May 25 1982

Naval discussions covering the latter half of the 20th Century.
ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Postby ostriker » Mon May 28, 2007 7:45 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: So, using the same logic, the AP shell could be, potentially, more dangerous to a modern warship than the actual missiles?

Best regards.


If we look only in terms of performance and effect, i think that a 16" AP shell could make more damage than a exocet. And a HE shell too.
On top of that, a shell is ( a bit :lol: ) cheaper than a guided missile.

After these details, we have to look the installation needed to fit those big guns to an actual warship. :?

In any case, i think that the four missouri could still be useful, sure their guns have not the precision of an exocet, but with the high precision of the radar, and with refitted guns, in 2 or 3 salvo you can destroy a type 42 destroyer 50km away, isn't it? And you have not counter measure against a shell :evil:

:think: :?:

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Mon May 28, 2007 11:43 pm

Karl, I think we have already discussed this. The 16" shell is unstopable, heavier and has more speed (and more KE) than any practical missile. But the missile has an inherent advantage: accuracy. In the Malvinas/Falklands war, 6 Exocets missiles were fired, 5 from Super Etendard airplanes and one from an improvised coastal battery. The results were one destroyer sunk (Sheffield), one escort carrier/container ship sunk (Atlantic Conveyor) and one destroyer damaged to an extent that had to retire from the intended coastal shelling mission (Glamorgan). That gives 50% hit probability, far higher than any gun, even the vaunted radar controlled MkVII rifle. The hits resulted in 2 ships sunk (33% of the missiles used) and one damaged (16.5% of the missiles used). If you build an armoured modern warship, that would just end in a scalation of the missile size, not in its deletion. Remember that the first warship sunk by an air-launched missile was the battleship Rome (I know that some negligency in the damage control must have been present), so you can´t trust just in armour.
As posted before, I think that a sea-skimmer with a 1 ton warhead can be built, but would be subsonic due to the drag of the dense air near sea level, what would keep the KE lower than a 16" shell. But with modern electronics an attack profile consisting of very low altitude aproach, ending with a zoom and dive to the deck of the ship would defeat the side armour attacking the thinner horizontal protection instead. Or the missile can consist of a homing torpedo released at a distance of a mile, what would make a sure hit too. Or it can contain a small size nuke.

Cohaagen
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Holy Loch, Scotland

Postby Cohaagen » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:14 pm

I feel I have to quickly squash this notion of the Atlantic Conveyer being an "escort carrier" *snigger*.

The SHARs on A.C. were not flight-ready. They were in storage state covered with heavy tarps and surrounded on all sides by container units to shield them from the elements.

A.C. had no provision to either refuel or rearm the SHARs.

It also didn't have any pilots on board, quite important for an aircraft carrier. Or long-range radar. Or accommodation for aircrew & deck crew. Or a flight deck. Or etc, etc...

Aircraft carriers also have a large crew for refuel/repair/rearming of aircraft, weapons systems and vessel. A.C. had none.

Lastly, Conveyer was one of the STUFTs - Ships Taken Up From Trade - that sailed with the Op. Corporate task force. If she'd been temporarily commissioned as an "escort carrier", she'd have been designated HMS something-or-other and flown the White Ensign. A number of other ships were temporarily in commission and underwent name-changes.

I think I've probably treated this silly-talk rather more seriously than it deserves, but I've only done so out of concern that someone unfamiliar with the topic may glance through and take it seriously. It seems like another instance of Latin macho face-saving which some Argentines have specialised in since 1982, a bit like that utter guff about the Invincible being blown up/damaged/sunk/whatever and a replacement built in secret :lol:

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Postby RF » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:33 pm

The Atlantic Conveyor was a cargo container ship requisitioned by the Admiralty not a regular warship.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Postby RF » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:42 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
Remember that the first warship sunk by an air-launched missile was the battleship Rome (I know that some negligency in the damage control must have been present), so you can´t trust just in armour.


Roma was hit by a radio guided bomb rather than a pure rocket.

I think the first warship to be sunk by aircraft alone was the Konigsberg during the Norwegian campaign in April 1940 by Fleet Air Arm Skuas (and that was a scuttling job), followed by the sinking of destroyers and sloops by Stukas off Dunkirk.
The first capital ship on the open sea (as opposed to lying at anchor, as per Taranto and Pearl Harbor) to be sunk by aircraft alone was the Repulse, off the coast of Malaya on 10th December 1941.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:01 pm

It seems like another instance of Latin macho face-saving which some Argentines have specialised in since 1982, a bit like that utter guff about the Invincible being blown up/damaged/sunk/whatever and a replacement built in secret


Excuse me, this was for me? I have never supported the theories of the Invincible attack, I have had more than one discussion with my people about it. Moreover, I have always treated this war with the upmost neutrality and respect. If you think that I made a mistake with the definition of the Atlantic Conveyor you are free to post it, but never with those words.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:58 pm

All the threads are getting a little bit hot, lately. There is a lot of intolerance here and everywhere.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: May 25 1982

Postby marcelo_malara » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:33 pm

Hi guys:

I found this photo of the Atlantic Conveyor:

Image

What brings back this old discussion: was she an escort carrier or not? It doesn´t matter if she was used in that job or not, but did she have the capability of operating Harriers?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 25 1982

Postby RF » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:03 pm

To the best of my knowledge the Atlantic Conveyor carried up to 20 Harriers in storage for supplying recaptured airfields in the Falklands. The ship was commandered by the British M.O.D. but not formally commissioned into the RN. I am not aware of it being used as an operational carrier in the open sea.
But then I am a mere civilian, not privy to all the secrets surrouding the use of this ship.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: May 25 1982

Postby marcelo_malara » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:14 pm

Thanks Robert. And how were they supposed to be taken to the islands? Flying?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 25 1982

Postby RF » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:40 pm

Presumably unloading and assembly for use after the end of hostilities or when the British airfields on the Falklands were operational, releasing the two carriers back to NATO and their other duties.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

als_pug
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am

Re: May 25 1982

Postby als_pug » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:50 am

I thought i would add my 2 cents on the HMS Sheffield . i work with a former RN Chief Petty Officer whose brother was on board the Sheffield on that fateful day . If i remember correctly he told me the missile enterred the galley which is directly above the engine room . This could have been the strat of the fire stories as the Galley would have had alot of flammables . also any shrapnel holes ( caused by superstructure flying around or explosion ) would have drained burning materials . oils etc into the engine room . anyway i claim no first hand knowledge on the events but i do trust the word of a CPO

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 25 1982

Postby RF » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:20 am

Froim what I recall from the information released at the time this account is accurate.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Naval History Post-1945”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest