ) in WW2 also attempted to hit mostly carriers and battleships, but in real world lot of them actually hit destroyers and other smaller craft on picket duty .

In real war scenario you would not have lot of time to pick and choose your targets, especially if you only have limited coverage of attack area and limited time to make decission . Instead, you would actually go for a first available target .

 

[Jeff Head]

As far as I know, Argentinians actually did hit and sunk mostly pickets . Of course, most of the "kills" were with dumb bombs, but ...

Well, although it is OT, here are the losses the Royal Navy suffered in the Falklands war. They were significant including two of their premier anti-air destroyers:

HMS SHEFFIELD (Type 42 AAW DDG) - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. on Tuesday May 4th. Sank while in tow on Monday 10th May.

HMS ARDENT (Type 21 multi-role FFG) - badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs -hits, UXB's (5+) and near misses - dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island on May 21st. Sank the following evening.

HMS ANTELOPE (Type 21 multi-role FFG) -damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs (6/7) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 on May 23rd. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.

HMS COVENTRY (Type 42 AAW DDG) - On May 25th, she sunk north of Pebble Island by three bombs dropped by A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 .

SS ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (ROR Container ship) - mortally damaged north east of Falklands on May 25th by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Sank while in tow.

RFA SIR GALAHAD (LST Landing Ship) - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 on June 8th. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.

HMS Fearless (LCU landing craft) - Also on June 8th, this LCU was sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.

Two of the vessels specifically tasked with air defense were sunk...one by an Exocvet, and one by bombs.

Two mulit-role frigates escorting landing vessels were sunk by bombs

One large ROR Container ship carrying extra helicopters was sunk by an Exocet missile (one Lynx, six Wessex and four Chinook helicopters were lost).

One of the landing ship was lost with a lot of personnel. This vessel, which had been moored 200 yards off shore, had been specifically warned about the high potential of air attack and the landing officer on shore pleaded with the naval and army officers aboard to off load the troops. Because they wanted to move on further down the coast they refused, and a few hours later, before they did move further, they were attacked.

The LCU is not generally counted as a "ship" lost because of its size. Luckily, it was not carrying troops at the time, but the NCO commanding it, three Royal Marines and two navy enlisted personnel aboard were killed.

Now, in addition to these losses, 13 other vessels received damage, from slight, to several moderately damaged, to two or three severely damaged.

The HMS Glamorgan was one of these, and was the last vessel damaged, on June 12 just off Stanley, when she was struck by an Exocet missile and moderately damaged.

So, three Exocet missile hit home, sinking two vessels and damaging a third. The rest were hit by iron bombs.

Two of the picket anti-air destroyers were sunk...and this was a huge wake-up call to the British.

But, though the Argentines will rumor that they got through to the main group with the carriers and damaged one of them...there is absolutely no evidence that this happened...either from the RN, or from the numerous press people on those ships...either then, or later when they got home, or since.

 

[Blackstone]

It's to remember the heavy losses Britain suffered in the Falkland War means they wouldn't easily give up the islands, and Argentina is better off negotiating rather than saber rattling.

 

[Jeff Head]

Okay Folks, we had a lot of discussion about the Falkland War on another thread and so I went back to the old deleted threads and copied some posts to merge into this thread.

We have tried this before. We have had to close and delete the thread every time.

We will try again now...and I will closely moderate it.

NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES ALLOWED ABOUT THE CLAIMS BY INDICVIDUALS OF THE ARGEMNTINES HITTING THE INVIBCIBLE OR OTHE CARRIER. IT SIMPLY DOID NOT HAPPEN AN WILL NOT BE ALLOWED HERE.

Also, no chest thumping or emotional statements from either side. Discuss the facts.

It is an important occurrence because it was the first modern war where, at sea, anti-shipping missiles were used in a large conflict and had to target and get through vessels built (at the time) for anti-air defense with anti-air missile defenses.

It was also a conflict involving a large naval task force having to travel thousands of miles into the waters of the opposition to take an island back by amphibious and air assault.

Some very hard lessons were learned.

What was learned from the conflict has reverberated down through the decades.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATOR MESSAGE.

Carry on.

 

[Miragedriver]

......The Iron bombs mostly failed because they were regular bombs, not the special low level retarded bombs needed, so they often didn't have time to arm before impact.

Why the Argentine forces didn't use rocket pods instead is beyond me.

I have often wondered the same thing. The EMB-339, stationed on the island, could carry rocket pods and so could the Pucara’s. They would have been much more effective. The only assumption I can make is that there was no intelligence indicating that the bombs were being released from such a low altitude and at near maximum for the A-4s that they did not arm properly and transverse the vessels

The knowledge of the bombs not detonating would have initiated a change in tactics or munitions utilized.


Back to bottling my Grenache

 

[Jeff Head]

I have often wondered the same thing. The EMB-339, stationed on the island, could carry rocket pods and so could the Pucara’s. They would have been much more effective. The only assumption I can make is that there was no intelligence indicating that the bombs were being released from such a low altitude and at near maximum for the A-4s that they did not arm properly and transverse the vessels

The knowledge of the bombs not detonating would have initiated a change in tactics or munitions utilized.


Back to bottling my Grenache
.

And yet the bombs were effective...even if a number of them malfunctioned.

They sunk five ships, and damaged 12 others.

I am pretty sure that rocket pods would not have sunk the vessels the way the bombs ultimately did.

The argentine use of, and capably to have those iron bombs sink and damage so many ships surprised the world.

The Argentine pilots displayed and exhibited great skill in attacking a much more powerful nation with what were meant to be the cutting edge technology air defenses at the time on their ships.

In addition, they sank two vessels with Exocet missiles and damaged a third.

The UK paid heavily for taking the island back...but then, to their own credit, they were willing to do so, and would have lost more if necessary to retake the islands.

All politics and national pride aside on either side...the fact is that both sides military forces fought very strongly. Particularly the Argentine air forces and the Royal Navy.

The conflict on land was not nearly as close a thing...though both sides still fought hard.

 

[Miragedriver]

It's to remember the heavy losses Britain suffered in the Falkland War means they wouldn't easily give up the islands, and Argentina is better off negotiating rather than saber rattling.

In complete agreement.

Argentina needs to clean its own house and place it order. The only way to properly negotiate is to provide an economic and political advantage.

I would truly like to see England and Argentina working together to develop the South Atlantic oil fields. Just think of the economic advantages to both nations.

I can dream.


Back to bottling my Grenache to sell to the Islanders