PC/WI: HMS BLAKE & TIGER in the Falklands?

Radars out there would be hideously exposed to the Argentine Air Force, the advanced radar picket 'Type 64 combos' attracted a lot of heat despite their hefty ability to defend themselves. Even the Army could detach some men from its 2 regiments on West Falkland to attack them, perhaps by helicopter or local boat. In any case they wouldn't allow the carrier to come that much closer to San Carlos water, maybe the time on station would go from 15 to 25 minutes.
 
How well would Blake an Tiger have performed in a gunnery action with General Belgrano, individually and as a pair? Assuming their four 6" guns were working properly that's 4 x 20 rpm for a total of 80 vs whatever Belgrano's fifteen 6" were capable of.
 
How well would Blake an Tiger have performed in a gunnery action with General Belgrano, individually and as a pair? Assuming their four 6" guns were working properly that's 4 x 20 rpm for a total of 80 vs whatever Belgrano's fifteen 6" were capable of.

I'd suggest a one vs one or one vs two fight would be very unlikely given the compositon of the two fleets.

That being said after a few minutes of Internet research I'd be doubtful of a single RN Tiger / Blake class cruiser winning a one vs one fight against Belgrano (and I doubt the RN would seek out such a fight.) A two vs one fight would be more promising for the RN but I expect the solitary six inch mounts on the RN cruisers would be more vulnerable to being put out of action while the multiple six inch mounts on the Belgrano would be harder to completely silence.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
A straight up gun fight resembling the classic battleship v battleship engagement - here cruiser v cruiser - wouldn't have occurred though.
I would suspect that like in OTL, the Belgrano would have frigates in escort with Exocet's and RN cruisers if they were there in 1982 would either have Exocet / Harpoon armed escorts or their own missiles or failing those options air support armed with Sea Eagle's. Guns v guns on warships just aren't a thing post WW2 even if the ships are there. The Argentineans had the Belgrano for propaganda purposes IMO and the RN didn't have the Blake and the Tiger because they had more pressing financial and strategic issues rather than having such a vessel with no real world warfare capabilities.
 
The heavy repair ship Triumph was still in reserve in 1982. Does anybody know if she could have been re-commissioned had enough sailors been available?
 
The heavy repair ship Triumph was still in reserve in 1982. Does anybody know if she could have been re-commissioned had enough sailors been available?
She was sold for scrap in 1981; apparently the scrapyard was asked if they could please give her back, but she was already too far gone.
 
I'd suggest a one vs one or one vs two fight would be very unlikely given the compositon of the two fleets.

That being said after a few minutes of Internet research I'd be doubtful of a single RN Tiger / Blake class cruiser winning a one vs one fight against Belgrano (and I doubt the RN would seek out such a fight.) A two vs one fight would be more promising for the RN but I expect the solitary six inch mounts on the RN cruisers would be more vulnerable to being put out of action while the multiple six inch mounts on the Belgrano would be harder to completely silence.

http://alltheworldsbattlecruisers.yuku.com/topic/8587/Cruisers-Tiger-and-Blake-rebuilds#.V4OY6kn6vcs
Halfway through this thread someone quotes a conversation with someone who served aboard the Lion in the 60s. He had a high opinion of the Fire Control Systems of the Tiger class against surface and air targets.
 
Sure, but the task group probably would have had some of the following.

- 2x Invincible class Carrier. (Invincible & Illustrious)
- 2x Centaur class Carrier. (Hermes & Bulwark)
- 2x Tiger class Cruiser. (Tiger & Blake)
- 11x Type 42 Destroyer (possibly with CIWS) - An additional 2 units commissioned in 1982 + 1 in 4/1983.
- 1x Type 82 Destroyer
- 4x Type 22 Frigate (3 OTL, 1 additional unit commissioned 6/1982)
- 2x Sea Wolf Leander (1 OTL, 1 additional unit finished conversion July 1982)

Thats just what I can think of off the top of my head, there were additional units in War Reserve that could be pulled out to cover the Atlantic ASW mission in the short term. Other then the additional Sea Wolf and Sea Dart ships, another thing is that by December 1982, quite a few more Sea Harriers could have been produced to fill up those flight decks, in 1982 it was still in the process of being introduced into service, which is part of the reason why so many Harrier GR's got sent south. Of course, a November/December task group would also have had Sea King AEW, and if the arms embargo on Argentina could be kept up, they might be having trouble finding parts for their French Aircraft by then.
If the British had waited until December 1982 they would have been able to deploy a maximum of 33 Sea Harriers, which is only 2 more than the number available on Monday 5th April 1982.

Sea Harrier Production for the Royal Navy

According to notes that I made several years ago from the Harrier Story by Davies and Thornborough a total of 57 Sea Harrier FRS Mk 1 were ordered as follows:

24 in 1975 (including 3 pre-production aircraft). The first fight date was 30th December 1978, but I did not record the delivery dates
10 in 1978 which were delivered 16th November 1981 to 22nd April 1982
14 in 1982 which were delivered 27th March 1985 to 20th June 1986
9 in 1984 which were delivered 13th November 1987 to 31st September 1988 (which I presume was a transcription error for 30th September 1988). These aircraft were ordered to increase the squadrons from 5 to 8 aircraft

For completeness the contract for the 32 Sea Harrier F/A Mk 2 rebuilds was not placed until December 1988, 5 years later than expected. 10 new build aircraft were ordered in March 1990, which was increased to 15 in 1992 and 18 in 1994.

The 1982 order was placed after the war was over so unless production could be speeded up the Royal Navy is not going to get any more Sea Harriers between 22nd April 1982 and the end of the year.

Sea Harrier Production for the Indian Navy

23 Sea Harrier FRS Mk 51 ordered according to the book against a requirement for 48. Orders and deliveries were as follows:

6 in 1978 which were delivered from 13th December 1983 to 5th October 1984
10 in 1985 - but 5 delivered 14th December 1989 to 24th June 1990
7 in 1986 - but 12 delivered 10th April 1990 to 7th March 1992.

So even if the British Government had requisitioned the aircraft building for India in April 1982 and was able to complete all of them by the end of they year they would only have acquired 6 extra aircraft.

Sea Harrier Availability in April 1982

According to the same source 30 Sea Harriers were built by Monday 5th April 1982 (the day the task force sailed). One was lost in 1980 and 28 went to the Falklands. However, when I went through the detailed notes I counted 32 as follows:

5 with 800NAS on Invincible
5 with 801NAS on Hermes
3 with 899NAS
4 with the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive)
7 in the attrition reserve at RAF St Athan
2 in maintenance at the Sea Harrier Support Unit at Yeovilton
4 not known, but I think they were with 899NAS
1 being rushed to completion on the British Aerospace line
1 lost in 1980

Total 32

The 28 aircraft that went to the Falklands were distributed as follows:
  • 12 in 801NAS aboard Hermes. That is 5 from 801NAS; 3 from 899NAS; 3 more were flown in at the weekend of 3rd-4th April 1982 and the 12th arrived on 5th April 1982 when she was in the Bay of Biscay. I did not make a note of where the last 4 aircraft came from, but its likely that they came from 899NAS;
  • 8 in 800NAS aboard Invincible. That is 5 from 800NAS, plus 2 from the attrition reserve and one from the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive). This aircraft was being used for Sea Eagle trials and 2 of the other 3 development aircraft went to 899NAS;
  • 8 in 809 NAS which flew to Widewake on 30th April 1982. It embarked on the Atlantic Conveyor and the notes I made said that on 18th and 19th May 4 Sea Harriers transferred to Invincible and the rest to Invincible. However, that must be a transcription error so I presume half went to Invincible and the rest to Hermes. These aircraft were absorbed by 800 and 801NAS.
  • The source also says that the 3 squadrons exchanged their AIM-9G Sidewinders with AIM-9L at Ascension Island.
My notes say that 809NAS was authorised the day after the task force sailed and was to be formed by the end of the month. At that time 11 Sea Harriers were available as follows:

· 3 were with the MoD (PE) but one of them was written off on the Yeovilton ski-jump
· 5 were at RAF St Athan
· 2 were in maintenance at the Sea Harrier Support Unit (SHSU) at Yeovilton and one was being rushed to completion on the BAe line.

809NAS had acquired 8 of the above aircraft, which left 2 with 899NAS for training. 8 Sea Harriers were lost from all causes in the Falklands and the serviceability rate for the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR Mk 3 in the Falklands War was 90%.

The Cancelled Sea Harrier Order

My notes also say that 802 NAS was to have been formed in 1981 according to a 1978 announcement. The squadron would have been equipped with the 10 aircraft of the projected third order, but this was cancelled in the 1981 Defence Review.

However, as the aircraft ordered in 1982 weren't delivered until 1985 I think that if the third order had been placed in 1981 the aircraft would not have been delivered until 1984 AND to have been of use in the Falklands War they would have had to have been ordered in 1980 at the latest.

RAF Harriers in the Falklands War

The RAF Harriers were cleared for aircraft carrier operations in 1971. 3 went to Ascension Island for air defence and 6 embarked on the Atlantic Conveyor. The latter aircraft transferred to Hermes which operated 15 Sea Harriers and 6 Harriers. The RAF joined in part because of the Sea Harrier shortage. 3 replacement Harrier GR Mk 3 flew from Ascension to Hermes on 1st and 8th June 1982 (total 6?) and 3 replacement Harrier GR Mk 3 arrived from the 14th June 1982 from the Contender Bezant. On 4th July 1983 the Harrier Detachment at RAF Port Stanley had a Unit Equipment of 10 Harrier GR Mk 3. The last 4 Harrier GR Mk 3 were ordered in 1983 as Falkland attrition replacements.

The Atlantic Conveyor went down with 3 out of 4 Chinooks and all the Harrier support equipment. E.g. the FOB at Port San Carlos had an 850ft runway, a VTOL pad and parking for 4 Harriers, there would have been parking for 10 but the material required went down with the Atlantic Conveyor.
 
Last edited:
Dear All,

Cruiser Action South Atlantic 1982

Hypothesised Surface Action Group contra the Belgrano Group 2x Tiger CL, 2x County DDG, Seawolf FFG.

Concept: The DDGs Hack-the-Neptune-Shad, followed by the exchange-of-Exocets with Belgrano's Group, I expect fewer hits on Tiger's Group due to ECM and active Seawolf shootdown of Exocets. At this point assuming Tiger Group is essentially intact and Belgrano is sole survivor, Tiger Group closes for the kill: Splits into two groups (Tiger CL, County DDG each) and attack initially from two different directions to split any Belgrano FC. The same tactic was used in Cruiser Action South Atlantic 1939 (Not to be confused with Cruiser Action South Atlantic 1914). Once the 6-inchers have suppressed Belgrano's main armament, then the County's can close alongside the CL's and add weight to the broadside. Belgrano goes down.


Yours
Stafford1069
 
Last edited:
Dear All,

Cruiser Action South Atlantic 1982

Hypothesised Surface Action Group contra the Belgrano Group 2x Tiger CL, 2x County DDG, Seawolf FFG.

Concept: The DDGs Hack-the-Neptune-Shad, followed by the exchange-of-Exocets with Belgrano's Group, I expect fewer hits on Tiger's Group due to ECM and active Seawolf shootdown of Exocets. At this point assuming Tiger Group is essentially intact and Belgrano is sole survivor, Tiger Group closes for the kill: Splits into two groups (Tiger CL, County DDG each) and attack initially from two different directions to split any Belgrano FC. The same tactic was used in Cruiser Action South Atlantic 1939 (Not to be confused with Cruiser Action South Atlantic 1914). Once the 6-inchers have suppressed Belgrano's main armament, then the County's can close alongside the CL's and add weight to the broadside. Belgrano goes down.


Yours
Stafford1069
Unfortunately I doubt that the battle would be so one sided, unless the British were lucky.

The combined missile armament on the British group was 16 MM38 Exocets (4 each on the Broadsword, Brilliant and the pair County class Batch II that served in the Falklands).

Their combined gun armament was four 6" Mk 6 QF in two twin Mk 26 turrets, four 4.5" in two twin Mk 6 turrets and four 3" Mk 6 QF guns in two twin turrets. AFAIK rates of fire were 20 RPM for the 6", 20 RPM for the 4.5" and 90 RPM for the 3". That's a grand total of eighty 6", eighty 4.5" and three hundred and sixty 3" shells a minute, if my information is correct and all the guns were working.

I suspect that the Belgrano would stand up to Exocet attack quite well. It's armoured and its big. AFAIK Exocet wasn't designed to engage armoured ships. Therefore hits might do less damage to her than an unarmoured ship and because of her size the damage dome might be easier to control. Her size might also mean that the Exocets fired at her escort might direct themselves at the Belgrano instead.

The same applied to the Exocets fired by the Argentines at the British surface action group. That is they all home in on Tiger and Blake regardless of which ships they were fired at. Most of the missiles that do hit are defeated by the ships armour and the damage caused by the few that do penetrate or hit unarmoured areas of the ship does not reduce their ability to fight.

Belgrano had fifteen 6" in five triple turrets and eight single 5" guns. AFAIK Exocet was designed to aim for the middle of a ship so I think there is a good chance that she would go into the gunnery action with all her 6" gun turrets functional. I don't know their rate of fire, but if it was 5 RPG/min for a total of seventy five 6" rounds per minute, that's not much less than the combined total for Tiger and Blake. If it was 10 RPG/min then the total would be 150 rounds per minute, nearly double what the British ships could fire.

If she can get a lucky hit early in the action and knock out one of the British cruisers 6" turrets the British have lost half their firepower. If the Belgrano looses one of her turrets early on then she's still got 80% of her firepower left. Also the British have got no stern firing guns. If the Belgrano could somehow get behind the British ships they can't fire back.

The County class could not have damaged the armament and machinery, but they could have damaged the superstructure, putting the Belgrano's radar and fire control equipment out of action. But that assumes that the Belgrano's escorting destroyers had been put out of action in the Exocet exchange.

Therefore I think the action could have gone either way depending upon how the ships were handled AND which side was the luckiest, because on paper Belgrano seems to be the equal of Tiger and Blake.

If Tiger and Blake hadn't been converted into helicopter cruisers then they would have had double the number of 6in guns, three times the number of 3" guns and the ability to fire half their main armament astern.
 
The County's could fire their Sea Slugs in the surface role.
I'd forgotten about that and each County carried 28 of them. AFAIK it was obsolete as a SAM so they could afford to use them in the SSM role.

However, it makes me wonder why they fitted the County Batch II with 4 Exocets. If Seasulg was an effective SSM, why remove one of the gun turrets to fit four Exocets. Perhaps Seaslug was just as bad in the SSM role as it was as a SAM by 1982.

I think they were also used for shore bombardment in the Falklands too.
 
According to Naval Weapons the 6" guns on General Belgrano had a rate of fire of 8-10 rounds per minute, which gave her a theoretical rate of fire of 120 to 150 rounds a minute with her 15 guns. Also according to Naval Weapons her sister USS Savannah (CL-42) fired 138 rounds in one minute, during gunnery trials in March 1939.

Her 5" guns had a rate of fire of 15 to 20 rounds per minute, which gave 60 to 80 rounds per minute from the 4 guns on each side. The 2 Sumner FRAM II destroyers with her had twelve 5" guns between them with a total rate of fire of 180 to 264 rounds per minute. Though according to Wikipaedia only one of them was fitted with Exocets.

To make it interesting as well as the British keeping Tiger and Blake lets also say that the Argentines did not decommission Belgrano's sister ship, Nueve de Julio in 1978 and she was still in service in 1982. In that case even if one Argentine cruiser is knocked out in the Exocet exchange, the survivor still has 50% more firepower than both British ships even if they were undamaged. Furthermore its five turrets against two so if a lucky hit knocks out a turret early on in the action she still has 80% of her firepower left, but knocking out one British 6" turret early on reduces their firepower by 50%.

I do know that Tiger and Blake were converted into helicopter carriers and that the Invincible class was officially built to replace them and Lion, hence their Through Deck Cruiser designation. I think they were paid off to provide crews for Blake and Hermes after the 1976 decision to retain them as ASW carriers. These ships were to have been paid off as commando carriers under the 1974 Defence Review, but both were reprieved in 1976. Bulwark was paid off in 1976, refitted and re-commissioned in 1979 and was intended to remain in service until 1984. 1979 happens to be the year that Blake was paid off. Hermes hadn't been paid off before the decision to retain her, but she did have a refit to turn her into an ASW ship which I think was completed in 1978 when Tiger was paid off.

If the British economy had performed well enough to avoid the 1974 Defence Review its likely that at the time of the Knott Defence Review of 1981 Bulwark, Hermes, Blake, Tiger, Fearless and Intrepid would all be in commission instead of only Hermes in full commission, Fearless as cadet training ship at Dartmouth and the rest in reserve. It's likely that none would have paid off before April 1982. It's also possible that Triumph would still be in reserve at Chatham instead of being broken up in Spain.
 
Top