Nuclear submarines in battle

67
Nuclear submarines in battle


Early morning of a bad day, Her Majesty's Conkeror ship moves in the thickness of the cold waters of the South Atlantic. For 30 hours, the British submarine has been continuously monitoring the Argentine formation led by the cruiser General Belgrano. Here he is - 7 miles straight ahead, swaying in the foam on the ocean wave, confident in his invulnerability. Two destroyers cover the cruiser - the Argentine squadron is a mortal danger for British surface ships. 15 six-inch cannons of the old Belgrano can tear to pieces fragile frigates and landing ships fleet Her Majesty. Argentinean destroyers armed with Exoset missiles pose a considerable threat.
In the twilight of the central post submarine "Conqueror" reigns intense silence, the officers are waiting for an order from the headquarters of the squadron ...


At the same time, a conversation similar to the following takes place in a London mansion on Downing Street 10:

- Admiral Woodward is crazy. He wants to sink the Argentine cruiser.

- This is the right decision.

- We have no right to attack. Argentine ships are still outside the declared 200-mile military zone.

“Sir, the“ 200-mile zone of military action ”itself, which we declared unilaterally, is a violation of all international rules. Heat General Belgrano if necessary.

“Miss Thatcher, are you sure?”

- Destroy the cruiser and no longer ask stupid questions.

A month ago, no Admiral of the Royal Navy dared to lead a risky campaign to the Falklands. Margaret Thatcher had to personally appoint the commander of Rear Admiral Woodward - not the most experienced, but extremely "crazy" naval officer. In order to successfully complete the task, without any hesitation, he demanded that an underwater strategic bomber "Resolution" be included in the squadron - if all British ships were destroyed, a nuclear fire would come down from Argentine military bases from the skies. It is difficult to say whether it was a cruel joke or a real threat, but the determination of Woodward was well known in admiral's circles. "Iron Lady" Margaret knew who should be trusted to "hopeless" expedition.

And now, being on the Hermes aircraft carrier, Admiral Woodward wondered why the submariners did not receive his order to destroy the Argentine cruiser. For some reason, the Satellite Communications Center in Cheltem is blocking transmission. However, the reason is obvious - cowards from the naval headquarters are afraid to take a responsible decision. Damn them! The Argentine fleet takes the British squadron into ticks - it is necessary, before it is too late, to break at least one of the enemy claws. Staff rats! Anchor you in the throat! Octopus without fuel oil nadraenny klyuz!

Only at noon, with a delay of many hours, did a radiogram from London arrive at the Conkeror nuclear submarine: “Urgently. Attack the Belgrano group.

The cruiser went 36 miles from the border of the declared “war zone” and, obviously, felt absolutely safe. The brave Muchachos did not try to hide in shallow water, the Argentine destroyers stupidly scoured on the right beam of the “General Belgrano”, covering the cruiser from the side of the Bredwood bank, where, of course, there could not be any submarines. They didn't even care to turn on the sonars!

Looking at the periscope at all this strange company, commander Reford-Brown shrugged in surprise and ordered to give full speed. A huge steel "pike" rushed through the water column to its goal. Having completed the circulation to the right, the boat reached the point of attack in 1000 meters along the left side of the Belgrano without any obstacles. The victory was already in the hands of British sailors, it remains only to choose the right weapon. Actually, the dilemma was in two types of torpedoes: the newest homing Mk.24 "Tigerfish" or the good old Mk VIII of the Second World War. Taking into account all the circumstances, and rightly believing that the Tigerfish is still not reliable enough, the commander Reford-Brown preferred the straight type torpedo of the old type. At this time, “General Belgrano” swayed peacefully on the waves, moving the 13 with a nodal stroke towards its death. The commander of the Argentine cruiser kaprang Hector Bonzo did his best to destroy his ship.

In 15: 57, the nuclear submarine "Conqueror", being practically in range conditions, produced a three-shot salvo at the Belgrano connection. After 55 seconds, two Mk VIII torpedoes sank into the port side of the Argentine cruiser. The explosions of 363-kilogram combat units were echoing in the submarine compartments, the battle posts were announced with joyful shouts.

Commander Redford-Brown enthusiastically watched the attack in the periscope: he saw the first explosion tore off the entire nose of the cruiser. After a few seconds, a new flash flashed and a huge column of water shot up in the area of ​​the feed superstructure General Belgrano. Everything that was happening at that moment on the surface was like a dream. Radford-Brown closed his eyes and once again looked into the eyepiece of the periscope to make sure that he had just sank a large enemy warship. First time in stories nuclear submarine fleet!
Subsequently, Redford-Brown recalled: “To be honest, the shooting practice in Faslane was more difficult than this attack. The Royal Navy spent 13 years to prepare me for exactly this situation. It would be sad if I did not cope with it. "

Destroy the two remaining destroyers the submariners were considered unnecessary and unreasonably risky - after all, the British seamen were preparing for war with a strong and skilled adversary who, in this situation, had to take active measures to detect and destroy a submarine located somewhere nearby. The Conqueror collapsed to the depths, carefully crawling towards the open ocean, the acoustics at any moment were expected to hear the included sonars of the Argentine ships and a series of depth charge explosions. To their great surprise, nothing like this happened. The Argentine Muchachos turned out to be complete cowards and idlers: the destroyers, abandoning their own sinking ship, flew in all directions in all directions.
By the way, on the board of one of the destroyers - “Ippolito Bouchard” - upon returning to the base a decent dent was discovered, allegedly from a third, unexploded torpedo, released by “Conqueror”. Who knows, maybe the Argentines are really lucky. Although can this be called luck?

Eyewitnesses to the death of “General Belgrano” recalled that a real “firestorm” swept through the ship’s premises, turning all life on its way into a torn-out barbecue - about the 250 sailors died in the very first seconds of the attack. This fact clearly indicates that at the moment of the tragedy all the hatches and doors inside the cruiser were opened wide, the Argentine navy once again demonstrated surprising carelessness.

The second torpedo explosion destroyed the generators and de-energized the ship, the pumps and the radio were disconnected, cold water rolled over the decks of the doomed cruiser ... After 20 minutes after the torpedo attack, the crew left the ship. After another couple of minutes, the General Belgrano lay down on the port side and disappeared under water, taking human lives with it into the sea of ​​323.

Sinking cruiser. The disfigured stump of the bow is clearly visible. The photo was taken from a rescue raft.

The Conkeror submarine that returned a day later to the square watched Argentine destroyers rescuing the surviving sailors from the crew of the cruiser. Filled with noble feelings, the British did not dare to carry out a new torpedo attack - the effect of the sinking of the Belgrano already exceeded all their expectations.
According to Argentine data, of the people on board the 1093 cruiser, they managed to save the 770.

The value of the “Conqueror” attack was so great that the event was rated "The boat that won the war". The loss of the cruiser and three hundred men made a terrifying impression on the Argentinean command: fearing new losses, the Argentine fleet returned to its bases, ensuring the British to rule the sea. There were still many fierce battles ahead, but the blocked garrison of the Falkland Islands was doomed.

As for the ethical side of the sinking of Belgrano, there are a number of controversial points. The cruiser was sunk outside the declared “war zone” 200 radius of miles around the Falklands. At the same time, there is not a single legal document establishing the order of appearance of these “zones” - the British only unilaterally warned ships and aircraft of all countries of the world that they should stay away from the Falkland Islands, otherwise they could be attacked warnings.

Patrolling along the southern borders of the declared “war zone”, the Argentine cruiser posed a clear danger to the British squadron, and of course, he came to this square clearly not to admire the ocean sunsets.
In order to avoid unnecessary conversations and senseless investigations, the British, with their usual calmness, on their return to the base took and “lost” the onboard magazine of the nuclear-powered submarine “Conqueror”. As they say, the ends in the water!
It is worth considering that the instigator of the Falkland War was still Argentina, whose troops landed in disputed territories in order to provoke a "small victorious war."

The crew of the cruiser "General Belgrano" made a number of serious mistakes, however, you should not stigmatize the Argentine sailors with eternal shame - literally in 2 of the day, 4 in May 1982, the British destroyer Sheffield found itself in a similar situation. The British "sea wolves" have shown unforgivable folly by disabling the search radar in the war zone. For which he immediately paid.

The characters of the sea drama:

HMS Conqueror (Conqueror)

British multipurpose Churchill-type nuclear submarine.
Launched 28 August 1969
Displacement above-water / underwater - 4200 / 5000 tons,
103 man crew
Submarine speed 28 knots (≈50 km / h),
Armament: 6 torpedo tubes, 16 torpedoes Mk VIII, Mk.24 Tigerfish or anti-ship missiles Sub-Harpoon.


The first and only to date nuclear submarine, sank the enemy ship in combat conditions. After a victorious return from the South Atlantic, the Conkeror submarine took part in another sinister operation, code-named “Waitress,” the theft of a Soviet hydro-acoustic station in the Barents Sea.

In August, 1982, Arctic waters, was plowing through a peaceful Soviet anti-submarine patrol disguised as a trawler under the flag of Poland. Behind the stern of the vessel a long trawl dragged along with a secret device attached to the end. Suddenly, a steel "pike" with automatic clippers attached to its body appeared from the depths of the sea. “Chick!” - the tool ate a trawl and the boat with the prey disappeared without a trace in the ocean.
Since then, according to one of the British officers, the name of the boat "Conqueror" is pronounced in the headquarters "with great respect and always in a half-whisper."

ARA General Belgrano

Former American cruiser "Phoenix", type "Brooklyn".

Launched 13 March 1938, Mr .. Sold to Argentina in 1951,
Total displacement 12 000 tons, *
Crew about 1100 people, *
32 node speed,
Main armor belt 140 mm steel,
Armament: *
- 15 x 152 mm guns of the main caliber;
- 8 x 127 mm universal guns;
- 2 British anti-aircraft missile complex Sea Cat;
- 20 mm and 40 mm automatic guns for self-defense;
- light helicopter "Aluett" made in France.

* all data is valid on 1982 year


A cruiser who deceived fate in the harbor of Pearl Harbor, but who ingloriously perished after 40 years in the South Atlantic. Frankly speaking, by the beginning of the 1980's, the cruiser “General Belgrano” was a museum artifact. However, given the status of the "great maritime state" of Argentina and the realities of the Falklands war, it still retained sufficient combat capability. If the Belgrano managed to break through to the British squadron, he would have fired all the destroyers and frigates of Her Majesty with their large-caliber guns with impunity - the British sailors did not have any serious anti-ship weapons, except for three dozen SiHarrier submarines of normal free-fall bomber squadrons.

Destroyers "Piedra Buena" and "Hippolito Bouchard"

Former US destroyers of the "Allen M. Sumner" type.
Launched in 1944, sold to Argentina in 1974,
3500 total tonnes tonnage
34 node speed,
Armament: 6 x 127 mm universal guns, small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, Exocset anti-ship missiles (from the end of 70-x).


Argentine Navy destroyer "Piedra Buena"

In the years of the Second World 59 destroyers of the type "Allen M. Sumner" were modestly considered the best in the world. In general, the American destroyers of those years were significantly different from the British, German or Soviet ships of a similar class - suffice it to say that they were larger than the leader "Tashkent"! Hefty vessels with an ocean range (6000 miles on 15 Uz.), Six main caliber guns and a full set of radar and sonar equipment.

By the beginning of the 80s, they were already pretty outdated, and it was simply indecent for any developed country to have such trash in its fleet. However, given the realities of the Falklands conflict, in which the impoverished Great Britain with the same poor Argentina were “butting”, the old American destroyers still represented a formidable force. In the event of a possible duel with the destroyer Sheffield, the latter did not have a single chance - six 127 mm guns against a single 114 mm gun! It is a pity that the Argentinean command was so cowardly ...

Summing up

In the First World War, the British too self-confidently stated that submarines are “the weapon of the poor”. But, despite the contempt of the British admiralty, the little angry fish quickly proved that they could bite painfully. The legendary submarine U-9 sank three British cruisers in one battle: Hawk, Abukir and Kreyssi ...

During the Second World War, submarines became one of the most terrible misfortunes - the German “wolf packs” sank the order of 3000 transports and warships! Alas, despite the tremendous successes, it became clear to the Germans that no heroism and high technology could bring victory when the enemy had a whole anti-submarine system deployed. The battle for the Atlantic was lost, the blockade of the British Isles could not be carried out, and more than 700 steel coffins lay with thousands of seamen Krigsmarine trapped inside the 28.

The situation has changed dramatically with the advent of nuclear power plants - from that moment on, the boats became really “underwater” rather than “diving”, as it was before. Their secrecy has risen sharply - a reliable tool has not yet been found that can withstand nuclear submarines. With an experienced crew and a drop of luck, a modern atomic pike can go unnoticed through all security systems, even to the Mexican, even to the Kola Bay.

It sounds amazing, but powerful nuclear-powered icebreakers, capable of passing under the ice to the very North Pole and circling the globe in underwater position, in 60 years of their existence sank only one ship - the same Argentine cruiser! (Of course, without taking into account such cases as, for example, the sinking of the Japanese fishing schooner "Ehime Maru", accidentally turned over during the ascent of the USV Greenville submarine).

19 January 1991, the American nuclear submarine Louisville (SSN-724), opened fire on the positions of Iraqi troops, firing two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea. In subsequent years, multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Los Angeles type were regularly involved in the bombardment of ground targets in the territory of Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. For example, the Newport News submarine launched the Tomahawks 19 during the invasion of Iraq (2003), while the Providence, Scranton and Florida submarines beat Tomahawks on the positions of the Libyan army in 2011. “Florida” (modernized Ohio-type submarine) especially distinguished itself by launching an 93 “ax” in Libya in 24 hours!

All this, of course, can be considered the combat use of nuclear submarines. Nevertheless, the overall result is logical - nuclear submarines have never had a chance to enter a real naval battle - the one for which they were created. The subline-based ballistic missiles Triidet and Sineva remained rusting in the mines, the Granit complex super-missiles did not fly anywhere, they never left their 50 torpedoes from Sivulf-type nuclear submarines. The powerful nuclear-powered icebreakers remained, fortunately, a weapon of deterrence, only occasionally to the frightening group of surface ships to death, unexpectedly appearing and just as elusively disappearing in the depths of the ocean.


Atomic underwater "killer" type "Los Angeles"



Tomahawks in the missile mines of the former Miami strategic missile carrier. Instead of each intercontinental ballistic missile fit on 7 cruise missiles - total 154 "Tomahawk" in 22 mines. The remaining two mines are occupied by equipment for underwater saboteurs

67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. lechatormosis
    +17
    2 January 2013 11: 24
    The noble Anglo-Saxons nobly sunk a ship outside the 200 mile war zone at the same time killing hundreds of people.
    In this war, the PENTAGON merged all the intelligence of the Anglo-Saxons from the SPY SATELLITES.
    HA is another noble ally of the argentinians.
    1. +65
      2 January 2013 11: 45
      The Argentines had to fight, and not walk in the sea. What is the difference, 200 mile zone or not, war is war and the reckoning of more than 300 lives with a ship.
      1. lechatormosis
        +17
        2 January 2013 11: 56
        I remember that at the time, the Germans also nobly drowned our civilian ships - though later MARINESKO played out on their submarines.
        1. -20
          2 January 2013 17: 30
          I remember that at the time, the Germans also noblely drowned our civilian ships - though later MARINESKO recouped on their submariners

          The story with Marinesco is not so straightforward. Not just like that in the USSR it was hushed up at first.
          1. Kaa
            +22
            2 January 2013 18: 09
            Quote: professor
            The story with Marinesco is not so straightforward

            Well, here, as always, Lieutenant Rzhevsky will come and vulgarize everything ...
            "Many years later, the German press discussed: if the ship had red crosses, would drown him or not? The argument is pointless; there were no and could not be hospital crosses. The ship was part of the German naval forces, went under guard and had weapons - anti-aircraft guns. The operation was being prepared so secretly that a senior radio operator was appointed just a day before the release. February 19 and 20 in Finnish newspaper Turun Sanomat"A message was posted:" According to Swedish radio, on Tuesday, Wilhelm Gustlow, disembarked from Danzig, with a displacement of 25000 tons, was drowned by a torpedo. On board the ship were 3700 trained submariners, following to participate in the operations of the German fleet, and another 5000 evacuated. Only 998 people were saved. After hitting the torpedoes, the liner landed aboard and sank after 5 minutes. ” http://www.darkgrot.ru/cult/momento-mori/korablekrusheniya/article/2586/
            http://ship.bsu.by/text/5466
            http://www.town.ural.ru/ship/trofei/trofei.php3#d10
            It was later recognized that the actions of Marinesco are completely legitimate, since the sunken status of the ship was a warship, had camouflage color without the signs of the Red Cross, weapons were installed on board, designed to fight ships and enemy aircraft and it was accompanied by a military escort ship. The tragedy of William Gustlov, along with the memory of the bombing of Dresden, is still perceived in Germany as the greatest tragedy of World War IIhttp: //www.bakupages.com/frmpst-view.php? Frmpst_id = 15217194
            1. Misantrop
              +20
              2 January 2013 18: 14
              Quote: Kaa
              On board the ship were 3700 trained submariners, following to participate in the operations of the German fleet
              And then the Germans could not bear it, so as not to belittle at least a little. There is no submariners were on board, and finished submarine crewsready to immediately engage in the course of hostilities. And in Germany, ready-made submarines were waiting for them on the slipways. Is the difference felt? wink
            2. +23
              2 January 2013 19: 00
              The tragedy of "William Gustlov", along with the memory of the bombing of Dresden

              this is not TRAGEDY, but VICTORY! I’ll ask for clearer expression, it’s one thing to bomb an allegedly peaceful city, and it’s quite another to sink an enemy convoy’s ship!
              1. Salamander
                0
                22 June 2014 17: 22
                So a tragedy for the Germans)))
      2. +18
        2 January 2013 12: 15
        But in general, the Argentines showed themselves perfectly in the conflict .............
        Aviation destroyed and damaged many ships and vessels of Great Britain .............. and only the exhausted supply of the Exocet anti-ship missiles saved Her Majesty's Fleet from complete disgrace ........... ........... Of course, the capabilities of the fleets as a whole were incomparable, and plus assistance to the Britons with intelligence from the USA, Chile, etc.
        1. +14
          2 January 2013 12: 17
          Losses of surface ships, ships and submarines

          Type NK (PL) Displacement, t Date of death Cause of death
          England

          Destroyer URO “Sheffield. 4100 10.05.82 RCC “Exoset” AM-39
          Frigate URO “Ardent” 3250 22.05.82 Aerial bombs
          Frigate URO “Antelope” 3250 23.05.82 Aerial bombs
          Destroyer URO “Coventry” 4100 25.05.82 Aerial bombs
          Transport “Atlantic Conveyor” 14 946 25.05.82 RCC “Exoset” AM-39
          Landing Box “Sar Galahad” 5674 08.06.82 Aircraft Bombs
          Argentina

          Submarine "Saita Fe" 1870 25.04.82/12/XNUMX AS-XNUMX anti-ship missiles, depth charges
          The cruiser General Belgrano 10800 02.05.82/XNUMX/XNUMX Submarine
          The patrol vessel “Komodoro Someler” 900 02.05.82 anti-ship missile “Sea Skua”
          1. Cavas
            -1
            2 January 2013 12: 23
            FREGATENKAPITAN,
            Frigate, excuse me, what are YOU, well, what will we do to the Honduras fleet ?!
            This is not even a question, this is most likely the answer!))) drinks
            1. +2
              2 January 2013 15: 20
              let's kill the fleet of Honduras ?!
              Are we continuing to celebrate? I imagine that "Fedya" (judging by the nickname) will give out, that way, the number of the 9th !!!
          2. +5
            2 January 2013 13: 56
            Add to the list a fishing schooner, which the English commandos, boarding, sent to the bottom, like a spy ship.
            1. 0
              2 January 2013 19: 33
              A very concrete example of the rules of warfare.
          3. +6
            2 January 2013 15: 24
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            Frigate URO “Ardent” 3250 22.05.82 Aerial bombs
          4. -2
            2 January 2013 15: 53
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            Destroyer URO “Sheffield. Xnumx

            4100 tons? Terrible destroyer ... wink
            1. +3
              2 January 2013 16: 12
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              4100 tons? Terrible destroyer



              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Former US destroyers of the "Allen M. Sumner" type.
              Launched in 1944, sold to Argentina in 1974,
              Total displacement 3500 tons


              Well, more than his Argentine / American counterpart.
              1. -2
                2 January 2013 16: 28
                Quote: Kars
                Well, more than his Argentine / American counterpart.

                Well, you give, I found something to compare.
                Sumner was a destroyer for the 40-ies, after 40 years, ships with / and 3-4 thousand tons were already called frigates (watchdogs, BMS of 2 rank)

                It is especially surprising when you come across the phrase "destroyed the modern destroyer Sheffield." Muchachos destroyed a frigate with limited combat capability, which the impoverished Britons built with their last pounds sterling
                1. +2
                  2 January 2013 16: 34
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Well, you give, I found something to compare

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Destroyer URO “Sheffield. Xnumx
                  4100 tons? Terrible destroyer ...


                  Well, ring, you go to extremes with the Argentine to compare.

                  Shefield 1975 with you
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  destroyed the modern destroyer sheffield
                  limited combat capability


                  You do something with yourself, otherwise you start to scare me.
                  1. -1
                    2 January 2013 18: 02
                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, ring, you go to extremes with the Argentine to compare.

                    Compare. ktozh forbids you. Only the Argentinean Buenapiedra, too, were old watchmen, for a show off, pretending to be destroyers.

                    3-4 thousand tons ... this is a military frigate. Modern (for the beginning of 80-x) destroyers had in / and 7-9 thousand tons. Spruence, BOD 1155, Buzzard
                    1. +4
                      2 January 2013 18: 07
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      3-4 thousand tons ... this is a military frigate

                      These are your personal problems. The UK classifies them as destroyers, write a complaint to them.
                      1975 is only 7 years old.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      in / and 7-9 thousand tons

                      And why then not a cruiser? Namely, destroyers?
                2. +1
                  2 January 2013 17: 44
                  The Sheffield of the first series was crap shit, but the second one is better, not to mention the third. However, the third one took into account just the Falklands combat experience.
            2. 0
              2 January 2013 21: 41
              Not only that: the guards - Her Majesty NAVY destroyer!
            3. 0
              6 January 2013 10: 13
              All questions in the British Admiralty ....... you remember them very much respect .....
        2. +6
          2 January 2013 13: 38
          The reason for the large number of unexploded Argentinean bombs that fell into British ships is the extremely low bombing altitudes, because of which the bombs simply did not have time to stand on a combat platoon. It's a shame if in May eighty-two exploded everything that was supposed to explode, the British fleet would lose another dozen of its ships, including both aircraft carriers.
          1. +3
            2 January 2013 15: 56
            Quote: knn54
            The reason for the large number of unexploded Argentine bombs that fell into British ships is


            British ships lack normal air cover, modern air defense systems and anti-aircraft guns
            1. +2
              2 January 2013 16: 10
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              British ships lack normal air cover, modern air defense systems and anti-aircraft guns

              Humor? Or confuse causes with consequences.
              What you wrote is the reason for the hit (or the number of hits), but not the reason for the lack of regular operation of ammunition.
              1. -2
                2 January 2013 16: 20
                Quote: Kars
                Humor? Or confuse causes with consequences.

                Exactly. The root cause of the "large number of unexploded bombs" is the lack of adequate air defense in the British

                Everything else is already particular
                1. +2
                  2 January 2013 16: 24
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Exactly

                  So you humor, using your logic, the root cause should be the beginning of the war, or the appearance of aviation as such and the Wright brothers in the above privacy.
            2. Kaa
              0
              2 January 2013 18: 33
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              British ships lack normal air cover

              Four squadrons of Sea Harrier vertical take-off aircraft from aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible shot down 23 Argentine aircraft without losing a single one of their own.
              The aircraft carrier of the British Navy "Hermes" (currently the aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy "Viraat") is still in the ranks of the "old man", but the "Invincible" got ...
          2. Misantrop
            +1
            2 January 2013 16: 24
            Quote: knn54
            It's a shame, explode in May eighty-two everything that was supposed to explode

            Tsushima number 2? Japanese ships stitched through and through to confirm this ...
          3. 0
            2 January 2013 17: 47
            Well, about the aircraft carriers you bent it, still here Vitaly Dotsenko start quoting))))))))
          4. avt
            0
            4 January 2013 17: 50
            knn54___ Or maybe the reason is the presence of amerovskie bombs with their electronic fuses? And the Argentineans had really courageous flyers then, especially on the old stormtroopers of Vietnam’s time, they seemed like Skyhawks, almost kamikazes on sunken ships and their losses. Yes, if their voivode had established normal aerial reconnaissance, but the British didn’t even ask their flying passengers old Neptune yes With 130 equipped with something new, but instead so that in the joys of the capture of malvin feel sorry for the Falklands, to dance tango, lengthened the runway to the Port of Prense, it seems that the heg knows how it would have turned around laughing Yes, I forgot. He was not one of the boats that the British had written off ahead of schedule because of cracks in the reactor? bully
        3. +5
          2 January 2013 15: 51
          Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
          But in general, the Argentines showed themselves perfectly in the conflict .............

          Yes, the Argentine Air Force pilots showed themselves from a much better side than the Argentine sailors

          Most of the victories were won with subsonic attack aircraft, conventional free-fall bombs. The Argentines had the only long-range target designation aircraft (the old American P-2 Neptune) and the only air tanker C-130 Hercules - in the event of the loss of one of these aircraft, the Argentine aviation would not be able to detect the British ships and "reach" them from the shore. The Argentines were lucky - the Britons did not have a normal air cover.

          The Britons had no nichrome at all, except for the "pelvis" of 4000 tons, which for some reason are called "Destroyers". There were not even anti-aircraft guns - Argentine aircraft could brazenly walk over the very masts of the squadron, British sailors tried to shoot at them with rifles, but to no avail ...

          The dispute between the two poor powers.
          1. +3
            2 January 2013 16: 18
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The Britons didn’t have nichrome at all

            An excellent description of the atomic submarine and 20000 light / anti-submarine aircraft carrier in 1975.))))))))))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Argentine aircraft could brazenly walk over the masts of the squadron, British sailors tried to shoot them with rifles, but to no avail

            Moreover, how many Argentines lost their aircraft? About a hundred?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The Argentines were lucky - the British did not have a normal air cover.

            But at the same time, after torpedoing the Belgrano, the Argentines were afraid to throw their aircraft carrier into battle. But the aircraft carriers are kings of naval combat)))))))
            1. 0
              2 January 2013 16: 35
              Agrentino sea lord)))))))
            2. +1
              2 January 2013 16: 43
              Quote: Kars
              An excellent description of the atomic submarine and 20000 1975 light / anti-submarine aircraft carrier of the year.

              The aircraft carriers and the submarine did everything they could. But the main threat was from the air.

              Quote: Kars
              Moreover, how many Argentines lost their aircraft? About a hundred?

              CiDart is powerful. But only in open spaces.
              + vertical arms "SeaHarrier"
              + destroyed at airfields

              Quote: Kars
              But at the same time, after torpedoing the Belgrano, the Argentines were afraid to throw their aircraft carrier into battle. But the aircraft carriers are kings of naval battle.

              And why were you sick of throwing cruisers, destroyers and submarines into battle?

              The aircraft carrier Veintisinko de Mayo, Construction started by 3.12.1942
              (HMS Venerable) Launched 30.12.1943/17.01.1945/1970, Commissioned XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX (UK), XNUMX (Argentina)
              During the hostilities, the aircraft carrier had an air group consisting of eight Skyhawk attack aircraft, four Tracker PLO aircraft and several helicopters King of the sea battle))))))
              1. 0
                2 January 2013 17: 10
                Until you started commenting on the article, it looked just fine. Given so much from you - probably all the alcohol has not disappeared after NG.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                given the status of Argentina's “great sea power” and the realities of the Falkland War, he still retained sufficient combat readiness. If the Belgrano managed to break through to the British squadron, he would have shot all Her Majesty's destroyers and frigates with his large-caliber guns with impunity - the British sailors had no serious anti-ship weapons, except for three dozen subsonic SeaHarrier attack aircraft with conventional free-fall bombs.


                ))))))))))))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The aircraft carriers and the submarine did everything they could. But the main threat was from the air

                Well, why do you think the aircraft carriers? And it’s absolutely not at odds with

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The Britons didn't have any nichrome, except for the "pelvis" of 4000 tons

                )))))))))))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                CiDart is powerful. But only in open spaces

                You have the literature destroyed by means of air defense --- as it is written there on the air defense system, more than 50% of the destructed la were necessary.
                28 airplanes fell on aerial combat

                shipable air defense missile systems - 21
                rapiers-14
                MANPADS 10
                artillery 7
                it is only reliable.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                And why were you sick of throwing cruisers, destroyers and submarines into battle?

                If you don’t know, then the cruiser and destroyers did not enter the 200 zone because of the Atamic submarine.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The aircraft carrier Veintisinko de Mayo, Construction started by 3.12.1942

                Well, do you consider aircraft carriers the best means of naval battle - here’s an aircraft carrier for you))))))))
          2. postman
            +2
            3 January 2013 16: 39
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The Argentines had the only long-range target aircraft (the old American R-2 Neptune) and the only S-130 Hercules air tanker

            Was still Boeing 707 from the 2nd squadron of the 1st air group of the Argentine Air Force.
            and TsU Hercules KS-130N aircraft: 25.04.1982/62/2 three Argentinean Canberra B. Mk 1000 bombers from the XNUMXnd Air Force group, carrying two XNUMX-pound bombs, flew from the Trelev sea air base to attack British ships near South Georgia. The group was led by plane Boeing 707, and direct target designation and guidance on the ships should have been carried out by the KS-130N aircraft flying to the island.


            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There weren’t even anti-aircraft guns - Argentinean aircraft could brazenly walk over the masts of the squadron,

            ?
            Endurance patrol icebreaker 2x20 mm machine gun (24.04.82 Boeing 707 limited himself to two Endurance overflights at an altitude of 3000 feet, without risking approaching the ship closer than 2-3 miles)

            HMS Brilliant (F90) 2 × 40 mm Bofors AA guns

            Torpedo destroyer type 82: 2x1 20 mm AU “Oerlikon” MK 7.
            Torpedo boats of type 42: 2x1 20-mm AU “Oerlikon” GAM-B01;
            Frigates of type 21: 2x1 20 mm AU "Oerlikon"
            etc.
            Even landing docks of Intrepid type: 2x1 40 mm / 70 AU
            + Radar 994 - detection of air and surface targets
            Hunt minesweepers: 1x1 40 mm Bofors AU Mk 9.
            1. 0
              3 January 2013 21: 04
              Quote: Postman
              There weren’t even anti-aircraft guns - Argentinean aircraft could brazenly walk over the masts of the squadron,
              ?


              Firstly, I mean CIWS like the Phalanx
              Secondly, the 1-2 of Erlikon or Bofors with manual guidance was small even during WWII, when aircraft speeds were incommensurable with the speeds of jet A-4, and even more so Nesherov and Mirage


              Quote: Postman
              There was also a Boeing 707 from the 2th squadron of the 1th Argentine Air Force air group.
              and the Hercules CS-130N: 25.04.1982 aircraft, three Argentinean Canberra B. Mk 62 bombers from the 2 Air Force group, each carrying two 1000-pound bombs, flew from the Trelev sea air base to attack British ships near South Georgia. The group was led by the Boeing 707, and the direct designation and guidance on the ships was to be carried out by the KS-130Н aircraft flying to the island.

              HM interesting. I well remember the description of the drowning of the Atlantic conveyor - the Etandars for a long time could not launch an attack, since the only AWACS aircraft and the only one tanker were occupied (EMNIP drowned Coventry that morning).

              By the way, KS-130, is this the refueling designation ?!
              1. postman
                0
                15 January 2013 00: 33
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Firstly, I mean CIWS like the Phalanx

                You wrote "Anti-Aircraft Machine"


                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Secondly, 1-2 Erlikon or Bofors

                You mean L / 60

                And I'm talking about L / 70! Although both are still in service.
                They could not (Argentines)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                walk insolently over the masts of the squadron


                the drive provided an acceptable radial speed.
                Ballistics FOR allowed (and allows) to hit aircraft of this type

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                that day in the morning they drowned Coventry


                Any ground-based RAS was given target designation and guidance?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                By the way, KS-130, is this the refueling designation ?!

                Yes, it's true KS-130N: a tanker aircraft, but as a "poor" country, it was purchased with a tracking radar, some stub from the NS-130N, without a search system for space crews

                All aircraft followed in silence mode, guidance on the target (aircraft carrier “Invincible”) was again carried out from the S-130 aircraft.
                1. postman
                  0
                  15 January 2013 00: 33
                  Argentines tried on May 1 to enter the battle and "Super-Etendara". The 2nd AE received the task of attacking a group of three enemy ships located about 15 miles from Port Stanley. At 16.38, the squadron commander went on a mission on an airplane with a side designation 3-A-204 and a tenite-de-fragata K.Machetans on 3-A-203. However, that day turned out to be not the best for the Argentine pilots: when refueling from the Hercules began at 17.10, fuel was lost on the 204th board, and a pair of Super Etandars had to return to Tierra del Fuego. At about 18.30, Argentine aircraft launched a massive strike a group of 40 aircraft: bombers "Canberra" with fighter-bombers "Dagger" and "Skyhawk" under the cover of "Mirage" fighters.
                  Three "Daggers" (About 160 km from the islands, the troika of Dimellio dropped to 9-15 m above the sea and soon entered a warrant consisting of three pennants.), Circling the coastal strip at a speed of more than 400 knots, snuggling up to the water itself , rushed to "Glamorgan", "Arrow" and "Alacrity". Glamorgan launched the Sea Cat missile launcher, which missed the target. The Argentine pilots did not differ in accuracy: not a single bomb hit the target, however, two or three exploded very close to the Glemorgan and Alakriti, causing minor damage to the hulls. "Daggers" swept over the destroyer and rushed to the "Arrow". The Arrow opened fire from its 20mm gun mount, and the Alakriti fired several machine gun shots at the bridge. But the Daggers weren’t hurt. One of them opened cannon fire on the Arrow, up to 11 shells hit the frigate in the chimney, and wounded the senior sailor. The second slashed the Glamorgan deck from a 30 mm cannon.
                  When the Daggers began to leave, a pair of Sea Harriers (Lieutenant Martin Hale and Senior Lieutenant Tony Penfold) followed in pursuit of them for 130 km. However, one of the cover couples led by Mr. Donadilla came to the aid of their “drummers”. She tied herself to the British, intending to attack them from the back of the hemisphere. The British in time to navigate the situation and decided to abandon the enterprise with dubious success. All the Daggers returned to San Julian.
                  Shortly after 20.00 p.m., the Harriers were engaged again. In a dense formation, six Canberra bombers of the 2nd Bomber Group followed the east course, allowing them to find British aircraft carriers. Invincibil discovered them 110 miles flying at low altitude. To intercept them, two Harriers were brought in by Captain Lieutenant Mike Broadwater and Lieutenant Al Kurtis. Al Curtis launched a rocket, the rupture of which hit one bomber, and the second, as it seemed to him, damaged. The third turned back. The remaining three disappeared from the screens.
                  The commander of the slightly damaged Canberian, Captain Alberto Baigorri, returned to the attack site, but the pilots of the downed car - Lieutenant Eduardo de Ibasez and 1st Lieutenant Mario Gonzalez - were not found. Night searches for the ship Alférez Sobral were unsuccessful.
        4. vyatom
          0
          4 January 2013 03: 29
          Where were our okhlonami? Could help the Argentines.
      3. 0
        2 January 2013 19: 29
        Absolutely agree. War is not an Olympic Games. No matter how you win. Otherwise you will die. Our people have already paid for this truth.
    2. +5
      2 January 2013 12: 06
      In this situation, the little shavers acted more than reasonably, but the Argentine Navy proved to be a bunch of boobies. The combination of warships with a walking tack walks along the theater of operations .... laughter and more. By and large, they were lucky that they lost only 300 with a hook.
    3. postman
      +1
      2 January 2013 17: 25
      Quote: lehatormoz
      In this war, the PENTAGON merged all the intelligence of the Anglo-Saxons from the SPY SATELLITES.

      The Argentines should be glad that they didn’t "get rid of" NATO in full.
      Although the Falklands are not the North Atlantic (which was significant at that time)
      1.A NATO member has been aggressed
      2.03.04.1982/502/XNUMX UN Security Council Resolution No. XNUMX
      =================
      in 1966 an even dumber attempt was: Operativo Cóndor
      (student pounce)
      1. postman
        +1
        2 January 2013 21: 48
        Quote: Postman

        The Argentines should be glad that they didn’t "get rid of" NATO in full.

        I forgot to add, thanks to the USSR.
        At that time, operations such as "peace enforcement" were not possible.
        / Shl for "-" thanks. Tooting/
  2. +3
    2 January 2013 11: 46
    About Russian submariners, a similar post is weak? winked
    1. +5
      2 January 2013 15: 33
      Quote: Alien-X
      About Russian submariners, a similar post is weak?

      Not at all weak wink

      There was no real combat use, but there were:

      Nuclear submarine K-10, 13 hours walking under the belly of the aircraft carrier "Enterprise" (the submarine commander competently used the typhoon that slowed down the American AUG, as a result of the "roaring cow" K-10 managed to sneak up to the aircraft carrier with a 6-catch speed and disguise itself as the noise of its propellers);

      DPL C-360, which raised a periscope next to the side of the cruiser "Des Moines", which was on board during his visit to Greece, President Eisenhower;

      Nuclear submarine K-324, which wound the antenna of the sonar station of the American frigate "Bronstein"

      There are many stories. one is more interesting than the other.
      1. +1
        4 January 2013 19: 08
        Familiar stories. Write articles. I will read it with great pleasure. Maybe I learn something new.

        About the article. The presentation reminded M. Powell "The last campaign of" Count Spee "."
        A bit overkill. But these are personal impressions.
  3. +5
    2 January 2013 11: 52
    Well, from the side of Naglich people this is normal. "There are no interests other than those of Great Britain." Or something like this ... Always everything is done on the basis of purely personal interests.
    1. 0
      2 January 2013 17: 16
      And rightly so, by the way.
      1. +7
        2 January 2013 19: 39
        The term right-wrong is not applicable to war. Effectively act. Their wives and children will tell them spasmbo that they have returned.
        And we must keep in mind - they will not recognize any morality against us at all. Worse than the Nazis will be. Even now, in peacetime, they do not hold us for people.
        Therefore, it is necessary to prepare for this and any coexistence such as noble and noble suppress in the bud.
  4. +4
    2 January 2013 12: 12
    War is war. And you must always be ready for it. Otherwise, you can repeat the fate of the Argentine cruiser. And as for the Anglo-Saxons, in war, to achieve victory, all means are good. And we always need to keep the gunpowder dry and the armored train on the siding. Then no one will be tempted to brazenly attack our homeland! And it’s best to cope with diplomatic attacks by the State Department, as China does — put a big bolt on it! Only for this we need to strengthen our aircraft to the level.
  5. +2
    2 January 2013 12: 16
    Happy New Year everyone! I highly recommend Woodward's memoirs "The Falklands War" (if, of course, you can find them somewhere), in a rather boring style, everything is described in sufficient detail, and his mental throwing and fighting, but it is difficult to read. By the way, from the narration it follows that he was sent simply because that he was in the right place at the right time, and certainly he was not a reckless officer, rather the opposite.
  6. +6
    2 January 2013 12: 20
    The USSR, by the way, supplied Argentina with satellite data, which led to a scandal with Great Britain.
    1. 0
      2 January 2013 19: 39
      And we also wanted to put a winter uniform and a MiG-23 through Cuba. Allegedly))))
  7. +7
    2 January 2013 12: 27
    It was written in a funny and exciting way, the conclusion was not in favor of the men - only Thatcher had "iron balls", the rest (including the British themselves) turned out to be rather weak in terms of speed and toughness of decision-making. Of course, it is easy to give advice from a distance, but nevertheless: the Argentines had to either more severely drown the British and go to the victorious, or not start at all. The British did everything right, albeit too long. And the phrase "there are no other interests besides the interests of Great Britain", as well as - "what is good for General Motors, good for America" ​​is a very correct position, you need to fight for the interests of your country, and not "decide the fate of ragamuffins in Germany" (Professor Preobrazhensky , "Heart of a Dog", MA Bulgakov).
    The Argentineans' justification is the artificiality of the war, which was started as a "small victorious" to raise the authority of the regime and rally the nation in front of some external threat. For the people (and, consequently, the army at the middle and lower levels), there was no interest in fighting, and as soon as the smell of fried smelled, everyone "made their legs".
  8. +4
    2 January 2013 12: 30
    Once again, the fact is confirmed that you CANNOT relax, because our "sworn friends" are ready for any meanness. There are no rules in war! This is not a knightly tournament!
    1. mamba
      +6
      2 January 2013 14: 17
      Quote: Egoza
      DO NOT relax. There are no rules in war! This is not a jousting tournament!

      I agree. And there are enough examples of sloppiness, carelessness and unprofessionalism on all fleets of all the warring parties:
      - the Australian light cruiser "Sydney" was shot at close range and sunk on 19.11.41 by the German auxiliary cruiser "Cormoran", converted from a cargo ship;
      - Russian armored cruiser "Pearl", shot at point-blank range and sunk on 15.10.14 in the Penang Bay by the German cruiser "Emden". 88 people died;
      - Russian cruiser of the 2nd rank "Boyarin" and minelayer "Yenisei" were blown up by their mines at the end of January 1905. 95 people from the Yenisei team were killed, and the Boyarin, abandoned by the team, hung out for two days at the behest of the waves, went aground, returned to a minefield, where it was blown up and sank again;
      - German armored cruiser York, which was blown up by its mines on 04.11.14. 250 people died;
      - defeat of the Pacific Fleet of the States in Pearl Harbor on 07.12.41. 4 battleships and 2 destroyers sunk. 4 more battleships, 3 light cruisers and 1 destroyer were seriously damaged. The losses of the American aviation amounted to 188 aircraft destroyed, another 159 were seriously damaged. The Americans lost 2.403 people killed.
      This list can be continued for a long time, but it would be better to see it in a special article on this site. Yes
      1. 0
        3 January 2013 09: 40
        mamba,

        great idea about sloppiness, you can start with the Crimean War!
  9. +7
    2 January 2013 13: 28
    Vile, not vile. War, any, in itself, vile. Englishmen were lucky that the head of small Britain was a woman with iron eggs, if they chewed snot, like in 1939, Argentina would roll them under the nut.
    The only conclusion is that they do not play war, they kill the enemy in war, and nobility is not appropriate here.
  10. +3
    2 January 2013 13: 39
    An interesting article, the author of the title swung at H. Wilson himself with his famous "Battleships in battle." Once I read a chapter from Martin Mildbrook's book "The Battle of the Malvinas" about this episode. There was information on the results of hits by British torpedoes. in the bow of the ship spoiled only the appearance of the cruiser - this very part was torn off almost to the bow towers. At the same time, there were apparently no people in the bow compartments at that moment, and the bulkheads survived the hole. What is curious is that its bow This cruiser has lost for the third time (the first time during WWII, and the second time in a collision with the same type ship "Noveno de Julio") Damn, do the names of our ships are pronounced in the same abusive manner ??? wink But the second torpedo dealt a fatal blow to the cruiser, - it hit the aft part of the hull behind the armor belt. Having pierced the side, the torpedo exploded in the aft engine room, completely destroying the entire watch. The explosion began to spread upward, and there were two dining rooms above the engine room: one for junior officers, another for foremen, and even higher, vertically, on the next deck there were two dining rooms and a rest room (instructions - how to plan premises on a warship) .At this moment, the ship was changing watches and the premises were overcrowded with people, so the consequences of the explosion were simply terrible - here out of 275 people, 234 were killed the rest were wounded (many later died), and the force of the explosion punched a hole in the main deck. The agony of the cruiser began because the explosions damaged the electrical network and some of the generators, so it was not possible to pump out the water. 20 minutes later, the commander of the cruiser Bonso gave the order " Abl! "Falling on the port side, while plunging astern, the old ship's hull stood upright and began to sink faster and faster. The result of the tragedy: 321 naval sailors and two civilians.
    Well, it was not for nothing that the "Iron Lady" was said about M. Thatcher, and the staff officers were everywhere, "no matter what happened." And I had a question, why do British submarines need such high, in truth, 3-storey cabinets ??? I read it, but the information, in my opinion, is not a military publication, that the British, the boats at the base are in a semi-submerged state, that is, only the upper part of the wheelhouse sticks out above the water, for camouflage. Is this possible ???
    1. +4
      2 January 2013 16: 06
      not guys, it’s impossible to judge those events one-sidedly, the Britons are the first founders of the military fleet and naval science, Nelson and Victoria are just the beginning of naval science, although many want to see our Ushakov and Nakhimov, it’s not so, the great sailors and their naval traditions are much shaved ancient and interesting Russian, amers also leaned against their achievements,
      I admire the naval exploits of the Britons during the 2nd World War, and even then they will save any sailor who had an accident in their operational area, it’s in their blood, no matter how their homeland, a lifeless island, a stronghold of pirates and intrigue, without a fleet, they will disappear from cards
      in short, a worthy adversary with whom much can be learned, so having such a friend in the north, consider locking the entrance to the Baltic, the Russians need to have a powerful submarine fleet, they have no reception against this crowbar
      1. -1
        2 January 2013 18: 03
        Harrimur wrote everything correctly and minus it is simply stupid, it seems that those who did it seemed to be angry as if from hopelessness. The British are strong soldiers on the earth, not to mention the sea. And finally, as for the Falklands (and not only), on the World there are PLAYERS — we, s, limes, Fritz with the French — on the chessboard, and there are pawns that will always be pawns, no matter what weapons they buy there, they will always be bats. And our task now is not to slide into pawns.
        1. +2
          8 November 2013 13: 38
          Volozhaninminus harrimur and you are not out of anger or, God forbid, envy. Just do not drive the blizzard. Without diminishing the talent and merits of Sir Horatio Nelson, the real innovator and naval strategist of that time was precisely Fedor Fedorovich Ushakov, who applied all the tactics attributed to Nelson much earlier than his English counterpart. On a meanness and betrayal by Nelson in relation to his, albeit temporary, but ally, do not occupy. And if the Angles are proud of him - this is their business, but we do not make sense to admire such people.
          I hope the idea of ​​what needs to be done in order to don't slip into pawns, simple enough and understandable even to you.
      2. +1
        6 January 2013 10: 34
        When they talk about the "exploits" of the Britons in WW2, I immediately recall the heroic escape from the PQ-17 convoy, which was unreasonable and with a completely mythical threat of a German pickpocket ...
        1. +2
          8 November 2013 13: 41
          Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
          When they talk about the "exploits" of the Britons in WW2, I immediately remember the heroic escape from the PQ-17 convoy

          Absolutely correct hi . Does the English fleet know what honor is?
  11. AlexMH
    +4
    2 January 2013 14: 07
    The cutting height of an atomic submarine is not of fundamental importance, because it is still almost constantly under water. Its shape is important in terms of hydraulic resistance. And that the boat in the base was in a semi-submerged state - this can not be in principle, since it is dangerous and pointless.
  12. +5
    2 January 2013 14: 21
    The cruiser was sunk outside the declared "war zone" with a radius of 200 miles around the Falklands. In the same time, there is no legal documentestablishing the order of occurrence of these "zones" - the British only unilaterally warned ships and planes of all countries of the world that they should stay away from the Falkland Islands, otherwise, they can be attacked without warning.


    Why do they need any legal documents ?! They are like in the "zone" - they live by concepts, not by laws.

    And the article is very interesting, written so that when you read, as if you were watching a movie, thanks to the author!
  13. +1
    2 January 2013 14: 55
    Let the nuclear submarines remain a formidable weapon in the hands of the military, than do what the developers laid down in them.
    But they must be!
    1. -2
      2 January 2013 17: 18
      But not in such quantity as they have bred. Now all this flock needs to be cut and disposed of.
  14. +1
    2 January 2013 17: 52
    it’s been drowned somehow interesting, a distance of 1000 meters, upright torpedoes from the Second World War)) and this is an atomic boat in 1982 ... Of course, it may not be difficult to do where it can be done simply, but how did the APL commander know that there would be such slobs against him and even the sonars will not turn on and the destroyers will hang out not where it is necessary to be in the guard of the cruiser, etc. Indeed, maneuvering at such distances (about 1 km), he was lucky that the order was crap, and they would have drowned the Britons. I expected a tip-off detection of a very noisy target, classification, launching long-range homing (or remote-controlled) torpedoes from a distance of about 10-15 km, re-launching an attack on destroyers, an evasion maneuver ... and then a set of actions of 1942) and this was taught to them in Faslane ? how huge apl to go on the attack with extremely close range to the convoy? maybe I just don’t understand (I did not serve in the Navy and the layman in these matters)
    1. 0
      2 January 2013 18: 43
      barbiturate,

      Well, actually a torpedo attack from 1000 m, it is said to be a pistol shot, extremely small even for 42 years, the average attack distance of low-speed targets during World War 2, about 2 miles.
  15. WADUHa
    0
    2 January 2013 18: 03
    An interesting excursion into history .... Here is a spectacular example of what gives rise to carelessness ... But we have so few professionals left at the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation at all levels (from the General Staff to the sniper in the army ...) Premier League, and the commander seems to be 35 years old ..... It is alarming: an object of incredible importance and responsibility, it would seem, can only be entrusted to a wise cap, but here .....
    1. +2
      2 January 2013 19: 39
      Do you know how long an officer serves as a submarine commander? if 8-10 years old - he is already a veteran!
    2. +3
      2 January 2013 19: 58
      WADUHa,
      And you serve on a boat, 35 years old is an old man, 15 years in a swim is a very long time, sit (just sit) in the cellar for a week, you can understand.
      Gray-haired veterans, it’s only in the movies, in life, military officers stole two or three years after retirement, about 50%
    3. 0
      6 January 2013 10: 43
      Smiled ............... about age. always, and during Soviet times, as a rule, they became commanders in 32-34 years ...... there were earlier
      We consider 22-23 years old an engineer, the commander of a submarine group (sometimes also Cr-warhead)
      24-25 Dr. Warhead (may assistant commander)
      26-28 years old - PC, SEC or SEC bu
      29-30-32-33 - VMAcademy, at the exit Commander PL-32-35 (well, of course, everything is plus or minus a couple of years)

      Yes, and I personally earned retirement at the age of 30 :)
  16. 0
    2 January 2013 19: 23
    "ABOS !! ,,," - it smells the same in Argentina ...
  17. +1
    2 January 2013 19: 32
    Exactly. It is better to learn from the mistakes of others.
  18. 0
    2 January 2013 19: 34
    Quote: Old Rocketman
    Well, actually a torpedo attack from 1000 m, it is said to be a pistol shot, extremely small even for 42 years, the average attack distance of low-speed targets during World War 2, about 2 miles.


    Well, I’m saying how painfully cheap it is for 1982. They say about the carelessness of the Argentines, yes, but the captain of the British apl also attacked very recklessly, if the destroyers differed at least by 0, they could find a boat, since it’s near and drown
    1. 0
      2 January 2013 20: 05
      barbiturate,
      The submarine has an underwater speed of about 30 knots, the destroyer at this speed is blind and deaf, the 40s submarine had an underwater speed of 5-7 knots (these are the best), so the risk of a submarine commander is fully justified.
      1. postman
        0
        2 January 2013 23: 35
        Quote: Old Rocketman

        The submarine has an underwater speed of about 30 knots, the destroyer at this speed is blind and deaf

        S-22 "Resolution" maximum underwater speed of 25 knots, with this V "rumble" like a freight train from 500m distance.
        TOWED GAS- Ferranti Type 2046 (passive search), GAS Thomson Sintra Type 2019 PARIS (passive intercept and ranging), if not mistaken, it was ONLY equipped with S-23 ....


        The destroyers of the order had passive GASs, which MUST be "scattered" at least V in relation to the order.
        The destroyers had towed GAS + passive buoys (unlike the nuclear submarines, the volume is not so limited and there is no unmasking factor)
  19. 0
    2 January 2013 19: 39
    "" ABOS !! ,,, "- they thought on the cruiser ....
    "ABOS !! ..! -The British thought ....
    The principle on both sides was basically similar, but some in gov .... and others in chocolate ...
    1. avt
      0
      4 January 2013 18: 01
      Chenomu ____ No, "Maybe" really thought on the cruiser, but on the submarine they decided to "TAKE Bite"
  20. +1
    2 January 2013 20: 32
    Quote: Old Rocketman
    barbiturate, the nuclear submarine has an underwater speed of about 30 knots, the destroyer at this speed is blind and deaf, the 40s submarine had an underwater speed of 5-7 knots (these are the best), so the risk of a nuclear submarine commander is justified.


    it seems to me that we don’t understand each other) at 30 knots blind and deaf are just apl, the destroyer just doesn’t need to hide, because he is a hunter in this situation and can use the active search method completely freely, quickly find and no speed it will save apl from a torpedo, especially since the distance is small and there is simply no time for counteraction and evasion.
    1. 0
      2 January 2013 21: 01
      barbiturate,
      In this case, the GAS and the destroyer sonar did not work, the boat began the evasion maneuver even before detection, and at full speed the noise of (own) destroyer, even more modern than the Argentinean one, allows only towed ASU or sonar buoys to be used, at 30 knot speed the submarine will go for 6 minutes in 5 minutes plus depth, i.e., it’s out of reach of the anti-submarine weapons of the destroyer, it has no chance of catching a nuclear submarine, the boat had a head start of about 10 minutes, so the commander practically didn’t even risk arithmetic, my friend
      I doubt that the Argentine Navy has such experienced sonar speakers that could detect nuclear submarines under these conditions, even if they were ready to go.
  21. postman
    +5
    2 January 2013 23: 14
    The author of course has a rich artistic imagination:
    Quote: radio operator
    demanded to include the Resolution underwater strategic missile carrier in the squadron - in the event of the destruction of all British ships, on Argentine military bases descend from heaven nuclear fire
    but he writes not to the murzilka, but to the "serious analytical site"! tongue
    1. HMS Resolution (S22)/ in "sucks" since 1995/
    -Arsenal (SLBM) was stored SEPARATELY- 13 km from Faslein (which is 32 km from Glasgow): and there she (apl) didn’t go before moving to the Falklands.
    - At this time, only the program was completed to replace the Polaris A3 (UGM-27C) with the Polaris A3TK (Chevaline program: until May 1980 = 11 launches from the ground stand. All of them were completely or partially successful.April 1980, six underground explosions were made at the Nevada training ground). Modernization completed in 1987.
    The first SSBN - equipped with a new missile - "Renown" (S26) went on combat alert in mid-1982. The fourth and final SSBN is Revenge (S27) in 1988.
    UNKNOWN WERE (OR COULD BE) SOMETHING ON S22, EXCEPT A TORPEDOUS? PC is only likely
    2.Although Great Britain (like France) retained the right to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states in the event of aggression with the use of conventional weapons, ALL the same UK signed the NPT in 1968 in which there was such a "booger":
    Addition to the treaty - UN Security Council resolution of June 19, 1968 and identical statements by three nuclear powers - the USSR, the USA and Great Britain on the issue of security guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon states - parties to the treaty. The resolution provides that in the event of a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear state or the threat of such an attack, the Security Council, and above all its permanent members possessing nuclear weapons, must immediately act in accordance with the UN Charter to repel aggression; it also confirms the right of states to individual and collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter until thenuntil the Security Council takes the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security ...
    ...they also proclaim USSR intentionUSA and UK assist the non-nuclear party to the nuclear attack.
    Contracting Countries:
    ...
    Argentina
    ...
    Of course you can’t say for 100% that in the Foreign Office and Royal Navy everyone has a traditional sexual orientation, BUT THERE IS NO IDIOTS AND IT WASN’T, that’s for sure.
    3. The decision to use nuclear weapons (both tactical and strategic) is a strategic decision: no nuclear submarine captain can decide to use it or not. / And who gives permission in Britain to use weapons? /
    4. In order to "launch SLBMs" at military bases in Argentina, the S22 would have to "chap" from the Falklands oh, how far.
    just look at the minimum launch distance Polaris A3 or Polaris A3TK (if any of them were there), oh, how far ....
    Yes, AND WERE THERE (in the Premier League) RELEVANT GOAL COORDINATES?
    Let us recall why and against whom the nuclear submarines of this class were directed and for which hemisphere the application ...
    1. postman
      0
      3 January 2013 00: 52
      [quote = postman] Quote: radio operator[/ quote] - not true !!!
      Sorry, wipe out, of course
      [quote = postman] Quote: AUTHOR = SWEET_SIXTEEN / quote]

      (Olivier prevented ......)
  22. 0
    3 January 2013 05: 32
    Quote: Old Rocketman
    barbiturate, in this case, the ASU and the destroyer’s sonar did not work, the boat started the evasion maneuver even before detection, and at full speed the noise (own) of the destroyer, even more modern than the Argentinean ones, allows only towed ASU or sonar buoys to be used, at 30 nodal speed The submarine will leave in 6 minutes at 5 km plus depth, i.e. it will be out of the reach of the anti-submarine weapons of the destroyer, it has no chance to catch the submarine, the boat had a head start of about 10 minutes, so the commander had practically no risk, arithmetic, friend my I doubt that in the Argentine Navy there are such experienced hydroacoustics that could detect nuclear submarines in these conditions, even if they were ready to be ready


    here I agree, this is after the torpedo attack. I said that the boat acted freely before the attack, approached minimum distances, and after all the apl commander could not know about the combat effectiveness of the destroyers and in what condition their passive ASGs were. It would be more logical to use a large gap in noise and detection range and attack from a safe distance by controlled torpedoes than to spin around the warrant at full speed. Although, of course, the commander of the apl was better to know the situation, just the attack looks very archaic and reckless for the apl in 1982)
  23. Nicotine 7
    0
    3 January 2013 14: 04
    I think we need to be reminded that Argentina did not have any experience in military operations, either on land, at sea, or in the air. The conflict with Chile has not gone into a hot stage. The Argentinean government has used the military as police officers to suppress the popular uprisings. Here and the whole combat experience. Well, the current state of all the military branches of Argentina does not even reach the level of 82nd.
  24. +1
    3 January 2013 18: 22
    good old Mk VIII of the Second World War.
    1. 0
      3 January 2013 20: 57
      Oh nifiga yourself, who is this?
      1. +1
        3 January 2013 21: 23
        ___________
        Scharnhorst
  25. LAO
    LAO
    +2
    3 January 2013 18: 32
    Argentina is an agricultural country. The grazing of cows is the best in the world. Cowboys are not military in principle, much less sailors.
    They lost the war by their own stupidity and sloppiness!
    Another thing is not clear - why didn’t they ask the USSR for help? Everything could go differently.
    1. Kaa
      0
      3 January 2013 23: 46
      Quote: LAO
      why they did not ask for help from the USSR

      “To monitor the events in the South Atlantic, the Soviet Union began to launch spy satellites into space. Several Tu-95 aircraft and conventional spy ships disguised as fishing trawlers were deployed there to continuously monitor the British Expeditionary Force.
      The first Soviet satellites were launched into space on March 31, two days before the Argentines landed. These were: "Cosmos-1345" and "Cosmos-1346" and their main task was, respectively, to intercept radar radiation (ELINT) and listen and record radio communications (COMINT) messages. On April 2, the Kosmos-1347 photo-reconnaissance satellite was launched into space. He had to drop the returned capsules with the captured photographic films every time it flew over a certain point in the USSR. Between April 16 and 23, to replace those that had already exhausted their service life and continue observation, satellites of the Kosmos series - 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353 were launched. And on April 29, a specialized ocean observation satellite Kosmos-1355 was launched.
      Then, the Russians launched other satellites of the Kosmos series (-1356, 1357, 1364, 1366, 1367, 1369, etc.) into space for the sole purpose of monitoring the situation in the Falkland Islands. Some of these satellites could determine the coordinates of all ships in the South Atlantic and take photographs that were immediately transmitted to Russian ground stations for analysis. The Russians probably supplied the Argentines with data on the location of the British forces, which they collected with the help of their many spy satellites in orbits. over the Falkland Islands.
      The Americans have already monitored the course of events in the Argentine ports with the help of satellites and, in fact, warned the British about the danger of Argentine landing in the Falkland Islands. However, their observation was not limited to the South Atlantic. According to unofficial sources, the Americans also used a huge amount of funds from their National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has its own communications satellites (COMSAT), very well equipped ground intercept stations and decryption centers, equipped with powerful computers specially designed by IBM. The NSA used these tools to intercept Argentine radio communications and crack codes, thus allowing them to supply the British with valuable information regarding the deployment of Argentine troops in the Falkland Islands and the movement of Argentine ships. Over the next few days, the Russians, with particular interest in the use of electronic warfare and tactical operations, put into space several more satellites into orbits that allowed them to pass over the Falkland Islands at intervals of twenty minutes. One of these was Kosmos 1372, which was intended for ocean observation and was equipped with a radar station powered by a nuclear power plant; others were Kosmos-1370 for photographic reconnaissance, Lightning for communications, and Kosmos-1371 for SIGINT. Later, a small communications satellite was launched from the Salyut-7 space station.
      It is not known whether the Russians managed to crack the operational codes of the Royal Navy in time. However, it is a fact that British ships reduced their radio transmissions to an absolute minimum when a Russian satellite passed over them. General Belgrano used its radar and radio communications rather casually, perhaps not realizing that all of its electromagnetic radiation was intercepted by the Americans, who provided access to all this information to its NATO ally - Great Britain.http: //www.rfcmd.ru/books/REB/REB_27.htm
      1. +1
        4 January 2013 00: 21
        You can argue for a long time who was leaking information to whom.

        But the United States provided real assistance to the British - they provided their air base on about. Ascension
        1. avt
          0
          4 January 2013 18: 02
          SWEET_SIXTEEN,
          Not only.
    2. +2
      8 November 2013 13: 53
      Quote: LAO
      Another thing is not clear - why didn’t they ask the USSR for help?

      Yes, if only because they did not consider us their friends and allies. And we, in relation to the South American regimes, often used the expressions "military junta" and "dictatorial regime" than "people's democracy."
  26. zs23wesdgggg
    0
    4 January 2013 02: 45
    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://2qu.ru/poisksng database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...

    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://2qu.ru/poisksng database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...
  27. terp 50
    0
    4 January 2013 09: 29
    ... well, and ... how was the watch kept? .. where were the acoustics? .. - where was the intelligence? .. where were ALL the services? .. went to war or took a walk? ..
  28. Mr.Fox
    0
    4 January 2013 15: 06
    The loss ratio is simply monstrous, as for a power that for centuries has rightly been considered the ruler of the seas. If Argentina had normal Air Force, the British would simply be defeated.
  29. 0
    4 January 2013 22: 25
    We should not forget about the actions of 2 strategic Vulcan bombers with 40 tons of bombs at the Falklands airfield.
  30. sad32wqesadf
    0
    5 January 2013 11: 26
    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://zipurl.ws/sngbaza database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...
  31. avt
    0
    5 January 2013 12: 28
    terp 50 ____ well, and ... well, how did they keep watch? .. where were the acoustics? .. - where were the intelligence? .. where were ALL the services? .. Did you go to war or take a walk? .._____
    laughing laughing laughing Two escort destroyers "Ipolito Bouchard" and "Piedro Buena" in the twilight of the steamer built in 1937, the first name Phoenix in the us navy, lost, saw only the radar light, and then what happened, neither on Pedra nor on Ipalita could not guess fool fool even when the ship disappeared from the radar !! So sailed away !!! negative Then, at the base, on Ipalit they remembered! Cheito knocked on the side, examined, found a dent. "Conqueror" launched three MK8 in a fan, simple torpedoes, but a large charge, every steamer with an armored belt, apparently one reached Ipalit on the fly, the detonator did not detonate. And they rescued the sailors, a tug, a patrol ship, and luckily a Chilean Arctic transport turned up! Yes, I keep forgetting to ask, Marimans, this Conqueror is not from that English series in which the reactors cracked, but they quickly wrote them off? {To the question of high-quality Western technologies laughing laughing laughing }
  32. 0
    6 January 2013 17: 31
    Blame it, did not finish reading it to the end, but my fault was poorly (or rather, completely) studied the Falkland War.
    Oleg, another thanks to you for a curious fact, although far (very far) not indicative. On the one hand, the British taught by bitter experience, on the other hand, the Argentines who were practically not at war.
    You are right - it’s good that there weren’t and at the moment there are no other examples of the use of ICLP for its intended purpose (and God forbid the SSBN!). The battle at sea would take on a new look than you and I can imagine. The crew’s qualifications, armament, stealth, survivability and driving performance were not tested at equal levels, except in exercises.
  33. ed65b
    0
    8 November 2013 13: 53
    I wonder how events would turn around, crashing around Argentina with a vigorous rocket?