Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Bombers over the Falklands (was Re: B52 Replacement) Message-ID: <1991Mar20.035047.2613@cbnews.att.com> Date: 20 Mar 91 03:50:47 GMT References: <1991Mar12.225105.25754@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 56 Approved: military@att.att.com From: vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) >From article <1991Mar12.225105.25754@cbnews.att.com>, by adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt): > The Vulcan bomber raids did actually hit the Stanley airfield, and put one > or two craters in the runway. [...]. 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. It became useless for the Argentine jet fighters, who thus had to take off on the mainland and had extremely short endurance in the war zone, with almost no fuel for dogfights. (I concede that it is somewhat improbable, though, that they would have been permanently stationed at Stanley where they could be subjected to further bombings.) The Pucara ground attack aircraft stationed at Stanley probably would have been able to take off from a paved road as well. > The technique was to fly across the runway, > dropping a stick of bombs as they went. [...] > 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. In fact, they did not fly over the runway at all. I once read a detailed account of it, but don't remember the source. The raid was flown by a single bomber. I have always been extremely impressed by that attack, not only because of the range (the Vulcan was refueled seventeen times during the flight), but also because of the way they did it. It is a wonder they hit the runway at all. The plane came in at low height to evade the radar at Stanley and rose to 10 000 ft for the final run. The pilot then started a climb and the bombs were released on an ascending trajectory with the plane still 3 miles away from the coast. The pilot immediately made a sharp turn and went on the return course to Ascension island at full throttle. When the bombs hit half a minute or a minute later, the plane was just rising through a hole in the clouds and the crew got a short look at the lights of Port Stanley with the explosions flickering at the airfield. 1. I do not remember how they homed in on the airfield. There was no visual contact before the attack. 2. I do not know why they did it that way and have never heard of any other attack of that kind. I guess they wanted to absolutely avoid the plane being hit by AA fire over the airfield. You do not want to start a war with a bomber raid that has 100% casualties, which is easily achieved when there's only one plane to lose. 3. I do not know why they did not repeat the attack. Perhaps they were content with preventing the use of the airfield for fighters. -- Markus Stumptner mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at University of Technology Vienna vexpert!mst@uunet.uu.net Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst