Military Review

"Lucky one." Episodes of the falkland war

55



... The message about the beginning of the attack did not at first summon any special impressions. Plymouth had been in a combat zone for the third week, and the next meeting with the enemy was now perceived as a natural course of events.

The main thing - the baby today is not alone. On the traverse of the Plymouth, the modern Sheffield air defense destroyer goes, and a little further, invisible behind the fog veil, waddles on the waves Yarmouth, another frigate of the advanced British detachment advanced to the southern tip of Falklands.

- Reports the post radar "Type 993", two speed targets from the south, the distance 10, height 150 feet.

Anxious glance from the bridge in the indicated direction - there is nothing, only a whitish veil of spray and oblique streams of rain ...

- It is necessary to check. Contact Sheffield. The weather today is clearly non-flying, a storm of 7 points, horizontal visibility less than 800 yards.

“Sir, Shaffield is not responding.” The targets go straight at us, the flight time is less than 1 minutes.

- Damn it! Are they deaf there? Well, we have to act independently.

... The frigate dramatically tilted to the side, destroying the crests of waves on a high side - the sailors managed to deploy the Plymouth aft in the direction of the flying missiles, minimizing the area of ​​its projection. Drum shot crashed installation "Corvus", brightening the air with fireworks passive interference - the frigate hid from the missiles in the saving cloud of dipole reflectors.

The first Argentine “Exochet” whizzed past and disappeared in the midst of the tatters of a raging ocean. But the second rocket ...

“Sir, Sheffield is on fire!”

Fortune sometimes gives too much, but never enough

The British frigate HMS Plymouth became one of the most efficient and successful ships that took part in the 1982 Falkland War. By the time the hostilities began, the most suitable place for Plymouth was to serve in the “second line” —a quiet position of a “colonial cruiser” somewhere in the West Indies. But life decreed otherwise: the outdated frigate fell fierce sea battles on the edge of the Earth. Not at all hoping for success, the British outfitted this "tub" only because of the extreme scarcity fleet Her Majesties - anyone who was able to hold in their hands was sent to the South Atlantic weapon.

The result was a naval curiosity:

The tiny, outdated frigate demonstrated the wonders of versatility and effective use, crushed targets on land, at sea and in the air, provided for conducting combined-arms and naval operations, repeatedly serving as a fire support device, a “tow truck” and a rescue ship for its less fortunate colleagues. Planted "point" landings, was used to transport special forces.

At the same time, every time the Plymouth attempted to destroy it, it fiercely resisted, and despite all the Argentine efforts to send this miracle to the bottom, the frigate returned from the war without losing a single sailor from his crew. Successfully completed the overhaul, and after six more years he served in various parts of the world as a “British colonial cruiser”.



The chronicle of the combat use of the frigate is worthy of a whole carrier-based formation.
Her Majesty's frigate Plymouth:

a) one of the first to arrive in a combat zone, to remove 12 000 km from the shores of Albion;

b) took part in the destruction of the Argentine submarine "Santa Fe";

c) deftly dodged the Exocset anti-ship missile launched into it;

d) using his 4,5 'inch cannon, “hollowed out” Argentine positions on the Falklands and on South Georgia Island, firing 900 mm caliber shells over 114.

e) claims the destruction of two "Daggerov" Air Force of Argentina (according to British sources, the claimed number of aircraft shot down by a frigate reaches five units);

In the end, the award found its hero - June 8, 1982 "Plymouth" came under a massive blow from the Argentine aviation. Desiring to absolve the sins of the frigate, Argentinean Air Force pilots threw four 500-pound “gifts” into it - BUT alas, not one of the bombs stuck in the Plymouth corps exploded!
Like a conspirator, the frigate patched up wounds and continued to perform tasks in the South Atlantic.
Kismet, as the English say. Rock. Lot. Fortune.

Plymouth was definitely the favorite of fate. Hike in 34 000 miles across the Atlantic, two months in the combat zone in the “frantic fifties”, daily attacks and damage to the war threatening ship wreck — are there many modern fleet combat units able to withstand this? However, even in a situation where much larger and more sophisticated ships were killed around in packs, the old frigate remained calmly calm and continued to perform its tasks, despite its small size, archaic design and the absence of suitable weapons.

Similar stories - decorations of any Navy. The legendary Russian brig "Mercury", the British minesweeper "Bengal" and now, finally, the "Plymouth" ... Desperate courage, professionalism and a drop of luck - sometimes it gives absolutely incredible results.

"Lucky one." Episodes of the falkland war


Technical Reference

HMS Plymouth is one of the Rothesay 14 frigates designed to provide escort missions, anti-submarine defense of convoys and warship formations in the coastal zone, in open sea areas and in the vast oceans. In addition to the Royal Navy of Great Britain, frigates of the “Rotssey” type were operated as part of the Navy of the South African Republic and New Zealand.

Full displacement - up to 2800 tons;

Crew - from 152 (draft) to 235 (after upgrading);

Powerplant: 2 boiler, 2 steam turbines with total power 30 000 HP

Full speed - 28 knots;

Fuel Tanks a frigate with a capacity of 400 tons of fuel oil provided a cruising range of 5200 miles at an economic speed of 12 knots;

Armament:
- Universal Mark Mark VI sea naval gun caliber 114 mm;
- 2 anti-submarine bombbo bomb (caliber 400 mm, firing range to 900 m)
- small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery: 40 mm installation "Bofors" or several 20 mm automatic machines "Oerlikon";
- antisubmarine / multi-purpose helicopter "Wasp", aft landing site, hangar.


In the foreground is a Limbo triple-barreled bomb, a light-weight Wasp helicopter. Strange, toy-like construction, sticking out in the back of the superstructure, is nothing other than the "Sea Cat"

The modernization carried out at the end of 1970-x meant the dismantling of one of the Limbo installations - instead of a frigate, they installed the sea C-CRA and modern fire control systems. Also, for the self-defense of the ship from the newest means of destruction - the Soviet anti-ship missiles, two Nebworth / Corvus 8-barreled installations were installed on the frigate for setting passive interference clouds.
The 12 mm torpedoes planned for the 533 project were never installed in reality.

The Plymouth itself was laid out in the 1958 year, launched in the 1959 and accepted into the UKRMS of the UK at the beginning of the 1961 year.

Even a quick glance at the characteristics of the Plymouth is enough to recognize that by the beginning of the 1980's, the ship was completely outdated and was useless. Particularly embarrassing is the air defense system, which consisted of the “Sea Cat” air defense missile system, a paired universal gun and a pair of Oerlikon from the Second World War.

At the same time, as it should be, the sector of firing 114 mm Mark VI guns was limited to bow angles. A "formidable" anti-aircraft missile system "C Cat" was inferior in its capabilities even Stinger MANPADS - at Stinger at least the speed of the rocket 2 times the speed of sound, while the British miracle "C Cat" fired subsonic (! ) Zur.
Considering all the above, the Plymouth frigate was completely defenseless in the attack from the air.

In its "main specialty" - the provision of anti-submarine defense, the "Plymouth" looked no less weak - there was no need to consider the three-gun Limbo as an effective anti-submarine weapon at the beginning of the 1980-s. There are no rocket-torpedoes, there are also no self-guided anti-submarine torpedoes in his arsenal. The only intelligible tool is the light “Wasp” helicopter, however, you can expect from this “dragonfly” from max. Tonnage 2,5 tons of any exploits also did not have to.

Anti-ship cruise missiles? Automatic radar-guided anti-aircraft guns? Any serious constructive protection? None of this on the "Plymouth" was not. British sailors seriously risked their lives, going on this "bucket" in the thick of battles.

Combat use statistics

Having gone on a march as part of an advanced unit, the Plymouth outnumbered the main forces of Task Force 317 for at least ten days, having arrived in the combat area as early as the twentieth of April 1982. The frigate wasted no time and, together with the icebreaker and the destroyer Antrim, he immediately joined the work on “cleansing” and returning to the British control of the island of South Georgia (a tiny piece of land in the open ocean, east of the Falkland archipelago).

There were no hot fighting in that region - each side had a modest amount of forces, because the case was limited to the transfer of special forces groups by helicopters and a short bombardment of the South coast. Georgia, after which the Argentine garrison of one hundred and fifty people threw a white flag.


The commander of the garrison, Captain de Corbet Alfredo Astits signs the Surrender Act in the cabin of the frigate Plymouth.

In the course of a short skirmish at South. Georges, the British managed to capture (destroy) the only Argentine ship in that square - the submarine "Santa Fe", used to deliver reinforcements. The Plymouth took part in the attack - a helicopter sent to the mission shot the Santa Fe with the small AS-12 ASMs, permanently damaging the boat and forcing it to surrender. However, the boat was old - the “Balao” of American construction, from the time of the Second World War, moreover, it was in a terrible technical condition and lost the ability to dive. However, the Argentine Navy suffered its first loss. The warm-up for the Plymouth was a success.

Having resolved the issue with South Georgia, the frigate moved 500 miles to the west, to the Falkland Islands - where the real fighting began. The new combat maneuvering area was located in the area of ​​Argentine aviation, and every British ship every minute risked being hit by an air strike. So it happened - the 4 of May 1982 of the year, the British radar patrol met the Argentine “wunderwaffe” - supersonic bomber carriers “Super Etandar”, armed with the AM39 Exocet anti-ship missiles.

Little Plymouth detected the threat in time and safely disappeared under the umbrella of the dipole reflectors. Worked the professionalism of the British team + a drop of luck. Unlike the destroyer Air Defense "Sheffield", whose commander hoped for non-flying weather and turned off the search radar (working radar interfered with satellite communication channels). As a result, the Sheffield burned down from an unexploded rocket, the crew lost the 20 people killed and the destroyer’s name is permanently on the list of naval curiosities.

As for the miraculously saved Plymouth, the only one whose actions in the prevailing situation turned out to be true ... there was not a word about him in the press, the ship did not receive combat damage, the crew was intact ... there was no sensation here.
Fortunately for the Plymouth crew, the frigate was no longer able to meet the AM39 Exocet. The enemy was only glimpsed - the dark shadows of Argentine planes, rushing over the water itself.

... "Ardent", "Entiloup", "Coventry", "Broadsward", "Entrym", "Glasgow", "Sir Galahed", "Sir Lancelot", "Atlanatik Conveyor" ... the "cardboard" ships of the English one by one turned into burning ruins, by the end of May, Her Majesty’s squadron had thinned by a third.


"Plymouth" is shelling the Argentine positions

Amazingly, the small Plymouth was still safe and sound. The anti-aircraft gunners regularly repelled attacks by Argentine aviation, alas, all Argentine planes flew past, as did the C Cat anti-aircraft missiles ... Post-war research showed that none of the Argentine Air Force’s losses could be reliably attributed to Plymouth - it looks like all missiles launched went into the "milk" or their combat units worked at a too great distance to cause fatal damage to the enemy. However, what else to expect from the "Sea Cat" air defense system with subsonic missiles and manual guidance of missiles at the target?

May Plymouth 21 evacuated the frigate Her Majesty's Argonaut - this unlucky ship received two unexploded bombs from the sky. With exploded boilers, broken radar antenna and fire in an anti-aircraft ammunition cellar, Argonaut completely lost its combat capability and owes its salvation only in time to arrive in Plymouth. Sailors from the Plymouth helped to bring down the flames and literally pulled the damaged Argonaut out of enemy attacks.



Two weeks later, Plymouth itself will suffer the same fate - four unexploded bombs! Hmm ... it looks like fate has a good sense of humor.
Despite the failure of the fuses, the bombs caused severe damage, and a detonation of depth charges occurred at the stern and a serious fire broke out. However, the Plymouth crew again managed to cope with the troubles without losing a single person.

14 July 1982, the Plymouth returned to the metropolis under its own power, leaving 34 000 nautical miles as a stern.
The old frigate was finally written off only in 1988. Plymouth stood 16 for years as an exhibit on the River Clyde (Glasgow), until the next reduction in the military budget put a question mark on its future fate. In 2012, information about the sale of the Plymouth was scrapped, an Argentine name flashed among potential buyers ... The fate of the legendary ship could have an enchanting ending - the Argentines, having spent so much effort to destroy the elusive frigate, finally, could complete the job, dismantling the rusty Plymouth on the nails. However, according to the latest data, Turkey will become the buyer of the “Falkland veteran”.




Battle Damage



"Rusty bucket". HMS Plymouth these days


http://www.hmsplymouth.co.uk/
http://www.wikipedia.org/
http://www.hmsplymouthtrust.co.uk/
Author:
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. omsbon
    omsbon 19 August 2013 09: 21
    +5
    Two weeks later, Plymouth itself will suffer the same fate - four unexploded bombs!

    Lucky bitch!
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 19 August 2013 11: 42
      +3
      Quote: omsbon
      Lucky

      Luck and the will of providence did not even stand nearby.
      Thanks to "Uncle Sam" for the "quality" ammunition.
      If not for these "surprises", then the entire combat-ready small British fleet found peace at the bottom of the Atlantic. And the "dispute" over the islands would have been resolved by the turning point "mattress" irons. hi
      1. Santa Fe
        19 August 2013 11: 51
        +5
        Quote: Papakiko
        Thanks to "Uncle Sam" for the "quality" ammunition.

        And also for the cool Skyhawk attack aircraft. By the early 1980s, the plane was completely obsolete, but it was the A-4 Skyhawk that caused the main damage to the squadron.
        1. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 19 August 2013 13: 37
          0
          Dear Oleg, not your article? However, returning to our previous dispute, I want to remind you that the main losses of the Argentine aviation suffered from the actions of the British carrier-based fighters "Sea Harrier"
          The distribution of losses of Argentine aircraft for reasons (calculated according to the materials of the list below, the number of destroyed and captured by the British is separately indicated in brackets):

          "Mirage" III (2) - 1 shot down by fighters, 1 shot down by "friendly fire"
          "Dagger" (11) - 9 shot down by fighters, 2 shot down by air defense
          A-4 Skyhawk (22) - 8 shot down by fighters, 9 shot down by air defense systems, 1 crashed while evading a missile, 1 shot down by "friendly fire", 3 lost for unclear reasons
          IA-58 "Pukara" (15 + 11) - 1 shot down by fighters, 2 shot down by air defense systems, 7 destroyed on the ground, 3 lost for non-combat reasons, 2 lost for unclear reasons, 11 captured after the war
          MB-339 (2 + 3) - 1 shot down by means of air defense, 1 crashed for non-combat reason, 3 captured after the war
          "Canberra" (2) - 1 shot down by fighters, 1 shot down by air defense systems
          SC.7 Skyvan (2) - 1 destroyed on the ground, 1 lost for non-combat reasons
          T-34 "Turbo Mentor" (4) - 4 destroyed on the ground
          C-130 "Hercules" (1) - 1 shot down by fighters
          Learget 35 (1) - 1 shot down by air defense systems
          SA316 "Aluette" III (1) - 1 destroyed on the ship
          SA330 "Puma" (6 + 1) - 3 shot down by air defense, 2 destroyed on the ground, 1 crashed while evading a fighter attack, 1 captured after the war
          Sea Lynx (2) - 2 lost for non-combat reasons
          CH-47 Chinook (1 + 1) - 1 destroyed on the ground, 1 captured after the war
          A109 "Hirundo" (1 + 2) - 1 destroyed on the ground, 2 captured after the war
          Bell 212 (2) - 2 captured after the war
          UH-1 Iroquois (9) - 9 captured after the war

          TOTAL:
          Aircraft (62 + 14) - 21 shot down in air combat, 16 shot down by ground air defense systems, 2 lost from "friendly fire", 1 crashed while evading a missile, 12 destroyed on the ground, 5 lost for non-combat reasons, 5 lost for unclear reasons .14 ​​captured after the war
          Helicopters (11 + 15) - 3 shot down by ground air defense systems, 4 destroyed on the ground, 1 destroyed on a ship, 1 crashed when evading a fighter attack, 2 lost for non-combat reasons, 15 captured after the war
          Of the 73 aircraft lost during the war, 61 (83%) were combat losses, 7 (10%) were non-combat. For 5 aircraft, the circumstances of the loss are not entirely clear. One Skyhawk was destroyed on May 30 when a British aircraft carrier was attacked either from a missile or collided with the wreckage of other aircraft, and is counted as a combat loss. Two "Pukars" on May 1 and two "Skyhawks" on May 9 cannot be unequivocally attributed to combat or non-combat losses.
          After the ceasefire, British aircraft captured 14 aircraft and 15 helicopters. Given this aircraft, the irretrievable losses of Argentine aviation in the war are 76 aircraft and 26 helicopters.
          http://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0230.shtml

      2. cdrt
        cdrt 20 August 2013 03: 41
        +2
        It may be better to study the question - why did the fuses not work? Before conspiracy to seek
        1. ICT
          ICT 20 August 2013 08: 11
          +1
          in our country, gunsmiths used to take a toe from a ground fuse in training exercises, and there, along the way, bombs were simply hung from the warehouses directly from the warehouses without even equipping them. In general, there is nothing complicated in a simple bomb, even if the fuses were defective, it seems time to sort it out.
    2. Poppy
      Poppy 19 August 2013 14: 41
      +4
      yes there 50% of the bombs did not explode, if they were normal, then the whole war would have turned in a different way
      1. Delta
        Delta 19 August 2013 14: 49
        +6
        Quote: Poppy
        yes there 50% of the bombs did not explode, if they were normal, then the whole war would have turned in a different way

        if there were more discipline and coherence on English ships, there would also be a different result. If they had anti-aircraft artillery, more Argentinean aircraft would be shot down. Why do alternative history? we have what we have
      2. Turik
        Turik 19 August 2013 18: 48
        +3
        73% do not want?
      3. Volozhanin
        Volozhanin 19 August 2013 19: 09
        +7
        If my grandmother had ... th, she would be a grandfather. The Limes once again showed their high fighting qualities, and showed the Args their true place in the world. And Delta wrote everything below correctly about their discipline and coherence, they indeed, one of the best sailors in the world, they are a Worthy and uncomfortable adversary. As for the "rusty trough", the Laborites during their reign, brought the economy and, accordingly, the country's armed forces "to the handle", and therefore the British on the eve of the war had what they had, It could be worse. It was this "small victorious war" that gave the Royal Navy a much needed second wind. The same Kaptsov recently spoke about this. PS I am not an Anglophile.
  2. Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 09: 31
    +2
    Thank you for the article!
    After reading, nothing else comes to mind, except to exclaim: "Well, trough!"
    For the British on the eve of the war, things were going very badly if such vessels were sent to fight. And this war itself is an absurd set of accidents. If it were not for the dead people, then in general it would be possible to call all this whistling a farce. Unexploded bombs, "flying keros" Exocet, container ships instead of aircraft carriers, ancient frigates ... I wish the Britons to continue to "fight" like that.
    Oleg! And I wish you not to write further about aircraft carriers - this is much better and more interesting.
  3. Mhpv
    Mhpv 19 August 2013 09: 34
    +4
    "Your Honor Lady Luck
    For whom are you kind and for whom otherwise "
    Luck has never harmed anyone, plus the commander and team.
  4. Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 09: 37
    +3
    And where did they plant bombs on him? In the photo he smokes quite well. winked
    1. Santa Fe
      19 August 2013 10: 36
      +5
      Quote: Iraclius
      And where did they plant bombs on him?

      One bomb hit the flight deck, detonating a depth charge and starting a fire, one went straight through her funnel and two more destroyed her Limbo anti-submarine mortar.

      Helipad, chimney, Limbo ASW ammunition cellar
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 19 August 2013 10: 45
        +4
        Yeah ... Considering that the depth charges did detonate, how his food didn't fall off remains a mystery to me. Still, Plymouth had less luminescence than poor Sheffield. request
  5. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 19 August 2013 10: 18
    0
    Interesting article, thanks to the author. Ships, like people, are lucky and unlucky. An example of the first "Plymouth", an example of the second is our nuclear submarine, nicknamed for its constant accidents "Hiroshima".
  6. Hey
    Hey 19 August 2013 10: 33
    +3
    From these events it is necessary to conclude that, so that luck does not contribute to the enemy, self-liquidators should be put on ammunition of combat and missiles. A bomb got stuck in the hull, self-destructive agent in 2-3 minutes, or even worked before, and there is no ship.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 19 August 2013 11: 03
      +5
      Yeah. And increase the risk of the death of your own ship on self-explosions in the cellar.
      Self-liquidation - she is so ...
      The conclusion must be made differently - it’s not difficult to use bombs in the fighting that have lain in the warehouses of 30 years. Yes, and made by hands not of their workers.
      1. Santa Fe
        19 August 2013 11: 53
        +6
        Quote: Iraclius
        It’s not a shit to use bombs in combat that have lain in warehouses of 30 years. Yes, and made by hands not of their workers.

        At the same time, the Mk.80 b / p line was designed for high-altitude discharges, and the Argentos were engaged in top-mast bombing

        A-4 Skyhawk attack, shot from a British destroyer
        1. Santa Fe
          19 August 2013 11: 58
          +5
          Argam, in turn, was lucky that the Britons did not have such things
          Automated guidance systems, 4-5 thousand rds / min x 2 (although in reality they only shoot from one gun, the second cools down) - Argentine attack aircraft would be torn to shreds

          It is no coincidence that in July 1982 Britons urgently bought a batch of Phalanx CIWS in the USA

        2. Iraclius
          Iraclius 19 August 2013 13: 26
          +5
          Going low, real Boston! winked What do they plant on it? The surge is really big.
          1. Santa Fe
            19 August 2013 16: 07
            +5
            Quote: Iraclius
            What do they plant on it? The surge is really big.

            Probably from 114 mm Mark 8
            1. Iraclius
              Iraclius 19 August 2013 16: 22
              +3
              Yes, it may well be. Moreover, the crews, not out of good life, fired at the attack aircraft from everything that could shoot. Even from individual weapons "packs" were fired. lol
  7. ed65b
    ed65b 19 August 2013 12: 07
    +2
    the place of such ships is an eternal parking lot like a museum. Really amazing fate. And the commander, the star of the hero of England and a monument at home.
  8. Delta
    Delta 19 August 2013 12: 35
    0
    “Cardboard” ships of the British one by one turned into flaming ruins

    and what, are there ships in the world that carry armor capable of stopping anti-ship missiles?
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 19 August 2013 13: 27
      +3
      No, but there are ships that do not burn and do not sink from the presence of unexploded ordnance. yes
      1. Delta
        Delta 19 August 2013 13: 35
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        there are ships that do not burn and do not sink from unexploded ordnance.

        Sheffield burned down as unburned rocket fuel ignited paint and cables. This could have happened to any other ship. There is paint and cables everywhere. And there are ships that are lucky (like the same "Plymouth") and there are those that drown from the "sneeze nearby"
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 19 August 2013 14: 06
          +5
          Sheffield burned structural materials from which the hull and bulkheads were assembled - a light alloy based on aluminum. Our Bora died for the same reasons.
          Steel does not burn even under conditions of ignition of RT components.
          That's what it is about.
          1. Delta
            Delta 19 August 2013 14: 35
            +3
            I'm talking about the author's message - the English ships are almost entirely made of cardboard. Then, in fairness, we must recall a series of 20 Soviet BODs, which also had an aluminum alloy and BOD "Otvazhny", which died in peacetime for this reason
            1. Iraclius
              Iraclius 19 August 2013 16: 15
              +3
              There was an article here about this ship. There, Sheffield and I remembered, and the brave crew of Bora ... And newfangled metal alloys. yes
            2. Santa Fe
              19 August 2013 16: 55
              +1
              Quote: Delta
              BOD "Brave", which died in peacetime for this reason

              BOD "Otvazhny" was killed by the explosion of ammunition load of the stern SAM "Volna"

              - in the cellar in 2 drums there were 15 B-600 missiles. The first stage is a PRD-36 powder jet engine equipped with 14 cylindrical powder bombs, with a total weight of 280 kg. The second stage is a rocket made according to the aerodynamic "canard" configuration with cruciform wings and rudders. The second stage engine is equipped with a 125 kg powder bunk. The warhead of the missile is high-explosive fragmentation, with ready-made submunitions. The total weight of the warhead is 60 kg, of which 32 kg are an alloy of TNT with hexogen and 22 kg are damaging elements.

              As a result, in the aft cellar BOD almost detonated 6000 kg of gunpowder and 480 kg of explosives! - almost like an unexploded anti-ship missile Exocet, yeah

              But the "Brave" stayed on the water for another 5 hours. By the way, he had a chance to escape if the fire had not crept up to the aviation kerosene storage (5 tons) and the depth charge cellar for RBU - there are purely miscalculations in the design of pr. 61, the firstborn of the Soviet missile fleet: the lack of an automatic fire extinguishing system, heat-resistant bulkheads, irrational layout - fire brigades could not get into the emergency rooms and prevent the spread of the fire
              1. Delta
                Delta 19 August 2013 18: 08
                -1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                But the "Brave" stayed on the water for another 5 hours

                And how long did Sheffield last, remember?
                1. Santa Fe
                  19 August 2013 18: 15
                  +4
                  Quote: Delta
                  And how long did Sheffield last, remember?

                  Did "Exocet" at least explode?))
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 19 August 2013 19: 13
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Did Exocet explode?

                    and the difference in the rocket? no need to engage in fraud again. There is not much difference, because a fire is a fire in Africa too. And no matter where it came from
                    1. Santa Fe
                      19 August 2013 19: 22
                      +2
                      Quote: Delta
                      and the difference in the rocket?

                      1 unexploded anti-ship missiles against 15 detonated missiles (6 tons of gunpowder, 480 kg of pure explosives)
                      Quote: Delta
                      the difference is small


                      Quote: Delta
                      since a fire is a fire in Africa too. And no matter where it came from

                      the difference is how it spread. in its intensity and place of occurrence

                      the explosion of 6 tons of gunpowder and 480 kg of powerful brizant went to the Brave. So?
              2. avt
                avt 19 August 2013 18: 09
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                - there are pure miscalculations in the design of Project 61, the firstborn of the Soviet missile fleet: the lack of an automatic fire extinguishing system, heat-resistant bulkheads, an irrational layout - fire crews could not get into emergency rooms and prevent the spread of the fire

                ,, Two cans of kerosene, a Leningrad gramophone ... "Harosh to carry nonsense with a clever look, there was an article on the site about the tragedy of the Brave", look and watch the discussion, I posted excerpts of the results of the state commission on the accident, then we approached this catastrophe in the most meticulous way , built a full-length mock-up of the air defense missile system compartments and conducted fire tests, I also laid out fragments of the results there. The midshipman simply had to press the fire extinguishing system button when a fire broke out, and not run - notify the crew about the fire, the ship could be saved, the fire, with the fire extinguishing system turned on, would not come out of the compartments, including the SAM ammunition.
    2. Santa Fe
      19 August 2013 16: 44
      +4
      Quote: Delta
      “Cardboard” ships of the British one by one turned into flaming ruins

      and what, are there ships in the world that carry armor capable of stopping anti-ship missiles?

      at least in the world there were ships that would not die in 15 minutes from two 227-kg bombs, as did the destroyer "Coventry" (the third one that got into the ship Mk.82 did not explode)
  9. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 19 August 2013 12: 40
    +4
    The boat has an interesting life ... Lucky is rare. But the crew and the commander must be given their due: they worked correctly, and did not carelessly, as on the same Sheffield.
  10. Vyalik
    Vyalik 19 August 2013 13: 08
    +1
    As far as I remember the defeat of "Sheffield" they explained by the fact that at the time of the attack he was negotiating on satellite communications and, therefore, they did not have a radar station turned on. But the fact that the "Plymouth" crew and commander were competently trained is a fact .Well, luck does not go anywhere from this.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 19 August 2013 13: 29
      +3
      Nehru chatting during the battle. Moreover, they were warned about the high activity of Argentine aviation in the area.
  11. Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 14: 49
    0
    From a military-technical point of view, it is unfortunate that the British aircraft carriers did not clash with Argentinean aircraft.
    How is it there, with the vitality and defensive potential of "Hermes" and "Invisible"?
    1. Delta
      Delta 19 August 2013 15: 16
      +2
      why didn't they clash? EMNIP "Harriers" from "Hermes" and "Invincible" shot down 23 Argentine aircraft. As for the aircraft carriers themselves, on May 30 the Argentines made a final attempt to destroy one of the two British aircraft carriers, the Invincible, using the two remaining Exocet missiles. During the attack, one Skyhawk from the demonstration group was immediately shot down by escort ships. The same ships, together with helicopters, using electronic warfare means, took the missiles off the combat course. However, one attack aircraft still managed to break through to the aircraft carrier and drop a 220-kg bomb, which hit the deck behind the superstructure. The Argentines claimed that they damaged the aircraft carrier, the British that there was no damage. Where is the truth - go and understand now. Another thing is important - in this case, the air defense was at the proper level.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 19 August 2013 15: 20
        +1
        I put it unsuccessfully. I’m talking about the scenario when airplanes broke through an air defense order and began to hit missiles at an aircraft carrier.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 August 2013 16: 33
          +6
          Quote: Iraclius
          I’m talking about the scenario when airplanes broke through an air defense order and began to hit missiles at an aircraft carrier.

          May 25 attack, dedicated to Argentina's national day
          RCC aimed at the largest target - defenseless Atlantic Conveyor

          How did the security break through? Well, this is a question for carrier-based aviation)))
    2. Santa Fe
      19 August 2013 16: 29
      0
      Quote: Iraclius
      How is it there, with the vitality and defensive potential of "Hermes" and "Invisible"?

      Bad.

      Harrier carriers worked from shore on duty links - for this purpose, the Harrier Forward Operating Base (FOB) was built in San Carlos Bay.

      The Hermes and Invisible themselves were afraid to come close to the islands, preferring to stay 100..150 miles northeast, at the limit of the Argentine aviation - otherwise such a "fat" target would have become the subject of close attention of Skyhawks and SuperEtandars
      1. Delta
        Delta 19 August 2013 16: 35
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How is it there, with the vitality and defensive potential of "Hermes" and "Invisible"?
        Bad.

        "Hermes" and "Invisible" were afraid to come close to the islands, preferring to stay 100..150 miles northeast, at the limit of the Argentine aviation


        the survivability of the ship is not determined by how far it is from the enemy or how well it uses its capabilities in secretive location. How can we conclude that bad or good survivability, if not a single missile hit the aircraft carriers? or the British should definitely come closer to check how tenacious they are?))) they managed without such false heroism
        1. Santa Fe
          19 August 2013 18: 10
          +2
          Quote: Delta
          How is it there, with the vitality and defensive potential of "Hermes" and "Invisible"?
          Bad.

          "Hermes" and "Invisible" were afraid to come close to the islands, preferring to stay 100..150 miles northeast, at the limit of the Argentine aviation

          the survivability of the ship is not determined by how far it is from the enemy or how well it uses its capabilities in secretive location. How can we conclude that poor or good survivability

          This was the conclusion about the defensive potential of the Hermes and Invincible. the ships were afraid to come ashore
          Quote: Delta
          . How can we conclude that bad or good survivability, if not a single missile hit the aircraft carriers?

          The survivability of the AV below the plinth - history is replete with examples when they burned like candles from the simplest means - "Oriskani" in 1966 burned out from a magnesium flare
          Quote: Delta
          or the British should definitely come closer to check how tenacious they are?)))

          It's the same Nimitz lovers who are rattling about "direct cover" and "quick response"

          In reality, the "Hermes" wandered about 200-300 km behind the squadron and could not provide operational cover for the landing. Result - a third of the ships were burned / sunk / damaged
          1. Delta
            Delta 19 August 2013 19: 20
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This was the conclusion about the defensive potential of the Hermes and Invincible. the ships were afraid to come ashore

            why would they risk it again ??? is it a breakthrough tank? no, it's a floating airfield, actually.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Vitality Ab below the baseboard - history abounds with examples when they burned like candles from simple means

            as well as ships of other types. Or does AB have different physicochemical properties?)))
            especially for you today, an article about AV "Zeppelin" and how he was drowned "by the whole world" in polygon conditions, but he was not drowning in any way
            1. Santa Fe
              19 August 2013 19: 43
              0
              Quote: Delta
              why would they risk it again?

              It's the same Nimitz lovers who are rattling about "direct cover" and "quick response"

              In reality, "Hermes" wandered about 200-300 km behind the squadron and provide operational air cover I could not. Result - a third of the ships were burned / sunk / damaged
              Quote: Delta
              Vitality Ab below the baseboard - history abounds with examples when they burned like candles from simple means
              as well as ships of other types. Or does AB have different physical and chemical properties?

              A huge number of fire hazardous equipment dispersed in the most vulnerable places of the ship, including on the upper deck
              Quote: Delta
              especially for you today, an article about AV "Zeppelin" and how he was drowned "by the whole world" in polygon conditions, but he was not drowning in any way

              naturally, because it was empty - without fuel and ammunition, bare walls

              and why did you decide that the aircraft carrier should be drowned? I am quite happy with this result:
            2. avt
              avt 19 August 2013 19: 47
              +2
              Quote: Delta
              why would they risk it again ??? is it a breakthrough tank? no, it's a floating airfield, actually.

              And melee!? They had to go boarding the Falklands and give them hand-to-hand !!!! laughing
              Quote: Delta
              as well as ships of other types. Or does AB have different physicochemical properties?)))

              Of course not, here are the submarines that are so cute to Oleg, for example, they don’t burn, it’s not for you Nimitz how shabby, evil-burning, there is water all around - there’s nothing to burn and no one will set on fire. laughing
              1. Santa Fe
                19 August 2013 19: 49
                0
                Quote: avt
                here are the submarines that are so cute to Oleg, for example, they don’t burn, it’s not for you Nimitz how shabby, evil-burning, there is water all around - there is nothing to burn and no one will set fire to.

                How many fires with severe consequences recorded on the American nuclear submarines?
                1. Delta
                  Delta 19 August 2013 21: 10
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  How many fires with severe consequences recorded on the American nuclear submarines?

                  58th year "Nautilus". Fire extinguished only after 4 hours. Data on casualties and deaths are contradictory.

                  The same year. "Triton" - two fires, four burnt submariners

                  60th year. "Sargo". Fire and subsequent explosion of two torpedoes. One person died

                  84th year. "Guitarro". Fire, no data on the dead.

                  The experience of operating submarines with nuclear power plants in the US Navy suggests that their accident rate is associated with the following main reasons (expressed as a percentage of the full list of causes of accidents):

                  navigation - about 49%;
                  accidents of energy equipment, including nuclear installations - up to 31%;
                  explosions and fires, including incidents with ammunition - about 16%;
                  accidents for other reasons - 4%.

                  Only for the period 1975-98. US nuclear submarines reported the occurrence of 61 fires. (this is Mormul's data)
                  few?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    19 August 2013 22: 49
                    0
                    Quote: Delta
                    58th year "Nautilus". Fire extinguished only after 4 hours. Data on casualties and deaths are contradictory.
                    The same year. "Triton" - two fires, four burnt submariners
                    60th year. "Sargo". Fire and subsequent explosion of two torpedoes. One person died
                    84th year. "Guitarro". Fire, no data on the dead.

                    This is all complete nonsense.

                    It is clear that in the huge fleet, something falls and ignites daily. Big fires are a true indicator, but they weren’t just on American boats
                    Despite the fact that the Yankees had 200 +

                    I asked to name severe accidents with a bunch of victims and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage like these:

                    26.10.1966/44/156 - "Oriskani". The sailor carried a bunch of signal flares, throwing lanyards over his shoulder. One of the rockets caught on something and went off from the pull of the cord. The sailor threw it away and fell into a box with the same missiles. As a result of the explosions and fire in the hangar, XNUMX dead and XNUMX wounded.

                    29.06.1967/9/134 - Forrestal. Accidental launch of a Zuni rocket. As a result of a missile hitting a nearby plane, a fire broke out, 161 bombs were detonated. Burning fuel poured through holes in the deck onto the lower decks. 21 dead and XNUMX wounded, XNUMX aircraft in the red.

                    15.01.1969/27/344 - "Enterprise". A rack with four Zuni missiles exploded, at which the aircraft's jet stream was directed. Again fuel poured onto the lower decks through the hole in the flight deck. 15 dead, XNUMX injured. -XNUMX aircraft.

                    26.05.1981/6/3 - "Nimitz". EA-14B crashed into a helicopter standing on the deck while landing. The ignited fuel was quickly extinguished and instructed to remove the debris. When the sailors approached the wreckage, the "Sparrow" rocket exploded, followed by 39 more explosions. XNUMX killed, XNUMX wounded.


                    Well, this is so, the days of Nimitsev)))


                    Another enchanting video. Flame meters 10, Enterprise, 1998 year
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 19 August 2013 22: 53
                      +1
                      Hi Oleg, adding "Forrestal"
    3. avt
      avt 19 August 2013 19: 29
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      From a military-technical point of view, it is unfortunate that the British aircraft carriers did not clash with Argentinean aircraft.
      How is it there, with the vitality and defensive potential of "Hermes" and "Invisible"?

      Well then, British aircraft carriers would probably clash with the British, Argentos is also a native British, born in 1942 and sold in 1946 Warrior. laughing
  12. Essenger
    Essenger 19 August 2013 14: 51
    0
    As always, the Anglo-Saxons are on top!
  13. Essenger
    Essenger 19 August 2013 14: 51
    0
    As always, the Anglo-Saxons are on top!
    1. ICT
      ICT 19 August 2013 17: 33
      +3
      Quote: Essenger
      As always, the Anglo-Saxons are on top!


      they have in their navy another example of the times of World War II, such as the battleship "Prince of Wells" he was called, in a battle with his classmates he had "cliniolo towers", they sent the Japs to beat so all the anti-aircraft guns died there at once.
  14. GUSAR
    GUSAR 19 August 2013 20: 05
    +4
    But the Falkland War itself is very interesting, it was tested a lot of what followed a little later the so-called wars of the future ... And yet, I myself am interested in those events, and reading various comments about that war, I have a feeling that the discussion of the Falkland War by different people in terms of whom they supported (or would support) very much resembles a dispute between two irreconcilable football fans, well, in general, the situation has something to do with it, the two great football powers can’t do anything, well, I will express my opinion too, I would root for the British in that mess laughing