Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

HMS Coventry 1982

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

HMS Coventry 1982

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th Nov 2013, 18:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HMS Coventry 1982

How close was Neil Thomas to the inbound raid to HMS Coventry when he was hauled off due "Birds Affirm" on 25th May 1982.
Had he called visual contact? And, if so, what was the range?
Naval Eye can you help?
Edmund Spencer is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 21:49
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Budapest
Age: 56
Posts: 94
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to Sharkey's book, they were "almost at sidewinder release range at the attackers' 6 o'clock". I guess you would know what that distance is?

That is the only reference I can find at the moment.

Cheers

Andy
AndySmith is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 21:54
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Probably around 2 miles then.
Depending on closure rate (or lack of), he might still have been "almost in range" 20 minutes later.
The devil's in the details.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From my copy of Falklands The Air War it says Neill Thomas (in XZ496) and Dave Smith (in XZ459) were vectored towards in incoming flight which consisted of four A-4B Skyhawks from Grupo 5. The Skyhawk flight split into two separate attack elements......Two were seen by Neill Thomas, who dived at the hostiles and got within three miles of them before being ordered to break off the interception. The book states these Skyhawks were heading for HMS Broadsword.

It then goes on to say the Sea Harrier CAP headed for the other pair, going for HMS Coventry but they were again ordered to break off. Broadsword had locked onto the targets but then Coventry broke the radar lock by coming between Broadsword and the Skyhawks. It does not give a distance between the Harriers and the Skyhawks for that engagement.
clicker is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why were both aircraft told to break off the engagement ?
500N is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:38
  #6 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
ES. From anecdotal evidence only I believe Captain Hart Dyke was mistaken in his belief that Sea Dart could have taken kill in such a space. I am detached from my reference material but I believe Hermes flight was visual with the incoming pair before being hauled off. You would know better than I and there are no official documents available given the heat of the moment. Coventry's track charts went with her. 3 miles is my best guess.

I contributed to the making of this account and believe it to be the most accurate and recent.

Please let me know what you think.

Kindest regards.

Seconds from Disaster: Sinking the Coventry (S06E08) - Video Dailymotion

Last edited by Navaleye; 28th Nov 2013 at 22:48.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
500N said:
Why were both aircraft told to break off the engagement ?
If the ship-board defences were to be deployed against the incoming aircraft then you would not want your own aircraft behind them in-case of misses/strays/accidental targetting.
Burnie5204 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:45
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Budapest
Age: 56
Posts: 94
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A very valid point. The aircraft being involved in the attacks on Coventry and Broadsword were A4s, and had been transiting at low level, and I believe that the SHARs were descending from the CAP to engage, so one could probably assume that they were catching them.

They did not reach the first pair before they entered the Sea Dart Zone, and were called off the second pair by Coventry, which from reading between the lines they were a lot closer to than the first.

This is a well know photo of the first pair, Carballo and Rinke, bearing in on Broadsword, taken by a very brave (or foolhardy) matelot.



A

Last edited by AndySmith; 28th Nov 2013 at 23:01.
AndySmith is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 01:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just had a read of the BoI.

It gives the timings of the two flights of Seahawks as not more than 90 secs apart.

Ref the Sea Harrier attack on the second pair it says the Harriers were 4-5 miles from their intercept point when they were told to break off when "Birds Affirm" was called.

Pardon my ignorance, being a civvie and all that. Would I be right in assuming "Birds Affirm" be a call to say that the Sea Dart was going to make the intercept as they had a radar lock?
clicker is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 09:43
  #10 (permalink)  
AR1
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Age: 63
Posts: 710
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Respect to both ends of that photo. You need a pair to fly through that erupting sea. No matter how ineffective the fire was.
AR1 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 11:31
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
You need even more courage to fly higher so that your bombs fuse.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 13:05
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Respect to both ends of that photo. You need a pair to fly through that erupting sea. No matter how ineffective the fire was.
Agree completely.

Not sure would have a steady hand seeing that coming at me.
racedo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 15:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Aussie in Norway
Posts: 60
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder if Carballo and Rinke thought about useing their 20mm guns on the run in?
D John is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 16:33
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I wonder if Carballo and Rinke thought about useing their 20mm guns on the run in?
Possibly but bet now they glad they didn't.

Better to have a beer with an enemy you could have killed, than drinking alone to forget and regret what you have done, after visiting their grave.
racedo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 16:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Racedo


That's a silly comment.


Better to win a war than lose it!
Tourist is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 17:15
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did these two pilots end up surviving the war ?
500N is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 17:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Argentina
Age: 48
Posts: 132
Received 45 Likes on 13 Posts
Both Carballo and Rinke survived the war.

Five or six years ago, I attended a Carballo`s conference (then already retired from the Air Force) and he commented that he tried to sink ships, but not to kill people, and he regretted every loss of life.
Marcantilan is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 18:37
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
That's a silly comment.


Better to win a war than lose it!
Nobody said anything about winning or losing a war.

What I said was about the people who for the rest of their lives may have to live with seeing faces they needlessly killed, when they were always going to achieve their objective.

Would you have rather the Argentinian pilots used guns and killed everybody ?
I am thankful they did not and as quoted they are as well.
racedo is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 20:42
  #19 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
ES, Apologies for the delay. I can find no record of a Judy from Thomas or you. In the absence of this Coventry rightly remained in control of the engagement. I hope this answers your question.

Last edited by Navaleye; 29th Nov 2013 at 20:55.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 20:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Quote: I wonder if Carballo and Rinke thought about useing their 20mm guns on the run in?
AND
Possibly but bet now they glad they didn't.
I'm sorry, but what fatuous statements. If any of us ever go to war with attitude we are not fit to serve. It is not our place to give quarter in the shooting part of any war. It was his job to destroy the ship, without consideration of the enemy, in this case us. It was his duty to employ any means at his disposal to do harm to the enemy. Not to think about trying not to kill the people that were trying to kill him and that he was under orders to kill. His job was to sink the ship and that, potentially, included killing everyone on board.

That's how it is.
Courtney Mil is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.