USN report on Falklands Conflict

Discussion in 'History' started by TeddyT, Sep 16, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Something i found on the internet: An interesting perspective given by the yanks.
  2. Linky no worky!
  3. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    A really interesting totally objective read. Many thanks, a good find.

    A few observations upon first scan:

    (Page 3, para E)

    Large warships versus small warships - Interesting that the paper reports that the four RN Warships lost would not have occurred had any of the individual (14) strikes hit the USS New Jersey. True, but Glamorgan (medium sized) took an Exocet, kept calm & carried on whereas the Belgrano (large), for all her armour was lost after a two torpedo hits. I'd agree the build quality and compartmentalised design of the ship greatly affected survivability - sadly the RN today still opts for the cheaper, commercial build on it's larger ships that make them more vulnerable because of the cheaper cost of having big open spaces.

    (Page 5 para F) Aircraft

    A good call by the US with regard the fact we never achieved air superiority throughout the conflict and our 50,000 tons of aircraft carrier (Hermes & Invincible) could only support a third of the aircraft than that available via a single 90,000 ton Nimitz class carrier.

    Interesting to note we lost 5 harriers through non-combat incidents, 5 from ground fire (& Atlantic Conveyor hit) & none in air to air combat.

    (page 6) Vulcan

    3 single planes, 21 x 1,000lb bombs dropped each (63 bombs) and erm, "virtually no impact on Argentine radar or airfields". Both continued to work fully until the last day of the conflict. Surprised the RAF haven't made a documentary claiming complete success. Oh, they have.

    (Page 31) Anti Ship Missile Defence

    SeaCat: 80 Launched, 10 kills
    SeaWolf: 6 Launched 5 kills

    An excellent read so far. Recommended reading for those interested in Naval history.

    link: US Department of the Navy - Falkland Island Lesson Learned
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  4. interesting reading
  5. I too picked up on the RAF and the runway bit... snigger ..... they do try, bless em.

    The comments about EW were rather pertinent. Considering that Exocet was fitted on the ships heading south, the Gollies were not in possession of the radar's characteristics. Well not until the killick golly on the Sheff ("B___S" H____N) wrote it down on the back of his hand before jumping overboard that is.

    Perhaps most of the constructive criticisms could be countered by having complete air superiority supplied by a credible air wing on a credible platform.
  6. Interesting read
  7. Then Flymo , you ought to read the book Black Buck and find out just what effort and time went into it, save your sniggers for something worthwhile.
  8. No argument there. For the best part of three days around each disappointingly ineffectual Black Buck raid, a staggering amount of time, effort and fuel was diverted from more vital work supporting the Task Force including C-130 and Nimrod flights. In the meantime, nightly NGS and Harrier raids were having much more effect on Stanley Air Field.
  9. pm me your email
  10. let me know if it went through o/k.
  11. The book was as I recall, Vulcan 670 or similar and was a brilliant read. The planning and logistics for the raids were absolutely amazing and mind boggling.

    But the fact remains, only one bomb hit the runway out of the many (there were several raids) that were dropped.

    So on one hand a BZ to our sideways walking chums and on the other, let the sniggering continue for crap marksmanship!
  12. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    I'd agree the Black Buck raids were a triumph of strategic planning & would not wish to detract from the sterling efforts to achieve bombers over the Falklands. The psychological effect of the raids, the RAF claim, kept a significant portion of the Argentine air force on the mainland further South to defend against attack, but whether that reduced strikes against the task force is questionable.

    Fact is we needed more carrier-based fighter/bomber aircraft. As it was, other than during CAP handovers, there were only a couple of Harriers airborne throughout the day to defend the task force ashore and afloat. Here we are, thirty years later with zero fixed-wing capability afloat at this moment in time.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Strange report read or dit heard when down south was the crabs deliberately missed the runway to leave it serviceable for when we took over the Islands,it was just a ploy to put the shits up the Arggies. true or crab BS for crap marksmanship?
  14. have the MOD banned me as well!! I have sent it again
  15. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Fascinating read. Boils down to inadequate kit and ace blokes, as usual. The way the TF was cobbled together at such short notice contrasts with the AGES it took to lay on the ultimately militarily successful Suez expedition. Myth of vulnerability of Al superstructures laid to rest (I think). Our casualties inflated by failure to get WG off Galahad in a timely manner.
  16. "The psychological effect of the raids, the RAF claim, kept a significant portion of the Argentine air force on the mainland further South to defend against attack, but whether that reduced strikes against the task force is questionable."

    Everyone seems to forget that the Argies thought they would finish us off easily & were in fact waiting to invade Chile on completion of our defeat.

    Also th crabs had a fire free zone when they went in good job the argies didn't fly an attack at night.
  17. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Plus, the Shrike anti-radar strikes were somewhat hampered by the Args switching the radar off.
  18. Stinkers. It's just not cricket I tell ya.

Share This Page