Falklands Conflict

Admin's and Mod's Admins and Mod's - Archive Room
#221

Hi!!! Good first post.

I just thought I’d add that from everything I’ve seen on the subject, the Argentine Skyhawk pilots were acknowledged by the British side as… well… showing real balls in their low level bombing runs through the hail of fire put up for them.

As you say they weren’t “the best” - but hats off to them, they were damn brave.

Of course, they maybe flew a little too low, and their bombs didn’t arm. Guys - wasn’t it a point of some concern at the time that the reporters with the task force NOT report ships were being hit frequently by bombs dropped too low to arm? I vaguely remembering hearing about this but can’t remember enough details to pursue a search for the full story.

#222

Vince Bramley, a L/Cpl in 3 Para and author of Excursion To Hell wrote a follow up, Two Sides Of Hell. The author met and interviewed three Paras and three Argentine soldiers who fought at Mount Longdon. Not exactly a story of reconcilliation, but Bramley met his old enemies and shook their hands. Worth reading.

#223

This sounds very similar to the disinformation campaign used by the British against the German V weapons in WW2. Those, which hit London, where reported in the news to have flown too far and overshot London, while those which landed too short were reported as having hit London. The Germans, who listened to British news broadcasts now adjusted the aim of the weapons shorter, so that as a result the landed in empty fields south of London.

Jan

#224

Hi!!! Good first post.

I just thought I’d add that from everything I’ve seen on the subject, the Argentine Skyhawk pilots were acknowledged by the British side as… well… showing real balls in their low level bombing runs through the hail of fire put up for them.

As you say they weren’t “the best” - but hats off to them, they were damn brave.

Of course, they maybe flew a little too low, and their bombs didn’t arm. Guys - wasn’t it a point of some concern at the time that the reporters with the task force NOT report ships were being hit frequently by bombs dropped too low to arm? I vaguely remembering hearing about this but can’t remember enough details to pursue a search for the full story.[/quote]

Wasn’t it Napoleon who said " never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake"? :slight_smile:

#225

I have noticed that since my return Erwin seems to have mellowed out quite a lot and congratulate him on this…

#226

[quote=“Walther”]

This sounds very similar to the disinformation campaign used by the British against the German V weapons in WW2. Those, which hit London, where reported in the news to have flown too far and overshot London, while those which landed too short were reported as having hit London. The Germans, who listened to British news broadcasts now adjusted the aim of the weapons shorter, so that as a result the landed in empty fields south of London.

Jan[/quote]

It was the opposite - IIRC, a BBC World Service reporter reported that the argies were flying in very low & the bombs were not exploding. The argies were listening in to this, and made their next bombing runs a little higher… Thank you, BBC.

#227

Didn’t something similar happen during the battle of Goose Green, that the BBC broadcasted that a battalion of paras were preparing to attack Argentine positions, so that the attack lost all it’s surprise and had to be started while the soldiers were still tired from a route march to their point of depature? AFAIK, the attack was supposed to start one day later, to give the soldiers some rest, but due to the BBC broadcast it had to be started earlier before the now warned Argentinian troops could get reinforcements in.

Jan

#228

The HMS Antelope was sunk by an Skyhawk, but he bomb that hit it didnt explode, it blow when the crew of the ship try to disarm it.
Another thing I want to discuss in this forum is the fact (or not) that the HMS Invencible was hit by a Exocet and the Royal Navy never admit it. It seems an Super Etendart and two Skyhawk flown to a “big target” in the radar. The Super Etendart fire the missile at the target and the two Skyhawk follow the missile smoke trail. One of the A4 was shootdown aproaching the target and the other reach his position. When the A4 identify visualy the target it was the Invencible and had a big hit in his side, whith smoke and flames coming out of it. The aircraft drop his bombs and miss, then come back to the base with the history. After the incident the carrier left the operation zone. Any british heard something about it? It seems to me hard to keep in secret for so long, but in Argentina you hear the history from high ranking officers.
I live nearby the biggest navy base of Argentina and one of the second in Latin America (Puerto Belgrano), and there is a lot of war history around here. I dinner one time with the pilot who sunk the Sheffield. And one of my cousins made wood missiles to simulate AA defense in my city.

#229

If one of our carriers was damaged and left the war zone, how did we keep our air cover going?

#230

There was two carriers operating in the zone, the Invencible and the Hermes (Im not sure). Here is the story of the atack, offical source, with the names of the pilots:

A las 11:25 despegaron, desde Río Gallegos, los KC-130 y se dirigieron a su punto de reabastecimiento. A las 12:30, despegaron, de Río Grande, dos Super Etendard, indicativo ALA, y cuatro A-4C Skyhawk, indicativo ZONDA.
La operación estaba penalizada por una serie de condiciones que deberían cumplirse, inexorablemente. Todas ellas se ejecutaron a la perfección. Una vez disparado el Exocet, los cuatro A-4C, (Ureta e Isaac a la derecha y Castillo y Vázquez a la izquierda), se lanzaron convergiendo casi en línea, sobre la estela del misil.
Lo primero que vieron fue una columna de humo, en el horizonte. El impacto del Exocet señalaba bien el blanco, pero había puesto en funcionamiento todo el sistema defensivo del portaaviones y sus escoltas cercanas, que ya comenzaban a adquirir, en sus miras electrónicas, a los aviones.
Cuando ya tenian nítidamente al HMS Invincible en sus miras, un misil (posiblemente un Sea Dart) impactó en el avión del jefe de escuadrilla, primer teniente Vázquez. La aeronave se partió en dos y se estrelló en el mar. Cinco segundos antes del lanzamiento, la artillería del buque impactó en el numeral 2, primer teniente Castillo, cuyo avión explotó. Parece que su motor cayó sobre la cubierta y resbaló hasta el hueco del ascensor de aviones, por donde entró e incendió su interior. Los dos aviones restantes estaban también alcanzando el objetivo, que ya se cubría de humo. Ambos lanzaron sus bombaas sobre la cubierta. Ureta, que pasó primero, creyó haber impactado en la superestructura del buque. Ambos escaparon indemnes y se alejaron con distintos rumbos haciendo maniobras evasivas. Al serenarse, echaron un último vistazo al buque y lo vieron cubierto de humo espeso y negro.
Se perdieron de vista entre sí, pero siguieron rasante en rumbo 230° / 240°, hacia el lugar en que deberían reunirse con los reabastecedores. Se avistaron nuevamente y luego, en el punto exacto, se encontraron con los dos KC-130.
Ureta e Isaac, reabastecieron y se dirigieron a la Base Aérea Militar Río Grande. La operación había durado casi cuatro horas.

#231

Here is a link with the full history, including the british version of the incident.

http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/eqmilitar/nota104166.asp

#232

Can’t read Spanish mate, but as far as I know neither of the carriers were hit - I’ve seen videos of the homecomings and didn’t see any damage to either of them

#233

I’ve read about Argentine aircraft with “kill” markings for the Invincible - I believe the story goes that they thought they had hit Invincible, when in truth they hit another large ship - the merchant container ship Atlantic Conveyor. Invincible returned to port undamaged after the war. Atlantic Conveyor went to the bottom, I believe.

Although not as grevious a blow as the loss of Invincible would have been, Atlantic Conveyor took with her most of the support helicopters intended to carry the Marines across East Falkland to Port Stanley. Hence why Bravo November was the only Chinook used in the Falklands and so on.

#234

(10) As “Coventry” goes down, and quite separate from the Skyhawk sorties, two Super Etendards of CANA 2 Esc approach the CVBG from the north after refuelling on the way by Hercules tanker. In their path and close together are the two carriers and transport “Atlantic Conveyor” at this time some 90 miles north east of Stanley and heading in for San Carlos Water.

Just after 4.30 pm, they launch two Exocets from a range of 30 miles, and in spite of attempts to decoy the missiles away by chaff fired by the warships including “Ambuscade”, one of them hits “Atlantic Conveyor” and sets her ablaze uncontrollably. Little is known of the fate of the second Exocet.

“Alacrity” and “Brilliant” close in to help, but the order is soon given to abandon ship, and by the time the survivors are picked up, a total of twelve men have died including Capt North. Fortunately the Harriers have been flown off before the attack, but all the helicopters apart from an airborne Chinook and thousands of tons of stores including ammunition, Harrier spares and tents, have to be left on the burning ship. Tug “Irishman” goes to her aid and on Thursday takes the burnt out hulk in tow, but “Atlantic Conveyor” soon sinks taking with her six Wessex [b17-22], three Chinooks [b23-25] and a spare Lynx [b26].

Source is http://www.naval-history.net/F47opsweek9.htm , which is usually pretty good. Date given for the attack is Tuesday 25th May.

I can also find mention of an Exocet attack on the 29th of May on HMS Avenger ( http://www.naval-history.net/F49opweeks9.htm ), but I can’t find mention of an attack on the 30th.

Major problem with the theory that Hermes/Invincible were badly damaged is that they very publicly returned to port in the UK within a month or so of the attack, without putting into port for any length of time beforehand. As such, the damage would be difficult if not impossible to conceal - and there are no photos of it that I’ve ever seen.

#235

The Atlantic Conveyor wasent the original target, the missile was directed to a destroyer who diverted the proyectil with chaff and ECM, then the missile lock on the cargo ship. The british version of the Invencible incident (one of them) was that the exocet hit the remains of the Atlantic Conveyor. In the link in spanish that I post there was two A4 pilots who says they saw the carrier in flames (four A4 where in the flight, two where destroyed). One of the aircraft was hit by a Sea Dart and the engine of the plane hit the deck of the carrier bounce and land in one of the elevators setting fire one of the hangars. Is the official statement of the argentinian Air Force.

#236

[/quote]Major problem with the theory that Hermes/Invincible were badly damaged is that they very publicly returned to port in the UK within a month or so of the attack, without putting into port for any length of time beforehand. As such, the damage would be difficult if not impossible to conceal - and there are no photos of it that I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

If that is true is easy to document, and the theory of the atack is false. There is any way to have a proof of the time and condition or shape of the ship when it reach the port?. A newspaper or similar. An argentinian navy officer say to me that the Invencible was seen in a shipyard in USA before go to UK.

#237

By that point too many people would have known (e.g. the ship’s crew, the next of kin of any people killed whilst serving on Invincible, the US dockyard workers, practically anyone else serving in the Invincible’s task force). It could not have been kept secret for very long at all.

#238

With the amount of media on the ships we would have heard about it by now. What ship was Hastings on? Also when was the film “I counted them out….” And this clearly shows a carrier in actions.

Discostu the media in this country work slightly different to what you may be used to. At the time they would have said nothing but by now it would be all out in the open. Also the casualties, how many were on any of the carriers. If you think that the families would be silenced or not say anything if your child/husband had not returned. I have seen film of one of the ships coming home and beside a lot of rust but has no damage.

#239

I think the same way, but dont understand how in my country people give so much credit to propaganda. I think sometimes is because of the failure and defeat of the ground forces, so they want to “raise” the perfomance of our airmen. There is here a lot of free press here, not at the time of the war but since 1983 we are democratic. The lost of the war was the main cause of the fall of the “Junta”. During the war my fathers told me (i was only 3 years) that the press say we where winning and kicking the british ass, then suddenly we surrender. At the present time I cannot belive how people and the airforce stick to to this history when there is no other proof than the word of two pilots. If the Invencible got hit, 23 years later there is not at least a picture of the damage?

#240

Pride. Pure and simple.

Perfectly understandable that people would choose to believe a version of events in which their own country looks to have performed better.