Contingency Plans for Wartime and Invasion

[chris_in_salop]

The threat of a world war level conflict would build up over months to years

Now although a work of fiction apparently the film threads was based on real sources for what would happen in the lead up to a nuclear war,

It included the requisitioning of Ferries and Aircraft for troop movements and evacuations . I presume railways would be included in that . Declassified war books would probably hint at what would happen to rail although privatisation may have changed the dynamics of that.

Although the focus of Threads was on industrial Sheffield, it also mentioned an airburst over Crewe - chosen presumably because of its importance as a transport hub.

 

[hooverboy]

Much of this would be covered by transition to war arrangements surely. If not i suspect the plan will be KBO.



Simple: Detach the head or destroy the brain.



The French stopped a sale to Peru in fear of a secondary sale to Argentina and British intelligence posed as arms dealers to buy up any open market missiles. Those that couldn't be bought were incapacitated following advice from the French ( I think this was in book written by Sir John Knott)

I do believe the deciding factor in french compliance was actually thatcher threatening to nuke buenos aries.The threat was something to the effect of"one of those touches the ark royal or invincible..that city is toast.
The sub was already there,and fully armed.

much like to strongarm tactics used on kohl....by the us,britain and russia.

 

[randyrippley]

Yes. Loaded with individual ball shot but never fired.

you really mean 15 charges loaded in one single muzzle loading gun, one on top of another?
that would pretty much fill the barrel

 

[hooverboy]

Much of this would be covered by transition to war arrangements surely. If not i suspect the plan will be KBO.



Simple: Detach the head or destroy the brain.



The French stopped a sale to Peru in fear of a secondary sale to Argentina and British intelligence posed as arms dealers to buy up any open market missiles. Those that couldn't be bought were incapacitated following advice from the French ( I think this was in book written by Sir John Knott)

you really should watch some of these lectures by the ex servicemen.They do not hold knott in high regard.

 

[randyrippley]

Well it must have been deliberately duff information from the perfidious French.
An Exocet successfully sunk the Atlantic conveyor, killing many & destroying equipment & aircraft essential for the relief of the Falklands. As a result our troops had to slog through swamps for several days, a superhuman effort. Their transport was at the bottom of the Atlantic. The French Exocet attack almost lost us the war & the last vestige of our prestige.

In fact there was a French team there adapting ship-launched Exocets to land based, lashed up on the back of lorries. Several were fired at our ships while they were firing off Port Stanley: in fact it caused our ships to give up the bombardment of the area around Stanley

 

[Monty]

I do believe the deciding factor in french compliance was actually thatcher threatening to nuke buenos aries.The threat was something to the effect of"one of those touches the ark royal or invincible..that city is toast.
The sub was already there,and fully armed.

much like to strongarm tactics used on kohl....by the us,britain and russia.

There is no real evidence to suggest the UK ever threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina during the Falklands War, and I also highly doubt we would of moved one of our Resolution class SSBNs in to an active war zone when it could launch a missile from thousands of miles away. Either way it's a complete non story as a launch would cause all sorts of entanglements with the Soviets and Americans plus complete condemnation from the rest of the world, because nuking a capital city because you loose a carrier is a complete over reaction. Also FYI the carriers involved in the Falklands War were Hermes and Invincible.

 

[randyrippley]

I do believe the deciding factor in french compliance was actually thatcher threatening to nuke buenos aries.The threat was something to the effect of"one of those touches the ark royal or invincible..that city is toast.
The sub was already there,and fully armed.

much like to strongarm tactics used on kohl....by the us,britain and russia.

You believe wrong.....the military made great efforts to prevent any nuclear stuff being used down there. One of the Hecla class survey boats actually went round the fleet collecting all the nuclear depth charges so as to take temptation away.
As for a boomer being sent down there: only in someones dreams

 

[randyrippley]

............You are right about French countermeasure assistance.

Not really much help.........they gave us the radar frequencies the missiles used, and they loaned us a Super Etendard for a few days to work with the FRADU squadron in an attempt to work out some intercept tactics, but it was too little, too late.

 

[Monty]

You believe wrong.....the military made great efforts to prevent any nuclear stuff being used down there. One of the Hecla class survey boats actually went round the fleet collecting all the nuclear depth charges so as to take temptation away.
As for a boomer being sent down there: only in someones dreams

I think the MoD did finally admit that some surface vessels still had nuclear depth charges on board during the conflict, but they would have been as much use as a medieval catapult

Not really much help.........they gave us the radar frequencies the missiles used, and they loaned us a Super Etendard for a few days to work with the FRADU squadron in an attempt to work out some intercept tactics, but it was too little, too late.

Not that we had any real counter measures to begin with, the Harriers only had heat seeking sidewinders and the RN had no CIWS to speak of. All it had to rely on were the obsolete Sea Slug and the unproven Sea Dart.

 

[randyrippley]

I think the MoD did finally admit that some surface vessels still had nuclear depth charges on board during the conflict, but they would have been as much use as a medieval catapult



Not that we had any real counter measures to begin with, the Harriers only had heat seeking sidewinders and the RN had no CIWS to speak of. All it had to rely on were the obsolete Sea Slug and the unproven Sea Dart.

1) the nuke depth charges were multi-yield and could have been used by the Sea Harriers / Harriers for land strike. Both were wired to take them. But they were all removed before shooting started.
2) only Intrepid and Fearless still had Sea Slugs. The destroyers had Sea Dart, while the frigates had a mix of Sea Cat and the then-new Sea Wolf. Together quite considerable defences. As long as the systems didn't crash - which is how the Exocet attack succeeded

 

[sbt]

Not that we had any real counter measures to begin with, the Harriers only had heat seeking sidewinders and the RN had no CIWS to speak of. All it had to rely on were the obsolete Sea Slug and the unproven Sea Dart.

I think you mean Sea Wolf - a much more modern system specifically designed to engage anti-ship missiles. Being new in service it had 'some problems'.

The land based Exocet were a real threat. Glamorgan was hit by one when she was providing Naval Gunfire Support to the Two Sisters action. The missile was tracked from Glamorgan and a high speed turn away from the missile (second fired, third launch attempt) executed. The result was the missile hit the edge of the helicopter flight deck at the rear of the ship, skidded across the deck and exploded. Skipping the details, the result was one destroyed helicopter, a fire in the Galley and 14 killed.

 

[sbt]

... and the then-new Sea Wolf. Together quite considerable defences. As long as the systems didn't crash - which is how the Exocet attack succeeded

Systems crashing (or rather, malfunctioning, which did happen) had nothing to do with the loss of either the Sheffield or Atlantic Conveyor. Sea Wolf equipped vessels were not in a position to intervene in either case. Atlantic Conveyor had no defences and Sheffield which had limited defences against ASMs did not react in time to use them.

 

[randyrippley]

Systems crashing (or rather, malfunctioning, which did happen) had nothing to do with the loss of either the Sheffield or Atlantic Conveyor. Sea Wolf equipped vessels were not in a position to intervene in either case. Atlantic Conveyor had no defences and Sheffield which had limited defences against ASMs did not react in time to use them.

Sheffields fire control system crashed and prevented the Sea Darts from launching

 

[Monty]

I think you mean Sea Wolf - a much more modern system specifically designed to engage anti-ship missiles. Being new in service it had 'some problems'.

The land based Exocet were a real threat. Glamorgan was hit by one when she was providing Naval Gunfire Support to the Two Sisters action. The missile was tracked from Glamorgan and a high speed turn away from the missile (second fired, third launch attempt) executed. The result was the missile hit the edge of the helicopter flight deck at the rear of the ship, skidded across the deck and exploded. Skipping the details, the result was one destroyed helicopter, a fire in the Galley and 14 killed.

I'd forgotten Sea Wolf was operational in the Falklands, I didn't think the Type 22s were as old as they are.

Sheffields fire control system crashed and prevented the Sea Darts from launching

The way I understand it Sheffield didn't detect the missiles until the last possible moment, so she had little or no time to react.

 

[sbt]

Sheffields fire control system crashed and prevented the Sea Darts from launching

Where did you get that information? My sources, which include the Board of Enquiry, specifically state that no engagement was attempted, the ship did not even go to Action Stations. It is stated that the 4.5in Gun and Sea Dart were not prepared for firing. The criticism of several officers centres on the fact that no engagement was attempted. Whilst the copy of the BOI available online is heavily redacted the unredacted comments that follow, relating to actions to be taken, do not mention anything that looks like a reaction to a FCS crash. Also the press reports based on the substantially less redacted, hard copy only, version do not mention a crash of any electronic component.

Finally my two colleagues, both of whom were ratings on Sheffield at the time, one in a position to be absolutely aware of such things, did not mention such a crash in the very detailed talk they gave to us last year. This talk was made to a very informed forum where errors would have been brought up in the questions that followed.

You may be getting confused by the fact that Sheffield's radar was blanked over a sector due to interference with a communications system. I also seem to remember that at least one ship DID have a FCS crash but that is unreliable and I can't remember which ship it was (except that it wasn't Sheffield).

You may be correct but my belief is based on good evidence.

 

[sbt]

I didn't think the Type 22s were as old as they are.

They have been out of RN service for six years now. Some were sold on and serve with other navies but personally I would use 'were' not 'are'.

 

[AM9]

... Not that we had any real counter measures to begin with, the Harriers only had heat seeking sidewinders and the RN had no CIWS to speak of. All it had to rely on were the obsolete Sea Slug and the unproven Sea Dart.

For those who are really interested, this publication tells the definitive story of the UK's EW contribution to the Falklands War:

https://doi.org/10.1108/eb036044

Much of the detail is still classified but the scope of the contribution and the incredible efforts made to provide almost instantaneous support to the deployed fighting resouces is told by a very credible author.