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 **** 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?

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 **** 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.

Here's the Orbat 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)?

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…

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 **** 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….. **** 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……

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!