WI: Argentine bombs during the Falklands War not defective.

[Armored Diplomacy]

During the Falklands War, multiple British warships were hit in the Argentine air attacks, but were not mortally damaged thanks to unexploded bombs. The Argentines were using vintage WWII bombs, and were flying too low for the bomb fuses to properly activate. In one case, the bomb

These British ships were damaged by unexploded ordnance, which was later removed. Some of them were hit multiple times:

* HMS Glasgow (destroyer)

* HMS Argonaut (frigate)

* HMS Plymouth (frigate)

* RFA Sir Lancelot (landing ship)

* MV British Wye (tanker)

I think that if the bombs that hit these ships had blown up, the British might have given up and gone home. I saw an interview with Admiral Sandy Woodward, where he admitted that at the height of the San Carlos Air Attacks which were already biting into his forces, he was seriously considering phoning London and admitting defeat. Had these ships been sunk, Woodward and his staff might start to feel that there will be no Royal Navy left by the time the war is over. The sight of these ships sinking and the casualties being evacuated would be demoralizing, and I can imagine that seeing a fully-laden oil tanker bombed and sinking would be a truly horrific experience. The loss of two more frigates and a destroyer would be particularly harsh.

What do my AH comrades think about this?

[krull1m]

Source?
Filler

[Armored Diplomacy]

Source?
Filler

http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

Ignore the ones damaged by near-misses and cannon fire, that had nothing to do with unexploding bombs.

[Byzer Bob]

The reason that many of the bombs dropped failed to explode has been explained by the following quote:-

"To avoid the highest concentration of British air defences, Argentine pilots released ordnance from very low altitude, and hence their bomb fuzes did not have sufficient time to arm before impact. The low release of the retarded bombs (some of which had been sold to the Argentines by the British years earlier) meant that many never exploded, as there was insufficient time in the air for them to arm themselves. A simple free-fall bomb will, during a low altitude release, impact almost directly below the aircraft which is then within the lethal fragmentation zone of the resulting explosion. A retarded bomb has a small parachute or air brake that opens to reduce the speed of the bomb to produce a safe horizontal separation between the two. The fuze for a retarded bomb requires a minimum time over which the retarder is open to ensure safe separation. The pilots would have been aware of this, but due to the high concentration levels required to avoid SAMs and Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), as well as any British Sea Harriers, many failed to climb to the necessary release point. The problem was solved by the improvised fitting of retarding devices, allowing low-level bombing attacks as employed on 8 June."

From this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War)

To get more bombs exploding you have to alter the attack profile, exposing the attacking planes (who were described at the time by all parties as incredibly brave and skilled) to increased risk of interdiction or fix the bombs before the problem is identified.

[The Oncoming Storm]

It would have resulted in a much higher British death toll but it wouldn't necessarily have lost the War. The British were expecting much higher casualties as the RN didn't have the kind of organic air cover needed to properly shield the fleet from air attack. However destroyers and frigates are there to shield the main units, in the Falklands these were the carriers Hermes and Invincible, the landing ships Fearless and Intrepid and some of the support ships. The sinking of the requisitioned container ship Atlantic Conveyor that was carrying Chinook helicopters badly hampered the British as the plan had been to airlift the bulk of the troops from San Carlos to Stanley, in the end they had to walk across the Falklands, so sink some more supply ships and the British can't conduct military operations. Also had Hermes which was the fleet flagship been sunk or severely damaged then that would certainly have been game over.

[krull1m]

http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

Ignore the ones damaged by near-misses and cannon fire, that had nothing to do with unexploding bombs.

I see alot of talk about unexploded bombs but nothing that mentions them being of WW2 vintage.

However, as has been pointed out there was a reason that the pilots chose to drop their bombs in the way that they did, any higher and they would have been more vulnerable to AA fire.

I have found this (link below), which talks about the use of air power by the Argentinians during the Falklands war. It talks about the issue of bombs failing to explode, and at one point he states:

"As the war progressed, low-altitude tactics prevailed because they were the only
method able to balance survivability concerns and weapons accuracy. Unfortunately for
the FAA and CANA, up to 50% of weapons delivered from this tactic impacted in a safe
configuration because they failed to achieve enough time of flight to fuse arm"

Change these tactics and you suffer poor accuracy and higher risk of destruction to the aircraft. We have no way of knowing if the reduced accuracy and hit rate would balance out with the increased number of actual explosions. Personally I think that overall the air attacks would be less effective than they were OTL as the planes were signifcantly more vulnerable

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475901

[MattII]

After the first couple, the British will back off a bit from the shore to give themselves a reasonable chance to kill incoming aircraft.

[elkarlo]

They would have done much better, if they engaged the Harriers, instead of running away. The British under constant air attacks, may not have been able to land troops, or couldn't support them once landed.

[krull1m]

They would have done much better, if they engaged the Harriers, instead of running away. The British under constant air attacks, may not have been able to land troops, or couldn't support them once landed.

Maybe, but the kill ratio for air engagements was hugely in the British favor.

The Brits shot down around 24 planes in air to air engagements, whereas the MIGHT (and its not properly confirmed) have lost 4 in return. The Argentinians simply didnt have the weapons to match the British fighter missiles.

[elkarlo]

Maybe, but the kill ratio for air engagements was hugely in the British favor.

The Brits shot down around 24 planes in air to air engagements, whereas the MIGHT (and its not properly confirmed) have lost 4 in return. The Argentinians simply didnt have the weapons to match the British fighter missiles.


Thing was, they ditched their weapons and ran in most engagements. If they actually tried to fight the Brits, they could have worn down the small carrier bases airforce fairly quickly.

[krull1m]

[QUOTE=elkarlo;5613737]Thing was, they ditched their weapons and ran in most engagements. QUOTE]

Source?

According to the article I posted a link to above (and other sources) on the very first day of the fight 1st May 1982 the Argentinians lost 4 planes due to air to air fights and that made them realise that they lacked the necessary missiles to keep pace. Hence the decision was made to avoid air combat as much as possible.

Not to mention that they also decided that they needed to keep significant air to air assets in reserve to protect the mainland from the RAF Vulcan bomber threat.

[elkarlo]

[QUOTE=elkarlo;5613737]Thing was, they ditched their weapons and ran in most engagements. QUOTE]

Source?

According to the article I posted a link to above (and other sources) on the very first day of the fight 1st May 1982 the Argentinians lost 4 planes due to air to air fights and that made them realise that they lacked the necessary missiles to keep pace. Hence the decision was made to avoid air combat as much as possible.

Not to mention that they also decided that they needed to keep significant air to air assets in reserve to protect the mainland from the RAF Vulcan bomber threat.


I need to look for one. So hang on til tmrw. What I read, was that when the Argentinian planes saw the Harriers, they were told to ditch their bombs are run for it. I think, if anything they weren't prepared at all to engage the Harriers, tactically nor strategically.

[krull1m]

[QUOTE=krull1m;5613799]


I need to look for one. So hang on til tmrw. What I read, was that when the Argentinian planes saw the Harriers, they were told to ditch their bombs are run for it. I think, if anything they weren't prepared at all to engage the Harriers, tactically nor strategically.

If you get the chance read the link I posted. Written by a US air force officer and it talks about the losses the Argentinians suffered on the first day which conviced them to give up trying to compete with the Brits in the air.

[Paul V McNutt]

The British are more determined to win. They win just as OTL. It was too short a war to make the British public tired of it. That goes double if Prince Andrew is killed.

[Gunnarnz]

[QUOTE=krull1m;5613799]


I need to look for one. So hang on til tmrw. What I read, was that when the Argentinian planes saw the Harriers, they were told to ditch their bombs are run for it. I think, if anything they weren't prepared at all to engage the Harriers, tactically nor strategically.

There's also the fact that the Argies were at the ragged edge of their range, and if they stayed in afterburner for even a minute or two too long they'd have to ditch on their way home.

[MUC]

I still don't get it. Couldn't the Argentinians fool around with the bombs, so that they can be dropped at low altitude, armed and explode with some kind of time delay mechanism (5 sec after impact or so?). They were bombing modern ships, these bombs penetrated alone due to their kinetic energy.

[Slowpoke]

Yeah, I mean the risk of running hot is pretty big (a stray cannon round can turn you into a giant fireworks display), but it's either that or no show on release.

[Sumeragi]

I still don't get it. Couldn't the Argentinians fool around with the bombs, so that they can be dropped at low altitude, armed and explode with some kind of time delay mechanism (5 sec after impact or so?). They were bombing modern ships, these bombs penetrated alone due to their kinetic energy.

Probably not enough time, please risk.

[SunilTanna]

The Argentine airforce and naval airforce were both poorly maintained. They didn't have the leadership or engineering skills to properly make use of what they had, or even minor adjustments to their equipment. Things like ejector seats didn't work. It's amazing they did as well as they did - obviously the skill and bravery of their pilots made up for some of their weaknesses - as did some covert aid that Argentina got from Israel.

Maybe if the Navy Engineering School (ESMA) had spent the 70s doing something more useful than murdering 3000 civilians, and throwing nuns out of helicopters, they might have done better.


Couple of things:

If Hermes or Invincible had been damaged, the British would have come back with Illustrious (OTL, it arrived in the Falklands soon after the war finished to relieve Hermes + Invincible).

Also all the task force was big, there were still a lot of RN ships and subs not in the task force - so even more could have been sent.

Also - Stone Aircraft carrier concept, might have gone ahead - the idea was to build a base for Phantoms and Buccs on West Falkland - there were plans for it - but it was rejected basically cos it was thought it might take too long.

If British logistics had been tighter, they would properly have simply done without 5 brigade - the second wave. 3 Brigade (40, 42, 45 Commando, 2 Para, 3 Para) were doing remarkably well without 5 brigade, and could probably have gone on to win the land war anyway. Some sources (e.g. Razor's Edge) say that 5 Brigade were basically brought in, to give the Army an equal role to the RN.

[hairysamarian]

Grrr. I love talking about the Falklands, and you people start a thread when I'm miles from my library. Curse you all. :)

Anyways, on the subject of why the Argentines didn't try to fight the Harriers, choosing instead to cut and run when engaged: they basically didn't have the fuel. They were a long way from home and most of their aircraft had no aerial refueling capability. They only had two tanker aircraft anyways, apparently. The low-level attack tactic that they used, made feasible by the lack of British AEW, was therefore pretty necessary but, as noted previously, screwed with the fuse times. I found this wiki link that seems to cover the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

[usertron2020]

Wasn't the problem for the Argentines linked to the inability of the Argentine Air Force and Navy to make nice? If I understand correctly, the A-4Q Skyhawks used by the AN were more successful because of the tactic of "bomb lobbing", allowing the bomb to spend more time in the air while the aircraft was still at minimum altitude. Problem was, the AN wasn't telling the AAF about this. So the AAF was dropping their bombs directly on target, and the fuses couldn't activate in time before the bomb was smashed on impact. These were WWII bombs designed to be dropped by aircraft some 200-300 mph slower than what a Skyhawk or Mirage could perform.

On the subject of afterburners? The overwhelming number of strike aircraft owned by Argentina were the subsonic (no afterburners) A-4Q's.

Gunnarnz

You make an excellent point. The Argentine pilots had to approach at no more than ten feet off the water's surface to avoid British naval radar. That eats fuel like nobody's business. Add on no traffic control for the Argentinians, no way to vector aircraft to their targets (except a civilian Learjet impressed into national service), and there really was no way to engage successfully in air-to-air engagements with the British. Throw in the AIM-9 Sidewinder, which the Argies didn't know Britain was using*, and it meant the AAF and AN were reduced to hit and run tactics.

Although technically the AAF and AN had some 200+ A-4Q Skyhawks alone, due to age even the Argentinians could not know whether each individual aircraft could perform to its maximum RATED range capability in that kind of weather conditions. One reason why they didn't go for the "alpha-strike" everyone was expecting. Too many planes were being forced to turn back. The mirages could make it, but Argentina had a lot fewer of them, and so they tended to come to grief earlier.

Does an 11 year old car still have the mpg it did coming off the showroom floor?:(

Technically, Britain's advanced Sidewinders couldn't be used, as they were in the untouchable NATO war stocks. But Uncle Sam made up the difference.

[Shooter]

They were all reasonably new manufacture Mk-80 serries bombs. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the bombs, or their fuzes. The fault was with the Argi Pilots who screwed the pooch as they say.

[Flayer]

Argentine missiles were a whole generation behind. They were only able to obtain a lock within visual range and from behind an enemy aircraft. Air-to-air fighting would have been hopeless. Also, they were limited to sending four Skyhawks per strike because they only had two refueling aircraft.

Some of the bombs were screwy. Even some of the Exocets failed to detonate on impact.

What impresses me almost more than the successful airstrikes was how they managed to keep their airlift to the troops on the islands going right up through the final days of the campaign. How did they manage that?

[Shooter]

[QUOTE=usertron2020;Technically, Britain's advanced Sidewinders couldn't be used, as they were in the untouchable NATO war stocks. But Uncle Sam made up the difference.[/QUOTE]
I was in the business back then and was not aware that the UK had bought any of the newest 'winders and the All Aspect versions used with such deadly efficiency were units that England promised to pay for later. There are several versions and the lack of cooling gas in the Harrier made the slightly older ones that were bought for the Tornado, incompatible.

[Riain]

The bomb thing was insoluble more or less, drop them from high enough and get shot down but there wasn`t nearly enough retarding machanisms available for retarded bombs. Even then there is a lot of coordination needed to aviod bomb blast for retarded and delay fused bombs, which is difficult when Sea Harriers are around to break up attacks. If 5 inch rockets had been used as well the Argies should have had more success.

There was a single Argie air to air victory in the Falklands, a Pucara shot down a Britsh helicopter. No Harrier was sucessfully engaged in air to air combat although several were shot down by ground fire including one by a Roland SAM.

[Armored Diplomacy]

There was a single Argie air to air victory in the Falklands, a Pucara shot down a Britsh helicopter.

That was a medevac helicopter called in to evacuate the dying Lt. Col. H. Jones.

[StevoJH]

If Hermes or Invincible had been damaged, the British would have come back with Illustrious (OTL, it arrived in the Falklands soon after the war finished to relieve Hermes + Invincible).

Don't forget Bulwark and the possibility of the Tigers if there is more Lead Time.

Plus any delay brings forward the possibility of additional Sea Wolf Leanders, T22's and T42's being in service.

[The Oncoming Storm]

There's no question of all about the skill and bravery of Argentine pilots, all the accounts from British personnel attestify to that. The other area where they fell down was in tactics, I read an account of one of the first air battles in which a flight of Harriers engaged Argentine fighters, the flight leader noted how the Argentines were flying very close together in what the Americans call "welded wing" flying, something which they always taught not to do. Not surprisingly the Harriers won the engagement.

[Guilherme Loureiro]

Although technically the AAF and AN had some 200+ A-4Q Skyhawks alone,

Actually, about 80 A-4P and -Q, of which some 50-55 were available, IIRC.

[elkarlo]

[QUOTE=elkarlo;5614370]

If you get the chance read the link I posted. Written by a US air force officer and it talks about the losses the Argentinians suffered on the first day which conviced them to give up trying to compete with the Brits in the air.


Reading it now. I believe I was misinformed. I think the source was an officers opinion, and the article was based on that alone.

[hairysamarian]

What impresses me almost more than the successful airstrikes was how they managed to keep their airlift to the troops on the islands going right up through the final days of the campaign. How did they manage that?

They certainly had the capacity to get the supplies out to the islands, but apparently lacked either the will or the capacity to distribute them in the field. Hasting and Jenkins record this detail in The Battle for the Falklands: "As they straggled back through Port Stanley, [Private] Santiago described how young conscripts broke down and cried when they saw 'depots stashed with food and clothes which had never got to us.' "

[67th Tigers]

I was in the business back then and was not aware that the UK had bought any of the newest 'winders and the All Aspect versions used with such deadly efficiency were units that England promised to pay for later. There are several versions and the lack of cooling gas in the Harrier made the slightly older ones that were bought for the Tornado, incompatible.

The FAA had stocks of both AIM-9G and AIM-9L. The 9L were all in NATO warstocks rather than sovereign warstocks. This meant that using them would be a technical breach of the NATO treaty. The UK sent them anyway and arranged for a purchase to replace those taken out of the NATO stocks from US sovereign stocks.

[Riain]

I read that the US sent 9Ls to Asenscion where they were picked up by the fleet on the way past.

[The Oncoming Storm]

The U.S. also supplied Shrike ARM's that were used by Vulcans for SEAD missions against Stanley Airfield. There's a story in Rowland White's book Vulcan 607 about how they were fitted at Ascension by "men with American accents who claimed to be South African..." ;)

[SunilTanna]

They certainly had the capacity to get the supplies out to the islands, but apparently lacked either the will or the capacity to distribute them in the field. Hasting and Jenkins record this detail in The Battle for the Falklands: "As they straggled back through Port Stanley, [Private] Santiago described how young conscripts broke down and cried when they saw 'depots stashed with food and clothes which had never got to us.' "

Lack of distribution, might have something to do, that wheeled vehicles couldn't make it into the hills.

Argentine field discipline/organisation was notoriously poor, e.g. officers treating men badly, field punishments, and shit everywhere (literally) around the fortifications.

[juanml82]

Lack of distribution, might have something to do, that wheeled vehicles couldn't make it into the hills.Indeed. However, that didn't stop the NVA from supplying their troops in far harsher terrain than the Falklands 10 years before.

Back on topic, as some bombs did explode and this is an alternate history site, the pod is reasonable.
Effects? More escorts sunk means more chances for transport ships to be hit, which would have disastrous results for the British Task Force. As such, it might have ended in an Argentinean victory in the air-naval battle, at a high cost. That doesn't necessarily means the end of the war, as the British could:
a) Retort to nuclear or chemical weapons
b) Blockade the islands
c) Ask the USA and France to join and send their more capable carriers
d) Use a), b) and c) as negotiating tools to agree in some kind of peace treaty that doesn't end with neither Thatcher nor Galtieri's political career.

Those options are open to speculation, as Thatcher never publicly claimed she considered anything in such a case and, even if she had, she could have been lying. In other words, claiming "I know this would have happened" it's foolish.