Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falklands scenario

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Ah thanks Darkplace you made that clear. I had been watching "20th Century Battlefield" documentary about the Falklands war, the narrator said at the beginning of the landing that the anchorage provided cover. However I noticed they weren't getting early radar warning so I concluded that was a false assumption of protection.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
      Glamorgan wasn't sunk. She detected the incoming excocet, turned to take the missile on the stern and it exploded in her hanger. Very little damage to the Hull was taken.
      Just as well! I had a mate John French, on her...And yes! she was dammaged by a land launched Exocet.

      Paul
      ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
      All human ills he can subdue,
      Or with a bauble or medal
      Can win mans heart for you;
      And many a blessing know to stew
      To make a megloamaniac bright;
      Give honour to the dainty Corse,
      The Pixie is a little shite.

      Comment


      • #48
        The Argentines really needed one of two things:

        Either a number of aerial tankers that could refuel aircraft allowing their existing ones the range to operate freely over the Falklands,

        or

        Longer range aircraft that could make the trip loaded with munitions and make full use of their flight envelope.

        Comment


        • #49
          Mines

          Interesting reading "The Silent Deep" in the chapter on the Falklands conflict.

          HMS Spartan off Port Stanley

          Spartan's crew quickly obtained a vital piece of intelligence that fed into the Task Force's plan to reoccupy the Islands. According to Northwood, the Argentinians did not possess any mine laying capabilities. However, on 15 April Spartan observed two Argentinian vessels, one the landing-ship Cabo San Antonio, laying two minefields near the entrance to Port Stanley Harbor.

          Comment


          • #50
            Mines would have been a good choice. The Argies could have easily bought a huge number and had them laid by modified commercial vessel as the invasion started. It would have taken planning ahead for that however, and I get that a lot of the Falklands invasion was a hastily decided on action.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
              Mines

              Interesting reading "The Silent Deep" in the chapter on the Falklands conflict.

              HMS Spartan off Port Stanley
              The Brits never seriously considered landing anywhere near Port Stanley.

              Comment


              • #52
                I haven't read Woodward's book yet so I don't know what the thoughts were on the landing. I've just been reading about the submarines in the conflict at the moment. I also have Michael Clapp's book.

                One Hundred Days: The Memoirs of the Falklands Battle Group Commander by Admiral Sandy Woodward


                Amphibious Assault Falklands: The Battle of San Carlos Water by Ewen Southby-Tailyour


                Since he was in charge of the amphibious operations in the Falklands War, it goes without saying that there is no one better qualified to tell the story of that aspect of the campaign than Commodore Michael Clapp. Here he describes, with considerable candour, some of the problems met in a Navy racing to war and finding it necessary to recreate a largely abandoned operational technique in a somewhat ad hoc fashion. During the time it took to 'go south' some sense of order was imposed and a not very well defined command structure evolved, this was not done without generating a certain amount of friction. He tells of why San Carlos Water was chosen for the assault and the subsequent inshore operations. Michael Clapp and his small staff made their stand an can claim a major role in the defeat of the Argentine Air and Land Forces.

                Comment


                • #53
                  If you read Clapp's and Southby-Tailyour book (Reasons In Writing) along with the ones by a couple of the infantry battalion commanders and Julian Thompson's memoir, you'll find that Sandy Woodward wasn't very well liked and wasn't very good at his job.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Yes I got that impression about Woodward from watching some youtube videos of Cmdr "Sharkey" Ward. I thought I would withhold judgement until I knew more.

                    About the "mines" we were trying to come up with alternatives the Argentinians could have done to better defend themselves. The more I read, just some decent Argentinean leadership and planning could have gone a long way to give the Brits a very had time.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Real life keeps getting in the way but I am working on a cyberboard gamebox to use SPI Task Force to game out some Falklands conflict. I can't wait to see if I can use the Argentine subs in the shallows around the islands. Got to find a way to get those British subs!



                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The problem with the Argentine subs was the two available German built Type 209's they had were not combat ready. The first of the two didn't have all the necessary fire control equipment and software delivered and installed yet, and the second was basically a pier decoration.
                        That's from an article by the Captain of the first one in Proceedings a few years back. He did try to make several torpedo attacks but said using a stop watch and periscope readings just didn't cut it.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Thanks for the info TA, I was just vaguely thinking if the Argentine subs had been in top condition as per the idea of alternate timelines. I just haven't had time to continue my reading on the British subs in the conflict. But from what I have read so far, besides all the mechanical troubles, if they hadn't had such restrictive ROE they could have easily sunk every Argentine ship. Woodward does seem to have pushed to have the Belgrano sunk and then to finally have the restrictions lifted to get the de Mayo. Hopefully I have time this coming weekend.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The Argentine carrier would have been a difficult to impossible target as she had engine issues and was essentially "welded to a pier" in harbor throughout the conflict.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              were the Argentine subs capable of launching Harpoons ?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Sorry for using Wiki for info, easy to access however.

                                Only two were (barely) operational.

                                ARA Santa Fe (S-21)
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_(S-21)

                                ARA San Luis (S-32)
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Luis_(S-32)

                                After the Falklands War ended, German and Dutch engineers were sent to Argentina to discover what went wrong with their torpedoes. The problem was found to be that one of the Argentine sailors who was in charge of periodic maintenance of the torpedoes had inadvertently reversed the polarity of power cables between the torpedoes and the submarine. This meant that when the torpedoes' gyros were spun up, they ran "backwards" and thus tumbled on launch, preventing the weapons from taking up their proper heading

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X