AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Santa Fe's captain yakked on the radio and he was overheard. The British did not find him. He gave away his position and they stumbled across him..

However Santa Fe was found she was attacked and run aground at Sth Georgia a week before Invincible reached the TEZ, and even then the TEZ is 800 miles from Santa Fe's last position. She got nowhere near the Invincible, let alone conduct an attack that failed due to faulty torpedos.

HMS Brilliant was the RN goalkeeper for HMS Invincible. In the USN parlance, she was the threat axis missile trap and ASW bodyguard on that same threat axis. San Luis was attempting to get past her to get Invincible.

The Wiki talk you reference says Brilliant was "Detached on 1 May to search in the suspected position of San Luis off Stanley", thus she was not near the Invincible during the sub hunt. San Luis did not get into an attack position against the Invincible, let alone fire torpedos at her that failed because they were faulty.

In fact diesel-electric submarines are not very good at hunting carriers in the open sea, mainly because the carriers are moving along at a sustained 20kts or more and speeding up to 30kts while the sub is trolling along at 4kts submerged and snorting at 6kts. Maybe the sub can put itself in a position where the carrier heads toward it, but of course that's where the ASW escorts are because they know where the carrier is going and if the sub speeds up it will make itself obvious and be attacked while the carrier veers away.
 
Atlantic Conveyor when she went down took down 5 of 6 Chinooks, some spare Harriers, and a host of spare parts and some kind of Royal Marines tracked vehicles that resemble a commercial snow cat crawler. The debacle meant British infantry walked to Stanley instead of flew or rolled thus prolonging the campaign by two weeks. However one Chinook was aloft doing something when Atlantic Conveyor was exocetted.

No Harriers were lost on Atlantic Conveyor, and not all of the BV202s (crawler) heading south were - they were employed during the yomps/tabs by the land forces across East Falkland. The aircraft lost with Atlantic Conveyor were 3 chinook, six wessex and a lynx. The helicopters were being made ready (uncovered, rotors attached etc) to be flown ashore at the time of the attack - Bravo November was airborne conducting an air test.
 
Atlantic Conveyor when she went down took down 5 of 6 Chinooks, some spare Harriers, and a host of spare parts and some kind of Royal Marines tracked vehicles that resemble a commercial snow cat crawler. The debacle meant British infantry walked to Stanley instead of flew or rolled thus prolonging the campaign by two weeks.

I've stayed out of this thread for as long as I can. But here I must put in my two-pennyworth.

The helicopters that went down weren't intended to give lifts to the Royal Marines or Paras. Even if all the helicopters had been available, we'd have still bloody walked. The helicopters were intended to carry artillery shells and other such paraphernalia. It was thought that since Royal Marines had the Mark 1 Leg, they may as well give that a little bit of exercise. Half a dozen chinooks wasn't going to make much of a difference to lugging men around (Max capacity is around 50 troops, or about 1 troop with the extra weight we were lugging. Basic maths tells one that moving around 3000 Royal Marines and Paras in 6 chinooks is going to be a bit of an issue). There's also the minor point that the chinooks would not be operating in a secure air environment, and the calculation was that, Mount Kent aside (a special case, and involving smaller helicopters), it was too high risk to lug Red and Green berets around.

The time saved by having the helicopters available would be the time that had been spent waiting for artillery stocks to be built up. A couple of days at most. It would have meant better supplies and possibly fewer casualties (if they'd brought dry socks, it would have been nice. Fewer cases of trench foot).

When it comes to the details of the air and naval side of things in the campaign, other people know more than I do. When it comes to the technology of the hardware, I leave that to the experts. What I do know a bit about are the details of the yomp from the left hand side to the right hand side of the island.
 
Last edited:
McPherson said:
  1. Atlantic Conveyor when she went down took down 5 of 6 Chinooks, some spare Harriers, and a host of spare parts and some kind of Royal Marines tracked vehicles that resemble a commercial snow cat crawler. The debacle meant British infantry walked to Stanley instead of flew or rolled thus prolonging the campaign by two weeks.
http://www.atlantic-conveyor.co.uk/action-of-25th-may/delivery-of-the-harriers

Wrong about the Harriers.
  1. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/398498267012294924/
They sure were not flown off at Ascension.

3. Of course HMS Brilliant was detached along the threat axis. THAT is what a missile trap ship does.

4. If diesel subs are not good here:

C_Plan_15.png


Then someone (German) does not know what they are doing.


Baltic%2Bsea%2Bdepths.png


Or British:

Falklands-Island-Map.jpg


Map-Freedman.jpg


I'd say it was the British. I would have chosen the DZNEE northeast quadrant (permits a missile trap west island) and put ashore a land based missile trap. A HAWK battery or two. Even Roland might work, but not Rapier. As for subs, with that shallow shelf and a parked carrier task force limited by its strike radius and in an aerial cross-fire zone, why would I not use a Type 209 to hunt in those awful sound conditions? The problem is that there are not enough of them to box the British in. 3 of them and Sandy Woodward has to run to DEEP water and out of effective Harrier on time station endurance reach. And lose the war.

5. No talk, no find. Point stands. The British did not find him. He gave himself away.

Finally;

The Chinook therefore could be used for more vital logistics lifts at sea and was so used, which in itself probably saved the air campaign and again with supply dumping forward as the British infantry humped along helped the British ground effort at key moments. It, however, was only 1 Chinook and it was overworked to death. Boeing built a fine bird.

I had previously covered most of these objections ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ raised in my prior commentary.
 
Last edited:
. Of course HMS Brilliant was detached along the threat axis. THAT is what a missile trap ship does.

Your statement was Brilliant was the goalkeeper and therefore the San Luis attack on her was somehow an attack on Invincible which was saved by bad torpedoes. Not that Brilliant was detached as a missile trap.

. No talk, no find. Point stands. The British did not find him. He gave himself away.

How Santa Fe was detected isn't the point in dispute, the point in dispute is that Invincible was attacked by submarine and saved by faulty torpedoes. Santa Fe was destroyed a week before the Invincible arrived in the theatre so was unable to make an attack on her that failed due to faulty torpedoes.
 
Point is I never stated Santa Fe was involved in the Invincible stalk. I specifically wrote she was involved in the St Georges debacle. . Reductio ad absurdium; meaning what has Santa Fe got to do with San Luis, here? And where does the missile trap mission assignment (HMS Brilliant) affect the ASW barrier watch included in it when it too, the sub threat, was on the same exact threat axis?
 
Point is I never stated Santa Fe was involved in the Invincible stalk. I specifically wrote she was involved in the St Georges debacle. . Reductio ad absurdium; meaning what has Santa Fe got to do with San Luis, here? And where does the missile trap mission assignment (HMS Brilliant) affect the ASW barrier watch included in it when it too, the sub threat, was on the same exact threat axis?

You claimed that Invincible was saved by faulty torpedoes, everything else is scenery surrounding this claim.

My assertion is that claim is patently false in all respects.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
NO HARRIERS WERE LOST ON THE CONVEYOR

ref: The Royal Navy & The Falklands War by David F Brown

ref: 100 Days: Sandy Woodward

ref: Sea Harrier at War by Nigel "Sharkey" Ward

ref: Hostile Skies by David Morgan

ref: watch YouTUBE, BBC NEWS reports 25/26 May 1982
 
Last edited:
You claimed that Invincible was saved by faulty torpedoes, everything else is scenery surrounding this claim.

My assertion is that claim is patently false in all respects.

Your assertion is grounded on a false premise claiming I wrote one thing which I did not. The San Luis was hunting along the threat axis along which HMS Brilliant was posted. Behind HMS Brilliant was the Invincible. The San Luis reports they fired an SST-4 in this attack incident. This was identified by British escorts guarding that threat axis. The British ships reported this event. They backtracked the launch transient and spent a lot of Mark 46s on that sound contact and hit zippo. This is recorded history. So, whose claim is more grounded here?
 
No, they were flown off when in range of the carriers. There were no Harriers aboard Atlantic Conveyor at the time she was hit.

"Wrong about the Harriers."

as in "I was". Sorry if that was unclear. The citation showed this correction.

No need to beat a dead horse.
 
Your assertion is grounded on a false premise claiming I wrote one thing which I did not. The San Luis was hunting along the threat axis along which HMS Brilliant was posted. Behind HMS Brilliant was the Invincible. The San Luis reports they fired an SST-4 in this attack incident. This was identified by British escorts guarding that threat axis. The British ships reported this event. They backtracked the launch transient and spent a lot of Mark 46s on that sound contact and hit zippo. This is recorded history. So, whose claim is more grounded here?

You wrote this.

But THEY DID. Their torpedoes went wild. Saved Invincible.
 
IMHO the biggest issue was the non-exploding bombs and the lack of time to line up on a target. Fix that and the RN takes far more damage. The Canberra is slower but face it, does anyone think they'll survive long enough to reach a target and drop their bombs?

Also if one or more Exocet's hit a carrier. Maybe not sink it but force it home. That will also cause a lot of issues...
 

Tovarich

Banned
Might a political/legal POD achieve what's wanted here?
I'm thinking of an actual DoW in the Falklands War 'Armed Conflict'.

Whilst I can see objections here that this may actually lower the death toll (eg, aforementioned SAS/SBS raids taking out Argentine aircraft before they could sink RN ships OTL, or Captain of the 'Conqueror' refusing to sink the Belgrano because he'd be potentially liable for War Crime charges), I'm not actually any good at military fiction, whereas a writer of @James G's calibre I expect could take that POD and do whatever he needs for his story with it.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Compliments should be sent with free chocolate.
There's definitely a story there, Comrade. Have you seen The Falklands Play? Something like that - politics and legal ramifications only, no shoot em ups. I would only have the SAS save the day and a certain Royal Marine who is fond of snowmen would be mad.
I'm a bit tied up for the next six months with my current story.
Perhaps you might give it a go: even a vignette?
 
There's definitely a story there, Comrade. Have you seen The Falklands Play? Something like that - politics and legal ramifications only, no shoot em ups. I would only have the SAS save the day and a certain Royal Marine who is fond of snowmen would be mad.

You could always do a Falklands involving a battle between the Penguins and the Snowmen.
 
You wrote this.

McPherson said:
Your assertion is grounded on a false premise claiming I wrote one thing which I did not. The San Luis was hunting along the threat axis along which HMS Brilliant was posted. Behind HMS Brilliant was the Invincible. The San Luis reports they fired an SST-4 in this attack incident. This was identified by British escorts guarding that threat axis. The British ships reported this event. They backtracked the launch transient and spent a lot of Mark 46s on that sound contact and hit zippo. This is recorded history. So, whose claim is more grounded here?



But THEY DID. Their torpedoes went wild. Saved Invincible.

Context matters. HMS Brilliant was the bodyguard. It had to be evaded or removed. The San Luis tried to attack with SST-4s which went wild. The torpedoes failed. No failure and the next target would have been HMS Invincible. Abusus non tollit usum. Incorrect application does not omit correct use. (of the torpedoes.)
 
Thats a lot of steps away from the torpedoes running wild and saving the Invincible, assuming that is the correct assessment of what happened of course.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top