Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Bombers over the Falklands (was Re: B52 Replacement)
Message-ID: <1991Mar12.225105.25754@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 12 Mar 91 22:51:05 GMT
References: <1991Mar6.034840.20736@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)

In article <1991Mar6.034840.20736@cbnews.att.com> wku_unix!kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mark A. Kinney) writes:
>				   There is some precedent for the "cargo-
>hauler-as-bomber" concept. The Argentines loaded up some of their C-130's with
>bombs during the Falkland Islands War, and failed to hit any British ships if
>I remember correctly (I *know* that it any were hit, none sank). Earlier, 
>British Vulcan bomber raids failed in cratering the Stanley airfield.

The use of C-130's as bombers was a very crude job.  There was no bomb-sight.
The bombs were just rolled out of the back.  I'm not surprised they didn't
hit any ships that way - they could, if they had wanted, perhaps hit something
the size of a town.

The Vulcan bomber raids did actually hit the Stanley airfield, and put one
or two craters in the runway.  The technique was to fly across the runway,
dropping a stick of bombs as they went.  The snag was that this only cut the
runway in half, and the aircraft stationed by the Argentinians at Port Stanley
were capable of taking off even with the reduced length of runway.  This is a
credit to the C-130 transport, which has quite a short take-off.

I do have to wonder why the raids weren't more effective, since during the
Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe did knock out some RAF bases using simple
bombs.

 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk