Aircraft´s anti ship tactics post 1945

[marcelo_malara]

You are welcome.

[lwd]

New recruits are always welcome. Knowledgeable ones even more so.

[jualbo]

Hi everybody:
I knew about you thanks to Enrique and hope to be useful in the matters youare talking about.

I have some links about different air attacks on ships after WW2:
Vietnam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Patrol_Craft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Hobart_%28D_39%29
Libya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_ ... %281986%29

At Falklands War, Argentine Air Force (FAA) used two kind of bombs in antishipping role:
The British manoufactoured Mk-17, a 1000 pounds bomb (by Daggers from Río Grande squadron, A-4B from Río Gallegos air base, A-4C from San Julián and Canberra from different air bases)
The spanish manoufactoured EXPAL BR-250. A 250 Kg of weight bomb. Principally with a parachuted tail (BRP-250). It was used by Dagger from San Julián Air Base, and also by A-4 B and C from Río Gallegos and San Julián air bases.

Argentine Naval Aviation command (COAN) A-4Q flew from Río Grande Air Base, carrying 4 Mk-82 with a braked tail (Snakeye).
MB-339 performed a solitary antishipping mission on 21st may against HMS Argonaut, hitting the ship with 8" Zuni rockets, causing small damage.

When circunstancias let it, argentine aviators used to fire the 20mm (A-4) or 30mm guns before drop the bombs.
Mk-12 20mm guns jammed very frecuently so its performance wa really poor.
DEFA 552 30mm guns were quite efficient, causing damage that left unservicibly some systems in the attacked ships.
In the link provided by Enrique, the Dagger doesn´t fire any missile but a tracer 30mm gun shot.

Regards all

[Bgile]

There was also this, in the Persian Gulf:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

[marcelo_malara]

Welcome to the forum Jualbo. I have been informed in a local forum that the Argentine Navy gave Mk-82 retarded bombs to the Argentine Air Force. Is this correct?

[jualbo]

Thanks for the wellcome. According to the Rear-admiral Martini´s book, in its Chapter 8, stocks of Mk-82 bombs were provided to the Argentine Air Force in Río Gallegos and San Julián Air Bases, as well as an instructor (SS Sánchez) to help with them. This was ordered by COATLANSUR.
It seems that Argentine Navy supplied Air Force Skyhawk units (Grupo 5 was deployed to Río Gallegos while Grupo 4 was in San Julián), but they were never used.

[RF]

All in all it proves that in the right conditions iron bombs can still be a potent threat to AA missile armed ships, especially when close to land.

Especially when helped by inadequate defence and damage control......

[RF]

It seems that Argentine Navy supplied Air Force Skyhawk units (Grupo 5 was deployed to Río Gallegos while Grupo 4 was in San Julián), but they were never used.

I haven't seen this book, is there any reason for the failure to use?

[jualbo]

I don´t know the reasons. The book is excellent to follow Argentine Naval Aviation Command´s operations during the war.
Perhaps Argentine Air Force thougt that its current arsenal was good enough to perform antishipping missions. Perhaps they had to addapt under wing pylons to carry the bombs and they prefered to use BRP and Mk-17.

I can tell that FAA High Staff was concerned about bomb failures before the war Ops began. At least, Grupo 6 Daggers from San Julián, had had problems during their bombing tests. Brigadier Crespo asked for the reasons and 1st Lt Posadas answered that it was due to the actual fuzes that only let 3" time to arm the weapon (Kappa III). Then, it seems that Kappa E fuzes were sent to the unit (this is an electronic fuze that let the bomb to be armed in 2,4").
I don´t know about the other FAA squadrons.

BRP-250 also failed to explode but had a higher ratio of success than Mk-17s. Only a Mk-17 explode during the first raid against Ardent (Lt Bernhardt) while most of them were UXB (Glasgow(1), Argonaut(2), Ardent (1), Antrim(1), Antelope(2), Lancelot(2), Galahad(1), Bedivere(1), VLCC Hércules(1)).
BRP-250 explode in Coventry (3), Galahad(3), Tristam(2) and LCU Foxtrot 4(1) and failed against Formosa (2), Antrim (1), Plymouth (4), British Wye (1)

[Bgile]

Snake eye bombs would obviously require different targeting software from conventional bombs. Maybe the Air Force jets didn't have it. Also, maybe the pilots didn't have any practice dropping them. Both would be good reasons not to use them.

[marcelo_malara]

Interesting info Jualbo. Do you have any data on the (alleged) attack on Invincible?

Regards

[jualbo]

In my opinion British version is right. Argentine pilots missidentified the target as she was almost completely covered in smoke and offered a little flank to the attackers.
Exocet would have fallen to sea after passing the target some miles away. The first A-4C was downed by a Sea Dart fired from HMS Exeter while the second is not clear enough, although, according to David Brown´s book, probably hit by 4,5" Vickers Gun.

[marcelo_malara]

Which David Brown´s book? Is he David K. Brown?

[neil hilton]

All in all it proves that in the right conditions iron bombs can still be a potent threat to AA missile armed ships, especially when close to land.

Especially when helped by inadequate defence and damage control......

This is true in a general sense.
Are you suggesting that RN damage control procedures during the Flaklands was defficient? If so have to disagree. The effectiveness of British DC in the Flaklands was very good. What the real problem was was poor and chaep ship design, ship superstructures made from aluminium (which can burn if hot enough) to save weight. Ships constructed especially to be light and therefore cheap, so much so that many actually started to break up in the heavy seas in the south Atlantic swell. Older better made ships didn't have that problem. The Type 21 Amazon class was a deliberatly over loaded design (too much equipment, too much weight for its undersized cheap hull). The Type 22 batch 1 Broadswords designed without a main gun and only four exocet AS missiles ready to fire.
Years and years of underfunding resulted in the RN being equipped about as poorly as it ever has, even going back as far as the Spanish Armada when Elizabeth I deliberatley withheld pay from the fleet and most of the sailors starved to death just after saving the country.

[RF]

Are you suggesting that RN damage control procedures during the Flaklands was defficient? If so have to disagree. The effectiveness of British DC in the Flaklands was very good. What the real problem was was poor and chaep ship design, ship superstructures made from aluminium (which can burn if hot enough) to save weight. Ships constructed especially to be light and therefore cheap, so much so that many actually started to break up in the heavy seas in the south Atlantic swell. Older better made ships didn't have that problem. The Type 21 Amazon class was a deliberatly over loaded design (too much equipment, too much weight for its undersized cheap hull). The Type 22 batch 1 Broadswords designed without a main gun and only four exocet AS missiles ready to fire.
Years and years of underfunding resulted in the RN being equipped about as poorly as it ever has

Clearly yes, and the quote above answers that question for me.