Vulcans Falkland Raid
It totes bigger than the 750's......but one does have to admit....51 of those "Babies" exceed anything the Vulcan carried....ever.
Also...please note the B-52 is still in service and unlike the Vulcan which at best is either a Gate Guard or doing the Antique Aircraft Show circuit.
Penis Envy is such a sad state of mind.....
Also...please note the B-52 is still in service and unlike the Vulcan which at best is either a Gate Guard or doing the Antique Aircraft Show circuit.
Penis Envy is such a sad state of mind.....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until smart bombs became the order of the day about all you could say of the big bombers with any degree of accuracy was that all the bombs hit the ground
Last edited by soddim; 17th Jan 2013 at 13:09.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
51 of those "Babies" exceed anything the Vulcan carried....ever
Fair to say they carried an equal load of death and destruction....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Soddim, not always 
.
ORAC, I wish you hadn't said that. A pair of Hound Dogs followed by two or three of megaton weapons in a Money Order or Large Charge following a couple of penetration aids trumps a high kiloton weapon every time.
.ORAC, I wish you hadn't said that. A pair of Hound Dogs followed by two or three of megaton weapons in a Money Order or Large Charge following a couple of penetration aids trumps a high kiloton weapon every time.
I do believe the context of the squabble was about Iron Dumb Bombs....which tonnage and numbers can make a real difference.....where when Nukes are considered....the sheer scale of the mayhem done by a single bomb makes comparisons a bit moot.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I do believe the context of the squabble was about Iron Dumb Bombs....which tonnage and numbers can make a real difference.....
When they went downtown in Hanoi.....they did.
Arclight was the name of the bombing campaign using B-52's down south and in Cambodia and Laos.
Linebacker was the name of the bombing operation up north.
Operation Arc Light
The sad fact is we bombed our Allies and never invaded the enemy!
Having been involved in some activities immediately following some of the bombing down South....they did have an effect if they landed on where the bad guys were. Sadly, they did not do that often enough.
A favorite tactic was sending Scout Helicopters and Gunships into the area right after the raids.....to do BDA and dispatch any NVA/VC seen wandering about the place. Organized resistance was not a real threat following the raids as the physical and psychological effect of 200,000 pounds of bombs falling on your neighborhood has to be seen to be believed. As the Buff's flew too high to be heard and usually unseen.....the warning you got was the sound of the bombs just before they hit. Add darkness and it must have been a terrible experience.
The craters have been put to good use as Cat Fish ponds today.
Arclight was the name of the bombing campaign using B-52's down south and in Cambodia and Laos.
Linebacker was the name of the bombing operation up north.
Operation Arc Light
The sad fact is we bombed our Allies and never invaded the enemy!
Having been involved in some activities immediately following some of the bombing down South....they did have an effect if they landed on where the bad guys were. Sadly, they did not do that often enough.
A favorite tactic was sending Scout Helicopters and Gunships into the area right after the raids.....to do BDA and dispatch any NVA/VC seen wandering about the place. Organized resistance was not a real threat following the raids as the physical and psychological effect of 200,000 pounds of bombs falling on your neighborhood has to be seen to be believed. As the Buff's flew too high to be heard and usually unseen.....the warning you got was the sound of the bombs just before they hit. Add darkness and it must have been a terrible experience.
The craters have been put to good use as Cat Fish ponds today.
Last edited by SASless; 17th Jan 2013 at 14:46.
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
SaSless
And sending in people.
Some excellent write ups in the book MACV-SOG by John Plaster re what they
saw on the ground immediately after a bombing raid.
And sending in people.
Some excellent write ups in the book MACV-SOG by John Plaster re what they
saw on the ground immediately after a bombing raid.
Originally Posted by SASless:7638456
The sad fact is we bombed our Allies and never invaded the enemy!
Sasless; stick to that that you know about; you are an ex US Army helicopter pilot that has done time in th UK as a North Sea rotary pilot.
You know bugger-all about bombing......
I am also an ex miltary and North Sea pilot but I have spent some in Bomber Command RAF, so I have picked up a bit of knowledge about how those that actually chuck the HE at the baddies actually work.
As you can, no doubt, pick up your trusty Winchester 73 and drop a fleeing burgler at 50 yards in a hurricane then you know about the wind effect on missiles. A bombsight will, if you believe Norden, drop a 750lb bomb into a pickle barrel at 30,000 ft.
Your trusty B52 during the Gulf and subsequent punch-ups was after their 15th or so upgrade and were not using bombsights as such, either visual or internal radar because the mighty GPS had taken over. They dialled in the target, he autopilot took over and at the designated time it would release the bombs on the wind information that had been programmed into it. Just to make sure they had half-a-dozen 52s flying in formation that did the same thing.
Your poor old Vulcan boring into Stamley manned by people who were already into their retirement programme, using an analoque cold war navigation bombing system and had to fly thousands of miles and drop one stick of bombs on a runway so as to make it unusable.
The lost art of bombing requires four things. The wind speed at release, the wind speed at the target and the the flight characteristics of the bomb. The forth is an interpelation ot the wind during th descent which is normally a comprimise between the upper an lower winds. The Vulcan crew has two of those but no knowledge of the surface or the mid level wind.
They released 29 bombs within one second travelling at 360 ft/sec. Despite that they had Cold War radar with what would be regarded nowadays as appalling definition and no surface weather information they put their stick so that one end of it hit the target. The USAF would have put a fleet of B52s thatwould have obliterated Stanley airfield and and most of the township.
In 1945 General Kesselring, Commander of the Southern German Army was asked of his opinions of the bombing in Italy. "When the Germans bomb the Allies duck. When the British bomb the Germans duck When the Americans bomb everybody ducks."
In 1945 a B29 crew had unlimited hours practising bombing so that they could deliver a certain bomb within a defined area.
They missd their aiming point in Hiroshima by 800 yards.
If you ever come back to Aberdeen we'll have a few beers together again.
.
You know bugger-all about bombing......
I am also an ex miltary and North Sea pilot but I have spent some in Bomber Command RAF, so I have picked up a bit of knowledge about how those that actually chuck the HE at the baddies actually work.
As you can, no doubt, pick up your trusty Winchester 73 and drop a fleeing burgler at 50 yards in a hurricane then you know about the wind effect on missiles. A bombsight will, if you believe Norden, drop a 750lb bomb into a pickle barrel at 30,000 ft.
Your trusty B52 during the Gulf and subsequent punch-ups was after their 15th or so upgrade and were not using bombsights as such, either visual or internal radar because the mighty GPS had taken over. They dialled in the target, he autopilot took over and at the designated time it would release the bombs on the wind information that had been programmed into it. Just to make sure they had half-a-dozen 52s flying in formation that did the same thing.
Your poor old Vulcan boring into Stamley manned by people who were already into their retirement programme, using an analoque cold war navigation bombing system and had to fly thousands of miles and drop one stick of bombs on a runway so as to make it unusable.
The lost art of bombing requires four things. The wind speed at release, the wind speed at the target and the the flight characteristics of the bomb. The forth is an interpelation ot the wind during th descent which is normally a comprimise between the upper an lower winds. The Vulcan crew has two of those but no knowledge of the surface or the mid level wind.
They released 29 bombs within one second travelling at 360 ft/sec. Despite that they had Cold War radar with what would be regarded nowadays as appalling definition and no surface weather information they put their stick so that one end of it hit the target. The USAF would have put a fleet of B52s thatwould have obliterated Stanley airfield and and most of the township.
In 1945 General Kesselring, Commander of the Southern German Army was asked of his opinions of the bombing in Italy. "When the Germans bomb the Allies duck. When the British bomb the Germans duck When the Americans bomb everybody ducks."
In 1945 a B29 crew had unlimited hours practising bombing so that they could deliver a certain bomb within a defined area.
They missd their aiming point in Hiroshima by 800 yards.
If you ever come back to Aberdeen we'll have a few beers together again..
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 17th Jan 2013 at 20:11. Reason: Give Elona Gay its correct prefix
Gentleman Aviator
.....the warning you got was the sound of the bombs just before they hit. Add darkness and it must have been a terrible experience.
I believe you have had one Pint too many in the past. I know the B-52 is old....but its early development must have been a very well kept secret.
Now despite being an Army helicopter pilot....I do in fact know a touch about aerial bombing....having actually done some with a helicopter. Some was intentional as well.
We had no bombsight at all unless you consider the Pedal Adjustment pegs on a Chinook a device that could be called a bomb sight. Granted the weapon and techniques were not Army approved unless it was Drums of Tear Gas or Napalm we were dropping but we did attack the enemy with 'bombs". So your accusation I know naught is not exactly accurate.
As to the fine art of true Aerial Bombardment....no I know very little beyond what I have seen in the Dam Busters and 633 Squadron or perhaps Doctor Strangelove.....I never did understand how Slim Pickens ever thought he could steer that Nuke by riding on it like he was on horseback.
So....you defend the Vulcan attack by citing old kit....but suggest a B-29 using a mechanical bombsight....with no wind data beyond what could be constructed using Drift Meters in the Bomb sight and by the Nav....was a failure despite it obliterating the city of Hiroshima. When it comes to Nukes....I would think an 800 meter error could be considered acceptable.
You recall what the Wind problems were for the B-29's were that caused LeMay to go to low level Fire Bombing attacks?
Of course you politely skip over the RAF Bomber Command's accuracy during the same War where whole cities were missed. But that is another topic altogether.
I'll take you up on the Pint....
In 1945 a B52 crew had unlimited hours practising bombing so that they could deliver a certain bomb within a defined area.
We had no bombsight at all unless you consider the Pedal Adjustment pegs on a Chinook a device that could be called a bomb sight. Granted the weapon and techniques were not Army approved unless it was Drums of Tear Gas or Napalm we were dropping but we did attack the enemy with 'bombs". So your accusation I know naught is not exactly accurate.
As to the fine art of true Aerial Bombardment....no I know very little beyond what I have seen in the Dam Busters and 633 Squadron or perhaps Doctor Strangelove.....I never did understand how Slim Pickens ever thought he could steer that Nuke by riding on it like he was on horseback.
So....you defend the Vulcan attack by citing old kit....but suggest a B-29 using a mechanical bombsight....with no wind data beyond what could be constructed using Drift Meters in the Bomb sight and by the Nav....was a failure despite it obliterating the city of Hiroshima. When it comes to Nukes....I would think an 800 meter error could be considered acceptable.
You recall what the Wind problems were for the B-29's were that caused LeMay to go to low level Fire Bombing attacks?
Of course you politely skip over the RAF Bomber Command's accuracy during the same War where whole cities were missed. But that is another topic altogether.
I'll take you up on the Pint....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, last first, my sqn was a pathfinder sqn and was achieving accuracies in the order of 200-400 yards.
Then regarding your Buff with 51 bombs:
A hit from a 750lb bomb will have less effect that a 1000lb one. It also has the marked disadvantage of 50 misses rather than 20.
Curiously, in the run up to GW1 the USAF sought information about our 90-way bombing system and the intervalometer settings both available and practicable.
Then regarding your Buff with 51 bombs:
A hit from a 750lb bomb will have less effect that a 1000lb one. It also has the marked disadvantage of 50 misses rather than 20.
Curiously, in the run up to GW1 the USAF sought information about our 90-way bombing system and the intervalometer settings both available and practicable.
QUOTe.
The lost art of bombing requires four things. The wind speed at release, the wind speed at the target and the the flight characteristics of the bomb. The forth is an interpelation ot the wind during th descent which is normally a comprimise between the upper an lower winds. The Vulcan crew has two of those but no knowledge of the surface or the mid level wind.
I know nothing about bombing but a lot about wind [ask my wife, who suffers the manifestations].
It is true that the mid-level winds are usually somewhere within the extremes of the "bombing level" and the surface [vectors, not just speeds] but your met man straight out of training should know if the change of direction with height is veering or backing or indeed virtually steady ......... this from a consideration of approaching/ departing warm and cold air, so-called advection. "Thermal winds" and such difficult stuff.
However, the total effect of the lowest level winds on a streamlined bomb at near terminal velocity should be small unless a gale is blowing [which again, the met man should be in with a chance of forecasting.
There was enough shipping [friendlies] in the area to construct a halfway decent chart .......................
PROVIDED THE NAVY SHARED THE OBSERVATIONS.
I was stuck at Bawtry so know little of the sharp end, but we did have met men [and very experienced] of the MMU at Ascension, despite the RN desire to get rid of them as they stepped off the aircraft. I would be surprised if they did not give a reasonably accurate forecast ............ as opposed to cloud, rain, snow, fog, the atmospheric pressure and wind are usually forecastable to small margins.
The lost art of bombing requires four things. The wind speed at release, the wind speed at the target and the the flight characteristics of the bomb. The forth is an interpelation ot the wind during th descent which is normally a comprimise between the upper an lower winds. The Vulcan crew has two of those but no knowledge of the surface or the mid level wind.
I know nothing about bombing but a lot about wind [ask my wife, who suffers the manifestations].
It is true that the mid-level winds are usually somewhere within the extremes of the "bombing level" and the surface [vectors, not just speeds] but your met man straight out of training should know if the change of direction with height is veering or backing or indeed virtually steady ......... this from a consideration of approaching/ departing warm and cold air, so-called advection. "Thermal winds" and such difficult stuff.
However, the total effect of the lowest level winds on a streamlined bomb at near terminal velocity should be small unless a gale is blowing [which again, the met man should be in with a chance of forecasting.
There was enough shipping [friendlies] in the area to construct a halfway decent chart .......................
PROVIDED THE NAVY SHARED THE OBSERVATIONS.
I was stuck at Bawtry so know little of the sharp end, but we did have met men [and very experienced] of the MMU at Ascension, despite the RN desire to get rid of them as they stepped off the aircraft. I would be surprised if they did not give a reasonably accurate forecast ............ as opposed to cloud, rain, snow, fog, the atmospheric pressure and wind are usually forecastable to small margins.
In 1945 a B52 crew had unlimited hours practising
but we did attack the enemy with 'bombs". So your accusation I know naught is not exactly accurate.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 17th Jan 2013 at 15:57.
It also has the marked disadvantage of 50 misses rather than 20.
Odd that Bombing folks are comfortable with their Miss rate.....while Army folks are not. Must be the different perspective....looking down or looking up!
Meteorology is not mentioned in the official history
Surprise surprise!
Working on the ancient rool:
When I'm right no-one remembers
When I'm wrong no-one forgets
I reckon the forecasts were probably fit for purpose.
Good enough for the Met Office to share in the gongs dished out afterwards.
see: British Units in the Falklands War
Surprise surprise!
Working on the ancient rool:
When I'm right no-one remembers
When I'm wrong no-one forgets
I reckon the forecasts were probably fit for purpose.
Good enough for the Met Office to share in the gongs dished out afterwards.
see: British Units in the Falklands War
Last edited by langleybaston; 17th Jan 2013 at 16:18.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It is true that the mid-level winds are usually somewhere within the extremes of the "bombing level" and the surface [vectors, not just speeds] but your met man straight out of training should know if the change of direction with height is veering or backing or indeed virtually steady ......... . . .
However, the total effect of the lowest level winds on a streamlined bomb at near terminal velocity
However, the total effect of the lowest level winds on a streamlined bomb at near terminal velocity
As Langley said, the bombs would be falling relatively slowly at release and faster at lower levels such that their time in any given height band would decease as the bomb fell.
I don't believe there was any allowance for the change of wind unless it was factored. A uniform air mass was the ideal medium with dropping from a jet steam or through a strong wind sheer a guarantee of a wide bomb.
Dropping from a lower altitude in the region of 12,000 feet would minimise the wind effect. Now I have no evidence for this but it might be conceivable that knowledge of local winds may well have influenced a decision to bomb or not.
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
Question if anyone knows.
Was information available from the SAS personnel near Stanley
or were the BB raids before they were able to get into their locs ?
And if they were available, would any info re conditions have been
useful if it had been able to be sent ?
Was information available from the SAS personnel near Stanley
or were the BB raids before they were able to get into their locs ?
And if they were available, would any info re conditions have been
useful if it had been able to be sent ?