2 para strategy for taking hills surrounding port stanley
frank wight
took the surrounding hills of Port Stanley on East
Falkland Island, I'm begining to wonder what the strategy
was.
I know that usually each hill had naval bombardment
support to softed up the resistance of the Argentinians,
but the British blitz of each hill usually cost at least
15 British lives.
So how was the strategy formed, or what was the thinking
that resulted in so many commandos losing their lives?
Peter Kemp
wrote:
IIRC it was mainly a matter of extremely well dug in and armed troops
- 50 cal brownings being common - being assaulted up hil by light
infantry. It was never going to be pretty as long as the Argentines
morale held.
Peter Kemp
Thomas Schoene
The British units (Marine Commandos, Paras, and Guards, btw.) were generally
attacking up hill against entrenched positions and were usually outnumbered.
Due to logisitics limitations, they had only small periods of heavy
artillery support.
Their usual attack was "quiet/loud" -- a silent approach followed by a very
violent assault with maximum artillery support and machinegun suppressive
fire. The tactics chosen seem to have been pretty much the natural solution
to the tactical situation.
The British troops had to advance over observed terrain, so a silent
approach was needed to get close before the Argentine advatages in firepower
could come into play. Given time to organize a defense, even Argentine
conscripts could do a lot of damage with their heavy MGs and mortars. But
when the assault came out of the middle of the night without warning, the
shock brought the questionable Argentine morale came into play. A lot of
Argentine units actually folded up under the shock; only a few fought hard
as cohesive units.
All in all, the British came off pretty well in the final reckoning. The
typical fatalities per assault were less than 5%, much lower than one would
expect for these sorts of affairs against a committed defense.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:ftimc.8879$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> frank wight wrote:
> > In reading the historical record of how the commandos
> > took the surrounding hills of Port Stanley on East
> > Falkland Island, I'm begining to wonder what the strategy
> > was.
> >
> > I know that usually each hill had naval bombardment
> > support to softed up the resistance of the Argentinians,
> > but the British blitz of each hill usually cost at least
> > 15 British lives.
> >
> > So how was the strategy formed, or what was the thinking
> > that resulted in so many commandos losing their lives?
>
> The British units (Marine Commandos, Paras, and Guards, btw.) were
generally
> attacking up hill against entrenched positions and were usually
outnumbered.
> Due to logisitics limitations, they had only small periods of heavy
> artillery support.
>
> Their usual attack was "quiet/loud" -- a silent approach followed by a
very
> violent assault with maximum artillery support and machinegun suppressive
> fire. The tactics chosen seem to have been pretty much the natural
solution
> to the tactical situation.
Straight out of Callwell's book.
phil hunt
15 casualties against well-armed defenders in a prepared
position seems quite light to me. (THough not for the casualties,
obviously).
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
frank wight
> On 5 May 2004 17:15:59 -0700, frank wight <mrfran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In reading the historical record of how the commandos
> >took the surrounding hills of Port Stanley on East
> >Falkland Island, I'm begining to wonder what the strategy
> >was.
> >
> >I know that usually each hill had naval bombardment
> >support to softed up the resistance of the Argentinians,
> >but the British blitz of each hill usually cost at least
> >15 British lives.
> >
> >So how was the strategy formed, or what was the thinking
> >that resulted in so many commandos losing their lives?
>
> 15 casualties against well-armed defenders in a prepared
> position seems quite light to me. (THough not for the casualties,
> obviously).
If I was a British soldier, I wouldn't like the odds.
I think, in hindsight, The British
surely could have used a AC-130 Gunship to do
the dirty work. Getting it down there might have
been a different story.
phil hunt
Preventing it being hit by a SAM might also have been problematic.
Nick Stanley
AND a few hundred F18s. Meanwhile our Battleships could have been
laying down some very heavy naval fires. How stupid of us to have
missed this trick!! Must send a reprimand to Sandy Woodward.
mrfran...@yahoo.com (frank wight) wrote in message news:<eb49c647.04050...@posting.google.com>...
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Gosh yes Frank!!! We should have softened them up with 'Spooky', A10s
>AND a few hundred F18s. Meanwhile our Battleships could have been
>laying down some very heavy naval fires. How stupid of us to have
>missed this trick!! Must send a reprimand to Sandy Woodward
Perhaps those assets were on the 'Atlantic Conveyor' with the
helicopters.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Peter Kemp
wrote:
Ah, so that's why it had a ski jump fited - to let the Sooper Sekrit
Vulcan gunship take off!
Peter Kemp
frank wight
Woodward didn't prosecute the land war. It was that OTHER DUDE.
The guy that wrote the book "No Picnic."
Guy Alcala
Note: multiple acronyms follow. Let me know if you need any decoded.
By the time of the assaults on the hills surrounding Stanley, MG Moore had arrived and taken over as CLFFI, allowing
Brig. Thompson (the author of "No Picnic") to return to just running 3 Cdo Bde (relinquishing his role as CTG 317.1,
the Landing Force), with Brig. Wilson running 5 Inf. Bde. Of course, there was also Commodore Clapp, CTG 317.0, the
CATG who had the NGS ships chopped to him while they were in the AOA/TA, as well as providing seaborne logistic support
to the troops.
Considering that the Ejercito/IM troops had over a month to get ready, had equal or better NV equipment than the Brits,
and large numbers of MGs (including lots of M2HBs, which they used quite effectively for night sniping with NVS), and
had planted minefields on many of the approaches, British casualties were remarkably light. 42 Commando's end-around
flank assault on Mt. Harriet in particular is considered a classic, and earned a well-deserved decoration for the NCO
who'd recce'd the route a couple of nights in advance of the assault. Nick Vaux's (then CO of 42 CDO) book "March to
the South Atlantic" is well worth the read, as are both of Martin Middlebrook's books on the Falklands, and
Clapp/Southby-Tailyour's "Amphibious Assault: Falklands".
Guy
P.S. Oh, and I concur with Mr. Stanley. I can't see what possible relevance non-existent or unavailable equipment
should have had to the British assault planning. If you want to pick some piece of vaporware that would of really
helped the Brits, you would be better off giving the Brits a fixed-wing carrier force with AEW, or Albion and Bulwark
as LPHs, etc. etc. The planning could only be based on what was available, not what they'd like to have had. Clapp
and Thompson wanted to use one of the CVS's (preferably Hermes) as an LPH but were eventually told that wasn't an
option, which was one of the reasons (by no means the only one) why they decided to land so far from Stanley in San
Carlos Water, instead of somewhere in North Camp, Cow Bay, Volunteer Bay or on the shores of Berkeley Sound.
Thomas Schoene
> ph...@invalid.email.address (phil hunt) wrote in message
> news:<slrnc9l5ru...@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>...
>> 15 casualties against well-armed defenders in a prepared
>> position seems quite light to me. (THough not for the casualties,
>> obviously).
>
> If I was a British soldier, I wouldn't like the odds.
They were FAR better odds than in most previous conflicts, despite the
resource limitations the British faced. Realistically, it would have been
very hard to all that do much better without being able to simply bypass the
defenses altogether.
> I think, in hindsight, The British
> surely could have used a AC-130 Gunship to do
> the dirty work. Getting it down there might have
> been a different story.
Nearly impossible, I'd say.
1) The British didn't own any AC-130s.
2) The British didn't own any C-130s capable of air-to-air refuelling until
well into the war.
3) The tanker effort required to get the eventual AAR-equiped C-130s down
south was extensive, even when they were not required to stay for any length
of time. Sustaining one AC-130 over the Falklands for a couple of hours was
probably impossible with the assets available.
Even if it had been logistically feasible, it wasn't a viable solution to
the threat because the aircraft would be too vulnerable. An AC-130 orbit
over, for example, Mount Harriet would be easily within line-of-sight to
Stanley, where the Argentines had radar-laid 35mm AA guns and Roland SAMs.
These weapons inflicted casualties on fast moving Harriers attacking
Stanley; an AC-130 flying a racetrack pattern in their range would not have
lasted long at all.
Also, in looking over Nick Vaux's book on 42 Commando's war, it looks like I
might eb exagerating the lack of fire support. For the Mount Harriet
assault, they had over 1,000 rounds of artillery fired (land and naval), so
it's not clear how a lone AC-130 would add dramatically to the weight of
fire. For bunker busting, they were using their Milan ATGMs to good effect,
probably with more precision than even an AC-130 could achieve with 1982
technology.
Kevin Brooks
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> frank wight wrote:
<snip>
A few nitpicks, Tom (and not intended to support the less-than-plausible
idea of the Brits having been able to use an AC-130 over the Falklands):
.
>
> Even if it had been logistically feasible, it wasn't a viable solution to
> the threat because the aircraft would be too vulnerable. An AC-130 orbit
> over, for example, Mount Harriet would be easily within line-of-sight to
> Stanley, where the Argentines had radar-laid 35mm AA guns and Roland SAMs.
> These weapons inflicted casualties on fast moving Harriers attacking
> Stanley; an AC-130 flying a racetrack pattern in their range would not
have
> lasted long at all.
The AC-130 did quite well a year later against a not dissimilar AAA threat
in Grenada. The Roland's would have been the sticky point.
>
> Also, in looking over Nick Vaux's book on 42 Commando's war, it looks like
I
> might eb exagerating the lack of fire support. For the Mount Harriet
> assault, they had over 1,000 rounds of artillery fired (land and naval),
so
> it's not clear how a lone AC-130 would add dramatically to the weight of
> fire. For bunker busting, they were using their Milan ATGMs to good
effect,
> probably with more precision than even an AC-130 could achieve with 1982
> technology.
Eh? An AC-130 operating over the DZ in Grenada was able to acheive a direct
hit on a BTR that had tried to scurry out and do some up-close-and-personal
damage (granted, it was second in line--the BTR was hit by a 90mm RCR round
first, then hit by the AC-130, before finally getting plastered by a USN A-7
strike, IIRC, making it one very dead puppy). Not sure that there were
tremendous strides in AC-130 lethality over the next seven years that made
the AC-130's record of acheiving danged good precision over Panama something
that could not have been accomplished just as well in 1982, either. As long
as the target could be seen by them, they could demonstrate plenty of
"precision" during that timeframe (as born out by their much reduced "danger
close" standoff distance requirement when compared to most other fire
support systems). This was also pointed out during their use (then quite
hush-hush) over El Salvadore during the same timeperiod. The Milan as an
anti-bunker weapon did an OK job for the Brits, and represents pretty good
adapatability on their part (they used what they had), but it was not
optimized as a bunker-buster, and it had some shortcomings in that role (as
would be expected in the case of a system designed to kill MBT's instead). A
good RCR would have likely been a *better* bunkerbuster, though.
Brooks
Eystein Roll Aarseth
wrote:
> The Milan as an anti-bunker weapon did an OK job for the Brits, and
> represents pretty good adapatability on their part (they used what they
> had), but it was not optimized as a bunker-buster, and it had some
> shortcomings in that role (as would be expected in the case of a system
> designed to kill MBT's instead). A good RCR would have likely been a
> *better* bunkerbuster, though.
ISTR that the biggest problem with the Milan was the weight, it was too
heavy compared to the Carl Gustav RCR and the M72 LAW which they also
had. Of course, it made up for its shortcomings with longer range and
bigger warhead.
EAa
--
The Falklands, even in time of peace, might be of great consequence to
this nation, and in times of war would make us master of the seas.
-- Lord Anson, 1740
Kevin Brooks
"Eystein Roll Aarseth" <eys...@online.no> wrote in message
news:opr7t916...@news.online.no...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:20:47 -0400, Kevin Brooks <broo...@notyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Milan as an anti-bunker weapon did an OK job for the Brits, and
> > represents pretty good adapatability on their part (they used what they
> > had), but it was not optimized as a bunker-buster, and it had some
> > shortcomings in that role (as would be expected in the case of a system
> > designed to kill MBT's instead). A good RCR would have likely been a
> > *better* bunkerbuster, though.
>
> ISTR that the biggest problem with the Milan was the weight, it was too
> heavy compared to the Carl Gustav RCR and the M72 LAW which they also
> had. Of course, it made up for its shortcomings with longer range and
> bigger warhead.
Compared to the LAW, in *any* role the Milan will be the better weapon, IMO;
the LAW's warhead was just too puny. I'd be surprised if the Milan had a
larger warhead (in terms of weight) than the 90mm RCR (which is IIRC a bit
bigger than the Carl Gustav round, but still quite portable, as it was
carried for many years by the US Army's Ranger battalions, not to mention us
lowly combat engineer types, even after the Dragon had replaced it
elsewhere).
Brooks
Joe Osman
news:avidnZ0Uzqv...@adelphia.com...
LAW 94 or LAW 94mm) in their assault on the Al Faw Peninsula during
Operation Telic. AC-130s were also used - "It soon became clear that after
the AC-130 Spectre gunships had worked their magic; all that was left to do
was to take prisoners and pick up the pieces of bodies shattered by the
aerial bombardment."
See http://www.onceamarinealwaysamarine.co.uk/40telic.htm
Joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Kevin Brooks
"Joe Osman" <Josph...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40a10750$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Different LAW from what we were discussing; the old M72 was, IIRC, only a
66mm weapon. hard to pack a whole lot of punch into that small a warhead,
especially in the bunkerbusting role.
Brooks
Paul J. Adam
<broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
>A
>good RCR would have likely been a *better* bunkerbuster, though.
Not enough range (the nice thing about MILAN was precision hits from two
kilometres). We used to have the BAT family but they left service
because they were too awkward to manhandle around and too obvious when
they fired.
We *did* make extensive use of the 84mm Carl Gustav MAW, as well as the
66mm LAW, for short-range work against sangars and bunkers, but MILAN
was a bonus on top of that.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Peter Kemp
<Josph...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I was surprised to find that the RM were still using LAWs (also called
>LAW 94 or LAW 94mm) in their assault on the Al Faw Peninsula during
>Operation Telic. AC-130s were also used - "It soon became clear that after
>the AC-130 Spectre gunships had worked their magic; all that was left to do
>was to take prisoners and pick up the pieces of bodies shattered by the
>aerial bombardment."
The LAW in question wasn't the 66mm LAW of fame, but a newer 84mm (not
94mm) weapon made by Huting Engineering of the UK. Contained a built
in spotting rifle for aiming - fire until you see the explosions on
the target, flip the switch, and let the main round go. Great fun - I
was lucky enough to us a training round (spotting rifle worked, but
nothing happened when you tried to kill the back of the 25m range :-)
It's now to be phased out in favour of .........damn can't remember
the name of the Scandanavian replacement (MBT-LAW?).
Peter Kemp
Paul J. Adam
<broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
>I'd be surprised if the Milan had a
>larger warhead (in terms of weight) than the 90mm RCR
The 1982 MILAN had a 103mm warhead with 1.36kg of explosive: the 90mm
round had .78kg of HE as filler.
Neither would be welcome guests...
Paul J. Adam
<peter_n_k...@amhotmail.com> writes
>The LAW in question wasn't the 66mm LAW of fame, but a newer 84mm (not
>94mm) weapon made by Huting Engineering of the UK.
No, it _is_ 94mm, Peter. (The Carl Gustav was the 84mm, LAW80 is 94mm)
phil hunt
>LAW 94 or LAW 94mm) in their assault on the Al Faw Peninsula during
>Operation Telic.
Why shouldn't they be? It's a fairly new weapon.
Peter Kemp
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <a7f2a09h4d26g0rq6...@4ax.com>, Peter Kemp
><peter_n_k...@amhotmail.com> writes
>>The LAW in question wasn't the 66mm LAW of fame, but a newer 84mm (not
>>94mm) weapon made by Huting Engineering of the UK.
>
>No, it _is_ 94mm, Peter. (The Carl Gustav was the 84mm, LAW80 is 94mm)
Damn, my memory said it was the LAW84. Oh well, wrong again
Peter Kemp
frank wight
Final comment: Once Goose Green was captured, it was turned
into a refueling depot for Harriers. This took the burden
of refueling away from the Harriers.
Perhaps there is someone in this newsgroup that knows when the
airfield became serviceable.Ac-130 spectre's don't need much runway.
If the Brits had asked Caspar Weinburger for a gunship, he'd give
it to them. But who would man the airplane? Americans?
If a gunship gets shot down and all the crew gets killed, it would
mean that the airmen died for their country that night instead of
the commandos.
The Harriers did have access to cluster bombs to attack the hillside,
altho' the lions share of those munitions sank with the atlantic
Conveyor.
Thomas Schoene
> Final comment: Once Goose Green was captured, it was turned
> into a refueling depot for Harriers. This took the burden
> of refueling away from the Harriers.
Goose Green was never used as a base for Harriers. The airstrip there was
3,000 feet of grass, unsuitable for either Harriers or heavy aircraft like
C-130s. AFAICT, it was never used by British forces for anything other than
helicopters during the war. And that was pretty limited, since Goose Green
was totally off the line-of-advance to Stanley. (Stupid politicians.)
The Harrier forward operating base (FOB) called HMS Sheathbill or Sid's
Strip was built at Port San Carlos, nowhere near Goose Green. It was a lane
of matting just wide enough for a Harrier and just long enough for a rolling
STO, plus a little parking and refuelling area.
There are some pictures of the facilities (such as they are) at the RAF
website:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/1sqn_5.html#4jun
You can get a sense of the scale from the overhead shots in comparison ot
the low-level ones. In the second picture, notice that area at the right
hand end of the runway where there are three tracks of matting running
parallel to each other. That's the area shown in the last two pictures,
where you can see that the tracks are spaced just right for the main gear
and outriggers of a Harrier.
While the FOB did help out the forward CAP endurance of the Harriers, it had
no impact on British air refuelling assets, because the Harriers were not
using air-to-air refuelling, other than for a few long-distance ferry
flights down to join the Task Force. So the extreme constrints on air
refuelling remain a major factor. Remember it's 8000 miels from Ascension
to the Falklands, give or take a bit. Even the RAF's last strategic bombers
(Vulcans) needed massive tanker support to make the trip, and they did very
little loitering (just a few minutes when they played SEAD games with the
radars at Stanley).
> Perhaps there is someone in this newsgroup that knows when the
> airfield became serviceable.Ac-130 spectre's don't need much runway.
It was never servicable for aircraft like Hercules, and could not have been
made servicable for Hercules. A runway large enough and long enough for
Hercs would have required an order of magnitude more matting (more even than
they lost on Atlantic Conveyor) and a much larger flat area than they had in
San Carlos.
If this FOB had been suitable for Hercs, you can bet they would have used it
that way, even without AC-130s. There was always a pressing need for
delivery of critical parts and supplies down South. These were delivered by
Hercules via airdrop into the ocean. Land delivery would obviously have been
much better, but it was not feasible.
> If the Brits had asked Caspar Weinburger for a gunship, he'd give
> it to them. But who would man the airplane? Americans?
Perhaps, and perhaps not; Weinbergewrs offers are recorded, but may not have
been sanctionedby his boss. In any case, the British did not ask, and would
not have asked.
> If a gunship gets shot down and all the crew gets killed, it would
> mean that the airmen died for their country that night instead of
> the commandos.
But the Commandos* would still have had to take those hills, ands still
would have taken casualties. And those casualties would still have been
quite light for such undertakings.
* or Paras, or Guards. I feel the pedantic need to point out that
"commando" here would refer only to the Royal Marines. Parachute Regiment
soldiers are not Commandos, and neither are the Scots Guard or Welsh Guard
troopers.
> The Harriers did have access to cluster bombs to attack the hillside,
> altho' the lions share of those munitions sank with the atlantic
> Conveyor.
I never said they didn't. But the air strikes were quite limited in total
numbers, and Harrier was not a good night attack aircraft at the time.
Thomas Schoene
You might be thinking of the Swedish equivalent, adopted by US forces,
called the AT4. As the name implies, AT4 does actually use an 84mm
projectile.
Thomas Schoene
> "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:WeWnc.15412$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> frank wight wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> A few nitpicks, Tom (and not intended to support the
> less-than-plausible idea of the Brits having been able to use an
> AC-130 over the Falklands): .
>>
>> Even if it had been logistically feasible, it wasn't a viable
>> solution to the threat because the aircraft would be too vulnerable.
>> An AC-130 orbit over, for example, Mount Harriet would be easily
>> within line-of-sight to Stanley, where the Argentines had radar-laid
>> 35mm AA guns and Roland SAMs. These weapons inflicted casualties on
>> fast moving Harriers attacking Stanley; an AC-130 flying a racetrack
>> pattern in their range would not have lasted long at all.
>
> The AC-130 did quite well a year later against a not dissimilar AAA
> threat in Grenada. The Roland's would have been the sticky point.
I thought it was just optical AAA at Grenada. Were there any ZSU-23-4s, or
just ZU-23s?
>> Also, in looking over Nick Vaux's book on 42 Commando's war, it
>> looks like I might eb exagerating the lack of fire support. For the
>> Mount Harriet assault, they had over 1,000 rounds of artillery fired
>> (land and naval), so it's not clear how a lone AC-130 would add
>> dramatically to the weight of fire. For bunker busting, they were
>> using their Milan ATGMs to good effect, probably with more precision
>> than even an AC-130 could achieve with 1982 technology.
>
> Eh? An AC-130 operating over the DZ in Grenada was able to acheive > a
direct hit on a BTR that had tried to scurry out and do some
> up-close-and-personal damage
The concern I had was spotting. The targets in the Falklands were small,
and typically well hidden, nestled in among the rocks. The British gunners
were usually shooting at muzzle flash, which might be hard to localize from
the air.
But I may have given the ACs too short shrift in this department.
I still think the Roland is a deal-breaker.
> The Milan as an anti-bunker weapon did an OK job
> for the Brits, and represents pretty good adapatability on their part
> (they used what they had), but it was not optimized as a
> bunker-buster, and it had some shortcomings in that role
I've not found any instance where one failed to kill its target when it
achieved a hit. Usually thye were shooting at individual machinegun teams
in small sangars, not big well-built bunkers.
Peter Kemp
<tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>frank wight wrote:
>> The Harriers did have access to cluster bombs to attack the hillside,
>> altho' the lions share of those munitions sank with the atlantic
>> Conveyor.
>
>I never said they didn't. But the air strikes were quite limited in total
>numbers, and Harrier was not a good night attack aircraft at the time.
Hmm, considering the rather high failure rate of cluster munitions on
soft ground (as is common in the soggy Falklands), and teh generally
"touchy" nature of those failed submunitions, would anyone want to
assault those hills *in the dark*, knowing that your own aircraft have
just added to whatever AP mines the Argies had dropped?
Seriously, I don't know if it would be considered, but to me I think
I'd rather take my chances without the BL755 debris.
Peter Kemp
Kevin Brooks
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:WeWnc.15412$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> frank wight wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > A few nitpicks, Tom (and not intended to support the
> > less-than-plausible idea of the Brits having been able to use an
> > AC-130 over the Falklands): .
> >>
> >> Even if it had been logistically feasible, it wasn't a viable
> >> solution to the threat because the aircraft would be too vulnerable.
> >> An AC-130 orbit over, for example, Mount Harriet would be easily
> >> within line-of-sight to Stanley, where the Argentines had radar-laid
> >> 35mm AA guns and Roland SAMs. These weapons inflicted casualties on
> >> fast moving Harriers attacking Stanley; an AC-130 flying a racetrack
> >> pattern in their range would not have lasted long at all.
> >
> > The AC-130 did quite well a year later against a not dissimilar AAA
> > threat in Grenada. The Roland's would have been the sticky point.
>
> I thought it was just optical AAA at Grenada. Were there any ZSU-23-4s, or
> just ZU-23s?
They were the optical twin mounts, but you have to rememebr the timeline was
a bit screwey, so they were doing the drop after the sun came up--an
optically sighted 23mm in that situation is nothing to take lightly (ISTR
reading that a few of the C-130 drop aircraft came back with some new
ventilation...).
>
> >> Also, in looking over Nick Vaux's book on 42 Commando's war, it
> >> looks like I might eb exagerating the lack of fire support. For the
> >> Mount Harriet assault, they had over 1,000 rounds of artillery fired
> >> (land and naval), so it's not clear how a lone AC-130 would add
> >> dramatically to the weight of fire. For bunker busting, they were
> >> using their Milan ATGMs to good effect, probably with more precision
> >> than even an AC-130 could achieve with 1982 technology.
> >
> > Eh? An AC-130 operating over the DZ in Grenada was able to acheive > a
> direct hit on a BTR that had tried to scurry out and do some
> > up-close-and-personal damage
>
> The concern I had was spotting. The targets in the Falklands were small,
> and typically well hidden, nestled in among the rocks. The British
gunners
> were usually shooting at muzzle flash, which might be hard to localize
from
> the air.
>
> But I may have given the ACs too short shrift in this department.
>
> I still think the Roland is a deal-breaker.
It would have been a serious threat, no doubt, though I don't know how its
range envelope laid out in comparison to where the AC would have been
operating. I doubt an AC would have had a serios problem with finding Argie
gun emplacements--they had been optimized for night attack of small targets
from the get-go in Vietnam. A good FAC on the ground, with an IR strobe or
two to mark friendlies or provide a point of reference, and I believe the AC
would have done fine (minus those Rolands). They fired danger-close missions
repeatedly during both the Panama operation and, reportedly, during the
hush-hush Salvadoran operations, and i don't ever recall of hearing anything
about frat incidents at that time.
>
> > The Milan as an anti-bunker weapon did an OK job
> > for the Brits, and represents pretty good adapatability on their part
> > (they used what they had), but it was not optimized as a
> > bunker-buster, and it had some shortcomings in that role
>
> I've not found any instance where one failed to kill its target when it
> achieved a hit. Usually thye were shooting at individual machinegun teams
> in small sangars, not big well-built bunkers.
Makes it a bit easier. HEAT charges are just usually not the optimal round
for taking out a bunker (a real one)--you use them if that is all you have,
but if you have a weapon that can handle a goodly sized blast round, you are
better off, I would think. ISTR it was you who clued me in a year or so ago
that the Army had belatedly begun developing a bunker-busting warhead for
the TOW--and IIRC a TOW warhead is a bit more effective than that of a
Milan.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XXh$hQe$eToA...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <WOydnW0POPs...@adelphia.com>, Kevin Brooks
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
> >A
> >good RCR would have likely been a *better* bunkerbuster, though.
>
> Not enough range (the nice thing about MILAN was precision hits from two
> kilometres). We used to have the BAT family but they left service
> because they were too awkward to manhandle around and too obvious when
> they fired.
>
> We *did* make extensive use of the 84mm Carl Gustav MAW, as well as the
> 66mm LAW, for short-range work against sangars and bunkers, but MILAN
> was a bonus on top of that.
Our 90mm RCR had a max range of about 2000 meters (though you would not hit
anything smaller than an aircraft carrier at that range, if that). The
sights on it were good out to a max range of about 800 meters; the given max
effective range in the AT role was some 400 meters. In most situations I'd
think a range of over 600-800 meters, when operating against a target like a
bunker in support of attacking infantry, would be more than plenty, as it
exceeds by far the effective range of most of your individual weapons.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
> In message <avidnZ0Uzqv...@adelphia.com>, Kevin Brooks
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
> >I'd be surprised if the Milan had a
> >larger warhead (in terms of weight) than the 90mm RCR
>
> The 1982 MILAN had a 103mm warhead with 1.36kg of explosive: the 90mm
> round had .78kg of HE as filler.
Is that 90mm figure for the HE round? It also fired the more common (and
lighter) HEAT round, as well. I would expect the HE variant to have a
substantially heavier HE load than the HEAT version.
>
> Neither would be welcome guests...
True, but the ATGM is not optimized for the role of bunker-busting. Some of
us argued that point with the powers-that-be at the Engineer Center after
the old M728 CEV, with its 165mm demo gun, was retired from service, and
were told it was just not a high enough priority need (to develop a blast
version warhead for the TOW). When this came up a year or so ago, Tom
pointed out to me that the Army leadership had maybe made an about face in
regards to this, and was moving to develop a more suitable round for the TOW
in light of Afghanistan concerns.
Brooks
Ian MacLure
[snip]
> While the FOB did help out the forward CAP endurance of the Harriers,
> it had no impact on British air refuelling assets, because the
> Harriers were not using air-to-air refuelling, other than for a few
> long-distance ferry flights down to join the Task Force. So the
> extreme constrints on air refuelling remain a major factor. Remember
> it's 8000 miels from Ascension to the Falklands, give or take a bit.
> Even the RAF's last strategic bombers (Vulcans) needed massive tanker
> support to make the trip, and they did very little loitering (just a
> few minutes when they played SEAD games with the radars at Stanley).
[snip]
I talked to a Victor crew that had been on one of the Black Buck(?)
missions against Stanley many years ago and ISTR they required a
couple of dozen tankers to get one aircraft to the target.
I can't imagine 5 men spending 19 hours in the cockpit of the
particular ship I toured but thats what the crew said they did.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Andrew McCruden
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > Perhaps there is someone in this newsgroup that knows when the
> > airfield became serviceable.Ac-130 spectre's don't need much runway.
>
> It was never servicable for aircraft like Hercules, and could not have
been
> made servicable for Hercules. A runway large enough and long enough for
> Hercs would have required an order of magnitude more matting (more even
than
> they lost on Atlantic Conveyor) and a much larger flat area than they had
in
> San Carlos.
>
There were, apparently, proposals put forward by the RAF to build a
"Airstrip" capable of operating Herc's, Buccaneers and Phantoms on Accesion
to support the landings, presumably the logisics Killed this one. (or
perhaps more likely killed by _reality_: I mean is there even a suitable
site to build such a strip on Accesion? not to mention that it would be
quite a "strip" to be able to operate rather heavy strike aircraft
effectively over the distances involved)
Peter Kemp
Andrew - if you mean Ascension, not Accesion, then they wouldn't need
to build a strip - Wideawake Airbase on Ascension has one of the
longer runways in the world, and was used heavily during the
Falklands, including by the Harriers ferrying down to the task force,
teh Hercules doing supply run, and all the tankers and bombers for
Black Buck and associated ops.
Wideawake was a US strip mainly use for supporting the NASA
groundstation on the island (and IIRC was an emergency shuttle landing
site), but was promptly handed over to us for the duration by the US.
Peter Kemp
Andrew McCruden
"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_k...@amhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42v3a0lq7j4a991d0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 08:19:46 +0100, "Andrew McCruden"
> <use...@beyond-comprehension.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >There were, apparently, proposals put forward by the RAF to build a
> >"Airstrip" capable of operating Herc's, Buccaneers and Phantoms on
Accesion
> >to support the landings, presumably the logisics Killed this one. (or
> >perhaps more likely killed by _reality_: I mean is there even a suitable
> >site to build such a strip on Accesion? not to mention that it would be
> >quite a "strip" to be able to operate rather heavy strike aircraft
> >effectively over the distances involved)
>
> Andrew - if you mean Ascension, not Accesion,
Sorry, Meant South Georgia, Not Ascension, the perils of pre-breakfast
posting strike again.
.
Thomas Schoene
>
> Sorry, Meant South Georgia, Not Ascension, the perils of pre-
> breakfast posting strike again.
Hmm. I think you really mean West Falkland. The idea of landing ther and
building up an airbase to provide air support for the reinvasion of East
Falkland was definitely proposed and may have been Woodward's initial
preference. But it was logistically impossible.
South Georgia was still too far away and the conditions there were obviously
impossible for an airfield.
Eystein Roll Aarseth
wrote:
> Compared to the LAW, in *any* role the Milan will be the better weapon,
> IMO; the LAW's warhead was just too puny.
True, but which would you want to carry on the battlefield? The puny
66mm rocket from a M72 won't kill a modern tank, but it was just the
right thing to give to the Marines and Paras that had to attack the
Argentine sangars. Small, light, portable. Leave the really hard targets
to the artillery and Milans if you can.
> I'd be surprised if the Milan had a larger warhead (in terms of weight)
> than the 90mm RCR (which is IIRC a bit bigger than the Carl Gustav round,
> but still quite portable, as it was carried for many years by the US
> Army's Ranger battalions, not to mention us lowly combat engineer types,
> even after the Dragon had replaced it elsewhere).
Hm... I think we have to sign several NDA's before we get the necessary
data to compare them, so I'll take your word for it. :-)
EAa
--
'Amphibious warfare is not a battle on the European plain.'
-- A Royal Marine at Fitzroy, Falkland Islands
Olivers
>
> Wideawake was a US strip mainly use for supporting the NASA
> groundstation on the island (and IIRC was an emergency shuttle landing
> site), but was promptly handed over to us for the duration by the US.
>
The support provided by the USAF, C-135s and C-141s, but little report of
C-5s (on restricted hours?), to bolster the RAF's somewhat deficient
hauling capacity must have been substantial. I've a cousin, now a retired
LTCOL (female), who was an aircraft commander during the period, and she
accumulated a lot of hours in her log book.
TMO
Paul J. Adam
<broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7Hn0Ftfm...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> round had .78kg of HE as filler.
>
>Is that 90mm figure for the HE round?
HEAT. Doesn't seem that the HE round was much used - it's certainly very
little documented. AFAICT, the US used HEAT and canister, but little or
no HE.
>It also fired the more common (and
>lighter) HEAT round, as well. I would expect the HE variant to have a
>substantially heavier HE load than the HEAT version.
Projectile weights are similar for the data I can find, which isn't
much.
>> Neither would be welcome guests...
>
>True, but the ATGM is not optimized for the role of bunker-busting.
Would not disagree: it's an expedient, not a first choice.
Paul J. Adam
<broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:XXh$hQe$eToA...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> kilometres). We used to have the BAT family but they left service
>> because they were too awkward to manhandle around and too obvious when
>> they fired.
>>
>> We *did* make extensive use of the 84mm Carl Gustav MAW, as well as the
>> 66mm LAW, for short-range work against sangars and bunkers, but MILAN
>> was a bonus on top of that.
>
>Our 90mm RCR had a max range of about 2000 meters (though you would not hit
>anything smaller than an aircraft carrier at that range, if that). The
>sights on it were good out to a max range of about 800 meters; the given max
>effective range in the AT role was some 400 meters.
The 84mm was probably roughly similar (and considering it replaced the
90mm RCL in US service I'd expect the performance to not be grossly
worse).
I still missed the tank hulk from ~100 metres on my first shot... not
the easiest of weapons to hit with for the inexperienced user, and not a
cheap or pleasant weapon to practice with :)
>In most situations I'd
>think a range of over 600-800 meters, when operating against a target like a
>bunker in support of attacking infantry, would be more than plenty, as it
>exceeds by far the effective range of most of your individual weapons.
GPMGs and .50" HMGs in sangars are an exception to that, and a good
target for MILAN. (Also the sangars were small, certainly smaller than
tanks even if they didn't move)
Kevin Brooks
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:51:03 -0400, Kevin Brooks <broo...@notyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Compared to the LAW, in *any* role the Milan will be the better weapon,
> > IMO; the LAW's warhead was just too puny.
>
> True, but which would you want to carry on the battlefield? The puny
> 66mm rocket from a M72 won't kill a modern tank, but it was just the
> right thing to give to the Marines and Paras that had to attack the
> Argentine sangars. Small, light, portable. Leave the really hard targets
> to the artillery and Milans if you can.
For that purpose I'd probably rather have the M203 (40mm grenade
launcher)--generally more accurate than the LAW, and you can carry a LOT of
rounds.
>
> > I'd be surprised if the Milan had a larger warhead (in terms of weight)
> > than the 90mm RCR (which is IIRC a bit bigger than the Carl Gustav
round,
> > but still quite portable, as it was carried for many years by the US
> > Army's Ranger battalions, not to mention us lowly combat engineer types,
> > even after the Dragon had replaced it elsewhere).
>
> Hm... I think we have to sign several NDA's before we get the necessary
> data to compare them, so I'll take your word for it. :-)
No, the weights should be available out there--Paul has noted the Milan HE
weight (1.36 kg), and indicated that the 90mm has less--but I am thinking
his 90mm number is for the HEAT variant, not the HE round.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
> In message <vMSdnbcnDIi...@adelphia.com>, Kevin Brooks
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:7Hn0Ftfm...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >> The 1982 MILAN had a 103mm warhead with 1.36kg of explosive: the 90mm
> >> round had .78kg of HE as filler.
> >
> >Is that 90mm figure for the HE round?
>
> HEAT. Doesn't seem that the HE round was much used - it's certainly very
> little documented. AFAICT, the US used HEAT and canister, but little or
> no HE.
I am pretty sure the Rangers had all three rounds available to them. We only
had the HEAT variety.
>
> >It also fired the more common (and
> >lighter) HEAT round, as well. I would expect the HE variant to have a
> >substantially heavier HE load than the HEAT version.
>
> Projectile weights are similar for the data I can find, which isn't
> much.
I found that, too (about half a kilo overall), but come on--you *know* an HE
round will likely have a significantly greater load of HE than the HEAT
variant (no "hollow space" taken up by the liner and its associated area, no
weight taken up by the liner itself). I would think the HE version would
likely have right around twice the weight of explosive filler as the HEAT
version, and maybe a bit more.
Brooks
Paul J. Adam
>> HEAT. Doesn't seem that the HE round was much used - it's certainly very
>> little documented. AFAICT, the US used HEAT and canister, but little or
>> no HE.
>
>I am pretty sure the Rangers had all three rounds available to them. We only
>had the HEAT variety.
It was a Ranger page or fanpage that said they used HEAT and canister,
with HE being pretty notional. Hardly conclusive, but the lack of info
also points that way. (Jane's agrees, but they've been wrong too)
FM 21-75 also only lists HEAT, canister and practice rounds. Again,
indicative but not decisive.
>> Projectile weights are similar for the data I can find, which isn't
>> much.
>
>I found that, too (about half a kilo overall), but come on--you *know* an HE
>round will likely have a significantly greater load of HE than the HEAT
>variant (no "hollow space" taken up by the liner and its associated area, no
>weight taken up by the liner itself).
Hollow space doesn't weigh anything :) And the liner is not *that*
heavy, typically 2mm copper: and a plain HE charge still needs a
bulkhead to contain it if it's not a full fill, which the 90mm HE
doesn't seem to be.
The cutaways on the South Korean ammo company's page
(http://www.poongsandefense.com/product05_1.htm) shows their HE round
has a lot of void space inside the shell, with a charge inside a shell
rather than a full-fill.
That all said, I'd guesstimate that the charge weights weren't too
dissimilar, but that you got significantly better fragmentation from the
HE round - just from looking at the shape of the charge.
>I would think the HE version would
>likely have right around twice the weight of explosive filler as the HEAT
>version, and maybe a bit more.
I'd guess similar to +20% for filler mass, but significantly more
efficient fragmentation when it detonates (design rather than charge
mass). Can't find data to prove either, but I'm more confident of #2 :)
Just as a point of reference, I *did* find charge weights for 90mm
rounds for the M36 cannon (as used on the M47/M48 tanks). HE rounds had
730g of TNT or 975g of Composition B; HEAT rounds had 735g of straight
RDX. But, those are conventional artillery rather than RCL rounds, so be
wary of hasty comparisons.
Fred J. McCall
: I can't imagine 5 men spending 19 hours in the cockpit of the
: particular ship I toured but thats what the crew said they did.
I can't imagine anyone spending 9 hours in the cockpit of an F/A-18,
either, except I've met a woman who did it.
Bombers are positively roomy.
--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."
-- Winston Churchill
Joe Osman
>
> "Joe Osman" <Josph...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:40a10750$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...> > news:avidnZ0Uzqv...@adelphia.com...> > > news:opr7t916...@news.online.no...
> > > > On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:20:47 -0400, Kevin Brooks
> > <broo...@notyahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Milan as an anti-bunker weapon did an OK job for the Brits,
and
> > > > > represents pretty good adapatability on their part (they used what
> > they
> > > > > had), but it was not optimized as a bunker-buster, and it had some
> > system
a
> > > > > *better* bunkerbuster, though.
> > > >
> > > > ISTR that the biggest problem with the Milan was the weight, it was
> too
> > > > heavy compared to the Carl Gustav RCR and the M72 LAW which they
also
> > > > had. Of course, it made up for its shortcomings with longer range
and
> > > > bigger warhead.
> > >
> > > Compared to the LAW, in *any* role the Milan will be the better
weapon,
> > IMO;
a
> > > larger warhead (in terms of weight) than the 90mm RCR (which is IIRC a
> bit
> > > bigger than the Carl Gustav round, but still quite portable, as it was
> > > carried for many years by the US Army's Ranger battalions, not to
> mention
> > us
> > > lowly combat engineer types, even after the Dragon had replaced it
> > > elsewhere).
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > EAa
> > > > --
> > > > The Falklands, even in time of peace, might be of great consequence
to
> > > > this nation, and in times of war would make us master of the seas.
> > > > -- Lord Anson, 1740
> > >
> > >
> > I was surprised to find that the RM were still using LAWs (also called
> > LAW 94 or LAW 94mm) in their assault on the Al Faw Peninsula during
after
> > the AC-130 Spectre gunships had worked their magic; all that was left to
> do
> > was to take prisoners and pick up the pieces of bodies shattered by the
> > aerial bombardment."
>
> Different LAW from what we were discussing; the old M72 was, IIRC, only a
> 66mm weapon. hard to pack a whole lot of punch into that small a warhead,
> especially in the bunkerbusting role.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > See http://www.onceamarinealwaysamarine.co.uk/40telic.htm
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
Did the US use any LAW after the original, or is the LAW 94 a British
development?
Joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Eystein Roll Aarseth
wrote:
> "Eystein Roll Aarseth" <eys...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:opr7v7vk...@news.online.no...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:51:03 -0400, Kevin Brooks
>> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Compared to the LAW, in *any* role the Milan will be the better >
>> weapon, IMO; the LAW's warhead was just too puny.
>>
>> True, but which would you want to carry on the battlefield? The puny
>> 66mm rocket from a M72 won't kill a modern tank, but it was just the
>> right thing to give to the Marines and Paras that had to attack the
>> Argentine sangars. Small, light, portable. Leave the really hard targets
>> to the artillery and Milans if you can.
>
> For that purpose I'd probably rather have the M203 (40mm grenade
> launcher)--generally more accurate than the LAW, and you can carry a LOT
> of rounds.
True, but I was writing about the weapons available to the Brits in '82,
and I don't think the M203 was used by the Commandos and Paras back then.
ISTR that they had a few old M79 grenade launchers, but I'm not sure.
OTOH, I *think* I have seen some pictures of SAS or SBS soldiers with the
M16/M203 combo from the Falklands. Oh well, this borders on useless
nitpicking.
>> Hm... I think we have to sign several NDA's before we get the necessary
>> data to compare them, so I'll take your word for it. :-)
>
> No, the weights should be available out there--Paul has noted the Milan
> HE weight (1.36 kg), and indicated that the 90mm has less--but I am
> thinking his 90mm number is for the HEAT variant, not the HE round.
Yes, I saw that. I read his post after I had sent mine.
*grumble* Note to self: Read the whole tread before posting, stupid!
EAa
--
"Have delivered passengers as requested."
-- Captain Dennis Scott-Masson of SS Canberra in a telex to P&O
Head Office after the landings in San Carlos Water, Falkland Islands
Guy Alcala
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:58:00 -0400, Kevin Brooks <broo...@notyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Eystein Roll Aarseth" <eys...@online.no> wrote in message
> > news:opr7v7vk...@news.online.no...
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:51:03 -0400, Kevin Brooks
> >> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Compared to the LAW, in *any* role the Milan will be the better >
> >> weapon, IMO; the LAW's warhead was just too puny.
> >>
> >> True, but which would you want to carry on the battlefield? The puny
> >> 66mm rocket from a M72 won't kill a modern tank, but it was just the
> >> right thing to give to the Marines and Paras that had to attack the
> >> Argentine sangars. Small, light, portable. Leave the really hard targets
> >> to the artillery and Milans if you can.
> >
> > For that purpose I'd probably rather have the M203 (40mm grenade
> > launcher)--generally more accurate than the LAW, and you can carry a LOT
> > of rounds.
>
> True, but I was writing about the weapons available to the Brits in '82,
> and I don't think the M203 was used by the Commandos and Paras back then.
> ISTR that they had a few old M79 grenade launchers, but I'm not sure.
> OTOH, I *think* I have seen some pictures of SAS or SBS soldiers with the
> M16/M203 combo from the Falklands. Oh well, this borders on useless
> nitpicking.
FWIW, the Paras took their Wombat 120mm RCRs down south (I've seen photos
somewhere of Wombats on a ship at Ascension), but they don't seem to have used
them. My Brassey's "Artillery of the World" lists them at 294 kg, with the
HESH rounds weighing 12.84kg and max. effective range is quoted as 1,000m.
Probably they weren't considered worth the helo space compared to the 105s and
their ammo. I'd presume Milan would be a lot easier to move.
Guy
Alan Lothian
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ian MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>
> : I can't imagine 5 men spending 19 hours in the cockpit of the
> : particular ship I toured but thats what the crew said they did.
>
> I can't imagine anyone spending 9 hours in the cockpit of an F/A-18,
> either, except I've met a woman who did it.
>
> Bombers are positively roomy.
Well, in the course of assorted historical research, I have spent ten
minutes (minutes, not hours) in the rear turret of a Lancaster bomber,
and about the same in the right-hand-seat of a Vulcan.
Better to fly Ryanair (fyi, low-budget knees-up-your-nose cheap Euro
airline.) I couldn't believe how cramped the Vulcan space was. The guys
in the back weren't exactly in the lap of luxury, but the front office
was really, really small.
I do realize there are people on this ng who have done these things for
real. My hat is raised to them.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
Olivers
> In article <m3q5a0hpgrl05lgq4...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Ian MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>
>> : I can't imagine 5 men spending 19 hours in the cockpit of the
>> : particular ship I toured but thats what the crew said they did.
>>
>> I can't imagine anyone spending 9 hours in the cockpit of an F/A-18,
>> either, except I've met a woman who did it.
>>
>> Bombers are positively roomy.
>
> Well, in the course of assorted historical research, I have spent ten
> minutes (minutes, not hours) in the rear turret of a Lancaster bomber,
> and about the same in the right-hand-seat of a Vulcan.
>
> Better to fly Ryanair (fyi, low-budget knees-up-your-nose cheap Euro
> airline.) I couldn't believe how cramped the Vulcan space was. The guys
> in the back weren't exactly in the lap of luxury, but the front office
> was really, really small.
>
Back when the world was young, I was called upon to proceed to NAS
Sigonella, Sicily to make myself available to a Patrol Squadron tasked with
flying maritime recon/surveilance for the 6th Fleet (in anchorage) while
the normally assigned VQ Squadron's WillieVictor/Constellations were gone
to surveil somewhere else.
I flew two 9 hour hops, one in the nose of a P2, the other in a jumpseat
atop the weapons bay, my head in the navigator's dome (and with bad box
lunches). It was hot, cramped, uncomfortable and hardly worth the
experience. The entire concept implanted in the minds of VP drivers was
that low was the way to go (and I never had realized that even waves cause
thermals). Then's there the astonishing phenom which occurs when your
dick's in the relief tube and some sumbitch decides it's time to see if a
90% turn works best with a 90% bank.
Next worse, McGuire, Labrador, Iceland, Prestwick to Rheinmain in the back
of a C130, loud, cold, but better box lunches and terrible coffee.
Most cramped, a college era ROTC Familiarity ride in a TB-25, an old
Mitchell used at the local AFB as a navigation training bird before the
Convair T-29s arrived, then relegated to "station hack" in WWII verbage.
It was bad enough in the nose, but for anyone over 5'6"/140, the tail
gunner's"compartment" was inaccessible/unoccupiable. The removal of the
dorsal turret and the side gun panels had created room for 2 or 3 student
navigators or hardy hitchikers.
I could never have ridden in an A4, and respect the courage of some who
did, unlikely because of their size to have been able to safely eject
(especailly one, once a squadron CO who rose to NAVAIRLANT. Claustrophobia
is not quite an apt description. About like wearing a tight body condom
comes closer. Have you ever realized that the little door on the side of
the Spitfire's cockpit is that without it, only children or dwarfs could
have gotten in or out?
TMO
Guy Alcala
<snip>
> I could never have ridden in an A4, and respect the courage of some who
> did, unlikely because of their size to have been able to safely eject
> (especailly one, once a squadron CO who rose to NAVAIRLANT. Claustrophobia
> is not quite an apt description. About like wearing a tight body condom
> comes closer.
Can't say I've ever spent any time in one with the canopy down, but I did get
my (6'1", 170 lb.) self into the A-4M cockpit that they have at the Hiller
Aviation museum. Getting in and out required a certain suppleness, but once in
it was snug and everything seemed to come to hand. All accounts of the Scooter
I've read describe you as wearing the airplane rather than sitting in it, and
at least for shorter flights that's probably a good thing; it's an extension of
the pilot. But I'd hate to have to do a TransPac in one and have to pee (or
worse).
Lots of US fighters deploying for Desert Shield/Storm flew 15 hr. non-stops to
the Gulf, but I'm sure having jets (instead of pistons), air conditioning,
autopilots and stereos made the trip a lot more bearable. Just 3.5 hours all
by myself in the back seat of a Cessna 172 on a hot, bumpy day had me ready to
give up flying, and crawling around inside the hot, dark, claustrophobic
fuselage of the P-2 gate guard at Moffett on a semi-warm day, had me thinking
'you've got to be kidding - 12 hours of this, plus the engines running and
bumpy air?! I'd be a nauseous mental case by the end of a single flight' ;-).
> Have you ever realized that the little door on the side of
> the Spitfire's cockpit is that without it, only children or dwarfs could
> have gotten in or out?
The Mustang was another small cockpit a/c (designed to a British contract), and
my hat's off to the people who could sit in them being deafened and vibrated by
a Merlin for 6-8 hours, while worrying about people trying to kill them. OTOH,
the P-47 cockpit was relatively spacious (and the engine relatively quiet and
smooth) -- Don Lopez described it as being so roomy that if you were attacked,
you could run around inside the cokpit dodging the bullets, yelling for help
every time you passed the radio;-) Lopez had flown P-40s and P-51s in combat
(China), and then flew just about everything at Eglin, US(A)AF and USN.
Guy
frank wight
Oops, A misprint! What I meant to say was the Mount
pheasant airport. The Brits always name there forward
airbases after bird. Pheasant...very tasty...yum.
> > Final comment: Once Goose Green was captured, it was turned
> > into a refueling depot for Harriers. This took the burden
> > of refueling away from the Harriers.
>
> Goose Green was never used as a base for Harriers. The airstrip there was
> 3,000 feet of grass, unsuitable for either Harriers or heavy aircraft like
> C-130s. AFAICT, it was never used by British forces for anything other than
> helicopters during the war. And that was pretty limited, since Goose Green
> was totally off the line-of-advance to Stanley. (Stupid politicians.)
>
> The Harrier forward operating base (FOB) called HMS Sheathbill or Sid's
> Strip was built at Port San Carlos, nowhere near Goose Green. It was a lane
> of matting just wide enough for a Harrier and just long enough for a rolling
> STO, plus a little parking and refuelling area.
>
> There are some pictures of the facilities (such as they are) at the RAF
> website:
>
> http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/1sqn_5.html#4jun
>
> You can get a sense of the scale from the overhead shots in comparison ot
> the low-level ones. In the second picture, notice that area at the right
> hand end of the runway where there are three tracks of matting running
> parallel to each other. That's the area shown in the last two pictures,
> where you can see that the tracks are spaced just right for the main gear
> and outriggers of a Harrier.
>
> While the FOB did help out the forward CAP endurance of the Harriers, it had
> no impact on British air refuelling assets, because the Harriers were not
> using air-to-air refuelling, other than for a few long-distance ferry
> flights down to join the Task Force. So the extreme constrints on air
> refuelling remain a major factor. Remember it's 8000 miels from Ascension
> to the Falklands, give or take a bit. Even the RAF's last strategic bombers
> (Vulcans) needed massive tanker support to make the trip, and they did very
> little loitering (just a few minutes when they played SEAD games with the
> radars at Stanley).
>
> > Perhaps there is someone in this newsgroup that knows when the
> > airfield became serviceable.Ac-130 spectre's don't need much runway.
>
> It was never servicable for aircraft like Hercules, and could not have been
> made servicable for Hercules. A runway large enough and long enough for
> Hercs would have required an order of magnitude more matting (more even than
> they lost on Atlantic Conveyor) and a much larger flat area than they had in
> San Carlos.
>
> If this FOB had been suitable for Hercs, you can bet they would have used it
> that way, even without AC-130s. There was always a pressing need for
> delivery of critical parts and supplies down South. These were delivered by
> Hercules via airdrop into the ocean. Land delivery would obviously have been
> much better, but it was not feasible.
>
>
> > If the Brits had asked Caspar Weinburger for a gunship, he'd give
> > it to them. But who would man the airplane? Americans?
>
> Perhaps, and perhaps not; Weinbergewrs offers are recorded, but may not have
> been sanctionedby his boss. In any case, the British did not ask, and would
> not have asked.
>
> > If a gunship gets shot down and all the crew gets killed, it would
> > mean that the airmen died for their country that night instead of
> > the commandos.
>
> But the Commandos* would still have had to take those hills, ands still
> would have taken casualties. And those casualties would still have been
> quite light for such undertakings.
>
> * or Paras, or Guards. I feel the pedantic need to point out that
> "commando" here would refer only to the Royal Marines. Parachute Regiment
> soldiers are not Commandos, and neither are the Scots Guard or Welsh Guard
> troopers.
Peter Kemp
wrote:
>"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message news:<qseoc.16739$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> frank wight wrote:
>
>
>Oops, A misprint! What I meant to say was the Mount
>pheasant airport. The Brits always name there forward
>airbases after bird. Pheasant...very tasty...yum.
Err - Mount *Pleasant*, the current airbase on East Falkland, is
anything but a forward base - it was constructed after the war to
house most of the BFFI, including the air component.
Peter Kemp
Thomas Schoene
> "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<qseoc.16739$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> frank wight wrote:
>
>
> Oops, A misprint! What I meant to say was the Mount
> pheasant airport. The Brits always name there forward
> airbases after bird. Pheasant...very tasty...yum.
Sorry, still no good. RAF Mount Pleasant (not Pheasant) did not exist at
the time. It was constructed *after* the war to provide an airstrip
suitable for Phantoms (and later Tornados) in the Falklands. It's a
full-blown runway over 8,000 ft long complete with hardened aircraft
shelters, not a forward operating base at all.
I've just been reading Ewan Southby-Tailyour's _Reasons in Writing_. The
first portion of the book describes his time as Marine detachment commander
in the Falklands in the late 1970s. From this, I believe that Stanley had
the only metalled (hard-surface) airfield in the islands before the war. It
certainly was the only one capable of taking anything other than light
aircraft (general aviation types, mainly).
phil hunt
>I've just been reading Ewan Southby-Tailyour's _Reasons in Writing_. The
>first portion of the book describes his time as Marine detachment commander
>in the Falklands in the late 1970s. From this, I believe that Stanley had
>the only metalled (hard-surface) airfield in the islands before the war. It
>certainly was the only one capable of taking anything other than light
>aircraft (general aviation types, mainly).
Could it have been used to base Argentine Mirages and Skyhawks, had
Argentina decided to do this?
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
Peter Kemp
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 May 2004 04:40:29 GMT, Thomas Schoene <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>>I've just been reading Ewan Southby-Tailyour's _Reasons in Writing_. The
>>first portion of the book describes his time as Marine detachment commander
>>in the Falklands in the late 1970s. From this, I believe that Stanley had
>>the only metalled (hard-surface) airfield in the islands before the war. It
>>certainly was the only one capable of taking anything other than light
>>aircraft (general aviation types, mainly).
>
>Could it have been used to base Argentine Mirages and Skyhawks, had
>Argentina decided to do this?
IIRC it was too short for them to operate at anything other than very
light wieghts (i.e. no warload and minimum fuel), but I don't have the
books to hand.
Peter Kemp
Michael P. Reed
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 04:40:29 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> >I've just been reading Ewan Southby-Tailyour's _Reasons in Writing_. The
> >first portion of the book describes his time as Marine detachment commander
> >in the Falklands in the late 1970s. From this, I believe that Stanley had
> >the only metalled (hard-surface) airfield in the islands before the war.
> It
> >certainly was the only one capable of taking anything other than light
> >aircraft (general aviation types, mainly).
>
> Could it have been used to base Argentine Mirages and Skyhawks, had
> Argentina decided to do this?
IIRC, no. The runway was too short, though I do believe it was used as an
emergancy strip, and apparently one A-4 was lost to friendly fire trying to do
exactly that.
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Thomas Schoene
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 04:40:29 GMT, Thomas Schoene
> <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>> I believe that Stanley had
>> the only metalled (hard-surface) airfield in the islands before the
>> war. It certainly was the only one capable of taking anything other
>> than light aircraft (general aviation types, mainly).
>
> Could it have been used to base Argentine Mirages and Skyhawks, had
> Argentina decided to do this?
Not quite. They would have needed a runway extension, which they apparently
considered but did not implement.
Ironically, the Stanley runway had been kept too short to operate fast jets
as a deliberate policy decision by the British, out of fear that extending
it would be a seen as a provocation by the Argentines. That was a forlorn
hope as the Argentines found plenty of other provocations instead. But a
longer runway would have been pretty bad for the Brits after a successful
invasion, so all in all the decision was fortunate.
One hopes the much longer Mount Pleasant runways are suitably prepared for
demolition in the event of a replay of 1982.
Guy Alcala
Mirage/Daggers, no -- you pretty much need at least 6,000 feet, with 8,000 or
more preferred. Stanley was only 4,100 feet long. The Dagger pilots were often
using up every bit of the 2,000m (6,560 ft.) runways at Rio Grande and San Julian
on take-off, carrying lots of fuel plus bombs (the Mirages were at Rio Gallegos,
which had an 11,000 foot runway). The Navy's 2nd Escuadrilla (Super Etendards)
did some testing at their mainland base to see if they could use it, and found
that they could take off okay in Exocet configuration, but had barely sufficient
braking to land if the runway was dry, and not enough if it was wet (which it
usually is at that time of year). There were also cross-wind issues, as there was
only the one runway.
The Argentines did install a chain arrester gear* at least along the western end,
so that hook-equipped a/c (A-4 and SuE) could recover there in an emergency, but
apparently they lacked proper MOREST gear that would have allowed them to base at
least some fast jets there. They did bring in some AM-2 but instead of using it
to extend the runway the local officer in charge decided that it was more
important to use it to expand the apron, providing more ramp space for the
transports to unload.
It's not altogether clear, but there are some accounts that claim they'd planned
to bring in more matting by ship to lengthen it, but the declaration of the MEZ
effective from 12 April caused them to stop most sea transport to the Islands,
unloading ships at mainland ports and then hauling the equipment to an airfield
where C-130s or other transports could be loaded with it. If this is accurate,
you can credit the British SSNs with an even larger effect on the British victory
than they already had through chasing the ANA back to port (after the Belgrano).
Guy
*A chain arrester gear is an emergency set up, each being usable by only a single
a/c at relatively long intervals owing to the time needed to reposition it for the
next arrival. Essentially, you lay a length of anchor chain (typically the
individual links weigh about 100 lb. each, but it's not critical) along each side
of the runway, parallel to it and extending from near the departure end towards
the approach end, perhaps 100 yards or more. You attach a cable between the two
chains at their approach ends, the cable supported a few inches above the runway,
typically by rubber donuts on the cable (I've read that rolls of toilet paper will
do in a pinch, at least in dry conditions!). When the hook-equipped a/c picks up
the cable, it starts to drag the chain along with it, with the deceleration
increasing as it drags more and more of the chain back on itself, until the a/c is
finally brought to a stop. Simple and relatively foolproof, but getting the
chains re-laid out alongside the runway is somewhat time-consuming.
If my ability to draw word pictures is inadequate, maybe an ASCII illustration
will help - hopefully the formatting will survive. The dashed lines represent the
chains alongside the runway, the vertical lines the runway itself (not to scale;
the chains would be right next to the runway), and the colons are the wire cable
connecting the two approach ends of the chain.
:----------------------------
<= To approach end
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Departure End
:----------------------------
The a/c would enter the gear from the left, pick up the cable and drag the chain
back on itself.
Joe Osman
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:qseoc.16739$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> frank wight wrote:
>
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
>
>
>
>
Brigade, be called "Commandos," or has that become a Army/Marine thing in
Britain?
Brian Sharrock
>
snip
> >
> Would the members of 92 Commando RA and the RE Commando, both in 3
> Commando Brigade, be called "Commandos," or has that become a
> Army/Marine thing in Britain?
>
> Joe
>
AIUI, the term 'Commando' is one of those funny words
that can be either singular or plural and either adjectival
or noun.
A Commando is a group of 'folk' organised/optimised
to perform specific military objectives ( originally
strike into occupied Europe). Commando groups were
formed from both Army and Marine personnel.
Army Commando units had low numbers while RM
units had forty-odd numbers.
Since the War, the Army has been tasked with the
parachute role while the Royal Marines has assumed the
Commando role. Army Commando have been dis-established.
The Commando role more or less equates to an amphibious
assault role. Due to the tasking of the Royal Marines with
the Commando role, all Royal Marine recruits must pass
the Commando training and be individually awarded the
'Green beret' signifying that they _individually_ may
assume a role in the Royal Marine Commando Units. -
if they do not pass the course; they're not Commandos.
In this concept an RM Commando is a battalion-sized
light infantry unit. They need support from other arms.
[This is were the Army=parachutes and Marines =commando;
begins to fray]
RM Commando needs the support of Artillery, Signals,
Logistics and medics etc. ... this support comes from Army
units that are tasked for this role. These units have the word
Commando in brackets in their name;-
NNN (Commando) Btty RA ; XXX (Commando) Sqn RS ... .
The (Commando) Brigade is a combination of an 'infantry'
Commando with the appropriate role-equipped support units.
Think bottom-up rather than the USMC top-down concept.
Each and ever member of these support units must pass
the All-Arms Commando Course and individually be
awarded the Green beret before serving in their unit
supporting the RM Commando. Such individuals wear
their parent regiments cap-badge in the green beret.
AIUI, a green-bereted signallers would be addressed as
Signaller; Artillerymen as Gunner; etc as appropriate.
{ I think that was your original question?]
BTW; a parallel schema operates with the red-beret
lot too, the 1/Para; 2/Para and 3/Para are supported
by other arms with NNN (Parachute) Btty RHA; XXX
(Parachute) Sqn RS etc., etc. Similarly all these individuals
have to gain the red beret and parachute wings.
Of course many RM sport parachute wings too ...
HTH
--
Brian
Peter Kemp
Which raises the question - what beret does a signaller who passed the
commando course, then went on and completed Selection including
getting his jump wings - he's entitled to wear Beige, Maroon, Green,
plus his parent Sigs Beret (Brown?).
I remember one trip to a Royal Sigs base for a course, and in an
anvanced course on at the same time there were at least 6 different
beret colours in view, all worn by Royal Sigs blokes - looked damn
strange when they paraded.
Peter Kemp
Guy Alcala
<snip>
> If my ability to draw word pictures is inadequate, maybe an ASCII illustration
> will help - hopefully the formatting will survive. The dashed lines represent the
> chains alongside the runway, the vertical lines the runway itself (not to scale;
> the chains would be right next to the runway), and the colons are the wire cable
> connecting the two approach ends of the chain.
>
> :----------------------------
> <= To approach end
> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Departure End
>
> :----------------------------
>
> The a/c would enter the gear from the left, pick up the cable and drag the chain
> back on itself.
In case anyone's wondering, the formatting got munged. "To approach end" should be in line with
the runway off its left end, "Departure End" should be in line with and off the right end of the
runway, and the colons on the "chains" should line up with the one in the middle of the runway,
and be closer to it.
Guy
Joe Osman
news:UH9qc.1049$kx1...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
"Are you a Commando?" would he be pleased or pissed?
William Black
"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_k...@amhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qguia0dpkpkl8fdje...@4ax.com...
> Which raises the question - what beret does a signaller who passed the
> commando course, then went on and completed Selection including
> getting his jump wings - he's entitled to wear Beige, Maroon, Green,
> plus his parent Sigs Beret (Brown?).
It tends to depend where they are at any particular moment and where 'home'
is at that time.
As a rule people with distinctions want to either stand out or disapear.
With a parachute unit a signaler will almost certainly want to disapear into
the background and so wear a maroon beret.
However when he's back with sigs he'll almost cetainly be required to
conform to local unit regulations.
However 'rag and bone' units tend to let people have lots of leeway with
dress, hair length, non issue kit etc.
Everybody with jump wings (or pilot wings, the flying bits of the British
army has (had?) a number of NCO pilots) tends to wear them.
> I remember one trip to a Royal Sigs base for a course, and in an
> anvanced course on at the same time there were at least 6 different
> beret colours in view, all worn by Royal Sigs blokes - looked damn
> strange when they paraded.
Some of the higher level courses at Cosford look a bit odd at times as well.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Brian Sharrock
big snip
> >
> So if an ignorant American such as myself asked one of these RA or RE
types
> "Are you a Commando?" would he be pleased or pissed?
>
> Joe
"Let me buy you a drink!" is a safe start; followed up with
"I note, from your beret. that you've passed the 'Commando'
course; I'm impressed!". This should gain you more information
than you really want to know.
--
Brian
William Black
Almost certainly starting with the words:
"Yeah, and it's not like wot it is these days, these days it's a piece of
P*ss...
Guy Alcala
> frank wight wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<qseoc.16739$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> frank wight wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oops, A misprint! What I meant to say was the Mount
> > pheasant airport. The Brits always name there forward
> > airbases after bird. Pheasant...very tasty...yum.
>
> Sorry, still no good. RAF Mount Pleasant (not Pheasant) did not exist at
> the time. It was constructed *after* the war to provide an airstrip
> suitable for Phantoms (and later Tornados) in the Falklands. It's a
> full-blown runway over 8,000 ft long complete with hardened aircraft
> shelters, not a forward operating base at all.
>
> I've just been reading Ewan Southby-Tailyour's _Reasons in Writing_. The
> first portion of the book describes his time as Marine detachment commander
> in the Falklands in the late 1970s. From this, I believe that Stanley had
> the only metalled (hard-surface) airfield in the islands before the war.
Correct. The temporary AM-2 matting airstrip at Hooker's Point (he describes
the destruction of it by wind in the book) preceded the longer asphalt runway,
which was built on the Cape Pembroke peninsula.
> It
> certainly was the only one capable of taking anything other than light
> aircraft (general aviation types, mainly).
Yes. AFAIK it, along with Mt. Pleasant are still are the only hard surfaced
ones there. The Falkland Islands Government Air Service used floatplane and
latterly landplane DHC Beavers prior to the war, but were switching over to a
semi-scheduled service using PBN Islander landplanes in the year or two prior to
the war, which resulted in many of the grass strips being improved in drainage,
smoothness, etc. But none of them could operate jets, and Goose Green had
difficulty operating Pucaras at least on 1 May, owing to being too soggy.
Guy