Malvinas: Why Didn’t the Bombs Explode? (2/8)

Why Didn’t the Bombs Explode?

Part 1 || Part 2 || Part 3 || Part 4 || Part 5 || Part 6 || Part 7 || Part 8

Guilherme Poggio || Poder Aereo




 

 
Thirty-five years ago, Argentines and Britons clashed in the frigid waters of the South Atlantic, fighting over the possession of the Malvinas Islands (Falklands, as the British call them). It was during this conflict that the Argentine Air Force (FAA – Fuerza Aérea Argentina) entered combat for the first time against an external enemy. The baptism of fire took place on May 1, 1982. The Air Power blog publishes an exclusive article in parts, covering the vectors, weapons, and tactics used by the FAA to attack and destroy the ships of the British Task Force. To read the previous parts, click the links below.

Vectors and Armaments

Faced with the challenge of confronting one of the best-equipped and prepared navies in the world, the FAA had limited options. The most suitable vectors for the mission were the IAI Dagger, an Israeli version of the Mirage 5, and the McDonnell Douglas A-4B/C Skyhawk. The latter were very similar to the A-4Q model of the Argentine Naval Aviation, which was also used in naval attacks against the British.
Dagger M-5 C-401 stationed at Río Grande configured for an attack mission, where two Spanish BR-250 bombs can be seen in the central hangar (“Nafgan”) and two 1700-liter fuel tanks (in “Hotel” configuration). This aircraft was used in the mission on June 8. The attack ultimately damaged the HMS Plymouth frigate.FOTO: Museo de Aviación Naval

The issue of armaments was more delicate. The only guided weapon available was the Martín Pescador air-to-surface missile. This missile, still not fully operational at the time, was tested by the FAA in April 1982, using an IA-58 Pucará aircraft as the vector. Due to its radio guidance system and the firing distance, the aircraft was too exposed to anti-aircraft fire. For these reasons, the possibility of using this missile in the war was abandoned.

Lacking guided weapons, the FAA evaluated the use of free-fall bombs. The FAA had essentially four types of general-purpose free-fall bombs available for combat. The first were 454 kg (1000 lb) bombs of British origin. The Argentines called these bombs MK-17. Although they were identical to those used by the British, the latter referred to them as MK 13/15. These were high-resistance bombs that could be equipped with either a smooth tail or a parachute brake. The MK-17 bombs had been acquired by the Argentines 12 years before the conflict as part of the weapons package for their English Electric Canberra B.62/T.64 bombers.


A British-made MK-17 bomb next to an FAA Canberra bomber. These bombs were acquired along with the bomber 12 years before the 1982 conflict. FOTO: FAA

Newer than the MK-17 bombs were the Spanish bombs produced by Expal (Explosivos Alaveses SA). These were low-drag bombs based on the American MK 80 series. There were two models: one weighing 250 kg and another weighing 125 kg. The 250 kg model could be fitted with either a smooth tail or a parachute-brake tail, while the 125 kg bombs only had a smooth tail. They were acquired in 1978 due to the threat of a border conflict with Chile. There is information that high-drag 500 kg Spanish bombs were also part of the FAA’s inventory in 1982.

 
The FAA A-4B with registration C-235 was already in the final stages of the conflict. In the foreground, three Spanish BP-250 smooth-tail bombs are arranged in a single cluster. They were loaded onto the central pylon, beneath the fuselage (station 3).FOTO: FAA
Malvinas 35 Years: Why Didn’t the Bombs Explode?

The third option was the Brazilian-made low-drag BR-BK 125 kg bombs. These were produced by the Armament Factory in the Argentine city of Córdoba. These bombs were exclusively assigned to the IA-58 Pucará, which operated from the Malvinas (and thus did not participate in naval operations). The reasons why the Argentines chose not to use this bomb in naval attacks will be discussed later.

Another option that was evaluated but not used during the conflict was the Israeli IMI Mod. 4 bomb, weighing 130 kg, which had been acquired along with the IAI Dagger a few years before the conflict (details about this case will also be discussed later).

A pair of Israeli IMI Mod. 4 bombs, weighing 130 kg, mounted on an M-5 Dagger fighter. There are no records of this weapon being used during the 1982 conflict. FOTO: FAA

There are reports that the FAA also possessed some American-made AN-M65A1 1,000-pound bombs at the time of the conflict, which had come with the Avro Lincoln bombers. In statements to “The History Channel,” Brigadier Sergio Mayor (V Air Brigade – A-4B) mentioned that AN-M65A1 bombs were used in Malvinas. However, there are no other documents to confirm this version, and it is possible that the general confused the American bombs with the MK-17 bombs.

Another unconventional possibility was the use of incendiary bombs against the British fleet. According to then Vice Commodore (Lieutenant Colonel) Arturo Pereyra, head of the Operations Department of FAS (Southern Air Force – activated to coordinate resources in combat missions), these were not used for "humanitarian reasons."

The option of using incendiary bombs against Royal Navy ships was dismissed for "humanitarian reasons." However, several Napalm bombs were sent to the Malvinas airfields, where the IA Pucará operated in strictly land-based actions. FOTO: archivo

The use of air-launched torpedoes was also evaluated. Argentina had some units of the old American Mk 13 torpedo, previously used by the PBY Catalina. Shortly after the conflict began, a torpedo testing program was initiated, using a modified IA Pucará as the delivery platform. The final test was scheduled for June 14, but with the end of hostilities, the program was suspended.



A modified Pucará prepared for flight tests, armed with an American Mk-13 torpedo in the central hangar. The tests were conducted shortly before the end of the conflict.. FOTO: FAA

Finally, it is worth noting that the FAA tested 454 kg free-fall bombs of French origin and Soviet cluster bombs, both supplied by the Peruvian Air Force. However, there are no known actual attacks using these devices.

The following table, created exclusively for this article, summarizes the general-purpose bombs available to the FAA at the time of the conflict.

Bombs Available in the FAA Inventory in 1982 for Use Against Royal Navy Ships

Malvinas: Why didn't the bombs explode? (1/8)

Why Didn't the Bombs Explode? (Part 1)

Guillermo Poggio || Poder Aéreo

Parte 1 || Parte 2 || Parte 3 || Parte 4 || Parte 5 || Parte 6 || Parte 7 || Parte 8



 



Thirty-five years ago, Argentines and Britons clashed in the frigid waters of the South Atlantic, fighting over the possession of the Malvinas Islands (known as "Falklands" to the British). It was during this conflict that the Argentine Air Force (FAA – Fuerza Aérea Argentina) entered combat for the first time against an external enemy. The baptism of fire took place on May 1, 1982. The following text recounts the story of what was the FAA's most important mission: to attack and destroy the ships of the British Task Force. Taken by surprise, the FAA carried out its missions despite lacking proper training, adequate vectors, and the right armament for the task. This is a story of overcoming challenges, rapid adaptation, and ingenuity. In the end, the results went far beyond what was initially expected.

Introduction

In early June 1944, the Allies were rushing to launch Operation Overlord, the amphibious landing in Normandy, which promised to change the course of World War II. Off the coast of Lyme Bay in the English Channel, HMS Boadicea (H65), a veteran B-class destroyer launched in 1930, was escorting a convoy of merchant ships. On June 13, the convoy fell victim to German aviation. Two torpedoes launched by Junkers Ju-88 bombers struck Boadicea. With the explosion of the ammunition magazine, the British ship quickly sank.

Boadicea was the last Royal Navy ship lost to enemy air action in that conflict. However, considering the use of free-fall devices ("dumb bombs"), the last British loss to enemy aviation was the HMS Panther, a P-class destroyer. The ship was hit by bombs dropped by German Junkers Ju. 87 “Stuka” dive bombers during the Dodecanese campaign in the Aegean Sea on October 9, 1943.


The British cruiser HMS Gloucester being attacked by German Ju-87 'Stuka' aircraft in the Mediterranean Sea on May 22, 1941. The ship would sink that same day after being hit directly by at least four 250 kg bombs. The photo was taken by one of the German aircraft at mid-altitude. If the Argentines were to use this same attack profile, the chances of success would be very small.FOTO: archivo

Since then, naval aviation warfare has undergone profound changes. Forty years later, using aircraft to drop free-fall bombs against escorts equipped with aerial surveillance systems and guided missiles was no longer considered a viable option for naval air attacks, unless the system of the targeted ship was overwhelmed. In 1982, the Argentines demonstrated that old weapons and new tactics could be combined to surprise the Royal Navy, and once again warships would be lost to free-fall bombs.

Caught by Surprise

All the military planning for the recapture of the Malvinas Islands was carried out confidentially by the high command of the Argentine Navy, with Admiral Anaya, the commander of the force, as the mastermind. By the end of 1981, the Argentine military government considered the possibility of retaking the Malvinas Islands through military action if diplomatic negotiations failed. This option was discussed with President Leopoldo Galtieri.

 
The military junta that ruled Argentina in 1982. In the center, President Galtieri. To his left is Anaya, the architect of the Malvinas recapture, and to his left is the FAA commander, Brigadier Lami Dozo. Dozo learned of the plan to retake the islands shortly before the new year. Most of his subordinates only became aware of the events on April 2, 1982, the date of the Argentine landing on the islands. Dozo passed away two months ago at the age of 88. FOTO: archivo

It turns out that at the same time, the Strategic Air Command (CAE) of the Argentine Air Force (FAA) had completed an update to the strategic planning of the Force, which did not include military actions against the British to retake the Malvinas Islands. The commander of the Argentine Air Force, Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo, was the last of the three commanders to learn about the existence of the military plan, being informed of it two days before the end of 1981.

The strategists of the Argentine Air Force had never considered the possibility of getting involved in a conflict with the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands. There were two major reasons for this, one legal and the other geopolitical.

From a legal standpoint, Resolution 1/69, issued by the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Argentine Armed Forces, helped resolve some disputes between the three branches and better defined each of their roles. Based on this resolution, by the end of 1969, Law No. 18.416 was enacted, which established the specific responsibilities of each branch.

In this way, the Navy had specific responsibilities over Argentina's territorial waters and coastline. It was tasked with acquiring all necessary assets, including naval and maritime resources, whether onboard ships or not. Regarding naval operations, the FAA was only required to provide indirect support without the need to acquire specialized assets different from those used in air operations.

Therefore, by April 1982, the FAA lacked the necessary assets and doctrines to engage in naval air warfare. None of the FAA pilots had ever dropped a single device into the sea. Most of them did it for the first time in combat.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the FAA was configured to face a continental enemy in the Southern Cone. Its assets, tactics, and training were all oriented towards a potential border conflict, particularly with Chile, with whom Argentina almost went to war in 1978. Even the Argentine deployment airfields had been defined based on a hypothetical battle against the Andean neighbor.