The Falklands War

McArmalite

I declare the islands should be restored to their rightful owners - the Penguins

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Its just not that simple in my opinion. One factor you are not counting is that they ran out of exocet guided missiles which is the point I originally made. The argentinian pilots had to travel 300 miles to get there - they had a 3 minutes airtime slot over the islands due to fuel restrictions (and the fact that they did not lengthen the runway on the islands before the convoy arrived). They approached at 200+mph about a metre or so above water and had to make lightning speed decisions on which ship to attack as they had a window of seconds and were under very heavy fire and intense psychological pressure at the time.

So they didnt 'decide' to target frigates instead of supply ships.

Whether you like it or not they were intelligent enough to know that a taskforce that far from home cant logistically survive without supplies for very long.

This was a primary british weakspot. Any retard with a map of the world and a red pen could tell you that - to presume the argentinians were not aware of that is a bit simplistic and dismissive. In my estimation thats a lot more simplistic and dismissive than the brit commanders at that time would have dared to be.

Another of many factors you seem incapable of assessing is the fact that most of the argentinian bombs went straight through the british ships as the satefy fuses were set to a delay so as not to risk destroying the argentian fighterbombers in the explosion - in retrospect this was another error,

They had a border conflict with chile to worry about - they knew that in the event of a conflict with england the chileans may use that as an opportunity to invade (they had come close to war in 1978). The elite argentian troops were stationed along the chilean border for the duration of that war to protect their homeland. IF that was not a consideration and they had been available for the island campaign it would be a different story. The bulk of the argentinians on the islands were conscripts from the north (ie warm) part of the country - they were not accustomed to the weather they encountered and this is a factor also.

I don't want to get into the British were great side of the arguement, but you have made a couple of statements there that are not strictly true.

Firstly, there were significant numbers of ""Elite" troops in the Falklands, they were not all 18 year old conscripts with pea shooters as a lot of people claim.

Secondly, the fact that the Argentine's had only a split second to make decisions was in part down to the British as much as geographical considerations. Both airfields in the Falklands were too dangerous to fly from as they were constantly targetted by the Task Force, secondly, the Destroyers (Not frigates) at the edge of the task force, Type 42s were built as air defence ships with the sole intention of defending a fleet, a job they did very well. The Harrier also faired well in a dog fight too.

I guess we will never know if the Argentines did intentionally target the Atlantic Conveyor, but it was probably the biggest loss to the British during the conflict, due to it's load.

I can only think of HMS Alacrity that had a bomb go straight through it as well, so to say "Most" bombs went through would be an exageration, granted it was 25 years ago and my memory aint what it used to be.

It was a hell of an achievement for Britain to put together a task force so quickly, sail 8000 miles and win the Falklands back, a feat which I have no doubt several other european countries could do as well.

It was a fairly straight forward scrap though, combining good fortune, bad fortune and loads of what ifs. I don't see how Britain could be overly criticised for anything they did in the conflict and, excuse us for being patriotic, but we did win a war against an aggressor, I thought the Irish would appreciate the jubilation over that.

The conflict did Maggie a favour and to a greater extent the British Forces and in particular the navy, but why do the Brits get criticism for that, after all, the Argentines started it.

Gobán Saor

Pathfinder wrote: »

Britain had a duty to defend British citizens and territory.

Yeah, I suppose so..... Bit like, oh what's that place called....., ah yes I remember now, Hong Kong wasn't it, that was British territory too. Hong Kong proper was formally ceded to Britain by China in the 19th century and the "New Territories" were held on a 99 year lease. So a much stronger claim than to the Malvinas/Falklands then. And the citizens (British but without right of residency in Britain) overwhelmingly wanted Hong Kong to remain British, didn't they? So how did Britain discharge its duty to defend the British citizens and British territory of Hong Kong? Well, it didn't of course. Pure speculation on my part mind you, but might this have had anything to do with the brooding presence of the Chinese People's Liberation Army poised just over the border?:D:D Different proposition from the Argies, eh?

Just admit it, Pathfinder. You fought the South Atlantic war because it was winnable. You funked Hong Kong because the Chinese would have whupped your asses all the way back to Portsmouth. Mo morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't want to get into the British were great side of the arguement, but you have made a couple of statements there that are not strictly true.

Firstly, there were significant numbers of ""Elite" troops in the Falklands, they were not all 18 year old conscripts with pea shooters as a lot of people claim.

Secondly, the fact that the Argentine's had only a split second to make decisions was in part down to the British as much as geographical considerations. Both airfields in the Falklands were too dangerous to fly from as they were constantly targetted by the Task Force, secondly, the Destroyers (Not frigates) at the edge of the task force, Type 42s were built as air defence ships with the sole intention of defending a fleet, a job they did very well. The Harrier also faired well in a dog fight too.

I guess we will never know if the Argentines did intentionally target the Atlantic Conveyor, but it was probably the biggest loss to the British during the conflict, due to it's load.

I can only think of HMS Alacrity that had a bomb go straight through it as well, so to say "Most" bombs went through would be an exageration, granted it was 25 years ago and my memory aint what it used to be.

It was a hell of an achievement for Britain to put together a task force so quickly, sail 8000 miles and win the Falklands back, a feat which I have no doubt several other european countries could do as well.

It was a fairly straight forward scrap though, combining good fortune, bad fortune and loads of what ifs. I don't see how Britain could be overly criticised for anything they did in the conflict and, excuse us for being patriotic, but we did win a war against an aggressor, I thought the Irish would appreciate the jubilation over that.

The conflict did Maggie a favour and to a greater extent the British Forces and in particular the navy, but why do the Brits get criticism for that, after all, the Argentines started it.

" It was a hell of an achievement for Britain to put together a task force so quickly...... a feat which I have no doubt several other european countries could do as well.......I thought the Irish would appreciate the jubilation over that.". Sad, very sad :D:D If you think the rest of the world was impressed with your little escapde over a bunch of islands that you had secretly been thinking of getting rid of and din't even have proper maps of - you couldn't be more mistaken ya feckin' eejit . It was surely one of the most stupid, wasteful fiascos of the last century - and then to think that the brits thought they were great or something and the envy of the world :rolleyes:. As I said, SAD, VERY SAD, PATHETIC in fact.

And then to spoil it all, the Americans invaded Grenada a year later humiliating the silly a$$holes - YET AGAIN.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Firstly, there were significant numbers of ""Elite" troops in the Falklands, they were not all 18 year old conscripts with pea shooters as a lot of people claim.

I didnt say they were 'all' 18yr old conscripts.

I said that they contained many disshevelled conscripts from warmer areas untrained/unsuitable for the climate they were sent to. Which is perfectly true and a well known fact. As mentioned Argentina had the bulk of their elite forces engaged in defending their homeland against the potential for chilean opportunistic aggression - this was a factor working against them at that time.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Secondly, the fact that the Argentine's had only a split second to make decisions was in part down to the British as much as geographical considerations. Both airfields in the Falklands were too dangerous to fly from as they were constantly targetted by the Task Force, secondly, the Destroyers (Not frigates) at the edge of the task force, Type 42s were built as air defence ships with the sole intention of defending a fleet, a job they did very well. The Harrier also faired well in a dog fight too.

The primary airfield was bombed (open to correction on this) with approx 10 x 1000lb bombs of which one hit the runway - after that (and considering the argentians were not using it) it was left alone.

Equally relevant is the fact that while the taskforce were sailing the air field wasnt lengthened to accomodate fighters which would have made the whole thing more challenging. Certainly the fleet would have had to have kept their distance and their striking ability & air time over the islands would have been decreased significantly. Considering that the argentinians logistically wanted to drag it out and stall for time anything that delayed english progress was in their interest.

I dont agree that britain accomplished some kind of 'tremendous feat' by keeping the undefended ships behind the protection of air defence capable craft this is fairly common sense.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess we will never know if the Argentines did intentionally target the Atlantic Conveyor, but it was probably the biggest loss to the British during the conflict, due to it's load.

The point I made about their targetting was to correct the op who said the argentinians were not bright enough to know to target the supply ships. I pointed out that that is exactly what they were after but in the conditions were unable to complete it and had instead to hit the first likely looking target under fire and difficult operational constraints.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can only think of HMS Alacrity that had a bomb go straight through it as well, so to say "Most" bombs went through would be an exageration, granted it was 25 years ago and my memory aint what it used to be.

I was quoting from a british commander (link in the doc one above) who if memory recalls put it at 60% + of the argentinian hits on uk ships went straight through without exploding leaving a hole but the ship functional even if only on paper. He himself conceded that the safety settings on the fuses worked against the argentinians and in their (english) favour.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

a feat which I have no doubt several other european countries could do as well.

Agreed too.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was a fairly straight forward scrap though, combining good fortune, bad fortune and loads of what ifs. I don't see how Britain could be overly criticised for anything they did in the conflict and, excuse us for being patriotic, but we did win a war against an aggressor, I thought the Irish would appreciate the jubilation over that.

I didnt criticise the english. I pointed out that its not exactly up there with cannae in terms of military cunning or operation barbarossa in terms of human enduranece in times of conflict. Fwiw I would be of the opinion that their current role in afghanistan is far more impressive (as well as relevant & worthwhile).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The conflict did Maggie a favour and to a greater extent the British Forces and in particular the navy, but why do the Brits get criticism for that, after all, the Argentines started it.

The shallow patriotic/jingoistic nonsense that gets pumped up by the likes of Maxwell & co gave thatcher a boost - there is no argument there from anyone. What the OP outlined is essentially a carbon copy of 'the sun' circa early 80's which is the part that I pointed out was a bit silly.

McArmalite

Britain had a duty to defend British citizens and territory.

Didn't do that when the Americans invaded Grenada a year later ? The Royal Marines were in no hurry to take on the US Marines were they ?

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Yeah, I suppose so..... Bit like, oh what's that place called....., ah yes I remember now, Hong Kong wasn't it, that was British territory too. Hong Kong proper was formally ceded to Britain by China in the 19th century and the "New Territories" were held on a 99 year lease. So a much stronger claim than to the Malvinas/Falklands then. And the citizens (British but without right of residency in Britain) overwhelmingly wanted Hong Kong to remain British, didn't they? So how did Britain discharge its duty to defend the British citizens and British territory of Hong Kong? Well, it didn't of course. Pure speculation on my part mind you, but might this have had anything to do with the brooding presence of the Chinese People's Liberation Army poised just over the border?:D:D Different proposition from the Argies, eh?

Just admit it, Pathfinder. You fought the South Atlantic war because it was winnable. You funked Hong Kong because the Chinese would have whupped your asses all the way back to Portsmouth. Mo morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't.

" No morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't." Spot on Gobán Saor, the military history of britian in a nutshell.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

" It was a hell of an achievement for Britain to put together a task force so quickly...... a feat which I have no doubt several other european countries could do as well.......I thought the Irish would appreciate the jubilation over that.". Sad, very sad :D:D If you think the rest of the world was impressed with your little escapde over a bunch of islands that you had secretly been thinking of getting rid of and din't even have proper maps of - you couldn't be more mistaken ya feckin' eejit . It was surely one of the most stupid, wasteful fiascos of the last century - and then to think that the brits thought they were great or something and the envy of the world :rolleyes:. As I said, SAD, VERY SAD, PATHETIC in fact.

And then to spoil it all, the Americans invaded Grenada a year later humiliating the silly a$$holes - YET AGAIN.

Childish!

Fratton Fred

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Yeah, I suppose so..... Bit like, oh what's that place called....., ah yes I remember now, Hong Kong wasn't it, that was British territory too. Hong Kong proper was formally ceded to Britain by China in the 19th century and the "New Territories" were held on a 99 year lease. So a much stronger claim than to the Malvinas/Falklands then. And the citizens (British but without right of residency in Britain) overwhelmingly wanted Hong Kong to remain British, didn't they? So how did Britain discharge its duty to defend the British citizens and British territory of Hong Kong? Well, it didn't of course. Pure speculation on my part mind you, but might this have had anything to do with the brooding presence of the Chinese People's Liberation Army poised just over the border?:D:D Different proposition from the Argies, eh?

Just admit it, Pathfinder. You fought the South Atlantic war because it was winnable. You funked Hong Kong because the Chinese would have whupped your asses all the way back to Portsmouth. Mo morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't.

I don't see how you can compare Hong Kong (Or Granada for that matter) with the Falklands. For starters, the Chinese didn't invade Hong Kong, it was on a lease so to speak that expired. That was sorted out using simple diplomatic channels rather than the use of force.

The yanks went in to Granada and whilst their incompetaqnce was comical it did create a political storm. Have the Americans turned Granada into the a colony? have they raised the stars and stripes over the island? no, they went in on a defined mission, carried it out and left. Again, very different from the Falklands.

you are clutching at straws here methink

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

" It was a hell of an achievement for Britain to put together a task force so quickly...... a feat which I have no doubt several other european countries could do as well.......I thought the Irish would appreciate the jubilation over that.". Sad, very sad :D:D If you think the rest of the world was impressed with your little escapde over a bunch of islands that you had secretly been thinking of getting rid of and din't even have proper maps of - you couldn't be more mistaken ya feckin' eejit . It was surely one of the most stupid, wasteful fiascos of the last century - and then to think that the brits thought they were great or something and the envy of the world :rolleyes:. As I said, SAD, VERY SAD, PATHETIC in fact.

And then to spoil it all, the Americans invaded Grenada a year later humiliating the silly a$$holes - YET AGAIN.

It wasn't done to impress anyone and I agree it was wasteful and IF THE ARGENTINES HAD NOT INVADED, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, BLAME THEM IF YOU WANT TO BLAME ANYONE.

I fail to see where the debate is.

Fratton Fred

Morlar, I stand corrected if the facts are what you say, it seems a fairly pointless arguement anyway. The point I am trying to make is that sure, luck played a part, but Britain used the right tactics, whether that was putting Type 42 Destroyers on the edge of a fleet, or by pressurising the French into restricting the supply of Exocets. What was the RN to do, give the Argentine air force a chance by not using Sea Dart?

As I said, it was a fair scrap and due to the geography of the conflict Argentina had the advantage, but Britain won which is an achievement.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't see how you can compare Hong Kong (Or Granada for that matter) with the Falklands. For starters, the Chinese didn't invade Hong Kong, it was on a lease so to speak that expired. That was sorted out using simple diplomatic channels rather than the use of force.

Thank you for confiming my posting from a day or two ago - " Britian wasn't hesitant in running out of Hong Kong a few years ago despite the 'majority of the people' argument. And don't be so silly to say it was because the terms of the agreement was up and not to do with the fact that the billion strong Chinese could strool in and you crowd could do zero about - YET AGAIN " As I said, SAD, VERY SAD, PATHETIC in fact.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The yanks went in to Granada and whilst their incompetaqnce was comical it did create a political storm. Have the Americans turned Granada into the a colony? have they raised the stars and stripes over the island? no, they went in on a defined mission, carried it out and left. Again, very different from the Falklands.

Well as incompotent they were supposed to be, you lot didn't whimper about taking them on . But as Goban Saor said " " No morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't.".

And again you have confimed my posting from a day or two ago - " BTW I see Prince Big Ears brother has been waffling about the Americans ignoring british advice in Iraq. ......But I knew it, I said it from the first days the brits were going in there, if it goes wrong - it's the incompetent yanks fault. If it goes right- it's all down to our brillant 'expertise' and the british sense of fairplay, and the fearsome reputation of the SAS blah, blah, blah, . It's an endemic part of the british character, you just LOVE yourselves don't you ?? "

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Thank you for confiming my posting from a day or two ago - " Britian wasn't hesitant in running out of Hong Kong a few years ago despite the 'majority of the people' argument. And don't be so silly to say it was because the terms of the agreement was up and not to do with the fact that the billion strong Chinese could strool in and you crowd could do zero about - YET AGAIN " As I said, SAD, VERY SAD, PATHETIC in fact.


Well as incompotent they were supposed to be, you lot didn't whimper about taking them on . But as Goban Saor said " " No morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't.".

And again you have confimed my posting from a day or two ago - " BTW I see Prince Big Ears brother has been waffling about the Americans ignoring british advice in Iraq. ......But I knew it, I said it from the first days the brits were going in there, if it goes wrong - it's the incompetent yanks fault. If it goes right- it's all down to our brillant 'expertise' and the british sense of fairplay, and the fearsome reputation of the SAS blah, blah, blah, . It's an endemic part of the british character, you just LOVE yourselves don't you ?? "

you don't have any substance to any of your arguements, other than to go on another anti British rant. you were annoying, then comical, now you are just plain boring.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you don't have any substance to any of your arguements, other than to go on another anti British rant. you were annoying, then comical, now you are just plain boring.

It's an endemic part of the british character, you just LOVE yourselves don't you ??

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The point I am trying to make is that ...............Britain used the right tactics, ...................... Britain won

What do you want a cigar ? No one here has said that the english lost the falklands war or that all their tactical choices were incorrect.

This goes back to the very first thing I said in this thread which was that aside from claiming 'the british army are great' what is the point of this thread ?

If your not interested in discussing the conflict only the scoreline why raise it as a subject matter ? Did you think Irish people were not aware of the outcome ?

Starting to think this is going to be the new '1966' for the desperate.

Morlar

Morlar wrote: »

This goes back to the very first thing I said in this thread which was that aside from claiming 'the british army are great' what is the point of this thread ?
.

More a question for the OP who started this jingoistic thread!

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

Starting to think this is going to be the new '1966' for the desperate.

2003 comes to mind as well, and almost 2007

More than happy to discuss the conflict and I am very keen to avoid the pro and anti British rants. The tabloids are an embarrassment for the English and if you recall, the Sun was forced to remove the "Gotcha" headline from later editions of the days papers following public reaction.

The taskforce left Portsmouth the Monday after the invasion (Which was a Friday IIRC) and that weekend was pretty amazing. HMS Hermes and Invincible were both in harbour and were being readied to leave, it was obvious they were going even before the announcement, because helicoptors were constantly flying overhead. The crews of pretty much every ship in harbour at the time were put on first seven, then four hour notice and there was a lot of hastily arranged leaving parties, although most seemed to just go without saying much.

I had two relatives go, one uncle and a cousin, although the cousin's ship was pulled out at the last minute because of Engine problems, he would have departed from Plymouth anyway. I was off school sick on the Monday and I ended up going to Sallyport to watch the ships leave, along with my godmother, who was seeing her son off and her daughter who was waving off her fiance. It was a very sombre occasion but deep down, no one thought it would happen, everyone thought it would be sorted out by the time they got to ascension, but of course it wasn't.

When the ships started getting sunk, the local paper listed the casulaites and their adresses, fortunately everyone I knew returned safely, but it was sobering to read of guys being killed that lived up the road, or in the next street.

Like I say, more than happy to discuss it, but I lived in a town that went through the Falklands conflict pretty closely, so forgive me if I am biased.

guinnessdrinker

Morlar wrote: »

Another of many factors you seem incapable of assessing is the fact that most of the argentinian bombs went straight through the british ships as the satefy fuses were set to a delay so as not to risk destroying the argentian fighterbombers in the explosion - in retrospect this was another error,

I remember seeing a documentary once where I think a British naval officer described the argintine pilots as being too brave.

They flew at low level and when they fired their missles they were too close to the British ships and thus when they fired, the missiles did not have enough time in flight to arm themself correctly. This resulted in the bombs failing to explode on impact with the ships.


EDIT: Just found a link to an article describing the Argeintinian pilots and the bombs not going off.

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/3096

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The tabloids are an embarrassment for the English

I think its an entire attitude not just contents of newspapers to be honest.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so forgive me if I am biased.

Thats going to be a 2 way street or not at all surely.

I remember that rough timeframe in Ireland too btw. To put it in context for you many people in Ireland cheered for that war and not in the way that english people did. Dont forget the british army were regularly shooting unarmed catholics a hundred miles or so up the road.

I have also lived in portsmouth for many years (not at that time) and heard some of the stories from people who were there too. You know yourself what the ratio of navy squaddies in that town is. Practically every local either - has served in the navy - are in the navy - or has family who are or were in the navy.

I also remember hearing about how some ships that sailed with terchnicians/repair crews (who were doing 24hr & 36 hr shifts) and still onboard as their work was vital and they hadnt finished by the time it came to sail. .

No one is saying that it was not difficult for the families and I dont see anyone here laughing at what they went through or english people who were killed there.

At the same time the idea that it was a 'tremendous military achievement' ala cannae/barbarossa - also the notion that no other army could have made that march - those are the parts that are laughable and belong in one of those tabloids you mentioned.

I go back to the earlier point - if you (ie english peope /*shakes fist) want to talk about that rationally then you wont find people objecting to that. On the other hand if your just looking for unadulterated praise (ala circle jerk) for the brit army then you can expect some people to object.

McArmalite

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I remember seeing a documentary once where I think a British naval officer described the argintine pilots as being too brave.

They flew at low level and when they fired their missles they were too close to the British ships and thus when they fired, the missiles did not have enough time in flight to arm themself correctly. This resulted in the bombs failing to explode on impact with the ships.

Regretfully I have to say, this resulted in the bombs failing to explode on impact with the ships.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Regretfully I have to say, this resulted in the bombs failing to explode on impact with the ships.

showing your true colours again, bigot.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

I think its an entire attitude not just contents of newspapers to be honest.

maybe, you will obviously see that differently to me

Morlar wrote: »

Thats going to be a 2 way street or not at all surely.

I remember that rough timeframe in Ireland too btw. To put it in context for you many people in Ireland cheered for that war and not in the way that english people did. Dont forget the british army were regularly shooting unarmed catholics a hundred miles or so up the road.

bit of an exageration, but I can understand there would be few tears shed in Ireland. Although Mcarmalite has just shown why the English would care little about Irish opinion.

Morlar wrote: »

I have also lived in portsmouth for many years (not at that time) and heard some of the stories from people who were there too. You know yourself what the ratio of navy squaddies in that town is. Practically every local either - has served in the navy - are in the navy - or has family who are or were in the navy.

I also remember hearing about how some ships that sailed with terchnicians/repair crews (who were doing 24hr & 36 hr shifts) and still onboard as their work was vital and they hadnt finished by the time it came to sail.

that is why I said the war was a blessing in some respects. The navy was being cut back at an alarming rate and there were many ships in very poor repair as they were scheduled to be moth balled. My cousins ship that I referred to. HMS Ariadne, was due to be modernised, then that set to be scrapped, then sent to Plymouth to make ready for war. It was little surprise to anyone that the engine packed up. The Falklands brought the navy back into people's focus and the government scrapped plans to reduce the size the size of the fleet, which saved a lot of jobs in my home city, which by the way, has the best football supporters in the world, yes McArmalite, we love ourselves:D

Morlar wrote: »

At the same time the idea that it was a 'tremendous military achievement' ala cannae/barbarossa - also the notion that no other army could have made that march - those are the parts that are laughable and belong in one of those tabloids you mentioned.

I go back to the earlier point - if you (ie english peope /*shakes fist) want to talk about that rationally then you wont find people objecting to that. On the other hand if your just looking for unadulterated praise (ala circle jerk) for the brit army then you can expect some people to object.

I do want to talk about it rationally, I would never compare it to D-Day, Battle of Britain or Trafalger for that matter, hopefully I have managed to keep this in context.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

bit of an exageration

We can agree to disagree on that.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe, you will obviously see that differently to me

bit of an exageration, but I can understand there would be few tears shed in Ireland. Although Mcarmalite has just shown why the English would care little about Irish opinion.

that is why I said the war was a blessing in some respects. The navy was being cut back at an alarming rate and there were many ships in very poor repair as they were scheduled to be moth balled. My cousins ship that I referred to. HMS Ariadne, was due to be modernised, then that set to be scrapped, then sent to Plymouth to make ready for war. It was little surprise to anyone that the engine packed up. The Falklands brought the navy back into people's focus and the government scrapped plans to reduce the size the size of the fleet, which saved a lot of jobs in my home city, which by the way, has the best football supporters in the world, yes McArmalite, we love ourselves:D

I do want to talk about it rationally, I would never compare it to D-Day, Battle of Britain or Trafalger for that matter, hopefully I have managed to keep this in context.

For a fella who claims I'm just "just plain boring", ya still cann't help bringing my name up again and again Oh, Fred, I know how to push your buttons.

the GALL

Pathfinder wrote: »

Victory led to the fall of a fascist regime, but then being an insecure republican that does not intrest you, slagging off Britain comes first.

typical brit attitude to the world in general...oh ain't we great, wake up if your lookin for praise about the british army keep it in the mess with the rest of your 'soliders'...and as for being an insecure republican....tiocfaidh ar lar

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Oh, Fred, I know how to push your buttons.

you wish

Fratton Fred

the GALL wrote: »

typical brit attitude to the world in general...oh ain't we great, wake up if your lookin for praise about the british army keep it in the mess with the rest of your 'soliders'...and as for being an insecure republican....tiocfaidh ar lar

And that's a typical Irish response to anything British. Touche :rolleyes:

the GALL

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And that's a typical Irish response to anything British. Touche :rolleyes:

no, not to anything british just to visions of grandiouse(pardon the french)

Pathfinder

McArmalite wrote: »

Britain had a duty to defend British citizens and territory.

Didn't do that when the Americans invaded Grenada a year later ? The Royal Marines were in no hurry to take on the US Marines were they ?



" No morals, no points of high principle, just pragmatic throwing your weight around when you can and backing off when you can't." Spot on Gobán Saor, the military history of britian in a nutshell.

Britain supported the US action another Cuba was no needed.

Without doubt MI6 knew about it.

Pathfinder

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I remember seeing a documentary once where I think a British naval officer described the argintine pilots as being too brave.

They flew at low level and when they fired their missles they were too close to the British ships and thus when they fired, the missiles did not have enough time in flight to arm themself correctly. This resulted in the bombs failing to explode on impact with the ships.


EDIT: Just found a link to an article describing the Argeintinian pilots and the bombs not going off.

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/3096

An Argetinian air force general stated if they had flown in a wave of 20 planes,taken more time, gone for the carriers and supply ships, and bailed over the Falklands they would have won.

The bottom line is they had the advantage and blew it.

McArmalite

Pathfinder wrote: »

Britain supported the US action another Cuba was no needed.

Without doubt MI6 knew about it.

Walter Mitty strikes again :rolleyes:. Still haven't answered Morlar's questions and assertions yet. Come on, give us a good laugh.