Hello all,

Thanks for all the replies, special thanks for Navaleye.

First of all, I am not chasing the "sinking theory" or whatever its called that sci-fi story.

I am writting an essay for the 1982 South Atlantic Air Military Congress , sponsored by the Argentine Air Force (on early September this year). My subject of study is this attack, but for now only for the British point of view.

Is about what the fleet (and some RAF personnel there) saw and how reacted to the attack.

It was a daring raid, maybe the "most daring" from the Argentine side, and the Task Force behaved really well in defense. An interesting day to analyze, I think.

I did a lot of research in the matter. I searched the National Archives (at Kew) from top to bottom, researched in the IWM audio library (a good account of Exeter`s CO there), readed various books and articles, and interviewed: a Lynx pilot who saw the events (part of his recollections already quoted in this thread), a radar operator in HMS Cardiff, an aircraft handler at HMS Invincible and the First Lt. of HMS Avenger. And really, I am just beginning!

If anyone was there at the time or have info about the event (and is interested in sharing it), please let me know via PM. I must say that, being Argentine, the first thing people ask me is about the "sinking theory" and if I am into it. Again, my answer is a big no.

Navaleye,

Force disposition at the event of the attack as follows:

http://jorgek.esy.es/Imagenes/lN6lyFT.jpg

The graphic above represents that. Really, in the beginning of the attack HMS Avenger headed south (because the axis of the attack was misunderstood) but all the fleet moved to 060º.

I will watch the documentary. Thanks for the heads up!

Best regards,
Mariano

PD: If anyone is interested in the congress (http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/histor...greso_2014.pdf ) please let me know. I know the Congress is interested in British lecturers.

Not unusual on you!!

Godspeed, my friend. See ya soon. :ok:

Christian

Mariano has the RN after action report which I have helped to deconstruct and make sense of as its full of jargon and shorthand. Unlike the army the navy doesn't do long signals.

Based on what I have seen I have a strong working theory how Jimlads myth came about.

They are his documents and it requires his consent to share my theory and I can explain why.

Navaleye
Did i see your link correct $171 for a soft back book? Must be a mistake i presume or a limited print run of one.

Yes. Ridiculous. You can have mine PM your details if you will and I will post it over.

Hello Navaleye, yes please go ahead.

Regards!
Mariano

Where was HMS Battleaxe?
 

There was another Sea Wolf equipped ship, the third Type 22 HMS Battleaxe. I have never seen any mention of her in relation to the Falklands Conflict.

I was on an RAeS tour of here when she was docked in Hull before the war and was appalled at the ship's lack of fire-power - save the Sea Wolf system of course.

Does anyone know where HMS Battleaxe was during the conflict?

I had the pleasure of meeting her then CO when he came aboard the QM2 for Trafalgar 200. I asked him about this and he said she had to return to the UK with shaft problems.

Having looked at the materials provided to me by Mariano including debrief reports of the pilots including sketches they penned, I think the myths of the 30th May can be finally laid to rest.

1. The Etendard pilots were Navy. One of the most important skills drilled into any officer is ship recognition and you are trained to a very high standard. This is especially so for a Naval attack pilot.

2. The A4 pilots were Air Force. Used to flying over land which is what they were trained to do and I'm sure did it well. Ship recognition skills are not a priority in this case and I suspect they had little if any training in this regard.

3. Bearing in mind the last point. As we have seen from the footage of the time, the crew rooms were festooned with pictures of ships. Hermes and Invincible doubtless prominent amongst them. The tasking would doubtless have been along the lines of "Follow that missile, and sink one of them!" They would have no doubt studied the pictures carefully and went about their mission. The surviving pair came across Avenger shrouded in smoke from her gun and chaff rockets, attacked and departed.

4. At the wash-up, they drew what they genuinely thought they had seen and which is what they were tasked with which was Invincible in this case. In my opinion it was a genuine case of mistaken identity, nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Mariano, they were not lying.

That is all.

navaleye, have you got a link? I can't find anything in the Kindle store that matches that.

Seems to have gone. I will try and dig out my copy to get the authors name.

Navaleye

It's in the 'Forgotten Voices' series of books, read it a couple of weeks ago after my mother got it as part of a book club deal.

That's the one thank you. You can pick up a softback for 1p +P&P.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5...omentoataq.jpg

The attack as seen by the fleet.

The red line is the Exocet path, from the launch detection to an splash seen by Ambuscade, asuming it was the missile ditching.

Exeter launched three Sea Darts. The first one missed Andromeda`s Lynx, but the second and third were assesed hits.

From the post attack analysis.

Regards,

Thanks guys!

Great map!!

Just to get it straight: the idea is that the AGAVE radars got a lock on HMS Avenger, which -somehow- got to mislead the incoming missile (chaff?)?

The rumour that stated that the Exocet radar sold to Argentina had a 15° searching capacity to each side of its flying path, appears to be the actual explanation. Why then did not it lock on some other target in the area after flying by HMS Avenger?

Christian

I can answer part of that question. Any NATO weapon sold to a non NATO country has to have "export" specification. Meaning that they were detuned. Common practice in the arms business.

This means that compared to a French SuE and Exocet, the export version had only c65% of the capability.

From an old magazine of the war times. Note the pictures, images and silhouettes. Regards,

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6...3697701403.jpg

1. The Etendard pilots were Navy. One of the most important skills drilled into any officer is ship recognition and you are trained to a very high standard. This is especially so for a Naval attack pilot.

Maybe so, but for Navy Officers, they don't seem to have realised that the high value target is going to be surrounded by escorts, so the first target they attack isn't going to be the one they want. Pop up, fire at the first target, run away and claim an aircraft carrier. The alternative would be to have a longer look and get shot out of the sky by a Sea Dart.

4. At the wash-up, they drew what they genuinely thought they had seen and which is what they were tasked with which was Invincible in this case. In my opinion it was a genuine case of mistaken identity, nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Mariano, they were not lying.

They told their seniors what they wanted to hear, which you tend to do in a military dictatorship.

'Now look here, chaps, this is our last Exocet so make it count and don't come back without sinking one of the carriers'. 'Yes, Sir!'

'We definately sank one of the carriers, sir! We flew straight down the deck and bombed it. It was already one fire from the Exocet hit'.

Great comb over...........a style I find very underrated these days.......