Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Naval discussions covering the latter half of the 20th Century.
reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:11 pm

Yes sIr :

Range and distance you pull it up from the radar , you shich to low sacle on the screen to be more accurate , you can pull out also the speed - Radar antena makes 6 turns in a minute , so you can place your joystick on the target , and place it again after 30 sconds and you have the speed ( its a math calculation ) if you want to be more acci=urate you pull the speed after a minute -

So we have : range , azimut , and speed from the radar -
Eduardo made the math based on known facts : ships always drive straight when shooting and they keep the same speed -
We know were the 155 mm were and how long it took the projectile to reach ( about 50 seconds )
We aimed the canon ahead with range and azimut and when the ship was 50 seconds to the match point we order fire -

Where I wrote azimut , please read Bearing in degrees - range in nautical miles , which Eduardo had to convert to Meters , and the degrees read in Degrees he had to convert into Artillery Milietrers where you have a circle , in that circle you have 360 degrees equivalent to 6,400 Artillery Milimeters -

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

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby marcelo_malara » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:17 pm

That´s quit a feat...it should have been written to an article, a land-based gun firing at moving ships aimed with the data obtained from an off-site radar. How many guns composed the battery?

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:17 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:Thanks for the info Enrique, I have to congratulate you and your buddy for the inventive displayed. Back to the technicalities, did you get range and bearing from the radar? How was the target speed estimated? Were you passing corrections by fall of shot to the battery?

Regards


We did not employ the hole battery ( only 3 pieces ) we emply only one Artillery Piece - -
Corrections were based on what we saw on the radar screen -
Basicaly you aim ahead ( ahead 50 seconds) of were the ship will be -
And since the ship will not make any turn while firing and will not change his speed - it was quite accurate what we did -

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:19 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:That´s quit a feat...it should have been written to an article, a land-based gun firing at moving ships aimed with the data obtained from an off-site radar. How many guns composed the battery?


In 105 mm there are 6 guns per Battery , 3 Batteries per Artillery Unit
With 155 mm there were only 3 Artillery pieces delivered to the islands but we fire at ships with only one piece

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:21 pm

It was quite a chalenge because Navy Artillery were firing back , you still had to deal with Helos at Night -

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

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby marcelo_malara » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:36 pm

Well, firing only one gun at a moving target 10 miles away is a little shy to count hits. If you dug into old posts about fire control, you will see that 4 guns salvos is likely to be the absolute minimum in naval combat. Anyway, how far away from the ships were the shells landing? Were they more correct in azimuth or distance?

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:03 pm

There is a British report on shots hitting as close as 50 yards , there is a drawing that I'm going to look for on a page from a British Ship that shows how close the hits were , I would say that we miss even because of range and distance -

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:06 pm

All this is coming out on top of my head 28 years after , I remember the ships going like in a Horse race track , when they came close to the shore for firing they kept same speed , same direction or bearing - They always fired salvos of 6 to 8 shots , then they made corrections aim again and shoot -

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:12 pm

We were never Jammed by ships - We always saw very clearly on the screen their movements , and the Helicopters when they took of from the ships -

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby José M. Rico » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:44 pm

Enrique, thank you very much for sharing this with all of us.

Had you obtained any hits on the British ships firing under those circunstances it would have been really remarkable. A good display of self-initiative! What about the British shooting? Did they hit you back?

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:57 pm

Yes Sir they were very accurate , when I first chose the position on Top Of Sapper Hil , everyone came ( From General Menedez , all the way to Comanding Officer of BIM 5 ) I remember Captain Robaccio telling me that I must be a nuts for choosing that position which was just in the middle of his position ( BIM 5 ) , General Menedez asking me if I was sure - To all of them I said don't worry from up here we will be able to see every airplane coming towards us and it's going to be a safe position - Captain Robaccio turn arround and order his man to keep on digging deeper because there was a nuts in the position ( in a friendly refernce to me ) - The position was nice from the Tourist point of view , because from the tactical point of view even a blind would be able to see the huge radar antena - I was wrong . they were right - On the night of the first day ( may 01 ) naval artillery hit us for some time - they didn't miss a shot , they all hit us on top - to make a story short , one dead several wounded and the radar damage - parts had to be order from mainland and I was out of service for a couple of days - next position was a little bit more wisely chosen .- But yes hit by naval bombardemnt on may 01 and finally on June 11 -

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

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby marcelo_malara » Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:56 am

Enrique, some questions more:

1-How did you ensure that the bearing to the target were the same in radar and gun? I mean, how was the North (or what) assesed in both locations?
2-How many shells did you fire per night?
3-What was the total number of shells fired?

Regards

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:17 am

marcelo_malara wrote:Enrique, some questions more:

1-How did you ensure that the bearing to the target were the same in radar and gun? I mean, how was the North (or what) assesed in both locations?
2-How many shells did you fire per night?
3-What was the total number of shells fired?

Regards


1 ) By triangulation with a map were you know the position of the gun and the position of the radar - Magnetic north with no correction to the topographic North .- Right there you have good margin of error at 10 nautical Miles - Note to this : between 8 and 10 naitical miles from the radar , but since the 155 were closer to the south shore than us , for them I would say between 6 and 8 miles distance ( from on top of my head ) , maybe closer .-

2) don't remember but ships show up for their naval bombardment at about 1100/ 1130 pm then they had the Helicopter take off and head towards land , so I would say that by 1200 midnight we were all ready for the show - In a night I would say that an average of between 20 and 30 shots , no more than that - It was more of a Psicologic efect for the troops on the ground than a tactical advantage - They did not feel unprotected against Naval Bombardment , they feel that something was being done .- They even call the canon " The Big Berta " Ships went to sleep at about 0400 am / 0430 am .-

3) Don't remember how much 155 amo was send to the islands , but by the last day it was all gone - We must have used it from mid may until the 10th of June for Naval purpose -
The amo was scare so they kept it for the ground battle , and not all nights we had naval bombardment .-

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:24 am

No posibility of making arrengments so a whole battery of 105 mm would fire since ship was out if range for that caliber , only with in reach of 155 mm

Marcelo I am sure that I am making mistakes while I wright (Write ) as this one - , please make the proper corrections - Thank You -

reydelcastillo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Postby reydelcastillo » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:42 am

Marcelo I have been thinking about your question " Kinematic motion " and I have come to this conclusion .-
We were able to solve the problem just by aiming ahead of the ship in movement by doing the math ( Eduardo did so ) and because " and this is the clue " .. we were still on the ground , we were not moving , the target was moving but not us -
If we were to try to do this with us ( radar-canon) also moving , it would be imposible - You need a calculator which we did not have .- So the answere to the kinematic motion question would be : If you are sitting still , and the ship ( target ) is moving you just do the prediction of your shot , and you will be able to have the shot meet the target ( ship ) at one pre stabish point .-
Then as we did you make corrections to each shot , on the radar screen you will have the ship and impact of the projectile , if you miss because of bearing you increase or decresae the aim of the gun in degrees ( left / right ), if you miss by distance you increase or decrease the angle / elevation of the gun ( the tables of the gun give you the elevation for the distance you want to fire ) - the time the projectil takes to reach its target you have it because you have measure it ( you have time it ) .- So this can be done only if you are still , not moving .-


Return to “Naval History Post-1945”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron