SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Who is considering this Falklands Argie v Brit flight sim?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Who is considering this Falklands Argie v Brit flight sim? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=88483)

Not the best image, but one for our boys

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/bravo1.gif

Bravo November

Weirdly enough, i recently was taught loadmastering by one of the Loadmasters on that wokka wokka.

Excellent man :up:

I was just reading that an Argentine C130 managed to bomb and sink a British Tanker. Anyone have any info on this!?! :hmm:

Damn is there nothing the Herky-bird canâ€™t do! :o

Was an American registered tanker as I recall, wasn't exactly sunk in the traditional sense but after making port was considered beyond repair and later scrapped.

Edit,

Checked facts and I was close but this seems the official line.

http://www.naval-history.net/F52week11TF.htm

Quote:

South Atlantic - Tuesday 8th sees the only non-belligerent casualty when two Grupo 2 Canberras mistakenly bomb the American-registered tanker "Hercules" then on passage to the north east of the TEZ. On putting into Rio de Janeiro, a UXB is found that is too dangerous to disarm, and the ship has to be scuttled off Brazil in late July.

Seems strange that we would name a tanker the British Wye but I'll take your word for it.

What did they do to her?

Edit: Yea your right she wasn't sunk. My mistake, but I still want to know what they did to damage her...

We may end up at crossed purposes here with my fast edit before actualy seeing your reply. :)

When you said sunk I thought you were refering to the incident I have linked to but I can now see you meant the British Wye attack, don't recall the details on that but it did involve rolling bombs out of the rear of a C-130, another 'failed to explode' incident maybe ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhat17

I found information here: http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm
Look at ""Saturday 29th May"".
The ship's picture here: http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/btwy1b.jpg

Thanks! :up:

Wow thats something, I wonder why I never heard about this before... :hmm:

South georgia is hundreds of miles from falklands, and the only damage from a bomb bouncing off the deck without exploding would probly be a dent and some scrapped paint hardly "sunk".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitain

South georgia is hundreds of miles from falklands, and the only damage from a bomb bouncing off the deck without exploding would probly be a dent and some scrapped paint hardly "sunk".

A heavy bomb falling on a merchant ship deck from any appreciable height would go straight through that deck (Hellllllo watertightness!), and possibly the tank top and double bottom. Depending on the cargo and all.

It'd be a bit harder with a general cargo, strenghtened for or carrying cargo on deck, or a container ship, but with a tanker, the bomb'd go straight through. That's if it doesn't rip out half the deck piping first.

Tanktop strenght on a bulk carrier (And those have pretty though tank top, because hellllllo concentrates) is usually about 20-25MT per square meters, and the hatch covers might be around 1 or 2 MT per square meters (Ballpark figure, here, for a ship not really used to deck cargo, so it's probably around what a tanker can take). A 500lbs bomb, with a surface area of say, half a meter (Although it'd be less than that, since it's cylindrical), is about... Ah, ballpark, 500lbs = 250kg, 250kg x 2 = 1/2 ton per square meter, and that's just sitting there. It hasn't been dumbed from an aircraft yet.

And, by the way, the British Wye was registered in London. Take a look at the picture Von_Capo posted.

Decided to do some more research into the 'Hercules' incident to satisfy my curiosity about the outcome and came across this after several hours searching.

Quote:

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two Liberian corporations sued the Argentine Republic in a United States District Court to recover damages for a tort allegedly committed by its armed forces on the high seas in violation of international law. We hold that the District Court correctly dismissed the action, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330 et seq., does not authorize jurisdiction over a foreign state in this situation.

Respondents alleged the following facts in their complaints. Respondent United Carriers, Inc., a Liberian corporation, chartered one of its oil tankers, the Hercules, to respondent Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation, also a Liberian corporation. The contract was executed in New York City. Amerada Hess used the Hercules to transport crude oil from the southern terminus of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Valdez, Alaska, around Cape Horn in South America, to the Hess refinery in the United States Virgin Islands. On May 25, 1982, the Hercules began a return voyage, without cargo but fully fueled, from the Virgin Islands to Alaska. At that time, Great Britain and petitioner Argentine Republic were at war over an archipelago of some 200 islands - the Falkland Islands to the British, and the Islas Malvinas to the Argentineans - in the South Atlantic off the Argentine coast. On June 3, United States officials informed the two belligerents of the location of United States vessels and Liberian tankers owned by United States interests then traversing the South Atlantic, including the Hercules, to avoid any attacks on neutral shipping.

By June 8, 1982, after a stop in Brazil, the Hercules was in international waters about 600 nautical miles from Argentina and 500 miles from the Falklands; she was outside the "war zones" designated by Britain and Argentina. At 12:15 Greenwich mean time, the ship's master made a routine report by radio to Argentine officials, providing the ship's [488 U.S. 428, 432] name, international call sign, registry, position, course, speed, and voyage description. About 45 minutes later, an Argentine military aircraft began to circle the Hercules. The ship's master repeated his earlier message by radio to Argentine officials, who acknowledged receiving it. Six minutes later, without provocation, another Argentine military plane began to bomb the Hercules; the master immediately hoisted a white flag. A second bombing soon followed, and a third attack came about two hours later, when an Argentine jet struck the ship with an air-to-surface rocket. Disabled but not destroyed, the Hercules reversed course and sailed to Rio de Janeiro, the nearest safe port. At Rio de Janeiro, respondent United Carriers determined that the ship had suffered extensive deck and hull damage, and that an undetonated bomb remained lodged in her No. 2 tank. After an investigation by the Brazilian Navy, United Carriers decided that it would be too hazardous to remove the undetonated bomb, and on July 20, 1982, the Hercules was scuttled 250 miles off the Brazilian coast.

More at the following link but it's mostly legal jargon.

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/supct/AmeradaHess.htm

One source gave the Hercules as being a 220,000 ton supertanker.

the wye most probably had a re inforced deck (as do all atlantic sea going tankers)

yes i agree with etinne but depending on certain factors hight speed and position the bomb hit.

Why would you put a reinforced deck on a tanker, Atlantic going or not? They're longitudinally framed, and I figure that might give some more strenght to the deck (Plus the lack of hatchways), but still... Kind of pointless. You're not going to put any loads on the deck, and the Altlantic sure isn't either.

In a storm, you get bending moments, shearing forces and some general twisting of the structures. Ships are built with that in mind - But resisting those efforts as little - Scratch that, nothing - to do with weathering an unexploded bomb impact.

It depends on where the bomb hit, sure. But if it didn't breach the deck, it's a miracle.

Quote:

Who is considering this Falklands Argie v Brit flight sim?

:zzz:

my stepdad served for over 20 years on tankers and other vessels, one being the M.V Stena Queen a ULCC she had a reinforced deck to cope with rough sea's.

stena queen was built in 1977 and paid off in 2003 work commenced on her demolition mid 2003 and didnt finnish till the end of 2004 normaly a tanker of that size only takes 24 to 30 weeks to smash to bits.

stena queen:

Length: 378M
Width: 67M
Tonnage: 458,000 tonnes

few other ships also have reinforced decks and bows to cope with special dutys.

the stockholm the ship that collided with andrea doria had a reinforced bow and forward deck.

the libberty ships had reinforced midships

list goes on