Falklands/malvinas And Argentine Bombs

[DavT]

Probably not. I think national pride at that point would have kept the British in it. However, most of the ships hit by 'dud' bombs were not really critical ships, such as the landing ships. Ulitmately, the same amount of troops would have landed on the ground, with a similar result.

 

On the other hand, if the Argentinians were able to successfully sink/cripple those ships, they could have possibly reduced the fleet's ship-based air defence enough to perhaps sink a couple more ships they wouldn't have otherwise. As the fleet's air defence is reduced, the fleet's more likely to operate further and further from Argentinian Air Force's reach. That should at least complicate landing and supporting the British land forces and forces more aircraft to be diverted from bombing Argentine forces to CAPing the fleet.

 

However, while things probably would have been messier for the British, but I think they still would have won if only by the fact that the Argentine military branches weren't on serious speaking terms with each other since before the planning for the invasion. Everyone was for the most part doing their own thing, IIRC.

[Durandal]

Hopefully for England the US never had the opportunity to help them.

 

Now about the Falkland's war effect in France i don't think this is the reason why we adopted a profesional army but this is the reason why the 12,7 mm Machine guns are back on our ships.

 

Most peoples are impressed by the number of casualties lost by England during this war but Argentine air force pilotes are above average and rather well equiped for the period.

I wonder what each European country could have done in the same situation, certainlly not better for the majoirty of them, little advantage for France with the Clem and Foch and a good knowledge of the Super étendard/Exocet, but this is still a tough battle for the good old Crusaders.

[Anixtu]

I wonder what each European country could have done in the same situation, certainlly not better for the majoirty of them, little advantage for France with the Clem and Foch and a good knowledge of the Super étendard/Exocet, but this is still a tough battle for the good old Crusaders.

133372[/snapback]

 

Would France have had the logistics capacity to sustain such a large task force at such long range? What replenishment and logistics ships did France have in 1982?

 

I am grossly biased, but IMO a large part of what makes the Royal Navy stand out from other second-rank navies is the RFA. The RN/RFA capability to replenish at sea is second only to that of the USN/MSC.

[Durandal]

Would France have had the logistics capacity to sustain such a large task force at such long range?  What replenishment and logistics ships did France have in 1982?

 

I am grossly biased, but IMO a large part of what makes the Royal Navy stand out from other second-rank navies is the RFA.  The RN/RFA capability to replenish at sea is second only to that of the USN/MSC.

133376[/snapback]

 

 

Very good argument, this imho possible in 1982 but the ships are scattered all over the planet. so an extra delay to gather the fleet is needed.

 

in 1982

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/listes/flot1982.htm

 

7 tankers available + the Var i don't see her in this list and was available in 82.

to this the Jules Verne and the 5 Rhin class ships for amunitions and repairs.

Edited January 13, 2005 by Durandal

[Kurt L]

I recall reading that in some cases the problem was not that the bombs were duds, but that the Argentine pilots dropped them so close to the target that they didn't have time to arm. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? I'm no expert on aerial bombs and I don't have time to look for sources right now.

[Tony Williams]

I recall reading that in some cases the problem was not that the bombs were duds, but that the Argentine pilots dropped them so close to the target that they didn't have time to arm.  Can anyone confirm or disprove this?  I'm no expert on aerial bombs and I don't have time to look for sources right now.

133389[/snapback]

 

 

Yes, the story was well-known at the time. There was a major row because this information was released to the news media while the fighting was still going on. Similarly, the attack on Goose Green was flagged up before it happened. You wonder whose side those characters were on...

 

TW

[Durandal]

Yes, the story was well-known at the time. There was a major row because this information was released to the news media while the fighting was still going on. Similarly, the attack on Goose Green was flagged up before it happened. You wonder whose side those characters were on...

 

TW

133399[/snapback]

 

Impresive how dumb some peoples can be.

We have the same here.

[thomas.tmcc]

Yes, the story was well-known at the time. There was a major row because this information was released to the news media while the fighting was still going on. Similarly, the attack on Goose Green was flagged up before it happened. You wonder whose side those characters were on...

 

TW

133399[/snapback]

 

Hi and how many people did the press endanger or killed because of their stupidity ? because of the leak .

 

Thomas

[LucaJJ]

Hi and how many people did the press endanger or killed because of their stupidity ? because of the leak .

 

Thomas

133410[/snapback]

 

While I would agree that the press should have excercised more restraint, the fault for such a leak rests disproportionately with whomever apprised the press of it. There is such a thing as sensitive and/or classified info, especially in the thick of battle. The basic way press-military relations work isn’t and can’t be “The military tell all and the press exercises self-censorship” but rather “don’t tell the press anything you don’t want splashed on the front page of the Sun tomorrow morning”.

[Dan Robertson]

Personally, I always felt the Argentines should have carried out a seaborne raid on Ascension Island.  It was the significant choke point in the UK's LOS.  Destroy the runways and mine the harbour and it would have significantly delayed the operation.

132860[/snapback]

 

Let say for arguments sake the Argentines actually went through with this plan.

 

British Intelligence became aware of the Argentines loading ships and preparing for invasion on the 30th of March 1982, though for some reason they dismissed this. On the 31st of March British Intelligence informed the governor of the Islands that an invasion was imminent.

 

On the 2nd of April 1982 the Invasion took place.

 

The reason the British Government didn't do anything about this is because they couldn't. There was at the time no way of getting forces to the Falklands as the runway was too small to allow the landing of aircraft that had the range to get there.

 

In the case of Ascension the British Government would have 9-10 days warning of the Argentine attack and Ascension has a long runway and is within flying distance of Gibraltar.

 

In this time period a significant RAF strike force could assemble there, in 1982 this would constitute Phantoms with Skyflash and AIM-9L and Buccaneers with Martel missiles. Using Nimrod aircraft to locate the Argentine Taskforce the Buccaneers could strike it at ranges greater than 1200nm with precision Martels being guided into the missile launchers of the T42's followed by destroying the rest of the fleet with LGB's.

 

Today the Argentines cannot invade the island as the Mount Pleasant airbase allows the British to get forces there by air very quickly the moment Argentine invasion looks likely. Though it is debatable if the Argentines could overcome the forces currently stationed there as there are more soldiers there than were in the initial Argentine Invasion force in 1982.

[Rickshaw]

Hi invincible and hermes were indeed supposed to go to them but the government cancelled the sales etc .

 

Thomas

133018[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, in the case of the Invincible, it was delayed by the Australian government, with the sale post-Falklands then being cancelled again, from the Australian, not the UK end.

[Rickshaw]

No, because they were deliberately trying to limit the war, & keep it geographically confined to the disputed territories. The plan was to stage a coup de main then negotiate to keep what they had. Attacking Ascension (a territory they had no claim to, far from Les Malouines), would have meant "gloves off", which neither side wanted. Limiting the scope of the war was tacitly agreed.

132987[/snapback]

 

The Argentines were on a hiding to nothing. They may have desired to limit the conflict but the British weren't interested. Attacking Ascension would have severely inconienced the British and perhaps made the operation impossible. Such an escalation would IMO have been worthwhile a risk, considering the benefits which would accrue from it. It'd be the equivalent to the Japanese destroying Pearl Harbor rather than merely the ships in it, on 8 December 1941.

[Guest Mike Steele]

Personally, I always felt the Argentines should have carried out a seaborne raid on Ascension Island. It was the significant choke point in the UK's LOS. Destroy the runways and mine the harbour and it would have significantly delayed the operation.

132860[/snapback]

Hello ascension island is actually british ,but the usa wanted to build a base and we granted permission ,the same can be said for the diego garcia island .

 

Thomas

133019[/snapback]

So very true. Given that the US base is a bit larger than the UK base. The would be plenty of room for mistakes to be made. The base and airfield were (and remain) an alternate shuttle landing field, any thing that would interfere with that would have drawn a response the Argies didn't need.

[Rickshaw]

Let say for arguments sake the Argentines actually went through with this plan.

 

British Intelligence became aware of the Argentines loading ships and preparing for invasion on the 30th of March 1982, though for some reason they dismissed this. On the 31st of March British Intelligence informed the governor of the Islands that an invasion was imminent.

 

On the 2nd of April 1982 the Invasion took place.

 

The reason the British Government didn't do anything about this is because they couldn't. There was at the time no way of getting forces to the Falklands as the runway was too small to allow the landing of aircraft that had the range to get there.

 

In the case of Ascension the British Government would have 9-10 days warning of the Argentine attack and Ascension has a long runway and is within flying distance of Gibraltar.

 

In this time period a significant RAF strike force could assemble there, in 1982 this would constitute Phantoms with Skyflash and AIM-9L and Buccaneers with Martel missiles. Using Nimrod aircraft to locate the Argentine Taskforce the Buccaneers could strike it at ranges greater than 1200nm with precision Martels being guided into the missile launchers of the T42's followed by destroying the rest of the fleet with LGB's.

 

Today the Argentines cannot invade the island as the Mount Pleasant airbase allows the British to get forces there by air very quickly the moment Argentine invasion looks likely. Though it is debatable if the Argentines could overcome the forces currently stationed there as there are more soldiers there than were in the initial Argentine Invasion force in 1982.

133667[/snapback]

 

 

The assumption here is that both the British intelligence and government would have been any more awake at the helm they necessarily were, when the Argentines attacked the Falklands/Malvinas themselves. As we know, the intelligence services correctly reported that an attack was to occur but the government did not act on it, disbelieving it.

 

I would invision that if the Argentines had announced and conducted a "fleet exercise" which ranged towards Ascension, first, the British would have been caught almost completely unawares. If I was the Argentine fleet commander I'd have sent my submarines ahead to Ascension, land Commandos and destroyed/damaged the runway, this would render it useless for the British to base strike aircraft on it. A fast taskforce of destroyers, carrying more reinforcements to further destroy the British installations on the island and to mine the harbour, would then be able to depart before effective British opposition could have been organised. Remember, there was no garrison as such, on Ascension Island, so any opposition would have been slight.

 

Then I would have invaded the Falklands/Malvinas.

 

I do not suggest that this strategy would not be without risk. I merely suggest that it would acrue benefits which far outweigh the risks, if successful. I don't guarantee success, merely suggest that it would be harder for the British to react if such a strategy had been adopted.

[swerve]

The Argentines were on a hiding to nothing.  They may have desired to limit the conflict but the British weren't interested. 

 

Oh yes they were. It was made clear at the time that the war would be confined to the disputed territories. The British government's declaration of an "Exclusion zone" implied, and was meant to, that it was the arena for the war, & Argentineans in general would be safe outside it (e.g. all the Argentineans in the UK, who were left free to go about their business as usual, as were Britons in Argentina). The Belgrano I think was reasonable to make an exception for.

 

Implicit in what you've said is that Argentinas strategy was flawed, & they should have gone for all-out war. That's ridiculous. Yes, the strategy was flawed, but all-out war wasn't a better option. It was a worse option, which would have guaranteed a greater defeat. The better option was not to attack at all.

 

It would have been harder for the UK to react if Ascension had been damaged, but it would have given a greater incentive, & would have lost Argentina most of its international support.

[Guest phil gollin]

A few points.

 

For info :

 

1: The official history of the Falklands War (2 volumes) has been on and off the Frank Cass/Routledge publishing list for over two years. It has presumably been written but keeps on dropping of the schedule. The present Amazon.co.uk link is :

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...5Fencoding=UTF8

 

BUT DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH - IT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY DISAPPEAR AGAIN

 

2: The new sidewinder was NOT a "war-winner". None of thewar shots was from anything other than a simple rear-quarter shot which the old sidewinders would have easily handled. Having said that the new all-aspect sidewinder gave the SHARs more confidence (?)

 

3: The offer of a carrier is pretty much confirmed, but it would seem still open to debate about the details.

 

4: The idea that the Belgrano is a special case is wrong. The Rules of Engagement included not only the exclusion zone, but also any threat to the task force, which Belgrano was included in. Unfortunately a lot of the ill-informed ideas seem to have percolated down into the present day.

[Durandal]

I wonder if wars like this can turn into intercontinental wars.

[Guest bojan]

...I think it has to be said, the Argentinians, whilst perhaps not having as great training as they are made out to have had (at least in air to air anyway) performed incredibly heroically, and even with some flair...

133526[/snapback]

 

Best desciption that I have heard about Argentina in Folklands was:

 

" Pilots with a big brass ones, not realy motivated ground soldiers without clear mission and logistic support and clueless leadership - a recepy for a disaster..."

[DB]

One could look at Caspar Weinberger's CV comment in a slightly different light, I suppose.

 

He may have responded to a hypothetical question with a somewhat hyperbolic statement intended to indicate the level of commitment that the US would have been willing to give, rather than any specific offer of equipment.

 

The other idea that has been kicked around was that he was referring to any additional US assets "loaned" to STANAVFORLANT (or whatever it was called) to cover our NATO commitment whilst the RN was busy elsewhere.

 

David

[cheese possessed]

Re: Ascension attack. The RN had two more nuke subs enroute to the Falklands, plus Conqueror already on station shadowing the T42s. I think before the end of the war there were 3 nukes off the Falklands and one other, or conventional, sub off Ascencion. If they were seen headed towards either Ascencion or even the north-south shipping route, I doubt whether an Argentinian fleet would have got further than 5 nm outside their northern territorial waters before being sent to the bottom.

 

The Argentines had every reason to avoid escalating the war outside the Falklands exclusion zone: there was very strong military case and pressure in UK to attack mainland airfields and torpedo the remaining Argentine fleet at its berths - this was only put on hold by political decision.

 

p.s. Ascencion has a single runway airfield - built originally by the British (WW2 anti-sub patrols) and bits added at the expense of both UK and USA. Facilities were intermingled. The key US facility on the island is the satellite tracking station, or whatever it actually is.

[Dan Robertson]

The assumption here is that both the British intelligence and government would have been any more awake at the helm they necessarily were, when the Argentines attacked the Falklands themselves.   As we know, the intelligence services correctly reported that an attack was to occur but the government did not act on it, disbelieving it.

 

The timings I quoted were the ones that actually happened, intelligence knew of the preparations 5 days before it happened and actually warned of invasion 2 days before it happened. 

 

The reason the British Government didn't do anything substantive was because they couldn't. They couldn't fly supplies or equipment to the islands and Navy ships couldn't get there in time.

 

In the case of Ascension Island the UK needed only a days warning to be able to fly an air defence force to the island that would make an attack impossible. Being that all they would need to do is deploy half a squadron of aircraft to the base to achieve this I doubt there would be any reason not to deploy the aircraft just to be sure.

 

I would invasion that if the Argentines had announced and conducted a "fleet exercise" which ranged towards Ascension, first, the British would have been caught almost completely unawares.

 

How often does the UK with it considerably larger Navy than the Argentines deploy several thousand miles from home waters and conduct a naval exercise of a large number major units?

 

Answer not very often, for the Argentine to do this would arouse considerable suspicion. Especially as the Argentines were sabre rattling at the time. The RAF would be able to put a Nimrod on it before it came within a few thousand miles of the place. To be honest they would probably send a Nimrod to look at it purely out of curiosity.

 

If you actually want to land any heavy engineering equipment you will have to bring specialist equipment with you to do so which will look very suspicious to the RN in the build up to the conflict.

 

If I was the Argentine fleet commander I'd have sent my submarines ahead to Ascension, land Commandos and destroyed/damaged the runway, this would render it useless for the British to base strike aircraft on it.

 

Ok a submarine can carry less than a platoon of infantry and zodiacs. So this means about 20-30 men total (assume two subs) and no heavy equipment. It would be doubtful such a force could actually overpower the airbase personnel much less do considerable damage to the runway. To destroy a concrete runway you need many tonnes of explosives to actually destroy enough of the runway to prevent it being used. In the ODS RAF Tornados dropped massive cluster bombs specifically designed to knock out runways and were unable to prevent Iraqi planes from taking off.

 

The runway at Wideawake is 3.5km long and 70m wide, a fighter jet needs 450m X 15m to take off and land on. The amount of damage you need to do to achieve this is phenomenal.

A fast taskforce of destroyers, carrying more reinforcements to further destroy the British installations on the island and to mine the harbour, would then be able to depart before effective British opposition could have been organised.  Remember, there was no garrison as such, on Ascension Island, so any opposition would have been slight.

 

There is no harbour or naval facilities for you to destroy. Virtually all facilities were actually built for the purpose of the war. There are no strong tides around Ascension so mines will be relatively easy to clear. Especially as you can fly mine hunting teams in advance of the fleet sailing there. The Argentines were not successful in using mines to delay the task force around the Falklands.

 

The main problem is that you simply won't have very long to do much damage. The second an attack commences reports are going to go back to the UK. An RAF VC10 can self deploy with Buccaneers to Ascension via Gibraltar in a few hours. I guesstimate the RAF could probably get 3 VC-10's into the air at hours notice and therefore deploy 9 Buccaneers.

 

I doubt even if the full fleet the Argentines could deploy expending all their shells could come close to causing enough damage to fully close off the runway.

 

Assuming 4 hours for the government to decide what to do, 2 hours for the RAF to sort out the aircraft (remember this was the cold war so a significant portion of the RAF was on alert to more in a short period of time), 7 hours flight time, 2 hours stop in Gibraltar. That leaves 15 hours after the initial contact to fully destroy the facilities there before the Buccaneers arrive.

 

In this time period the Argentine Fleet has to first of all move close enough to move men to the shore, land a force (this takes hours) get all these men up to the runway. Lay several tonnes of explosives in a few hundred locations.

 

The re-embark onto the ships (again a few hours), the ships then have to sail far enough away to be out of range from RAF aircraft flying from Ascension.

 

As you can see this isn't feasible in the amount of time you have. The Argentine Ships committed to the attack are going to get destroyed.

 

One other fact is that the base is a US-UK asset do you really think the Argentines are going to kill/capture American personell so they can they start destroying US airbase.

 

Within a few weeks a US carrier carrying Phantoms and Bucaneers would be heading to the South Atlantic. From well beyond the range of Argentine land aircraft there would be a sequence of attacks that would leave the Argentine Navy and Airforces completly unable to contest the Falklands Invasion.

Edited January 15, 2005 by Dan Robertson

[Rickshaw]

I agree that the success of my proposal might not be as easy as my glib answers have suggested.

 

Your point about the length of the runway is a good one, except that you assume the entire runway length has to be destroyed completely. It doesn't. Small craters or a trench every 100 metres would be sufficient. They don't even have to be visible (indeed, making them invisible would be more useful ).

 

I believe that you are also assuming far less vacilation from the UK government than there was. They were unsure what to do and it showed in real life. If Ascension had been the opening shot, so to speak, rather than a direct attack on the Falklands/Malvinas, it would have left them even more bemused, I think.

 

Further, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the operation. It isn't occupation, its a raid. In and Out as quickly as possible. No need for "heavy equipment", no need for large numbers of personnel. There was no garrison at Ascension, the airfield personnel wouldn't have had anything beyond perhaps a few smallarms, while most of them wouldn't have even been trained in their use, being technicians and mechanics.

 

I also suspect that you over-estimate the speed at which the RAF could react to such an event. Remember, they were firmly orientated looking towards the East at this point in time. I also suspect they wouldn't waste a valuable Nimrod sortie on looking at what the Argentine Navy is doing, well away from any area of contention (the Falkland/Malivnas).

 

The biggest worry for the Argentines is that of security - obviously the British intelligence services were able to discern the original Argentine intentions when they were directed against the islands, themselves. However, that could well be used to the advantage of the Argentines, if they were smart enough to work out that their security had been compromised (which I suspect they hadn't).

 

 

 

 

 

All-in-all, I give such an operation a fair chance of success.

[Rickshaw]

Re: Ascension attack. The RN had two more nuke subs enroute to the Falklands, plus Conqueror already on station shadowing the T42s. I think before the end of the war there were 3 nukes off the Falklands and one other, or conventional, sub off Ascencion. If they were seen headed towards either Ascencion or even the north-south shipping route, I doubt whether an Argentinian fleet would have got further than 5 nm outside their northern territorial waters before being sent to the bottom.

 

You are assuming several things. One is that the UK would pre-emptively strike against an Argentine task force which appeared to represent no threat to the UK. Only one nation presently has that sort of policy and even that is a recent innovation for them.

 

You're also assuming that this operation would occur after the invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas. I am suggesting it should occur first, as a precursor.

 

The Argentines had every reason to avoid escalating the war outside the Falklands exclusion zone: there was very strong military case and pressure in UK to attack mainland airfields and torpedo the remaining Argentine fleet at its berths - this was only put on hold by political decision.

I agree. However, as I point out, such operations were highly dependent upon the use of Ascension Island its strategic airstrip to supply any British units operating in the South Atlantic. Remove the use of the airstrip and harbour and you make life extremely difficult for the British, so much so, I'd suggest that they be forced to delay the retaking of the islands by even as much as a year, as winter would have set back in, by the time they had repaired/cleared the island's facilities.

 

p.s. Ascencion has a single runway airfield - built originally by the British (WW2 anti-sub patrols) and bits added at the expense of both UK and USA. Facilities were intermingled.  The key US facility on the island is the satellite tracking station, or whatever it actually is.

134095[/snapback]

 

I'm well aware of what is on Ascension. The US might have protested at their personnel being taken prisoner but as long as they were well treated, they'd have no need to become involved in the actual conduct of the war, although, as we know they were looking for the least excuse to end their "even-handedness" and overturn its alliance with the Argentines.

[cheese possessed]

Well, interesting scenarion, but apart from the enormous political repercussions of an unprovoked strike at an undisputed British possession (which would probably have invoked a full NATO retaliation), and the fact that the Argentine fleet would probably have been pursued, overtaken and annihilated by British nukes before they could even get back to port, the raid would still have achieved almost nothing:

 

The harbour in Ascension wasn't even used by the Task Force - its only big enough for the small ships which serve Georgetown and the US facilities. The Task Force was anchored offshore for the cross-decking operations - and these operations were carried out by the LCLs and helis of the ships themselves.

 

The airfield was not strategically vital - the amount of air-landed men and equipment which supplemented the task force was tiny compared to the lift in the ships themselves. The air tanker fleet was there in support of the UK airbridge. Temporary loss of the airfield would have slowed and inconvenienced the shake-out of the Task Force, but it would not have stopped it. Once underway, the Task Force was essentially self-contained, as there was no way it could be resupplied except by ship in any case. Most of the build-up in Ascension took place after the main Task Force had already moved on.

 

If you are talking about a raid, then it is doubtful that the runway could be damaged enough to prevent rapid repair (have you seen where a C-130 can land, if it really tries?). If you mean a seize-and-hold operation, then that Argentine force would soon be at the mercy (with no air or sea support or resupply) of a major UK/US landing - US, because it is absolutely inconceivable that they'd stand the takeover of their NSA facility by a belligerant.

[Rickshaw]

Well, interesting scenarion, but apart from the enormous political repercussions of an unprovoked strike at an undisputed British possession (which would probably have invoked a full NATO retaliation), and the fact that the Argentine fleet would probably have been pursued, overtaken and annihilated by British nukes before they could even get back to port, the raid would still have achieved almost nothing:

 

The attack on the Falklands did not provoke a NATO retaliation. Therefore I'd be surprised if an attack on Ascension would have done so.

 

The harbour in Ascension wasn't even used by the Task Force - its only big enough for the small ships which serve Georgetown and the US facilities. The Task Force was anchored offshore for the cross-decking operations - and these operations were carried out by the LCLs and helis of the ships themselves.

Good point. I'd have to reconsider the types of mines which would need to be used.

 

The airfield was not strategically vital - the amount of air-landed men and equipment which supplemented the task force was tiny compared to the lift in the ships themselves. The air tanker fleet was there in support of the UK airbridge. Temporary loss of the airfield would have slowed and inconvenienced the shake-out of the Task Force, but it would not have stopped it. Once underway, the Task Force was essentially self-contained, as there was no way it could be resupplied except by ship in any case.  Most of the build-up in Ascension took place after the main Task Force had already moved on.

 

The airstrip was strategically vital for air reinforcement and supply. Without it, it would have been impossible for any of the air operations which were mounted to occur.

 

If you are talking about a raid, then it is doubtful that the runway could be damaged enough to prevent rapid repair (have you seen where a C-130 can land, if it really tries?). If you mean a seize-and-hold operation, then that Argentine force would soon be at the mercy (with no air or sea support or resupply) of a major UK/US landing - US, because it is absolutely inconceivable that they'd stand the takeover of their NSA facility by a belligerant.

134393[/snapback]

 

I was talking merely about a "raid", not an occupation. Its actually interesting how the raids have been pretty well deleted from the military lexicon.

 

They'd have no qualms if all that occurred was that the NSA facility was surrounded and movement in and out curtailed.

 

I do not believe a fully-loaded C-130 can land in less than 100 metres of runway.