Falklands War The Second?

Maoltuile · 21-02-2012 12:31am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is a good and valid point, however, imho, the poster was simply trying to discredit the British forces and their achievement.

Oh, come on. Must you British posters really have such thin skins and be so defensive over every little thing?

I gave a genuinely-felt compliment to the British soldiers who fought in the war, no hidden barb, but apparently it wasn't fulsome enough for your liking.

Maoltuile · 21-02-2012 12:40am

BostonB wrote: »

I dunno if they got any more Exocets or the status of the Super Étendard. If they were upgraded they might have twice the radar range that they did in 82. But I don't think they have been. Without the Exocets they don't have much of a chance, as the close in systems on the RN ship is improved over what is was, so low level bombing attacks would be less likely to succeed, especially if the ship, could move away from the islands. Which the attacking aircraft used as cover in '82. I don't think they are getting Rafale's anytime soon either.

They have a couple of squadrons of a completely refurbished A4 model called the "Fightinghawk", as well as a number of MEKO destroyers and frigates. And their military is now volunteer, rather than the conscripts that made it up before.

I don't think this is coming to war, whatever the Tory government and press may be saying. But I think if it ever were to go that way again, it'd be Mercosur backing up the Argentinians that would be the nightmare situation for the British - and the Americans not likely to give up the keys to the NATO armament stocks if it meant ruining their influence in South and Central America.

goldie fish · 21-02-2012 1:52am

They had most of the MEKOs in 1982 as well, and the A4 still needs somewhere to land.
Most importantly, the armed forces are not running the country, so they may not be as keen to go to war as in the past.

OS119 · 21-02-2012 9:06am

goldie fish wrote: »

...Most importantly, the armed forces are not running the country, so they may not be as keen to go to war as in the past.

i view it the other way around - because the armed forces have so little respect within the political sphere, they don't have the political capital to say 'no, its too difficult - we don't have the capability', even if its private.

its the Argentine mil that will have done the in-depth studies and have come to the conclusion that its somewhere between impossible and difficult to make an effective attack on the islands or create a blockade, not the politicos. the politicos, in the way of politicos everywhere, will say 'they've got four fighters and a universally derided SAM system, are 8,000 miles from re-enforcement and the re-inforcements are fighting in Afghanistan - we've got 40-or so fighters, four Destroyers and three submarines, and are only 450km away, whats the problem?'.

its not the Argentine military that are going to push this, in fact i think they think it'll be like last time, only worse - but look who got the blame last time, look who'se going to be the fall-guy if it happens again, and look who - because of the history of the military in the dictatorship and in the war of 1982 - just doesn't have the legitimatcy to say 'we can't do this - we'll lose'.

getz · 21-02-2012 11:18am

as we know[and as it should always be] the only way argentina will ever get the falklands is if the people on it wish it, but argentina is so corrupt no sane person would want to be ruled from buenos aires,for instance ,even before she was elected president of argentina cristino fernandez de kirchners then husband was discovered carrying a briefcase stuffed with $880,000 in cash,destined to support the presidential bid,the charge of curruption is against her but it will take the avarage of 14 years to work through the system,and only 15 in the 750 cases has led to a conviction,even worse it is now been found out that argentinas human rights group is also corrupt, money has been spent on, ferraris yachts, and villas to the tune of $200 million .

cruasder777 · 21-02-2012 11:39am

tricky D wrote: »

There was a plan tabled to fly some SAS into an enemy air base by Herc, blow stuff up Paddy Mayne style and fly out again. Didn't get beyond a plan.

The events leading up to the sinking of the Belgrano were a close call. It to the south and the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo to the north were executing a pincer movement to attack the task force. The Veinticinco de Mayo was positioning to get into aircraft launch mode when the wind died so that the Argentines lost the range needed for fully laden planes. So both ships turned west away from the fleet. A day or two earlier the sub ARA San Luis had taken a pot shot at part the task force.

Also remember the Atlantic Conveyor hit which was a major setback. Another one like that could have ended the British hopes.

tricky D wrote: »

There was a plan tabled to fly some SAS into an enemy air base by Herc, blow stuff up Paddy Mayne style and fly out again. Didn't get beyond a plan.

........http://www.eliteukforces.info/articles/sas-versus-exocets.php

. "The SAS prepared to put in a plan B. Another SAS team planned to insert onto Tierra Del Fuego on gemini inflatables launched from the deck of Royal Navy submarine HMS Onyx, surfaced off the coast. The SAS men planned to sneak onto the air base, placing explosives on the parked planes, Exocets and pilot's mess. They would then escape on foot to Chile.

Before the plan could be carried out, the Argentineans surrendered at Port Stanley and the war was over."

Jawgap · 22-02-2012 10:34pm

This summarised comparison may be relevant to the discussion.....

TheBalanceofPowerFaulklands2012Infographic_4f43cd3001d35_w587.jpg

OS119 · 22-02-2012 11:04pm

apparently neomam(who?) produce a load of ill-informed ****e.

if you have a thousand Euro's, and put them on a plane to Tashkent, do you still have a thousand Euro's?

those observers with more than two braincells to rub together and who don't struggle with fasteners other than velcro, will note that while the UK controls a very significant military capability, and when compared to Argentina it is overpowering - the part of that military capability that isn't 8000 or even more miles from Argentina isn't that significant, and is/may be eclipsed by Argentinas military capability.

military force that you can't bring to bear is irrelevent, and when its in the UK or Afghanistan it may as well not exist.

tim9002 · 22-02-2012 11:24pm

BostonB wrote: »

The war was going to won or lost at sea with the carriers. I'm not sure the Argentinians ever really had a hope of sinking both of them. Did they ever come under serious attack.

No, neither Hermes or Invicible were attacked directly. The Argentines though they attacked and damaged Invicible but it was another ship.

Fratton Fred · 22-02-2012 11:29pm

tim9002 wrote: »

No, neither Hermes or Invicible were attacked directly. The Argentines though they attacked and damaged Invicible but it was another ship.

The Atlantic Conveyor.

Apparently, on a radar it would have looked like a carrier.

Inadvertently, it was a considerable loss.

tim9002 · 22-02-2012 11:40pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Atlantic Conveyor.

Apparently, on a radar it would have looked like a carrier.

Inadvertently, it was a considerable loss.

No the Atlantic Conveyor had been hit a few days before the so called Invincible attack on the 30th of May I think it was. It was the last air launched Exocet attack of the war but it didn't hit anything. Four Skyhawks followed the Exocet but two got shot down. Two Skyhawks dropped thier bombs on what they thought was the Invicible but it was another ship. They still claim that Invicible was damaged to this day and was secretly repaired. There's nothing like a good conspiricy theory!

bwatson · 23-02-2012 12:07am

I'm afraid I don't understand that comparison chart - is it suggesting that Britain now only has 38 main battle tanks in a condition suitable for an operational deployment?

Added to that, why is it comparing things such as nuclear weapons and MBTs anyway when they really are not relevant to a conflict in the Falklands?

cruasder777 · 23-02-2012 12:24am

bwatson wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand that comparison chart - is it suggesting that Britain now only has 38 main battle tanks in a condition suitable for an operational deployment?

Added to that, why is it comparing things such as nuclear weapons and MBTs anyway when they really are not relevant to a conflict in the Falklands?

They each represnt 10.

Nor does it show how modern/obsolete the compared hardware is.

Manic Moran · 23-02-2012 4:48am

That's OK. Unless someone's gone shopping in Argentina that I haven't noticed, the actual amount of MBTs they have is '0'. TAM isn't an MBT.

cyrusdvirus · 23-02-2012 8:27am

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's OK. Unless someone's gone shopping in Argentina that I haven't noticed, the actual amount of MBTs they have is '0'. TAM isn't an MBT.

I think it's nice the way they are comparing an Exocet (be it air or Sea launched) to a SAM myself...

These types of shiny graphical representations are great ammunition for the less informed, make them think they know what they are talking about.

Jawgap · 23-02-2012 8:43am

I only published the chart as it provided a snapshot summary - it isn't the order of battle for round 2!

One glaring omission (in my view) is the lack of mention of the tactical tomahawks the RN possesses. If there is to be a second battle (something I think is unlikely in the extreme), a single salvo from HMS Astute will probably accomplish more in 30 seconds than the Black Buck raids did in a month.

It wouldn't dislodge any invasion force, but no doubt it preys on the minds of the Argentinian planners.

Finally, I doubt, in the age we live in and given the changes in Argentina in the last 30 years, the Argentine armed forces could assemble sufficient force in secrecy and achieve the degree of surprise they did in 1982. I think it's already a fair bet that the RN have an attack sub hanging around in that part of the world already.

cyrusdvirus · 23-02-2012 8:46am

Jawgap wrote: »

I only published the chart as it provided a snapshot summary - it isn't the order of battle for round 2!

One glaring omission (in my view) is the lack of mention of the tactical tomahawks the RN possesses. If there is to be a second battle (something I think is unlikely in the extreme), a single salvo from HMS Astute will probably accomplish more in 30 seconds than the Black Buck raids did in a month.

It wouldn't dislodge any invasion force, but no doubt it preys on the minds of the Argentinian planners.

Finally, I doubt, in the age we live in and given the changes in Argentina in the last 30 years, the Argentine armed forces could assemble sufficient force in secrecy and achieve the degree of surprise they did in 1982. I think it's already a fair bet that the RN have an attack sub hanging around in that part of the world already.

My post wasn't meant as a pop at you Jawgap, my apologies if you thought it was.

It was actually meant at a very good friend of mine who would argue until the cows come home about stuff like this even though it's cos he read the information in the Star/Sun?/ Insert random inaccurate red top here.

thecommietommy · 23-02-2012 4:29pm

tac foley wrote: »

Technically?

I'd opine that gettin an almighty ass-whuppin' with three times the number of dead - could have been five times had it not been for the Sir Galahad incident - plus an unconditional surrender, constitutes more than a 'technical' victory.

And a funny oul' thing, but last time I was there, there was a Union flag on the pole outside Government house.

The only Argies I saw were the ones we left there in 1982. If Argentina wants them, they can have them back - but that's ALL that Argentina has of the Falklands - by British permission.

tac

I remember reading how the British soldiers nicknamed the local Falkland islanders " Benny's " after a simple character called Benny in the soap opera Crossroads hotel for those of you old enough to remember it

Your been a bit economical with the reality there buddy regarding the kill ratio. Noticeably you mention the Sir Galahad but avoid mentioning the Belgrano which was sank causing the death of 323 and whose act was to any right minded person cowardly and despicable. Argentina had 649 killed, so take away the deaths of the Belgrano, that would make it 326. Britain had 258 killed, a difference of 68 and certainly not the almighty ass-whuppin' you like to pretend.

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 ?

cyrusdvirus · 23-02-2012 5:18pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

I remember reading how the British soldiers nicknamed the local Falkland islanders " Benny's " after a simple character called Benny in the soap opera Crossroads hotel for those of you old enough to remember it

Your been a bit economical with the reality there buddy regarding the kill ratio. Noticeably you mention the Sir Galahad but avoid mentioning the Belgrano which was sank causing the death of 323 and whose act was to any right minded person cowardly and despicable. Argentina had 649 killed, so take away the deaths of the Belgrano, that would make it 326. Britain had 258 killed, a difference of 68 and certainly not the almighty ass-whuppin' you like to pretend.

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 ?

How is sinking an enemy combatant, in time of war cowardly and despicable?

OS119 · 23-02-2012 5:45pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

...Belgrano which was sank causing the death of 323 and whose act was to any right minded person cowardly and despicable...

yes, cowardice is what sprang to my mind too - fancy picking on a poor ickle 12,000ton warship with only 15x 6 inch, and 8x 5 inch guns.

fcuking diddums....

tac foley · 23-02-2012 5:50pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Your been a bit economical with the reality there buddy regarding the kill ratio. Noticeably you mention the Sir Galahad but avoid mentioning the Belgrano which was sank causing the death of 323 and whose act was to any right minded person cowardly and despicable. Argentina had 649 killed, so take away the deaths of the Belgrano, that would make it 326. Britain had 258 killed, a difference of 68 and certainly not the almighty ass-whuppin' you like to pretend.

No pretence implied - surface warship = BGT [big grey target] - just like all the British ships were. If you don't want to play with the big boys, you don't go where the big boys are.

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?

1. The Gurkhas did not take part in the recovery of the Falklands Islands from the invading Argentinians. They went down after the cease-fire to maintain the peace - just in case Argentina started up again. My pal Raul, an A4 pilot who saw his brother shot out of the sky in front of him, told me once that if he had had to bail out into an area occupied by Gurkhas he would have shot himself, so it was a good job that they weren't there at the time of the war..

3. The SAS do not 'fight' in set-piece battlefield situations like regular Army units do. The Argentines, on the other hand, DID deploy their highly-trained and motivated elite marine units - only the PBI were conscripts.

2. The UK's Territorial Army does not deploy in regimental numbers. The Falklands War was not 1914, when most of the British Army WERE Territorials.

4. Please point our where I belittled the valiant efforts of the Argentine conscripts.

Anyhow - the first three points are a matter of history, and last one a matter of you reading my post again.

Thank you.

tac

tim9002 · 23-02-2012 6:09pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

I remember reading how the British soldiers nicknamed the local Falkland islanders " Benny's " after a simple character called Benny in the soap opera Crossroads hotel for those of you old enough to remember it

Your been a bit economical with the reality there buddy regarding the kill ratio. Noticeably you mention the Sir Galahad but avoid mentioning the Belgrano which was sank causing the death of 323 and whose act was to any right minded person cowardly and despicable. Argentina had 649 killed, so take away the deaths of the Belgrano, that would make it 326. Britain had 258 killed, a difference of 68 and certainly not the almighty ass-whuppin' you like to pretend.

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 ?

Don't agree with you on the Belgrano, the shooting war had started. There was an Argentine carrier to the northwest of the UK task force and the Belgrano was to the south west. The time for messing about had finished.

tim9002 · 23-02-2012 6:17pm

tac foley wrote: »

1. The Gurkhas did not take part in the recovery of the Falklands Islands from the invading Argentinians. They went down after the cease-fire to maintain the peace - just in case Argentina started up again. My pal Raul, an A4 pilot who saw his brother shot out of the sky in front of him, told me once that if he had had to bail out into an area occupied by Gurkhas he would have shot himself, so it was a good job that they weren't there at the time of the war..

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

savagecabbages · 23-02-2012 6:43pm

This thread prompted me to do a bit of watching/reading, and while I'm not adding much to the discussion here I found this compilation of BBC news reports put together during the conflict very interesting. Ok it has the cliches and cheesy reporter lines found in all wartime reporting, but it gives a surprisingly balanced view of the conflict for British-based news reports.

8 parts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsI8CkwU64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsI8CkwU64

@tim9002 the Gurkhas do make an appearance at the end(part 7)! They were actually ratty that they didn't get properly involved!

thecommietommy · 23-02-2012 6:45pm

tac foley wrote: »

No pretence implied - surface warship = BGT [big grey target] - just like all the British ships were. If you don't want to play with the big boys, you don't go where the big boys are.

Firstly no need to have your post in bold, I have quite good eyesight

Well doubtless the people supporting the cowardly attack of the Belgrano would be the very same ones condemning it if the Argentineans did the same.

tac foley wrote: »

1. The Gurkhas did not take part in the recovery of the Falklands Islands from the invading Argentinians. They went down after the cease-fire to maintain the peace - just in case Argentina started up again. My pal Raul, an A4 pilot who saw his brother shot out of the sky in front of him, told me once that if he had had to bail out into an area occupied by Gurkhas he would have shot himself, so it was a good job that they weren't there at the time of the war..

3. The SAS do not 'fight' in set-piece battlefield situations like regular Army units do. The Argentines, on the other hand, DID deploy their highly-trained and motivated elite marine units - only the PBI were conscripts.

2. The UK's Territorial Army does not deploy in regimental numbers. The Falklands War was not 1914, when most of the British Army WERE Territorials.

4. Please point our where I belittled the valiant efforts of the Argentine conscripts.

Anyhow - the first three points are a matter of history, and last one a matter of you reading my post again.

Thank you.

tac

1 The Gurkha's took part in the fighting at Mount Longdon. Here's more http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article16.html As for your pal and been captured by the Gurkha's, well the same could be said of some units of Serbs and Croats in the Yugoslav civil war or the Japanese on the Burma railway, not exactly conduct to be admired either.

2 My question was merely a hypothetical one, but you managed to avoid answering it all the same.

3 I'm aware the SAS do not 'fight' in set-piece battlefield situations, nevertheless they were in the Falklands and did engage with the Argentine troops.

4 Well your claims about "ass whoopin' " and trying to make out there was a kill ratio of 3 to 1 clearly was belittling their commendable fight in the circumstances.

secondopinion · 23-02-2012 6:51pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Firstly no need to have your post in bold, I have quite good eyesight Well doubtless the people supporting the cowardly attack of the Belgrano would be the very same ones condemning it if the Argentineans did the same.

1 The Gurkha's took part in the fighting at Mount Longdon. Here's more http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article16.html As for your pal and been captured by the Gurkha's, well the same could be said of some units of Serbs and Croats in the Yugoslav civil war or the Japanese on the Burma railway, not exactly conduct to be admired either.

2 My question was merely a hypothetical one, but you managed to avoid answering it all the same.

3 I'm aware the SAS do not 'fight' in set-piece battlefield situations, nevertheless they were in the Falklands and did engage with the Argentine troops.

4 Well your claims about "ass whoopin' " and trying to make out there was a kill ratio of 3 to 1 clearly was belittling their commendable fight in the circumstances.

The Argentines were on the defencive.

Your thoughts on enemy ships being sunk in war are ridiculous. :rolleyes:

tricky D · 23-02-2012 7:12pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

whose act was to any right minded person cowardly and despicable. Argentina had 649 killed, so take away the deaths of the Belgrano,

So attacking an enemy ship which just missed striking a potentially fatal move on the task force a few hours earlier is cowardly and despicable. Nonsense.

The only scandal that happened in relation to the Belgrano was Thatcher not telling the whole truth long after the event.

thecommietommy · 23-02-2012 7:23pm

tricky D wrote: »

So attacking an enemy ship which just missed striking a potentially fatal move on the task force a few hours earlier is cowardly and despicable. Nonsense.

The only scandal that happened in relation to the Belgrano was Thatcher not telling the whole truth long after the event.

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.

OS119 · 23-02-2012 7:36pm

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.

odd that the Argentine navy doesn't seem to think so - of course, they'd have less knowledge and emotional involvement in the case than you...

goldie fish · 23-02-2012 7:39pm

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.

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")

Falklands War The Second?

Comments