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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:14 pm

We will not change the out come of the Conflict , we will only be able to learn more in detail each military accion that took place during those days .- Forum are very interesting because one is able to read both sides of the story .-
With all due respect for the Man from both Countries , and to the Heroes that have lost theire lifes serving their Flags .-

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:15 pm

Bgile wrote:Thank you for your posts here. This conflict was important all over the world because of the technology used on both sides, and you are an important resource to those of us who have an interest.
Thank you Sir for allowing me to be in this your Forum .-

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

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:39 pm

Hi guys:

I want to clarify, BIM 5, the unit protecting Supper Hill, means the 5th Marines Batallion, based in Tierra del Fuego, the southermost portion of Argentina, and the best cold-trained troops deployed to the islands. As I remember, the only unit that stopped the English Army advance in its position.

The Rattenbach report was, as Enrique said, very critical about the previous analysis to go to the war. Mr. Rattenbach was an old Argentine Army General, then already retired, and tasked with the job of producing the report about the reasons of the defeat. Some paragraphs are very hard, I will post them in both languages, so any translation error can show itself to Spanish speakers.


About the decision of going to war:

"El análisis de la situación política debió inducir a la Junta Militar a postergar los proyectos para la recuperación de las Islas, particularmente teniendo en cuenta que nuestras Fuerzas Armadas no se hallaban en condiciones de enfrentar una reacción británica que debió considerarse la más peligrosa y muy probable, como fue, la de acudir con todo su poderío a recuperar los archipiélagos”.

"The analysis of the political situation should have induced to the Military Junta to postpone the projects for the recovery of the Islands, particularly bearing in mind that our Armed Forces were not in conditions to face a British reaction that should have being consideredto be the most dangerous and very probable, as it was, of coming with all his power to recover the archipelago”.


About General Menendez, designated Governor of the islands:

"No exhibió ni evidenció las aptitudes de mando y arrojo indispensables en la emergencia..."

"He neither exhibited nor demonstrated the command aptitudes and bravery indispensable in the emergency"



About the training of the troops:

"...la inconveniencia de “iniciar una guerra cuando la clase 1963 (por entonces soldados conscriptos) no había completado su instrucción básica”, en particular la elemental en materia “de tiro y combate”.


"...the unsuitability of “initiating a war when the class 1963 (at that time draftees) had not completed their basic instruction”, in particular the elementary one in matter “of shotting and combat”.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

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

Post by RF » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:33 pm

reydelcastillo, thank you for replying in detail to my questions.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

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

Post by RF » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:46 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
The Rattenbach report was, as Enrique said, very critical about the previous analysis to go to the war. Mr. Rattenbach was an old Argentine Army General, then already retired, and tasked with the job of producing the report about the reasons of the defeat. Some paragraphs are very hard, I will post them in both languages, so any translation error can show itself to Spanish speakers.

About the decision of going to war:

"The analysis of the political situation should have induced to the Military Junta to postpone the projects for the recovery of the Islands, particularly bearing in mind that our Armed Forces were not in conditions to face a British reaction that should have being consideredto be the most dangerous and very probable, as it was, of coming with all his power to recover the archipelago”.

About General Menendez, designated Governor of the islands:

"He neither exhibited nor demonstrated the command aptitudes and bravery indispensable in the emergency"

About the training of the troops:

"...the unsuitability of “initiating a war when the class 1963 (at that time draftees) had not completed their basic instruction”, in particular the elementary one in matter “of shotting and combat”.
Marcelo, to what extent was the political miscalculation about Britain abandoning the Falklands/Malvinas down to the Argentine Foreign Minister in his advice to Galtieri? Had the Junta believed Britain would fight would they have called the operation off, or gone ahead believing that they were strong enough to prevail on the basis of the second mis-calculation of no US support for Britain?

Was there a better choice of commander on the islands than Menendez?

Would longer training of the Argentine conscripts have made any difference?

Did the report (as far as I know its not available in Britain) have anything to say about the Juntas' relationship with the US before the conflict? It seems to me that another political mistake of the Junta was in not devoting more effort in neutralising US support for Britain, in not co-operating fully with US Secretary of State Alexander Haig in his mediation attempts and Galtieri snubbing President Reagan by refusing to speak to him over the telephone when he specifically called?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:54 pm

You are welcome Sir -
This is a very nice Forum related to Navy Ships , beautifull photos and accounts of Naval battles .- Even do I was with tripple A , I've had close encounters with the British Navy -

First Encounter : May 01 when we were hit by Naval Bombardment , Radar parcially destoyed on top of Sapper Hill -

Second Encounter : When we used the radar to direct the fire of 155 mm against British Ships that were doing Naval Bombardment , this lasted several nights until they retailate and hit us back on the night of June 11 .-

Third Encounter : On the night of June 11 when tracking the ships for the launch of the Exorcet that hit HMS Glanmorgan -

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

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:34 pm

Hi Robert. Too many questions, many of which I don´t know the answer. Neverthless, I will try to answer some points.

I don´t know the paper played by Nicanor Costa Mendez, the Foreign Minister, in the decision. I believe the planners had the perception that it would be very costly for the British to resize to islands, due to:

1- the long distance to home
2- the theoretical Argentine air superiority. I say theoretically, because as it turned out the islands were at such a distance from the Continent, that the Argentine planes operated close to its extreme radius of action, what precluded maintaining a continuos combat air patrol over the islands that should deny the use of the air by the British, which is the premier principle of air superiority. It ended up wih neither side having it but for brief periods, that´s when its aircraft were around.
3-the greater facility to commit ground forces to the islands. Closer to home, Argentina could put much more troops there than the British, who had to bring them a long distance by ship.

All this, I think, made the Junta believe that the British would not risk themselves against these odds.


About Menendez, I don´t know if there was anyone better for the job. Anyway, I don´t think that it would have made any difference.

The draftees training was very poor in most units. I have not been drafted, but many of my friends were. I have been a shooter for many years, as we have discussed time ago. I know that nobody can be proficient with a FAL rifle after shooting 10, 20 or 30 rounds with it. And that was all that my friends got in training. Neither do most of them know how to storm an enemy position, for example. The draft year would comprise a period in the field, about 60 days, and then asignment to a unit for the rest of the year, where generally there was no more training done. I think that Enrique, as a former Army officer, could say more about this. So I think yes, a better training would have made the British task harder, as the already mentioned case of the BIM 5. The Marine´s training was much harder.


About the US relation. Yes, it is very well known that Galtieri considered Argentina as an allied of the US, due to the longstanding help given both ways with the leftist fightings from the 60´s onwards. The US organized the Escuela de las Americas, were many Argentine officers were trained in counter insurgency war. In turn, many Argentine officer helped train the contras in Nicaragua. So, Galtieri was counting at least with the US neutrality.

Hopes this helps.

Regards

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

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:50 pm

Second Encounter : When we used the radar to direct the fire of 155 mm against British Ships that were doing Naval Bombardment , this lasted several nights until they retailate and hit us back on the night of June 11 .-
Enrique, I am curious about this. One of my primary areas of interest in naval technology is naval fire control, so I have studied the question in some depth. How did you achieve controlling the fire of the gun, I mean, solving the kinematic motion problem to compute the future position of the ship and deflecting the line of fire? Did you use any computing device? How was the data passed to the gun? What kind of ammo was used? What were the result?

Thanks in advance

Kind regards

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

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

Post by Bgile » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:31 pm

reydelcastillo wrote: Second Encounter : When we used the radar to direct the fire of 155 mm against British Ships that were doing Naval Bombardment , this lasted several nights until they retailate and hit us back on the night of June 11 .-

Third Encounter : On the night of June 11 when tracking the ships for the launch of the Exorcet that hit HMS Glanmorgan -
The presumption here seems to be that when they "retaliated" you were unable to shoot at them anymore with the 155mm. Why was this?

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:39 pm

Bgile wrote:
reydelcastillo wrote: Second Encounter : When we used the radar to direct the fire of 155 mm against British Ships that were doing Naval Bombardment , this lasted several nights until they retailate and hit us back on the night of June 11 .-

Third Encounter : On the night of June 11 when tracking the ships for the launch of the Exorcet that hit HMS Glanmorgan -
The presumption here seems to be that when they "retaliated" you were unable to shoot at them anymore with the 155mm. Why was this?
I'll first answer you question Sir : Because we were tracking the ships for the launch of the Exorcet , so that night was a no shot for the 155 mm - ( Jun 11 at night )

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:47 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
Second Encounter : When we used the radar to direct the fire of 155 mm against British Ships that were doing Naval Bombardment , this lasted several nights until they retailate and hit us back on the night of June 11 .-
Enrique, I am curious about this. One of my primary areas of interest in naval technology is naval fire control, so I have studied the question in some depth. How did you achieve controlling the fire of the gun, I mean, solving the kinematic motion problem to compute the future position of the ship and deflecting the line of fire? Did you use any computing device? How was the data passed to the gun? What kind of ammo was used? What were the result?

Thanks in advance

Kind regards
The long range radar is meant to track and try to idetify aircarfts , on May 01 we track all British Planes , in the afternoon we came so see the ships that were heading towards the islands ( we pick them up at about 22 Nautical Miles ) remember we were on top of Sapper Hill - We reported the incoming ships , and from taht day on during the day we deal with aircrafts and during the night we track Ships and gave the troops advance notice on naval bombardment -
Why we saw the ships , just because they are a much larger target than an airplane - You can not hide a ship from a radar - As the days went by , every night the ususal suspects came by ( 3 or 4 each night ) sometimes three went into the row of fire and one remain farther away as if protecting the other ships -

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:12 pm

by mid may the only thing we were able to do was to report when ships were heading in for naval bombardment and report when they were leaving , I had a body of mine that with the degree of first Tenant as me was the Comanding Officer for the 155 mm - One night he calls me and tells me that he was going to make one shot at the ships to tray to sacre them - By then When night falls I put the antena with one degree negative to better see the ships , and morning light I brought back the antena to cero degree - The ships were always vere well seen , You ould also see the Helicopters take off and head to land to guide the fire - That Night Dafunchio ( my budy ) after telling me that he was going to fire , he did so , I was concentrated on the screen watching the ships and we saw the explosion on the water ( 155 mm , is large enough caliber to produce a good sice explosion ) and if you are watching through the radar screen on Normal Video without any type of filter -you will see were the amunition hit -
I inmidiatly told him what has happen , that I could see the ship , I was able to see the explosion , so I told him that now it was a matter of putting that shot on a ship - he gave me his location on a map and we started shooting - We were shooting at about 8 to 10 nautical miles from the radar , the amunition took about 50 seconds to reach target -
During those first nights we never came close to the ships , the Air Post Command to whom we reported was aware of what was going on , even though we were trying to make it to the ship , since the ships were moving , we could not come close - One night the air post command calls me and tells me that a Navy Officer of the same seniority as mine and Dfunchio wanted to come to the radar and try to help us out with what we were doing - A few moments latter a Naval Officer shows up at the radar , brillant man , very courage man , and became a very close friend of mine latter in life - This Officer ( actualy Commander of the Argentine Fleet ) came into the radar , introduce himself and ask me what we were trying to do , I explaine to him what was going on , I told him the problems we had because the ship was always moving and that way we would not be able to hit it - He laugh and said : The ship will not stop for you to shot at it , but let me tell you something , I 'll do the math adding to the equation the ships movement but you better put the helmet down to your neck because when those ships find out what we are going to do , they will not like it -

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:19 pm

Every night from then on he show up at the radar with pen and pencil , he was able to put in the equation all the known parameters plus the speed of the ship ( about 8 Knots ) and we were shooting every knight , we know we have come close enough to make them not feel safe at all , there are reports on British Books of those shots fired at them that have come very close - There is a drawing from a British Naval Officer in a book of the Ship and 5 shots around - So we did the tracking through the radar , The Navy Officer did all the Math and gave the instructions in order to fire ahead of time so that the shot would reach the target just in time for the ship to meet the amunition -

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

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

Post by reydelcastillo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:23 pm


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

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:43 pm

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

Post Reply