Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falklands scenario

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

  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Sir Tristian was also a constructive loss.
    After his battle with King Mark of Cornwell - you betcha....
    Uhhhhhh did you mean -the ship....
    I get so confused....


    Anyhaow - It is worth seeing Argentina as " the Ukraine of the Americas" Every advantage - and it -still doesn't quite work......

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    There was an article in USNI Proceedings years ago by the Captain of the San Luis who stated that the submarine hadn't been fully fitted out and that he was firing torpedoes using periscope bearings and hand calculations with a stop watch. Kind of old fashioned but it certainly isn't the most accurate way to do it.
    I think they almost sank as well but what if that sub had been well taken care of? The degaussing had been done wrong, the torpedoes were totally scambled. He might have hit something if they had been properly maintained even with the WWI style attack?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    There was an article in USNI Proceedings years ago by the Captain of the San Luis who stated that the submarine hadn't been fully fitted out and that he was firing torpedoes using periscope bearings and hand calculations with a stop watch. Kind of old fashioned but it certainly isn't the most accurate way to do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    combine with post above

    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
    If the Argentine's had both 209 U-Boats in tip top shape with elite mercenary German crews captained by experienced submariners who acted like Steven Segal and Chuck Norris the RN wouldn't exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    the Argentine submarine San Luis twice launched torpedo attacks on British ships which went undetected; torpedo malfunctions saved the British vessels.
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...o-attack-52422

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Found a copy of "Iron Lady's Fleet" for use with Victory Games 7th Fleet rules




    "Iron Lady’s Fleet” is a game of naval warfare taking place in South-Atlantic during the Falklands Wars in 1982. Time Scale : - 8 hours per turn - 80 km per hex. The players maneuver war ships, submarines, aircrafts, amphibious war ships and cargos on a map covering. The game reuse rules from Victory Games Fleet series, but includes new weapons as missiles, ground launched ballistic missiles, SAM, cruise missiles There are also new rules regarding submarines, Aegis ships, anti-missile defence systems, long range air-to-air missile, More Information: The game includes 5 scénarios, from very simple to more complex ones : 1/ Bluff Cove Black Death 2/ Lost Cruiser 3/ Strike San Carlos 4/ Like Churchill's her fought 5/ Galtieri's Backhand Blow

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    The problem wasn't with the Argentinian Air Force. They fought well. It was the ground forces that were beaten by the British. When you have arguably the best adhoc light infantry division ever put together (2 Para, 3 RM, 1 Gurkha and 2 Guards battalions) up against conscripts, they are going to win.
    PS-I know it was actually 2 Brigades, but 8 infantry battalions is very close to a division.
    Hi Johns

    Spot on.

    Regards

    Andy H

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Here again the Soviet ASM like AS7 AS12 AS14 are cheap and plentiful although short range could be used by the strike planes against the superstructure of many of the escorts and the and transports , although they might not sink the ships but could cause enough damage to achieve mission kills

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    There was shore based version called Rubezh of Styx missile, it was mobile and could be difficult to track and destroy
    Even the SSC-1 Sepal could be available as a mobile land launcher
    And, these as shore based weapons would have been difficult to deal with in the restricted waters right off the islands where the RN planned their landings. Nail the bigger amphib's and the whole operation is in a perilous position.

    Now, another possibility is that the Argentines wire and equip the Pucara COIN plane for an IR guided AAM along with making more use of it in the anti-ship role.
    For the former, they could have (with foresight) given it say, two hard points for Sidewinder or something similar that was Israeli, giving it some air-to-air capacity. This would have made it marginally capable against a Harrier.
    The other thing is the anti-ship role. If the pilots knew how to fly NOE and do wave skimming and attacked in numbers from several directions, they could have easily overwhelmed individual ships and crippled them with rockets and bombs. The later didn't need to be large, but rather numerous with impact fuzing. Serious topside damage taking out radar and sensor systems along with unarmored and exposed weapons would have been sufficient to force a ship to retire from the battle area for repairs.
    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 21 Feb 18, 00:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I'd say a better alternative would have been for the Argies to purchase a bunch of P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) missiles for coast defense from the Soviets. Say they get a shipment of 24 to 36 of these and send like half to the Falklands on a ship with the landing force.
    They could have flown in more afterwards too.

    These are set up in batteries of say 6 missiles to cover the most likely landing areas and anchorages the RN would use.

    While the missile itself is obsolescent, it is deadly to anything the British have if it hits. One hit would cripple or sink a frigate or destroyer. All the Argies need do is coordinate their launches so they coincide with air strikes. That would make defense far more difficult as the ships try to focus their few weapon systems on multiple targets now.

    Having a land launched missile would have definitely complicated things for the British, particularly if they had a reasonable quantity of them. The P-15 was already an export item, and relatively cheap on top of that. It was also easy to use and relatively easy to maintain.
    There was shore based version called Rubezh of Styx missile, it was mobile and could be difficult to track and destroy
    Even the SSC-1 Sepal could be available as a mobile land launcher

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    See, that's the wrong thinking. If they had concentrated on the commercial ships with all the logistics, it would've hurt the British a lot more.
    Indeed but I was using this as an example
    if 4 Su-24s or similar strike planes attack a 80s vintage destroyer it would be really hard for such a ship to defend itself and almost certainly sunk if even one of the 4 planes manage to strike the ship with a 1000 lb or even 500 lb bomb

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    They only sank one, the Sir Galahad. It was even just damaged and sunk by the RN later. The Argentinian sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor severely hampered the ground war since the loss of its helicopters led to the Brits having to walk to Stanley. If they had sunk the LPDs Fearless and Intrepid, it would have been the end of the invasion.
    Sir Tristian was also a constructive loss.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The Argentines did sink the two LST the British brought (out of 6) putting a dent in their amphibious operations, but only after both had mostly unloaded their equipment. So, they did try, only a bit too late.
    They only sank one, the Sir Galahad. It was even just damaged and sunk by the RN later. The Argentinian sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor severely hampered the ground war since the loss of its helicopters led to the Brits having to walk to Stanley. If they had sunk the LPDs Fearless and Intrepid, it would have been the end of the invasion.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    See, that's the wrong thinking. If they had concentrated on the commercial ships with all the logistics, it would've hurt the British a lot more.
    The Argentines did sink the two LST the British brought (out of 6) putting a dent in their amphibious operations, but only after both had mostly unloaded their equipment. So, they did try, only a bit too late.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    concentrated attacks against destroyers would have been difficult to counter given there was no AEGIS like system in those ships.
    See, that's the wrong thinking. If they had concentrated on the commercial ships with all the logistics, it would've hurt the British a lot more.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X