PDA

View Full Version : The air war.



1000ydstare
01-25-2006, 11:05 PM
Found this on another website...

I will leave you to make up your minds...

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html

by a

Dr. James S. Corum (BA, Gonzaga University; MA, Brown University; MLitt, Oxford University; PhD, Queen’s University) is professor of comparative military studies at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. A previous contributor to Aerospace Power Journal, he is the author of The Roots of Blitzkrieg: Hans von Seeckt and German Military Reform (University Press of Kansas, 1992), The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, 1918–1940 (University Press of Kansas, 1997), and (with Richard Muller) The Luftwaffe’s Way of War: German Air Force Doctrine, 1911–1945 (Nautical and Aviation Publishing Co., 1998). Dr. Corum, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, is a graduate of Army Command and General Staff College and Air War College.

BDL
01-26-2006, 07:48 AM
Interesting read that.

Still hard to believe that the Argentinians thought they would be able to defend the islands with the air force that they had available at the time.

As he says though, they were brave men to press home their attacks in the way they did.

Firefly
01-26-2006, 11:32 AM
A good well written piece there. It outlines the extreme difficulties that the Argentine Air Forces had in finding and hitting the RN ships. It also shows some key thinking by the FAA Commanders in their strikes, like using the civillian decoys.

One thing it does miss out (as far as I can tell) is that the FAA had a 707 Recce aircraft in the S Atlantic as well, this was the reason why RAF Nimrods were fitted for the sidewinder.

1000ydstare
01-26-2006, 11:37 AM
Firefly wrote:

One thing it does miss out (as far as I can tell) is that the FAA had a 707 Recce aircraft in the S Atlantic as well, this was the reason why RAF Nimrods were fitted for the sidewinder.

Didn't know that. I often wondered why they had been fitted with it, but just figured it was for defence.

Can't quite imagine a Nimrod, dog fighting a 707!!!!

Firefly
01-26-2006, 11:46 AM
I used to serve on a Nimrod Sqn, its surprising how much we dont know about Nimrod Ops, including other missions. But as I cant find anything on the Net I suppose its still classified, I'm still looking though.


The aircraft was also fitted to carry Sidewinder air-to-air missiles during the Falklands War (to allow for opportunity attacks on opposing surveillance aircraft more than for self-defence).

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodmr2.html

Firefly
01-26-2006, 11:55 AM
Damn I found it where I started!


15 May. First daylight sortie of Operation Corporate flown by 201 Squadron. The crew's recollection of flying close to the enemy coastline without the cloak of darkness was of extreme vulnerability.

They were looking for the Argentine Navy I believe and got quite close in. I spoke to a couple of guys that flew them and apparently it was hairy stuff!

Eagle
01-26-2006, 06:17 PM
About the Nimrods, you are right, the Nimrods were equiped with the AIM-9 after an encounter between a B-707 and a Nimrod. The B-707 was extensive used as an explorer and a patrol aircraft of long range.
The B-707s was intercepted by Harriers on several times, and at least twice the Boeings were attacked with SAMs, incredibly avoiding them.

Panzerknacker
01-05-2007, 07:48 PM
The Argentine Navy A-4Qs vs the HMS Ardent, 21th May 1982:

In the morning Douglas A-4Q from the 2th escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque ( 2 squadron of naval attack.) flown by LT Benito Rótolo (3-a-306, first), Carlos Lecour (3-A-305, second) and Roberto Sylvester (3-A-301, thirst) launch his bombs over the HMS Ardent. One of the bomb launched by Carlos Lecour impact in the ship fuel depot starting a big fire. The british response was hard but the aircraft return to the continent without damage.


The second was comprised by the pilots J.C Arca, the capt corvette A. Philippi ad the leutenant Marquez.
Jose Cesar Arca remembers:

"Teorically we should keep a distance of 19 seconds between the aircraft to avoid any posible fragment from the leading aircraft proyectiles , however in the last Kilometers to target the Surface to Air missiles menace and the tracers from the warships cannons desorganizated the formation and I ended up just 1 seconds behind Philippi, I saw the 4 bombs separating from his plane the metal fins opened correctly ( Snakeyes 227 kg) one hit the stern of the ship and caused a hell of explosion and smoke, I penetrate this and dropped my bombs , latter I hear the voice of Marquez- Very good sir, one in the stern ¡¡
We evade the ship turning sharply to the left , I think that no more than 20 seconds passed when I hear the voice of Marquez again- Sea Harries 3 o Clock"

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/militar/FinalStoke.jpg

Few seconds later Marquez aircraft took a full burst of 30 mm Aden cannon and explode giving no chance to the pilot. Phillippi try to evade the british Fighter but his aircraft is also hit and he had to eject , minutes later landed unhurt in the coast and retuned to the argentines lines walking.

J.C Arca (left) A Philippi. (right), picture taken in 1986

http://i16.tinypic.com/30jpkyb.jpg


Arca was probably fliying the hardest Mcdonell Doglas in existence and is attacked twice taking hits in both wings and the fuselage. With a serious damage a without hidraulics Arca tough is done.
However the Sea Harries disingage ( probably due of lack of fuel) an the argentine try to make a landing in the Pt Argentino airstrip.

The response from ground Control:

"I can see the sky trough the holes in your aircraft, none of the undercarriage wheels in the the right position, you better go to the bay and eject"

The pilot did so but the A-4 did not go down and remain circling around putting in danger some houses and pilot alike.
"Is like the A-4 was mad because I had to leave it"

Finally the Oerlikon batteries open fire and finished the career of that stuborn aircraft. Arca was rescued from the sea by an Army helicopter belonging to the 601th batallion.


http://www.machtres.com/Arca.jpg

Mortally wounded the HMS Ardent Ardent stopped in the shallow waters of Grantham Sound, the fires in her stern out of control. The Rothersay-class Yarmouth then came alongside to take off survivors. Ardent continued to burn throughout the night, accompanied by the occasional explosion, until she sank the following morning, with only her foremast remaining above the water. The last man to leave was her Commander, Cdr. Alan West, who was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, and served as First Sea Lord from 2002-2006.


http://www.ausairpower.net/HMS-Ardent-MoD-S.jpg

VonWeyer
01-06-2007, 04:46 AM
An interesting story Panzerknacker.

Panzerknacker
01-06-2007, 07:41 PM
Here I found a pic of the pilots of the 2th Attack Squadron, Marquez (KIA 21-5-1982) is signaled with the arrow.


http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7985/3raescuadrilla6xcgo2.jpg

Panzerknacker
01-13-2007, 05:37 PM
Hmm...thinking is this topic I should open one for the Air-to-sea operation, will see if I have time.

Panzerknacker
01-15-2007, 06:58 PM
One of the best (if not the best) picture of that war, this image taken by a british seamen shows the two Grupo 5s A-4C of Lt. Rinke ( left) and Capt. Carballo in the final approach to attack the HMS Broasword. the date in "5th may 1982.

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/1733/cov2yg7.th.jpg (http://img462.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cov2yg7.jpg)

Panzerknacker
01-23-2007, 08:18 PM
Low pass of a pair of Skyhawks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FoqEnuC1gs

Chevan
01-24-2007, 04:10 AM
Wow thanks for the detailed story mate.
I heared the Argentinian Navi aviation were effective enough during conflict.
BTW do you know what type of anty-ship French rocket (Air-Surface class) were used by the Argentines. I readed the story, after this conflict Britain tryed to stop the sale this kind of French rocket to the Argentine? But the Frenches saled the big parcel of rocket becouse the firm's image was more importaint that NATO solidarity.

Cheers.

Cuts
01-24-2007, 04:52 AM
J.C Arca (left) A Philippi. (right), picture taken in 1986

http://i16.tinypic.com/30jpkyb.jpg

Damn !
And I thought Basil Fawlty was in Torbay in '82 !

Panzerknacker
01-24-2007, 07:31 AM
Wow thanks for the detailed story mate.
I heared the Argentinian Navi aviation were effective enough during conflict.
BTW do you know what type of anty-ship French rocket (Air-Surface class) were used by the Argentines. I readed the story, after this conflict Britain tryed to stop the sale this kind of French rocket to the Argentine? But the Frenches saled the big parcel of rocket becouse the firm's image was more importaint that NATO solidarity.



The Argentine Armada (Navy) bought 14 Exocets and 14 Super Etendar in 1981. For the time of the war only 5 missiles were actually delivered and 5 Aircraft. Is not true that the image of the company prevailed...but the politics, even more, due the little training achieved with this new type of aircraft the Frechs tell the british that the Navy would be incapable to assemble the mechanics and software to actually fire an Exocet.

Off course the sunking of the HMS Sheffield was a rude awakening for the RN.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8569/img/misil6.gif


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8569/img/etendard.jpg

Chevan
01-24-2007, 07:56 AM
Sure my poor memory .. Exocets. Thanks mate.

... even more, due the little training achieved with this new type of aircraft the Frechs tell the british that the Navy would be incapable to assemble the mechanics and software to actually fire an Exocet.

Ha
So who did dummy who? Argentitnias dummed Franch , or the French decieved Britains?
And why after the conflict French sended rest 9 Excosets to the Argentine.

Panzerknacker
01-24-2007, 08:11 AM
So who did dummy who? Argentitnias dummed Franch , or the French decieved Britains?


He,he, that is a good question, I think we surprized both.

The missiles were paid in advance so ... :rolleyes:

Panzerknacker
01-24-2007, 08:52 AM
And some videos to complete my earlier post:

Eyewitness of the attack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i5c-V3xD2Q

Chevan
01-24-2007, 11:16 AM
Waw what's detailed information thanks.
Now tell me one thing - is it true that Agrentinians are very proud of action national Army in this conflict. What was the resault of this short war ?
I heared Britain get that they wish from Agrentine. i.e. they win.
And is it true after the sinking the Shiffild Augusto Bedacarratz become the national hero and his Etendards was demonstrated for public with a big star (symbol of hited enemies)?

Cheers.

Panzerknacker
01-24-2007, 05:47 PM
good pictures



Thanks.


Waw what's detailed information thanks.
Now tell me one thing - is it true that Agrentinians are very proud of action national Army in this conflict.

I in particular did not think that the Army performed well in that conflict , but that was more a product of a chain of bad commanders and thus bad command desitions. The Air Force and the Naval aircraft however fought hard and trow everything they got against the british, the Air Force suffered heavy losses but continue to carry out supply, attacks and recce mission until the last day of the war. The naval attack squadron even small caused a desproportionate damage to the RN with 50% of the ship sunked only by this force.



I heared Britain get that they wish from Agrentine. i.e. they win.


They win ,the other I dont know I let this for a british member.



And is it true after the sinking the Shiffild Augusto Bedacarratz become the national hero and his Etendards was demonstrated for public with a big star (symbol of hited enemies)?



Well, more or less every aviator wich participated in combat missions is taken in high regard, the "killmarks" in the Super Etendar are silouethes of the ships with a superimposed red dot. Lucky me I had the opportunity of touch and see those aircraft.

http://i11.tinypic.com/2exbnyr.jpg

Panzerknacker
01-24-2007, 06:01 PM
What was the resault of this short war?



The result of this was a economic disaster for Argentina, that also contribute to the downfall of the Military goverment but mostly was influential in the economic things because our country was aislated by several european countries and cannot export most of this traditional products like beef, wheat, corn, etc.

Panzerknacker
01-25-2007, 09:49 AM
Attack against the HMS Broadsword & HMS Coventry. 25-5-1982:


May 25, 1982, - 15:20 hours:
Argentine Air Force Escuadron III Grupo 5 Skyhawks piloted by Captain P. Carballo and Lieutenant C. Rinke attacked HMS Broadsword. The Argentine pilots dropped their Mark 17, 1000-pound bombs on Broadsword, but the bomb(s) failed to explode when they struck the ships stern. Nevertheless the bombs holed the Broadsword, critically damaged a Lynx helicopter and forced Broadsword to come to a stop.

Guncamera of A-4C attacking HMS Broadsword.
http://i16.tinypic.com/2zpujb5.jpg

May 25, 1982, - 15:24 hours
During the Argentine Air Force Escuadron III Grupo 5 attack on HMS Broadsword, north of Borbon Island, the accompanying type 42 class destroyer, HMS Coventry crossed in front of Broadsword's firing line.

As Escuadron III Grupo 5 pilots Captain M. Velazco and Captain Alférez J. Barrionuevo engaged the HMS Broadsword´s Sea Wolf missile system, the Broadsword fired a missile at the Skyhawk deuce - and by a contested account missing the Skyhawks but hitting HMS Coventry with the missile.

Then Captain Velazco's flight attacked by dropped their 1000-pound bombs on Coventry getting a hit that breached the hull near the water line. This caused uncontrollable fires and in 20 minutes Coventry sank.

Computer generated video about the attack ( from National Geographic Channel):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIQHNPCRWM

Chevan
01-26-2007, 12:53 AM
[Computer generated video about the attack ( from National Geographic Channel):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIQHNPCRWM
Oh poor Coventry.
This amateur video clip contains the chronicle or real attack of British ships. Its very interesting. Its look like japane attack to the allies fleet in 1944-45. Such dramatic and cruel action.
Well there was always for me something magical and awful in the air attack to the war ship. This is moment of true come when you alone vs alone with enemy ship . You crazy camicadze and a crew of ship which in this moment crazy like you.
This is so dramaticly.

Panzerknacker
01-26-2007, 08:15 AM
Well , I dont think that those were kamikazes, they want to live like everybody of us.

The attackers, from left to right, Barrionuevo, Carlos Rinke and Ctp Velazco: ( the mustache was a hit in those days :rolleyes: )

http://i10.tinypic.com/2di0m05.jpg

Chevan
01-27-2007, 02:00 PM
Well , I dont think that those were kamikazes, they want to live like everybody of us.

Sure they are not kamikazes, i mean its just my associations.
The tension of its air attack is simular like japanes attack in WW2.
And what Military Argentin goverment do you mean which fall down soon after the Folkland war?

Panzerknacker
01-27-2007, 02:19 PM
Actually they did not fall soon, the war ended in june 82 and the Mil. Gov. withdraw in December 83. The war undermined his credibility and governability however.



The tension of its air attack is simular like japanes attack in WW2


Actually yes, I heard the recording of the radar controller in the HMS Coventry waiting the hit, "...6 seconds, 5 seconds, 4 seconds..." amazing to see that documentry, unfortunately is not available online just a piece with no original sound.

Chevan
01-27-2007, 03:34 PM
Actually they did not fall soon, the war ended in june 82 and the Mil. Gov. withdraw in December 83. The war undermined his credibility and goverability however.

So do you think your gov was wrong to begin the war with one of the sea powerful word country.



Actually yes, I heard the recording of the radar controller in the HMS Coventry waiting the hit, "...6 seconds, 5 seconds, 4 seconds..." amazing to see that documentry, unfortunately in not available online just a poiece with no original sound.

yea i can imagin this. Amazing.
I heared the simular record when soviet detachment of AAA-rocket system C-75 hited the US fighter-bomber "Fantom F-4" in the Vetnam. It had a such dramatic tension.
They had a bit of time - after the rocket shoot the group us -bomber appeared and begin the carpet firebombing to the place where was shoot. The every second was very importaint. The AA-crew must immediatly after the volley retreat for position to the reserve position.


Cheers.

Panzerknacker
01-27-2007, 03:48 PM
So do you think your gov was wrong to begin the war with one of the sea powerful word country.


The territorial claim was not wrong so the war was in some measure justified. The way to do it and preparation for the conflict however was poor and some command dessitions were bad, in that conditions..yes I think it was a mistake.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/a-4cfig.jpg

Panzerknacker
01-27-2007, 04:48 PM
A very interesting video I ve found in Youtube,

"Argentine Skyhawks in the Falklands fly close to BBC journalist Brian Hanrahan"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FoqEnuC1gs


A recomendation turn the volume up and just listen that "poom-poom" AAA sound :shock:

Chevan
01-27-2007, 06:56 PM
A very interesting video I ve found in Youtube,

"Argentine Skyhawks in the Falklands fly close to BBC journalist Brian Hanrahan"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FoqEnuC1gs


A recomendation turn the volume up and just listen that "poom-poom" AAA sound :shock:

oh its very impressing.Thanks.

Low altitude high speed manoeuvrible fly.

Egorka
01-29-2007, 09:35 AM
A little something from me on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0bRoJdV0AM&NR

I also saw a night footage taken by one of british ship and you can see how the Argentinian missile hits the deck. I can not remember which chip it was. Have you seen it?

Panzerknacker
01-29-2007, 05:53 PM
I also saw a night footage taken by one of british ship and you can see how the Argentinian missile hits the deck. I can not remember which chip it was. Have you seen it

That was the HMS Antelope blowing up, but the damage was caused by a bomb not a missile.

I will post more of that ship.

Egorka
01-30-2007, 03:00 PM
I guess I was not clear. I mean that the video was taken by a camera on the ship it self. And I think it was a missile as it hit the side below the deck line.

Panzerknacker
01-30-2007, 05:57 PM
I never saw that video if you remenber the ship maybe i can help.

Egorka
02-01-2007, 08:01 AM
No way. It was on Discovery channel couple of years ago.

Panzerknacker
02-02-2007, 06:03 PM
Interesting image from a guncamera of Mirage V of 6th Gruppe, the aircraft is strafing the HMS Brilliant, note the splashes caused by the 30mm guns.

http://www.airpower.at/news02/0410_falklands/brilliant-attack.jpg

Panzerknacker
02-16-2007, 07:54 PM
Attack against the HMS Sheffield. 4th may 1982.

Antecedents: The sinking of the ARA Belgrano.

The late afternoon of the 2th may the argentine Military junta get a shocking news , one of the largest ship in inventory is going to the bottom attacked by a modern Nucler submarine (The HMS Conqueror who coverted itself in the only SSN who fied in anger) Many question whether the ship was ever a serious threat to the British fleet and to this day the attack remains steeped in controversy, more than twenty years after the guns of war fell silent. One thing was for sure...the dreamers who still believe in some kind of negotiation with the Britsh force now really undestand that there was a war.
In the meanwhile the Argentine Navy Air force was working in some retribution.

The aircraft:

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1077/fpaacanaetendard2bb3.jpg


In September 1980, fifty pilots and technician personnel of the 2ª Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque (2nd Air Naval Fighter and Strike Squadron) of the CANA (Comando de Aviación Naval Argentina, Argentine Naval Aviation Command) arrived at Rochefort Naval Base, in France. Among the group of pilots were the unit's commander, Frigate Captain Jorge Colombo, and sub-commander, Corvette Captain Augusto Bedacarratz.

The rest of the pilots were: Corvette Captains Roberto Agotegaray, Roberto Curilovic and Alejandro Francisco, and Warship Lieutenants Luis Collavino, Julio Barrraza, Juan Rodriguez Mariani, Armando Mayora and Carlos Machetanz. All the pilots had hundreds of hours flying A-4Q Skyhawks (the main type of combat plane used by the CANA by that time).

After three months of French language teaching, they were sent to Landivisiau Air Naval Base, where they flew training sorties in Morane Saulnier planes during 30 days and then began to know their future combat tool - the AMD-BA (Avions Marcel Dassault - Breguet Aviation) Super Etendard. Later, the Argentine pilots started to learn the basic flight lessons in the Super Etendard (a maximum of 50 hours of flight by each pilot) and basic notions about the weapon systems, especially the anti-ship missile AM.39 Exocet.
But on April 2nd 1982, when the 2nd Squadron was waiting the arrival of the French technical team to put the Exocets in an operational status. One of the first acts of the French government was to declare a weapons embargo against Argentina until the conflict ended.

Of course, it deprived the 2nd Squadron of the possibility of being assisted by French technicians but the Argentine personnel of the unit, far from giving up, faced on their own the challenge to set up the Exocets. Two weeks later, the software interface between airplane and missile had been solved, and the tests on anti-ship strikes began. Fortunately for the Argentineans, the country had bought from Great Britain two Type 42 destroyers (the same class used by the Royal Navy), the ARA Hércules and ARA Santísima Trinidad. In consequence, the unit's pilots tested and improved the attack tactics against these kinds of ships. The unit had only reveive 5 Exocet before Miterrand say no more, so want to make good use of it.

The Mission, entering the Neptunes.

At 5:07 hrs on May 4th 1982, a SP-2H Neptune, serial number 0708/2-P-112, call sign 'Mercurio', belonging to the Exploration Squadron of the CANA, took off from Río Grande Air Naval Base. The plane's crew was composed of three members, and the pilot was Corvette Captain Ernesto Proni Leston.

At 7:50 the Neptune had his first radar contact with a British warship, and Proni reported the news to the CANA. He was ordered to keep contact but with discretion. 'Mercurio' had two other contacts at 8:14 and 8:43. A few minutes later an order from the High Command of CANA arrived to evade any contact until 10:00 hrs. Proni guessed that an Exocet sortie was on the way, and set the Neptune's course to the area of the wreckage of the ARA General Belgrano, pretending to be part of a rescue mission searching for survivors.


http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4622/neptunecy7.jpg

The news about Captain Proni's findings arrived to Río Grande quickly, and it was the turn for Corvette Captain Augusto César Bedacarratz and Frigate Lieutenat Armando Mayora to fly the anti-ship sorties, and all the other pilots helped to prepare the flight paths, points of meeting with the KC-130H tanker, etc. Both Super Etendards took off from Río Grande at 9:45 hrs. Bedacarratz, the leader, (call sign 'Aries') flew the plane 0752/3-A-202, and Mayora, the wingman, (call sign 'Boina') did so with his plane 0753/3-A-203. At 10:00 hrs they met the KC-130H tanker provided by the FAA (Fuerza Aérea Argentina - Argentine Air Force) piloted by Vicecommodore Pessana and received all the necessary fuel to complete the mission.

The mission map

(Britains Small Wars (http://www.britains-smallwars.com))
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2097/neptunepathwx7.th.jpg (http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=neptunepathwx7.jpg)

At 10:35, Corvette Captain Proni did his last climb at 1,170 meters (3,500 feet) and detected a big contact and two medium-size in the coordinates 52º 33' 55'' South, 57º 40' 55'' West. A few minutes later he radioed both Super Etendards and gave the information to Bedacarratz. After that, Proni set his course to Río Grande and landed at 12:04 hrs. His long sortie had reached the end.
But the mission of the SUEs (nickname given by the Argentine pilots to the Super Etendards) had just begun. Flying at very low altitude, around 10:50 hrs they climbed at 160 meters (500 feet) to verify the coordinates given by Proni, but they found... nothing! Both pilots turned back to searching and Bedacarratz decided to continue. 40 kms (25 miles) later they climbed again and, after a few seconds of scanning, the targets appeared on their radar screens. Both pilots loaded the coordinates in their weapons systems, turned back to low level, and after the last minute check, launched their AM.39 Exocets. The exact time was 11:04 hrs.

Fire ¡¡
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9706/94864586ty0.jpg


Bedacarratz and Mayora landed at 12:04 hrs, exactly an hour after having launched the missiles. It is unnecessary to say that they were received by their happy comrades as heroes.
There still debate if the Exocet explode or not when it hit the Sheffield, in my opinion the 165 kilograms warhead carried by the French missile should done more damage if exploded. the effect were as vicius however. The damage was serius enough to made his crew abandon ship and finally scuttled on the 10 May 1982.

Panzerknacker
03-12-2007, 07:23 PM
Harrier and Sea Harrier.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/3016/harrier2vv2.jpg

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/9923/harriervh0.jpg


Plates from: Battle for the Falklands, The Air Forces. Osprey publishing.

Chevan
03-13-2007, 01:54 AM
So mate if to be the short
What was realation of combat loses of Britain and Argentinian forces ( all of kinds)? Which side had the better score/loses relation?
And how many Britains losed the naval ships oat all form the Argentinian air-attacks?

Panzerknacker
03-13-2007, 06:03 PM
This link may help you, the argentine Mirages claimed an aditional Sea Harrier,and a Wasp helicopter shot down by Pucaras to this list , the Harrier remain uncomfirmed because the guncam went down when the aircraft was shot down latter. The argentines destroyed 6 ships and several others damaged.



http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm


http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/argentine-aircraftlosses.html

Panzerknacker
03-16-2007, 09:29 AM
Pucara profile:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7321/dibujocb6.jpg

32Bravo
03-18-2007, 08:48 AM
This link may help you, the argentine Mirages claimed an aditional Sea Harrier,and a Wasp helicopter shot down by Pucaras to this list , the Harrier remain uncomfirmed because the guncam went down when the aircraft was shot down latter. The argentines destroyed 6 ships and several others damaged.



http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm


http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/argentine-aircraftlosses.html


I wasn't aware of any Harriers being lost to enemy fighters. Do you believe this to be true?

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 12:27 PM
It could be, ltn Donadille from VIth Air Brigade (Mirage V ) claimed one Sea Harrier damaged by defa 30 mm gunfire.

32Bravo
03-18-2007, 01:16 PM
It could be, ltn Donadille from VIth Air Brigade (Mirage V ) claimed one Sea Harrier damaged by defa 30 mm gunfire.

I used to know which Harrier was lost where and when, but I haven't studied this for a long, long time. It could be that a Harrier reported as being lost to ground fire might have been hit by a fighter, but then the pilot would have had to have been killed for it not to have been reported. There were Harriers damaged by canon fire, but they weren't downed, and it was usually triple A.

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 01:57 PM
It could, i see a pic of a british pilot looking a hole in his Sea Harrier tail, but those were produced by the smaller Reinhmetall 20 mm AAA, the Defa carried twice explosive charge than that. btw The date was 1th may.



http://www.ausairpower.net/IAI-Dagger-HMS-Bevidere.jpg

Chevan
03-18-2007, 02:01 PM
Well i have to add guys as we have already learn it from the Korean war section is one hand to claiming to hit but the other hand to be REALLY shot down. There a lot of cases in the wars when the damaged aircraft was able to come back to the base.
But anyway thanks Panzerknacker for the links.

32Bravo
03-18-2007, 02:53 PM
It could, i see a pic of a british pilot looking a hole in his Sea Harrier tail, but those were produced by the smaller Reinhmetall 20 mm AAA, the Defa carried twice explosive charge than that. btw The date was 1th may.



http://www.ausairpower.net/IAI-Dagger-HMS-Bevidere.jpg

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/caledonia/214/miragem5_3.jpg

Yeah, he said of it: "..scared me fartless!" :D

Panzerknacker
03-18-2007, 06:44 PM
Well i have to add guys as we have already learn it from the Korean war section is one hand to claiming to hit but the other hand to be REALLY shot down. There a lot of cases in the wars when the damaged aircraft was able to come back to the base.



Well , the killing performances of the 12,7 mm MG in F-86....

http://www.rvow.com/50bmg.jpg


compared with the heavy 30 mm ammo....

http://www.municion.org/30mm/30x110G.jpg


are not the same, just look at this guncam of a sudafrican Mirage F1 destroying Mig 21 with cannon fire, the same as Mirage V.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8485/6octubre1981fo1.jpg


..but yes, I admit that there is still a chance to the Sea Harrier to survive, every depent on bullet placement.

Panzerknacker
03-28-2007, 06:53 PM
Leutenant of the 601 army commando batallion explaining the shoot down of Jeff Glovers Harrier GR-3, date 21th may.

Too bad that few people undestand spanish, the languaje of the soldier seems of one Oxford educated student :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKfKxBgdjWE

Panzerknacker
04-30-2007, 11:41 AM
25 years ago, 1th May, the first air combat over the Malvinas/Falklands:

By the afternoon a group of three IAI Mirage V “Daggers”, armed with three bombs each, attacked a squad of a destroyer and two frigates (the Glamorgan, the Alacrity and the Arrow). At least one ship was reached by a bomb, and the Daggers returned to the continent.

http://www.exequielmartinez.com.ar/malvinas/ataque_a_yarmouth.jpg

One of the most significatives was the encounter between a couple of Mirages IIIEA wich were giving superior cover to the attack aircraft and a CAP of Sea Harriers.

http://www.airpower.at/news02/0410_falklands/mai1a.jpg

The argentine aicraft belong to the VII Brigada Aerea and were manned by Capt. Garcia Cuerva and Lt. Carlos Perona in their second mission of the day. The two jets approached the airspace around Task Force 317, which was sailing to the Falklands to retake them from occupying Argentine forces. Sea Harriers were launched to intercept the Mirage fighters. The Mirages fired first at about five miles distance, but their missiles failed to lock on to their targets.

Turning to the left the Mirage jets soon found the two Harriers on their tails. Barton fell in behind Perona and Thomas took a bead on the jet flown by Cuerva. Firing their Sidewinder, air-to-air, missiles, the Harrier pilots got a hit on Peronas Mirage. Perona ejected from his aircraft and came down in shallow water near West Falkland Island.

Cuervas Mirage was damaged by the missile fired by Thomas, and he attempted to fly his damaged aircraft back to his base , Cuervas expended their last 30 mm ammo over the HMS Hermes carrier wich was in the strait. In the final aproach to the Pt argentino airbase a electrical failure (obviously caused by combat damage) made a shorcut and it unleash a Magic missile, unfortunately this action confused the AAA gunners wich took the MIII as a enemy aircraft and they shoot it down.

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/perfiles/mlv/M-III%20MLV.jpg

Images from:
Exequiel Martínez (http://www.exequielmartinez.com.ar)
www.AviationArt.com.ar (http://www.aviationart.com.ar)

1000ydstare
04-30-2007, 02:01 PM
NO Sea Harriers were lost in Air to Air combat.

There may have been damaged and were engagments but NO losses.

Not too sure on the helis, will have to check.


In the final aproach to the Pt argentino airbase a electrical failure (obviously caused by combat damage) made a shorcut and it unleash a Magic missile, unfortunately this action confused the AAA gunners wich took the MIII as a enemy aircraft and they shoot it down.

Bummer.

It may not have been a mistake on the AAA gunners behalf. Making a short cut that takes you over AD assets is not to be taken lightly. Whilst staying in the "air corridor" to your base will keep you save, the short cut mentioned may well have taken him over an AD sector that was at "Weapons Free".

Polar
04-30-2007, 02:36 PM
28.05 one Scout was shoot down by Puccara

Panzerknacker
04-30-2007, 05:56 PM
Bummer.

It may not have been a mistake on the AAA gunners behalf. Making a short cut that takes you over AD assets is not to be taken lightly. Whilst staying in the "air corridor" to your base will keep you save, the short cut mentioned may well have taken him over an AD sector that was at "Weapons Free".

No it was like I describe before, the gunners were already adverted, but the Magic missile confused the defenders.

Panzerknacker
05-03-2007, 01:58 PM
Attack against the HMS Antelope, 23th may 1982:

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Naufragios/FotosMiguelGaldeano/10%20Guerra/Antelope/03-antelope2x4.jpg

In this date Argentine Air Force Escuadron III Grupo 5 A-4B and Argentine Navy Third Escuadrilla A-4Q Skyhawks attacked the type 21 Amazon class frigate, the HMS Antelope. During the attack A-4Q/B piloted by Captain P. Carballo was inverted by an exploding missile but damaged it manage to return the mainland.

Damage on Carballo s A-4.

http://i10.tinypic.com/5xewlrs.jpg

A Group 5 Skyhawk piloted by 1st leutenat L.Guadagnini was hit by 20mm cannon in the moment he was dropping his bomb. He manage to hit the Antelope with the 500 kilograms weapon but crashed against an radar mast.

Another Skyhawk piloted by ensign H. Gómez dropped a bomb on HMS Antelope but the bomb didn't explode.


http://www.exequielmartinez.com.ar/malvinas/guadagnini.jpg

The Argentine attacks scored multiple bomb hits on Antelope causing serious damage and fires. The still afloat Antelope was forced from combat. During the night, while attempting to disarm an un-exploded bomb, the bomb exploded opening Antelope's hull and cutting the ship in half. HMS Antelope sank in the morning of the day 24th..

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7717/antelope28cv.jpg

Panzerknacker
05-03-2007, 07:02 PM
A picture of Luciano Guadagnini from 5th Air Brigade killed in action 23-5-1982.

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/5654/guadagnipe2.jpg

Perversely the british tabloid "The sun" published a cover with the title "Argie suicide attack pilots" in relation with the death of this pilot.

1000ydstare
05-03-2007, 11:50 PM
The Sun has never been and will never be a "quality" paper. It often uses sensationalism to get sales.

The headline may well have been explained out in the article with, for example a hint that his attack was suicidal rather than the more obvious link to the kamikaze.

Panzerknacker
05-11-2007, 10:44 AM
Pure malice in my opinion...but what I know.


Operation Black Buck:


http://analisisinterpretacion.blogia.com/upload/20060630101144-black-buck.jpg

The Vulcan was designed as one of the Royal Air Forces' Triumverate of strategic bombers known as the V-Force. A huge delta-winged aircraft, it was capable of carrying the Blue Steel stand off nuclear missile, and during its career served in the Strategic Bomber role, before converting to the low-level bomber role and finally to the tanker role in its last few years.

The Vulcan's most well-known operation in the RAF, were the 8,000 mile bombing trips against the Argentine held Falkland Islands in 1982. These were the Black Buck missions. Some Vulcans were equipped with wings pylons to carry the American supplied Shrike anti-radar missile, and plans for the aircraft to carry the Skybolt were abandoned. The last Vulcan was retired from service in March 1984. None of the Vulcan raids actually destroyed Stanley runway, nor did they deny the Argentines using the runway. Craters show in the image below were in fact heaps of earth placed there by the Argentines to make it look as though the runway was damaged. What the Black Raids did did do, was to discourage the Argentine Air Force from keeping fast attack aircraft stationed at Stanley.

Three Vulcans were deployed to Wideawake airfield on Ascension Island, of which two flew Black Buck raids against the Falkland Islands. Eleven Victor tankers, including a standby aircraft were required to refuel the Vulcans before and after their attacks on the Falklands. The attacking Vulcan was refuelled five times on the outward journey and once on the return journey. These raids, although representing only a small part of the effort directed against the Argentines' on the Falklands, also graphically demonstrated RAF Strike Command's ability to strike the Argentine homeland if it had been necessary. These raids also forced the Argentine Air Force to withdraw their Mirage II fighters to stand defense over the mainland instead of engaging the Royal Navy and RAF Sea Harriers over the Falklands.

The Vulcans were captained by Squadron Leader Neil McDougall, Squadron Leader John Reeve and Flight Lieutenant Martin Withers. Black Buck One: 30th April and Black Buck Two: 4th May
Bombing raids on the Port Stanley airfield, The Attacking Vulcan carried 21 1,000lb bombs, and the attacking aircraft were backed up by another Vulcan on standby in case of problems.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/black-buck.gif

Black Buck Three: 31st May and Black Buck Four: 3rd June

Missile strikes against Argentine Skyguard radar on the Falklands using American supplied Shrike Anti-Radar missiles on hastily improvised underwing pylons. During the 3rd June mission, the Vulcan sustained damage to its air refuelling probe and was forced to land at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, where the aircraft was impounded until the 11th June, and the remaining Shrike missile was confiscated, This Vulcan was captained by Squadron Leader Neil McDougall.


Black Buck Five: 12th June
The final Black Buck mission was against Argentine troop positions close to Port Stanley using 1,000lb bombs.


The Shrike Missile

The Raytheon Shrike Anti-radar missile was carried by the Vulcans in Black Buck missions Three and Four, to engage and destroy Argentine Skyguards radar's. These missile require an active radar to target, and if the radar is switched off, lose their lock.


For more detail in this extremely long range bombing attack go to:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb.html (http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb.html)

1000ydstare
05-11-2007, 12:41 PM
Many serving British soldiers are not particularly enamoured by the Sun aka The Forces Favourite etc.

I am surprised that Argentina doesn't regard the Black Buck raid as a war crime, given that they have a record of crying foul against any British operation that was succesful and did them damage.

Cuts
05-11-2007, 05:28 PM
Yes, there's only ever two good things in The Sun...



...and they're always on Page Three.
;)

Panzerknacker
05-11-2007, 08:03 PM
I am surprised that Argentina doesn't regard the Black Buck raid as a war crime, given that they have a record of crying foul against any British operation that was succesful and did them damage

I found more damaging some of your post :D :D :mrgreen:

And I dont think it was too sucessful, too long missions, too many expended fuel, thousands of hours in the air of both Vulcans and Victors, and few things actually destroyed/damaged.

What are the objects/vehicles claimed as destroyed in the 3 sorties?

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/vulcan/full/vulcan_ad2.jpg



...and they're always on Page Three.

That is something I really love about the British newspapers, you cant get that in an USA today/Washintong post, etc . those conservative americans.

1000ydstare
05-12-2007, 01:39 AM
The Black Bucks merely cut the last part of the runway off, that didn't stop any planes taking off anyway.

What it did to the Argies on the ground, however, was point out that we could touch them, and that we were on the way.

The psycologicl side of the war is something that has not really been covered as yet. But it was an important part of the war.

Panzerknacker
05-12-2007, 07:26 PM
That is really few in exchange of those complicated missions.



The mission markings on Black Buck Avro Vulcan B2 XM607 photographed in 1982. These are the original mission markings and vary slightly from those presently seen on 607 which is the gate guardian at RAF Waddington.


Note this, 3 mission agaist argentine territory.

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/bruce_woodruff/607wad.jpg


http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/bruce_woodruff/bmm2.jpg

1000ydstare
05-13-2007, 12:25 AM
Not against Argentine Territory, Panzerkancker.

You really mean "Against the aggressive Argentine occupiers of a British owned Territory".

Bit of a distinction you know.

Whilst these raids were long winded and used up more fuel than hundreds of local missions. The simple fact was, Britain was a long way a way. THus these were the only ways that the British could get such a bomber down in the battle area.

Had we had a third carrier in the wings, it would have been a dam sight better to send her down with a bomber wing of harriers.

Panzerknacker
05-13-2007, 01:01 PM
You really mean "Against the aggressive Argentine occupiers of a British owned Territory".

Agressive ?..I think the humour section is in other place.


Whilst these raids were long winded and used up more fuel than hundreds of local missions. The simple fact was, Britain was a long way a way. THus these were the only ways that the British could get such a bomber down in the battle area.

Had we had a third carrier in the wings, it would have been a dam sight better to send her down with a bomber wing of harriers

The Harrier and sea Harrier attacks were by far more efective agaist this airstrip than any Black Buck.

1000ydstare
05-13-2007, 11:30 PM
Ture but I often wonder if there was not a political agenda behind the Black Buck raids.

ie. Look what we can do with our Vulcan. Not just little sorties over russia and back as part of the V force, we can send it around the world.

BDL
05-14-2007, 12:08 AM
Agressive ?..I think the humour section is in other place.

Invading another country's territory usually counts as aggressive Pk...

Panzerknacker
05-14-2007, 12:03 PM
Invading another country's territory usually counts as aggressive Pk...


Right but I think that prhase will better like this:

"Against the Argentine agressors......"


Agreessive sounds like the soldier beating up Kelpers in every corner.

Cuts
05-14-2007, 01:08 PM
Right but I think that prhase will better like this:

"Against the Argentine agressors......"


Agreessive sounds like the soldier beating up Kelpers in every corner.

No, there weren't many beatings carried out.

But a lot of defecating all over the floors of residents' houses...

1000ydstare
05-14-2007, 01:16 PM
Agressive sounds like Mortars and Willie Pete being used on Moody Brook Barracks with no prior warning....

And MG stop groups to destroy those who would run out of the attacked buildings doors.

Instead, Royal were up earlier than the Argies and managed to hold off 10 times there number for a good deal of time.

I would call them cowardly for their attack, but then I would do the same thing to safeguard my men and catch the enemy on the hop. But I certainly wouldn't mince about trying to say that I wasn't aggresive.

32Bravo
05-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Ture but I often wonder if there was not a political agenda behind the Black Buck raids.

ie. Look what we can do with our Vulcan. Not just little sorties over russia and back as part of the V force, we can send it around the world.

I believe that you have just hit the nail on the head, so to speak. It made a statement. This action demonstrated to the world (when one considers that at the time there was a lot of 'twoing-and-thowing' on the diplomatic front) Britains determination to use any means to recover the islands. The task force was not ready to land its troops, something had to be done. Another bold headline as a result of the attack, was from the Daily Express (I think) i.e. The Empire Strikes Back - taken from a popular film of the time. The politicians in london new they had to hot things up a little before they became locked into a diplomatic stalemate that could drag on for years while Argentina remained in possession of the islands (Possession being nine tenths of the law - or something to that affect), Britain was stating its claim. It would have mattered not a fig, if the bombs had not destroyed so much as a blade of grass - it was the political impact that mattered - it worked!

And as a result, Margaret Thatcher and her government were re-elected in the subsequent general election - thank you, Argentina!

SS Tiger
05-14-2007, 04:56 PM
Vulcan 607 by Rowland White

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915

It's a novel that's put together from witness accounts and facts, it's about the Vulcan bomb run done in the Falklands. It's well written and gives a good background of the build up to the conflict. I really enjoyed it, it's like a history book crossed with a novel, I read it in one sitting, it had me hooked!

Regards, SS Tiger

Lone Ranger
05-19-2007, 07:46 AM
I'd second that, a fascinating book.

2nd of foot
05-19-2007, 10:12 AM
Just finish it, very very good. I passed the one at Duxford the day or so after the first raid.

It was the back stories I also found very interesting. The use of Vulcans to test the US air defence in the 60s and finding that they had very little problems getting through. The Red Flag bit was also very interesting as well.

2nd of foot
05-19-2007, 10:24 AM
The book also puts to bed the frequently stated help that the US gave with reference to sat photos. It never happened, it was asked for but they would not move a NATO asset. The Victors were used to map locations of Argentinean navel units not satellite photos. Cloud cover would have been a real problem that time of year. But he does talk of funny SA working with RAF aircraft latter on.

Lone Ranger
05-19-2007, 12:02 PM
Guncamera of A-4C attacking HMS Broadsword.

By the way, are these the same A-4 gun cameras removed at the start of the conflict because they didn't work that were mentioned on the Invincible thread?

SS Tiger
05-19-2007, 02:09 PM
Glad you guys enjoyed it aswell, it was an awesome feat!

Lone Ranger
05-19-2007, 05:34 PM
The B-707s was intercepted by Harriers on several times, and at least twice the Boeings were attacked with SAMs, incredibly avoiding them.


Interesting, could you point me at a reference?

1000ydstare
05-20-2007, 12:48 AM
Missed that one LR. Good Spot.

No, what happened was, that in the Invincible raid all the gun cameras were removed. Some say this was a bit silly as the sinking or even hitting of Invincible could never be proved.

Really though, it was to allow the pilots to store their packed lunches though.

They were all refitted afterwards, because the Argentines couldn't beleive that hte British managed to finish a half built ship, sail her down to the SA with out anyone realising, and then replacing the REAL Invincible with the then unnammed Illustrious.

Obviously no one knows about this, bar a few crack pot Argies, as the British media is so tightly controlled that not one slip of the massive casualties on board the Invincible has ever been mentioned. Even by the families.

The works at Camel Laird worked 20hour days to build what is now Illustrious and launch her on the correct day, so that no one would notice the doppelganger in the SA. None of them or their familes have ever pointed this out either.

HA HA, welcome to the forum of Argie paranoia and their feelings of inadequacy in the world, and often complete refusal to listen to facts.

Shame you weren't here when AIDES were here. One of them put up a list of about 30 "KIA" Gurkhas, that the brave but half trained Argentine conscripts had "killed". I think most of the names were actually islands in the Pacific.

Cuts
05-20-2007, 12:54 AM
The B-707s was intercepted by Harriers on several times, and at least twice the Boeings were attacked with SAMs, incredibly avoiding them.
Interesting, could you point me at a reference?

You might be waiting a while for an answer from Eagle, I think he did a runner about a year ago.

1000ydstare
05-20-2007, 01:11 AM
Bummer, He brought some good stuff to the site.

Although his extreme opinions on the Islannds ie kicking all the Kelpers off the Isalnds and packing them off to UK didn't sit well.

Firefly
05-20-2007, 06:08 AM
No country would throw people out of the back of an airworthy aircraft sans parachutes would they? Just because they were a bit dodgy on the political front, and better off quiet.

Oh, there is a book about it....

http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Confessions-Argentine-Dirty-Warrior/dp/1565840097

May read it, but it is likely to be simlar to Green Eyed Boys.

A few years ago an Argentine Naval officer (in the loosest possible terms) was sent down for 30 years although he should be going down for the full 640 years he was sentanced too.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0420-06.htm

More on another delightful creature here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Miguel_Cavallo

Whilst one was captured and sentanced in the old country (Spain), Ricardo was deported from Mexico to Spain for crimes in Argentina. Luckily for Ricardo, Argentina repealled a law that gave him and other murderers and torturers from the Dirty War immunity. Thus Spain handed him back for trial.

Does anyone (Ie Panzerknacker being from the country) know why the two laws, the Ley de Punto Final and Ley de Obediencia Debida, that had previously given immunity to individuals alleged to have committed crimes during the "Dirty War" were a. brought in in the first place, b. not cancelled earlier.

Given that the blood of some 20,000 +/- souls are on their hands, surely any nation would want them punished. It seems odd that they would be protected, likewise surely such immunity would encourage vigilante action.

PS, on the abovetopsecret tosh website, Erwin posts under 55heroes (is that somehting to do with Argentina?) and Irish Duck as... well erm, Irish Duck.

Even the lunatic fringe that frequents that drivel filled website, openly mock them.

Mate, if you can demonstrate the relavance of this post toi the topic of Air War or Falklands War I will leave it up.

If you cant I'd prefer you to remove it. Cheers.

As always feel free to PM me on ANY subject.....

1000ydstare
05-20-2007, 07:08 AM
I was thinking about starting a thread to be fair, I believe it to be a valid part of the war, and thus this forum.

Lone Ranger
05-20-2007, 07:30 AM
I'm a guidance and control engineer, I'm very interested in the subject of aircraft avoiding missiles since its a fascinating area of nonlinear control theory. Hence, I'm interested in what systems were used and how they avoided them.

Its a particular problem for an aircraft like a 707 as its limited to a 2 'g' manoeuvre. The classic tactic against any SAM is to pull a tight max 'g' turn at the optimum moment. This works against CLOS guidance because the dynamics of CLOS are such that the maximum manoeuvre commands are made toward the end of the engagement. In Proportional Navigation or pursuit guidance, it works because the guidance law assumes a non-manoevring target, if you manoeuvre late in the end-game the system can't respond fast enough to null the rate of change of the sightline.

However, you can show that if the missile has sufficient speed and manoeuvre advantage, then nothing that the aircraft does matters. A 2 'g' aircraft versus a 30-50 'g' SAM kinda falls into that category.

1000ydstare
05-20-2007, 07:38 AM
I'd love to help LR, but without some sort of flare/chaff or direct intervention from anti-missile missile I can't see how it could survive either.

Firefly
05-20-2007, 08:57 AM
I was thinking about starting a thread to be fair, I believe it to be a valid part of the war, and thus this forum.

While possibly a valid part of the war, as discussed elsewhere, I'm not sure this is relevant to the actual Air War over the islands. An element of thread creep is allowed here, but an actual thread hijack isnt.

I see no relevance at all in someone being thrown out of a C-130 over the S Atlantic in a thread about an air war. Unless of course you have any information pertaining to Argentine suicide Sky Divers that is?

2nd of foot
05-26-2007, 03:47 PM
I read part of the document and as a research paper it has some errors which are basic so make me wonder if the rest is a little ify.


The Malvinas had been a festering problem ever since Britain had illegally seized the islands in the 1830s

Bit harsh and open to debate.


Unlike their British opponents, the Argentinians had no precision-guided bomb capability and required skilled pilots and accurate aircraft to hit targets with their “dumb bombs.

This is a basic error and puts into question the authors knowledge. Britain only had dumb bombs as well, unless you count the ARM which where hastily attached to Vulcan by the SA.


British brigade with full equipment.

If you believe that you will believe in fairies.


The FAA possessed some frontline aircraft equal to any in the world—including Mirage III interceptors. During the previous decade, they had acquired Israeli-made Mirage 5 fighters (called Daggers), which can operate at Mach 2 and are effective in both the air-to-air and strike roles. The naval air arm was in the process of acquiring a squadron of Super Etendard fighters from France.


The Harrier was a more technically advanced aircraft than anything the FAA flew

Bit of a contradiction, either the front line aircraft are equal to anything in the world or not as advanced as the Harrier. Was this done by two people who did not read each other’s work?


One must also assume that the United States provided the British with satellite imagery of Argentine air bases that allowed them to count and identify enemy aircraft on mainland runways.

One must not assume if you are writing a factual document. Although the Argentinean keep saying the US helped and that is why they lost, it is clear to most that they did not provide this service.

At this point I stopped reading.

Lone Ranger
05-27-2007, 03:50 PM
This is a basic error and puts into question the authors knowledge. Britain only had dumb bombs as well, unless you count the ARM which where hastily attached to Vulcan by the SA.

Whilst basically true, not quite.

At the start of the war the UK had no precision capability they could deploy. There was an urgent operational requirement to fit Laser Guided Bombs to the Harrier and at the same time put through an Operational Emergency Clearance. They managed it but only just. A single Harrier dropped a single LGB at the end of the conflict, taking out a 155 mm Field Howitzer.

Also the Cluster Bombs dropped by the British were far more effective than than the Iron Bombs used by the Argentinians.

PS the question of the provision of satellite imagery comes up repeatedly. The UK asked for American assistance but the Americans refused to retask one of their satellites. This was one of the reasons behind the disastrous Zircon project to launch the UK's own surveillance satellite.

1000ydstare
05-28-2007, 08:11 AM
How much help di dthe Argentines receive from the Russians?

I don't believe that what would be one of the very few "proper" wars involving one of her enemies would they allow an intelligence coup like this go by.

I am sure, that the Argentines could have been tapped for information on the British in exchange for some info from the Russians.

ie the Bears that pretty much trailled the fleet down.

Panzerknacker
05-29-2007, 07:00 PM
How much help di dthe Argentines receive from the Russians?



None.

Panzerknacker
05-29-2007, 07:02 PM
Air view of the Stanley airfield 29 april 1982.


http://i11.tinypic.com/669osyh.jpg

Lone Ranger
05-30-2007, 02:49 AM
There was a bunch of SA-7 'Grail' launchers found in Port Stanley post-conflict. However, they could have been bought on the open market.

Ideologically I think help from the Russians would have been nigh on impossible to contemplate.

Gen. Sandworm
05-30-2007, 03:23 AM
Air view of the Stanley airfield 29 april 1982.



Is that an AWACS on the runway???

1000ydstare
05-30-2007, 12:10 PM
Although I am still pretty sure the Russians would have loved to have been able to get first hand details on the British.

Ideologically, direct help would have been nigh on impossible, however, that said indirect help may have been possible if not actually carried out. In the same way many nations helped and hindered all manner of nations intentions and actions during the war!!!

I remember reading that, post war, both the Russians and the Americans ordered immediate reevaluations of the British Armies capabilites.

The proliferation of the Grail would have made it very easy to sell to the Argentines for info, via middlemen of course.

1000ydstare
05-30-2007, 12:18 PM
No, I don't think you could actually land one of those on the Port Stanley airstrip... in those days.

I think it looks more like a civilian business jet sort of aircraft. Could be for bringing VIPs in, or taking the undesirables out.

Gen. Sandworm
05-30-2007, 01:19 PM
No, I don't think you could actually land one of those on the Port Stanley airstrip... in those days.

I think it looks more like a civilian business jet sort of aircraft. Could be for bringing VIPs in, or taking the undesirables out.

I have to disagree......... although im not sure what it is! It does not look like a civilian airliner. Look at it closely. From the top down view it really looks like an AWACS. Which can take off an Aircraft Carrier. Now im not sure of the length of the Port Stanley airstrip but i would guess its longer than your average ACC.

To me I see 2 jet engines and a Semi-circular shape over the mid fuselage.

Gimme a different aircraft!

Now I admit I could be totally off but the rest of the AC surrounding the runway look to be of ww2 vintage or not much more. A few props and a few jets.

Lone Ranger
05-30-2007, 03:15 PM
The jet on the runway is a Learjet. It was used by the Argentine Airforce for beacon calibration and reconnaissance. The beacon at Port Stanley was destroyed by the Royal Marines in preparation for the Argentine invasion.

1000ydstare
05-30-2007, 03:18 PM
We're at cross purposes here I feel.

You are on about small AWACs.

ie the E2-C Hawkeye.
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/PointMugu2004/Highlights

AWACs to a Brit would mean an E3-D as operated by the RAF.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/e3a-awacs-01.jpg
picture shows E3-A.

I think, although I am not sure, that most AWAC platforms are fitted to long endurance AC. In this case the size of the AC would dictate turbo prop engines of the E2.

According to the wiki, Fokker F-28s were used for supplies and ferrying wounded. It certainly looks like the ac in the piccy, with a T type tail and engine pods.

http://membres.lycos.fr/wings2/3vues/fokker28_3v.jpg

Lone Ranger
05-30-2007, 04:01 PM
Older style Learjet:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/learjet_31a/images/Learjet31A_4.jpg-.jpg

Not the position of engines relative to the wings.

Panzerknacker
05-30-2007, 06:06 PM
The Sa-7s were bought in Libia not Russia.

Panzerknacker
05-30-2007, 07:09 PM
Is that an AWACS on the runway???

That was a Fokker F-28 fellowship from the navy air arm gen sandworm.


Really though, it was to allow the pilots to store their packed lunches though.

They were all refitted afterwards, because the Argentines couldn't beleive that hte British managed to finish a half built ship, sail her down to the SA with out anyone realising, and then replacing the REAL Invincible with the then unnammed Illustrious.

Obviously no one knows about this, bar a few crack pot Argies, as the British media is so tightly controlled that not one slip of the massive casualties on board the Invincible has ever been mentioned. Even by the families.

The works at Camel Laird worked 20hour days to build what is now Illustrious and launch her on the correct day, so that no one would notice the doppelganger in the SA. None of them or their familes have ever pointed this out either.

HA HA, welcome to the forum of Argie paranoia and their feelings of inadequacy in the world, and often complete refusal to listen to facts.

Man...you should read your own signature:rolleyes:



If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

Here endth the lesson.



Just for your note, I would ask to the moderators the complete removal of any unrespectful post like the above in the future.


---------------------------------

Lone R, there is some posibilities.

-The guy captioning the picture in www.zonamilitar.com.ar (http://www.zonamilitar.com.ar) mistook the ship and that wasnt the HMS Broadsword.
- Thas was the HMS Broadsword but the guncamera belong to a Mirage V wich also attacked the ship.

-That was another Skyhawk, the more likely since the AAF have 60 A-4s in service in 1982.

Gen. Sandworm
05-30-2007, 07:52 PM
That was a Fokker F-28 fellowship from the navy air arm gen sandworm.

Just for your note, I would ask to the moderators the complete removal of any unrespectful post like the above in the future.


Sorry for going off topic I stand corrected. Was thinking there was a smaller jet propelled version of the AWACS.

Remember to play nice gentlemen!

1000ydstare
05-31-2007, 12:08 AM
Panzernacker, the post was in jest wrt to something that came up with AIDES. And I think yourself and Eagle. In that a picture of Invincible "Burning" was taken by guncameras. It was pointed out, by yourself I believe that the guncameras were not fitted at the time.

Hence the post.

If you read my post underneath the one you have posted and publish the whole story, rather than going on a cut and paste frenzy, you will see that the quote used above was completely idiotic.

It was meant to be.

As I write underneath, Erwin (aka 55heroes) and Irish Duck (as himself) are still peddleing the story on other websites. There posts are just as stupid.

If you can prove that certain Argentine posters on this forum do not have a refusal to listen to basic facts found anywhere on the net or bsic common sense in some cases, when on a thread bring it up.

But I can assure you the posters who do, have done, are generally Cpl Condor, yourself and Eagle. And only Cpl Condor, pretty much all of the time.

As for signature, as it says, if I post like an idiot I am not in the least bit upset by being called one. I can thing of some on the site, who tend to ride the thermals of this site whilst poo pooing others posts then, when they post drivel, get a monk on.

PS. Found in the Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one


No response ???

Ha.

Panzerknacker
05-31-2007, 09:52 AM
"Ha" is just an expression.

I am only the argentine who still cant withstand you , the others had enough and leave, so If you use the words "argentine paranoia" be aware that I can get this as a personal offense.

Lone Ranger
05-31-2007, 03:52 PM
Libya was often used by the Soviet Union as a proxy to deal with nations that it didn't want to deal directly with.

Lone Ranger
05-31-2007, 04:00 PM
It is probably HMS Broadsword, there was only 2 Type 22 in service at the time.

Only other recorded attack on Broadsword was by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. They also attacked HMS Brilliant, the other ship of this class.

I've seen that picture before, it was labelled as from an A-4 Skyhawk of the Argentine navy.

There is of course a third explanation - that gun cameras weren't removed from the Skyhawks.

Panzerknacker
05-31-2007, 05:36 PM
Libya was often used by the Soviet Union as a proxy to deal with nations that it didn't want to deal directly with.


Hmmm...perhaps it was the case but I dont think so.

1000ydstare
06-01-2007, 10:22 AM
I have not found any techincal reason why all the gun cameras would be removed. No other use of these aircraft report the need.

I mean why? They are very useful for int purposes.

Lone Ranger
06-02-2007, 03:41 AM
Why?

A cynic might imagine that it enables exagerrated claims to be made without a shred of proof.

Lone Ranger
06-03-2007, 08:57 AM
Lone, check a little bit before posting, that statement of your is completely wrong.

I beg to differ, British aircraft losses for the entire war:

Tuesday 4th May Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes shot down over Goose Green by radar-controlled, 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.10 pm). Lt Taylor RN killed.
Thursday 6th May Two Sea Harriers of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible lost in bad weather, presumably by collision, south east of Falklands (9.00 am). Lt Curtiss and Lt Cmdr Eyton-Jones RN lost.
Friday 21st May Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF shot down over Port Howard, West Falkland probably by Blowpipe SAM (9.35 am). Flt Lt Glover ejected and injured, was taken prisoner-of-war.
Sunday 23rd May Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes crashed into sea north east of Falklands shortly after take-off and exploded (7.55 pm). Lt Cmdr Batt RN killed.
Thursday 27th May Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF shot down over Goose Green probably by 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.35 pm). Sqdn Ldr Iveson ejected to the west, hid up and later rescued.
Saturday 29th May Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible ready for take-off, slid off the deck as the carrier turned into wind to the east of Falklands (3.50 pm). Lt Cmdr Broadwater RN ejected and was safely picked up.
Sunday 30th May Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF damaged near Stanley by small arms fire from Argentine troops. Ran out of fuel short of "Hermes" and Sqdn Ldr Pook RAF ejected to be picked up to east of the Falklands (12.20 pm).
Tuesday 1st June Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejected and was later rescued from the sea.
Tuesday 8th June Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF landed heavily at Port San Carlos with partial engine failure, and was damaged beyond repair (12.00 pm). Wing Cmdr Squire escaped unhurt.

Note around Stanley a Harrier damaged by small arms fire, another lost to a Roland SAM. Not one downed by the AAA around Stanley. The only aircraft downed by AAA over Stanley was one of your own.

I always check my facts, it would be courtesy to check yours before accusing someone else of being wrong. The worst you could accuse me of is a lack of clarity.

Panzerknacker
06-04-2007, 07:04 PM
You said the the defense of Stanley did not shot any enemy aircraft.:rolleyes:


The only casualty of the Port Stanley air defence was one of their own Mirage jets.

And is clear they actually did.

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/1602/taylorqm7.jpg



I always check my facts, it would be courtesy to check yours before accusing someone else of being wrong. The worst you could accuse me of is a lack of clarity.

I did not accuse you of anything, I just said you was wrong...and you was.

1000ydstare
06-05-2007, 12:06 AM
Sorry Panzerkaker, it is you who is wrong and guilty of not enough research in this instance.


You said the the defense of Stanley did not shot any enemy aircraft.




The only casualty of the Port Stanley air defence was one of their own Mirage jets.

And is clear they actually did.

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/1602/taylorqm7.jpg



I always check my facts, it would be courtesy to check yours before accusing someone else of being wrong. The worst you could accuse me of is a lack of clarity.

I did not accuse you of anything, I just said you was wrong...and you was.

And yet a quick google on the guy who died reveals.


Nick Taylor joined the Royal Navy as a helicopter pilot in the early 1970's and flew Sea Kings until the end of the decade, when he crossed into the fast-jet training stream. In the spring of 1982, he had just completed Sea Harrier conversion and emerged from the pipeline to join 800 Squadron, with whom he deployed down south. On Tuesday the 4th May, 1982, a three-ship attack on the Goose Green airstrip was mounted during which Nick Taylor's aircraft was hit by anti-aircraft fire as he ran in to attack. The aircraft exploded and hit the ground very close to the airstrip.

Nick Taylor's body, still in its ejector seat, was recovered by the residents of Goose Green and buried under Argentine supervision with full military honours very close to where he came to rest. The site is now fenced off and marked with a proper headstone, it is lovingly tended by the residents of Goose Green who hold an annual service on the anniversary of his death. Nick left a widow but her present whereabouts are unknown.
From http://www.palacebarracksmemorialgarden.org/R.A.F.%20Royal%20Navy.htm


4th May 1982
Sea Harrier lost. Lt. N. Taylor, RN killed
During an attack by Sea Harriers of No. 800 Squadron operating from H.M.S. Hermes against the airfield and installations at Goose Green, Lt-Commander Nick Taylor was hit by gunfire, almost certainly from batteries of twin 35mm anti-aircraft guns. His Harrier burst into flames and crashed into the ground killing Taylor instantly. His body was recovered by the Argentines troops at Goose Green and given a full military funeral. Taylor was the only pilot of a Harrier or Sea Harrier killed in action by enemy fire.
from http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm


On May 4th 1982 three Sea Harrier of No 800 squadron carried out another attack at Goose Green. On this occasion aircraft XZ450, flown by Lt Nick Taylor, was shot down by 35mm AAA fire. The pilot was killed.
from http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/service.html

Why the aircraft was at Port Stanley, I don't know. Either the caption is wrong (higly likely, as it could be confused as to which air strip the remains are on), or the aircraft was moved.

But by my calculations the AA defence at Stanley is a little to far for their weapons to be effective at Goose Green.

Found this information though whilst researching the exact location of Lt Cdr Taylors death. It seems that the Sea Harrier he was flying was a special one, pulled out of it's test and research role for combat.


When the shooting war started, the first casualty was Lt.Cdr Nick Taylor in XZ450, brought down by I think a large AAA shell in a leading edge, though some earlier reports reckoned a Roland SAM was responsible. This was obviously uttermost a tragedy in human terms, but also a waste of a special aeroplane; 450 was the first Sea Harrier to fly, in August 1978, and had been with us at Dunsfold for development work ever since.

It had taken thirteen months to instrument this aircraft for the Sea Eagle sea-skimming anti-ship missile, yet the Navy used it on a standard iron bomb raid on Port Stanley. The only good thing to come out of it, as related by John Farley, was that the Argentinians found the missile control panel in the wreckage, and thought "Christ, they’ve got Sea Eagle operational already ! " - thus keeping their ships in port.

Personally I can’t help thinking our subs were more a part of the equation, but it’s a nice idea that Lt. Cdr Taylor’s sacrifice may have borne some fruit.

Air strikes on the Argentinian fleet (even in port) were indeed planned at one stage. A book very worth reading is ‘One Hundred Days’ by Admiral ‘Sandy’ Woodward.
from http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/Harrier_Testing.htm

A couple of Sub attacks were also planned, at one stage.

Cuts
06-05-2007, 05:12 AM
"Ha" is just an expression.

I am only the argentine who still cant withstand you , the others had enough and leave, so If you use the words "argentine paranoia" be aware that I can get this as a personal offense.


"Argentine paranoia" is just an expression.

Obviously apposite, but still an expression.

Lone Ranger
06-05-2007, 03:33 PM
You said the the defense of Stanley did not shot any enemy aircraft.

Actually I did more than that I published a complete list together with all the locations and the weapons involved.


did not accuse you of anything, I just said you was wrong...and you was.

Actually you're the one who is wrong, your source is wrong, Lt Nick Taylor was shot down at Goose Green. And as the information was right above you, you look like a bit of a plonker for quoting just about the only source that was wrong. Given the number of sources of information out there, your research was clearly skimpy or perhaps you may have "darker reasons", who knows? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

PS Thanks 1000ydstare for pointing out the error of his ways.

Rising Sun*
06-05-2007, 07:01 PM
"Argentine paranoia" is just an expression.

Or is it a hereditary medical condition, involving delusional* detachment from past and current reality?

*delusion, (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/DELUSION

There is no shortage of Argentinian delusions, as defined, in this and related threads.

Panzerknacker
06-05-2007, 07:41 PM
Sorry Panzerkaker, it is you who is wrong and guilty of not enough research in this instance.

You seems to be correct, my apologize to Lone Ranger, you was RIGHT and I was Wrong, at list in the Taylor shoot down.

The Source was:

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/7638/dibujoki7.jpg


Is a 1984 book...maybe that explain the wrongness.:neutral:




"Argentine paranoia" is just an expression.

Obviously apposite, but still an expression


Perhaps, but the diference is that "Argentine paranoia" is offensive and "ha" is not.

Rising Sun*
06-05-2007, 08:13 PM
Perhaps, but the diference is tha "Argentine paranoia" is offensive and "ha" is not.

"Ha" in the context you used it originally was gloating.

Many people find gloating offensive.

1000ydstare
06-05-2007, 11:45 PM
You seems to be correct, my apologize to Lone Ranger, you was RIGHT and I was Wrong

Ha!!!

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 12:39 AM
Ha!!!
:mrgreen:

Gen. Sandworm
06-06-2007, 04:02 AM
*DING*DING*DING* Okay children recess is over! :-?

Panzerknacker
06-06-2007, 09:54 AM
I am not offended by your "ha" 1000yds since you were right in the location of the wreck.

But there is a lot others mocking, off topic and disrispectful comments that did offended me.

1000ydstare
06-06-2007, 10:10 AM
WRT to the Falklands 25th Anniversary, there are some good pieces in this months Soldier magazine, the magazine of the British Army. They include some meetings between former adversaries and interviews with British and Argentine veterans.

Days of Glory (Brit perspective) here http://soldiermagazine.co.uk/mag/feature4.htm

Latin Spirit (Argie perspective) here
http://soldiermagazine.co.uk/mag/feature5.htm

One thing I was unaware of was the lacking of bergans (rucksacks) for the Argentine troops, even the Marines who were the most elite unit on the islands. This led them to be quite static and unable to move fast or far, with out support.

I wonder if this is why the troops wore their blankets around their bodies? In a form of, what I know as, Hudson Bay Pack. These don't appear to have anything inside of them though.

http://soldiermagazine.co.uk/images/article_images/features/flands%2058a-31.jpg

Panzerknacker
06-06-2007, 06:04 PM
Nice links but not much related with the air war.

1000ydstare
06-07-2007, 12:14 AM
No, but they were such good links.

Panzerknacker
06-07-2007, 11:42 AM
Possible Submarine

In May 5, 1982 the ARA Tracker S-2E flown by Lt. Enrique Fortini with the support of a SH-3D commanded by Lt. Osvaldo Iglesias, launch a MK-44 SW torpedo following the route of non-identified submarine. This submarine was detected formerly by other Tracker (2-AS-23) flown by Lt. Carlos Ernesto Cal who was flying to find survivals of ARA Sobral ship.

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/militar/POSUB.jpg

1000ydstare
06-07-2007, 12:24 PM
Why weren't these on patrol around the Belgrano? Where were they operated from?

Panzerknacker
06-07-2007, 05:58 PM
From the ARA 25 de mayo, I dont know the location of that ship the 5th may.

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/ArchivoFotosGral/AvNaval/Tracker/15.jpg

1000ydstare
06-08-2007, 01:24 AM
She operated around the North of the Islands. Her task was to interdict the Royal Navy Task Forces on the way down. Fortunatly for the British the wind conditions were never right to launch her aircraft, which would be all heavily loaded.

Her S-2 Trackers located the fleet quite early on. And an attack on May 1st, was prepared. Unfortuanly the aircraft would be so heavily loaded with ordance and fuel that favourable winds were required to complement the catapult.

HMS Spartan (sister to Conqueror) was looking for her, but never found her.

After the sinking of Belgrano on May 2, 25 de Mayo returned to port. Her A-4s operated out of the naval airbase in Río Grande, Tierra del Fuego.

Hence the SAS mission planned. I assume her S-2s didn't take any further part in the war.

The May 5th picture you posted, must be showing the actions on the return to port. The ARA not taking any chances with their only carrier, after the loss of Belgrano. She probably sailed from NE of the Falklands, around the back and in to port.

1000ydstare
06-08-2007, 01:34 AM
A rather dated film of 25 de mayo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV_8T1KLIxY

A short clip of catapult launch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQL3HlIiww&mode=related&search=

Recovery of A4-Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr5s0hdCo0E

Some sort of staged film taht some one has put soundtrackover.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrn7UO1_fvo&mode=related&search=

Are you "panzerargento" by any chance panzerknacker?

Panzerknacker
06-08-2007, 08:56 AM
Nice clips.


Are you "panzerargento" by any chance panzerknacker?

You are guessing right. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-fBL6JHi18


Right on Time:

Argentine Air Force's Douglas A-4P, flown by ensign Dellepiane, comes back limping after having its fuel tanks peppered by shrapnel and AAA -thus losing all of its fuel-, over Bluff Cove on June 8th, 1982. As soon as the emergency was declared, an Air Force KC-130H was sent over to refuel the aircraft in flight, in order to keep the Skyhawk flying. You can see several fuel leaks from the A-4B leaving their trails. Both aircraft arrived safely at the mainland.

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/militar/Sanchez.jpg

Lone Ranger
06-09-2007, 08:59 AM
You seems to be correct, my apologize to Lone Ranger, you was RIGHT and I was Wrong, at list in the Taylor shoot down.

Apology accepted, its not a good idea to rely on one source. Books are frequently devalued by shoddy research. For example the Channel 4 book on the Falklands war describes Black Buck 1 as a low level raid with retarded bombs.

1000ydstare
06-09-2007, 10:12 AM
Maybe it was relatively low level compared to, say, Space and they meant smart bombs weren't used.

Sue Williamson
06-12-2007, 04:10 PM
Nick Taylor was my brother, he was a Lt in the Royal Navy and his harrier was shot down over Goose Green on May 4th 1982 not over Stanley, he was burried by the Argentines and I visited his grave this 25th Anniversary year. I also visited and paid my respects to those Argintinians killed and burried in their cemetry. His Widow Clare Taylor sadly died two years ago.

Lone Ranger
06-12-2007, 05:32 PM
Sue,

I think I speak for everyone, our deepest condolences for your loss on the 25th anniversary of the conflict.

Panzerknacker
06-12-2007, 06:13 PM
Apology accepted, its not a good idea to rely on one source. Books are frequently devalued by shoddy research. For example the Channel 4 book on the Falklands war describes Black Buck 1 as a low level raid with retarded bombs.

That book is definately crap. look this:


http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3272/dibujopj7.jpg


But no worry this evil papers will not cheat me anymore, those are burning right now :twisted:

http://galeon.hispavista.com/elortiba/graph/quemalib.jpg

Panzerknacker
06-24-2007, 02:06 PM
This serie of photo belongs to the recce mission of an argentine Boeing 707 (TC-91) from the First Air Brigade. The day was the 21th april 1982 and the Boeing was watching the progress of the Royal Navy in route to the islands. The argentine aircraft was detected ( obviusly) and a Sea harrie climbed to his side. One of the 707 crew take the pictures.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/1er-Contacto.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/1er-Contacto2.jpg

the Boeing itself.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/AvistajedeunharrierTC-91.jpg

Panzerknacker
06-25-2007, 08:39 PM
And what about this ? :shock:

KC-130 armed with bombs to attack british merchants.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aviones/005.jpg

Panzerknacker
07-09-2007, 06:41 PM
More info.

C-130 "Long range Bomber":

http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/aviones/005.jpg

The AAF also used this venerable transport aircraft to attack the british shipping on route to the Malvinas.

2 aircraft C-130B from the 1th air brigade was modified with a Canberra bombsight and aditional pilons to carry 12 x FAS 250 kg bombs.

The makeshift solution was succesful and the Hercules hit 2 ships, the British Wye (damaged) and a Liberian tanker ironically called "hercules" that ship was so badly damaged that eventually sunk.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9523/hercules21jg2tk0.jpg

1000ydstare
07-10-2007, 02:49 AM
I wouldn't get too carried away with the exploits of these aircraft.


On Friday, tanker "British Tay" with survivors from "Atlantic Conveyor" headed first for Ascension, but all this time there was still the danger of attack. Not content with flying supplies into Stanley and refuelling air strikes, FAA Grupo 1 Hercules made the only apparent attempt to cut British supply lines. On Saturday a single C-130 dropped eight bombs on "British Wye" to the north of South Georgia. One hit, but bounced into the sea without exploding and the tanker continued her lonely refuelling duties.

http://www.naval-history.net/F46weeknineTF.htm


U.S. Supreme Court
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC v. AMERADA HESS SHIPPING, 488 U.S. 428 (1989)
488 U.S. 428
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC v. AMERADA HESS SHIPPING CORP. ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 87-1372.

Argued December 6, 1988
Decided January 23, 1989



[quote]A crude oil tanker owned by respondent United Carriers, Inc., a Liberian corporation, and chartered to respondent Amerada Hess Corp., also a Liberian corporation, was severely damaged when it was attacked in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war between Great Britain and petitioner Argentine Republic over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) off the Argentine coast.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/488/428/case.html

That was a blinding result that wasn't it. One Enemy tanker barely scratched, one neutral tanker smashed up and impending diplomatic incident.

Just goes to show, you can't turn freight pilots in to bomber pilots overnight.

Panzerknacker
07-10-2007, 09:45 AM
The problem in the British tanker was the bomb not pilot, not to metion thet the Hercules was anything but a maritime attack bomber.

1000ydstare
07-10-2007, 12:58 PM
I would argue that one out of eight bombs is a problem with the pilot as well as the Bombs.

The Herc has been used as a Bomber by several countries not to mention the American Spectre in a ground attack role.

The MOAB is realeased from a Herc, likewise the RAF drop parachutest and freght with a fair degree of accuracy.

I've seen a resup by Herc, dropping "torpedoes" from Pylons in a similar way. All hit the target.


For whatever reason the Argentinian Air Arms (Navy and Air Force) had major problems with their bombs, a fair few didn't go off when they hit their targets.

Lone Ranger
07-10-2007, 02:00 PM
What sort of altitude were they bombing from?

One of my previous jobs involved the production of bomb aiming tables for the RAF. From my experience 1 out of 8 on a target the size of a ship is pretty good going.

For instance, when the Vulcan bombed Port Stanley airfield, they expected to get 1 out of 21 on the strip.

Bombing from any sort of altitude against a naval target is not easy.

1000ydstare
07-10-2007, 02:31 PM
Don't know, but I would think they would be able to come in reasonably low. I doubt they would try a high alt attack.

Panzerknacker
07-10-2007, 06:36 PM
I veguely remeber that the Hercules bombed from 1500 meters but I am not sure about that figure.

The only 100 % efficient bomb was the US made Snakeye used by the Armada aircrafts, all hits were explotions.

http://www.revistanaval.com/armada/flotaero/snakeye.jpg

Firefly
07-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Hercs can be accurate when being guided from the ground. Not the same thing as bombing over the sea. Not even close....

Lone Ranger
07-11-2007, 03:04 AM
The only 100 % efficient bomb was the US made Snakeye used by the Armada aircrafts, all hits were explotions.

5000 ft? Still pretty good going to hit a target from that altitude.

BTW Snakeye uses the US Mk80 series bombs (Mk 81 - 250 lb, MK82 - 500lb, Mk 83 1000 lb and MK 84 2000 lb). Those are Mk 80 series bombs on the Hercules and several of those didn't go off.

Also Broadsword has hit with a snakeye and that didn't go off either.

The issue with a lot of the hits on British ships was that the bombs were released too late and too low, not giving them time to fuze. It didn't matter whether it was the 951 fuze in the UK 1000 lb bomb fitted with the 117 tail, or snakeye with Mk376/Mk31. On several occasions where hits were achieved, if the bomb had gone off it would have taken the aircraft out as well.

Panzerknacker
07-11-2007, 09:12 AM
THe HMS broadsword was hit with a 500 kg standar iron bomb.

I think the only ship attacked with snakeyes was the HMS Ardent and this type was also used agaist ground troops.

Lone Ranger
07-11-2007, 01:47 PM
I think the only ship attacked with snakeyes was the HMS Ardent and this type was also used agaist ground troops.

From memory, and hence possibly unreliable, the navy fliers used the Mk80 series bombs whilst the air force considerately returned large amounts of 1000lb bombs that the British had sold to them.

BTW anyone using slick bombs against a ship is probably taking a one way ride to oblivion. When the bomb hits the target the aircraft will be directly above. Thats why retarded bombs were developed.

I think you'll find Coventry and Broadsword were attacked with Snakeye.

Firefly
07-11-2007, 02:22 PM
BTW anyone using slick bombs against a ship is probably taking a one way ride to oblivion. When the bomb hits the target the aircraft will be directly above. Thats why retarded bombs were developed.

Thats why fuse settings are there. I think a lot of the Argentine duds were the result of faulty fuse settings in that they didnt actually get set before penetrating the ships hull. If they were fused properly and given a ten sec delay then the ac would be long gone. Then theres the skip bombing option much practised by the USAAF in the Pacific in WW2.

Lone Ranger
07-11-2007, 05:57 PM
Thats why fuse settings are there. I think a lot of the Argentine duds were the result of faulty fuse settings in that they didnt actually get set before penetrating the ships hull. If they were fused properly and given a ten sec delay then the ac would be long gone. Then theres the skip bombing option much practised by the USAAF in the Pacific in WW2.

Skip bombing doesn't work at jet speeds, you'd frag the aircraft as well.

Against a frigate/destroyer a 10 s delay would probably result in the bomb going straight through the ship. Look at HMS Glasgow, Broadsword and others.

Panzerknacker
07-11-2007, 05:58 PM
think you'll find Coventry and Broadsword were attacked with Snakeye.

:neutral:

:neutral:

:neutral:

:neutral:

Why me ?

LR for the last time: the HMS Broadsword and Coventry were attacked with Mk-17 1000 pounds bombs.

From the Air Force official site.




Lear Jet LR-35A, indicativo "Ranquel". Despegó de Comodoro Rivadavia a las 13:45. Misión: retransmisor. Tripulación: Tenientes Emil Williams y Gustavo Cercedo, Cabo 1º Dardo Rocha. Regresó a Comodoro Rivadavia a las 16:55 hs, por Malvinas. Debía encontrarse en el punto este (51º 30' S / 64º 00' O), a nivel de vuelo 350 para apoyar a las escuadrillas:

Tres A-4B Skyhawk, indicativo "Vulcano", armados con una bomba MK-17. Tripulación: Capitán Marcos Carballo (C-225), Teniente Carlos Rinke (C-214), Alférez Leonardo Carmona. Despegaron de Río Gallegos a las 14:00 hs. Arribaron a las 17:00 hs.

Tres A-4B Skyhawk, indicativo "Zeus". Tripulación: Primer teniente Mariano Velasco (C-212), Alférez Jorge Barrionuevo (C-207), Teniente Carlos Osses (C-204). Despegaron de Río Gallegos a las 14:00 hs. Arribaron a Río Gallegos a las 17:00 hs.

En ambas escuadrillas fallaron los Nros. 3 (en la "Vulcano" el Alférez Carmona, no decoló por inconvenientes técnicos y, en la "Zeus", el Teniente Ossés se volvió después de 240 MN por problemas en su transmisor de VHF; arribó a GAL a las 16:00 hs).

Las secciones llegaron al norte de la isla Borbón con 2/3 minutos de intervalo e hicieron el reabastecimiento en vuelo.

A las 15:20 hs, la sección "Vulcano" (Carballo - Rinke), atacó la fragata 22 HMS Broadsword que repelió el ataque con misiles, granadas de fragmentación y cañones. Los argentinos lograron arrojar sus bombas de 1.000 lbs sin apreciar los resultados.

La sección "Zeus" comprobó que de la popa de la HMS Broadsword salía un intenso humo negro. De acuerdo con informes ingleses, fue dañado el sistema de dirección y propulsión. El Capitán Carballo regresó con tanque derecho de combustible perforado por una esquirla.

Lone Ranger
07-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Mk17 + 117 tail?

Could be, that would be the 951 fuze.

I thought it was Navy Skyhawks that hit Coventry and Broadsword?

1000ydstare
07-12-2007, 12:45 AM
I wouldn't put too much faith in the Argentine official sites, they still claims hits on Invincible.

But I digress.

Panzerknacker
07-12-2007, 12:17 PM
Invincible hit or not really doesnt matter at this point, the thing was the the pilot knew what bombs were using the 25th may, and it wasnt snakeyes.

Lynx nose blow off by Carballo s bomb.

http://members.fortunecity.com/aokaze/images/cronologia/mayo/heli_lynx.jpg

Firefly
07-12-2007, 03:11 PM
Skip bombing doesn't work at jet speeds, you'd frag the aircraft as well.

Against a frigate/destroyer a 10 s delay would probably result in the bomb going straight through the ship. Look at HMS Glasgow, Broadsword and others.

Point taken re the skip bombing. However the fuse setting of ten secs was arbitrary and I realise that it should be a lot shorter. However, I dont know if there is evidence that any mal-fused bombs passed through any ships. The one on Ardent blew up a lot later I remember.

Lone Ranger
07-12-2007, 03:23 PM
There was a number of occasions where a bomb passed straight through a ship. HMS Glasgow, HMS Plymouth, HMS Broadsword, RFA Sir Tristram.

When the EOD teams defused some of the bombs, they found the arming vanes had only turned a few times. It was plain that the pilots were releasing too late and too low. Then the BBC helpfully explained what they were doing wrong...and the rest is history.

I've seen a quote from one Argentine source that credited the BBC as their number one source of BDA.

1000ydstare
07-13-2007, 01:32 AM
I've seen a quote from one Argentine source that credited the BBC as their number one source of BDA.

That was one problem, we were far too open. The attack on Goose Green was advertised prior to the attack, in one media debacle.

This has been pointed out before in the Invincible threads, we admitted and reported every nick and scratch sustained by the Fleet.

Panzerknacker
08-12-2007, 02:51 PM
Navy T-34c in action:

I recently chanced upon a short article written 10 yrs ago about the exploits of one (Lieutenant) Jose Maria Pereyra Dozo, a flying instructor at the Naval Aviation School in Argentina. As a result of the conflict he was ultimately to lead a division of Beechcraft T-34C Turbo- Mentors into 'battle', in the role of Close Air Support, based at the Calderon Naval Air Station on Borton Island (Pebble Island). The Mentors were armed with machine guns and rockets. Eventually they ended up sharing the Island with Pucaras.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3114/homerokb5.jpg

In summary they undertook seven missions. Six as armed reconnaissance and one to "intercept a British helicopter landing near Puerto Argentino". It's this mission which fills most of the article, in his own words. Somewhere after just crossing the Falkland Sound they were intercepted by two Sea Harriers.

He describes in detail how he outmaneuvered the Harrier low on the water seeing "splashes on the water of a burst of cannon fire"(30mm). Jettisoning his load he managed to evade the Harrier in cloud (300metres above sea level). He eventually made it back to Calderon's runway with only a "hole" on the rear cockpit canopy.

The SAS raid on Calderon on May 14 1982 ended any further missions.The aircraft were mostly destroyed or damaged by grenade launchers, explosives and small arms fire but one survived Turbo-Mentor, '1-A-411', which was at one point in time on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, Somerset.
He and his crew were evacuated by army helicopter to Puerto Argentino and managed to penetrate the no-fly zone in a Beechcraft King Air 200 back to the mainland three days later.

If anything, a good advertisement for Beechcraft aircraft!


http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/perfiles/mlv/T-34C.jpg

Pánzon
09-01-2007, 09:36 AM
Hello everybody,

My Nick is Pánzon and I am an aficionado to military history and being myself Argentine by born, I do have a special interest on the actions fought on the Malvinas/Falkland conflict in 1982.

I just discovered this forum, and I just finished reading this thread and I think that I can add something on the Antelope event as I made friends with a survivor of this ship and we did start a nice friendship that took us in a trip to remember those terrible days...

Just by chance, I was able to made Keith ( the survivor) exchange greetings with the flight leader that attacket the Antelope ( Cap Pablo Marcos Carballo "Cruz"- now Commodore Carballo) and they are collaborating together for the upcoming book by Commodore Carballo "The Falcons shold not be cried on"... this book will honor the 55 fallen heroes of the Argentine Air Force during the conflict and also exchanged greetings and shows of respect with Luciano Guadagnini Jr. ( he was not yet born when his father made the utmost sacrifice)..... Luciano Jr does not hold hate against any British serviceman, he knows his father was doing his job, as everybody else tried to his best.... he was the pilot that crashed against the rear aerial of HMS Antelope that sad, but at the same time "lucky" day on the 21st of May 1982 not before dropping his mortal load over the Amazon Frigate....

In hindsight, I can say that I am happy the bombs did not went off inmediatelly.... My friendship with Keith would not have been possible otherwise..... Luciano Guadagnini Jr. thinks the same.... as do Commodore Carballo...

Okey now, having made the presentation, I will copy here the first letter I received from keith in response to my pledge for him to tell me his "story", it is terrible..... I can assure you..... I sincerily hope this letter is treated with respect, there are good feelings that you can read on like in a palimpsest.... and also horrible fear, of being killed in the innards of a "tin can" without nothing to do....... also, it is part of my personal correspondence and if all goes well and I receive authorization I will gladly post some more of the letters...

I hope you all will understand that I am bringing this story only as it relates to a terrible time, at a horrible and far away place. I am NOT an enemy of the British...... I am convinced the Malvinas/Falklands are and always been Argentine, but this is not the "direction of this post" I just want to share this story with you.

Also, I want to present a little bit better the character of 1st Lt Guadagnini.... and make VERY clear that he did not crashed against the FH5 Aerial because of a "kami Kaze" action..... he tried to drop his bombs on target even when he knew that was the last thing he was going to do..... knowing quite well that Luciano Jr was in his wife womb and not due to come to this world until 3 months later...... this I can say as "Bunny Warren", the gunner that hosed 1st Lt. Guadagnini plane with 20 mm just before he dropped his bombs was practically looking into his eyes at the moment of truth....

Okey, this was a long presentation, let us go to the letter.

""Hi Juan,

No problem telling you how things were from my point of view however, it
was
25 years ago and I was only 17 (not even old enough to legally drink
alcohol!) at the time.
There are no apologies needed from any Argentinian to me. I have to say
I don't think that the UK has any claim on the Falklands at all. 8000
miles
off shore is hardly British soil in my eyes.
I was on HMS Antelope in San Carlos Water (Bomb Alley) on the 23rd of
May
when we were attacked by four skyhawk aircraft. One was hit by small
arms
fire and crashed into the aft mast (Our FH5 aerial). That pilot was an
absolute hero because even knowing he was about to crash, he still
deployed
his 1000lb bomb and hit the target (Aft starboard).
We took a second 1000lb bomb on the port side further forward from
another
plane soon after. This pilot also has my utmost respect as do they all.
The events thereafter are well documented.
My main memory of those days was the absolute terror I felt when under
attack. When the plane hit us, the ship keeled hard to port and dust
was
shook down from the air vents creating a haze. At the same time the
bomb
crashed into the ship one compartment ahead of me and fractured a freon
gas
line which set off the chemical alarms. This was pretty much a worse
case
scenario because we genuinly believed that we had been hit by a chemical
weapon. I was so scared I couldn't even get my gas mask out of its bag.
By the time the next attack came the giros had packed up as had most of
the
lights. I was in the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. We
had
no idea what was going on outside. Only the roar of guns and jets above
our
heads. Each time a plane attacked I remember thinking; "Please God, Let
the
bombs land further forward' please don't let me die down here." It's a
hard
thing to admit that you actually wished for others to die instead of
you,
but, just lying there in a semi dark smokey coffin with chaos screaming
overhead, it is how I felt. All seventeen years of me was terrified
beyond
description. I was a virgin and still had no use for shaving.
When I got back to the Uk I suffered terrible guilt. I started drinking
and
picking fights with the biggest guys in the bar, probably to try and
proove
to myself that I wasn't a coward. The funny thing was I would never
defend
myself once in a fight, I would just let the guy beat the crap out of
me.
I once provoked a gang of Hells Angels into smashing my face in one
night.
The Navy ended up sending me to a psychiatrist but I only really healed
years later.

Now life is great I live pretty much without fear which has enabled me
to
become modestly successful.
I have forgiven that kid for being scared back then. Hell, he didin't
even
have a gun to hold or any way to defend himself down there in the dark.
And
to his credit he stayed at his station till the order to abandon ship
came.
He never cried out or outwardly disgraced himself. He was just a kid
who
didn't want to die a horrible death before he had a chance to become a
man.

For me, Argentina was never a enemy because I think we were the bad guys
in
it all. I think it is us who should apologise. Many of us cried when
we
heard about the sinking of the General Belgrano while we were still
steaming
to the area.. . They were our brothers of the sea.

Please feel free to ask me anything. I will tell you the absolute truth
as
I understand or remember it.
As I say, I have made my peace with myself. I have attatched a photo of
myself as I am now. I will try and scan a picture of me from back then
and
enclose it another time. You will not believe how young I looked. I
could
have passed for twelve!

Adios Amigo

hasta luego

Keith"

Receive my best regards and I hope you welcome me on the forum and that we can respectfully talk about this "100 Days"......

Cheers to all,

Pánzon

Pánzon
09-01-2007, 09:45 AM
Also from Keith,

""Hi Juan,

To the family of 1st Leutenant Guadagnini, I offer my sincerest sympathy.
His memory lives on in all of us who fought and the example he set in
life, is a standard that few will ever achieve no matter how many years
they are blessed with.

Adios amigo

Keith"

Panzerknacker
09-05-2007, 10:21 PM
Many of us cried when
we
heard about the sinking of the General Belgrano while we were still
steaming
to the area.. . They were our brothers of the sea.



:roll:.......


"The Falcons shold not be cried on"... this book will honor the 55 fallen heroes of the Argentine Air Force during the conflict and also exchanged greetings and shows of respect with Luciano Guadagnini Jr. ( he was not yet born when his father made the utmost sacrifice).

The pilots were people doing his work, no more no less, unfortunately not all in the Argentine Armed forces were doing theirs.

Man of Stoat
09-06-2007, 02:57 AM
I call shenanigans on that letter, there are certain phrases and choices of words which a native English speaker wouldn't use. There also appear to be a few "set phrases" which appear commonly in Argentine fakery but a brit would never use.

Also, while it is conceivable that a 17-year-old could be serving, were there any on antelope?

Pánzon
09-06-2007, 08:07 AM
Yes there were 17 year old ones in the navy, Keith is an example of that...... the letter is authentic and should you foster ANY doubts, I will provide you with absolute proof so you can check tihs out...... nothing is forged on that letter, I have plenty more from him and also he was portrayed in the local press when the 25th anniversary of the conflict,

I am sorry I am very-very busy and I can not take the time to clear your doubts right now, but....... I will....

As per the wording...... Keith is a fantastic writer of letters and obviously his education is above general level, there is no rime slang there neither any Kockney, remember we started exchanging letters and I just posted the first..

Cheers and until later, I think over the week end I will be able to clarify ALL your doubts and overcome ANY objections regarding their authenticity.

Cheers and keep tuned as I will be back.

Juan

BTW Panzerknacker, Mi "nick" is always the same in any forum..... where do you know me from? :mrgreen:

Firefly
09-06-2007, 08:42 AM
Back in the good old days, the UK armed forces placed no restrictions on anyone under 18 deploying into a combat zone. Whether or not he is genuine I dont know, but I do know that I had a few friends who joined in time for the Falklands that were packed off to Ascension and they were definately 17.

Man of Stoat
09-06-2007, 08:45 AM
1. if "Keith" has education above the general level, why was he in the Navy at 17 and not at school?
2. why does he phrase his English like a native Spanish speaker, and express himself culturally in a way that is significantly more Spanish-speaking than English-speaking?

This was the response on a British military forum:

sandy_boots



110% bollox

Back to top

oldbaldy




Says he was 17 at the time as well. mmmm!
_________________

Back to top

Private_Pike



Fiction and pretty sh1tty fiction at that.

Back to top



happybonzo


No doubt lots of people feel regrets for actions that they have made in the past but there is something about this that stinks. This is too much like that Vietnam nonsense posted by some so-called Vet. that we had a while back
It is all too trite in the manner in which it has been presented. It would be interesting if Quote::
Keith
, Quote::
Cap Pablo Marcos Carballo "Cruz"- now Commodore Carballo
, Quote::
Luciano Jr
and others named could be more positively identified. Some of those names I would imagine are in the public domain.
Until then, as sandy_boots says Quote::
110% bollox

George Eller
09-06-2007, 09:13 AM
Back in the good old days, the UK armed forces placed no restrictions on anyone under 18 deploying into a combat zone. Whether or not he is genuine I dont know, but I do know that I had a few friends who joined in time for the Falklands that were packed off to Ascension and they were definately 17.
-

I have my grandfather's service records and he joined the Netherlands KL (Royal Army) at age 15, believe it or not. He later re-enlisted and transfered to the KNIL (Royal Netherlands Indies Army).

-

Panzerknacker
09-06-2007, 09:27 AM
BTW Panzerknacker, Mi "nick" is always the same in any forum..... where do you know me from?


SOBAORTS. :D


1. if "Keith" has education above the general level, why was he in the Navy at 17 and not at school?
2. why does he phrase his English like a native Spanish speaker, and express himself culturally in a way that is significantly more Spanish-speaking than English-speaking?

I have to recognize that if true is not very well written, the part that bother me the most is the one:


Many of us cried when
we
heard about the sinking of the General Belgrano while we were still
steaming
to the area..

Thats is definately hard to believe.


http://www.histarmar.com.ar/ArchivoFotosGral/AvNaval/A4/14_resize.jpg

Lone Ranger
09-06-2007, 10:40 AM
I had my doubts when I read it, it didn't ring true. But as Panzon as offered to provide proof, then lets see what turns up.

Firefly
09-06-2007, 01:49 PM
I'd go with PK here, young boys and men going into battle would surely have cheered the demise of an enemy vessel. At that point they hadnt been in contact with any enemy. However, perhaps if he is a real man, he was confused about when exactly he felt remorse.

Pánzon
09-06-2007, 04:59 PM
PanzerK,

If you know me from SAORBATS, you must know by now that I would never sell "rotten fish"....... I have a reputation to maintain and I NEVER "forged" anything .... want to send me your Nick there via PM so I can recognize you?

Also, I did publish these letters on SAORBATS MONTHS ago...... please check the subforum "history" "Cartas con un superviviente del HMS Antelope"

Anyway, I am disappointed about the negative comments and the doubts casted over the truth they are somewhat insulting, but....... everybody seems to know better than I do on this subject altough it is a VERY- VERY true story which, to my knowledge shows how even a 17 years old locked into the guts of a ship under attack in spite of being terrorized behaved like an adult and a veteran...

I will leave you here with two pictures one of Keith receiving his medal for the campaign...... which I think it is enough.... but I will leave you also a scan that Keith sent me of a local newspaper in England where they decided to run the story......

Sincerily, I have lost the interest in discussing this matter over here as there seems to be "sensible" for a lot of people...... but since I think here I give proof enough I think that an apology would be the right thing to do as I was somewhat called a "forgerer2 or more directly a liar.... anyway, apology is not required....;)

In this pic, Keith is receiving the medal for the campaign from a Rear Admiral RN in 1982/3....

http://www.ecv56condor.com.ar/~panzon/Keith%20Falklands.jpg

Now, here is the scan on the article......

http://www.ecv56condor.com.ar/~panzon/Article_on_Keith.jpg

And some more words from Keith.....

"Because of the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war, the press have
descended on me. Attatched here is the first article from the shropshire
star. Very embarassing. A quarter of page one and most of page four! I
wore sunglasses and a wig for days after!!!!!!

The next one is a North West Newspaper article about the same old stuff,
followed a week later by a bigger article about my life since the war which
may fun. I will send you them when they are out...

Hope you are happy and healthy
Luv
Keith"

And now, is this proof of good faith and truth?

Need more proof?

My best regards to you all forum colleagues......

Pánzon.

Pánzon
09-06-2007, 05:22 PM
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/06/vivid-memories-of-warship-attack/

"OK, todays photo is of Antelope's starboard aft 20mm gun crew. I am pleased
to report they couldn't hit a barn door at twenty paces and a harmed no one!
I do have a photo that I will send you of Leading Seaman 'Bunny Warren'
during action stations. He was our starboard fwd 20mm gunner and it was he
who was 'credited' with shooting down 1st leutenant Guadagnini."

http://www.ecv56condor.com.ar/~panzon/Bubby_warren.jpg

I hope that is enough

Juan.

With regards of the doubts casted on the letter post, I would like to gently ask you to read the post again...... somebody was quoting ME, the part written by Keith is in BOLD !!

Panzerknacker
09-06-2007, 05:49 PM
PanzerK,

If you know me from SAORBATS, you must know by now that I would never sell "rotten fish"....... I have a reputation to maintain and I NEVER "forged" anything .... want to send me your Nick there via PM so I can recognize you?

To be honest I really dont bother about this because I hate that forum, years have passed since my last participation, I also hate the moderators in there, actually If sometime in my life I get in the way of the punk called "Neurus" I will gracefully proceed to disfigurate him with my fist.

In any case I never claim I dont believe you, I just said that a briton crying about sinking an enemy ship is something that I definately dont buy.

Thanks for your information and images.

Pánzon
09-06-2007, 06:03 PM
In any case I never claim I dont believe you, I just said that a briton crying about sinking an enemy ship is something that I definately dont buy.

Well, PanzerK,

Man of little faith........ would you take my word on this?

Do you still doubt it?

Haven´t I offered enough proof?

Why do you hate SAORBATS? Been bollocked? if so, I am sorry.

Juan.

PS: Since you seem to "know" me....... will you please PM with your SAORBATS "Alias"? I guarantee my silence but now I am curious.

Panzerknacker
09-06-2007, 06:15 PM
Is really unimportant, I wont give space in this nice forum to the little people of sobaorts.



Man of little faith........ would you take my word on this?

Do you still doubt it?

Haven´t I offered enough proof?



How you will give your word for the feelings of a third person ?

That is really dangerous. :roll:

Gun Plumber
09-08-2007, 02:48 PM
I still think the letter has been faked, maybe parts have been added to it.

Pánzon
09-08-2007, 04:50 PM
Hello G-Plumber,

Well, that is directly saying that I at least forged part of the letter if I am not mistaken by far. it is not enough that I posted the original, not letter, but e-mail ( considerable less formal than a leter ussually)...... then I´ve posted his picture being decorated at Pembroke by no less than a Rear Admiral RN, I have treated the military adversary then (THEN ! 90% of my friends are Britons, and I work in a "British/Spanish Co.) with respect...... I have posted a scan of an English PAPER article together with some words from him, then the link straight to the article in that paper.... independent source I think, where even the real name of Keith and his whereabouts are mentioned ( I do not own that News Paper:))...

And still you think that I then "forged part of the letter"?

Wht is the part I "forged"? where he describe her fears during the attack? where he recognized the inner wish for the bombs to struck farther a beam so he could live to be able to shave? an have the oportunity of at least have sex once?

Where he said ( rather informally) that some of them "cried for their "brothers of the sea"? when the Belgrano went down? They knew they were going to against perhaps 3 SSK´s..... so what goes around may come around?

Where he says that he thinks "we were the bad guys in there"? That 8,000 miles away was in his eyes hardly British soil? Do you think that everyone in the tast force thought the Falklands/Malvinas were worth that fight? I am pretty sure that there were divided opinions, but duty comes first.... even when you are 17....

My only intention on bringuing this story to this forum was to show something different, dramatic, and to try to put bridges that may close certain doors that apparently can not yet be closed.... show something from a different point of view and try to discuse in a civilized manner..... and then I am repeatedly accussed of forgery....

I will keep on answering with education any question about this matter, but from my point of view, the discussion will end here as I my time is absolutelly precious and I am not at the least interested in any flame wars with anybody for whatever reason.

I thank you all for the attention given to this matter so far and I remain, at your service.

Pánzon.:)

Lone Ranger
09-08-2007, 04:58 PM
Well there was enough information in what you gave for me to find Keith's email address fairly easily. So I dropped him a line, we'll see what his has to say.

That should settle all doubts, shouldn't it.

EDIT

BTW just being picky but "starboard fwd 20mm"? In 1982, The Type 21 Frigate had two 20 mm cannon, one port, one starboard. So there is no aft and fwd gun just a Port and Starboard. The additional guns weren't added to the class until after the Falklands War.

Also on the Type 21, the 20 mm Oerlikon is mounted on the bridge wings. The posted picture appears to be from a Type 21 facing aft, which would make the picture of the Port installation.

Check wiki for Type 21 info on HMS Antelope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29, quick check on other sites confirms the wiki information.

Panzerknacker
09-08-2007, 07:13 PM
Panzon, dont pay much attention to the "Gun Plumber" is a well know troll around here. Le gusta romper la bolas nomas . For me all the topic of the letter is confirmed and terminated.

Pánzon
09-09-2007, 04:58 AM
Hello Lone Ranger,

I am happy to hear that you have dropped some lines to Keith so he can clarify your doubts, I do not doubt he will do it as he domonstrated several times for me the good will and his total and absolutelly sincerity about all this. I hope he is not treated as "unpatriotic" for being friendly and sharing his experience with me and authorizing me for making it "public".....

This is a very dramatic sea story and I did took it as it is, as well as him, I do not keep ANY bad feelings for what it happenned then and the defeat of the Argentine forces was a direct consecuence of the Junta´s improvisation and lack of sense of reality..... from some point of view, that defeat ended with a sad chapter of my country history as the "military dictatorship went off never to return thanks to God......

I hope Keith is respected in his views and not "attacked" as "antipatriotic" or whatever as he is VERY British, a complete gentleman and from my point of view a man of good faith......

I will also drop some lines to him to ask him to see this thread and if he wishes, I am sure he will drop over here to sustain my sayings, but if he does not, I will understand it.

The exchange of e-mail went on for several weeks and there is a whealth of info in there, some of them very personal...... in Any case, I invite you all to read when it becomes available in English to read the next book from Commodore Carballo which as I said before will be the story of the 55 fallen FAA personnel then, in there, in the chapter of 1st Lt PM Guadagnini you will find ALL the info as he has accepted to collaborate with Com Carballo on this book..

On the other side, I understand that some of you may have "doubts" about what an "Argie" says in an English forum especially when it is such a dramatic view over one event even more dramatic.

I can only thank God in hindsight that those bombs did not went of inmediatelly as if they did I would not had had the oppportunity to "meet" and become a friend of Keith as I consider my self to be.

With regards to the position of the guns, I think that perhaps..... for that time, extra AA positions may be added to help defend the ship in case of air attack... they knew where they were going.....

One of the things that they knew for sure is that Antelope was gonna be exactly where the "Ardent" was blown out before, so they considered themselves a sort of bait..... and they sort of " knew" something was coming.

Best regards.

Pánzon. ( Juan )

Pánzon
09-09-2007, 12:47 PM
Lone Ranger;108199]Well there was enough information in what you gave for me to find Keith's email address fairly easily. So I dropped him a line, we'll see what his has to say.

That should settle all doubts, shouldn't it.

Yes, off course...... and I hope MAN OF SOAT may inform of the possitive proof to all his friends from other forums that said so many things such a "bollox"...

Juan.

Lone Ranger
09-09-2007, 02:40 PM
I have my doubts because some aspects of the published letters contain idioms that you don't see in English but you do in Spanish. But you've given me enough information to contact him myself so as I said we'll see.

BTW I think you'll find I'm right about the Type 21, they only had the two 20 mm cannon in 1982. There wasn't time to fit extra cannon before they sailed.

Pánzon
09-09-2007, 03:30 PM
Hello LoneRanger,

Keith will contact you with a perfectly good explanation on his error in the number of 20 mm cannon, maybe will drop by the forum.


I have my doubts because some aspects of the published letters contain idioms that you don't see in English but you do in Spanish. But you've given me enough information to contact him myself so as I said we'll see.

ON this Lone Ranger..... why are you surprissed that an English man uses some Spanish words or expressions? half of the population of England has moved already to Spain or they are in the process of doing it!:D Don´t you think that when e-mailing me he would resist the oportunnity to use the small Spanish he understands?

Haven´t you noticed the scarcity of English people in London this years?.... They are all moving to sunny, sweet southern Spain.... anyway, if you come over here, drop me an PM and I will happily "convert" you into a part time Spaniard. I have already "mentored" dozens of English families over here as I am an state agent.... Everyone of them are now my friends......;)

Cheers and Hi- Ho Silver!!!


Juan.

Pánzon
09-09-2007, 03:41 PM
From Keith to Juan, (Further from an earlier message of earlier today).

"Hi Juan,

I forgot to say that no one has contacted me from your forum yet. If they
do I will try and put their minds at rest that I am a real life, walking,
talking Antelope survivor.

Amen to that!

Keith"

Come on Lone Ranger, send him the e-mail so we can close this chapter !! If you PM me with a valid e-mail, I will make sure Keith receives it.

Lone Ranger
09-09-2007, 04:11 PM
I've already sent an email, through my gmail account to the company that he is half owner. He hasn't replied yet, assuming it got through the spam filter.

My point is that idioms don't translate from one language to another, I'm not saying I don't believe you. A few things don't fit thats all.

Lone Ranger
09-11-2007, 02:27 PM
For the record here, I can confirm that Panzon has corresponded with Keith and the emails were in fact genuine. I contacted Keith through his works email and he replied.

Pánzon
09-11-2007, 02:59 PM
For the record here, I can confirm that Panzon has corresponded with Keith and the emails were in fact genuine. I contacted Keith through his works email and he replied.

Thanks Lone Ranger,

And now, I would like to leave this matter aside as I regret having brought it in....

As I said before, the idea was to bring something different that at its core spoke about heroism ( on both sides), hindsight and to show that at the end of the line, Argentina and England should have never gone to war...... they were always good friends... or almost:), putting aside "the hands of God" and off course the last visit of the "Pumas" to the "Lions" in Twickengham last November..... and on this regard, I hope no French forum member takes seriously the Rugby lesson received in the Stade de France on Saturday....:evil:

Those are the only wars civilized countries should fight.... our next battle should be in a Rugby or Futbol pitch where the field is somewhat more at "level".

Cheers to everybody.

Pánzon.

Firefly
09-11-2007, 03:20 PM
Panzon, please dont take the caution voiced by brits here to be accusing you of lying or anything, its just that the guys here on the Forum like to have proof of something as so many people pretend to have lives different from that they actually live.

It is nothing personal its just being cautious. I hope that it wont put you off interacting in this Forum if that is what you wish to do.

Cheers

Panzerknacker
09-11-2007, 06:20 PM
Well...the user "Gun Plumber" is not the example of quality information either and I dont see him subject of any scrutiny as Panzon case.:rolleyes:

Aniway.


Catch me if you can!!!On May, 21st, then Lt. Horacio Sánchez Mariño (Argentine Army), flying
Bell UH-1H AE-418 helicopter, took of on a commandoes insertion flight
near Mount Kent, during the Malvinas War. He was intercepted by a
Harrier CAP that, even though it could not shoot down the said
helicopter, it forced Lt Sanchez Mariño to make an emergency
landing. The crew and passengers left the helicopter, as one of the
Harriers fired a salvo of rockets that barely missed the aircraft,
with no casualties. Some shrapnel, however, damaged the main blades,
which were repaired on site with a household glue ("Poxipol"). The
helicopter went on flying -thanks to this field expedient repair- till
the end the hostilities

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/militar/Sanchez%20Mari%F1o%20MLV%20L_R.jpg

Lone Ranger
09-12-2007, 05:22 AM
Well...the user "Gun Plumber" is not the example of quality information either and I dont see him subject of any scrutiny as Panzon case.

Actually I take issue with that comment, he gets treated exactly the same way. Why do you persist in these unjustified sniping attacks?

Lone Ranger
09-12-2007, 11:22 AM
Argentina and England should have never gone to war......

Amen to that.

Panzerknacker
09-12-2007, 05:40 PM
Is not sniping I am trying to be fair with everybody. The british members here arent fair, specially M.o.S

1000ydstare
09-16-2007, 03:40 PM
Good advertisising matierial there for the glue Panzerknacker. :D It should be used on television.

Panson and LoneRanger, the Argentines and English never went to war. The British and the Argentines did.

Other than that, no we shouldn't have gone to war, it was a fools gambit played by the Argie Junta, and should never have been allowed.

Panzon, you will find that many here will support you and trust you once you have earnt aht trust. We have had a share of lunatics coming on to these threads and spouting rubbish. (See Iron man and his wisdom of WW2 from an American perspective, brought to you via Medal of Honour :P )

I would say that MoS is quite fair, as fair as most others on this site Panzerknacker. I do not agree with everything he says, but I do feel he is fair.

Panzerknacker
09-17-2007, 07:28 AM
Originally posted in "Argentine militaria" moved here for being Malvinas related.


The Torpedo Armed Pucará

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2324/art4002gq6.jpg

The South Atlantic conflict caused the Argentinean Armed Forces to face not only a world power when it comes to military might, but also their own internal limitations and failures in warfare.
Not only the maritime might, but the certain threat posed by the British submarines was evidenced with the sinking of the cruiser ARA "General Belgrano" on 02-May-82, and for this reason, the Argentinean Navy and Air Force sought to implement solutions to counteract this troublesome situation.


Despite the controversial decision to withdraw the ships from the fleet to safer waters, the Naval Aviation developed, besides their attack operations to naval targets, many options to protect the fleet from attack coming from enemy ships and submarines, and part of the success of these options was due to the withdrawal of the fleet to shallow waters.
On the other hand, the Air Force, despite having had little experience in attack operations against naval formations, began to evaluate the possibility of adapting aircraft and to develop tactics specifically aimed to
that end, in an attempt to increase its attack capabilities.
By the middle of May, 1982 the Strategic Air Comand of the Air Force decided to undertake a series of test flights, with the purpose of make operational the IA-58 Pucará, armed with torpedoes.

The weapon chosen in this case, would be the U.S. built Mk.13 torpedo, which by then had almost been withdrawn from use by the Argentinean Navy. Built between the years 1944 - 1952, it was a sturdy weapon, having been designed to be launched from boats and aircraft.


While not being the most modern weapon, the large number of examples remaining in the inventory caused its selection for the evaluation being conducted. The then Comodoro Jorge S. Raimondi was placed in charge of the project, conducted at the Naval Base of Puerto Belgrano, in order to obtain cooperation from the Navy. The Navy quickly supplied enough torpedoes, which were equipped then with the brackets necessary to mount them to the airplanes, and after a long time of inactivity, the torpedoes' mechanisms and systems were back in service.

On 21 May, lands at the Comandante Espora air base, Pucará registered as AX-04, which had been assigned to the Centro de Ensayos en Vuelo (Flight Testing Center) at the Area Material Córdoba, flown by Capitán Rogelio R. Marzialetti and the Supervisor Mario A. Loiacono (both belonging to the CEV).

This specific aircraft was a standard series unit (A-509) having been modified after leaving the assembly line, to be employed as prototype for the evaluation of weapons and aircraft systems, and having as part of its equipment, a film camera to be employed to document the moment when the torpedo was launched. The torpedo was carried on the aircraft's Aero 20A-1 central weapons station.

The first launch of a Mk.13, takes place on 22 May, the torpedo having been a practice round, not equipped an explosive head. The launch zone established by the Navy, was located 40 miles from Puerto Belgrano, and would be the same location where later the same day, the second test launch would take place.

Launch involved having the aircraft establish a 20 degree dive, at a speed of 300 knots and at approximately at a height of 100 mts., resulting on the destruction of the torpedo when it impacted the sea. The same happens the next day when the parameters were a 45deg. dive, speed of 250 knots, and approximate height of 200 mts.

It became evident that there was something missing for the torpedo to be effectively deployed from an airplane with the performance of the Pucará.
Lacking the torpedo's operational manuals for air deployment, the only information available was that it should enter the water at an angle of approximately 20 degrees. With a less acute angle, the torpedo would bounce when hitting the water, thus damaging the internal and propulsion mechanisms, and if the angle was greater, then there existed the risk that it would "spike" itself on the bottom of the sea.

After consultations conducted with retired sub-officers who had been assigned to the Army's torpedo shops, a nose-mounted aero-dynamic brake was installed on the Mk.13, and a biplane stabilizer was installed in the tail end, additions that would be destroyed when the torpedo hit the water.

After these modifications were undertaken, the first successful launches take place on 24 May, off Trelew, in the waters of the San Jose Gulf. These took place while the airplane was on a straight and level flight attitude and at a height of 15 meters, and it was then determined that the optimal speed was 200 knots, since higher speeds caused the torpedo to impact the bottom of the sea.

A total of 7 practice runs were conducted, and another 10 launch, this time with an explosive head, was conducted on 10 June, on a zone with deeper waters and near cliffs, North of the Port of Santa Cruz, but the depth here was not enough to compensate for the speed of 250 knots developed by Pucará A-566 which hade replaced AX-04 on the testing.
A last attempt is conducted on 14 June, in the neighborhood of Pingüino Island (near Puerto Deseado) chosen because of its maximum depth and ruggedness of the shoreline, and establishing a definite launch speed of 200 knots, but while the preparations for launching were taking place, this operation is completelly cancelled, due to the surrender of the Argentinean troops which were fighting in the Malvinas.

It is worth mentioning that at the same time that this project was being undertaken, studies were also conducted regarding the launching from the Pucará, of anti-ship mines Mk.12, in an attempt to mine the San Carlos Straits (in the Malvinas Islands), but this did not go beyond the loading up testing of the mines to the airplane.

While these testing operations were taking place, the Air Force deployed a section of IA-58A Pucara from the Grupo 3 de Ataque, to the airport of La Plata (Buenos Aires) to conduct patrolling missions on the approaches to the Río de La Plata, due to the possibility of British submarines operating in the area.

The end of the South Atlantic conflict, marked the end of the evaluation of the employment of the Pucará for the delivery of torpedoes and other specific weapons, for use against naval targets, and the aircraft involved in the testing, were returned to their parent units.

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/perfiles/pucara/Puca4.jpg

http://www.laahs.com/artman/publish/article_105.shtml

http://www.aviationart.com.ar

Panzerknacker
09-29-2007, 09:31 AM
Canberra, the forgotten aircraft of the Argentine Air Force.

http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/camberra/Canberralateral.jpg

The Argentine Air Force has incorporated, as soon as begun the ‘70 decade, the Canberra bombers to its dowry. On a total of 12 airplanes, of which 10 were B.62 and 2 T.64 trainers, towards the principle of the conflict there were in good condition 10 airplanes.

The Canberras of the Grupo de Bombardeo 2 (Bombing Group 2) was painted with the typical English colors: Dark Green and Medium Sea Grey. The numerals of these were painted in white, with the letter "B". The numbers, also in white, went from the 101 to the 110, for the B.62, and 111 and 112 for the T.64. They will be able to appreciate better the details in the graphs that illustrate the text. The only outer difference between the B.62 and T.64 is the nose, while the first had the transparent nose, because they carried the acquisition target equipment, the seconds had it plated in aluminum[/SIZE][/FONT].

In Malvinas

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6366/canberrasbt1.jpg

The 1st. of May, date in begin the battle, was planned 3 sorties with Canberras. In the first of them did not find the targets, but in the second were in inferiority of conditions, since they were intercepted by the Harriers of the Invincible aircraft carrier. These downed the B-110, whose crew, First Lieutenants Ibáñez and González, ejected themselves.


From 1st. of May, and with the experience of the happened, the bombing priority of the Canberras changed. This was a healthful measurement due to the defenselessness that these airplanes had respect to the Royal Navy airplanes. It is enough to remember that the other airplanes of the related episode could escape thanks to the ability of its crews who, with evasive maneuvers, could avoid the Harrier of the 801 Sqn. It was so until the 21 of May the Group 2 had time to evaluate its tactics again.

From that date they began to operate at night from high altitude. Thus, the Canberra began to bomb, primarily, troops and materials concentrations. These operations took place on the San Carlos Bay, against the troops stationed there.


As the war intensified, and the British came near to Puerto Argentino, the Canberra continued bombing the British troops until the last day of the conflict
Although these incursions were not absolutely precise, generated annoyance between the British troops.

So it was so the Royal Navy in vain tried to neutralize them. In several occasions the Harriers take off in alert to intercept them, but the opportune control from Puerto Argentino (Malvinas CIC), with the AN-TPS 43F radar, avoided always such interceptions. Of all ways, towards the last days of the war, the Canberra formation flew with escort of Mirage III of the Group 8. In one of these last missions, the B-108 was hit by a Sea Dart missile of the destroyer Exeter, downing it.

http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/camberra/Canberra105.jpg

His pilot, Captain Pastran, could eject itself, not the navigator, captain Casado. Like peculiar data, a pair of Canberras attacked an oil tanker of Liberian flag that supposedly took fuel for the Task Force. It is possible to be appreciated in one of the profile drawings profile of the airplanes that carried out the bombing, with its respective kill mark.

Panzerknacker
06-30-2008, 08:36 PM
The Argentine Bomb question part1.

Translation of an article first edited by the monthly magazine "Guerra Aerea por las Malvinas" ( Air war for the Malvinas) Reguero publisher, 1987.

http://i12.tinypic.com/4cbo7k7.jpg

The true History of argentine bombs.

Even today, more than 4 years after the end of the war for the Malvinas exist in a lot of media- including some foreign publications and studies- interroganst about the efficience of bombs used by the Argentine aviation.
Those doubts turned around the quality of maintenance of bombs, right arming or their fuzes, the presumed obsolencence of those artifact or the lack of training of the personnel in charge.

Now is possible to end the polemic and provide an answer to the classic question: why the bombs didnt explode ?
For that an expert was called, the vicecomodoro (1) Arturo Pereyra who during the War was precisely the specialist in Armament of the Departament of Operation High command air Force South, wich was created for conducting tactical, defensiva, suppy and strategical operations in its influence Area ( the patagonia)

When the war started the Argentine Air Force was studing adecuation of its weapons systems in order to operate over the sea, both in interdiction against supply ships or direct attack to warships.

The first idea was that attacking those "floating fortresses" like the english warship were, filled with flak , missiles and radars with the materiel in existence and according to the classic doctrines of employement was impossible.
According to the NATO recomendations, in order to strike a frigate like the british one a minimum of 16 aircrafts are needed, in a way that those saturate the ships radars and the defenses could be penetrated.

The idea is that even some could be shot down, others will reach the target.
That same doctrine indicates also the optimal angle of attack of the aircraft, a dive of 45º starting from an altitude between 3000 and 4000 meters.

In that scenario with the weapons in hand of the Argentine Air Force it could meaning the destruccion of all its aircarfts, maybe before a single bomb would be launched.

(1) No idea how the rank vicecomodoro in translated in US or UK ranks.

Panzerknacker
06-30-2008, 08:37 PM
The argentine bomb question part II

As result other system was adopted, based in the achievement of some degree of surprize, with a very low flight and a bomb drop nearly over the target.

But that bringed the need to modificate the bombs, specifically the fuzes, the part called "fire train" (meaning the system wich makes the explosion) in a way they will explode at the moment of impact.

This fact wich seems easy, is actually the result of a delicate balance between several factors. In first place you need to consider the arming safety, a device present in every bomb wich avoid the detonation until a preselected distance from the launching aircraft.

This device requires 1, 2 or 3 seconds, depending on setting, to arm the bomb.
Given the way used by argentine aviators wich implied to launch the bomb at 250 meters per second at very close range. the space of time between they left the aircraft and hit the target wasnt enough for arming.
This problem was discussed with the pilots and they agree to reduce the arming time, sacrificing safety in favour of efectiveness.
Is worth to mention that not only they agree...sometimes that were reduced to fullfill the desire of the pilots.

After being armed the bomb, it teorically should explode in the moment the target is hit.

But if that happens it would damage the launching aircraft since the time would match the moment in wich the aircraft passed over the target due the bomb and aircraft velocity are more or less the same.

And not only the attacking airplane but also other components of the formation making the attack a "suicide mission" thing that was never in the mind of argentine pilots.

"when you define the retard of explotion. explains Vicecomodoro Pereyra- you must choose between two ways, one safe for the launching aircraft and other adecuate for maximum damage in target. As the risk in this late case are excessive you need to put away target damage efficience to provide safety for the aircraft to avoid suicide missions. That time could not be inferior to 8 or then seconds"

Now other problem is on the table, the hull of this modern warship is very thin. 10 to 12 mm, reinforced only with an armor of 25 to 50 mm in the magazine area. If the bomb in its trajectory does not find any hard surface, as the engine or some bulkheads it would go trough from side to side.

If you consider that the average width of the hull is 15 meters and the bomb velocity is 250 m/s that gave as result that teorically, without any possible "drag" created by internal componentes of the ship, it should take only 0,06 seconds to get trough the hull.
Is obvious then the dificulties to adjust the parameters between those very tight figures.

reydelcastillo
01-09-2009, 07:58 AM
Iv'e read in the forum of 7 Vulcan missions , of which 3 carried Shrike Missils -
Only one launched and hit a 35 mm Fire Director Skyguard , does someone know about the other two missions - If missils were fired or not - Any Details -
Thank You Regards Enrique

pdf27
01-09-2009, 08:26 AM
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck) has got quite a good article on it. It appears that of the three Shrike missions, one was cancelled in the air (equipment failure), the second was a near miss causing minor damage to an Argentinean surveillance radar (AN/TPS-43), and the third hit the Skyguard system.

reydelcastillo
01-09-2009, 08:40 AM
Thank you , I was the Radra Operator on the ANTPS 44 Alert Mk 2 from the Army - I do remmebre the one that hit the Skyguard , I thought that the one launched to the ANTPS 43 ( Air Force Radar) was another type of missil launched from a Helo from accross the Bay -
Regards Enrique

pdf27
01-09-2009, 09:37 AM
I'm not certain, but I've got a feeling that we didn't have any suitable helicopter-launched missiles deployed at the time. The missiles we had deployed were Sea Skua (eight fired during the Falklands war, all at shipping targets), SS-11 and AS-12. The latter two are derivatives of the Nord Aviation SS-10 anti-tank missile.

The SS-11 was fired from Scout helicopters, with a maximum range of around 3,000m. The only credible reference I've been able to find to it being used in 1982 is on the RAF website (http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/surrender1.html), where 4 Scout helicopters equipped with it are credited with destroying a gun emplacement near Moody Brook. Wiki has a similar statement, but places the gun battery at Wireless Ridge and states that it was undamaged.

As-12 was a significantly larger version used as an anti-shipping weapon. The only reference I can find to it being used in 1982 is when nine of them were launched against the submarine ARA Santa Fe in South Georgia (only four hit, and two of those didn't explode until after passing through the conning tower). It does have a much heavier warhead and about twice the range, however. Both missiles use Manual Control to Line Of Sight (MCLOS) targeting so in theory could be fired at anything the gunner could see, although accuracy tended to be poor.

Pánzon
01-09-2009, 09:53 AM
Hello fellow co-forumers:)

I know I´ve been away from the forum for some time, I can assure you all that is was not due to "rest"......... on the contrary, I had an long and difficult year full of family illnesses and problems from one side to the other.....

In any case, I would like to wish you all a happy 2009, that the "efing" crisis will ease it´s effects soon and I look forward to more Malvinas/Falkland constructive discussion.

Enrique´s post appeared in the mail today and so I have read a couple of postas back to "warm up" and I found a question from Panzerknacker regarding the equivalences of military ranks and I can contribute a bit here..

[QUOTE](1) No idea how the rank vicecomodoro in translated in US or UK ranks./QUOTE]


Panzerknacker,

Vicecomodoro would be the equivalent to a US Lt. Commander, I think is also equivalent to a "Squadron leader" in the RAF but this last one I am unsure of as British ranks are somewhat different than the rest.

I think in the RN it would be a Lt. Commander too.

Cheers and happy 2009 once again

Pánzon

reydelcastillo
01-09-2009, 12:05 PM
Regarding first air atack with Vulcan , remember seeing on the screen between 5 and 6 ecos , later and in other forums different things have been said about this atack -

This is what I see : 5 or 6 ecos from 090 degrees , detected at about 70 NM hearding towards Stanley - Some of those ecos get lost at about 10 NM then comes the atack on the airport -

One version is that the Vulcan came alone and turn on Countermeasures when detected that it was iluminated by triple A ( If so that should have been with in range of triple A - about 10 NM for the survillance radar -and about 4 NM for the radar to adquire ) We saw that plane at about 70 NM

Another version said that Vulcan came only with one escort - But we had 5 or 6 ecos on screen -

So at this point , hard to say which is the correct version -

Pánzon
01-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Enrique,

Could it be that the multiplicity of contacts was due to ECM´s from the planes? I think that the fact that those contacts dissapeared at around 10 miles may point us to it......... but I do understand radar technology is a complicated science and so I just want this to be taken as a "daring idea" under the cover of my ignorance.

Cheers,

Juan.

reydelcastillo
01-09-2009, 01:49 PM
Thank you Panzon , it is an option , but Vulcan states ( I am making a frerence to another Forum ) that they turn on ECM when iluminated by a Triple A system - This would only happen when they get with in range of the system , not at 60 or 70 NM away-Another thing is , would it be send alone with no escort ?
None of the Pilots from RN that we were able to ask were involved in this mission so they could not give us info on it -

pdf27
01-09-2009, 02:41 PM
Thank you Panzon , it is an option , but Vulcan states ( I am making a frerence to another Forum ) that they turn on ECM when iluminated by a Triple A system - This would only happen when they get with in range of the system , not at 60 or 70 NM away-Another thing is , would it be send alone with no escort ?
One possibility is that they didn't know what the engagement range of the AAA system was. Even if the radar signal was reflected perfectly from the bomber, the strength of the radio signal measured by the bomber at 100 NM will be the same as that measured by the AAA system at 10 NM.

Another is that they were just being cautious and wanted to get the system warmed up and running in time. At an airspeed of 600 Knots, they will be travelling at 10 NM per minute. That only gives them a little over 5 minutes between when they turned the ECM system on and when they would have been within the engagement range of the AAA system - that really isn't all that long, particularly if the ECM system was a legacy one from the Cold-War days when the Vulcans were expected to attack the Soviet Union.

Finally, as for being sent alone with no escort, when compared to the Argentinian fighters available over the Falklands the Vulcan's performance is actually pretty similar. The Mirage III/Dagger is capable of being supersonic, but had very limited fuel reserves over the Falklands and hence would be limited to subsonic speeds in practice. The Vulcan was capable of cruising at transonic speeds all day long, so interception would be very tricky. Add in raid warning from the radar picket destroyers to tell the Vulcans if there were any Argentinian aircraft about, and the air threat is pretty minimal.

Pánzon
01-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Hello, and thanks for following up.

Another idea that comes to my mind is that "maybe" and I repeat MAYBE, altough I have read Vulcan 760 ( was it the tittle of the book?) and there was no mention to any type of escort, but........

If you were tracking or detecting multiple targets, would it not be possible that for a short period of time, and just in case there was a Mirage or two in the area the Vulcan flew with a few harriers as escort until range of AAA? Maybe, if they "ducked" under the radar horizon of your 44 it might have seemed as that those multiple targets just disapeared ?

I hope I am not speaking nonsense.

Juan

reydelcastillo
01-09-2009, 04:27 PM
Vulcan could have turn on ECM as far away as 70 NM , and show us 5 or 6 different targets when it was only one

Regarding low level on the final phase of the attack you are wright Panzon , with attacks that originated from the carriers , but came in north of Stanley behind the hills at very low level -

Now for those attacks that came in straight from the carrier heading due west towards the islands there was nowhere to hide , c 130 were seen as far as 13 NM when approaching at night at very low level - Ships were seen as far away as 22 NM when approaching for naval bombardment

Regards Enrique

Lone Ranger
01-10-2009, 06:33 PM
The Vulcan only used ECM in the final phase of the mission once they'd been acquired by the Fire Control Radar of the gun batteries. Can't remember the name of the system but it was more sophisticated than the Red Shrimp system of the original Vulcan and was borrowed by the Buccaneer. It basically rebroadcast the transmissions of the Argentine radar to create false tracks.

There is a detailed description in Vulcan 607 by Rowland White.

Hello everyone, long time no see. I get an email from Panzon and drop by to find there'd been a lot of activity over the last couple of days.

In answer to the other question, the Vulcan bombed alone, it didn't have a fighter escort.

reydelcastillo
01-10-2009, 09:14 PM
Thank you for the replay . if the case is what you have said , allow me to tell you what I had on Screen , and lets see if we can figure out what was going on -

five or six ecos on screen at about 70 NM at 090 degrees , approaching , some of those ecos lost at about 10 NM , I thought they had gone at very low altitude to avoid radar - Then comes the attack -
What did I have on Screen ?
At that moment - May 01,1982 before 0500 AM only 35 mm Skyguard Systems at airport , Roland was by Sapper Hill giving proteccion to the Radra which was on top of Sapper Hill -

Panzerknacker
01-11-2009, 10:46 AM
Panzerknacker,

Vicecomodoro would be the equivalent to a US Lt. Commander, I think is also equivalent to a "Squadron leader" in the RAF but this last one I am unsure of as British ranks are somewhat different than the rest

Sorry the late reply and thank you for your information.

Pánzon
01-11-2009, 01:04 PM
My pleasure Don Panzeknacker !

Juan.

Lone Ranger
01-11-2009, 03:31 PM
To the best of my recollection, the Vulcan approached the target at low level. At approximately 40nm from the Falklands she briefly popped up to scan with her ground mapping radar to confirm her position. The Vulcan relied on 2 INS salvaged from the VC10 fleet for navigation and after a long transit they needed to make certain of their position.

On confirming their position using the mountains east of Stanley, their RWHR warned them they'd been picked up by your radar and they went back to low level. I think they might have tried to spoof IFF as an Argentine aircraft. Other than that there was no electronic emissions whatsoever.

As it approached to the target it pulled up to 8000 ft for the bomb run, the Vulcan was locked up by Skyguard and at that point ECM was deployed.

TBH I'm not sure why you picked up multiple echoes, the Vulcan has a surprisingly small RCS for its size due to its wing planform. It did have 5 spikes on the frontal RCS from its configuration, so I guess that you may have confused the strong returns from various parts of the Vulcan airframe.

The same profile was used for the following raids with the height for the bomb run increased to 10,000 ft.

Does that help?

reydelcastillo
01-11-2009, 05:47 PM
Thanks , yes it does help . other options would be some Helos in the area were the Carriers were -
After that first attack , the following came much the same pattern -
Seen PAC at about 70/80 NM East of Stanley and always between 08/110 Degrees -

Lone Ranger
01-12-2009, 02:53 PM
Could you pick up the helos on anti-submarine patrol?

The only other fixed-wing aircraft aloft was a single Sea Harrier flown by Sharkey Ward.

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 03:05 PM
Allow me to tell you what I remmeber about Helos :

I did see every day ships approach shore for naval bombardment , the Helos that took off as spotters , you see them very clearly - I saw the ships at about 22 NM (when I was at Sapper Hill ) and about 16/18 NM (when at the second position -

I did see what I always suspected of a Helo , siting still at about 40/50 NM east of Stanley at 0901 Degrees , which I suspect was like an observer or control wich assure that the planes heading back from the islands were indeed British planes -

I did see all the Helo movements north and west of Stanley ( its caracteristic how a Helo will show up on your screen , compared to an airplane -

As far as seeing the Helos used as Sub Watchers I cann't tell you certainly if one of the ecos seen for a short period of time was indeed a Helo , it could have been -

I did see every time C-130 Approached at very low level to land at night , those C-130 were seen at about 12/13 NM -

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 03:06 PM
Position of the Helo that I suspect was controling who was heading back to the Carriers - At 090 Degrees

Pánzon
01-12-2009, 03:58 PM
I hope we are all enjoying this exchange with this veteran, perhapas we are the firsts!

Pánzon

Lone Ranger
01-12-2009, 04:18 PM
I would imagine the helo you could see was the Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopter, the Sea Kings didn't have a radar capability suitable to identify any inbound aircraft. Best defence in that respect was the Sea Harrier on Combat Air Patrol (CAP).

I'm kinda curious as to why the Shrike missions with the Vulcan were so unsuccessful, you must have been pretty keen to bag a Vulcan but your radar operators were so sharp they always shut the radar down.

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Now I understand why that Helo was there ( Search and Rescue )

Regarding Radars , there were two in the islands

ANTPS 43 Westinghouse , 3D Radar , 220 NM Range operated by Air Force with main mission of Guiding our planes into atack and guiding them out of harms way - This Radra had a Crew of about 50 , 3 PPI , enough personel to take turns operating

ANTPS 44 Alert MK 2 Cardion , 2 D Radar , 200 NM Range Operated by Triple A , this is the one I was in - In this radar I was the only trained operator in the islands , so no replacement -

Regarding Vulcan missions , the first ones were alerted to us by the crew of the Air Force Radar , why we were not shot or why they missed , some think just luck and the fact that all sorroundings had snow or water which reflected the Radar waves and could have misguided the missil-

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 05:36 PM
Mission , detect and track enemy airplanes , transmit to PCDA/CIC ( Air post command -
By chance we were able to track ships also -

Lone Ranger
01-13-2009, 07:24 AM
Sounds like you might have been lucky as the radar they were after was the ANTPS 43 Westinghouse, though I would imagine they'd have gladly attacked your radar anyway. The main issue as the RAF saw it, was the Shrike they were using needed the radar to continue transmitting and the operators were always sharp enough to simply turn off the radar and not play.

Among the reasons they wanted to take the 3-D radar out was that it always provided a warning to the C-130 supplying the islands making it difficult for the Sea Harrier to interdict those flights. They did try to spoof the radar by flying out as a pair in close formation, then splitting up with one of the pair returning to the carrier. Did you guys spot that - the tactic didn't work by the way.

In addition, I've read a lot about a radar on West Falkland, do you know anything of that?

reydelcastillo
01-13-2009, 07:50 AM
I never heard about a Radar on West Falklnads , could they be talking about a RASIT Infantry Ground Radar ? There was no Aircraft Sourvillance Radra on West Falklands -

I did not understand the question about Radra Spoot - A PAC flying very close one to each other and then splitting , returning one of the airplanes to the Carrier -

Lone Ranger
01-13-2009, 09:40 AM
Spoof means fool or confuse, falso.

The idea is that two aircraft in very close formation appears as one echo, they then use terrain masking to hide the formation break, with one aircraft returning to the Carrier and the other attempting to interdict the C-130. Didn't prove to be a successful tactic.

For info, 801 Naval Air Squadron were convinced there was a surveillance radar on West Falkland.

reydelcastillo
01-13-2009, 10:28 AM
Regardin west islands , there was nothing there up to my knowledge , it either was a Rasit Infantry Radra or an air observation post with radio only -

Regardin PACs , since carriers were east of Falklnads , they did not have any other option than taking off the carriers and heading west towards the islands , and no matter how low they try to fly they were spoted - They did some flying behind the hills just north of Stanley and attack by surprise from the north , but they had been tracked and we knew they were there -

When PACs were coming close to shore , I would say that even flying very close one to the other , you should be able to tell if they were one or two -

When at knight Helo took o the carrier , you very clearly see both , the ship and the Helo even though that Helo was just lifting from the ship -

This will give you an idea of how well we were able to see -When we shot at ships with the 155 mm guided by us we clearly saw the splash on the water , and of course the ship - That splash in the water is seen for two antena turns ( each antena turn took 10 seconds ) - If you work out with normal video , no filters , no MTI its amazing how clear you can see details -

Panzerknacker
01-13-2009, 04:31 PM
Argentine Air Force Helicopters:

Some info about the AAF helos in the war. ( sorry no translation available here)

http://i42.tinypic.com/2hp88et.jpg


http://i43.tinypic.com/f9hxfm.jpg


http://i44.tinypic.com/20pt3k1.jpg


http://i40.tinypic.com/10o41fb.jpg

The couple of Chinooks deployed in the isles survived the war.

Lone Ranger
01-14-2009, 07:17 AM
Regardin west islands , there was nothing there up to my knowledge , it either was a Rasit Infantry Radra or an air observation post with radio only

Thanks for the information, it surprises me how much you could see. Later in the war the carriers moved East so you must have had difficulty then? The reason I ask is that the Harriers would conduct a low level egress from the carriers to hide the carrier location. It seems to have worked as on May 30 the attempted attack on Invincible hit completely the wrong location. Costly though as we lost 3 Harriers doing that.

Cuts
01-14-2009, 10:25 AM
Regardin west islands , there was nothing there up to my knowledge , it either was a Rasit Infantry Radra or an air observation post with radio only -

Regardin PACs , since carriers were east of Falklnads , they did not have any other option than taking off the carriers and heading west towards the islands , and no matter how low they try to fly they were spoted - They did some flying behind the hills just north of Stanley and attack by surprise from the north , but they had been tracked and we knew they were there -

When PACs were coming close to shore , I would say that even flying very close one to the other , you should be able to tell if they were one or two -

When at knight Helo took o the carrier , you very clearly see both , the ship and the Helo even though that Helo was just lifting from the ship -

This will give you an idea of how well we were able to see -When we shot at ships with the 155 mm guided by us we clearly saw the splash on the water , and of course the ship - That splash in the water is seen for two antena turns ( each antena turn took 10 seconds ) - If you work out with normal video , no filters , no MTI its amazing how clear you can see details -

Hello Reydelcastillo, and thank you for some very interesting posts, it's heartening to see that the mature members can correspond politely with one another.

Reference the 155 gunline you were directing, did you use rdo comms or fd telephones ?

It's also interesting that you could still see the echo of the splash for over ten seconds of rotation, was that due to droplet reflection & if so what kind of problems did you experience with rain/sea clutter ?

Pánzon
01-14-2009, 01:56 PM
Hello everybody,

Such interesting thread, it is incredible the ammount of interesting information that can be shared thanks to the net. It helps us to understand and hopefully not make the same mistakes.

I would be a happy man if Enrique could explain a bit better how was that case of directing firo of the 155 mm section. I am proud to say that my father company manufactured the elevation gearboxes for the firt 56 howitzers of 155 mm, at that time known as "SOFMA". I did activelly participated in the "task" and I remember how estrict the quality standards were, every single material should be backed by a laboratory as well as tolerances, termal treatments and functioning, I am proud to say that the EA was extremelly happy with our geraboxes and there was not a single complain.:) We worked our backs off then.:)

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 02:42 PM
Thank for your words -
Its a Pleasure andf Honor to be able to post in Your Forum

My Respects Enrique Rey del Castillo

The identification as poster is my last name -

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 02:52 PM
Allow me to go back with Long Range regarding the PACS that took of and travel certain distance at low level before gaining altitude to missinform their position regardin the Radar -

Then I will gladly describe what I remember on the 155

Thank you Enrique

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 02:58 PM
Very intrestying , they then were aware that knowing were the ecos lift off and landed , we would be able to track the Carriers -
Yes it was that way , certain days porevious to the attacks on Carriers ( without us knowing about it ) we were requested to update info on the PACs every 30 seconds , ( They i am refering to the PCDA/CIC in the islands ) - By constantly updating that info , they had a rough idea were the carriers were -
I did not know that on purpuse the Pilots stay low when lift off and presumly then flew low some miles before landind to hide the exact position of the carriers -

Let me ask you , you mention a lost of 3 airplanes on the 30th of may , can you tell me the circunstances in which they were lost?

Thank You , Regards Enrique

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 03:01 PM
Some time ago , talking in the Forum Key Publishing aviation that belongs to the United Kingdom , we ( well it was not actualy me , it was the members of that forum ) that came to the conclusion that I would be able to see the PACs at about 90 NM when they reach 3,500 of altitude - They made all the math and came to that conclusion -

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 03:09 PM
Note : It's 3,500 Feet not meters that the PAC had to be at , in order to be seen at 90 NM - From the first Position on top of Sapper Hill , and I think it was that if they stay at 3,500 I would be able to see them when they were at about 70 NM from the second position -

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 03:25 PM
You ask me how did we transmit info , if by base line or radio , I will tell you wright now , but let me ask you :

Cuts were you the one on top of the Phone posts , that everyone saw when British Artillery was hitting us ?
It was talked about it in all the islands , how come they send someone to repair the phone lines (civil phone lines ) in the middle of a battle ?

From Sapper Hill by radio and mirowave that was install by Air Force , direct link to PCDA/CIC

From the second position , Radio and military line installed by my people

Nickdfresh
01-14-2009, 03:26 PM
Regardin west islands , there was nothing there up to my knowledge , it either was a Rasit Infantry Radra or an air observation post with radio only -

Regardin PACs , since carriers were east of Falklnads , they did not have any other option than taking off the carriers and heading west towards the islands , and no matter how low they try to fly they were spoted - They did some flying behind the hills just north of Stanley and attack by surprise from the north , but they had been tracked and we knew they were there -

When PACs were coming close to shore , I would say that even flying very close one to the other , you should be able to tell if they were one or two -

When at knight Helo took o the carrier , you very clearly see both , the ship and the Helo even though that Helo was just lifting from the ship -

This will give you an idea of how well we were able to see -When we shot at ships with the 155 mm guided by us we clearly saw the splash on the water , and of course the ship - That splash in the water is seen for two antena turns ( each antena turn took 10 seconds ) - If you work out with normal video , no filters , no MTI its amazing how clear you can see details -


This may be uncomfortable to answer - but did you hit any ships/craft?

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 03:28 PM
No we did not hit any ship , we did hit close to them , in a few minutes i will give you the detail of how was it that we did it -

Regards Enrique

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 03:29 PM
I'm sorry its NickDFresh from Bufalo / New York
My Apolagise -

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 04:07 PM
Regarding 155 mm

Since the begining of the conflict , Daily Naval bombardment , was hamering the troops almost every night , by mid may 1982 a mate of mine with whom we did the Military School , was in charge of the 155 mm canons - One night I receive a call from him , he tells me that he was going to give ita try and shoot one ground towrds the ships , I tell him the positions of the ship , and he shoots - I was able to see the explosion in the water , I had always been able to see the ships , so nowe it was a matter of making the prediccion and try to hit the ship with the 155 - At first we didn't even come close , anyway it was a psicological help in the islands , we all feel that we could retaliate -
We tried a couple of days , it was imposible , we did not have a clue about ships ,much less when it was moving - So the PCDA/CIC Triple A Air post Comad) assigns me a Naval Oficer , that was a year younger than me , we had the equivalent rank - This Oficer who came to be my friend , a wounderfull Person , very knowledgeble reported to the Radar one night , I told him what was going on , and told him our intentions - He gave to me a brief explanation of how ships operate and do the naval bombardment -
I got him a pen and paper and told him , I will look for the ship , you do the firing - For every shot he did the math , sitting by my side ploting the ships and giving the firing instructions - As nights went on , we were improving , hitting each time closer - We sepend so many nights , with our helmets to the neck waitting for retalation from the ships , whish created a wounderfull friendship - He is still on duty , he is a very courage person , he is actually the Comander of the Argentine Ocean Fleet - He must be 4th or 5th in rank in the navy - Brillant person -
We new that at some point we were going to be targeted by ships because of that - And we were targeted on the night of June 11 -

When shooting at ships , which you see very clearly on the screen , if you work out the radar with normal video , no MTI , no filters , you can clearly see the impact of a big caliber gun when its amo expodes =

reydelcastillo
01-14-2009, 04:18 PM
One anecdotic thing regarding ships on naval bombardment -

On may 01 I was on top of Sapper Hill , wright at the bottom and a little bit to the south east the Roland was placed giving Air Protection to the Radra - On the afternoon of may 01 . ships came in for naval bombardment , they start the naval bombardment , then comes in an Air Attack guided by the Air Force Radra - At that moment and before the Air Force attack the ships , the Roland Operator had engaged one ship , after some time , after the war ended , the operator told me that he had engaged a ship , but did not fire because it was going to be a long shot , and he had doubts the missil would reach the ship since it was going to be traveling at very low altitude and it could hit anything ( wave ) in between him and the ship - Besides he had only ten missils and the conflict had just began -

Cuts
01-14-2009, 08:16 PM
You ask me how did we transmit info , if by base line or radio , I will tell you wright now , but let me ask you :

Cuts were you the one on top of the Phone posts , that everyone saw when British Artillery was hitting us ?
It was talked about it in all the islands , how come they send someone to repair the phone lines (civil phone lines ) in the middle of a battle ?

No pal, that would normally be a Liney's job - definitely not this callsign, it sounds downright dangerous ! :D

I think it's because useful Int was collected from eyes on the ground.



From Sapper Hill by radio and mirowave that was install by Air Force , direct link to PCDA/CIC

From the second position , Radio and military line installed by my people

Thanks.

Lone Ranger
01-15-2009, 11:00 AM
Let me ask you , you mention a lost of 3 airplanes on the 30th of may , can you tell me the circunstances in which they were lost?

It wasn't 3 on 30 May I think you misunderstood.

3 Sea Harriers were lost during low level transit from the carrier, all flown into the sea at night. 2 were a pair that are thought to have collided.

Pánzon
01-15-2009, 01:56 PM
Hello all, do you think that the shortage of fuel of the Harriers and the fact that fliying low consumes a lot of fuel would have made those low level dashes literaly short, thus giving the adeversay Intel guess the positions by studying the paterns, as I undertand aerial operations were conducted from far east from the islands, ( "Admiral Capetown") and those low final runs were obviously quite dangerous as it seems especially on the way out when heavily loaded and with a lot of drag. And consider the loitering time, the perhaps battle, I remember from Ward´s book that one time he came so short that the Invincible captain came in his direction a 30 knots.

Cheers.

Lone Ranger
01-16-2009, 04:05 PM
No they weren't short 40-60 nm was fairly typical, they were fairly disciplined about it. Though as noted it was a costly tactic.

reydelcastillo
01-16-2009, 08:11 PM
Yes Sir it was a costly tactic but it work out very well , it miss guided the location of the Carriers , prof of it , the attack on may 30 went to the south west side of the ring - And there you have those 20 to 30 miles of distance between what was thought and were the carriers actually were -

Regards Enrique