any wrecks worth mentioning re: falklands war of the 80"

[needle]

FAH619.

1. Pictures or the Argie Sub "Santa Fe" that end up on a beach due to poss mechanical problems.

The ARA Santa Fe was caught on the surface just outside Grytviken, South Georgia on April 25th 1982 by Wessex, Lynx and Wasp helicopters from HMS Brilliant, HMS Endurance and HMS Plymouth, who attacked her with Mk 11 depth charges, Mk.46 torpedoes, and damaged her with AS.12 missiles and machine gun fire, forcing her to be abandoned at the jetty at King Edward Point by her captain to avoid sinking. (I think this counts as slightly more than "mechanical problems".) She was so badly damaged that after the war the British scuttled her.
This submarine was the ex-USS Catfish.
For photos, see the following website: http://www.rontini.com/catfish.htm


2. There is a story of UK Special Ops folks who were trying to infiltrate by helicopter via Chile the back door of S. Argentina. One of them crashed. Was this helicopter ever recovered? Tks

For further info see: http://www.naval-history.net/F40opsweek8.htm It has been stated elsewhere that the helicopter was very efficiently destroyed by its crew, and therefore there was no point in recovering it.
Shortly after the Falklands war, some thought that the "Chile incident" information was put out during the war by the psychological warfare people to ensure that Argentina retained aircraft in Argentina just in case an attack was launched from the somewhere other than the Falklands task force. I do not have first hand information on the matter, so cannot say whether or not the incident was fact or fiction.

"Needle"

[FAH 619]

Needle:

Tks for providing the links/excellent data. SS339 had indeed quite bit of US Navy history to tell. The Chile incident probably will remain as such.

It is interesting how each ship and crew has incredible survival stories to tell. Same thing with the Harriers Sqs. See you at the next world cup ..for some serious encounter! -) Tks

[DamienB]

The A4 didnt carry the Exocet but the Super Etendard did. It was one of these aircraft that sunk HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor.

Sheffield was sunk by a storm in the end, not a missile. While the badly damaged ship was under tow to a safe harbour conditions worsened to the point where the towing vessel - HMS Yarmouth - had to cast off its lines or be sunk itself. A ship with no crew, no steering and no power does not last long in a South Atlantic storm. The small hole in the side made little difference I'm told - it was after all higher up the side than the open hangar deck.

The biggest factor is that the superstructure of warships is now made from aluminum which decreases weight but also survivability. Add to it the fuel lines ect cut by the missle has it passed throught the ship (remember the USS Starke).

Sheffield's superstructure was not made from aluminium (it was entirely steel like all Type 42s) and nor were the fuel lines cut - the water main, however, was, and as the crossfeed to the other half of the water main was not closed they were very soon without any fire fighting capability.

RMAllnutt - if you enjoyed the HMS Yarmouth site, there are many others for other task force ships - start at the one I run for HMS Coventry, I've got links to the others on there.

[FAH 619]

Needle/DamienB:

For your archives an Argie Mirage #12 shown poss hits to Antilope & Arrow. Photo R.P Via C/w.com

Last edited by FAH 619 on Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Amado Aguiluz F.]

Hi All,

During the conflict, the Argentine air force (FAA) displayed either a "ship kill", and/or a "ship damaged" tally on the nose of an aircraft.
I understand the frigate HMS Antelope, F170, was sunk on 24/5/82 as the result of two 500-lb. bombs dropped by an A-4 Skyhawk. Although the frigate HMS Arrow, F173, was in considerable danger -exposed to aerial and submarine attack- during her vain attempt to contain the out of control fires of destroyer HMS Sheffield, D80, she was not damaged or sunk.

The data given about the "ship kill" tally shown on the nose of the IAI-built Dagger (above photo), is therefore, incorrect.

Cheers,

Amado

[Randy Haskin]

Does the Argentine Navy / Air Force have some kind of standard with respect to how kill markings are painted on aircraft?

Personally, I think markings painted on aircraft are and extremely poor way to determine how much damage was inflicted by that aircraft.

There is *no* standard in the US military, so markings may mean missiond flown, bombs dropped, or objects destroyed. They can vary from aircraft-to-aircraft, squadron-to-squadron, service-to-service. Even worse, they're usually painted on by a crew chief who is taking the word of his pilot as gospel.

I know from personal experience that what a pilot believes to have happened during a combat mission often does not match what actually occurred. This has been seen many times since aircraft kills began to be recorded -- two guys claim the same aircraft downed, or an aircraft on fire descends through a cloud deck and nobody actually observes it being destroyed.

[Amado Aguiluz F.]

Randy,

"Kill" markings:
I will post tomorrow, the photograph of a FAA Dagger (C-432) which shows a "ship damaged" tally (the silhouette of a ship painted half in black -or red-, and the other half in white).
On the photo of the Dagger shown above, the silhouette of two ships all painted in black, reflects a "ship sunk" tally.
I will contact an Argentine friend of mine and further investigate the matter.

Now that you mention it, everyone knows "kill" or victory markings became popular since the very begining of air warfare. I tend to believe, aircraft crews liked to paint markings of "kills", missions flown, or bombs dropped (WWII), not only as a pilot/squadron record, but also a matter of pride and perhaps as a morale booster?

Cheers,

Amado

[FAH 619]

Randy:

I tend to agree with all your comments about a/c markings on Argie planes.

We established at the beginning of this theme that it was not entirely clear how the Argies went about displaying all those markings. Shown below is a sample on a Super-Etendard panel. Photo Aeromilitar Argentina via Carlos Ay.




p.s We'll ask the author to post other angles of the same aircraft if available and to tell us the name of the ship just above the HMS Invincible, plus a bit of history about aircraft markings!

[RMAllnutt]

The name of the ship above is clearly HMS Sheffield, whose demise was caused by being struck by two Exocet missiles from a Super Etendard. Since the marking is painted on this aircraft, it seems likely that this was the one which fired the missiles. HMS Invincible, of course, was not hit during the conflict, so the second marking is erroneous.

Cheers,
Richard

[Randy Haskin]

Now that you mention it, everyone knows "kill" or victory markings became popular since the very begining of air warfare. I tend to believe, aircraft crews liked to paint markings of "kills", missions flown, or bombs dropped (WWII), not only as a pilot/squadron record, but also a matter of pride and perhaps as a morale booster?

Here's the photo of my and my jet from Iraq in 2003. Note the bomb markings on the right side of the photo. What do you think they mean -- missions flown? Bombs dropped? Targets killed?



Want to know the answer? Me, too! I think I remember my crew chief saying that it was a bomb mark for every sortie on which ordnance was expended, and the type of bomb painted on there was the largest one dropped on that particular sortie. To me, that is a strange thing to be keeping track of -- a far more interesting tally would be either overall missions flown or overall bombs dropped, or overall tonnage of bombs dropped. But, that is what my crew chief decided he wanted to track, so that is what ended up on the jet. Years from now I wonder what people in our shoes will think when they see that photo.

My point is, that in a vacuum it is impossible to really interpret the kill marks without talking to the person who painted them!

My interpretation of the single red slash over the HMS Invincible silhouette is that it was damaged but not sunk...is that correct? Who knows!

[Tulio]

Randy:

"Does the Argentine Navy / Air Force have some kind of standard with respect to how kill markings are painted on aircraft?"

Destroyed targets are crossed, damaged, are slashed.

I will send you a copy of a photo of an Aermacchi with the silhouette of a frigate, slashed, meaning it was damaged. I believe -not sure- it was HMS Antrim.

Saludos,

Tulio

[RMAllnutt]

That was my interpretation of the slash versus cross too. Still doesn't mean that Invincible was hit though (which it wasn't), which further highlights Randy's point that the markings were very much the interpretation of the individual who painted them, or at the very most, the flight or squadron the plane was attached to.

Cheers,
Richard

[DamienB]

Does the Argentine Navy / Air Force have some kind of standard with respect to how kill markings are painted on aircraft?

No, they just make it up as they go along, witness the HMS Invincible 'damaged' marking on that Etendard. Such markings on Argentine aircraft bear little relation to reality in many cases - indeed the only two I know of that are definitely accurate are the one above for HMS Sheffield and the marking for Coventry on A-4 C-207:



...but even that also carries another kill marking for a ship it did not sink, and a half marking the meaning of which escapes me (half a credit for a kill, or a 'damaged'?). The latter half marking was not applied until some time after the war too!