30 years ago: the Falkand War - Page 2

nikimcbee · 06-11-12, 12:20 PM

Any vets from this conflict here?

SilentOtto · 06-11-12, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Argentine Navy also lost ARA Santa Fe (S-21) which was captured by Briton and later sank along a pier.

Wow, that was a Balao, the USS Catfish! Thanks for the info!

mapuc · 06-11-12, 02:05 PM

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

Jimbuna · 06-11-12, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

IMHO the Argentinians would have been at risk from the SSNs and possibly have suffered a similar fate as that of the Belgrano.

Kongo Otto · 06-13-12, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

IMHO the Argentinians would have been at risk from the SSNs and possibly have suffered a similar fate as that of the Belgrano.

Jim most possibly the SSN's would have taken them on before they could reach the RN Task Force with an horrible outcome for the Argentinians.
But i that would happen maybe this conflict would have escalated in to a full scale war.

mapuc · 06-13-12, 08:57 AM

I see that you put alot of faith in the SSN.

I don't know if that's a good thing to have!?

Those time I play one of those scenario I mostly kill most of the RN's subs.

But I'm just an average person that doesn't have much knowledge about
naval-warfare- strategy

Markus

Jimbuna · 06-13-12, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

Jim most possibly the SSN's would have taken them on before they could reach the RN Task Force with an horrible outcome for the Argentinians.
But i that would happen maybe this conflict would have escalated in to a full scale war.

One sided then IMHO...we had the means and capability to attack their mainland but they have never had the means to reciprocate.

Marcantilan · 06-13-12, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Argentina also lost the patrol boat Islas Malvinas (Captured), patrol boat Río Iguazú (captured), blockade runner Río Carcarañá (sunk), AGI Narwal (captured/sunk), transport ship Isla de los Estados (sunk), transport Bahía Buen Suceso (captured/sunk), and one more cargo ship whose name I cant find.

Here they are:

ARA Santa Fe (sunk, April 25 by air attack)
ARA General Belgrano (sunk, May 2 by HMS Conqueror)
Narwal (sunk, May 9 by air attack)
ARA Isla de los Estados (sunk, May 10 by HMS Alacrity)
GC83 Río Iguazú (sunk, May 22 by air attack)
ELMA Río Carcarañá (sunk, May 24 by air attack)

Yehuín (captured)
Forrest (captured)
Monsunen (captured)
Penélope (captured)
ARA Bahía Buen Suceso (captured)
GC82 Islas Malvinas (captured)

Forrest, Monsunen and Penélope were firstly captured by the Argentine Navy.

Is interesting to note that ARA Bahia Buen Suceso was sunk by HMS Onyx on October 21, 1982. She fired 3 (three) brand new Mk.24 torpedoes, but the first two malfunctioned.

Wire guided torpedoes were imperfect machines in the early `80s, and blaming ARA San Luis crew for the same faults the Royal Navy experienced is, in my very humble opinion, not fair. In any case, the petty officer story and the incorrect wiring is false: see Subsim Almanac 2008 for the proper history...

Regards!

Marcantilan · 06-13-12, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

Well, Argentine Navy did not whitdraw after Belgrano sinking, but the pincer movement on May 1st, 1982 was cancelled due to the inability of the Argentine carrier to launch their Skyhawks AND because a Sea Harrier (801 NAS, Flt Lt Ian Mortimer) from Invincible fixed TG 79.1 position.

In fact, Argentine Navy was retreating to secure waters (less than 120 meters) when Belgrano was hit.

And, in any case, Argentine Navy could not sustain a blue water engagement with a nuclear sub.

Regards!

Oberon · 06-13-12, 12:13 PM

Yeah, Marcantilan is right, the Argentinian navy took the correct action in withdrawing to more secure waters. From what I can tell on wiki, and I defer here to those with better knowledge of the make up of Task Force 79, but the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was protected by only two Type 42 destroyers, and the Belgrano by two Sumner destroyers. We had six submarines in the area, five SSNs and the Onyx, which if co-ordinated into a strike force would have, most likely, decimated TF 79 as an organisational force.

The biggest threat from TF 79 would have been the planes from the de Mayo, because as Bomb Alley showed, Argentinian pilots were extremely skilled at low level attack. The threat from the remaining SSK would also have been substantial, and indeed it was enough to keep spooking the RN Task Force for most of the war.

Shows the psychological power of the submarine, both sides were deadly scared of the others submarine arm.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for that info Marcantilian, I didn't know that Onyx actually claimed a kill during the war, I thought her primary role was landing SBS, that and breaking her forward tubes on rocks...

TLAM Strike · 06-13-12, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for that info Marcantilian, I didn't know that Onyx actually claimed a kill during the war, I thought her primary role was landing SBS, that and breaking her forward tubes on rocks...

A quick search shows that the 'kill' scored was in October of 82 meaning it was after the war ended.

Apparently the Brits use her for a little SINKEX which included the Onyx.

Oberon · 06-13-12, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

A quick search shows that the 'kill' scored was in October of 82 meaning it was after the war ended.

Apparently the Brits use her for a little SINKEX which included the Onyx.

That explains that, ta TLAM

Marcantilan · 06-13-12, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

That explains that, ta TLAM

Yep, it happened on October 21, 1982. The ARA Bahia Buen Suceso hull was rat infested at the time.

HMS Onyx sunk LSL Sir Galahad too.

(My mistake, the Mk.24 failures happened when torpedoing Sir Galahad...)

Regards!

06-11-12, 12:20 PM	#16
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Any vets from this conflict here? __________________

06-11-12, 02:05 PM	#18
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,540 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command In one of them the maker wrote this "What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time. One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if.... Markus __________________ My little lovely female cat

06-13-12, 08:57 AM	#21
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,540 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I see that you put alot of faith in the SSN. I don't know if that's a good thing to have!? Those time I play one of those scenario I mostly kill most of the RN's subs. But I'm just an average person that doesn't have much knowledge about naval-warfare- strategy Markus __________________ My little lovely female cat

06-13-12, 12:13 PM	#25
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Yeah, Marcantilan is right, the Argentinian navy took the correct action in withdrawing to more secure waters. From what I can tell on wiki, and I defer here to those with better knowledge of the make up of Task Force 79, but the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was protected by only two Type 42 destroyers, and the Belgrano by two Sumner destroyers. We had six submarines in the area, five SSNs and the Onyx, which if co-ordinated into a strike force would have, most likely, decimated TF 79 as an organisational force. The biggest threat from TF 79 would have been the planes from the de Mayo, because as Bomb Alley showed, Argentinian pilots were *extremely* skilled at low level attack. The threat from the remaining SSK would also have been substantial, and indeed it was enough to keep spooking the RN Task Force for most of the war. Shows the psychological power of the submarine, both sides were deadly scared of the others submarine arm. EDIT: Oh, and thanks for that info Marcantilian, I didn't know that Onyx actually claimed a kill during the war, I thought her primary role was landing SBS, that and breaking her forward tubes on rocks...