Falklands War The Second?

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")

tricky D · 23-02-2012 7:45pm

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.

thecommietommy · 23-02-2012 7:47pm

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.

OS119 · 23-02-2012 8:04pm

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.

bwatson · 23-02-2012 8:36pm

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?

bwatson · 23-02-2012 8:39pm

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!

Jawgap · 23-02-2012 9:42pm

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":)

tac foley · 24-02-2012 10:35am

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

getz · 24-02-2012 10:46am

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,

Fratton Fred · 24-02-2012 12:11pm

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?

cyrusdvirus · 24-02-2012 12:16pm

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.

gbee · 24-02-2012 12:22pm

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.

Fratton Fred · 24-02-2012 12:32pm

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.

Manic Moran · 24-02-2012 2:32pm

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.

Poccington · 24-02-2012 3:37pm

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.

thecommietommy · 24-02-2012 4:46pm

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

**

tricky D · 24-02-2012 4:53pm

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.

cyrusdvirus · 24-02-2012 4:54pm

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

thecommietommy · 24-02-2012 5:14pm

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

So who was a better ally, France or USA ?

Fratton Fred · 24-02-2012 5:51pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well I know now

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.

tim9002 · 24-02-2012 6:04pm

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.

gbee · 24-02-2012 11:10pm

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.

tim9002 · 24-02-2012 11:44pm

gbee wrote: »

Out of 83 aircraft lost by Argentina in all.

Of which about 20 were lost to Sidewinders.

Maoltuile · 25-02-2012 1:14am

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.

tac foley · 25-02-2012 11:26am

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

thecommietommy · 25-02-2012 11:42am

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 ?

thecommietommy · 25-02-2012 11:49am

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

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2012 12:32pm

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.

goldie fish · 25-02-2012 12:36pm

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.

thecommietommy · 25-02-2012 12:48pm

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.

thecommietommy · 25-02-2012 12:49pm

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

Falklands War The Second?

Comments