Falklands what if

It may be instructive to look at the Brooklyn Class and their record at damage in combat.

USS Nashville and USS St Louis were both hit by kamikazes, and survived.
USS Boise was hit by a large calibre shell, which didn’t expode, and survived.
USS Honolulu and USS St Louis both survived being torpedoed, the Honolulu also survived a second torpedoing later, this time by an aircraft-launched torpedo.
USS Savannah was hit by a Fritz-X, and was severely damaged, although saved by her crew to be rebuilt.

The Fritz-X was designed from the start to be used against armoured warships. It weighed almost 1400kg with its 320kg warhead. It achieved a supersonic speed of almost 1300km/h. It was designed to penetrate 130mm of armour. Seeing as it was airlaunched, I imagine it had a diving trajectory.

HMAS Hobart survived a Torpedo Hit (very small light cruiser).

And from memory the ship hit by the most kamakaze’s in the Pacific was HMAS Australia, as a County class cruiser, it hardly had a reputation for being the most armoured of cruisers, yet it survived.

I’m not sure if they could target surface targets. Plus you’d have to get uncomfortably close to launch them and i’m not sure how effective they’d be with their much smaller warhead.

Bizarrely I think that the lightweights used in 82 had longer range than the HWT we used!

But I agree with (what I think is) your general thrust of argument; I’d be much happier taking a nice undetected boat close enough to Belgrano to engage than I would be taking my all too visible skimmer or helo within range of all of those nasty guns.

Fortunately (related to your concern about warhead size) I think we were still using HE rather than shaped charge so a near miss might have been good enough to disable a screw or rudder

The naval institute suggests MM38 had the same striking power as a 13.5inch shell. RN tests in 1914 showed a 13.5 (one of several guns used by the rn at that point) would penetrate 10 inchs of KC.

Air lunch MM39 is quoted as penitrating armour at angles up to 70 degrees but I could find no data on thickness

If true jobs a good’en. And As Belgrano certainly doesn’t have anything like a modern fire supression system….

It may be instructive to look at the Brooklyn Class and their record at damage in combat.

USS Nashville and USS St Louis were both hit by kamikazes, and survived.
USS Boise was hit by a large calibre shell, which didn’t expode, and survived.
USS Honolulu and USS St Louis both survived being torpedoed, the Honolulu also survived a second torpedoing later, this time by an aircraft-launched torpedo.
USS Savannah was hit by a Fritz-X, and was severely damaged, although saved by her crew to be rebuilt.

The Fritz-X was designed from the start to be used against armoured warships. It weighed almost 1400kg with its 320kg warhead. It achieved a supersonic speed of almost 1300km/h. It was designed to penetrate 130mm of armour. Seeing as it was airlaunched, I imagine it had a diving trajectory.

You think a subsonic weapon would penetrate 6 inches of armour. Honestly?. Do you know how thin hull plating is for a modern warship?. If it would penetrate 6″ of ordinary hull plate, let alone hardened armour, it would have been right through the Stark and the Sheff before the warhead detonated!.

Yes I do think it would. 5.5″-6 is the armour at its thickest. Yes Sheff and Stark are thin but the spaced plates act like “spaced armour” -as you hit a container the air pressure inside increases offering more resistance in the container itself then as it is punctured the increased air pressure attempts to equalise through that hole with the air travelling in the opposite direction to projectile (i.e slowing it by increasing air resistance). Do this a couple of times (i.e multiple compartments) and it is not as easy as saying that modern warships would be sliced in two.

Exocet hitting at 315 m/s (lets understand what we mean by subsonic here…) and detonating would almost certainly go through the amount of armour Belgrano carried.

Precisely how much trouble do you think?. IF it took 6 repeated impacts on precisely the same plate and penetrated what damage do you think an Exocet would do to a ship with that kind of mass?.

Its not repeated impacts on a single spot i’m talking about, the flexing, vibration, heat causing an overall failure in the armour resistance.

Think about that. ‘Sunk her’ is the hint.

She doesn’t need to be sunk though, just hurt enough.

You think that their WW2 vintage Oerlikons would be less effective than the WW2 Oerlikons we were using on their Skyhawks do you?.

And they were ever so effective…..

Destroyed it if they got into guns range. Exocet could not have dealt with the threat on its own – we’d seen how vulnerable it was to softkill seduction already ourselves. Plus we were facing an Exocet threat against us from their DD’s although mitigated by the same softkill factor. Taking Exocet out of the equation you are looking at 4.5″ Mk6’s and Mk8’s (and the Mk8 was no great shakes in ’82 believe me!) taking on a cruiser while the carriers try to run. Its not a pretty scenario.

Behave! destroyed? One old cruiser and a couple of 40 year old destroyers would destroy the task force….sounds awfully like the sort of spin put out by Thatcher’s team after the war when they were having a hard time justifying it to the left wing press. I think it was right to sink her, she was a threat no doubt, but i think its being well over stated. Could HMS Belfast and a couple of old Castle class frigates have destroyed the 82 Task force? shakes head, not a chance. There would be a scrap yes, but it would have ended in Belgrano’s demise or need to flounder home.

I’m fairly certain not all the Amazon’s had Exocet in 82 Al – will have to check up on that. In the Carrier Group, if memory serves, was a County (Glamorgan), a couple of the Amazons and at least one of the Broadswords most of the time. In addition to the 42’s that obviously didnt sport Exocet.

Arrow, Alacrity, Ardent, Active and Avenger had exocet by then.

The naval institute suggests MM38 had the same striking power as a 13.5inch shell. RN tests in 1914 showed a 13.5 (one of several guns used by the rn at that point) would penetrate 10 inchs of KC.

Air lunch MM39 is quoted as penitrating armour at angles up to 70 degrees but I could find no data on thickness

You are fully entitled to your opinion but I would disagree that a lightweight ASW torpedo would as effective against a skimmer as a heavyweight dual role fish

Clearly. But they might take out a couple of propellors nicely, thus slowing Belgrano down.

I believe the two T-42s the Argentinian navy operated had MM-38 Exocets mounted on top of the hanger (Initially two then four) and the two french designed frigates/corvettes also carried the system (four each) as did the 4 Allen M Sumner (four each) class two of which were escorting the Belgrano, as was the sole Gearing FRAMII Destroyer (Four).

The original design’s boat decks were replaced by special decks to install the missiles around the funnel (2×2), but the launchers were apparently never mounted on Santisima Trinidad while they were in Hercules.

The smaller warheads would only be able to cause damage in certain places.

IMO, the torpedoes from the helicopters and destroyers would have been just as effective as the ones from the SSN.

I’m not sure if they could target surface targets. Plus you’d have to get uncomfortably close to launch them and i’m not sure how effective they’d be with their much smaller warhead.

IMO, the torpedoes from the helicopters and destroyers would have been just as effective as the ones from the SSN.

You are fully entitled to your opinion but I would disagree that a lightweight ASW torpedo would as effective against a skimmer as a heavyweight dual role fish

You think a subsonic weapon would penetrate 6 inches of armour. Honestly?. Do you know how thin hull plating is for a modern warship?. If it would penetrate 6″ of ordinary hull plate, let alone hardened armour, it would have been right through the Stark and the Sheff before the warhead detonated!.

5-10mm for the hull plating i’d assume. From memory Aluminium hulled boats for inland are 2-3mm from memory.

Precisely how much trouble do you think?. IF it took 6 repeated impacts on precisely the same plate and penetrated what damage do you think an Exocet would do to a ship with that kind of mass?.

About the same that happened to the County class Destroyer, a few burnt out compartments. As in, the same damage as if hit by a couple of shells.

Think about that. ‘Sunk her’ is the hint.

Yup, I think a famous person once said ships are sunk by letting in water, not by letting in air.

You think that their WW2 vintage Oerlikons would be less effective than the WW2 Oerlikons we were using on their Skyhawks do you?.

Depends how many and how they were guided, there were only three ships.

Destroyed it if they got into guns range. Exocet could not have dealt with the threat on its own – we’d seen how vulnerable it was to softkill seduction already ourselves. Plus we were facing an Exocet threat against us from their DD’s although mitigated by the same softkill factor. Taking Exocet out of the equation you are looking at 4.5″ Mk6’s and Mk8’s (and the Mk8 was no great shakes in ’82 believe me!) taking on a cruiser while the carriers try to run. Its not a pretty scenario.

When were Belgrano’s engines last refitted? How fast was she? Scatter the fleet train and maintain the carriers and escorts a safe distance away while you await the arrival of [insert SSN name].

How precisely could sea skua be targeted? could it be guided to a specific part of a target vessel?

IMO, the torpedoes from the helicopters and destroyers would have been just as effective as the ones from the SSN.

Belgranos Main belt was just 6-5.5 inches thick, lets not get carried away here, thats 15cms in new money, half a school ruler, the width of the box you type your replies on here into. Exocet would go through it, most “modern” antiship missiles of that ilk would go through 15 cms of steel.

You think a subsonic weapon would penetrate 6 inches of armour. Honestly?. Do you know how thin hull plating is for a modern warship?. If it would penetrate 6″ of ordinary hull plate, let alone hardened armour, it would have been right through the Stark and the Sheff before the warhead detonated!.

Half a dozen exocets impacting on Belgranos Hull in rapid succession would probably result in the armour failing and the ship being in trouble.

Precisely how much trouble do you think?. IF it took 6 repeated impacts on precisely the same plate and penetrated what damage do you think an Exocet would do to a ship with that kind of mass?.

So Woodward a staunch submarine man suggests that only a sub could have sunk her?…funny that.

Think about that. ‘Sunk her’ is the hint.

Belgrano had Seacat and some guns, the two escorts, both Allen Sumner class ships of WW2 vintage had some light guns. I think the Shars would have made it through

You think that their WW2 vintage Oerlikons would be less effective than the WW2 Oerlikons we were using on their Skyhawks do you?.

There is a certain amount of propoganada regarding the whole Belgrano episode about, I think her threat has been “bigged up” in the aftermath. Not saying she shouldn’t have been sunk but need to honest about what three WW2 vintage gun ships with no air cover or helicopters could have done to the Task Force.

Destroyed it if they got into guns range. Exocet could not have dealt with the threat on its own – we’d seen how vulnerable it was to softkill seduction already ourselves. Plus we were facing an Exocet threat against us from their DD’s although mitigated by the same softkill factor. Taking Exocet out of the equation you are looking at 4.5″ Mk6’s and Mk8’s (and the Mk8 was no great shakes in ’82 believe me!) taking on a cruiser while the carriers try to run. Its not a pretty scenario.

Exocet is a subsonic skimmer that will strike the target at around 10ft above the waterline. Exocet had no pop-up mode like Harpoon so impacts would be on the main belt of a cruiser. A subsonic projectile with, at best, a semi-AP tip is going to have a job piercing a WW2 cruisers main belt.

Belgranos Main belt was just 6-5.5 inches thick, lets not get carried away here, thats 15cms in new money, half a school ruler, the width of the box you type your replies on here into. Exocet would go through it, most “modern” antiship missiles of that ilk would go through 15 cms of steel. Bear in mind that the exocet that hit sheff went through half the ship on Kinetic energy alone and didn’t explode. Now Sheff is not armoured but that missile went through several sheets of metal that were widely spaced and embedded itself in the control room. Look what hapened to the USS Stark in87, they almost went right through her. Half a dozen exocets impacting on Belgranos Hull in rapid succesion would probably result in the armour failing and the ship being in trouble.

Woodward himself said that his only options for countering the cruiser was the Mk8** and the SHAR 1000lb’ers. Not so sure that dive bombing a cruiser with the limited SHAR numbers would be such a bright idea. We took a toll out of A-4’s doing that to us!.

So Woodward a staunch submarine man suggests that only a sub could have sunk her?…funny that.

Belgrano had Seacat and some guns, the two escorts, both Allen Sumner class ships of WW2 vintage had some light guns. I think the Shars would have made it through, especially if some airfused stuff was lobbed in first and the exocets were timed witht their strike. There is a certain amount of propoganada regarding the whole Belgrano episode about, I think her threat has been “bigged up” in the aftermath. Not saying she shouldn’t have been sunk but need to honest about what three WW2 vintage gun ships with no air cover or helicopters could have done to the Task Force.

No Rat what is being talked of here is the sole contribution of the Argentine carrier airwing. That is precisely 7 A-4’s. The Argentines had the AAR capability to get a pair of Super Etendards dragged round to the east of the islands where the carrier group was and little more.

So the air strike would have been two AM39/SuE’s and 7 A-4’s, presumably, on seperate threat axis to try and split defensive fires. Sounds fairly comprehensive until its recalled the damage Sea Wolf did to low-level A-4 strikes at the Pebble Island SAM trap and, at times, both carriers had a Type22 as close consort. Also that AM39 proved ludicrously vulnerable to softkill. Figure in the SHAR CAP and Deck Alert aircraft and the strike looks less and less the high percentage success option.

You’re not talking just 7 A-4’s. The land assets up to that point in time would have still been present. I imagine the air force units would have been massed and the exocets that were fired later would have been used at that time with far better trajectories.

Its unavoidable that the SSN’s would have had a turkey shoot. But without them the British fleet would have retreated deeper out into the ocean and played a layered defense to neutralize the land assets. This may have allowed the Argentinians to bolster the island against invasion and delayed the inevitable.

just a forward screen of T42s

There would have been more Radar pickets as well, plus the RN CAP, plus additional Harriers on standby on the Carriers.

Remember that you are talking about 7 A4’s with dumb bombs, charging straight into the middle of an RN task force with Sea Cat, 40mm guns, 4.5″ guns, plus the Sea Dart on the T42’s as well as on Invincible herself.

Half a chance that the RN Harriers would outnumber the A4’s by the time they got to Invincible as well.

He states he did NOT want to use his SHARs that way! Fortunatly (for the RN anyway, not so much for the Argies) Conq finished the Belgrano “pincer”. The fascinating thing to me tho is what if 25 de Mayo had gotten her strike off? She had all 8 operational A-4Qs of 3 escadrilla embarked with 7 of them loaded with 6 500lb “snakeyes” apiece. The 8th was armed with 2 AIM-9Bs and was on deck as a CAP. The pilots of 3 esc were very good and had trained extensivly on antiship strikes. They knew the engagement parameters of Sea Dart and Sea Cat. Sea Wolf was the big unknown, but had shown in the later engagements an initial reluctance to recognise anything that wasnt coming directly at them as a “valid” target. Software updates cured this. The 2 SSNs had completely missed de Mayo although a SHAR did find her, it was forced to skeedadle when one of the Arg T42s locked her with a 909. After that the RN was in the dark as to the de Mayos loc. An S-2 from de Mayo found the main RN task force and was giving good location data (why no interception?) so the ARGs were in a good tactical position. To me it looks like this was the best chance to end the war befor it had really begun……no RN AEW…..just a forward screen of T42s…..They just had to cause significant damage to one of the CVs and it was over…….

Armour is no longer fitted as its a recurring cost item. When the primary threat is a limited set of missiles then active defence is more cost effective than passive defence. Especially when we get into the 50’s and 60’s when nuclear-tipped missiles are in vogue it was much safer to intercept the missile than trust the armour to ride it out.

Exocet is a subsonic skimmer that will strike the target at around 10ft above the waterline. Exocet had no pop-up mode like Harpoon so impacts would be on the main belt of a cruiser. A subsonic projectile with, at best, a semi-AP tip is going to have a job piercing a WW2 cruisers main belt.

Woodward himself said that his only options for countering the cruiser was the Mk8** and the SHAR 1000lb’ers. Not so sure that dive bombing a cruiser with the limited SHAR numbers would be such a bright idea. We took a toll out of A-4’s doing that to us!.