The Falklands War

TOMASJ

Deleted User wrote: »

The sinking of the Belgrano was one of the main turning points in the conflict as it warned the Argentinian navy to stay away.

A warship within range during hostilities is a legitimate target, it could have just as easily turned round again if unchallanged!

As a NATO member Britain was entitled to those satellite images, and don't forget that the Royal Navy has radar on the ships!

The Belgrano was bombed at the start of the war how was that a turning point and how did the brits warn them to stay away as they were sulking under the sea. it was not challenged just bombed (As a NATO member Britain was entitled to those satellite images,) the post I responded to did not acknowledge that they the brits had satellite cover only how wonderful their army was

tricky D

According to Discovery Channel's 'Falklands: How Close to Defeat?', the Belgrano to the south and the Argentinian Aircraft carrier to the north of the Falklands were commencing a pincer movement which would have done shedloads of damage to the fleet, probably terminal damage to the campaign. The British got lucky, very lucky, when the wind died enough preventing takeoffs from the carrier. Consequently, the movement was called off, the Belgrano turned away. Then Thatcher amended the RoE and HMS Conquerer sank it with a pre-WW2 torpedo outside of the Maritime Exclusion Zone - perfectly legal under International Law*. This was quite a ruthless decision by her, but this was war, in which such decisions are required. Don't like it, but it pretty much had to be done.

As with most conflicts, both sides made mistakes, got lucky and unlucky, did dubious acts. The British just got that bit more luck and made fewer mistakes, but that shouldn't take away from the bravery, commitment and effort of their forces.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

TOMASJ

TOMASJ wrote: »

The Belgrano was bombed at the start of the war how was that a turning point and how did the brits warn them to stay away as they were sulking under the sea.

A task force steaming towards the Falklands may have been a hint!

TOMASJ wrote: »

sulking under the sea.

That is what submarines are for! The germans proved in WWII just how important they are!

TOMASJ

My post was not about the rights or wrongs of war it was in response to a posts that said (It was a stunning victory, 8,000 miles from home with virtually no air cover) I said that they did have air cover via US satellite. and another post that said that the (brits warned the Argentinian navy to stay away.) both are untrue they the brits did not warn the Argentinian navy to stay away they watched them turn and suckling in a sub virtually shot them in the back this war or conflict as it was refered to at the time (in case things did not got right for the brits) was won by proxy by the US

Pathfinder

TOMASJ wrote: »

My post was not about the rights or wrongs of war it was in response to a posts that said (It was a stunning victory, 8,000 miles from home with virtually no air cover) I said that they did have air cover via US satellite. and another post that said that the (brits warned the Argentinian navy to stay away.) both are untrue they the brits did not warn the Argentinian navy to stay away they watched them turn and suckling in a sub virtually shot them in the back this war or conflict as it was refered to at the time (in case things did not got right for the brits) was won by proxy by the US

The only air cover was from around 28 fleet air arm Harriers based on the carriers, Argentina had its full airforce at its disposal around 200 + fighters including Mirages, daggers etc.

Which is why so many RN and support ships were sunk or damaged.


You are now claiming America, "won the war for Britain".

So the Americans carried the kit and fought the battles did they ?

guinnessdrinker

The sinking of the General Belgrano was certainly controversial by any standards, but one thing is sure, that by sinking it, the British ended any hopes of UN peace talks succeeding.

Pathfinder wrote: »

So the Americans carried the kit and fought the battles did they ?

On this point, credit has to be given where it is due. I once heard that it was the junior NCO's and privates that won the Falklands war for the British. I would like to go along with this as these were the guys that had to slog across the harsh terrain and do the fighting at the end of the day. Not talking away from the Argentinians, some were conscripts, some were not but they were dug in so they had the initial advantage but I think being stuck on freezing cold and windy hillsides for weeks on end would zap the morale of anyone.

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

The only air cover was from around 28 fleet air arm Harriers based on the carriers, Argentina had its full airforce at its disposal around 200 + fighters including Mirages, daggers etc.

Which is why so many RN and support ships were sunk or damaged.


You are now claiming America, "won the war for Britain".

So the Americans carried the kit and fought the battles did they ?

What do you mean 28 feet the brits had an overall view of what was on and where around the Islands from USA satellites I dont think they orbit at 28 feet just acknowledge that without this advantage you hadn't a hope by the way did the paras murder any of the Argentina prisoners or give them good digging or was that covered up as well

robinph

TOMASJ wrote: »

What do you mean 28 feet

F L E E T not feet.

TOMASJ

robinph wrote: »

F L E E T not feet.

Not being the military type an easy mistake to make

TOMASJ

TOMASJ wrote: »

What do you mean 28 feet the brits had an overall view of what was on and where around the Islands from USA satellites I dont think they orbit at 28 feet just acknowledge that without this advantage you hadn't a hope by the way did the paras murder any of the Argentina prisoners or give them good digging or was that covered up as well

TOMASJ wrote: »

Not being the military type an easy mistake to make

Not really, just proves that you are letting your prejudices get in the way of the facts!

The biggest help the Americans gave was in allowing the task force to use facilities on the Ascention islands. Without that heavy air transport would have been almost impossible.

Tenger

TOMASJ wrote: »

Not being the military type an easy mistake to make

Not being able to read properly more like it. What difference does being military make? Does "28 harriers from the Feet Air Arm" sound more plausible?

Yes, the Falklands was a great achievement by the British armed forces. It was an assault on a contested island group thousands of miles from the home country adn within range of the enemy mainland forces. If the Argentinian navy and/or army had contested the conflict more aggressively the British may may well have been unsuccessful. While the Air Force were the junior member of the Junta and least supportive of the Malvinas Operation they were the service that did the most to oppose the British. Perhaps 2-3 months later and the Argentine Air Force with more Exocets in operation would have deal a more powerful blow against the British and forced a withdrawal? I remember reading it was a question of getting the French made aircraft fitted to use the exocet.

Indeed the British were greatly set back by the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor support ship (think this was the one) which carried most of th choppers, forcing the ground troops to conduct more risk laden marches ans assaults.

The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial but in that situation would you have allowed it to leave knowing it could return to attack a few days later? All it had to do was turn around. Indeed if the Argies (to use the slang of the day) had of had an attack submarine you can guarantee that it would have been position to intercept a British convoy enroute to the Falklands/Malvinas.

Capt'n Midnight

Bramble wrote:

Prhaps 2-3 months later and the Argentine Air Force with more Exocets in operation would have deal a more powerful blow against the British and forced a withdrawal?

Wouldn't have mattered since in a few months the UK would have been two carriers short, and would have been unable to attempt anything. All the Argentinians had to do was wait until the the ships were struck off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12)
Hermes was due to be decommissioned in 1982 after a defence review by the British government,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_%28R05%29
On 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced that it had agreed to purchase Invincible for £175 million after several months of negotiations.

I think it's fair to say that such a task force would be impossible to raise today as the royal navy has shrunk so much since.

TOMASJ

Bramble wrote: »

Not being able to read properly more like it. What difference does being military make? Does "28 harriers from the Feet Air Arm" sound more plausible?

Yes, the Falklands was a great achievement by the British armed forces. It was an assault on a contested island group thousands of miles from the home country adn within range of the enemy mainland forces. If the Argentinian navy and/or army had contested the conflict more aggressively the British may may well have been unsuccessful. While the Air Force were the junior member of the Junta and least supportive of the Malvinas Operation they were the service that did the most to oppose the British. Perhaps 2-3 months later and the Argentine Air Force with more Exocets in operation would have deal a more powerful blow against the British and forced a withdrawal? I remember reading it was a question of getting the French made aircraft fitted to use the exocet.

Indeed the British were greatly set back by the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor support ship (think this was the one) which carried most of th choppers, forcing the ground troops to conduct more risk laden marches ans assaults.

The sinking of the Belgrano was controversial but in that situation would you have allowed it to leave knowing it could return to attack a few days later? All it had to do was turn around. Indeed if the Argies (to use the slang of the day) had of had an attack submarine you can guarantee that it would have been position to intercept a British convoy enroute to the Falklands/Malvinas.

The Germans during the second world war also had (as you put it) some great achievement but I will not be heaping any praise on them either if you took the time to read my original post it was in response to one that said (THE BRITS HAD NO AIR COVER )they has and this is the only reason they won the CONFLICT/WAR

Fratton Fred

tricky D wrote: »

Thatcher amended the RoE and HMS Conquerer sank it with a pre-WW2 torpedo outside of the Maritime Exclusion Zone - perfectly legal under International Law*. This was quite a ruthless decision by her, but this was war, in which such decisions are required. Don't like it, but it pretty much had to be done.

A maritime exclusion zone is more a warning to other ships to keep away, it's a declaration that anything in that exclusion zone will be stopped, as was an Argentinian merchant ship. the first ship since WWII to be sunk in a navel engagement. An enemied navy is fair game wherever it is. As I have said before, the Argentines arer in the middle of a war and their flagship is at sea, if it wasn't out threr to fight what was it doing?

The captain of the Belgrano has since said it was a bonsfide target and has confirmed that although it was sailing away from the Falklands, it was told to do so and await further orders.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that such a task force would be impossible to raise today as the royal navy has shrunk so much since.

think today, 3 Invincible class carriers along with HMS Ocean and the two Albion class ships. Britain probably has a better capacity than it did then. The role of the RN has changed, it is no longer about preventing Russians subs getting into the Atlantic, it is more to do with getting men and machines places fast. Also, there will be 6 type 45's in a couple of years which will give the fleet some awesome air defence.

Tenger

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wouldn't have mattered since in a few months the UK would have been two carriers short, and would have been unable to attempt anything. All the Argentinians had to do was wait until the the ships were struck off.

Bugger me. I'd completely forgotten about that! That sort of overrules my exocets in operation comment.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote:

think today, 3 Invincible class carriers along with HMS Ocean and the two Albion class ships. Britain probably has a better capacity than it did then. The role of the RN has changed, it is no longer about preventing Russians subs getting into the Atlantic, it is more to do with getting men and machines places fast. Also, there will be 6 type 45's in a couple of years which will give the fleet some awesome air defence.

Back then the Ark Royal was nearly finished being scrapped. Bulwark was mothballed. The other WWII carrier , Hemes , was on short time. The through deck crusiers weren't even aircraft carriers, only that the RAF took an interest in the harrier. And one of them was months away from completion and the other had been sold.

A few years earlier and the could have had up to three real carriers By 1970, Ark Royal now had a complement of 39 aircraft. This typically comprised 12 Phantom FG MK.1s, 14 Buccaneer S MK.2s, 4 Gannet AEW Mk.3s, 6 Sea King HAS Mk.1s, 2 Wessex HU Mk.5s and 1 Gannet COD MK.4.
AEW would have made a huge difference, and the Phantoms had the speed to make it work.
Buccaneers - who needs stealth when your operational ceiling is 20ft, they probably could have done more damage than the vulcan raids

Royal navy won't be able to handle any aircraft that can't land vertically until 2014 at the earliest. Last time they could was 1978.

Pathfinder

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that such a task force would be impossible to raise today as the royal navy has shrunk so much since.

Obviously not if committed to other roles, most of the troop carrying ships in the Falklands were commissioned, and modern destroyers,frigates and carriers have far more firepower then 25 years ago.

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

My post was not about the rights or wrongs of war it was in response to a posts that said (It was a stunning victory, 8,000 miles from home with virtually no air cover) I said that they did have air cover via US satellite. and another post that said that the (brits warned the Argentinian navy to stay away.) both are untrue they the brits did not warn the Argentinian navy to stay away they watched them turn and suckling in a sub virtually shot them in the back this war or conflict as it was refered to at the time (in case things did not got right for the brits) was won by proxy by the US

That is a load of misinformed, bias, badly written, bollocks.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back then the Ark Royal was nearly finished being scrapped. Bulwark was mothballed. The other WWII carrier , Hemes , was on short time. The through deck crusiers weren't even aircraft carriers, only that the RAF took an interest in the harrier. And one of them was months away from completion and the other had been sold.

A few years earlier and the could have had up to three real carriers By 1970, Ark Royal now had a complement of 39 aircraft. This typically comprised 12 Phantom FG MK.1s, 14 Buccaneer S MK.2s, 4 Gannet AEW Mk.3s, 6 Sea King HAS Mk.1s, 2 Wessex HU Mk.5s and 1 Gannet COD MK.4.
AEW would have made a huge difference, and the Phantoms had the speed to make it work.
Buccaneers - who needs stealth when your operational ceiling is 20ft, they probably could have done more damage than the vulcan raids

Royal navy won't be able to handle any aircraft that can't land vertically until 2014 at the earliest. Last time they could was 1978.

the Ark Royal to which you refer was a lovely ship and the last real "Flagship" the RN had. My uncle was one of her last crew and there was many a tear shed when she was taken out of service. It will be nice when the new generations of carriers is launched and Britain has some proper carriers again.

The invincible class were never really designed as carriers, they were all about anti submarine warfare and meeting a role within NATO. They looked pretty big close up, but I remember a US helicoptor transporter coming to Portsmouth (It actually prked up of Spithead because it couldn't actually get in the harbour) and the thing looked like it could eat invincible for breakfast!!

I can vouch for how low a Buccaneer can fly, I was fishing in a loch near Calender in Stirlingshire and two went over us at about 50 feet, bloody amazing. I think they were used in Desert Storm to attack airfields so I guess they would have done a superb job on Stanley airfield.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is a load of misinformed, bias, badly written, bollocks.

There is a lot of misinformed, bias, badly written, bollocks.on this tread

McArmalite

TOMASJ wrote: »

There is a lot of misinformed, bias, badly written, bollocks.on this tread

HERE, HERE TOMAS.

PHB

And with that, the thread has run its course. Thinking back, this thread may have changed the face of the history and heritage board forever.