Revelations About Falklands War

[sergio]

Some interesting revelations about the US role in the Falklands War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9767707/US-wanted-to-warn-Argentina-about-South-Georgia.html

 

[camberiu]

"They (Argentinians) might well give their submarines instructions to attack our ships. They could mount a suicide air attack upon our naval forces.”

Argentinians? Suicide attacks? Oh, please.......The Argentinian pilots were very brave, albeit mostly inept, during the conflict. They were not however, suicidal.

 

[germanb68]

Secrets come to light on the English attack the cruiser General Belgrano.
A war cabinet chaired by Margaret Thatcher decided to attack "any ship, submarine and Argentina slave ship" that was judged a danger to the Task Force (Operations), "no matter where you find it." Later an extension of English training rules, was applied to the cruiser General Belgrano after the decision of Thatcher and a small group of officials and politicians. They were meeting, May 2 at lunchtime, at Chequers, the weekend residence of the Prime Minister, and it was there that the decision to attack the Argentine ship.




Deshacer cambios

 

[Amargo]

Argentinians? Suicide attacks? Oh, please.......The Argentinian pilots were very brave, albeit mostly inept, during the conflict. They were not however, suicidal.

Inept???? First time I read something like that. Not even the British media -as far as I know- has named them inept. On which facts do you base this opinion?

 

[scotttswan]

Secrets come to light on the English attack the cruiser General Belgrano.
A war cabinet chaired by Margaret Thatcher decided to attack "any ship, submarine and Argentina slave ship" that was judged a danger to the Task Force (Operations), "no matter where you find it." Later an extension of English training rules, was applied to the cruiser General Belgrano after the decision of Thatcher and a small group of officials and politicians. They were meeting, May 2 at lunchtime, at Chequers, the weekend residence of the Prime Minister, and it was there that the decision to attack the Argentine ship.




Deshacer cambios

It was a war, the exclusion zone is for civilian / non combative boats to stay away from danger. The UK justly could have attacked any boats in port on the mainland if they wished. A boat containing Soldiers that was in an operation to endanger service personnels on the island was a legitimate target.

In late 2011, David Thorp, a former military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. The book revealed that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone, to engage in a pincer attack. A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

The Belgrano was a legitimate target. War is war. Anyone who goes to war half-assed quickly gets both halves of their ass blown off.

 

[Amargo]

I also agree that war is war, the Belgrano was a legitimate military target, it does not matter where it was.
BUT in my opinion the British wanted to shock the Argentine position, weaken their combat moral and public support for the war. The Belgrano, an obsolete rusting ship overloaded with kids, was the perfect target. An easy one. All the explanations that followed, the alleged danger posed by the Belgrano to the British fleet, the attack it was preparing, etc. are WAY exaggerated in order to justify the carnage. This justifications were important as Thatcher did not want protests at home/abroad (surely fearing Vietnam-war-style protests), eventually losing the support of its allies and the public opinion in the Western countries. She had to convince everyone it was an heroic act and not a cold-blooded execution.

"Legitimate"? Yes. Moral? In no way.

 

[scotttswan]

I also agree that war is war, the Belgrano was a legitimate military target, it does not matter where it was.
BUT in my opinion the British wanted to shock the Argentine position, weaken their combat moral and public support for the war. The Belgrano, an obsolete rusting ship overloaded with kids, was the perfect target. An easy one. All the explanations that followed, the alleged danger posed by the Belgrano to the British fleet, the attack it was preparing, etc. are WAY exaggerated in order to justify the carnage. This justifications were important as Thatcher did not want protests at home/abroad (surely fearing Vietnam-war-style protests), eventually losing the support of its allies and the public opinion in the Western countries. She had to convince everyone it was an heroic act and not a cold-blooded execution.

"Legitimate"? Yes. Moral? In no way.

Channel 4 did a good documentary about the Vulcan bombing of the airport on the Falklands to try and weaken the moral of the Argentine soldiers on the islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40knj0qg_Us

It was madness, involving refuelling of ancient bombers in the air which hadn't been practised for years because it was quite dangerous. Not only that the refuelling planes didn't have sufficient range either so they had to refuel them in air too! Resulting in this craziness.

This resulted in successfully putting a small crater in the runway that was quickly repaired.

As for the Belgrano not being much of a threat?

Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote to La Nación in 2005 that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area"

So who knows.

 

[camberiu]

Inept???? First time I read something like that. Not even the British media -as far as I know- has named them inept. On which facts do you base this opinion?

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.

 

[camberiu]

"Legitimate"? Yes. Moral? In no way.

The responsibility for the Belgrano tragedy lies squarely with the Junta, who dragged Argentina into a war it simply could not win. Even the generals that ruled Brazil at the time though that the Argentine Junta had gone batshit crazy to pull such a stunt.