Revelations About Falklands War

[cbonanni]

Let the Italians handle the logistics , so the French will have plenty of Pasta , Tomato's , Pizza dough and Mozerella for the mess........

 

[esllou]

it would be a mess alright.... :lol:

 

[PhilinBSAS]

The Belgrano disaster will continue to haunt/ tarnish the Falkland's memory - whether it was a military necessity or not, whether it was primarily a cynical propaganda exercise and whether, as the document disclosures now indicate conclusively the decision to attack was taken on information several days old when the vessel had altered course away from the islands (which may or may not have been relevant)!!!. The Argentine Captain would have known he was a sitting target to submarine technology and must take some of the responsibility as well as the crazy irresponsibity of the Argentine naval high command - the least distinguished arm of the Argentine armed forces in the whole sad and mad Argentine adventure.

What is not clear is why the Conqueror's log book was supposedly shredded. A rumour has been around for a long time that this was because of the special ops the vessel was involved with several weeks later against the Soviets. But I dont buy that. Not that the special ops didnt happen but because I suspect there is a lot of other stuff involving the USA and joint measures both in the south Atlantic and elsewhere which needed to be "lost"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html

The Argentine submarine Santa Fe could have intervened possibly decisively in the earlier parts of the south Atlantic war but a RN Wessex helicopter disabled it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099755/Chris-Parry-How-I-fired-shots-Falklands-War-crippled-Argentine-submarine.html


What has happened to the Argentine involvement with the Brazilian construction of nuclear powered submarines which the Torygraph headlined last year?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/8677600/Argentina-developing-nuclear-powered-submarine.html

 

[Gringoboy]

The sinking of the Belgrano, tragic as it was, effectively sent the Argentine navy back home. It was a tactical necessity.
Even Sandy Woodward has admitted on numerous occasions that EVEN without the Argentine navy in the war at that point, it was a very close call.

 

[Amargo]

Of course the British press would not say that the Argentinian pilots were inept. What glory is there fore the RAF and RN pilots if it is openly admitted that air to air combats over the Falklands were little more than turkey shoots?
There are many cases and examples of poor training and doctrine form Argentinian pilots (specially Airforce) during the conflicts. Lack of proper air combat doctrine made them easy prey for the Royal Navy pilots. The Dagger, Finger and Mirage jets were designed for high altitude high speed passes type of engagement. Yet, the Argentine pilots would often descent to medium altitudes to engage the harriers at their element, dog fighting. Unlike their British opponents, the Argentine pilots did not operate effectively within a wing. Communication, coordination and team work within a wing was poor at best, while the RN pilots did wonders working in pairs against planes that were much faster and could fly much higher (Mirage, Fingers, Daggers). The Argentine did not know how to operate their relatively modern (at the time) Matra 530 and 550 missiles effectively. They would fire the missiles outside their operational envelope or against targets out of range. It was so bad that not a single Harrier was shot down by Argentinian pilots during the entire conflict. Not one. On the other hand the Harriers show down 17 Argentinian planes (9 Daggers, 7 Skyhawks and 1 Mirage), again, without taking any loses of their own.
The Argentine Navy pilots performed much better overall. They had better training, better doctrine and were obviously operating on their native environment, the sea.
Let it be clear however, that I do NOT question the bravery, daring and patriotism of the Argentine pilots. They were fearless, highly motivated and gave their all during the entire conflict. They were simply outclassed by much better trained and experienced British pilots.

You seem to forget that Argentine planes had to operate from the mainland. The Argentine Air Force did not have enough refuelling planes, meaning that Argentines pilots could not fly high speeds, did not carry AA-misiles and could not engage in dogfights -they did not have more than a few minutes time to find and attack enemy vessels before having to fly back to the base. The pilots had an eye on their target and the other one on the fuel gauge.
Also they were not trained to fight against such an enemy but rather against Chile -the only potential conflict at that time- and had to fly against one of the best AA defenses of the World with ageing Mirages with obsolete systems, not very seaworthy A4s (the US had an embargo on spare parts) and Super-Etendard, the most sucessfull of the lot, which is not an air-superiority plane. The Super-Etendard had to be refuelled during the flight back to the mainland, otherwise it would run out of fuel.

Oh! and don't forget that the US supported the UK with intelligence, satellite imagery, etc.

Given all that circunstances and the number of vessels sunken or dissabled, saying that 'they were inept' is not fair on them at all.

 

[Conorworld]

The whole thing has pointers for today. The war was a stupid political maneouvre by a discredited junta to distract people from other pressing issues and galvanize the people in a populist upsurge. The current Kirchner administration do something similar. Inflation, crime, those things people point out day to day are the current pressing issues to be tackled? Oh we can't do anything about that really. Let's distract people by creating enemies, triangulate anger and ire away from us on to other issues like vulture funds, Clarin even the issue of the Malvinas.
It didn't work, it won't work.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

The war was a stupid political maneouvre by a discredited junta to distract people from other pressing issues and galvanize the people in a populist upsurge..

It didn't work, it won't work.

Au contraire - I remember the Blessed Margaret and that was exactly what she was about!!

She was hugely unpopular prior to the "present" handed to her by the Argentine invasion. Possibly the first PM since Eden to be a risk taker. Whilst it didnt work for him at Suez somehow she pulled it off otherwise she was out and she knew it! It was her Government that operated the austerity programme that scrapped he Ark Royal six months earlier. In fact one of her first comments to the First Sea Lord apparently was it too late to reverse the scrapping of Ark Royal to send to the South Atlantic. Before that had been the stupid decision on Endurance again as a cost cutting exercise which convinced the Argentine Junta that the UK had no interest in maintaining a presence in any of the South Atlantic dependencies. She got away with that!

I remember sailing around the last full scale RN aircraft carrier sitting in the Hamoaze in Plymouth Sound which could have operated aircraft capable of engaging the up to date and effective Argentine exocet carrying aircraft. The STOL carriers were a cut price and very innovative option to operate sub Mach aircraft originally intended for the eastern Europe theatre and never intended for fleet level operations like the contemporary French, Soviet and USA modern carriers.

Any suggestion that the British and the prevailing press sentiment was "bigging up the Argies" has no idea! The gutter press delights in vilifying the opposition!

The main parallel I can envisage is this: You wait for La Frigata to arrive a Mar del Plata!! Cristina will be as triumphalist as Margaret ever was!

 

[germanb68]

England calls for "respect" the self-determination of the islanders in the Falklands. But this happens on the island "DIEGO GARCIA".
http://www.lanacion....de-las-malvinas

http://www.wikileaks...OSAIRES226.html

BRITISH INCONSISTENCY IN FALKLAND ISLANDS
-----------------------------------------
¶3. Britain's claim of "self-determination" by the residents of
the Falkland Islands is not consistent with British history, opines
Lucio Garcia del Solar, former Argentine Ambassador to the UN. His
opinion article in La Nacion recounts the British handover to the
U.S. of control of Diego Garcia in 1967, along with the American
demand that the island be "fully vacated" of its residents. This
led to Britain displacing around 400 families and moving them to
neighboring countries, where they currently live "uprooted and with
scarce resources." Garcia del Solar ponders why Britain "dedicates
several million pounds" to defend the Falklands, but yet left Diego
Garcia "cleared of its original inhabitants."

 

[Nounou]

England calls for "respect" the self-determination of the islanders in the Falklands. But this happens on the island "DIEGO GARCIA".
http://www.lanacion....de-las-malvinas

http://www.wikileaks...OSAIRES226.html

BRITISH INCONSISTENCY IN FALKLAND ISLANDS
-----------------------------------------
¶3. Britain's claim of "self-determination" by the residents of
the Falkland Islands is not consistent with British history, opines
Lucio Garcia del Solar, former Argentine Ambassador to the UN. His
opinion article in La Nacion recounts the British handover to the
U.S. of control of Diego Garcia in 1967, along with the American
demand that the island be "fully vacated" of its residents. This
led to Britain displacing around 400 families and moving them to
neighboring countries, where they currently live "uprooted and with
scarce resources." Garcia del Solar ponders why Britain "dedicates
several million pounds" to defend the Falklands, but yet left Diego
Garcia "cleared of its original inhabitants."

The Ambassador is correct in his analysis. In British history there are many examples of such disposession, all equally depressing. I hate to bring the "R" word in here, but the Falkland population were white British, and I feel that along with her government being deeply unpopular with the British public at the time were the sole reasons for the war, consequently Thatcher decided not to go the real politik way, i.e. Diego Garcia, and chose to to to war instead. It is yet another example of what politicians do in the name of the public.

 

[scotttswan]

England calls for "respect" the self-determination of the islanders in the Falklands. But this happens on the island "DIEGO GARCIA".
http://www.lanacion....de-las-malvinas

http://www.wikileaks...OSAIRES226.html

BRITISH INCONSISTENCY IN FALKLAND ISLANDS
-----------------------------------------
¶3. Britain's claim of "self-determination" by the residents of
the Falkland Islands is not consistent with British history, opines
Lucio Garcia del Solar, former Argentine Ambassador to the UN. His
opinion article in La Nacion recounts the British handover to the
U.S. of control of Diego Garcia in 1967, along with the American
demand that the island be "fully vacated" of its residents. This
led to Britain displacing around 400 families and moving them to
neighboring countries, where they currently live "uprooted and with
scarce resources." Garcia del Solar ponders why Britain "dedicates
several million pounds" to defend the Falklands, but yet left Diego
Garcia "cleared of its original inhabitants."

So something Britain did a long time ago and is quite rightly condemned for (and currently going through the British courts). Should be done again to another population who moved to another island in a different part of the world around the same time?

Two wrongs do not make a right.