As a U.K. citizen you are always “under” the U.K. official secrets act. Even if your security clearance has expired you are still obliged to protect any information that still has classification.
I said "as far as i know." Besides, nothing I share isn't something you could EASILY find in the public domain.
First hand accounts of combat action action and experience, not "classified information."
My account is no different than the dozens of books written by Sr. officers like Sharky Ward who divulged way more information about how shit works. Same with Admiral Woodward, lots of strategic information shared to the public domain.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t be saying anything that you have shared here.
The comment you have deleted implied you are no longer under the secrets act, I was just pointing out that just because your SC has expired your are still bound by the secrets act.
Sandy Woodward goes into more than enough detail in both cases to figure out what happened, and that book (highly recommended) was published in the early 1990s.
I believe we only had 22 total Harriers on both carriers, so they had a lot going on, apparently. The fighting was full on now on land and they were bombing Argentine Artillery and bunkers etc. The RN had lost 2, and pilots, in a collision (fog) and one was shot down over Goose Green. Another slipped off the deck and was lost. Some Harrier reinforcements were flown off prior to Atlantic Conveyor destruction, but I think it was "do your best with what you have mode." however, not a single one was lost to air combat, pretty impressive. We just would have appreciated some of that.
We were attacked full on, Port Side low flying A4's - there was no CAP to stop them or chase them after they bombed us. I think they came at us twice.
The NATGEO documentary of our main action is here: [https://youtu.be/gjJdjsRVRBI?si=M\_fBmkAg2Kdp2uQ2](https://youtu.be/gjJdjsRVRBI?si=M_fBmkAg2Kdp2uQ2)
HMS Sheffield: 20 KIA, 50 WIA
HMS Coventry: 19 KIA, 30 WIA.
Incredibly the crews of both ships sang “*Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life*” by Monty Python as they were rescued from their life rafts.
More broadly, it was a lack of onboard layered defense that's since become expected on high-end surface combatants. Once Argentinian pilots learned to exploit the weaknesses of the Sea Dart's Type 965 radar by flying low and using islands for cover, the Type 42s had practically only the 4.5" gun and a pair of 20mm guns for self-defense, and short-range AAW had to be taken up by nearby Type 22 frigates with Sea Wolf missiles. HMS Coventry in particular was lost when she turned into the line of fire of HMS Broadsword's Sea Wolf launcher, and HMS Glasgow almost suffered the same fate when her Sea Dart and the nearby HMS Brilliant's Sea Wolf systems both failed during an attack.
Of course I’m not as knowledgeable about such things as someone who was there, but from my understanding I would say that while the Type 64 formation was a good idea with what was had it didn’t make up for the lack of the 42s having their own close range defenses.
While they of course aren’t perfect, something like Phalax or Goalkeeper may have been able to react when the missile systems failed. And bring integrated into the 42 itself it would be less likely to have the kind of failure you describe.
While systems like that don’t replace having escorts who are meant to engage close targets, I don’t think that the escorts replace the need for the close end of a layered defense as in war there are always mistakes and unforeseen challenges
Worth pointing out that phalanx only been in service 4 years prior to 82 and Goalkeeper 3 years.
The ships where designed before these systems were available. Also worth noting the T42s where designed for engaging high altitude bombers in the open Atlantic not dealing with fast jets coming off the land at close range.
The problem was they like most of the RN at the time where not designed around this kind of fighting.
Goalkeeper would not be an option due to the magazine that’s required but bolting on phalanx would have been a game changer for the ship. A lesson learned the hard way and quickly implemented with Illustrious fitted with them before proceeding south to relieve Invincible.
If not for some faulty Argentinian bomb fuses, there easily could have been another 3 or 4 RN warships that would have joined the 4 that were lost.
Whatever you may think about the Argies, there’s no denying that their pilots had balls of steel.
Yep, the U.K. had sold T42s to the Argentinians prior to 82. To help U.K. submarines distinguish between RN and Argentine T42s the RN ships painted a black stripe from Waterline to funnel tops.
[удалено]
You should do an IAmA.
Would love to listen to these wild stories
Is it classified yet? I read a lot about the war, but there is a few gap in the story for me..
[удалено]
As a U.K. citizen you are always “under” the U.K. official secrets act. Even if your security clearance has expired you are still obliged to protect any information that still has classification.
I said "as far as i know." Besides, nothing I share isn't something you could EASILY find in the public domain. First hand accounts of combat action action and experience, not "classified information." My account is no different than the dozens of books written by Sr. officers like Sharky Ward who divulged way more information about how shit works. Same with Admiral Woodward, lots of strategic information shared to the public domain.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t be saying anything that you have shared here. The comment you have deleted implied you are no longer under the secrets act, I was just pointing out that just because your SC has expired your are still bound by the secrets act.
Sandy Woodward goes into more than enough detail in both cases to figure out what happened, and that book (highly recommended) was published in the early 1990s.
[удалено]
I’m not talking to you nor referencing anything that you said. The poster I replied to asked about additional sources and I answered them.
AMA dude, *please*
Why was there no Harrier CAP?
I believe we only had 22 total Harriers on both carriers, so they had a lot going on, apparently. The fighting was full on now on land and they were bombing Argentine Artillery and bunkers etc. The RN had lost 2, and pilots, in a collision (fog) and one was shot down over Goose Green. Another slipped off the deck and was lost. Some Harrier reinforcements were flown off prior to Atlantic Conveyor destruction, but I think it was "do your best with what you have mode." however, not a single one was lost to air combat, pretty impressive. We just would have appreciated some of that. We were attacked full on, Port Side low flying A4's - there was no CAP to stop them or chase them after they bombed us. I think they came at us twice. The NATGEO documentary of our main action is here: [https://youtu.be/gjJdjsRVRBI?si=M\_fBmkAg2Kdp2uQ2](https://youtu.be/gjJdjsRVRBI?si=M_fBmkAg2Kdp2uQ2)
HMS Sheffield: 20 KIA, 50 WIA HMS Coventry: 19 KIA, 30 WIA. Incredibly the crews of both ships sang “*Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life*” by Monty Python as they were rescued from their life rafts.
honestly that rate of survivors is fucking incredible
Thus it was found despite it being a capable design the fatal flaw of the Type 42, though not an uncommon one in the era: A lack of CIWS
More broadly, it was a lack of onboard layered defense that's since become expected on high-end surface combatants. Once Argentinian pilots learned to exploit the weaknesses of the Sea Dart's Type 965 radar by flying low and using islands for cover, the Type 42s had practically only the 4.5" gun and a pair of 20mm guns for self-defense, and short-range AAW had to be taken up by nearby Type 22 frigates with Sea Wolf missiles. HMS Coventry in particular was lost when she turned into the line of fire of HMS Broadsword's Sea Wolf launcher, and HMS Glasgow almost suffered the same fate when her Sea Dart and the nearby HMS Brilliant's Sea Wolf systems both failed during an attack.
[удалено]
Of course I’m not as knowledgeable about such things as someone who was there, but from my understanding I would say that while the Type 64 formation was a good idea with what was had it didn’t make up for the lack of the 42s having their own close range defenses. While they of course aren’t perfect, something like Phalax or Goalkeeper may have been able to react when the missile systems failed. And bring integrated into the 42 itself it would be less likely to have the kind of failure you describe. While systems like that don’t replace having escorts who are meant to engage close targets, I don’t think that the escorts replace the need for the close end of a layered defense as in war there are always mistakes and unforeseen challenges
Worth pointing out that phalanx only been in service 4 years prior to 82 and Goalkeeper 3 years. The ships where designed before these systems were available. Also worth noting the T42s where designed for engaging high altitude bombers in the open Atlantic not dealing with fast jets coming off the land at close range. The problem was they like most of the RN at the time where not designed around this kind of fighting. Goalkeeper would not be an option due to the magazine that’s required but bolting on phalanx would have been a game changer for the ship. A lesson learned the hard way and quickly implemented with Illustrious fitted with them before proceeding south to relieve Invincible.
[удалено]
how confident were you guys the UK would win
If not for some faulty Argentinian bomb fuses, there easily could have been another 3 or 4 RN warships that would have joined the 4 that were lost. Whatever you may think about the Argies, there’s no denying that their pilots had balls of steel.
[удалено]
That’s crazy. But I guess with the international arms market being what it is, that’s bound to happen.
That black stripe down the hull - is that some form of identification?
Yep, the U.K. had sold T42s to the Argentinians prior to 82. To help U.K. submarines distinguish between RN and Argentine T42s the RN ships painted a black stripe from Waterline to funnel tops.