Malvinas/Falklands war - Alleged attack on HMS Invincible

Naval discussions covering the latter half of the 20th Century.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

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

Post by RF » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:17 am

Stevepearce wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:19 pm
Hi. I was a young 17 year old WEM who spent my action stations behind the stws tubes on Andromeda with an SLR fitted with match stick for repitition firing.
I had to grow up very quickly over those few months in 1982 but had the honour of doing it with some wonderful people.
I think 17 is very young to be fighting in a war in distant waters. Its nothing new, Bismarck had 17 year olds on board. At that age I would imagine that the growing up fast would be a stark awakening, its not a game.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Ganpati23
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:41 am

Re: Re:

Post by Ganpati23 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:57 am

Njohnno wrote:
Fri May 23, 2014 1:35 pm
marcelo_malara wrote:Welcome to the forum Swordfish, I see you know the stuff of the campaign.
the exocet was destroyed by 4.5-inch gun fire from HMS Avenger
This is quiet strange. Do you think that a 4.5" gun can acomplish anti-missile duties? How would it be aimed? In the Phalanx system the radar continuosly track the incoming missile as well as the stream of bullets to align the barrel. A 4.5" gun is not a rapid fire gun (I mean more than 1000 rpm). The computer would need to provide a fire solution based on the speed of the missile, its course and altitude, and then point the gun, accounting for flight time to an interception point, based on the muzzle velocity of the gun. Don´t think it was possible then, not even now. The missile is 50 cm across, far less than the natural dispersion of the gun. I don´t buy the missile was destroyed that way.
Are you aware of the thereabouts of the carrier from May 30th to her entering port? What about an alleged reduction in the Harrier CAP after the same day?


The Atlantic Conveyor was of course sunk by Skyhawks
Not Robert, she was taken by one or two Exocets, putting her on fire, much like Sheffield.
HMS Avenger did shoot down I believe not 1 but 2 exocet missiles with it's 4.5 inch gun. I witnessed the attack and also the 2 targets being splashed. Not only did the gun take out the exocets but at the time the computer was not engaged and this was done by a gunner using the 4.5 inch gun in manual mode from the GDP. The 2 exocet had been seduced by Chaff and the ship I was on, the Sir Bedivere would have been the next target. We did not have Chaff capability. The Avenger took herself out of the screen and swang across our stern from Starboard to Port, She fired Chaff to protect us and continually fired her 4.5 inch gun. One excet exploded from a hit and the second one splashed into the sea after a proximity fuse exploded the shell and knocked it off course.

I got the chance to speak to the gunner who I served with on the Avengers sister ship HMS Arrow. This was the guy who was the gunner when one of her shells went astray and hit a house in Port Stanley killing 3 of the occupants. This is story is not fable or legend it actually happened I know I was there. Fluke or not it probably saved my ship and many of my shipmates lives.
I'm a hippy student so have no experience of these things. But:

1. Sandy Woodward said the missile went harmlessly between the two ships. He claimed it just a badly aimed or unserviceable missile, while the Captain (later Admiral Sir) Hugo White said it was the Avenger's chaff. "White’s own account, as remembered by his family, was that Avenger’s decoy “chaff” diverted the Exocet. " This and Woodward's bits are from his Obit here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obit ... 88010.html

2. But we do know for a fact that the Argentinians only had 5 exocets and that four had already been fired. We know that this was the fifth - one of the SE jets was armed with it, the other wasn't. And they planned this mission with them and the 4 Skyhawks as a last chance with their last exocet. He also claims that either the gun or Exeter's Sea Dart destroyed the Skyhawk.

Do you think the reports from these admirals are wrong, and the knowledge of there only being 5 exocets? Or could you have confused an exploding Sky Hawk with a missile? Genuine question - I have no idea what battle is like nor of how a missile blows up in comparison to a 'plane.

Ganpati23
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:41 am

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

Post by Ganpati23 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:13 am

Larryjc wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:41 am
There's actually a little more to this. Antrim had worked out where Santa Fe was going to be and deliberately used Mk 11s to disable her. That really should have been an end to it. The Lynx dropped the Mk 46 which would never work against a surfaced sub. It went into 'surface capture' ie its sonar kept detecting the surface as a target and then leaping out of the water - that said it must have scared the crap out of her crew as it porpoised around them. As for the Wasp and its missiles - a ridiculous waste of energy and weapons. The Submarine fine was made of fibreglass an they went straight through. There was some debate afterwards about maybe people getting a little carried away. Its amusing though that the AS12 weapon, originally designed as an anti tank round and then adapted for maritime surface targets was fired for the first time in anger at a submarine!
Sorry to be an idiot, but are you saying this MK46 missile was circling around underwater looking for a sub, but kept getting confused and trying to attack the waves on top? And are you really saying that it kept jumping in and out of the water like a dolphin? If so, they should film one doing that with no bomb inside it. I'd love to watch that. What happens to it? Does it just run out of fuel and sink? When it jumps out, how high does it go? Could you put a bit about this on the wiki page, please?

Ganpati23
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:41 am

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

Post by Ganpati23 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:51 am

RF wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:35 pm
snowwolflair wrote:
After the early sucess of the French Exocet missiles, the UK SAS intercepted the main shipment of the missiles before they got to Argentina.
This is the first I have heard of this. What is the evidence?
I think he's mixing stuff MI6 with the SAS, and French support with GB scientists.

Here's a report on John Nott's memoirs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... -Nott.html

The French showed GB how to tamper with the exocets. MI6 agents posed as buyers on the intl market and out-bid the Argentines every time. They also made others useless:

""A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says.

"I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable.""

Post Reply