The Ship Model Forum

FrancisMcN wrote:

By the way, could somebody recommend a well written history of this operation?

Admiral Sandy Woodward's "The Hundred Days" is as good an account of the conflict and generally of modern naval warfare as you can get.

By the way, could somebody recommend a well written history of this operation?

Jack Ray wrote:

FrancisMcN wrote:In response to the original question, BLAKE would not have been a particularly useful asset to the Task Force as her primary role as an ASW Helo carrier was adequately covered already and if more deck space was needed it could be found on RFAs instead I suspect. Her AA defence was little better than the Leander frigates (presumably Seacat was more capable than the twin 3" which it replaced) so she would not have contributed to the AAW in the way that the T42s and T22s could. Most important is the large manpower requirement which would prevent bringing other ships out from reserve - I think BULWARK was being seriously considered at one stage as it was the loss of a carrier that would have brought the whole Task Force to a halt.

While I have no doubt that the Argentinian pilots were individually brave in making their attacks, I (and no doubt plenty of the other 20-30% of this Forum that hail from UK) would be a bit happier if some mention was made of the collective courage and resolve of the RN, RFA and merchant ship's companies of the units who were in "Bomb Alley" for the first few days after the San Carlos landings. They continued to man the remaining distinctly dated 4.5", 20 & 40mm guns and Seacat when the supposedly modern missile systems had largely failed to defend them from repeated waves of attack. Since no-one else is I will.

Francis Macnaughton

I don't believe anyone on this forum is purposely leaving out the RN on praise. This whole episode was a great morale booster for the UK and ensured the survival of the RN as a world class navy. The saga of the Task Force would make a very good film in the tradition of "The Cruel Sea" and "In Which We Serve".

By the way, could somebody recommend a well written history of this operation?

Regards,

Jack

FrancisMcN wrote:In response to the original question, BLAKE would not have been a particularly useful asset to the Task Force as her primary role as an ASW Helo carrier was adequately covered already and if more deck space was needed it could be found on RFAs instead I suspect. Her AA defence was little better than the Leander frigates (presumably Seacat was more capable than the twin 3" which it replaced) so she would not have contributed to the AAW in the way that the T42s and T22s could. Most important is the large manpower requirement which would prevent bringing other ships out from reserve - I think BULWARK was being seriously considered at one stage as it was the loss of a carrier that would have brought the whole Task Force to a halt.

While I have no doubt that the Argentinian pilots were individually brave in making their attacks, I (and no doubt plenty of the other 20-30% of this Forum that hail from UK) would be a bit happier if some mention was made of the collective courage and resolve of the RN, RFA and merchant ship's companies of the units who were in "Bomb Alley" for the first few days after the San Carlos landings. They continued to man the remaining distinctly dated 4.5", 20 & 40mm guns and Seacat when the supposedly modern missile systems had largely failed to defend them from repeated waves of attack. Since no-one else is I will.

Francis Macnaughton

Walt wrote:

The Argentine Tactics were dictated by the very short time they had over target.. If the range to the Islands was 200 miles less the tactics would have been much different. As for skills,, how many "Green" piliots perform as planned on their first combat mission? Especially against a formidable foe armed with the latest in air defence equipment. Many experts were surprised to the contrary of the published RN reports, by how well the FAA actually did..
I thought the most interesting naval history result was the first and only ( as far as we know) SSN kill...

Deckard wrote:Argentina actually possessed 6 Exocets - five air-launched missiles for each of their CANA Super Etendards and one ground launched - and all were fired in combat.

Mission 1 - was aborted.
Mission 2 (4th May) - was flown by Captain Bedacarratz (3-A-202)
and Lt. Mayora (3-A-203). The former's struck HMS Sheffield while the latter's failed to find its target.
Mission 3 - failed to make contact.
Mission 4 (25th May) - flown by Capt. Curilovic (3-A-203) and Lt. Barraza (3-A-204). Both missiles successfully launched, one striking the MV Atlantic Conveyor and the other failing to find its target.
Mission 5 (30th May) - flown by Capt. Francisco (3-A-202) who launched the final AM39 at what he thought was HMS Invincible but was most likely Exeter. The missile's fate remains unknown, but it was thought to be decoyed by Corvus chaff rockets fired by the Task Force.

Argentina also fired one land-launched MM38 Exocet. It was fired from the outskirts of Pt. Stanley on 12th June and hit HMS Glamorgan, destroying the ship's Wessex helio and killing 13 sailors.

The Etendard missions were all in-flight refuelled, some twice, and the Skyhawks recieved refueling from a KC-130 on the way out and most needed a top up from the same again to make it back.

The Mirages were only used twice in combat, both on the same day 1st of May. The morning engagement was uneventful but the afternoon sortie resulted in the loss of two Mirages to AIM-9L Sidewinders fired from Harriers. The Mirages were pulled from the front line after this, not because of their poor performance, but because on the same day an RAF Vulcan had bombed the airfield at Stanley and the Argentinians reasoned that mainland targets were thus vulnerable, so for the rest of the conflict they were reserved for mainland CAP.

The brunt or the air war was undertaken by the very determined A4 pilots of the FAA. The majority of their a/c did not have a remotely modern navigation system, none had radar, radar warning, ECM or guided weapons of any kind. They had just enough fuel for a single pass on the target and they were up against guns, SAMs and the very latest Sidewinders. Against the latter they were completely defencless and suffered 7 (some say eight) losses.

In all, FAA Skyhawks flew 219 combat sorties, sinking four warships and damaging many others. They lost 19 a/c and 17 pilots. CANA (navy) losses were three A4's and two pilots, with fatal damage claimed on two warships.

Of the aerial losses, British pilots reported that though the Argentinians were never lacking in courage, their skills and tactics were appalling, failing even in the basics of flying 'wing', and relying mainly on high speed for evasion which turned out to be hopeless against the AIM-9L.