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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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