still keeping up with yall..

[Dagger 21]

Dante..just a note to let you know that I'm sure like me some are just watching this forum and not posting alot..so don't think we're not keeping up with things.Keep up the great work... :ph34r:

[Mothman 0]

Idem, here.

[+Dante-JT 6]

Me too :)

 

And to show how things are progressing, a little update in the status of our Type 22 Batch 1 model - with some texture work now at last:

 

In the programming side of things, Steve was testing today some A.I. fights - A.I vs. A.I., guns only. Next step will be to place some A.I for naval AAA gunners. Then, we'll proceed to the mighty Seawolf missile system. But this will take a while (I plan this after the integration of the AI/FM system with the terrain/rendering parts of the code who generates the isles, sea and all).

 

Well, little quiz: what vessel name had the Type 22 above and what name it has now? :)

[+Fates 63]

HMS Broadsword (F88) was a Type 22 frigate of the Royal Navy

 

She was sold to the Brazilian Navy in 1996.

 

F46 Greenhalgh (Formally HMS Broadsword)

 

http://www.greenhalgh-web.co.uk/F46%20Greenhalgh.htm

[+Dante-JT 6]

HMS Broadsword (F88) was a Type 22 frigate of the Royal Navy

She was sold to the Brazilian Navy in 1996.

F46 Greenhalgh (Formally HMS Broadsword)

 

Bingo ! Fates ;)

 

That was a easy one indeed :) Will be not so easy when I start asking for the names of the argie frigates and destroyers lol - well they've hardly saw any action (withdraw after Belgrano cruiser was sunk by a sub) but will be featured as well as the order of battle needs them and, well, in a dynamic scenario they could face the RN vessels.

[scary_pigeon 0]

yes working on the AI at the moment still.

 

I'm going to work on the neural net AI today - and perhaps mix that with working turret work.

[MBot 0]

Wow she looks great ! Excellent work.

 

Are the hangar doors only painted or is it actualy modeled ? Would be cool to have a glance in the hangar if you use the frigate as a divert field for your Sea harrier :)

[+Dante-JT 6]

Are the hangar doors only painted or is it actualy modeled ? Would be cool to have a glance in the hangar if you use the frigate as a divert field for your Sea harrier

 

Indeed, at the moment the hangar inside didn't exist, but I'll model its interior, so we can see Lynx helicopter coming in and out of it. I just actually need some references about this ;)

[Mothman 0]

Very impressive work!

 

About the argentinian warship names, the following ships are the ones that took part in the landing operations during April 2nd 1982. Other major ships, including the Belgrano and its escorts, as far as i know never entered the exclusion zone around the islands dictated by the british government.

 

Task Force for the "Rosario" Operation

ARA Cabo San Antonio (Landing Ship)

ARA 25 de Mayo (Aircraft Carrier - Flagship)

ARA Hercules (Destroyer)

ARA Santisima Trinidad (Destroyer)

ARA Almirante Irizar (Ice Breaker - Hospital Ship)

ARA Drummond (Corvette)

ARA Granville (Corvette)

ARA Santa Fe (Sub)

 

Later on, during June, a sub (ARA San Luis) apparently entered the San Carlos straight, launched a few torpedoes against a british ship, then withdraw from the exclusion zone.

 

The whole list of argentinian ships in 1982 with some details:

 

"Salta" Class Submarines (German design, assembled in Argentina)

ARA Salta

ARA San Luis

Displacement: 1185 tons surfaced, 1285 tons submerged

Propulsion: Diesel/Electric

Speed Submerged: 22 knots

Complement: 32

Armament: 8x21 inch (533mm) torpedo tubes

 

"Guppy" Class Submarine

ARA Santa Fe (ex USS Catfish)

Displacement: 1870 tons surfaced, 2420 tons submerged

Propulsion: Diesel/Electric

Speed Submerged: 15 knots

Complement: 84

Armament: 10x21 inch (533mm) torpedo tubes, 6 forward and 4 aft

 

"Colossus" Class Aircraft Carrier

ARA 25 de Mayo (ex HrMS Karel Doorman, ex HMS Venerable)

Displacement: 19869 tons

Speed: 25 knots

Complement: 1000

Aircraft: mixed complement of S-2E Trackers, A-4Q Skyhawks, Sea King ASW, and A103 Alouettes. Normally totalling 18 fixed wing aircraft and 4 heliopters.

Guns: 10x40mm

 

"Brooklyn" Class Cruiser

ARA General Belgrano (ex ARA 17 de Octubre, ex USS Phoenix)

Displacement: 13645 tons

Speed: 32.5 knots as new, but probably below this

Complement: 1000

Aircraft: 2 Helicopters

Missiles: 2 quad Sea Cat launchers

Guns: 15x6 inch (152mm), 8x5 inch (127mm), 2x40mm

Armor: belt 1.5-4 inches, deck 2-3 inches, turret 3-5 inches, control tower 8 inches

 

Type 42 Destroyers

ARA Hercules

ARA Santisima Trinidad

Displacement: 4100-4700 tons

Speed: 30 knots

Complement: 300

Aircraft: 1 ASW helicopter

ASW Weapons: 6 torpedo tubes

Guns: 1x45 inch (114mm), 2x20mm Oerlikon

Missiles: 4 Exocet launchers, 1 twin Sea Dart launcher

 

"Fletcher" Class Destroyers

ARA Rosales (ex USS Stembel)

ARA Almirante Storni (ex USS Cowell)

Displacement: 3050 tons

Speed: 35 knots

Complement: 249

ASW Weapons: 2 Hedgehogs depth charge rack, 6 Mk 32 torpedo tubes, 2 side-launching torpedo racks

Guns: 4x5 inch (127mm), 6x3 inch (76mm)

Torpedo Tubes: 4x21 inch (533mm)

 

"Allen M. Sumner" Class Destroyers

ARA Segui (ex USS Hawk)

ARA Hipolito Bouchard (ex USS Borie)

ARA Piedra Buena (ex USS Collett)

Displacement: 3320 tons

Speed: 34 knots

Complement: 300 aprox

Missiles: 4 Exocet launchers

ASW weapons: 6 Mk 32 torpedo tubes, 2 forward firing Hedgehogs

Guns: 6x5 inch (127mm), 4x3 inch (76mm)

 

"Gearing" Class Destroyer

ARA Comodoro Py (ex USS Perkins)

Displacement: 3500 tons

Speed: 32.5 knots

Complement: 275

Missiles: 4 Exocet launchers

ASW Weapons: 6 Mk32 torpedo tubes, 2 Hedgehogs

Guns: 6x5 inch (127mm)

 

French Type A69 Corvettes

ARA Drummond

ARA Guerrico

ARA Granville

Displacement: 1170 tons

Speed: 24 knots

Complement: 93

Missiles: 2 Exocet launchers

ASW Weapons: 4 Mk 32 torpedo tubes

Guns: 1x3.9 inch (99mm), 2x20mm, 2x40mm

 

Patrol Ships (Various)

ARA Comandante General Irigoyen (ex USS Cahuilla)

ARA Francisco de Gurruchaga (ex USS Luiseno)

ARA Murature

ARA King

ARA Yamana (ex USS Maricopa)

ARA Alferez Sobral (ex USS Catawba)

ARA Comodoro Somellera (ex USS Salish)

ARA Spiro

These are comparatively slow ships (12.5 to 18 knots) armed with up to six 40mm guns, except for the Murature and King, which have 3x4 inch (102mm), 40mm Bofors, and five machineguns.

 

Fast Attack Craft - Gun

ARA Intrepida

ARA Indomita

Displacement: 268 tons

Speed: 40 knots

Complement: 35

Guns: 1x76mm, 2x40mm Bofors

Rocket launchers: 2x81mm Oerlikon

Torpedo tubes: 2x21 inch (533mm)

 

Fast Attack Craft - Torpedo

ARA Alakush

ARA Towara

Displacement: 50 tons

Speed: 42 knots

Complement: 12

Guns: 2x40mm, 4 machineguns

Rocket launchers: 2x8-round 127mm

 

Minesweepers and Minehunters

ARA Neuquen (ex HMS Hickleton)

ARA Rio Negro (ex HMS Tarlton)

ARA Chubut (ex HMS Santon)

ARA Chaco (ex HMS Rennington)

ARA Tierra del Fuego (ex HMS Bevington)

ARA Formosa (ex HMS Ilmington)

Displacement: 440 tons

Speed: 15 knots

Complement: 27-36

Guns: 1x40mm

 

Ice Patrol Vessel

ARA General San Martin

Displacement: 5301 tons

Speed: 16 knots

Complement: 160

Aircraft: 1 reconnaisance aircraft, 1 helicopter

Guns: 2x40mm Bofors

 

Landing Ships - Tank

ARA Cabo San Pio

ARA Cabo San Antonio

Cabo San Antonio can carry a helicopter and is armed with 12x40mm guns in 3 quad mountings. Its displacement is 8000 tons fully loaded. Speed is 16 knots. Cabo San Pio is a WW2 ship with a displacement of 4080 tons fully loaded. Speed is only 9 knots. It is listed as unarmed.

 

Transports

ARA Bahia Aguirre

ARA Bahia Buen Suceso

ARA Canal Beagle

ARA Bahia San Blas

ARA Cabo de Hornos

Bahia Aguirre and Bahia Buen Suceso displace 5000 tons and a speed of 16 knots. The remainder displace 5800 tons and have a speed of 15 knots. All listed as unarmed.

 

Fleet Support Tankers

ARA Punta Medanos

Displacement: 16331 tons

Speed: 18 knots

Complement: 99

ARA Punta Delgada

Displacement: 6090 tons

Speed: 11.5 knots

Complement: 72

ARA Punta Alta

Displacement: 1900 tons

Speed: 8 knots

Complement: 40

 

The ARA Almirante Irizar is missing from this list, but is is an Ice Patrol Vessel, usually travelling back and forth from scientific bases in Antarctica. The same goes for the Bahia Paraiso. Maybe they were not listed as military ships, and that's why i'm missing their data.

 

There were other minor vessels as well that were on duty trying to bypass the britsh blockade. A few were hit or sunk, like the Rio Cacarana and a civilian ship (a fishing boat) named Narwall which was attacked with Harriers and Wasp Helicopters, if i remember well.

 

I hope this was useful. The source is a book titled "Weapons of the Falklands Conflict" by Byran Perret. Published by Blandford in 1982. All the weapons are there. B)

[+Dante-JT 6]

Mothman, thanks very much for the very complete and useful Naval Order Of Battle for the argentinian navy!

 

On paper, as you listed, it looks like the argie navy could indeed hold a tight surface battle against the RN - was the impact of the Belgrano sinking so big to motivate the withdraw of their entire surface fleet?

 

Well, if you can read Spanish, there's a pretty good 'what if' scenario written by an ex-naval pilot of the argie navy, it gives an idea of what would be a direct confrontation between the ARA 25 de Mayo carrier battlegroup and the Hermes & Invincible carrier battlegroups:

http://www.fav-club.com/1demayo.htm

[Mothman 0]

In my opinion, the argentine ships could do some damage to the british Navy, but there is no way it could stand a chance against the Royal Navy and NATO hardware. The argentine admirals knew this. They also knew that hardware isn't everything and that the human factor is important, but the odds were too big and the stakes too high. The british nuclear subs could face the argentinian fleet alone and still get away with a victory. Maybe they could have lost a sub in the process, but remember that the ARA 25 de Mayo was followed by a british sub well before the british Task Force arrived to the area.

 

Inmho, the brits would not send the surface groups against the argentinian Navy if they can do the job with just the subs. The surface group could be exposed to surface to surface Exocet missiles and air attack while the Subs could better profit of the element of surprise, something that the surface group could not.

 

The official statement, as i remember, is that the argentine Navy was withdrawn from the theater of operations, not just because of the sinking of the Belgrano but because it could not afford to lose any ship. There was a belief in the argentinian military that there could be a conflict with Chile soon (Pinochet always dreamed with invading the Patagonia) and that they would need those ships. The same happened with the Mirage III after the first air to air battle. They needed to preserve those fighters for the event of an outbreak of war with Chile,

 

This is what i concluded after reading many many books. I do not always believe what i read, but so far this is what i believe.

 

Thanks for the link. It will give me something to do right now that i am bored at the office. :P

Edited June 30, 2004 by Mothman

[scary_pigeon 0]

im just the programmer and i am a little vague on naval warefare rellying on dante to find everything out..

 

..how much of an advantage is the british submarines?

 

one sunk the unescorted sleeping belgrano.

 

could the brit sub fleet sink the entire surface fleet operating as a unit with helecoptors patrolling with their dangling sonar things?

 

presumedely the important argie ships would be in the middle of some sort of formation and harder to get at?

 

I would imagine once a torpedo or two had been fired - the argie task force would know precisely where it was.

 

frow what i have read, the argie fleet seemed quite powerful - mixed in with land based jet attack - the organic air power of the argie fleet - the sea launched exocets then it would be impossible for the royal navy i imagine not to take losses. if the argie fleet closed to gunrange with british warships then i would imagine that the argie fleet might have an advantage?

 

both sides would be hurt by that - so maybe they had as you suggest already abondoned the falklands as a vital strategic goal - worrying more about chile.

 

i imagine the british submarine advantage would tend to shadow the fleet giving the the royal navy a tactical advantage in knowing where they are first.

Edited July 1, 2004 by scary_pigeon

[+Dante-JT 6]

There was a belief in the argentinian military that there could be a conflict with Chile soon (Pinochet always dreamed with invading the Patagonia) and that they would need those ships. The same happened with the Mirage III after the first air to air battle. They needed to preserve those fighters for the event of an outbreak of war with Chile

 

 

So, seems Chile was the biggest worry for the argie military at that moment, but, lets suppose if Chile was not a threat and the argie military decided to pack its full naval and air assets against the RN, would it cause some serious trouble for the brits? I guess so. Of course the british nuclear hunter-killer submarines such as HMS Spartan, Conqueror, HMS Valiant make this unbalanced, as the argies had only conventional subs in poor conditions and without the same level of crew training as the british (who where training to defend themselves against the URSS navy! Cold War times) - but both sides showed a deficiency in ASW assets - the argentine submarine incursion in the Falklands Sound, if true, prooves that the brits also weren't doing a good 'sub watch'.

[Mothman 0]

I'm just acknowledging that the british had access to satellites, which the argentinians did not, afaik. They knew about the position of the argentinian carrier until it moved back to 'shallow' waters (heading towards port) where the british subs would be in greater danger of being detected. The UK had subs and satellites. Why would they risk their surface assets against the argentinian fleet? Beside, the carrier based argentinian aircraft had the advantage of firepower and range regarding air to surface missions from carriers (plus the possibility of air refueling).

 

I think the subs could have done the job if the argentinian task force would not have withdrawn. In fact, the ARA Belgrano was escorted and, although relaxed because it was heading towards port and outside the engament area, it was zig zaging, as far as i remember having read. The escort wasn't tight enough but, as narrated by the captain of the HMS Conqueror himself, the escorts tried to detect the sub and launched several depth charges that gave the HMS Conqueror crew something to seriously be worried about for the rest of the day. If the Belgrano and the escorts would have been in full quarters during their whole trip back to port, things could have been more difficult for the Conqueror, for sure. Also, Tatcher said that she gave the order to sink the ship because she was told that the ship was about to enter a bank area were the Conqueror could not follow it (of course, the reason was to force the negotiations to stop).

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

1st scenario: The argentinian fleet remains in high waters ---> they are easier target for sub attack and are also exposed to surface attack. Air attack? I think they can be somewhat safe about that because of range issues. But the british has there the sub advantage. The argentinian diesel subs were not in their ideal environment in deep waters as they cannot go too deep and are not faster than the british ships. If detected, they could not easily evade. Conclusion: the argentinian fleet won't go to play in the british side of the field where the odds are very bad.

 

2nd scenario: The argentinian fleet repositioned west in shallow waters (less than 150 meters, maybe) ----> the british task force has to move west to engage them, becoming easy prey for air attacks from the continental Argentina, plus they enter the killing zone for argentinian diesel subs. The small german designed Salta and San Luis diesel subs are some serious threat if operating in their ideal environment. They are really, i mean REALLY, silent predators in shallow waters, where a british sub, for example, loses the possibility to go deep to avoid detection and evade. Conclusion: the british would not risk the surface fleet against air attack from the continent, but could send the subs, although not operating in their ideal environment. This would have been a scenario were the argentinians could level the odds while remaining at sea. Still, i believe the british subs could have done some serious damage forcing the fleet to retreat.

 

3rd scenario: the argentinian fleet withdraws and lives to fight another day against, maybe, the chileans. The argentinian admirals maybe thought the way i do: risking the fleet in shallow waters against only british subs that weren't much of an interesting prey was pointless (they were not interesting preys because those subs were not a threat to the argentinian soldiers in the islands... the carriers and surface ships were, instead, a threat). On the other hand, they maybe knew that going after the british task force in deep waters would have been the dumbest thing to do... although the courage was there and it could have happened.

 

Believe me, the argentinian fleet was more worried about british subs than about the surface group and its air power. As you said, scary_pigeon, a confrontation between the two stask forces would have been something really bad (and sad) for both navies. The british fleet would have taken serious damage but i think it would have prevailed because of numbers, sensors, and training. I do not think they would ever get at gun range. The Belgrano had guns with a range of more than 20km and some armor, but the british had depleted uranium rounds. I don't know what could have happened in such a scenario, but i believe it would have been a miracle if they ever got at gun range.

 

The scenarios i described above, reflect the same as happened with the Mirage IIIEA. Everything was about leveling the field. The Mirage fights better at high speed and high altitude, exactly the opposite to the Sea Harrier. At long range, the Mirage cannot use the afterburners too much because of fuel worries (losing some speed advantage, even at high altitude). The first air to air engagement between two Mirage III and two Sea Harriers happened after many previous encounters were none would go fight at the altitude were its enemy had the advantage.

 

The first engagement happened when the argentinian pilots descended to meet the enemy in their side of the field. The Sea Harriers had then the advantage of a better plane to fight at low altitudes and speed and a brand new Sidewinder AIM-9L from the NATO warehouse against the Sidewinder AIM-9B carried by the Mirage. The long range Matra 530 radar missile carried by the Mirage was useless against targets flying low (lack of look-down radar, i guess). In fact, one was fired at the Sea Harriers and missed. One Mirage was downed and the other one had to attempt a landing in the islands air base because of lack of fuel to retunr to the continent. It was shot down by 'friendly fire' when the AA radar of the battery did not recognized it as friendly, as it was reported by the argentinians.

 

Well... i hope you enjoyed the reading. lol. Maybe we went too off topic here.

 

Dante: i read the story at the website you linked, and it was quite interesting. Very short but interesting. The only thing i think i should clarify is that the Navy's Skyhawks A4-Q did not carried 500kg bombs (as told in the story) like the A-4B and C of the air force did. They used 250 kg Snakeyes that were far better for low altitude attack than the air force bombs. I think that's why many of the 500kg bombs did not exploded: lack of the "air brakes" or retardants (or whatsoever) like the Snakeyes have. That system allowed enough time for the bomb to become armed before impact (and prevented the aircraft of overflying the ship at the same time of the bombs hitting the target). Furthermore, the A4-Q has a better targeting system (a Ferranti HUD, i think).

 

Anyway, i may be wrong about everything. I just have read too many books about the conflict some years ago due to professional interest (i was studying international relations at college in Argentina) and many differ in many reports. Furtheremore, i love reading anything about airplanes and playing flight sims! Also, i was made in England but i was born in Argentina (thank God, or i would have had an indentity problem! lol). My parents lived in London for some time as well as my uncles did. In fact, i have an british cousin who is the only british i have ever met who believes in the righteouness of the argentinian claim on the islands. lol. I would love to play Jet Thunder with him. So please keep it real!

 

If you need more data, or sources for all the stuff i post that are not mere opinions but aparent facts, please let me know and i'll dig again among the books i have on the conflict. I'd love to help wherever and whenever i can. I can't wait for this game! B)

 

Edit: edited for typos

Edited July 1, 2004 by Mothman

[Mothman 0]

From the Admiral Woodward himself, about the Mirage III vs Sea Harrier dogfights: "Fifteen minutes after the ships had left, the main Task Force came under attack for the first time, from the air. Two French-built Dassault Mirage IIIs were homing in on us from a hundred and thirty miles out to the west. We had two Harriers at fifteen thousand feet over Port Stanley, but the incoming raiders were higher and they dived towards the two British naval pilots, firing one radar-homing Matra missile from four miles away, and another from two.

 

The Harrier pilots, at a serious disadvantage, took evasive action and the missiles passed close by. The two pilots were also treated to a first-hand view of just how swiftly the Argentinian Mirage pilots could make their getaway, flying at supersonic speed. This particular fracas had, in addition, a side issue which was somewhat tiresome, in that one of the pilots reported that the second Mirage was an Etendard, and that when it fired off a missile, which was immediately reported to be an Exocet, it caused some amazingly fast action by the British ships, swinging their sterns to the threat and firing off chaff in abundance. A simple enough error, but with expensive consequences.

 

Nonetheless that had been the very first 'dog fight' of the war, and although it had ended indecisively, the incident had apparently shown us the general tactic the Mirage pilots intended to use against the Harriers. It looked as though they planned to patrol at high altitude in order to conserve fuel, using their height and superior speed to choose their moment to attack and subsequently get away. They continued to fly all afternoon, always retaining their advantage of height, but apparently reluctant actually to attack" (...)

 

"The afternoon was, however, not over for these two particular Harriers and they had to survive a high-speed pass from two further Mirages both of which fired their missiles, happily inaccurately." (...)

 

"Two Harriers from 801 Squadron, piloted by Flight-Lieutenant Paul Barton and Lieutenant Steve Thomas under the control of Glamorgan, were directed on to two Mirages at around twelve thousand feet over the north coast of the islands. The first dual-missile dog fight of the war thus took place high above the clouds and, thankfully, the Argentinians missed again. Paul Barton's American-built Sidewinder, however, blew one of the Mirages in half and he watched the two sections burst into flames. The pilot ejected to safety, but it represented our first air success. Lieutenant Thomas just missed with his Sidewinder, but it detonated so close to the other Mirage as to cause severe damage. Captain Garcia Cuerva nursed his aircraft back towards Port Stanley, only to be mistakenly shot down and killed by his own possibly over-excited troops."

 

There's an interesting reading here http://www.mirror-weekly.com/nn/show/366/32700/

 

by Woodward, the commander of the british Task Force. It is good to compare with the stories from the argentinian side about the naval actions during the 1st May. It looks like he did not know that the argentine task force was still nearby and had located the british task force, out of range for an attack by the air force from the continent, but in range for the A-4Qs of the carrier. The only ships close enough for an air attack from the continent were those bombarding the islands airfield and those performing ASW duties not too far. I find hard to believe that he did not know the argentinian task force location. I think he knew but couldn't afford to get closer to the argentinian air force threat. His own words, about his intentions with the operations during the 1st May: "It should also cause them to reveal their overall defence plan, drawing their naval forces out into the SSN trap laid for them and forcing their air forces to show their hand."

 

It's good to point out some quick sources. :)

[PG_Raptor 0]

Holy cow, is anyone actually goiong to read all that? :D

[Mothman 0]

Holy cow, is anyone actually goiong to read all that? :D

That's a good question. Otherwise is just a waste of bytes. :P

 

At least it takes longer to write it than read it. There's hope than someone will find it interesting. Knowing the history and the what ifs could help creating some great missions for this sim.

[MadJeff 3]

I did, I thought it was a great post... ;)

[MBot 0]

Thank you for the reading Mothman, interesting stuff. But I have some corrections regarding to missles if you don't mind ( also only reading knowledge from my side ).

 

The Mirage III didn't carre AIM-9B, but R.550 Magic Mk.1.

 

It is questionable if the Mirage III fired any missles at all in this conflict. All those head-on missle launches noticed by the british aviators on 1st may were in fact jetsioned fuel tanks. I think there is a consense that no Magics were fired by argentinan Mirages III during the conflict. In one case a Mirage migh have launched an R.530, but that case was questioned aswell in the past. There were some interesting discussion on acig.org about that matter.

 

Also it is interesting to notice that the general accepted superiority of the Aim-9L can be questioned aswell. All Aim-9L fired in the Falklands were launched from a rear aspect angle. A position where the earlyer Aim-9G, the R.550 or the Shafrir would have most likely performed comperable. As an interesting sidenote, the only succesfully launched IR-AAM from a frontal aspect in the conflict was a Shafrir fired by a Dagger, wich guided onto a Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier had to give up considerable altitude in order to shake off the missle.

The Aim-9B carried by the A-4Q would of course have had little use in a-a combat if that situation had developed. But as far as I know the Aim-9B was only loaded once onto an A-4Q, this on the never materialized mission off '25 de Mayo' on 2nd may ( 8 Skyhawks would have launched, 7 planes with a load of 6 Snakeeyes and one with Sidewinders. But I don't know if that plane should have done escort for the strike force or protecting the '25 de Mayo'. ).

[MBot 0]

Regarding the submarine threat.

I agree that the SSN by the RN were a major threat to the argentinan ships and in case of an big naval battle, the argentinians most likely would have had to pay a big toll to the british subs.

 

Neverteless, the SSN's couldn't prevent the '25 de Mayo' group from approaching the british carriers undedected within strike range.

In the night from the 1st to 2nd may, a Tracker from '25 de Mayo' tracked the british task force. The brits sent a Sea Harrier to investigate what was tought to be a Hercules on a recce flight. As the Sea Harrier approached, the Tracker turned away. The Sea Harrier finaly came in range to the '25 de Mayo' group where its Type 42 escorts painted the Sea Harrier with their Sea Dart radars. The Sea Harrier pilot knew there weren't any british Type 42 in that region so he knew it were argentinians. He made a radar search and found the argentinian carrier group. Until then the british were unaware of the close presence of the '25 de mayo'. Consequently, the british carriers set course to the east to get out of range. In the morning the british ships couldn't by found again. There wasn't enough wind to launch the Skyhawks with overload what would have been needed for the Skyhawks to reach the british carriers further in the east ( where they obviously went for ). So the attack was aborted.

I think this story clearly indicates that the british SSN weren't almighty and in that case couldn't prevent the argentinians from almost open a carrier battle.

 

My knowledge ( and library ) of the naval war in the Falklands is a bit limited, so please correct me if something above is wrong. Source is Falklands Air War by Hobson, 2002.

 

 

Another interesting aspect regarding the sub war, the Belgrano was sunk by unguided Mk.8 ( IIRC ) torpedos of ww2 vintage ! I think the RN subs had the Tigerfish torpedo in service in 1982 and most likely on board of Conqueror, but why they didn't use is is beyon me...

[Mothman 0]

Regarding the submarine threat.

I agree that the SSN by the RN were a major threat to the argentinan ships and in case of an big naval battle, the argentinians most likely would have had to pay a big toll to the british subs.

 

Neverteless, the SSN's couldn't prevent the '25 de Mayo' group from approaching the british carriers undedected within strike range.

In the night from the 1st to 2nd may, a Tracker from '25 de Mayo' tracked the british task force. The brits sent a Sea Harrier to investigate what was tought to be a Hercules on a recce flight. As the Sea Harrier approached, the Tracker turned away. The Sea Harrier finaly came in range to the '25 de Mayo' group where its Type 42 escorts painted the Sea Harrier with their Sea Dart radars. The Sea Harrier pilot knew there weren't any british Type 42 in that region so he knew it were argentinians. He made a radar search and found the argentinian carrier group. Until then the british were unaware of the close presence of the '25 de mayo'. Consequently, the british carriers set course to the east to get out of range. In the morning the british ships couldn't by found again. There wasn't enough wind to launch the Skyhawks with overload what would have been needed for the Skyhawks to reach the british carriers further in the east ( where they obviously went for ). So the attack was aborted.

I think this story clearly indicates that the british SSN weren't almighty and in that case couldn't prevent the argentinians from almost open a carrier battle.

 

My knowledge ( and library ) of the naval war in the Falklands is a bit limited, so please correct me if something above is wrong. Source is Falklands Air War by Hobson, 2002.

 

 

Another interesting aspect regarding the sub war, the Belgrano was sunk by unguided Mk.8 ( IIRC ) torpedos of ww2 vintage ! I think the RN subs had the Tigerfish torpedo in service in 1982 and most likely on board of Conqueror, but why they didn't use is is beyon me...

Thanks for the replies, Mbot.

 

Indeed, the Mirage III could carry Matra Magics, but i'll look into the source later tonight at home where it says that the Mirage III that were downed were carrying AIM-9B. I will check on that.

 

About that Sea Harrier, now i think i remember having read something about it, but it must have been a long time ago. I would be digging into it, just for curiosity.

 

About the SSN not being effective in locating the fleet, i may think that Woodward kept them in the outter ring of the defensive perimeter around the carrier and did not sent them out to hunt down the argentinian task force, but i may br wrong. In any case, imho they should had sensors good enough to pick up the noise of even the smallest argentinian vessel as long as they were at a reasonable medium distance... a distance impossible to achieve if they were to remain close to the british task force perimeter (because the task forces would already be too close to each other).

 

About the torpedoes used by the Conqueror, i think that they choosed those beacause of their bigger explosives load. Those were far more powerfull than the wire guided, and you have to take into account that the Belgrano was a big ship with some armor, a remanescence from WW2 (and a survivor from Pearl Harbor).

 

It is ironic that they had to use an old torpedo (WW2 tech?) to be able to sink a WW2 ship.

[Mothman 0]

To correct myself: 3 old torpedoes, right?

 

By the way: i think we just created the first 2 pages thread of this Jet Thunder sub forum.

Edited July 1, 2004 by Mothman

[+Dante-JT 6]

Very good reading, I've read all, thanks Mothman and MBot!

 

Indeed, the subs weren't almighty or the aborted raid on the RN carrier battleground would not had even be planned - I have photos of the time, with Snakeyes being loaded into A-4Qs with the sayings "for her Majesty" or ship names like "Invincible" and "Hermes" written in the ordnance - they were in fact ready to launch, they only awaited for the good weather conditions (wind) to launch the A-4s with full payload, but that wind didn't came. As already said above, a release with half the ordnance was not worth (too high the cost of lost planes/pilots to pack just half the punch in the task group).

 

But in JT, as a simulation, where lives and military hardware aren't in risk, the player could indeed release such mission from the argie carrier on the 2nd of May - with little bomb load and all, after all this is one of the things that made us all have fun with simulations - to see what would have happened. IMO it'd be a palliative attack, with such reduced payload. But with luck and returning carrier planes, at least a high moral will be brought into the minds of argie crews, like "see, we managed to strike the almighty carrier battle group and survived!"... :ph34r:

 

That's where our campaign design reaches a crossroads: to give the hability for the player to have these campaign decisions at control (to order the carrier battle group to face the RN or withdrawn to port..?) making JT's campaign more of naval warfare strategic simulation rather than a flight sim.. or to simply follow the missions generated by the campaign engine (with a commanding AI playing the role of Admiral and the player just receiving his orders, as a pilot). Or a possibility to have both campaign modes ;) Well, IMO I hope our campaign system and AI will be able to work convincigly and 'alone' (without player input), because I'm in the mood (now) to just follow the orders like a good jet pilot and to feel immersed in a dynamic war enviroment.

 

About the Shafrir missile and the Dagger, MBot, also the FAA A-4C was able to carry them, so, if it's a good missile like the israelis say, it'll somehow at least balance the gameplay in deathmatch multiplayer JT servers.

 

I was argued by many that the AIM-9L was unfair and JT's multiplayer will be unbalanced also because the Sea Harrier has "magical" VIFF'ing capabilities, but Sean Trestrail, RAAF Mirage pilot, said that it was not that much ;) Some things where simply overhyped (specially the AIM-9L IMO).

 

Regarding the Tigerfish torpedoes, I've read they released the screen of vintage Mk.8s torpedoes in the slow/aging Belgrano, to save the modern Tigerfish for Belgrano's much newer, faster Type 42 escorts if the chance arrived.

[MBot 0]

About the SSN not being effective in locating the fleet, i may think that Woodward kept them in the outter ring of the defensive perimeter around the carrier and did not sent them out to hunt down the argentinian task force, but i may br wrong. In any case, imho they should had sensors good enough to pick up the noise of even the smallest argentinian vessel as long as they were at a reasonable medium distance... a distance impossible to achieve if they were to remain close to the british task force perimeter (because the task forces would already be too close to each other).

 

I am too very confident about the high capabilitys of the british SSNs. But in this case they seem to have failed. On 1-2 May ( clearly after the war went hot ) the argentinian carrier closed within strike distance to the british Task Force. I am fairly sure that if a sub had contact to the "25 de mayo" she would have been sunk on that night.

 

What strikes me is that I have read somewhere that the three british subs were actualy tracking all three argentinian taskgroups at the beginning of the war. This beeing the Belgrano group in the south-west, the "25 de Mayo" group in the north-west and a frigate group in the north ( all out of my head ). The fact that the carrier could close at attack distance on the british taskforce unharmed indicates that the shadowing sub lost track on the "25 de Mayo".

 

The choice to spare the Tigerfish' for more dangerous targets makes sense. Also the bigger punch of the Mk8 seems plausible to me. Didn't the Conqueror also fired upon the escorting destroyers with the same salvo ? What weapons did it use on them ?

 

Wow, the A-4C carrying Shafrirs. That sounds nasty :) Do you know if they carried them ever on combat missions ( I suspect not ) ?

 

I would defenitly like to make strategical descisions on the campaign. As the dynamic campaign will most likely reach the level of a naval RTS anyway ( judging from the infos I paste together ). Also to option to have it either player controlled or automatic sound good. Sometime you just want to fly assigned missions as a fighter pilot, sometimes you would like to try if you could do better in wining the war.

 

Keep it comming, I am enyoing this discussion very much.

[+Dante-JT 6]

Wow, the A-4C carrying Shafrirs. That sounds nasty  Do you know if they carried them ever on combat missions ( I suspect not ) ?

 

 

At least one sortie was flown with Shafrirs in the conflict, according to this source:

"On May 1st, the first sorties were conducted, including one of the A-4Cs with Shafrir air- to- air missiles, but without having contact with the British."

http://www.laahs.com/art66.htm

 

Of course, I don't always believe what I read in the internet :ph34r: but the Latin American Aviation Historical Society seems trustable, and I've read a similar report on "Revista Força Aérea", a brazilian military aviation print magazine.

 

I would defenitly like to make strategical descisions on the campaign. As the dynamic campaign will most likely reach the level of a naval RTS anyway ( judging from the infos I paste together ). Also to option to have it either player controlled or automatic sound good. Sometime you just want to fly assigned missions as a fighter pilot, sometimes you would like to try if you could do better in wining the war.

 

From a plain technical point of view, if we manage to achieve total control of units in both sides of a campaign through an artificial inteligence playing the role of 'Admiral', nothing stops us to implement an 'override' mode, even for alpha/beta testing debugging purposes, where a human player is who assigns waypoints and goals for units while receiving 'the big picture' (what is known from friendly and enemy movements/positions).

 

The well known problem for dynamic campaigns in the past was of the 'bubble' boundaries, or in other words, where a dot in the map representing a tank platoon with its overall status, actually "detaches" into individual tank units, each one with driver, gunner, commander, and its sensor, performance and weapons constraints. For flight sims, this 'bubble' will 'fly' alongside the player's plane, so, only the tank platoon who is really entering an interestingly enough range from the player's plane, will then 'detach' into each individual member of the platoon with their specs and all... but if it's too far away, it's a waste to do so and it's represented only as a 'map symbol' with its more generic (strategic, not tactical) status.

 

But in our situation, if the choosen campaign mode is the one with the player taking decisions "in the big picture", this can turn the sim into a huge RTS but with really large and accurate terrain (and flight models/avionics!) where you can play all the time managing units here and there and taking decisions and not flying any bit! For me, actually there's no problem, as this imediatelly resembles the ultra-ancient Microprose's M1 Tank Platoon - I remember playing that game most of the time in map view, clicking in my tanks, moving them here and there, and never really switching into gunner or driver cockpit view to actually drive the things. :) Any other game/sim came to mind as allowing the player so much control that it actually doesn't need to switch into a vehicle's view to play, but kept it there for players who wish only to sit in cockpit and accomplish the given orders?