Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Falklands War The Second?

Options
12357…14

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    The Belgrano was outside the 200 mile exclusion zone and more important heading back to Argentina, sure Thatcher got away with mass murder by a technicality, still a cowardly and despicable act.

    You've fallen into the trap of believing that the exclusion zone applied to all ships. It applied to neutral vessels, not enemy ships. While it was indeed sunk just outside the zone, even the Belgrano's captain stated that it was a legitimate act.


  • Options
    #123
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Not according to observations of its course by HMS Conquerer, which was not argued by argentina at the time. P.S Argentina is west of where belgrano was sunk, it was zig-zagging slowly at the time... Not the act of a ship eager to get home for tea, but given its opposite number, 25o de Mayo was acting similarly to the north of the exclusion zone, in what was considered an imminent pincer movement on the task force.

    To Quote Admiral Sandy Woodward
    "The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention"
    (From the book "One Hundred Days")
    British admiral finds Britain innocent, shock, horror. Whatever next. Like I said, if it had been the other way around and Argentina had killed 323 British sailors in the same circumstances - we'd never hear the end of it.


  • Options
    #124
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    ...we'd never hear the end of it.

    we never hear the end of it from ill-informed people like you anyway.

    Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano"

    Middlebrook: Fight for the Malvinas.

    sorry chum, but that kind of wee's on your frosties.


  • Options
    #125
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Also according to a program on Discovery a while ago - The Falklands: How Close to Defeat?, the elite Argentinean troops were stationed along the Chilean border for the duration of that war as Chile and Argentina govts were hand bagging each other. Many of the Argentine soldiers in the Falklands were just conscripts with a few weeks of training and were badly supplied etc often not eating for days on end. Against them were what Britain’s elite troops of the Marines, Paras, Gurkha’s, SAS etc. Taking these factors into consideration, the Argentine conscripts fought commendably well. I wonder if say, the UK’s territorial army had to take on the elite Argentine troops would they have fought as commendably as the young Argentine conscripts ?

    There were Argentine Special Forces soldiers and also Argentine Marines in the Falklands, both of which were engaged and defeated by British forces.

    I don't think anybody would dispute that some of the Argentines, conscripts or hardened special forces members, fought hard and defended their positions with bravery to the end.

    The Argentines were supplied and equipped, in general, far better than the British troops who defeated them.

    Regardless of the numbers of casualties I think you would struggle to argue that the Falklands was anything but a decisive British victory. Most wars end with some kind of settlement. However, as a result of British successes from Goose Green to the hills overlooking Stanley, and the successes of the Harriers in the skies over the islands, the Argentine forces unconditionally surrendered.

    The Falklands are 8,000 miles from the UK. British forces had to advance towards and fight through well dug in Argentine defensive positions over featureless, coverless land. The fact that the British victory was so swift and decisive is down to the fact that the troops were in general better led, better trained, more motivated etc than their Argentine counterparts. Once again however, his is not to say that among the Argentines there were not many who performed their tasks very admirably.

    What is your point about the TA and Argentine special forces supposed to be anyway?


  • Options
    #126
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    tim9002 wrote: »
    The Gurkhas were there Tac. They attacked Mt William right at the end but the Argentine defenders legged it!

    I remember an interview from the leader of 3 Commando Brigade (from a documentary I believe) during the war, who said that he was standing atop of another of the hills overlooking Stanley and was observing the battle. He watched as the Gurkhas drew their Kukris and charged the Argentines, who made the wise decision to get the hell out of there!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    British admiral finds Britain innocent, shock, horror. Whatever next. Like I said, if it had been the other way around and Argentina had killed 323 British sailors in the same circumstances - we'd never hear the end of it.

    Thankfully we'll never know - the loss of life was horrendous but as others have made the point whatever her course at the time she was hit is irrelevant - she could have come about at any time and bore down on the task force and then what the Conqueror crew have said to their mates - "Sorry lads but when we saw her she wasn't heading your way!!"

    I know if I was on Belgrano I'd want to have been left alone, but if I was a marine sitting waiting to get off a ship I'd think I'd rather a threat like that was removed.

    and speaking of Royal Marines - Lt Keith Mills should be remembered both for his defence of South Georgia and his famous quote when told just to put on a bit of demonstration before surrendering, his reply "sod that! I'll make their eyes water":)


  • Options
    #128
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    bwatson wrote: »
    I remember an interview from the leader of 3 Commando Brigade (from a documentary I believe) during the war, who said that he was standing atop of another of the hills overlooking Stanley and was observing the battle. He watched as the Gurkhas drew their Kukris and charged the Argentines, who made the wise decision to get the hell out of there!

    You are right, thanks for correcting me.

    Bullets are one thing - you can't see them - but those short and determined little men with the big hearts and very sharp knives are something else.

    A Gurkha family lives just down the street from us - he was a Naik [Corporal] and his family had been soldiers back as far as there are any records. We are proud to have him and his family here with the rest of us immigrants.

    tac


  • Options
    #129
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    tac foley wrote: »
    You are right, thanks for correcting me.

    Bullets are one thing - you can't see them - but those short and determined little men with the big hearts and very sharp knives are something else.

    A Gurkha family lives just down the street from us - he was a Naik [Corporal] and his family had been soldiers back as far as there are any records. We are proud to have him and his family here with the rest of us immigrants.

    tac
    yes we have a few in fleetwood,one even has a gurkha cafe,lovely race of people,i believe the argentine army was in terror of them,many believed that the gurkhas would eat them, i believe the british army helped to promote that idea,


  • Options
    #130
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Re the Belgrano sinking outside of the exclusion zone.

    I get the impression some people think war is like a tag wrestling match and someone outside the ring is immune from attack until they enter!

    The Argentines are at war with a force coming by sea. Do people seriously think that their flagship was off on a pleasure cruise at the time?


  • Options
    #131
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Re the Belgrano sinking outside of the exclusion zone.

    I get the impression some people think war is like a tag wrestling match and someone outside the ring is immune from attack until they enter!

    The Argentines are at war with a force coming by sea. Do people seriously think that their flagship was off on a pleasure cruise at the time?

    That's the problem right there.

    If the Belgrano had been sailing in circles between Hawaii and Midway in the Pacific Ocean when the Conqueror happened upon her she would still have been a legitimate target.


    Declaring the TEZ sufficiently muddied the waters for the pinkie wavers to get all hot and bothered.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Do people seriously think that their flagship was off on a pleasure cruise at the time?

    I've just watched the video link of newsclips and I'm surprised at how the war actually went.

    It was clear that a hot conflict existed some time before the declaration of war. However, at the time, the sinking of the Belgrano was considered the start of the war. [An already successful invasion was not publicised at all at the time].

    All the public would have known was that the Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone and shot at, without warning, by the British sub. There was a lot of sympathy for Argentina at the time.

    Once a conception is installed it is very hard to accept a reality that differs from that at a later time.


  • Options
    #133
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Over a week before the sinking, a message was passed to Argentina that any ship or aircraft that was considered a threat would be a target.

    The Argentines knew the odds, gambled and lost.

    It also scared the bejesus out of the Argentine navy and kept them well out of the way for the duration, which in reality saved lives.


  • Options
    #134
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,230 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    tac foley wrote: »
    You are right, thanks for correcting me.

    Bullets are one thing - you can't see them - but those short and determined little men with the big hearts and very sharp knives are something else.


    tac

    http://www.badassoftheweek.com/pun.html
    I seriously don't want to turn this website into Gurkha of the Week. I mean, honestly, I really don't. Sure, I have nothing short of an overwhelmingly unhealthy amount of respect for these Nepalese spike-devouring crotch-wreckers and their uncanny ability to routinely make the world a safer place by inserting their well-sharpened kukri blades into the softest parts of Democracy's enemies, but for the most part I generally prefer a little bit more variety when I write these stories up every week. In a perfect world, I'd like to jump around between daring tales of awesome high seas piracy one week, insane stories of Viking warriors cleaving faces apart with battle axes another, and wash it all down with some murderous gunslingers Swiss cheesing their foes with .45 caliber ammunition and World War II flying aces sending Me-109s spiraling to the turf in a hail of fire and bullets and dead Nazi pieces. That diversity is the sort of thing that keeps this entire process fresh, because if I wrote about the same stuff every single week most rational people would probably eventually get really f****g sick of hearing about the same thing over and over and over, and they'd start checking other sites and/or sending me bitchy emails about how I'm about as interesting as a judo chop to the throat.

    What I'm saying here is that the Gurkhas need to stop going out and doing ridiculously badass sh*t every time I turn around, because that way I'll have a chance to write about something else on this website. Based on the insane story I'm bringing you this week, however, I'm fairly confident this is something that might never happen.


  • Options
    #135
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    bwatson wrote: »
    There were Argentine Special Forces soldiers and also Argentine Marines in the Falklands, both of which were engaged and defeated by British forces.

    Someone should've told the lads that the Argies they were fighting at Mount Kent and Top Malo House were conscripts and not SOF.


  • Options
    #136
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    bwatson wrote: »
    There were Argentine Special Forces soldiers and also Argentine Marines in the Falklands, both of which were engaged and defeated by British forces.

    I don't think anybody would dispute that some of the Argentines, conscripts or hardened special forces members, fought hard and defended their positions with bravery to the end.

    The Argentines were supplied and equipped, in general, far better than the British troops who defeated them.

    Regardless of the numbers of casualties I think you would struggle to argue that the Falklands was anything but a decisive British victory. Most wars end with some kind of settlement. However, as a result of British successes from Goose Green to the hills overlooking Stanley, and the successes of the Harriers in the skies over the islands, the Argentine forces unconditionally surrendered.

    The Falklands are 8,000 miles from the UK. British forces had to advance towards and fight through well dug in Argentine defensive positions over featureless, coverless land. The fact that the British victory was so swift and decisive is down to the fact that the troops were in general better led, better trained, more motivated etc than their Argentine counterparts. Once again however, his is not to say that among the Argentines there were not many who performed their tasks very admirably.

    What is your point about the TA and Argentine special forces supposed to be anyway?
    Who was a better ally to Britain, France or America ?

    Here's an article stating France - " FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict "

    But how could Britain have fought without the American's allowing the RAF to refuel at Ascension island and taking satellite photos so they could land properly as the British maps were almost half a century out of date ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949497,00.html


    **


  • Options
    #137
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    But how could Britain have fought without the American's allowing the RAF to refuel at Ascension island and taking satellite photos so they could land properly as the British maps were almost half a century out of date ?

    Ah, the Imperial Yankee Gov let the Britisher Crown Forces refuel on an island which is a British territory, that was nice of them.


  • Options
    #138
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Who was a better ally to Britain, France or America ?

    Here's an article stating France - " FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict "

    But how could Britain have fought without the American's allowing the RAF to refuel at Ascension island and taking satellite photos so they could land properly as the British maps were almost half a century out of date ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949497,00.html


    **

    You DO know that Asencion Island is Crown territory, don't ya??
    And Wideawake was a Joint RAF/USAF airfielfd


  • Options
    #139
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    gatecrash wrote: »
    You DO know that Asencion Island is Crown territory, don't ya??
    And Wideawake was a Joint RAF/USAF airfielfd
    Well I know now :D

    So who was a better ally, France or USA ?


  • Options
    #140
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Well I know now :D

    So who was a better ally, France or USA ?

    Err, what has this got to do with anything?

    The French assistance was invaluable, as was the US giving the British sidewinders.

    But both countries are British allies anyway.


  • Options
    #141
    tim9002
    Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭tim9002


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Err, what has this got to do with anything?

    The French assistance was invaluable, as was the US giving the British sidewinders.

    But both countries are British allies anyway.

    Actually the fact that the Sea Harrier had the then latest version of the Sidewinder (AIM-9L) wasn't as important as many think. Most of the Sidewinder 'kills' were from rear aspect launches, something the previous version of the Sidewinder was well capable of. However the newer AIM-9L with it's all aspect capability is credited with one or two 'kills' that the previous version of the missile may not have achieved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    tim9002 wrote: »
    is credited with one or two 'kills' that the previous version of the missile may not have achieved.

    Out of 83 aircraft lost by Argentina in all. :)


  • Options
    #143
    tim9002
    Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭tim9002


    gbee wrote: »
    Out of 83 aircraft lost by Argentina in all. :)

    Of which about 20 were lost to Sidewinders.


  • Options
    #144
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    tim9002 wrote: »
    Actually the fact that the Sea Harrier had the then latest version of the Sidewinder (AIM-9L) wasn't as important as many think. Most of the Sidewinder 'kills' were from rear aspect launches, something the previous version of the Sidewinder was well capable of. However the newer AIM-9L with it's all aspect capability is credited with one or two 'kills' that the previous version of the missile may not have achieved.

    Not to doubt that you genuinely believe this, but I'd be interested in a citation. I've always heard that the AIM-9Ls were a huge advantage for the RAF/FAA.


  • Options
    #145
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    Not to doubt that you genuinely believe this, but I'd be interested in a citation. I've always heard that the AIM-9Ls were a huge advantage for the RAF/FAA.

    So was the ATA gunnery skill of the RN pilots, and the fact that the Harrier could VIF - actually turning inside an admittedly agile A4 inside the bend. This was a much-practiced tactic by Harrier pilots that ordinary fighter pilots could not in any way either copy or counter.

    Add to that the losses due to Rapier SAMs...

    tac


  • Options
    #146
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    feeney92 wrote: »
    just want to get peoples opinion on this topic, anybody reckon theyll have another go at each other?
    Back to the OP !!! Well I'd doubt if Argentina is going to try to have a Falklands/Malvinas War 2 as the first one was really only a political diversion to the ongoing economic issues in Argentina (same could be said with Britain also :)), but it seems this time they may have a few allies in south America if they did -

    Hugo Chavez has pledged that Venezuelan armed forces would fight alongside Argentina against Britain in any future conflict over the Falkland Islands at a regional meeting this weekend.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9063065/Hugo-Chavez-says-Venezuelan-troops-would-fight-with-Argentina-over-Falklands.html

    Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said all Latin American nations "back Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas and back the UN resolutions calling on the Argentine and British governments to hold talks on the issue."
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hMqP_s2mCiPCpA7YbmE6sRM93etg?docId=CNG.f02a09f392cafaaab8362a7efd066fb0.181

    Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa "It is time that Latin America decides on sanctions against that misplaced power that intends to be imperial and colonialist in the 21 Century," Correa said at a meeting of the ALBA bloc on Saturday. "I believe that we should go to things stronger."
    http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-05/americas/world_americas_venezuela-argentina-dispute_1_argentina-and-britain-falklands-islas-malvinas?_s=PM:AMERICAS

    Things could become pretty nasty if the above countries were to join in or even threaten to join in - not forgetting that France and especially big brother America might take a totally different view this time and fail to militarily and politically support Britain. Any thoughts folks ?


  • Options
    #147
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    And also did the local Falkland islanders assit the British forces in any way ?


  • Options
    #148
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Why would the US and France not back Britain??

    Do you not find it ironic that the South American accusing Britain of being imperialist and colonial, has a Spanish name?

    Lots of talk and little substabce there though, if (and it is a huge if) Argentina invade the Falklands, their best friends may suddenly start calling for restraint and dialogue.


  • Options
    #149
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    And also did the local Falkland islanders assit the British forces in any way ?

    In 1982, yes, informally, providing much needed vehicles to carry heavy stores accross the island during the famous yomp from San Carlos. They did not provide anything in the way of military assistance though. However there is now a Falklands Islands Defence Force, of locally recruited part time soldiers. Their local knowledge would provide invaluable in the event of a second conflict.


  • Options
    #150
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Why would the US and France not back Britain??

    Do you not find it ironic that the South American accusing Britain of being imperialist and colonial, has a Spanish name?

    Lots of talk and little substabce there though, if (and it is a huge if) Argentina invade the Falklands, their best friends may suddenly start calling for restraint and dialogue.
    As for yer man with the Spanish surname, sure haven't we all a skeleton in the family closet !!!

    Geopolitics, instead of taking sides against just one country in south America, they'd might be reluctant to take sides against a bloc of them. Then of course Venezuela - oil, Brazil - a developing superpower etc. Britain’s best friends may suddenly be the ones to start calling for restraint and dialogue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    goldie fish wrote: »
    In 1982, yes, informally, providing much needed vehicles to carry heavy stores accross the island during the famous yomp from San Carlos. They did not provide anything in the way of military assistance though. However there is now a Falklands Islands Defence Force, of locally recruited part time soldiers. Their local knowledge would provide invaluable in the event of a second conflict.
    Interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force#Equipment


Advertisement