wait... can you not skip bombs in dcs?

My father was the head of the Naval Arsenal of the Argentine Navy, where maintenance on the A-4Qs was carried out during the war. He told me that there were two opposing doctrines regarding bombing: that of the Air Force, which relied on timed fuzes, and that of the Navy, which relied on impact fuzes. The former sought to cause the maximum possible damage to the ships, whereas the Navy's doctrine was rather aimed at ensuring an impact—even if with less damage—making it more effective, as it is extremely difficult to properly time a bomb strike while evading defensive fire.

My uncle was involved here and he was shot down. He said it was very terrifying when you went in the water as he did not think he would ever come up again.

The Argentine Air Force (FAA) was not tasked with attacking naval targets. For that reason, it did not have aircraft equipped with radar altimeters; most of its aircraft lacked inertial navigation systems; and the bomb fuses were designed for attacking ground targets (the fuses required a deceleration of 4 g). They did not have Snakeye bombs (the Naval Aviation did). The 1,000-pound parachute-braked bombs were tested, but the FAA was well aware that the fuses were not designed for that type of attack; even Navy pilots using Snakeye bombs had to climb to 120 feet to drop their bombs. Imagine that, despite these disadvantages, the FAA attacked with whatever it had at the time and, even so, put a couple of ships out of action solely through bomb hits near the waterline. Later, 250-kg parachute-braked bombs were used, which performed better, but the fuses remained the same. Around May 25, electronic fuses were used, which made it possible to sink the HMS Coventry. And as for the first fuses (with screws), the mechanics on the ground turned them several times so they would arm more quickly. Also keep in mind that the aircraft had no radar warning systems, flares, or chaff.

To use Zuni rockets or any other type of rocket, aircraft need to climb much higher to fire them, making them an easier target for ships and for the Rapier, Blowpipe, or Stinger systems stationed on the ground.

Owen Crippa was equipped with Zuni rockets and two pods of 30mm cannons because he was sent on a reconnaissance mission.

The human mind is amazing! The fact that i can watch someone else who is playing a simulation game and yet FEEL the chaos, stress and panic that the AAA causes. What a time and damn the real pilots had nerves of steel

.Some  years before the war , the Navy conducted a theoretical-practical study involving the Puerto Belgrano weapons workshop, the A-4 fighter group, the Type 42 destroyers, and the Mathematics Department of the Universidad del Sur. Parts of this study were even published in a civilian book titled *Montecarlo*. The report detailed the number of aircraft, approach angles, altitude, bomb load, and release intervals on the MER (Multiple Ejector Rack) required to create a highly effective "stick" of bombs; it also specified the type of fuze to ensure detonation. NONE of this was utilized by the Air Force, because, driven by pride, they insisted on doing things their own way.

Them guys who did that in 82 had knackers of titanium!

My cousin was a ships steward on one of the civvy ships and they were strafed by Skyhawks. The 30mm shells had no problem punching through the steel hull and going out through the other side of the ship. Empty cartridge cases actually landed on his ship. one other point is that Argentinian aircraft had a lot of gun problems, with salt blocking the muzzles and guns failing to fire, especially the 20mm on the older A-4s.

How interesting. I wrote a whole book on the Argentine Navy’s anti-ship tactics in 1982. I suppose it will be published next year. To summarise, the rockets were designed to neutralise the target and had the advantage of not having to fly over it. The bombs (Snakeye for the naval A-4Qs) offered greater destructive power, but required the aircraft to fly over the ship and, furthermore, to be very precise when attacking with more than one aircraft (the tactic involved three aircraft attacking). Congrats for the video

In an interview, a brigadier recounted that they had the rockets but needed considerable altitude to launch them, which would have resulted in more planes being shot down; since casualties were already high, they did not use them and continued using bombs instead

One thing that is relevant to this question is that the failure rate of the bombs was assessed post war.

During the war there was little info of the actual damage the FAA was doing to the royal navy, and the claims in the debriefs of the actual pilots that returned and were not shot down were outrageous.

In other words, an the time using bombs was the rational thing to do, there was no apparent need to explore Zuni rockets.

Excellent video, as we are always used to.

The truth is that this channel always brings me closer to really enjoyable content from the technical section, really.

Today in particular, the technical talk touches me personally, since I am Argentine and an avid follower of what was the Malvinas conflict. Both politically, militarily and humanly. I worked for 10 years with the “Malvinas Veterans Center of Ensenada”, the city where I lived for 12 years. There I met wonderful people, like many Malvinas Argentine veterans from the 3 branches of the armed forces: I have the pleasure and honor of being able to say "Friend" to people like Oscar I. Poltronieri, Pablo Marcos Carballo, the dear and deceased Agustín San Martín (Survivor of the ARA Gral Belgrano, former CL-46 USS Phoenix), etc.

What I am going to say next may think that it is an exaltation of a personal nature, due to my nationality and my closeness to the subject, and you would not be wrong in this regard. But I must tell you that, as an enthusiastic fan of Air Combat of all times (I have some knowledge about it), I always try to be as objective as possible.

What was done by the Argentine aviators (both from the Air Force and the NAVY) was MONUMENTAL. I think it is the word that best fits in this regard: the flight conditions, both climatic, tactical, technological, and available means, are overwhelming. But even above that, the objectives achieved are even more so.

I remember a personal conversation with Pablo Carballo: since I was a child, my father (Air Force) always told me about how terrifyingly low the Argentine pilots flew in the Malvinas: numbers were shuffled in single-digit meters... For any military aviation enthusiast, that is total absurdity.

Having Carballo in front of me, in a pleasant and personal talk, I had to ask him:
-¨Pablo, really, how low did they fly there, in the South Atlantic?¨
P. Carballo:
-¨Look boy: the windshield of my A-4 was really turning white from the salt from the wave foam. It didn't happen to me, but I heard the engines of some of my colleagues "drowning" with salt water, and they had to abruptly call the elevator, because the Skyhawks were braking and pointing their nose down...
It was the only way to get there, and we knew it. But it was also the only way to have a minimal chance of surviving.
I'm honest with you, and I speak only for myself, for no one else: I wasn't afraid of dying, but I didn't want to do it either. We called the elevator at the last minute, so we could aim the bombs with a few meters of drop. When not, we released them by drifting, close to the sea: the bombs bounced several times in the water, like when you throw a spinning stone on the surface of the water. If you were lucky, you called at the last minute, and they passed between the bridge and the ships' antennas, and you hit the surface of the sea immediately, there was nothing else to do.
That didn't assure you anything: I lost companions even doing it that way. We knew it before taking off, before the mission briefing. But we took off convinced.
How many meters were we flying? I don't know, we can't tell from our barometric altimeters. But in the South Atlantic, with that rough sea 24 hours a day, I felt like my A-4 was belly-hitting the crests of the waves... ¨

I wanted to share this with all of you. As stated in the video: “This type of attack is terrifying and extremely difficult.”
Yes: the Argentine pilots demonstrated an immeasurable level of preparation, capacity and GUT.

The Royal Navy did too.

I want to leave the political issue absolutely aside and clarify an aspect that is often confused: from the side of the Argentine population, there is no animosity towards the English people, and to tell the truth, we have historical-cultural ties of centuries that unite us. It is different with respect to political representatives, from both sides. And yes, there must be exceptions, as in every area, but they are just that, exceptions.

I send you a cordial and affectionate greeting from the Southern Lands!

Keep up these types of videos: they are entertaining, edifying and clarifying for both those of us who are aviation enthusiasts and history enthusiasts.

I was an FC (Fire Controller) for M22 4.5s RAN River Class. Two things....first kill by Seacat in this engagement....also 40mm Bofors also scored a plane.

To me, closest we can get to Daggers in DCS are Mirage F1C...
(My father flew the French version Mirage 5F at 2/13 "Alpes" Squadron at Colmar-Meyenheim Airbase during late 80s) 😉

You mentioned altitude and bomb fusing.  On the first night of Desert Storm my B-52 crew was bombing a highway strip in sothern Iraq.  When we got to the airfield we had to climb up to 1000 ft to give the bombs time to arm once the left the aircraft.

Thank you very much for making this scenario!
It was a thought I had in my mind for a long time, and with todays game technology it seemed possible to re-enact in some manner. So this is where your channel was an answer to my wishes! 😊
And although this is just a game, it shows somewhat a proof of concept. The Falklands war was very interesting in how both sides struggled with logistics and fought very bravely with what weapons they could get to the scene. How big a gamble British forces took to free the islands, and how different the outcome could have been with just minor tweaks in tactics and weaponry.
So yet again, thank you guys for this re-enactment!!! ❤

Best YouTube video I've seen for AGES!!!!!

Entertaining vid. I’d like to see more close up ground/naval attach clips like this

Very interesting investigation of historical significance.

Dude! What sim is that? I was vertigo'ed and shaken while sitting comfy in my couch and being fully aware I was watching a vid! Man!
Oh btw regarding the Brit arsenal, weren't there some Sea Slug missiles also? They looked like a missile surrounded by propulsion tubes, weird looking indeed, think they were long range.
Anyway, subbed and +1'ed, great vid, thank you!