Military Review

Harriers in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 4)

84



After a successful attack on the Sheffield on May 4, 1982, and until May 20, when the British launched the landing operation, there was a pause in the fighting. Not that they ceased altogether, but both sides did not seek a decisive battle, confining themselves to a small “bite” of the enemy. The British planes constantly did something - they shot a little at unarmed ships, carried out air patrols, however, without intercepting anyone, they bombarded various objects on the Falkland Islands without causing any noticeable damage ... From the point of view of analyzing the action of Harrier "British, this period could be omitted, but what happened in the period of May 5-20 well illustrates what distortions the fleet is forced to go, which does not have at its disposal an adequate deck aviation.

For three days, May 5-7, nothing special happened either at sea or in the air. British Atomarines after the sinking of the Belgrano received permission to engage in free hunting and went after the main forces of the Argentinean fleet to the continental coast. Nothing good came of this - within the radius of action of aircraft and land-based helicopters, the Argentines made a good PLO. As a result, the British did not find anyone, but on May 5, the Argentinean aircraft discovered and attacked one of their submarines, but to no avail. The next day, May 6, London recalled the submarines, assigning them patrol areas near the Falkland Islands. On the same day, the British lost 2 Sea Harriers, which probably collided in the air, and on May 7, the Argentines resumed supplying the islands with air - Hercules S-130 (call sign - Tiger) delivered cargo and an air defense unit with missiles "SAM-7." At the same time, Argentine scouts discovered two British ship groups, the route of one of them being within the range of strike aircraft, but the disgusting weather did not allow this chance to be taken.

The revival came on 8 in May, when the San Luis, hiding from Falkland, discovered a target located approximately 2700 meters from the Argentine submarine and moving at a speed of 8 nodes. On the "San Luis" could not identify the target, but attacked her anti-submarine torpedo Mk 37. After six seconds, the acoustics recorded a metal strike on the metal, but an explosion did not follow, and the contact was lost. What was it?

Perhaps it all just Argentine acoustics, it just happens. Suffice it to recall that the frigate “Yarmouth”, trying to help the wounded “Sheffield”, 9 (NINE) once heard the sound of torpedo screws, although in reality there were no torpedoes and could not be. But it is possible that the Argentines still fired at the real target and hit the nuclear submarine "Splendit". The British, of course, do not confirm anything of this, but there is information that after this incident the Splendit immediately left the combat area and went to the UK, and there were no other ships and vessels in the San Luis attack area. If the attack really took place, then we can say that the Argentine submariners touched the greatest success, because the destruction of "Splendit" would be a great response to the death of "Belgrano". Alas, poor quality weapon again let down the Argentines. Or is it all a matter of small distance, why the torpedo did not have time to start?



In general, 8 May gave lovers of naval stories another mystery, but in addition to the attack of “San Luis” something interesting happened. It was on this day that the destroyer Coventry and the frigate Broadsworth received an amazing order: they were obliged to provide an air blockade of the Falkland Islands.

On the one hand, an attempt to organize an air blockade by the ship patrol looks at least strange, if not to say absurd. After all, for this, the ships needed to get as close as possible to the coast, from where their radars would control the airspace over the Stanley airfield, and the C Dart missiles could shoot down cargo planes if they were announced there. But in this case, the British detachment will inevitably be discovered, and it will be found within the reach of the Argentine continental aviation. So, the British voluntarily asked for a repetition of the story with "Sheffield"? How could the command of the 317 operational connection think up such a suicidal tactic?

But in reality, the British had no choice - except to roll up the operation and, empty-handedly, go home. The 1-4 battles of May convinced the British that they could not control the airspace either over Falklands or even over their own compound. The hopes placed on VTOL airborne patrols and shipborne radar patrols, which included destroyers with their powerful radar and long-range C-Dart systems, did not materialize, and the British did not have any other means of monitoring the air situation. And what could be done here?

After the attack on Sheffield, the British command hit the most unbridled palliatives. The only fact testifies to what degree of despair the commanders are: the plan of sending British reconnaissance teams to the continent was seriously discussed, so that they, hiding in areas of Argentinean air bases, visually observed the take-off of combat aircraft and radioed about the ships. Fortunately, the implementation of this idea is not reached. Probably, someone nevertheless remembered that stationary observers with walkie-talkies were successfully detected and destroyed even during the Second World War, and since then radio engineering has stepped far forward. Then the command of the 317 th operational unit attracted to the conduct of aerial reconnaissance ... submarines.

How it is implemented - it remains a mystery, the British are not particularly spread about this. Probably, surface submarines patrolled in areas close to continental air bases in the hope that passive radio intelligence stations, or watchmen, would be able to detect Argentine aircraft taking off. The author of the article can not say for sure, but it is possible that the attack of the British submarine by the Argentine aviation PLO, which took place on May 5, is a consequence of such a “brilliant” strategy. Be that as it may, the idea obviously did not justify itself, and they gave it a wave of it.

All this, of course, is an oxymoron, but still you should not blame Rear-Admiral Woodworth for unprofessionalism. Such accusations must be made against those who sent the English sailors to the edge of geography with unsuitable means of modern sea war. The admiral was just trying to find some way out of the situation and win the war with what he had at his disposal.

Realizing that extravagant tactics would not lead to success, the British tried to look at the problem from the other side. The main task of the fleet was to provide the landing operation, but in order to land the landing it was necessary to provide air defense of the amphibious group and the landing sites. There was not much hope for Sea Harriers, so there were warships. Consequently, it was necessary to come up with the best tactics of their use, which would allow destroyers and frigates with chances of success to fight with the Argentine aircraft. And, of course, it is imperative to test this tactic in practice before the landing operation, because if all of a sudden tactics fail during the landing, the ocean around Falkland will turn red with the blood of British marines.

Despite the fiasco with Sheffield, the British continued to consider the 42 type destroyers and their Sea Dart air defense system a powerful anti-aircraft defense, and they were right about that. The presence of anti-aircraft missiles capable of attacking targets at a distance of tens of kilometers drove Argentine planes to the very crest of waves, which seriously limited their combat capabilities. The only problem was that, being able to drive Argentines to low altitudes, destroyers like the 42 could not fight with them there - if suddenly planes (or rockets) emerged from beyond the horizon, then the Sea Dart air defense system could not “work” on them, because it was not intended to intercept low-flying targets. In the course of the recent Super Etandarov attack, the destroyer Glasgow still managed to manufacture its Sea Dart for firing, but its radar fire control could not “hold” the target — the radar saw both the Ekoset anti-ship missiles, but in “flicker mode” ", I.e. they now and then disappeared from the screen and then appeared again. Because of this, the British equipment could not provide guidance for the Sea Dart missiles at the target.

But the latest, adopted in the 1979, the C-Wolfe air defense system was quite capable of withstanding the low-flying threat. Created to replace the C Cat air defense system, this complex was created to intercept anti-ship missiles, it had a short reaction time and a very high probability of hitting the target. According to the memoirs of Rear Admiral Woodworth, on tests of the “Sea Wolfe” missiles successfully hit 4,5-inch (114-mm) projectiles. Great hopes were placed on this complex, therefore the carriers of the “Sea Wolf”, the frigates “Broadsward” and “The Diamond”, were usually put in direct guard of British aircraft carriers. Of course, the “Sea Wolfe” was a typical short-range air defense missile system, whose missiles flew only 6 kilometers in a straight line, but paired with the Sea Dart air defense system could create (at least theoretically) a powerful and airborne defense. And so the British decided to combine powerful radar and long-range air defense systems "Sea Dart" destroyer project 42 with the latest air defense systems "Sea Wolf" frigates such as "Broadsward" - and see what happens. The whole operation was at stake, because in the event of a fiasco, Rear Admiral Woodworth was going to cancel the landing. This would have been a terrible blow to the prestige of the British, but still not so terrible as if the British amphibious forces were defeated by the Argentine Air Force.

And how could the effectiveness of the Sea Dart & Sea Wolf combination be tested without exposing the ships to the attack of the Argentine pilots? No way. And the first pair, the Broadsward and Coventry, were ordered to go to the Port Stanley area.

On the other hand, the admiral tried to minimize the risks: on May 8, the weather was very bad for flying, and the Argentines did not show the ability to organize massive air strikes. In addition, Sea Harriers were sent to the Falkland area. In other words, Rear Admiral Woodworth provided the Coventry and Broadsworth crews with the highest quality of air defense in conditions when Argentine aviation was difficult.

The experiment began: on the night of 8 on the 9, the British indicated their presence, the frigate Alakriti fired at the coast in the area of ​​Stanley, and the frigate Brilliant went to the entrance to the Falkland Channel, hoping to catch the Argentine supply lines . By morning, both of these ships retreated to the main forces, but the Coventry and Broadsworth approached Port Stanley. At the same time, Sea Harriers developed a booming activity, flying both to cover the British ships and to bomb the Port Stanley airfield. All this did not give a special effect, but on one of these cruises, Sea Harriers discovered the Narval - an 350-ton Argentine trawler, which was used as an auxiliary reconnaissance ship. He did not carry weapons, so it was not difficult to defeat him - after refusing to lie down in the drift the ship first fired, then the helicopters landed British troops on him ... Argentines, believing that the British sank "Narval", sent to rescue the crew of Puma army helicopter , and here the Coventry Sea Dart system said its weighty word - 40 minutes after takeoff, the helicopter was destroyed. However, the Argentine aviation did not appear.

On the night of 9 on 10 on May 9, 24 hours after the start of the patrols, the Coventry and Broadsward retreated, and the next pair, consisting of the destroyer Glasgow and the frigate Brilliant, took their place. Rear Admiral Woodworth believed that the experiment needed to be completed, and he was absolutely right in that, but now he had to take another very difficult decision.

The lack of a full-fledged aircraft carrier was a huge problem for the British, but not the only one. The best place for disembarking, according to the British, was located in the Falkland Strait, where a very narrow channel led, which would have been so easy to block with minefields ... Of course, several minesweepers would easily solve this issue, but Rear Admiral Woodward did not have minesweepers. And the admiral had no right to send amphibious ships full of people to where the horned death might have been waiting for his hour. Circumstances did not leave him a choice - he had to send one of his ships so that he could see for himself that there were no mines on his own skin. Or ... in their presence.

Woodward could not send to death a ship with "Sea Darts" or "Sea Wolves" - the success of the future operation depended on them. And sending a large "Type" destroyer with a crew to 471 is also a man. It was necessary to send a small ship that was easy to replace ... The choice fell on the frigate Alakriti.

The admiral could not give such an order directly, but he described this episode without notes in his memoirs:

"Now I had a difficult mission to invite Christopher Craig, the captain of 2 rank, to say," I would like you to go tonight and see if you can drown after blowing up a mine in the Falklands "... ... But I didn’t do anything like that, I just called X-NUMX rank captain Craig through a closed channel and said: “Uh, Christopher, I would like you to cycle around East Falkland tonight, rounding it from the south, and then through the Falkland Channel by the Cape Fanning north where you meet You’re from Arrow. I also told him that I needed to go through the strait with a lot of noise, firing several lighting shells to scare Argentines, and added: “If you see something moving, then drown it. But get out of the strait with With the expectation of returning before dawn, walk away from the coast before they can fly. ”After a short silence, he replied:
“Well, yes, Admiral, I suppose you want me to enter the northern entrance of the strait several times and get out of it, and to make several zigzags?”
“Oh,” I said, pretending to be surprised and feeling two inches taller, “why are you asking about this?”
“I suppose you want me to find out if there are any mines there,” he said calmly.
I do not remember exactly what I said, I remember only what I felt. I noticed that it would be quite helpful. Christopher replied with great self-esteem: “Very well, sir,” and left to prepare his ship and crew as best as possible for possible death. "


Alakriti went into the night. For a ship in 2750 tons of standard displacement, a collision with a mine, even during the Second World War, is fraught with a quick demise, and the night darkness also guaranteed a minimum of people who escaped from the crew in 175 ...


(in the photo - the same type "Alakriti" frigate "Amazon")


Interestingly, in the overwhelming majority of the Falkland Conflict reviews, this episode is shunned by silence. Due to the inability of the UK to ensure the presence of minesweepers in the conflict zone, 175 people were forced to risk their own lives, but ... the history is written by the winners, so why not retouch some, even if they have heroic but uncomfortable aspects?

Of course, the British sailors executed the order of the commander with absolute precision. “Alakriti” entered the Falkland Strait, and not only followed the fairway to the Strait of San Carlos, but also looked like tacks (I mean zigzags) in order to be sure that there were no mines. And so that the Argentines did not guess anything like that, he fired upon the transport (which later sank) that was found in the Strait of San Carlos. In order not to be substituted in the morning by the attack of Argentine aviation, Alakriti left the strait in the dark and, meeting with Aerrow, who was waiting for him, returned to the main forces.

The brave men are lucky - both frigates have flown on the ubiquitous Argentine submarine "San Luis". The British walked between the boat and the shore, the position for the torpedo strike was perfect, but ... the shooting control system was out of order on the boat. Then the commander of the "San Luis" personally calculated the torpedo triangle and gave a two-torpedo salvo from a distance of less than 3 miles. The result ... is logical for Argentine weapons. One torpedo did not come out of the torpedo tube at all, while the second after two and a half minutes cut off the telecontrol cable and went “into the milk”. Due to the high speed of the frigates, it was no longer possible to repeat the attack, and the British avoided deadly danger without even noticing it. You can imagine what feelings experienced, of course, the brave and skillful, but unlucky Argentine submariners, whose legitimate prey escaped from the hands for the third time. The regular failures of the San Luis equipment led to the fact that the only submarine did not take part in the hostilities anymore - after the incident described above, the submarine returned to Mar del Plata and stood up for repairs.

11 May began with the shelling of the coast of Glasgow and Brilliant, and ended with the anti-aircraft artillery covering the Condor airbase drove a pair of Sea Harriers unsuccessfully trying to bomb its airfield. But the Argentines are tired of enduring the British ships "right at the Falklands' capital", and on May 12 a major air operation began to destroy them.

The first wave was to consist of 8 "Skyhocks" from the Rio Gallegos airbase and 6 "Daggers" from the Rio Grande, and two "flying tankers" were allocated to refuel these aircraft. The second wave of the same number (8 Skyhocks 6 Daggers) from the San Julian airbase was to develop success. These were impressive forces, but in order to confuse the British, 30 auxiliary aircraft of various types were sent to the Falkland Islands zone (this information is mentioned only in one source and seems somewhat doubtful. It is likely that the Argentines did send some the number of aircraft, but three dozen? !!). Their task was to confuse the British and divert their air patrols. At the same time, some Argentinean planes (such as Liar Jet) almost did not risk anything - exceeding the speed of the Sea Harriers, they could always tear themselves away from the latter.

The British discovered the first four Skyhocks in 18 miles from their ships, and when they got close to 15 miles, the Sea Dart operators were ready to open fire, but ... "All this would be funny if it were not so sad": the battle the main opponent of the British were not Argentine planes, but their own software.

The fireman presses the button to launch a series of rockets, which corresponds to the rules of shooting at a group target. Both rockets are already on rails, but the microswitch on one of them has failed, as a result, the computer does not see the rocket and reports: “Fault on the left rail!”. This is unpleasant, but not fatal - after all, the right guide is okay and you can fire at the planes going into the attack, launching missiles from it, but ... the Start a Series of Missiles command has already been entered into the computer and now he doesn’t want to fire at any missile and you cannot cancel this command before. So, because of the "wise" software, the British lost their air defense system at the moment when it was most needed. Glasgow opened the attack from its 114-mm gun mounts.

However, two C-Wolff airplanes “Brilliant” said their weighty word - 2 Skyhawk was shot down by them during the launch of the attack, the third one, who rushed to perform an anti-missile maneuver, touched the wing with a wing and fell into the ocean. It was at that moment that the Glasgow art installation was stuck, and the destroyer was left completely defenseless against enemy aircraft. The fourth Skyhawk attacked the destroyer, but its bombs did not get anywhere, although one of them ricocheted from the water and flew over the Glasgow. This last Skyhawk returned to the base unscathed.

After some five minutes, the second four Skyhocks appeared. The Glasgow artillery unit was unblocked by that time, but from the Brilliant they were asked to cut down the fire - it turns out that 114-mm projectiles, affecting the radar of the FCS, prevented the targeting of the Sea Wolf. And in vain, because this time the British air defense system was not up to par, although the reasons are not all clear. On the one hand, the Argentine pilots instantly drew conclusions and attacked the ships, carrying out an anti-missile maneuver: they walked, randomly changing course and altitude. But the British claim that at the very moment of the Skyhawks attack they had to ... restart the suddenly “hung” fire control program. And this is clearly not fiction - the British immediately contacted representatives of the manufacturer "Sea Wolfe", especially since one of its representatives was just present at the "Diamond" in order to eliminate the "hiccups of the homing system" Sea Wolfe "" (so said about this episode Rear Admiral Woodworth). Be that as it may, not a single Skyhawk of the second wave was shot down, but all four were able to go on the attack. This time the Glasgow did not escape the strike - the bomb pierces the board amidships about a meter above the waterline, pierces the ship through and flies away without breaking off. Nevertheless, this strike put the ship on the brink of destruction - two turbines failed, the only electric generator (there was a second one, but it broke earlier) was badly damaged, so the ship lost speed for some time and lost its electric power. Fortunately, everything was restored fairly quickly. But after 15 minutes after the second attack, the Brilliant radar saw the third wave of Argentine planes, but they did not attack. The British decided that their pilots were afraid to attack because of the death of the aircraft of the first wave. But in fact, no third wave existed - from the Dagger 6 of the first wave, three showed malfunctions, so the command canceled all six, and the Argentines did not raise the second wave (8 Skyhawks and 6 Daggers) as the British ships had already departed from the islands. Most likely, the "Brilliant" saw the very same auxiliary aircraft, which were aimed at diverting British air patrols.

Needless to say that on this day the “Sea Harriers” could not detect (let alone intercept) a single Argentine plane? This air operation by the Argentines against the British ships was completed far less successfully than the previous one (the Sheffield attack), they could not destroy the Glasgow, the ship was able to be returned to the crew by the crew in just a few days. But for this rather modest success, the Argentines paid 4 Skayhokes - two of them were shot down by “Sy Wolfs” by “Brilliant”, the third one crashed on the water, and the fourth, the one that managed to effectively bomb out Glasgow, was shot down by super-alert Falkland anti-aircraft gunners islands, which again could not distinguish their aircraft from the enemy.

Rear Admiral Woodworth was quite satisfied with the results of the battle. He rightly considered that if the Sea Dart didn’t break at the most inopportune moment, its missiles could knock down the 1-2 of enemy aircraft, which probably would completely derail the attack of the first wave and could affect the results of the second. And if it were not for the reloading of the “C. Wolf” fire control program at the most inopportune moment, then only “horns and legs” could also remain from the second wave.

So, the fundamental decision to land was made, but now the commander of the 317-th operational connection was worried about the auxiliary Argentine airfield "Kildin" on Pebl Island. The island was small, but it was some 10 miles from the "throat" of the Falklands Bay, and a dozen attack aircraft based there could strike the landing infantry. The consideration is quite fair, because at the time of the landing the troops are extremely vulnerable, and even light aircraft could well cause a fair amount of damage.

What is the "Kildin"? Two unpaved runways on 700 meters each, 11 of open-air planes (5 light attack aircraft Pukara and 6 antediluvian screw Mentors, yes, yes, the same ones weighing about 2 tons and speed in 400 km / h), several technical buildings assignment yes platoon of infantry. Whether this airfield had at least some air defense, sources do not report, but it is possible that there were several anti-aircraft guns. Although it is doubtful - the Argentines considered this airfield as auxiliary, but since the British "Sea Harriers" still did not pay attention to it, they believed that the British did not know anything about Kildin and did not seem to take measures to strengthen his defense capability. In any case, Kildin was not only an easy, but an archilecive goal, even by the standards of the Second World War. For modern aircraft, the destruction of such an “airbase” should not have been a problem at all.

The British have explored the various possibilities of destroying the Kildin. Shelling of ship artillery or a massive airstrike was considered, but both of these options were considered inexpedient due to the risk of loss and low efficiency. In other words, the British found their "Sea Harriers" unable to cope with the most elementary ground target! How so?

The problem of "Sea Harriers" was that on their own they absolutely could not fight the ground defense. The reason was, again, in the absence of specialized aircraft aboard the British VTOL aircraft carrier aircraft. As Vietnam and the series of Arab-Israeli conflicts have shown, aviation is quite capable of fighting even with powerful and layered ground defense with good chances of victory, but this requires first finding out the location of enemy air defense assets, and then conducting an operation to destroy them by means of electronic warfare combat and destruction of anti-radar and cruise missiles. Even if the location of an air defense of some target, say, an airfield, has not been opened, it is still possible to strike at it by sending a small demonstration group “to the attack” and thereby causing the “air defense” to “turn on” and then attack them. And if the strike group is covered with EW planes ready to “jam” enemy radars, and some strike planes are ready to “work” with anti-radar missiles and other high-precision means, then the chances of success will be quite large (although the risk of running into losses is also).

The Argentine air defense of the Falkland Islands can not be called any serious. But the British lack of reconnaissance aircraft, EW aircraft and the inability of the Sea Harriers to use anti-radar missiles led to the fact that even a few rapid-fire cannons (controlled by a simple radar) were an unsolvable problem for them. As a result, the British were forced to approach the target at low altitudes, then, approximately 5 km before the goal, to rise sharply, drop bombs and leave. Such tactics made it possible to avoid entering the zone of artillery fire, but the accuracy of the bombing, naturally, turned out to be insignificant. Thus, the strike power of the British carrier-based aviation turned out to be near zero.

As a result, the fighters of the British special forces SAS had to destroy the Argentine aviation. On May 14, a group of three British ships (including the aircraft carrier Hermes) moved to Pebble Island, and an attack began on the night from 14 to May 15. This raid is usually considered as a great success of the British special operations forces, but still we will be objective. Yes, the sabotage detachment in 45 man, with the support of the artillery of the destroyer “Glemmorgan”, managed to block the platoon (30 soldier and officer) of the Argentinean infantry, disable all 11 aircraft, undermine the fuel depot, mine the runways and other structures. And retreat, costing with only two light wounded. There can be no complaints about the SAS warriors - they performed absolutely all the tasks of the operation perfectly. But I can’t get rid of the obsessive thought that if the special forces of the USSR were in place of the British, who, like the British, had a one and a half superiority in numbers, surprise, and even artillery support from the ship, then ... well, the island probably would have survived. But at least something alive on it - very unlikely.

The departure of British ships 15 May covered the aircraft with "Invincible", which on three occasions (12: 30, 15: 47 and 16: 26) attacked the airport in Port Stanley, in order to prevent the take-off of Argentine aviation, which could detect British naval group on departure. In this case, Skyhawks and Dagghers from continental airfields would have a good chance of retaliation. It is difficult to say how effective the British bombing proved. As before, the bombs dropped from a high altitude could not put the Argentine airfield out of operation, but nevertheless the Pukar Malvinas squadron did not make any sorties and the British ships were not attacked - so, quite possibly, for the first time from 1. May “Sea Harriers” managed to do something really useful.



The success of this operation prompted the British to attempt to destroy the SAS and the most terrible enemy of the British ships - the Super Etandard attack aircraft, along with the stocks of Exoset missiles at the Rio Grande continental air base. To this end, the 16 of May, the Invincible aircraft carrier, having made a breakthrough, came close to the territorial waters of Argentina. But this time the sabotage operation failed - the helicopter with the special forces was spotted in 20 km from the target, as a result the British decided to interrupt the operation and land the helicopter in Chile, which they carried out. The helicopter was destroyed, its pilots surrendered to the Chilean authorities, and the special forces, of course, did not capitulate, and a few days later they were evacuated by a submarine from Tierra del Fuego.

In general, after the attack on the ill-fated "Sheffield" and before the landing of the British landing, held on 21 in May, the "Sea Harriers" did not gain success. The asset of the British carrier-based aircraft can be recorded except for participation in the destruction of the Narwhal and two more ships, the Rio-Karakan, the Baja Buen Suseso. About "Narvale" has already been said above. The Rio Karakan was attacked by 16 in May, and despite the bombing and fire from 30-mm cannons, the ship remained afloat, and was brought to Fox Bay, where it sank a few days later. The effectiveness of the "Sea Harriers" does not amaze the imagination, since such a goal (single and unarmed transport) was destroyed by deck aircraft of the Second World War in a matter of minutes. But nevertheless, it should be taken into account that the Rio-Karakan carried the cargo to the Falkland Islands, and as a result of the British attack, the Argentines were unable to unload it onto the land. As for the “Baia Buen Susseso”, this auxiliary ship was fired upon by “Sea Harriers” with cannons, after which the Argentine crew left it.

On air domination, it has long been gone. The British operational connection could not interrupt the air communication of Argentina with the islands it captured. It could not interrupt the sea, although a couple of transports were still able to be destroyed. Falkland airfields remained operational (except for the unfortunate Kildin on Pebble Island, which the Argentines evacuated after the SAS raid), island aviation was not destroyed, air defense systems and air coverage were not suppressed. The Argentine fleet retreated and was not found by the British, forced to take into account the probability of its appearance during the landing operation. The only relatively large air operation of the Argentines (the attack of the "Brilliant" and "Glasgow") remained unnoticed by the British British carrier aircraft. In essence, all that Sea Harriers have been capable of is unnerving the Argentines with their ineffectual, but regular raids.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Harriers" in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 1)
"Harriers" in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 2)
"Harriers" in battle: Falkland conflict 1982 g (part of 3)
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sevtrash
    sevtrash 24 May 2016 08: 16
    +2
    The article is certainly a plus, interesting to read. However, it would be nice for the author to indicate his sources of inspiration / information. Why? Firstly, the rule of good taste - if you use someone else's work, you should give credit to the author, at least indicate it if not in the text, then in the list after the article. Secondly, some points and interpretations look controversial, I would like to know who their author is, Kolobov or who else. In particular, regarding May 8, Kolobov indicates the blockade of Coventry and Broadsworth of the islands, but at the same time implies a blockade of aircraft breakthrough from the island. But in meaning, on the contrary, they indicate a blockade by these ships of breakthroughs from the mainland to the island, which the Argentines constantly did. And on the same day, the Harrier air patrol did the same. And on May 12, as I understand it, the reaction of the Argentines was not to 2 ships, but to the discovery of another 7 approaching.

    In general, there is a book of Tatars DB - Conflict in the South Atlantic: 1982 Falkland War. Anyone interested in more complete information can read. Moreover, this is just the source of information for Kolobov, although he does not write about it. At least the description of a number of events is outlined from this book (or the same source ??), and some schemes too.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 24 May 2016 09: 05
      +3
      With Pebble, the SAS completed the task of destroying aircraft, which could affect landing forces; they did not have the task of killing all life.
      Regarding the role of the Harriers - they performed the role of an air patrol and performed it well for their number and performance characteristics. At least, the Argentines, with their limited forces, needed to allocate airplanes to distract this pair.
      One aircraft made up to 6 sorties a day, 1 pilot up to 3-4 sorties, which is 10 hours in the cockpit. The combat readiness of the Harriers was 80%, the absolute majority of the Harriers were repaired in case of damage during the night, 14 of the 12 aircraft on Hermes were always ready. In air battles, they shot down 28 cars, 22 sidewinder, without these missiles the result would have been different. In attacks on ground targets, the Harriers dropped about 200 bombs and cassettes, and after the landing, a 40-meter forward airfield was organized, where the Harriers on duty waited for the "order" of ground forces and 25 minutes after it were over the target. Harriers, on the other hand, participated in the blockade of the Falklands from the breakthrough of ships and vessels - for example, on May 16, they stopped the operation of transports of 3000 and 8000 tons. Losses of 10 cars out of 42, half of which were accidents.
      It's like - can you really call it - "Harriers only" made the "Argentines" nervous?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 May 2016 10: 47
      +4
      Quote: sevtrash
      However, it would be nice for the author to indicate his sources of inspiration / information

      Usually indicated at the end of the work. So there is no need to portray the "secret of the boarded-up attic". And yes, Tatarkov is one of the main sources
      Quote: sevtrash
      One machine made up to 6 sorties per day, 1 pilot before 3-4 sorties, this is 10 hours in the cockpit. Harrier readiness amounted to 80%, the vast majority of Harriers were repaired in case of damage during the night, out of 14 aircraft on Hermes 12 were always ready. In aerial battles they shot down 28 cars

      And you are fantastic :))
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 24 May 2016 11: 06
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Usually indicated at the end of the work. So there is no need to portray the "secret of the boarded-up attic". And yes, Tatarkov is one of the main sources

        They indicate the list at the end, and the text is usually referenced, so it becomes clear who said what. Don't find this option logical? In addition, it is generally accepted in serious articles, of course.
        Somehow you are not a fan of indicating sources, such an impression. Only if much to ask. More on the Tsushima cycle.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And you are fantastic :))

        Yes you! Here are the sources for you, I do not hide:
        http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/folkl/harrier/harrier.html
        http://www.warconflict.ru/rus/xx/?action=shwprd&id=518 Здесь, кстати масса ссылок еще.
        A. Zabolotny, A. Kotlobovsky. "Harriers in the Falklands"
        Thank you for the selection? Include in the final list :))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 May 2016 14: 03
          +8
          Quote: sevtrash
          They indicate the list at the end, and the text is usually referenced, so it becomes clear who said what. Don't find this option logical? In addition, it is generally accepted in serious articles, of course.

          I believe that it is sufficient to post articles in the format in which I post them, i.e. first a text, and then, at the end - a list of sources. References to sources in the text are good when, for example, you have in your hands a book at the end of which is a numbered list of references, and in the text there are links to the number. What is the use of arranging numbers now if there is no list of references at the end of the article? Where to look interested? Well, giving a full link does not make sense, this makes the text unreadable.
          If this does not suit you, I cannot help you.
          Quote: sevtrash
          Yes you! Here are the sources for you, I do not hide:

          Which you, as usual, could not CAREFULLY read :)))
          Questions on the number of sorties I will discuss in the article later.
          Quote: sevtrash
          Thank you for the selection?

          Do you seriously believe that I missed a series of articles from the Airvar on the Falkland conflict? :))) From what naive :)))
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 24 May 2016 14: 59
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Do you seriously believe that I missed a series of articles from the Airvar on the Falkland conflict? :))) From what naive :)))

            Well, since you spoke about such information as a "science fiction" - it should be assumed that you missed it, or considered it beneath your dignity to pay attention to them :)))
            And why not?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 May 2016 15: 19
              +3
              Quote: sevtrash
              Well, since you spoke about such information as a "science fiction" - it should be assumed that you missed it, or considered it beneath your dignity to pay attention to them :)))
              And why not?

              Well so be it
              ONE nuance,
              For the careless you
              I will write now
              So, A. Zabolotny, A. Kotlobovsky. "Harriers in the Falklands" write
              One pilot made a 3-4 departure per day, which required approximately 10 hours in the cockpit.

              At the same time, they themselves write
              They made more than 2000 sorties south of about. Ascension, including 1650 in the war zone.

              Large-scale military operations were conducted during the period from May 1 to June 13, i.e., 44 of the day
              1650 / 44 = 37,5 departures per day.
              The British air group at first consisted of 20 cars, by May 21 it had grown to 31, then more planes arrived. Where is the 3-4 departure from?
              So I started to find out - where. Well, I’ll familiarize you with the results of my searches when I post the corresponding article (final, with conclusions)
              And I repeat, you need to learn how to work with sources.
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 24 May 2016 16: 33
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Large-scale military operations were conducted during the period from May 1 to June 13, i.e., 44 of the day
                1650 / 44 = 37,5 departures per day.
                The British air group at first consisted of 20 cars, by May 21 it had grown to 31, then more planes arrived. Where is the 3-4 departure from?
                So I started to find out - where. Well, I’ll familiarize you with the results of my searches when I post the corresponding article (final, with conclusions)
                And I repeat, you need to learn how to work with sources.


                Actually, another departure took place on April 21 - Harrier was intercepted by a Boeing, although he was not shot down. The intensity of flights was not uniform every day - did you take into account? At the same time, not all arriving aircraft were in operation - aircraft carriers are not dimensionless. Not to mention the losses.
                In addition, there is other data:
                "... There are other statistics of sorties: Sea Harrier (28 aircraft) - about 1200, and Harrier (14) - up to 150. The duration of each flight was approximately 1,5 hours. In aviation units, 95 percent daily. aircraft were in full combat readiness, which made it possible to carry out almost all planned combat missions. In total, "Harriers" and "Sea Harriers" flew 2376 sorties, including 282 at night. Their total flight time was 2675 hours. Each English pilot flew 3 - 4 sorties with a total duration of up to 10 hours. The number of pilots per plane at the beginning of the conflict was 1, and later it was increased to 1,2 ...

                I brought you these sources above, learn to work with them and count, since they have already taken up the article :)))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 May 2016 18: 50
                  +2
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Actually still 21 April

                  Can you read? :) For the umpteenth time I am convinced that no

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Large-scale military operations were conducted from May 1 to June 13, i.e., 44 days

                  SCALE. And even if we take into account only them, then by no means does it work out 3-4 departure to the car, rather 1-2. And if we take into account all Harrier flights, it will be even less (although insignificantly, yet the bulk of flights was precisely the 1 of May - the 13 of June).
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  The intensity of flights was not uniform every day - did you take into account?

                  Took into account :)) But about this and the article. So you have to tolerate :))
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  I brought you these sources above, learn to work with them and count, since they have already taken up the article :)))

                  You can’t teach what you don’t know how to do
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 24 May 2016 20: 17
                    -5
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Can you read? :) For the umpteenth time I am convinced that no

                    Why so rude?
                    Although, in general, it is understandable. Do not like it when the wool is not stroked? Well, do you want to not be criticized? Why not? You already do not have the truth in this matter, this is understandable. The same Tatarkov professionally worked a bunch of literature, having, moreover, a specialized education. You worked out his book as a basis, took the diagrams from there, and made no mention of this author in 4 parts of your article. Here are the words of Woodworth, by the way, indicated, but the main source of something is not.
                    It’s interesting, and what, in the end, will be the conclusions? The same ones that have been known for a long time - aircraft carriers with Harriers were not the best option, but without them the British would not have won? Or maybe something "epochal", as in the end of this part - the Harrers were only able to "unnerve" the Argentines? Oh yes, of course, as I forgot, the calculations. The author will make a cunning calculation that in fact the number of nodes - oh, sorry - the number of Harriers' sorties was much less / more / perpendicular to what someone else indicates, no matter who, but not the author and therefore the author is always right, even if he is not right. After all, ultimately, paraphrasing the author - "... I suppose everything has been said! ..."
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      25 May 2016 00: 26
                      +4
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      Why so rude?

                      I just stated a fact.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      Although, in general, it is understandable. Do not like it when the wool is not stroked?

                      Osspada, yes if I write that black is black, you will try to start an argument from scratch. With the obligatory indication that my black is absolutely, well, not at all black, but Malevich's "Square" is yes, it's black, and my black Malevich will never grow to blackness :))
                      What's in the subject of Tsushima, what's here, you run in circles around what I have written and try to find errors and inaccuracies at least somewhere, at least in something. It turns out badly. Right now, for example, if you were at least somewhat constructive as a critic, you would have written: "Andrey, you are now setting out that the Harriers during the period from ... to ... did nothing interesting, but in fact such objects bombed, so and so many planes were shot down, and this affected the hostilities in such and such a way. "
                      But this is not up to you, in essence you cannot say anything, all that is enough for you is to quote well-known sources. And the good would be quoted in the case.
                      Right now - I’m writing that the Harriers didn’t do anything important, you write to me about 3-4 sorties for each car per day. Actually there were no 3-4 sorties, well, you believe in them. But with what fright did the number of sorties suddenly become a measure of combat effectiveness? The Italian Air Force in WWII made 100500 sorties for the bombing of the British Mediterranean fleet, but the effectiveness of these sorties tended to absolute zero.
                      You probably yourself understand that you don't look too smart with such "criticism", so you are trying to juggle out of the blue - now you have thought of writing me down as plagiarists :))) Well, success! :)))
                      And speaking frankly, somewhere in the Tsushima cycle I stepped on your sore corn. So you are going out of your way with your "criticism", not realizing that you crossed the line between "criticism" and "criticism" a long time ago.
                      Well, the attitude towards you is appropriate.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      It’s interesting, and what, in the end, will be the conclusions? The same ones that have been known for a long time - aircraft carriers with Harriers were not the best option, but without them the British would not have won? Or maybe something "epochal", as in the end of this part - the Harrers were only able to "unnerve" the Argentines? Oh yes, of course, as I forgot, the calculations. The author will make a cunning calculation that in fact the number of nodes - oh, sorry - the number of Harriers' sorties was much less / more / perpendicular to what someone else indicates, no matter who, but not the author and therefore the author is always right, even if he is not right

                      Shame on you? You have not criticized my work for a long time. You are criticizing. But before, you at least criticized what I wrote. And now you don’t even need this, you are ready to criticize what you didn’t see :)
                      Because the author is me. This is enough for you :)
                      1. sevtrash
                        sevtrash 25 May 2016 09: 18
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Osspada, yes if I write that black is black, you will try to start an argument from scratch. With the obligatory indication that my black is absolutely, well, not at all black, but Malevich's "Square" is yes, it's black, and my black Malevich will never grow to blackness :))

                        You are too nervous about criticism, such an impression. I respect your work in writing articles, there is certainly something for it, like the work of any other person. But, this does not put you beyond criticism at all, especially if there is anything to criticize for. Do you seriously consider your articles to be absolute? Not to mention the possibility of a different opinion / judgment based on the same facts?
                        Regarding the Tsushima cycle - it was very good, but there were more than controversial moments there. Your categorical rejection of people's opinions about the speed of the new battleships, these participants of the Tsushima battle, those who directly worked with ship installations, the best of the possible primary sources. But you categorically denied their opinion, why - it’s understandable, since they contradicted the theory previously voiced by you, and you are categorically unable to admit your mistake. And why? Everyone is mistaken. As well as your ideas about the training firing, about their range, where you again ignored the evidence given to you from the primary sources - senior artillery officers.
                        So the impression is formed of the author as a person extremely proud, not recognizing criticism and his mistakes.
                        And with the Falklands Cycle. Yes, of course you did it, it is interesting. But how did you present yourself in the discussions - "I" dominated, "I created, wrote", despite the fact that the basis of the work was the note-taking of another author's book. In my opinion, this is not very good. Shame on you?
                        Why do not you immediately indicate this author, then there would be no questions. Actually, why - it’s understandable, then everyone would see where the material came from.
                        And your reaction to the results of the Harriers' work in response to the given data is "fantastic". Also speaks about something.
                        Summing up - you are a good author, but not white and fluffy at all, there is nothing to criticize you for.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        25 May 2016 09: 56
                        +2
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        As well as your ideas about the training firing, about their range, where you again ignored the evidence given to you from the primary sources - senior artillery officers.

                        You didn’t mix anything up? :)) I gave the words of the artillery officers of the battleships :) You gave the data of admirals and officers of the CRISIS detachment.
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        But how did you present yourself in the discussions - "I" dominated, "I created, wrote", despite the fact that the basis of the work was the note-taking of another author's book.

                        The book can be found here.
                        http://coollib.com/b/282283/read
                        And then, if anyone is interested, let him decide whether my articles are a summary or not laughing
                      3. sevtrash
                        sevtrash 25 May 2016 16: 13
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You didn’t mix anything up? :)) I gave the words of the artillery officers of the battleships :) You gave the data of admirals and officers of the CRISIS detachment.

                        And Shamshev, in your opinion, who is the admiral or cruising officer? And what do you Enquist do not like Day? Maybe Malechkin talked about shooting from his ship at the 70 cable ones that you announced as a super achievement of Rozhestvensky?
                        Have you forgotten about speed yet? How would it not exist?
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        25 May 2016 16: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        And Shamshev, in your opinion, who is the admiral or cruising officer?

                        he gave 55 kbt, if that :)
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        And what do you Enquist do not like Day?

                        Enquist is the admiral of the cruising squad. I am quite ready to admit that the cruising squad fired at other distances than armadillos.
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        Maybe Malechkin talked about firing from his ship on the cable announcements you announced as a super achievement of the Christmas 70?

                        Malechkin pointed
                        Shooting was carried out at long distances, starting from about 70 cab. and up to 40 cab., but "Sisoy the Great" usually started firing from 60 cab. from 12 "guns, and from 50 cab. from 6" guns, because the elevation angles of the guns did not allow using a larger tabular range

                        Quote: sevtrash
                        Have you forgotten about speed yet? How would it not exist?

                        And I wrote a separate article about speed, read, educate yourself. All your, if I may say so, "criticism" is built on one Obnorsky. It is very similar to you to ignore the mass of testimonies of 2TOE officers on the grounds that one of them is showing differently. But there was one person who showed how you want, well, you declared him the ultimate truth. And treat me here for the correct attitude to the discussion
                      5. sevtrash
                        sevtrash 26 May 2016 00: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        he gave 55 kbt, if that :)

                        You, as always, are selectively forgetful / evasive. So, who is Shamshev - announce. Admiral?
                        Maybe they also forgot how they gave out Rozhestvensky’s great achievement - the introduction of shooting at 70 cable, which no one confirmed, but you said. At least one who would confirm this - call. AND?
                        Actually, you had quite a lot of pearls there. And 300 holes from Kostenko, which were not there, and what were the speed calculations costing with complete neglect of the original sources.
                        And here is a rather strange attitude - I gave you data on the effectiveness of Harriers, which you did not give in your Four parts, and you stumbled upon the number of sorties. And now, as it were, do not remember about the given efficiency of the Harriers. What selectivity! By the way, why did you jump over on departures? Actually, this is understandable - a quick search - and where you can bring doubt, no matter how or what, the main thing is to cast a shadow on the fence. Where is an example of a fruitful discussion from you? Or as an argument from you - "you do not know how to read." And this is not the first time, such "arguments".
                        In general - you are a good author at VO, with a decent level of knowledge, more than many. But, of course, not a professional. He who does not tolerate criticism, loves praise and, it seems, judging by Tatarkov, is not averse to betraying someone else's own :))

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And about speed, I wrote a separate article, read, enlighten.

                        How correctly it sounded! After examples of your calculations and relationships to the source? I respect professionals better.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 25 May 2016 13: 36
                  -1
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  That gives the impression of the author

                  that he does not like VTOL aircraft.
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 25 May 2016 16: 33
                +1
                "Actually there were no 3-4 sorties, okay" ////

                Yes, at least 1-2 a day. Each take-off and landing from a small aircraft carrier is like 3 from a ground airdrome in complexity. Add a stormy Atlantic, side winds. Each Sea Harrier flight, you can say, is a feat of the pilot.
                And not one crashed on takeoffs / landings! (Remember Yaki, how many fought on the Black Sea in good weather? But there were the best aces.).
                The British squeezed out of the Harriers, all that they could. Well, they didn't have Phantoms, what to do ... sad
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Boatsman_Palych
    Boatsman_Palych 24 May 2016 13: 13
    +4
    Andrew! Regarding the German torpedoes SST-4. I read that after the war the Argentines invited representatives of the manufacturer from Germany. They found the reason for the torpedoes' failure - Argentine torpedoists confused the connection terminals, right down to the charging poles. Electric torpedoes just wouldn't charge. According to other information, Germany admitted after this check that the torpedoes were defective. Where is the truth...
    Personal question: I also tried to post articles on the Falklands conflict on this site under the heading "opinion" - I could not find another way. But I got a box "you are not eligible for placement." Why ? My "colonel" status does not hold out, I did not place registration under my "nickname" or simply did not find how to do it correctly?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 May 2016 14: 28
      +1
      Quote: Boatswain_Palych
      Ital that after the war the Argentines invited representatives of the manufacturer from Germany. They found the reason for the torpedoes' failure - Argentine torpedoists confused the connection terminals, right down to the charging poles. Electric torpedoes just wouldn't charge. According to other information, Germany admitted after this check that the torpedoes were defective. Where is the truth...

      In general, it is not known where. There is only one 100% reliable fact - torpedoes did not work.
      Quote: Boatswain_Palych
      But I got a box "you are not eligible for placement."

      I have no idea. I always posted my articles in the same way, signed in different ways - when no one, when full name, there were never problems. And yes, I also did not post my first articles by any means a marshal.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 24 May 2016 08: 31
    -3
    what perversions the fleet is forced to go to; it does not have adequate deck aircraft at its disposal.

    And again this dreary song about "adequate carrier-based aircraft"

    Urgently needed a Nimitz against a handful of subsonic attack aircraft and Daggers without radar
    And what to do if the enemy is on supersonic attack aircraft, with anti-ship missiles and radar?

    Pilots of the Argentine Air Force before flying into the open ocean. Rio Hragde Air Base (Terra del Fuego - Tierra del Fuego)
    In the background - A-4 Skyhawk (entered service in 1956). Subsonic attack aircraft with max. takeoff weight of 10 tons (2 times less than that of the Phantom!). They didn't hear anything about the radar. Of weapons - only unguided 227-kg bombs and cannons, hello from the 50s



    And this is the Dagger bomber, it is also the decommissioned Israeli Nesher, an unlicensed copy of the French Mirage-5. the model was specially created as an export combat aircraft for African cannibals (customers - Burkina Faso, etc.), without any radar and modern equipment. Labor intensity of service 15 persons. hours. Due to its simplicity, it quickly gained popularity in many countries around the world. In Israel, it was used only for daytime air strikes against the most basic targets. by the beginning of the 80s it was hopelessly outdated, and, of course, no radar, guided bombs, and even an air refueling system.

    And so, in order to cope with such flying stuff, "adequate carrier-based aircraft" is required.


    The first mistake of alternatives: to one side - everything, the rest continue to blunt.
    No, if you play so honestly

    British - the best of the best Nimitz with a full wing: Tomkaty, ARLO, all-all-all. For any sophisticated taste of deck aircraft lovers

    Argentines - F-15 with mercenaries, ex. Israeli Air Force officers. Instead of Daggers and Skyhawks - drums F-111 and all 12 ordered in France Superethandars with a full set of PCR Exoset (24 pcs.). And the fully equipped air base on the Falklands, Stanley - as it became after the war


    British Tornado in the Falklands (RAF Mount Pleasant with a three-kilometer runway)
    And let's see what "adequate carrier-based aircraft" will do with an equally adequate enemy. Wash with blood
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 24 May 2016 09: 06
      -4
      Another fun alternative. Fit Battleship Battle Group (BBG) from the US 7 fleet to the islands. Here it is - in the photo

      a real connection from far from the most expensive and modern ships

      At the forefront - the old missile cruiser "Long Beach"
      The flagship is the modernized Missouri (32 Tomahawks instead of a part of the universal guns, a full set of main battery artillery, an unmanned aerial vehicle, 4 Phalanxes)
      Around - escort from destroyers and frigates PLO.

      Argentine Skyhawks have no chance to break through the air defense echelons of ships. On the "Long Beach" - 2 air defense systems "Terrier" with a range of 70 km. All destroyers and frigates have medium-range SeaSperrow. Each ship has a pair of radar-guided rapid-fire Falaxes, and there are four of them on the battleship.

      Missouri endures Gauges Tomahawks Air Base on the Land of Fire and another Rio Galleros on the continent. Coming to the islands and smashes Port Stanley from 406 mm guns. Then the landing takes place and everything ends.

      Without any deck aircraft, which in such conditions is not needed in principle
      1. Leto
        Leto 24 May 2016 10: 31
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Without any deck aircraft, which in such conditions is not needed in principle

        It certainly is, provided that Argentina’s opponent is that ambassador.
        But the WB did not have anything equivalent to the 7th fleet of the U.S. Navy, they set the direction for the development of their fleet on their own.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        24 May 2016 14: 24
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And again this dreary song about "adequate carrier-based aircraft"

        What are you, Oleg! It's not sad yet :))) You will be sad when I get to the conclusions :)))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Urgently needed a Nimitz against a handful of subsonic attack aircraft and Daggers without radar

        Well, why is Nimitz necessary? Just a normal aircraft carrier with catapults and an aircraft group of vehicles on the 50-60
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And so, in order to cope with such flying stuff, "adequate carrier-based aircraft" is required.

        As it turned out, yes :)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The first mistake of alternatives: to one side - everything, the rest continue to blunt.

        Oleg, do you finally understand the futility of booking warships? Champagne - to the studio!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No, if you play so honestly

        And honestly, these are two Tu-22М3 regiments + fighter aircraft + EW / RTR / AWACS + tactical nuclear weapons - and then yes,
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the best of the best Nimitz with full air wing: Tomcat, AWACS, all-all-all.

        goes to junk with 0,9 probability
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Argentine Skyhawks have no chance to break through the air defense echelons of ships. On "Long Beach" - 2 air defense systems "Terrier" with a range of 70 km

        The British in the conflict zone visited 5 destroyers with "Sea Dart"
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        On all destroyers and frigates - medium-range SeaSperrow

        Which was a complete and rare sucks. Suffice it to say that the guidance of the fire control radar on the target was carried out visually :)) That is until the operator sees the target with his own eyes, he can’t start hovering the missile :)))
        Taking into account the real visibility in the Atlantic, the Sea Cat would be more effective (it seems as if one plane was shot down)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Missouri "carries out with Caliber tomahawks an airbase on Tierra del Fuego and another Rio Galleros on the continent

        Well, yes, these are the only airfields on the whole continent :)
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 24 May 2016 18: 03
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Just a normal aircraft carrier with catapults and an aircraft group on 50-60

          And this is against a handful of subsonic attack aircraft level 1950-ies. !!!

          You are not ashamed, lovers of catapults and 300-meter ships
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, yes, these are the only airfields on the whole continent :)

          Rio Grande is the only a / b in Tierra del Fuego, the nearest (700 km) from the conflict zone
          Rio Galleros and Comandante Rivadavia - this is 900..1000 km.

          It was enough to destroy Rio in order to take out of the game the Argentine aviation on 90%.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The British in the conflict zone visited 5 destroyers with "Sea Dart"

          Six, plus another complex stood at Invincible. They forced argovs to fly low, but were ineffective for intercepting low-flying targets in the near zone.

          The British practically did not have near-field air defense systems, with a short reaction time. They would be enough phalanx.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Suffice it to say that the guidance of the fire control radar at the target was carried out visually :)

          CiKat all also
          only subsonic 0,6 ... 0,9М, with a range of 6 km (!)
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Taking into account the real visibility in the Atlantic - "Sea Cat" would be more effective

          What particularly demonstrates this photo

          Skyhawks rod in the frontal, with the ships on them shoots everything - from 114 mm to rifles and machine guns \
          If there were even Falanxes on the ships - such a situation would not arise
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          these are two regiments Tu-22М3 + fighter aviation + EW / RTR / DRLO planes + tactical nuclear weapons

          C'mon laugh
          Nimitz is enough for the squadron of tactical missile-carriers (Dasso), under the cover of F-15 / 16. 16-e mod. And also able to drag bombs, if necessary - will finish all that remains. DRLO - Argentina, unexpectedly grown rich (found oil from the Falklands), will acquire the Sentry link, Nakraynyak Varing Star
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Oleg, have you finally realized the futility of booking warships?

          Booking is not an alternative history, because
          a) applied for 100 years on warships
          b) is still used in the design of land samples of armored vehicles, in the form of body armor and other protective equipment
          c) the useful qualities of the armor have not disappeared anywhere.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            24 May 2016 19: 00
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And this is against a handful of subsonic attack aircraft level 1950-ies. !!!

            Oleg, specify the amount of the "handful". In pieces :))) And taking into account the aviation providing them. And don’t lie, there were only Skyhawks in the 50s.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You are not ashamed, lovers of catapults and 300-meter ships

            Absolutely not
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Six, plus another complex stood on Invincible.

            I wrote to you about the destroyers.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What particularly demonstrates this photo

            Oleg, you are such a thing as "retouching" by googling :)) It is used not only to hide something, but also to make the "secret" visible in the picture. In general, in the South Atlantic at this time, the horizontal fiduity was about 3-4 km.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If there were even Falanxes on the ships - such a situation would not arise

            And where did the Phalanxes manifest themselves? :)) Okay, Oleg, I won’t upset you ahead of time, wait until the cycle ends.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            C'mon laugh
            Nimitsu enough for the eyes

            Oleg, there are calculations of the Navy of the USSR, they were made by people with whom it’s obviously not for you to argue.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Booking is not an alternative story, because

            So, I don’t understand ... Well, okay laughing
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 27 May 2016 19: 19
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Oleg, specify the amount of the "handful". In pieces :)))

              ... an air group with a beautiful call sign "Predator" flew out from the Rio Gallegos airbase, which included as many as two "Mirage III". The take-off took place almost two hours after the attack - at 06.40, and after another 50 minutes, to 07.30, the fighters arrived at the scene of action. Having rotated over the area for a few minutes, the planes were forced to stay on the reverse course - for more they simply did not have enough fuel.

              British aircraft could not help their ships. The British had two dozen "Sea Harriers". The Argentines opposed them to a pair of "Super Etandarov", two flying tankers, a scout "Neptune" and an airliner "Liar Jet 35A-L", which was to divert the attention of the British to themselves. And the airliner became that day the only plane of the Argentines who could not cope with their task, because the British did not think to notice it. Moreover, for some time, it was possible to ensure the duty in the air of two twos of “Daggers”, covering the above forces. Total in the combat zone attended a maximum of Argentine 10 aircraft, of which no more than six combat.

              Andrew thought and decided that without Nimitz there was no way there. 50-60 aircraft against 10, disgrace
              50's were there alone skyhawks.

              Mirage III, first flight 1956 year
              Dagger - degraded Mirage, without radar and URVV cf. range. Without missiles with all-range seeker. Those. level of the beginning of 50's
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I wrote to you about the destroyers.

              I'm too
              six destroyers with SeaDart
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And where did the Phalanxes manifest themselves? :))

              4 June 1996 of the year. RIMPAC-96
              The Yugiri squadron officer pressed the “Glory to the robots!” Button too early! Kill all people! ”,“ Phalanx ”came to life and joyfully buzzed, spinning a block of trunks.
              The Japanese announced on the radio: "Banzai!"
              The American pilots answered: ... (however, we will give the reader the opportunity to independently guess what the Americans answered, who had not yet had time to leave the danger zone by that time). The deck attack aircraft A-6 "Intruder" was mercilessly cut in half, after which the Phalanx lost interest in the towing vehicle and began to make holes in the target cone. It was this circumstance that gave the pilots a chance to eject by some miracle. When the power of the Falans was cut down, only two white spots of parachute domes swayed among the waves ...


              Do you think Intruder, in terms of survivability, is very different from Skyhawk?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Oleg, there are calculations of the Navy of the USSR, they were made by people

              Who had no interest in their work
              Moreover, they had the weakest ideas about the enemy’s weapons and any possibility of promptly checking / updating the data. In the era of lack of internet
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 June 2016 01: 39
                0
                on the Internet, of course, with the pursued interest they write one truth.
              2. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 June 2016 01: 39
                0
                on the Internet, of course, with the pursued interest they write one truth.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 May 2016 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And again this dreary song about "adequate carrier-based aircraft"

      Urgently needed a Nimitz against a handful of subsonic attack aircraft and Daggers without radar

      Imago and reductio ad absurdum. smile
      As far as I understand, you don’t consider intermediate solutions in principle? Like "gather strength and repair" Ark Royal "- legendary it under its sale to some India.
  • PPD
    PPD 24 May 2016 08: 36
    +7
    If the Argentines had at least all the ammunition worked, the British would not have gotten so easily.
    And if the enemy is more serious, everything is kirdyk.
    1. Operator
      Operator 24 May 2016 10: 36
      +5
      The main opponent of the Argentines in the Falkland War is the failure of their own weapons (bombs and torpedoes).
  • sivuch
    sivuch 24 May 2016 08: 49
    -1
    the goal of eliminating “hiccups of the Sea Wolf homing system” (Rear Admiral Woodworth put it this way
    -----------------
    What homing? As far as I remember, Sea Wolf was r / com
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 May 2016 14: 35
      +4
      Quote: sivuch
      What homing? As far as I remember, Sea Wolf was r / com

      Here, apparently, the admiral used the word "homing" not in the sense of the method of ignoring the missile at the target (AGSN or PAGSN), but in the sense that Sea Wolf worked in a completely autonomous mode (i.e. from the moment the missile was discovered and before the target was defeated, human participation was not required - the complex did everything by itself)
  • Verdun
    Verdun 24 May 2016 10: 53
    -1
    I read the article continuing the cycle with the same interest as the previous parts. There were two questions regarding familiarization with the material.
    1.
    Of course, the British sailors complied with the order of the commander with absolute accuracy. Alacriti entered the Falkland Strait, and not only proceeded along the fairway to the San Carlos Strait, but also resembled it as tacks
    How long did the British sailors wash their pants then? What brilliant tactical genius sent a large ship grouping to the other end of the globe, without minesweepers?
    2.
    and, a sabotage detachment of 45 people, with the support of the artillery of the Glamorgan destroyer, managed to block a platoon (30 soldiers and officer) of Argentinean infantry, disable all 11 aircraft, undermine the fuel depot, mine runways and other structures.
    If the British managed to land troops on the coast (there is no need to talk about its secrecy, because there was artillery support), then why the hell was the garden? Why was it impossible to immediately capture the islands, having landed a full-fledged landing?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 May 2016 14: 40
      +9
      Quote: Verdun
      How long did the British sailors wash their pants then?

      Well, I do not think that such a remark is correct in relation to the crew of the frigate. They were sent to carry out a suicidal mission - they completed it. What else?
      Quote: Verdun
      What brilliant tactical genius sent a large ship grouping to the other end of the globe, without minesweepers?

      But this is another question. Given the fact that at least a couple of modern minesweepers from the British were for sure. But they arrived in the conflict zone after its completion.
      Quote: Verdun
      If the British managed to land troops on the coast (there is no need to talk about his secrecy, since there was artillery support)

      A little bit wrong - they landed a small landing, he took the starting positions and only after that the artillery worked
      Quote: Verdun
      Why was it impossible to immediately capture the islands, having landed a full-fledged landing?

      Because it was impossible to land a large landing just like that in a few hours. The British landed about 5 days or more.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 24 May 2016 16: 41
        +1
        The British landed about 5 days or more.
        There is such a thing - seepage tactics. If you have time, it allows you to throw significant forces into the territory of the enemy. I understand that large losses in manpower would have turned into a scandal for the British command. But the loss of ships is also not a joyful event. And if the Argentines had a little more luck, these losses could be more significant.
        They were sent to carry out a suicidal mission - they completed it. What else?
        Responsible task, military duty - I understand everything. And yet, swimming, knowing that at any moment you can run into a mine - is scary.
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 24 May 2016 15: 02
      +2
      Quote: Verdun
      If the British managed to land troops on the coast (there is no need to talk about its secrecy, because there was artillery support), then why the hell was the garden? Why was it impossible to immediately capture the islands, having landed a full-fledged landing?


      Stormtroopers from Pebble could hit the landing troops, and therefore decided to first eliminate this threat.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 May 2016 16: 11
      +2
      "How long did the British sailors wash their pants afterwards?" ////

      Well, the right is ugly, aren't you ashamed? negative
      If a Russian ship would commit such a suicidal raid,
      You would choke with delight: courage, composure, love for the motherland, etc.
  • Operator
    Operator 24 May 2016 10: 58
    -7
    Scenario of the Second Falkland War:
    - Russia transfers to Argentina Su-35S, A-50U, Il-76MD-90A, Il-78M-90A, KR and anti-ship missiles "Caliber-A", ICR "Admiral Gorshkov", BDK "Ivan Gren", diesel-electric submarine "Varshavyanka", Mi-28N and S-400 air defense systems;
    - The armed forces of Argentina storm the British air force and naval base in the Falkland Islands;
    - The British capitulate;
    - Argentina grants Rosneft a concession for the production of hydrocarbons on the shelf of the Falkland Islands.
    bully
  • iouris
    iouris 24 May 2016 11: 05
    +1
    A more urgent task is the liberation by Spain of occupied Gibraltar.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 24 May 2016 11: 37
    +13
    "But I can't get rid of the obsessive thought that if the British were replaced by the Soviet special forces, which, like the British, had a XNUMX-fold superiority in numbers, surprise, and even artillery support from a ship, then ... well, the island would probably have survived. But at least something alive on it is very unlikely. " (C)

    I confirm that my friends from Maisky Island always laughed a lot about this episode. For for them it was a typical task for an 1 group of three deuces ... Despite the fact that it meant a deep rear and a time limit on the enemy’s PDS approach.
    They infected us at the aerodrome in Ochakovo on a regular basis - they stole sentinels and then they set up mining training ... So there weren’t 30 people on guard ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 May 2016 14: 47
      +4
      Quote: Taoist
      I confirm that my friends from Maisky Island always laughed a lot about this episode. For for them it was a typical task for the 1 group of three deuces ..

      Thank you for the information, to be honest, I somehow imagined it myself :)) And here is another interesting point - the SAS commander requested to prepare for the operation ... 3 of the week.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 24 May 2016 15: 10
        +3
        Well, judging because, as a means of mining, they dragged mortar mines with him, for that reason.

    2. Verdun
      Verdun 24 May 2016 16: 55
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      For for them it was a typical task for 1 group of three twos ...

      A friend of mine served as an urgent in Vladik. He recalled how the morning began with a debriefing of the flights on the ships in the roadstead. The authorities bonded the guards, because often on the sides there was an inscription in chalk - "Blown up". Naval saboteurs trained ...
      1. brn521
        brn521 24 May 2016 17: 29
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        The authorities bonded the guards, because often on the sides there was an inscription in chalk - "Blown up".

        Well, there were no opportunities, except to take the ship into cordon, then no one would write anything. At the same time, saboteurs were in greenhouse conditions. Judging by the literature, the usual fighting method that was actually used was a box of hand grenades that were regularly thrown overboard. And here is how lucky someone. Later, they even came up with some grenade launchers for the same purpose, to suppress potential swimmers.
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 24 May 2016 17: 39
          +5
          Judging by the literature, the usual fighting method that was actually used was a box of hand grenades that were regularly thrown overboard.
          I wonder how you imagine it? At the raid, where there are many ships, where tugboats and other trifles constantly scurry back and forth ... And from each - throw grenades into the water? ... And you can’t save up the grenade for round-the-clock duty. It’s all the same that the sentry at the post will shoot around all the time in bursts.
          1. brn521
            brn521 24 May 2016 19: 44
            +1
            Quote: Verdun
            At the raid, where there are many ships, where tugboats and other small things constantly scurry back and forth ... And from each - throw grenades into the water?

            According to rumors (I am not an expert with a pile of papers at hand), special groups were created to protect offshore facilities - hydraulic structures, platforms, etc., as well as ships in open roads and anchorage from swimmers-saboteurs. And at first they had nothing specialized. Flashlights, rocket launchers for lighting and conventional RGD-shki in boxes. I don’t know if they had teachings and how many fish they managed to choke :). Then a special grenade launcher was made for them, but the USSR was breathing incense and the topic somehow stalled. Well, how can one imagine such a factor in exercises? I think this is how lucky this group will catch the saboteur or not. But the grenades are cheap and there are many.
            Quote: Verdun
            It’s all the same that the sentry at the post will shoot around all the time in bursts.

            Not a sentry, but a specially trained antidiversant that will not allow this sentry to get around or take off.
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 24 May 2016 17: 32
        +3
        They are darlings ... Despite the fact that no one in these cases sentries warned, and they could easily get ridiculous of combat with fear and according to the Charter ... But these guys and AWOL in December to sail for 8 km in December was like hello. ..
  • Taoist
    Taoist 24 May 2016 11: 39
    +2
    Yeah ... This is "a vaunted British quality ..." - in my opinion, the Britons in battle always had more losses not from the enemy, but from their breakdowns ... Then on battleships the towers do not shoot, then the air defense system falls into the reboot ...; -)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 May 2016 14: 48
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      Yeah ... It's a "vaunted British quality ..." -

      In my opinion, just in those years, "the vaunted British quality" was replaced by "the camel is a horse made in England" :))
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 24 May 2016 15: 09
        0
        I don’t know ... they didn’t have it all before, thank God ... Remember how many times the towers on Duke failed? And the tanks? In a very peculiar way, their design idea always worked ... Even if you look at the period under review, every ship is a "pearl of design thought." From the category "neither sing nor draw" - no air defense, no PLO, no shock functions ... It is clear that the crisis, it is clear what needs to be saved, but damn it, do not turn warships into floating barracks?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 May 2016 15: 31
          +3
          Quote: Taoist
          I don’t know ... they hadn’t thank God before.

          Well, why? there were successes, there were failures
          Quote: Taoist
          Remember how many times the towers on Duke refused?

          There is something else - because of the desire to cram something unsuffering into a meager displacement, I had to go for untested solutions. In principle, the King towers were brought to mind - it was just possible to do this only after the war. I think in peacetime they would have sorted it out faster. And so (given the limited caliber and displacement), the ships turned out to be not so bad. When the designers were given the opportunity to work quietly, it turned out quite a decent "Vanguard"
          Quote: Taoist
          What about tanks?

          Tanks - yes, although the same Matilda and Valentine were not hopeless for their time. Not like tanks, of course, but how ... anti-tank self-propelled guns, or something :)))
          But - "Spitfire". "Mosquito", very good 114-mm and 94-mm anti-aircraft guns, a radar raid warning network and much more. In general, of course, Britain cannot be called the leader of the scientific and technological revolution during the Second World War, but she was definitely not an outsider either.
          Quote: Taoist
          Even if you look at the period under review, every ship is a "pearl of design thought". From the category "neither sing nor draw" - no air defense, no PLO, no shock functions ...

          That is yes. Our BODs are certainly larger than their frigates, but ... firstly, not fatally larger, and secondly, we had warships, and the British really
          Quote: Taoist
          floating barracks
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 24 May 2016 17: 16
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There is something else - because of the desire to cram into the displaced minuscule displacement, it was necessary to make unproven decisions. In principle, the King's towers were brought to mind - it was just possible to do this only after the war. I think in peacetime they would sort it out faster.

            Faster? belay
            They brought the towers "Rodney" with "Nelson" to 1939! In peacetime!
            And it all started with the fact that a small design defect was discovered: the inner edges of the lower tracks of the horizontal rollers left marks on the rollers themselves, deforming them - which theoretically should not have happened. Our reason is quick: none of the designers took into account the fact that the tower was moving horizontally on a wave - and when the tower was turned, the rollers went beyond the edge of the track. I had to introduce vertical rollers into the structure - on ships already delivered to the fleet.
            It seems that the designers first designed the ship's tower ... laughing
            But there were still traditional problems with the mechanisms of mutual closure (blocking glitches), jamming rammers, plus increased barrel wear.
            As a result, "Nelson" only in 1934 was able to fire 16 volleys in a row without problems. And this was not the final revision yet.

            Along the way, it turned out that the main plus of the system with three towers in the bow is extremely difficult to use: firing in the bow and stern sectors led to numerous damage to decks and superstructures (moreover, problems were noted already on two decks down).
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Tanks - yes, although the same Matilda and Valentine were not hopeless for their time.

            Actually, "Valya" is the best LT of the Great Patriotic War. Marshal of BTV Fedorenko will not let you lie. smile
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 May 2016 16: 41
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      Then on the battleships of the tower do not shoot

      Oh yeah ... the timing of the prince's firing over the Bismarck is a song. Moreover, only Shnurov can perform it. smile
      0553. The first volley. Minus one gun of the "A" tower.
      0555. Fifth volley. Minus one more gun of the "A" tower.
      0558. Eleventh salvo. Minus one gun of the "Y" turret.
      0603. Nineteenth volley. Minus one more weapon of the "Y" tower.

      In short, by the 19th salvo, the four-gun turrets of the "Prince" had turned into two-gun turrets. smile
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 24 May 2016 17: 38
        +1
        oh well ... and enchanting anti-aircraft missiles in their genius, which were not the victims of more than one enemy aircraft, but there is a suspicion that there is more than one ship ...?
        They also sang praises about the excellent constructive protection of the cellars on the "cats" ... And we must pay tribute ... they kept themselves with truly British composure ...
        "Don't you think gentlemen that our ships are damn bad luck today?" (from)

        There is no Tennyson on them ... ;-)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 24 May 2016 18: 58
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          They also sang praises about the excellent constructive protection of the cellars on "crampons" ...

          He-he-he ... You will also remember the lower casemates of 6 "guns on the armored cruisers RN. Those very casemates, from which it was difficult or impossible to fire in fresh weather. laughing
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 May 2016 19: 11
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          They also sang praises about the excellent constructive protection of the cellars on "cats"

          Well, the Germans had Dogger Bank, they figured out that it was a little dull and made improvements to the design. And there, they, too, nearly Seidlitz did not soar.
  • brn521
    brn521 24 May 2016 12: 19
    +4
    Quote: Taoist
    This is "a vaunted British quality ..." - in my opinion, the Britons in battle always had more losses not from the enemy but from their breakdowns ...

    The Britons showed themselves in both worlds quite worthily. Therefore, in Falkland they look strange. The battle of the shamans. The British shamans nevertheless won the Argentinean war, the Argentines were not lucky anymore.
    Quote: Taoist
    for them it was a typical task for 1 group of three twos ...

    And what would be supposed to destroy the infrastructure, the same runway, for example? A lot of 6 people will take away? The British, among other things, carried two 81-mm mortar mines. And they were not going to stay long away from the main fleet, the operation was designed for one night.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 24 May 2016 13: 33
      +5
      The destruction of the "unpaved runway" is not envisaged at all ... because even the 60 mortar mines that these commandos were dragging will not destroy it. Not a single DRG will blow up the runway - you have to be a complete idiot ... But the fuel and ammunition depots are quite tasty and legitimate goals ... and to destroy them you definitely don't need to carry "mortar mines" ... This says only about the fact that the brits did not have normal special means and charges either ... Yes, they are of course brave guys - but this does not cancel their almost complete technological collapse. Walk quietly through the checkpoints, mine planes, fuel and bombs ...
      Moreover, if they were supported by a ship - what prevented you from simply landing a group of spotters and simply smashing everything there with an aimed fire raid? They don't have a "light cavalry attack" again - it's lucky that the Argentines are the same fighters ...
      1. brn521
        brn521 24 May 2016 16: 09
        +1
        Quote: Taoist
        Not a single DRG will blow up a runway

        Therefore, they did not send a group, but a whole crowd. As far as I remember from the history of the Second World War, the destruction of the runway is critical. Somewhere here, I came across VO by the way - there was even some kind of standard for the size and number of funnels. Otherwise, transport workers will arrive and literally the next day everything will be restored.
        Quote: Taoist
        Pass through the posts without unnecessary noise, mine airplanes, fuel and bombs ...

        They mined what they found. 11 aircraft. Then was opened fire from mortars and destroyer artillery. As far as one can understand from the description available in Runet, they tried to keep within the shortest possible time by combining the time undermining the charges and shelling the territory. After all, it was still necessary to get out before the enemy knew and had time to react to the fact that there was a lonely, but fat and tasty destroyer in this area.
        Quote: Taoist
        Moreover, if they were supported by a ship - what prevented them from simply landing a group of spotters and simply spreading everything there with a targeted fire attack?

        This is still a destroyer, its firepower is small. At the same time, in order to conduct targeted fire on the runway, he would have to take off. Or messing around prohibitively long. Illustration taken from Wikipedia (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin Squadrons_type
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 24 May 2016 16: 33
          +3
          Destruction of the runway is critical for concrete strips and for blocking heavy aircraft ... And then concrete-cassettes are used for these purposes and not means of undermining that can drag DRGs. To block piston attack aircraft on a dirt strip is from the category of unscientific fiction ... A funnel, even from a large-caliber bomb, falls asleep within half an hour ... A bulldozer knife and an ice rink clings to almost any armored vehicle. And to hope for a long time to block the airfield with a couple of dozens of small-caliber mines ...?
          What by the way could Argentina threaten "fatty and tasty" at night? There was no coastal defense there as a fact ... Once again, I emphasize the point that blocking the runway is not necessary ... it is enough to eliminate fuel and ammunition ... and let them try to bring in new ones (even if something for which to import survives). In general, this is all I mean that, without denying the unconditional courage of the British commandos, they were prepared very badly and the support of the operation was generally close to 0 ...
          1. brn521
            brn521 24 May 2016 17: 21
            +1
            Quote: Taoist
            Destruction of a runway is critical for concrete strips and for blocking heavy aircraft ...

            Here in VO somehow wrote. Both ours and the Germans in the Second World War destroyed the unpaved runways while leaving their positions. Undermining method. And there was a certain standard for the number and size of funnels. Runways are naturally frontal, unpaved. But this did not negate the difficulties in their preparation. And the need to destroy upon retreat.
            Quote: Taoist
            And then for these purposes apply concrete cassettes

            The British had a bad time with aviation.
            Quote: Taoist
            The funnel, even from a large-caliber bomb, falls asleep within half an hour ...

            You also need to tamp well. We fall asleep, tamp, fill with water, still tamp, and so on in layers until the funnel is filled. If there are many funnels, the runway cannot be restored manually within an acceptable period. Which was required.
            Quote: Taoist
            The bulldozer knife and skating rink clings to almost any armored vehicle.

            Technically, the destroyer could only make holes in the buildings, but from a large caliber. Hardly something survived there.
            Quote: Taoist
            What by the way could Argentina threaten "fatty and tasty" at night? There was no coastal defense as a fact ...

            That is the point, it was necessary to cope in one night and quickly get out under the cover of the main forces.
            Quote: Taoist
            I emphasize once again that it is not necessary to block the runway ... it is enough to eliminate fuel and ammunition ... and let them try to bring in new ones (even if they survive, then why bring them in).

            That is the point. The Germans, and then ours, when approaching with the presence of a runway, began operating the airfield the very next day. Despite the fact that fuel and ammunition were destroyed or taken out, they would not have come up. The main thing is that there was a place to land transport aircraft that will bring people, fuel and ammunition. So the British were not the point that they were flying from this direction in the near future. They took measures as they could, but quite sufficient.
            Quote: Taoist
            In general, it’s all I mean that without denying the unconditional courage of the British commandos they were prepared very badly

            We do not know the details, so it’s difficult to judge. They completed the task, the airfield ceased to exist, maintenance staff were subsequently transported by sea.
            Quote: Taoist
            ensuring the operation was generally close to 0 ...

            No, close to 0 - this is if the destroyer crew would have to deal with this matter. Of course, they could handle it, but with big losses and for a longer period.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 May 2016 19: 07
              0
              Quote: brn521
              Here in VO somehow wrote. Both ours and the Germans in the Second World War destroyed the unpaved runways while leaving their positions.

              Ahem ... but what, equipment equipment since WWII has not changed?
              Quote: brn521
              The British had a bad time with aviation.

              On Argentine airfields in the Falklands, the British were working "Volcanoes".
              Quote: brn521
              You also need to tamp well. We fall asleep, tamp, fill with water, still tamp, and so on in layers until the funnel is filled. If there are many funnels, the runway cannot be restored manually within an acceptable period. Which was required.

              Apparently, the Yankees at Guadalcanal did not know about this, restoring the runway in a day after working on them with 14 "LK guns and 8" MRT guns. smile
              It is unlikely that the "Pukar" and "Mentors" need a more prepared streak than for the "Avengers" and "Dontless".
        2. brn521
          brn521 24 May 2016 16: 38
          +1
          An interesting forum. Save the message - there is an illustration. You come back later - there is no illustration and the message is cut off. How does he manage that way? In general, an illustration of the artillery weapons of the designated destroyer: the twin 114-mm 45-caliber artillery shells on the nose. Those. not at all howitzers, one can only gouge such runways with direct fire, which would be possible only after the destroyer mysteriously could gain altitude and lay a turn over the airfield. Therefore, mortars were involved.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 24 May 2016 16: 59
            0
            Only if the airfield is surrounded by mountains or is located in a lowland, and even then it is not a fact that they cannot get it. Any cannon has a parabolic trajectory of the projectile, so there should be no problems with shelling the airfield.
            1. brn521
              brn521 24 May 2016 17: 59
              +2
              Quote: maximghost
              Only if the airfield is surrounded by mountains or in a lowland,

              But not at sea level, so it was hardly possible to fire direct fire from a destroyer by GDP.
              Quote: maximghost
              Any gun has a parabolic projectile path

              But this opportunity is used only in howitzers. The cannons produce a large distance and excessive dispersion. The indicated destroyer guns had a high initial velocity of the projectile, therefore they could not even solve the similar problem - hitting targets at ground level - theoretically. For this, mortars were additionally used.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 24 May 2016 21: 37
                +2
                But this opportunity is used only in howitzers.

                No, not only.
                Offhand, the firing range of our AK725 is more than 10 kilometers, which is clearly greater than the range of its direct shot, which means that the ballistic trajectory is used in full.

                The cannons produce a large distance and excessive dispersion.

                Yes, the dispersion will be greater than when shooting direct fire, but the ship’s fire control system allows this factor to be minimized as much as possible, and the autoloader on naval universals allows you to send a rather large number of shells to the target in a relatively short time, so from such guns it is only difficult to destroy targets on back slopes of heights. As an example, you can take half of our fleet's shooting at coastal targets and coastal batteries firing at tanks at maximum range in the Second World War.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 May 2016 16: 20
      +3
      "Britons have shown themselves in both worlds quite well.
      Therefore, in Falklands they look strange "////

      In the same way, they started in other wars: first
      "break wood" with unsuccessful technique and tactics belay ,
      then they rebuild, press hard and, as a rule, achieve victory.
      The main quality of the Britons: perseverance in achieving the goal.
      They never plan sharp maneuvers, boilers and traps.
      They push along the front, shoot well. If they meet a rebuff, roll back,
      but do not run away. And they attack again, in a slightly different way.
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 24 May 2016 13: 08
    +2
    very nice cycle. thank!
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 24 May 2016 13: 37
    0
    "The hopes placed on ... have not been justified" - where can you read about them?
  • Taoist
    Taoist 24 May 2016 17: 44
    +1
    Quote: brn521
    Here in VO somehow wrote. Both ours and the Germans in the Second World War destroyed the unpaved runways while leaving their positions. Undermining method. And there was a certain standard for the number and size of funnels. Runways are naturally frontal, unpaved. But this did not negate the difficulties in their preparation. And the need to destroy upon retreat.



    Damn well, at least one fact? Real of the docs? Or do you think that we and the Germans had so much superfluous explosives ...
    I taught all these standards myself ... Well, do not withdraw the unpaved runway for any reasonable period. Light vehicles will take off and land anyway ... For jet vehicles, yes, and the length of the runway is critical and cleanliness and load ... That is why, in fact, "verticals" appeared. But the British knew that on this patch, jet engines would not take off or land anyway ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 May 2016 19: 09
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, do not bring the dirt runway for any sane term.

      Duc ... "Cactus" after the visits of the "Congo" sisters is an example of this. But as many as 14 "worked there at the airfield."
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 24 May 2016 20: 25
        0
        Well, my friend does not believe me ... it looks like another "theoretician" ...
  • brn521
    brn521 24 May 2016 19: 18
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Damn well, at least one fact? Real of the docs?

    All that I can say: as far as I remember, the indicated material, or a link to it, came across to me in the discussion. There would be a specific document, would refer to it. And note, I do not demand in response documents that would prove the possibility of destroying the designated military airfield by six saboteurs.
    Quote: Taoist
    Well, do not bring the dirt runway for any sane term. Light cars still take off and sit down ...

    Will light vehicles be able to bring in sufficient quantities the necessary equipment and materials?
    Quote: Taoist
    But the British then knew that on this patch they were reactive and without that they would not take off or sit down ...

    Is there anything about the parameters and capabilities of this airfield? The British still worried about him, so they were not going to limit themselves to the destruction of technology.
    My English with a dictionary gives out sources like http://www.naval-history.net/F38opsweek7.htm. Where it says "The raid was a complete success and the Argentines not only lost six Pucaras of Grupo 3 [a20-25], four T-34C Mentors [a26-29] of CANA 4 Esc and one Coast Guard Skyvan [a30], but also the use of the airstrip at a crucial time. " Which translates roughly as "the Argentines have lost not only technology, but also the ability to use the GDP at a decisive moment for them." Hence the idea that the aforementioned low-power 81-mm mortar was doing just that. Plowed the airstrip, that is to say, the runway. Precision and power are just enough. And to pick out dugouts - no longer. Everything else was destroyed by the British with the help of bookmarks and the fire of the destroyer's bow gun.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 24 May 2016 20: 24
      +1
      There is a strong suspicion that all the same the British were not full of dumbbells and instead of firing on the runway ... from this mortar they ripped open the "infrastructure" - that is, refuellers and service systems ... deciding to protect themselves a little and not get into a "clinch" with guards, but having completed the task from a safe distance. Well, as a means of cover from the activity of the guards ... And about the runway, this is your speculation ... sorry.
  • Comrade
    Comrade 25 May 2016 04: 32
    -2
    It was immediately clear that Argentina had a thin gut to fight the British. Those have an atomic bomb, and the American friends are standing behind them, sharing information. Argentines, on the other hand, are mostly a mixture of Italians and Spaniards. Neither one nor the other in the new history in the military field showed themselves in any way.
    It is written beautifully, thanks for the pleasure of reading.
    1. Protos
      Protos 26 May 2016 20: 36
      0
      And about the fact that the Civil in Spain was ...
      The Italians took Odessa, and then Sevastopol ... not? laughing
      Not warriors of course, like the Hans, but they were also present in the process.
  • itvs
    itvs 25 May 2016 14: 22
    0
    Thank you for the article. We look forward to continuing.
  • redhate
    redhate 26 May 2016 20: 34
    0
    Thank you, Andrei, it reads excitedly, just like a novel!
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 26 May 2016 22: 37
    0
    The author writes well, I look forward to continuing.
  • Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 27 May 2016 23: 00
    0
    a little off topic, but here one friend compared:
    http://alternathistory.com/sravnenie-yak-38-s-ego-zarubezhnym-analogom