[Closed] The Falklands

CaptainFlashheart - Member

the Yanks f'cked us over with the Falklands

American mercenaries lay buried in lime pits in many parts of the Falklands. With their service dogtags.

Make of that what you will.

Utter Bollocks.

I spent a long time down there in both a Squaddie, and Civvie capacity, and never once has this been mentioned by anyone- Bennys, sorry Stills, or anyone on MPA..or Kent, or Alice, or Bombilla..

But maybe someone in Shortys' diner down town said it.. or just a rumour going around in The Globe??

An if your a mercenary how do you have Service dog tags? - your not part of any service.

Beats me, then! This was something I was told by a couple of Islanders many years ago. There's some mention of it in Max Hastings' original book on the topic (Sunday Times, now out of print, I believe). So, as it comes as hearsay, it could be duff. I had no reason to doubt the storytellers, though.

Who knows!

Steve...... c'mon these things were getting taken out by Swordfish biplanes in WW2 FFS

Which is fine if you actually had some planes and could fly them - often not the case in the South Atlantic.

All this apart, and presuming there was only one submarine in the South Atlantic at the time

There were 3 UK submarines deployed in the South Atlantic at the time, however an layman like yourself might not be aware of the seriousness that we took the submarine threat ourselves and therefore a major part of that deployment was likely to have been in screening our carrier group.

One of the surprises of the campaign for the navy was the lack of threat from the submarines. In the 80's the RN spent most of it's time worring about Russian submarines so it's not a surprise that we assumed a high level of threat.

Also while in hindsight the Type 42's and their Sea Darts didn't do themelves any favours in the conflict, that wasn't something we were aware of at the time the Belgrano was being deployed as part of an Argentine attack on the British fleet. Probably the one people who did know where the Argentines themselves as they'd been exercising extensively against their own 42's in the build up to the war. In the early exercises the 42's did very well, only changing with the realisation that they were less effective against targets at low level.

Reading any edition of Hornblower

Now that I understand the extent of your military training I'll bow to your greater expertise...

While I thankfully wasn't in the Falklands myself almost everything we did for at least a decade after the conflict was a reaction to the lessons learned. Things like the drills we did for damage control, the materials in the uniforms we wore, the way we evaluated the threat level of enemy assets, the importance we put on early detection - were all day to day messages when I was serving. I've always had an interest in the Falklands for that reason as it seems closer to me than any conflict before or since (including the first Iraq war despite me still being in at the time).

eldridge - Member

Ughhh - the Yanks f'cked us over with the Falklands

By supplying us with the very latest Sidewinder AA missile technology?

In WW2 US policy was admittedly self-serving and cynical

To argue that it was:

as anti-UK (and other European "imperialist" natons like France and the Netherlands) as it was anti German, anti Japanese.

is just daft

They didn't carpet bomb us like they did the Germans, and they didn't nuke us like they did the Japanese. And they only bombed the French and the Dutch out

Re.: the Falklands - my comments relate to their foreign policy, and based on memory rather than Wikipedia etc... at best the Yanks were ambivalent. IIRC there was some fairly protracted negotiations regarding the use of Ascension as a staging post, and I've heard it reported that they extracted a pretty high price for the use of their airbase on our island...all at a time when they were using the UK as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the stand off with the Soviets... Not exactly a special relationship.

As far as WW2 is concerned, US foreign and military policy has been extensively debated in published literature. Yes they didn't carpet bomb or nuke their allies, but as you suggest their conduct was more self serving as it was at providing support to allies - and that is fine, if you're going to risk service lives and huge material resources. It's just that the cynical reality is rather diferent to the benign victors image that they like to project. Many senior figures in the US were vehemently anti-Brit.

Dropping the atomic bombs on a beaten and ready to surrender Japan was more about curtailing Russian territorial ambitions in Manchuria and Northern Japan (and also French and British desires to regain SE Asian territories)

Now that I understand the extent of your military training I'll bow to your greater expertise...

PMSL... the clues in the profile Steve 😯

The points are however entirely valid..... along with the fact that warships in battle are prone to catch fire..... not expecting that was a bit of a shock to us all.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that we did have people on the mainland,

If you recall, the SAS had no real maps of the airfield on mainland Argentina. Bizarrely only a Michelin map of the area!

Similar to the SAS unit dropped onto Stanley airfield by Vulcan bomber

Wrong!

I think you will find that the support artillery both from 29 Cdo RA and naval fire was directed by the FOO's of the Green Army attached to the Royals (The Royal Marines are not supported by the Navy but by the Army's Cdo Log' Regiment) and not Special Forces.

(Yes, I was Green Army too)

IF significant UK ships had been sunk what would have happened next?

If you recall, the SAS had no real maps of the airfield on mainland Argentina

I know they are called "aircraft" carriers, but I'm pretty sure they park them in the water....

Sorry Wrong!
Cdo log regt is an RM unit and hence navy.
Ord sqn are (were) a part of cdo log regt but RLC capbadge.
FOOs would have been navy and from 148 bty which is a part of 29 Cdo RA and certainly not loggies.

C'mon boys you are altogether taking this too seriously

IF significant UK ships had been sunk what would have happened next?

They were, the most significant being Atlantic Conveyor which created major logistical problems as all our Combat ready Sinclair C5's went down with it thus the much vaunted "yomping" that went on, also a severe lack of munitions which led to the artillery being down to the throwing of saucepans by the final element of the battle for Stanley

I was under the impression that Reagan offered Thatcher the use of a US Navy Carrier Group. Certainly the US provided more or less free fuel on Ascension Island.

Aye but everyone of those sauce pans was a direct hit.

Absolutely.... I beleive they now have a multiple saucepan launcher which is ****ing devastating, also a long range frying pan which is used for taking out high value targets without collateral damage

Combat ready Sinclair C5's

😆

Should that not be "without collesterol damage"

nickc - Member

I was under the impression that Reagan offered Thatcher the use of a US Navy Carrier Group. Certainly the US provided more or less free fuel on Ascension Island.

I wonder if they still have some left over, I drive a SAAB..........

without collesterol damage

Quite right... ahem ..misspelt (he lied trying to claim the credit)

I was under the impression that Reagan offered Thatcher the use of a US Navy Carrier Group.

That doesn't make sense. Regan promised Thatcher support but not that much support. Plus, even if he did offer Thatcher could not accept. Imagine the humiliation for prestige.

I mean if one or both our carriers were sunk. We'd effectively be without air support. Our submarines would have had to take on alot more work protecting against any Navy that dared leave port but the land battle would have been very bloody.

Only then, might we have lost the battle.

The Belgrano had to be sunk (sadly).

Is it true that the Irish Navy are intent on sending a Task Force this time?

[img] [/img]

No need, the offer to swap the Falklands for Ireland with Argentina still stands apparently.

combat ready c5s lmao.

The Cdo Log regiment, as with 29 and 54 , is / was made up of Army soldiers, not Navy, not Marines. They all support the RM Commando Brigade.

FOO's controlling the fire mission into Stanley were from 148 Commando Forward Observation Unit Royal Artillery. Army. Apologies if I suggested they were Cdo Log, as clearly 29 are RA.

Although I do like the idea that SF's were dropped onto Stanley airfield by a passing Vulcan bomber. As if he didn't have his hands full of other things, like bombs, at that time!

Dropping the atomic bombs on a beaten and ready to surrender Japan was more about curtailing Russian territorial ambitions in Manchuria and Northern Japan (and also French and British desires to regain SE Asian territories)

Sort of...however Japan wasnt ready to surrender, and the russian manchurian offensive was requested by the Allies and began AFTER the first bomb had been dropped.

The first atomic bomb on japan was justifiable on the grounds that it forced a surrender thus removing the need for a opposed landing on the Japanese mainland. The second less so but the Japanese where not going to surrender otherwise for sure.

My apologies, after some research it turns out there was unofficial reports that "in the event of the loss" of Hermes and Invincible, there was the offer of the use of an US Navy Carrier, rumoured to be the USS Eisenhower. Turned down for the obvious reasons, manpower, political fallout, unfamiliarity, and so on.

Reagan was in love with Maggie though, so not so massively far fetched...

TJ

The atomic bomb was never justified, nor was the use of those dastardly Sinclair C5's in the Falkland Islands (taken from A.Beevor - Leopoldo Galtieri,My Part in his Downfall fiber&fiber 1989), something that Sir.Clive Sinclair is still being hunted for by the War Crimes Commission in the Hague!

The Cdo Log regiment, as with 29 and 54 , is / was made up of Army soldiers, not Navy, not Marines. They all support the RM Commando Brigade.

Mate, honestly I KNOW that CLR is an RM regt (hence the name CLR RM). It contains a squadron of loggies previously called ordnance sqn now called logistic support squadron. CLR RM are based at chivenor, guess who was based at chivenor also?
BTW, who are 54?
(Not trying to be ****tish BTW)

The Vulcan raid on PS took one bomber, 4000 miles of ocean, 15 tankers & 17 air-to-air refuelings.
The point being that if Britain can hit The Falklands by air, they for sure, we can hit mainland Argentina.

The jump into the mid Atlantic I think you're refering to was made by Col H's replacement, David Chandler (it was a toss-up between him and Mike Jackson) who flew out 3 days after H's death.

I tink it was John Knott, the then Foreigh Secretary who let the cat out of the bag about Britain having SF troops on the ground in I think the Express Newspaper. That scuppered all ground opertaions within mainland Argentina before they'd begun.

[url= http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/falklands/ ]Here's the Orbat[/url] It was 9Sqn, although as I recall, 54RE were out there too, but there's no mention of it.

The atomic bomb was never justified, nor was the use of those dastardly Sinclair C5's in the Falkland Islands (taken from A.Beevor - Leopoldo Galtieri,My Part in his Downfall fiber&fiber 1989), something that Sir.Clive Sinclair is still being hunted for by the War Crimes Commission in the Hague!

The use of the bomb was a show of power (especially the 2nd one)

however, the japenese were not going to surrender, and with the other options being starving or invading them, was probably the method that caused the least casualties (sadly). The invasion method would have probably been supported by nuclear strikes anyway.

The expected casualty rates for Operation Downfall are terrifying, and this only deals with Allied (mainly American) fatalities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

from wiki (yes I know) -

'Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number.'

Ti29er, I've never heard of 54RE.
What is their role (apart from being engineers)?

[i]The point being that if Britain can hit The Falklands by air, they for sure, we can hit mainland Argentina.[/i]

Not really though, I think both we and the Argentinians realised that the chances of a Vulcan raid to the mainland was pretty much a non starter. The Argentinian Air force had some pretty sophisticated radar that would have picked it up miles away, and whilst the Mirages and Daggers weren't much cop over the Falklands they'd have had no worries shooting down a Vulcan...

So how effective would it have been to let the big one off in the sea off the coast of Japan say outside Tokio? I'm ****ing hard, and I'm pretty sure that would have achieved an arse pucker factor 5 for me had I had my eyeballs scorched out by it. Ok if that hadn't worked then plop one straight onto on the emporer by all means.

As for the C5's they were completely legit in 82, it was only their non design use in extraordinary rendition that has resulted in them being banned subsequently by WCC Hague. I do believe that prior to that the Queens Own 53 Hussars (Sinclair) Detachment had them on trial for use in Northern Ireland, however, Clinton interceded stating that he'd eat his cigar moistener before he'd allow such a vicious piece of kit to stall the peace process..... ****ing pot calling the kettle black IMHO

Not really though, I think both we and the Argentinians realised that the chances of a Vulcan raid to the mainland was pretty much a non starter. The Argentinian Air force had some pretty sophisticated radar that would have picked it up miles away, and whilst the Mirages and Daggers weren't much cop over the Falklands they'd have had no worries shooting down a Vulcan...

Using the Vulcans to attack Argentina was discussed but never viable politically and probably not operationally either. At the time that would have left the only other options to be either a nuclear strike (not likely for obvious reasons) or an attack using aircraft staging in Chile - something the Argentinians themselves felt was quite possible. It might even have happened if Argentina had widened the conflict and accepted Peru's offer of military support.

The gap in technology between the Argentinian and UK forces has widened a lot since then, and we'd certainly have more options including the use of submarine launched cruise missiles to attack their mainland military establishments.

Assuming the Argentinians did want to try force again (which I don't think they do personally!) then they'd probably have to do it in the next few years - assuming that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers and their F35's do make it into service. If and when that were to happen then it's game over for any chance they'd have of taking and keeping the islands.

I think you'll find that this was the logic behind the raid in the first place.
I was quoting from Mike Jackson's memoirs BTW as he was stationed in the MOD at the time as the Defence attaché to General Glover, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Int), duties specific only to the Falklands.
He had to help present Int reports daily for the Ciefs of Staff of all three services & often the Secretary of State.
And this was before Power Point!

Question ??

Given that Black Buck allegedly forced the Diegos to withdraw their air cover from the islands, and given that it is acknowledged that the raids did virtually no damage at all, why didn't they just pop up and shoot the Vulcans down?....... presumably busy shooting up something that wasn't a threat as a warning to us, but not realsing that being Brits we are made os sterner stuff.... and had C5's

Sir Clive 'going ashore' at Goose Green......

[img] [/img]

nickc - Member

The point being that if Britain can hit The Falklands by air, they for sure, we can hit mainland Argentina.

Not really though, I think both we and the Argentinians realised that the chances of a Vulcan raid to the mainland was pretty much a non starter. The Argentinian Air force had some pretty sophisticated radar that would have picked it up miles away, and whilst the Mirages and Daggers weren't much cop over the Falklands they'd have had no worries shooting down a Vulcan..

The whole point of sending the Vulcan down there just to bomb an airfield was to show Argentina that we were more than capable of putting a 1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device right down their throats.
That's why we did it.

Now there was a hard man... no helmet

Hah !! I spit in the face of you Johnny Foreigner and your Frenchy cheese eating surrender monkey weapons!

Chocks away, chaps!

[i]why didn't they just pop up and shoot the Vulcans down?..[/i]

Easier said than done really. There were no interceptor AAF based at Port Stanley, and no air intercept radar, so no aircraft nearby to shot it down. No point launching from the mainland, by the time you've got to the Falklands the Vulcan's long gone, plus you have to run the blockade of CAP Harriers.

Plus of course they didn't want the UK to know of the existence of the C5X model that they'd developed secretly with a defector (now known to have been Fidel Juan Catros de Argie-Bargie)

Correction: Britain had the equipment and ability to hit BA or anywhere else in mainland Argentina if it so wished.

Argetina could mount no such reply.

1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device right down their throats

Trident not all it was cracked up to be then?

Capn F that is your best post ever !!!

[img] [/img]

yes, sub launched, we could have put a missile anywhere we wanted, but a raid using conventional aircraft (especially one as vulnerable as a Vulcan) was never going to happen.

There were actually a number of Black Buck raids - not all successful. Some of them weren't targeted at the runway but at the radar installations.

The general view is that the Black Buck raids were partly for political reasons, partly to deny the airfield for resupply flights and partly to give the RAF a way to take part in the conflict.

Argentina never had "air cover" for the Falklands so it was never withdrawn. What happened was that the Daggers and Mirages were taken out of the conflict on the pre-text of defending the mainland from Vulcan raids, however it was actually more to do with their lack of effect and high attrition rate.

Given that the Argentineans fighters didn't have the fuel to loiter over the Falklands they'd have had virtually no chance of intercepting the Vulcan attacks. They'd have had a better, but still very limited, chance if the carrier could have stayed at sea however the attack on the Belgrano stopped that.

Berm Bandit - Member

1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device right down their throats

Trident not all it was cracked up to be then?

Always thought it was a case of us rattling the sabre somewhat. Why else go to that expense to perform an exercise that achieved what a group of landbased troops could achieve in a relatively straight forward mission.
My father in law flew Vulcans, i get the same stories drilled into me every f*ckin Christmas...

The main point of the Vulcan raids was to allow the RAF to contribute.

Quite so, I remember my Father, who in '82 had just done what turned out to be his last operational posting to a Phantom sqn, checking the runway length at Port Stanley and be very relaxed about the chances of any involvement.

The Argentineans did have the equipment to lengthen the runway at Port Stanley but decided not to for several reasons:

1) After the Belgrano they could only re-supply by air and the runway plates were very big and heavy (although they could have been carried)
2) The'd also have needed fuel storage facilities (and a way to get the fuel there) which was also difficult post-Belgrano
3) They'd also have needed a way to protect the airfield (and the aircraft stationed there) from the Harriers and from the UK special forces

On balance they decided that the wouldn't be able to get the runway operational for fast jets and keep it that way so didn't try.

I know my memory is a bit dodgy, being an old farty an all but isn't the historical accuracy suffering a tad here? The first raid was before the task force were actually on station, and the point of nailing the runway was so that they couldn't fly fast jets off the island thus denying the A's air force time over target, and the opportunity to attack the task force. Interestingly, the day of that attack is also the day that SAS and SBS were inserted onto the main island... a matter of record.

Again as I recall the task force stood off to the offside until this had been accomplished thus out of range.

More significantly the Trident missile deployed at that time and also designated the C4 was not deployed at the time, as it had been superceded by the vastly superior C5. Awesome piece of kit with multiple military applications, so clearly all of this about what the RAF could and couldn't do is basically irrelevant

The runway at Stanley was the re-supply route for the Argentineans (and the only one once their fleet had returned to base and it was clear re-supply by sea was going to be risky) so it was thought important to try and deny it to the Hercules transports that were being used. Something that was almost a complete failure. The Vulcan raids would have been more important (and probably more effective) had the Argentineans tried to station fast jets there as there would have been soft targets to attack i.e. the fuel storage and the aircraft themselves.

The carriers stood out to the east of the islands (by a couple of hundred miles) throughout the conflict and that wasn't related to the use of Stanley but instead to make attacks more difficult. That had the effect of reducing the time the Harriers could spend over the islands, but not to the same extent as the Argentineans had to contend with.

More significantly the Trident missile deployed at that time and also designated the C4 was not deployed at the time, as it had been superceded by the vastly superior C5. Awesome piece of kit with multiple military applications, so clearly all of this about what the RAF could and couldn't do is basically irrelevant

If my recall is correct our bomber subs would have been carrying Polaris at the time, not Trident. Not that it's of any relevance which system we had. The Argentineans would have known we had the means to use nuclear weapons against them, but also that there was never the slightest chance that it would happen. Nukes being held by the likes of use aren't any kind of deterrent in that type of conflict.

but there were other modifications too...

[img] [/img]

If my recall is correct our bomber subs would have been carrying Polaris at the time, not Trident.

Nope Trident C4 definately came into service in 1979, no question on that one. However, by 1982 they had upgraded it to the C5 variant with multiple tactical and logistical dial up variants possible. Accordingly the concept of an airborne attack by a

1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device

Top Trumps anyone?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Navy ]Argentine Navy[/url]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy ]The Norman[/url]

Think we're still streets ahead of le Armada!

So, have we decided to invade Argentina yet?
If so, can I put in an order for some meat - best damn steak I've ever tasted whilst out trekking somewhere between [url= ]Cerro Torro[/url] & Mt Fitzroy.

Nope Trident C4 definately came into service in 1979, no question on that one

In service where? In the USA or UK? We didn't even ask the USA for Trident until '82...

Ti

I think you're on to something - a pre-emptive strike! Turn right at Ascension and steam straight up the River Plate, they'll never see it coming...........oh wait.......

Careful Captain! Isn't that the ghost of the Scharnhorst?

epicsteve - Member
The main point of the Vulcan raids was to allow the RAF to contribute.

So, 1(F) Sqn were not there on Hermes?...and the one remaining chinook, was that the Royal Navy version?

Heard some interviews with Argentinian public on radio 4, they sounded pretty defeatest and more worried about food and water than oil.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

In service where? In the USA or UK? We didn't even ask the USA for Trident until '82...

I think you may be confusing the c64 variant of polaris with the C4 Trident. The C64 was certainly the final version of its type, but I'm pretty sure you'll find it was out of service and replaced by C4 Trident by 1981 ,which was almost immediately upgraded to C5 which was what was being deployed in 82

Berm Bandit.

The Vanguard class submarines which carry Trident did not enter service until 1994, the Resolution class submarines only ever carried Polaris missiles which received upgraded missiles & warheads (Polaris A3TK) in the early 1980's but these certainly were not Trident.

If what you are saying is correct and that the Royal Navy did deploy Trident equipped bombers the 1980's then you have access to information that is not in the public domain!

This is a good source of information on the UK Nuclear weapons programmes;

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org//Uk/UKArsenalDev.html

Depressing stuff that so much money and scientific knowledge has had to be committed to such destructive weapons. 🙄

[img] [/img]

This is how it should be resolved.Bugsy Malone-style.

Let's re-arm!

[img] [/img]

was there for the last one!! ready for the next!! bring em on, have a few old scores to settle.

wormhole - Member

have a few old scores to settle.

Go on.......

What annoyed me was the difference in Army ration packs.
The Argies had a cow between 5, a sachet of wine each, 5 B&H, and a white hanky.
The Brits had Spangles, babies head and buscuits AB.
Oh! and putees, remember those lovely throw-backs to WW1?
Along with shirts hairy, it made men of us!

At least you got proper rifles...

[img] [/img]

Unless you were armed with a chefs hat and a spatula of course..... 😉

(s'possed to be a pic of an SLR doesn't seem to be uploading - previews o.k!!!!) 😳

Oh! and putees, remember those lovely throw-backs to WW1?
Along with shirts hairy, it made men of us!

Ah, Jersey Heavy Wool's for goalposts....

El-bent, start by working out how you do BVR combat with the GR9.

Well, there's this Helicopter the RN have called ASAC or airborne early warning and what it does is allow you to "spot" trouble from a distance. Granted the GR9 doesn't have BVR missiles or radar and roughly the equivalent missile they had in 82, and considering the AAF have the same generation of aircraft they had in 82 also with no BVR, will not have the fuel to mix it with RN harriers, then the ASAC capability will be obvious in helping Harriers achieve the best position for intercept.

Of course this wouldn't have been a problem if the FAA harriers with blue vixen and proper BVR hadn't been scrapped. Rumour I've heard is that they didn't fit into the RAF's concept of what JFH was all about.

Then work out air combat without a main runway. Then crack on with getting troops out of the 'stan (they will stop elsewhere before coming home)

Well there's these ships the RN has...what are they called? That's right Aircraft carriers. You work it out.

Why would we need to withdraw troops from Afghan? Granted, some of the capabilities would be withdrawn, but we would withdraw forces from closer to home first.

The thing about conflicts like this is what lessons you should be learning. Your comments show you haven't been taught the right ones.

That's why theres an airbase on the Islands, that's why the RN re-generated it amphibious force, that's why there are two aircraft carriers being built. I could go on.

I'll just add that Mount Pleasant is capable of supporting the E3 Sentry. If it looks like things might heat up I'm sure one can be sent south quickly enough.

And what do you think the first target for the Fuerza Aérea would be?

What do you think has been the one mission they've been practicing for over and over again for the past twenty years?

Yep, working out how to hit the runway at MPA... deny the airfield, and we'd be in the shit! Eggs in one basket...

Two new Aircraft carriers being built? yeah, and when will we see them? 2014 at the earliest, in service date, god only knows - and what are we going to put on them... oops, nope, we've got nothing to park on them till 2017 at least... and then no source code!

Helo borne AEW - great for defending a fleet, no good for projecting air power at range!

What is that old rusting hulk in the sound? Looks like a 19th century steam ship in ONE piece. Ideas?

Ah a clipper

[img] [/img]