# The Falklands



## Aggie08 (Aug 30, 2005)

Does anyone have any information on the Falklands War? I supposed I could just "google" it but that's not as fun. From what I understand the Brits beat the hell out the Argentinians, but I did some reading and saw that several French built Super Etendards sank two British warships off the coast. What all happened, seing as a bunch of you guys were around when this shnazz went down? I noticed the Pucara post on this page and I know a little about it. I also know that Harriers pulled their weight and messed some bad guys up. Discuss.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2005)

My dad served in the Falklands War with the Chinooks. He loaded up the _Atlantic Conveyor_ and flew down in a Hercules. The _Conveyor_ full of Chinooks was sunk en-route. All the Chinooks for the task force were destroyed except one which was on a flight test at the time. He kept that lone Chinook flying until more came down from Britain. 

The Falklands War was Argentina invading the Falkland Isles (Maldives to them) to re-take them, they still lay claim to the islands. Britain responded by gathering a task force in three days. We went down to the Falkland Isles, a place most people thought were north of Scotland, and defeated the Argentine forces in every encounter. 

The Argentine Air Force took a toll on the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxillary but nothing to cause drastic problems. Once the main forces were ashore Argentina was finished. 

The Sea Harriers, well, they more than pulled their weight. They destroyed many AAF aircraft while only losing three of their own to ground fire. 

The main problem for the British vessels was the Exorcet missile fired from AAF aircraft. It was designed to destroy ships and was very effective at doing so. The French sold them to Argentina and MI6 had to buy all the stocks to avoid Argentina getting them. 

The Argentine flag ship was sunk in the Falklands War, the Bel Grano sunk by HMS Conquerer. The submarine gladly came home flying the Jolly Roger, the symbol of a kill in the British Submariner service. 

That's just random bits of information for you. I'm sure there's plenty of websites out there with the dates, times, places and such. 

My dad was stationed in Port Stanley and Kelly's Garden during the war.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 1, 2005)

Good stuff. Thanks for the info. Stupid French...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> My dad served in the Falklands War with the Chinooks. He loaded up the _Atlantic Conveyor_ and flew down in a Hercules. The _Conveyor_ full of Chinooks was sunk en-route. All the Chinooks for the task force were destroyed except one which was on a flight test at the time. He kept that lone Chinook flying until more came down from Britain.
> 
> The Falklands War was Argentina invading the Falkland Isles (Maldives to them) .



*Maldives¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¿¿¿¿¿*............  

http://www.visitmaldives.com.mv/index.php

Sunny Island indeed  8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

A song done I think by the Clash, sung to the music of "Battle of New Orleans" (Sorry Charlie B. I had to throw this in  )


"In nineteen and eighty two we took a little trip
Along with Margie Thatcher and few British Ships
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody Argies in the Malvinas 

We fired our guns and they heap a get to runnin, there wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago,

We fired once more and they heap a get to runnin across the South Atlanic, back to Rosario...."


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 1, 2005)

> And we caught the bloody Argies in the Maldives



And I think that they took too many *Bloody Marys* also, because Maldives is this:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> > And we caught the bloody Argies in the Maldives
> 
> 
> 
> And I think that they took too many *Bloody Marys* also, because Maldives is this:


----------



## plan_D (Sep 1, 2005)

I was tired when I wrote my piece. It's the Malvinas, sorry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I was tired when I wrote my piece. It's the Malvinas, sorry.



I made the correction - 3 beers and following your lead D - see what happens!


----------



## trackend (Sep 2, 2005)

the Falklands was an attempt by the Argentina leader General Galtiari to divert the publics attention away from the domestic problems he was having at the time .The Argentinian airforce had some very brave pilots and there loss rate was very high but the Argentinian navy was hopeless and once the Belgrano (ex Brooklyn Class cruiser, USS Phoenix ) was sunk they never showed the faces out of port again as for the Argentinian ground forces they where nearlly all conscripted kids so up against a professional army they where on a hiding to nothing from the outset the problem the British had was the vast distance to move the task force if the Argentinians had concentrated on the carrier the Invasion would have been over before it had begun.
It showed how ill equipped the British forces where and are for fighting on a world stage .


----------



## plan_D (Sep 2, 2005)

They created that task force in three days. It's hardly going to be fully equipped and it was well within the bounds to defeat the Argentines. If it had been a little more serious we would have taken a little longer in preparation. 

I think it was well executed, especially since the Falklands are eight thousand miles away from Britain and three hundred miles away from Argentina.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 2, 2005)

They got the job done, didn't they?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 3, 2005)

Argentine Navy A-4Qs and Super Etendar pictorial in the time of the conflict.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

Nice shots Charlie!

There is no doubt how brave the Argentine A-4 pilots were, I understand that they actually had several hits on the British fleet but their free-fall iron bombs did not go off. Has anyone else heard this?

The Argentine Navy still has A-4s, a new batch that were delivered in 1997-1998 are probably the most advanced A-4s produced. Stuffed filled with advanced avionics, I was told by a friend who worked on this project "it was like stuffing 10 pounds of Sh*t into a 5 pound bag." The last of the modification line was done in Palmdale Ca. at the Skunk Works facility. I got to see the last one delivered. The Argentine pilot who took delivery of the aircraft actually participated in the Falklands conflict.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 3, 2005)

> The Argentine Navy still has A-4s, a new batch that were delivered in 1997-1998 are probably the most advanced A-4s produced. Stuffed filled with advanced avionics, I was told by a friend who worked on this project "it was like stuffing 10 pounds of Sh*t into a 5 pound bag." The last of the modification line was done in Palmdale Ca. at the Skunk Works facility. I got to see the last one delivered. The Argentine pilot who took delivery of the aircraft actually participated in the Falklands conflict.



Actually , these new A-4AR (denominated Fighting Hawk in the AAF) was not delivered to the navy but to the Argentine Air Force.






The Argentine Navy desactivated all the surviving A-4Qs in 1988.



> The last of the modification line was done in Palmdale Ca. at the Skunk Works facility. I got to see the last one delivered. The Argentine pilot who took delivery of the aircraft actually participated in the Falklands conflict


.

They compressed the APG-66 radar in the little A-4.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

Thanks Charlie and nice photos!

I used to see them flying around Palmdale, I just ASSUMED they were going to the Navy


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 3, 2005)

Crazy...I've heard varying reports on the British preparedness and handling of the situation, I guess it's just a matter of opinion.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 4, 2005)

Films stills from Mirage V attacking transport ship.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

ha! we had that war won from the time maggie said we're going to take them back, how the hell did the argies think they had a chance?? well, they didn't expect the harrier.........

this just happens to be my second favourite conflict, which is a weird claim to fame i know.........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 5, 2005)

> ....the argies.........



I think that you should change that phrase by "the argentines"  

The intentions of the military goverment wasnt fighting against a OTAN nation, but achieved a favourable position to negociate the islands ownership, thinking that the british had more importat problems that recover a couple of thiny island in the end of the world....off course it dint work.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 5, 2005)

It certainly is true that Argentina didn't count on a British military reaction. I find it amusing that the Argentine government abandoned the islands then still layed claim to them. The British government laughed it off but could have invaded Argentina itself, if it wanted. 

Argentina didn't stand a chance. Britain organised a task force capable of the job in three days, that alone is a remarkable feat. 

From my dad's experience he's got various opinions on the British forces out there. He thought the reaction was extremely quick and was shocked to see himself moved from RAF Odiham down to Southampton almost straight away to load up Chinooks on to the _Atlantic Conveyor_. By the way, my dad wasn't actually with a squadron at the time. He was with the Aircraft Servicing Flight (ASF). Although squadrons have their own technicians, a lot of the Chinooks had to go to ASF because the squadron wouldn't be able to deal with it. 
When he got to Port Stanley, after a painful flight in a Hercules (What flight in a Hercules isn't painful?) they didn't even have him on the list to be there. So, he was stuck in Stanley for a week until the Chinook team at Kelly's Garden reported him AWOL. It wasn't until a lot of paper work and shouting between commands that they finally realised where my dad was, in Stanley! He had been ordered to the Falklands by name to sort out some Chinooks that had been grounded for weeks - three Chinooks to be exact. 
Kelly's Garden is in the middle of nowhere and the British High Command basically forgot about them. They had none of the luxuries, only food and water. But he did have the luxury of sleeping in a sheep shed! And found it amusing chasing the penguins so the other people could take pictures of them as they ran away from my dad towards them. And they weren't even allowed to shoot the sheep for more food. 
After a few months like that, they finally flew in some cabins for them to sleep in. The war was over by now but he was there for six months. And since he'd flown down, none of his tour of duty was spent on a ship. During the war, and after it while still in the Falklands, he did the odd flight in a Chinook sat on the back ramp with the MG. 
When he got back to Stanley he was in serious trouble because he had long hair. In Kelly's Garden they didn't have the luxury of a barbers, so he came out after 6 months with hair down to his shoulders. He got to see some high ranking officer collapse and die of a heart attack. And he also got to see a Phantom crash into a mountain. 

There's more to his time in those horrible islands but I can't remember at the moment.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

So after all that, they give him sh*t for his hair length. Officers.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 6, 2005)

Not very good quality but interesting pictures of Dassault Super Etendar, depicted in the previus hours of the attack against Royal Navy in May 4th, 1982.












In action launching the Exocet:






One of the 2 missiles hit ans eventually sunk the HMS Sheffiled.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2005)

Interesting Pictures CB. For what its worth the Sheffield was hit by one Exocet that didn't go off. There was enough impact and burning fuel to cause the damage that sank the ship, which shows how dangerous these weapons are.
I know this has always been a cause for debate. My belief is based on something we saw in Gibralter. In the early 70's the RN bought the Exocet and when we sailed into Gibralter there was a target ship used in the trials. To all intents and purposes there was no superstructure or hull above the waterline roughly a third of the way from the bow. We just looked at it and wondered how it had stayed afloat. 
It made us realise that modern war was a dangerous business with one hit being able to sink a ship in next to no time.
We also saw a film showing the trials of the Sea Dart being used as an anti ship weapon. Even this anti aircraft missile blew a 50ft hole in the bridge of the target ship. Pretty impressive for such a relatively small warhead.
Having seen that and the pictures of the Sheffield before she sank nothing will make me believe that the warhead went off, even though it did the job.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Interesting Glider! As stated, I also hed that several A-4 free fall bombs hit their targets and didn't go off - any information on this?


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 7, 2005)

Man apparently Exocets are the mack daddy of anti-ship warfare... What's our contemporary in the US/Britain?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> Man apparently Exocets are the mack daddy of anti-ship warfare... What's our contemporary in the US/Britain?



US - The Harpoon


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

The information is quite correct. The majority of the bombs in question were British bombs from the 60's which simply were not correctly fused. In most cases the bombs were dropped from a lower height than normal and didn't have time to fuse before they hit the ship. There was one example of a bomb that bounced, went in the side and out going up through the flight deck of the frigate.
We used the same bombs and they worked fine, but we had more experience in low level work.
During the conflict the BBC announced that a number of bombs hadn't exploded and the Armed Forces nearly lost it. Obviously if the Argentines have realised what the problem was, we would have been in trouble. 
The Argentines also used French bombs that sometimes didn't work when fused correctly, just a design fault.

Favourite story. We used a disused Meat Refrigeration plant as a hospital and during a raid a bomb was dropped on the hospital which didn't go off. The Bomb disposal team turned up and realised that it was a French design that had a variable fuse with a maximum of I think three hour delay. Anyway, more time had passed than the fuse allowed and they decided that it was better to leave the bomb where it was. To move it could set it off, as it was wedged in a mass of pipes and would be a swine to move.
Problem. There was nowhere else to move the patients, they had to stay in the building. A decision that shall we say, caused some concern. 
To show they had confidence in their decision the Bomb disposal team moved into the hospital and slept next to the wall where the bomb was wedged and stayed there for the rest of the conflict.

I should say that the hard standing outside the plant was used as a military store and as such the building and the area around it was NOT marked with red crosses or other markings. We knew that it was a legitimate target and accepted the consequences. No complaints on that score for the Argentines bombing the hospital.

I digress now but the hospital had one very fine boast. Every British person who made it to the hospital, no matter how badly wounded survived. Quite a record and in case your wondering, only one Argentine died.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

We also use the Harpoon but some ships still have the Exocet


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Great stuff Glider!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 7, 2005)

NS, it was a Warrant Officer that had a go at my dad for his hair. He also had a go at a few others and told them to report to his office the next day at 4pm with a haircut. The thing is, my dad was flying out at 8am the next morning but he didn't both tellin' the SWO that!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 7, 2005)

I'll bet. 

"Yes Warrant, I'll be in with a buzz bright and early!"

Not!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 7, 2005)

> The information is quite correct. The majority of the bombs in question were British bombs from the 60's which simply were not correctly fused. In most cases the bombs were dropped from a lower height than normal and didn't have time to fuse before they hit the ship. There was one example of a bomb that bounced, went in the side and out going up through the flight deck of the frigate.
> We used the same bombs and they worked fine, but we had more experience in low level work.
> During the conflict the BBC announced that a number of bombs hadn't exploded and the Armed Forces nearly lost it. Obviously if the Argentines have realised what the problem was, we would have been in trouble.
> The Argentines also used French bombs that sometimes didn't work when fused correctly, just a design fault.



I agree completely, the problem was so bad that in ocations the argentine Navy used 500 pounds Snakeye bombs, that were more reliable.






That was the armament used in the attack to the HMS Ardent in 21th May.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

I can vouch for the reliability of snake eyes!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 13, 2005)

A little more pictorial from the 1982 war.

*The hands up¡¡¡*

Argentine navy commando taking prisoners in April 2 1982. the submachine gun is a British(  ) 9mm Sterling with a large silencer.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 13, 2005)

Nasty effect of the explosive charges laid down by SAS commandos in the night between 14th/15 th May, on a IA-58A Pucara.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Look at that, not a sight associated with the Falklands War. But then we all know it happened because that was right at the start when there were hardly any British troops there. There wasn't even a proper base. 

But now there is. Come and try again!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 14, 2005)

> Look at that, not a sight associated with the Falklands War



But is a well know picture, even it was publicied in the cover of the "le Figaro" french newspaper.



> There wasn't even a proper base.
> 
> But now there is. Come and try again!



Relax Plan_d, we are peace lovers right now


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 14, 2005)

That top pic is an interesting one though. I've never seen an Argentine naval commando before.
But then, I suppose that's the whole idea: Not to be seen. 

Looks like it worked for the SAS in that second pic.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

When the SAS and SBS stopped shooting at each other they soon wreaked havoc.


----------



## trackend (Sep 15, 2005)

The whole thing could have been stopped before it started the artic survey vessel HMS Endurance was on station and reporting illegal landings at the old whaling station (I work with the ex chief PO) if a battalion strength force had been immediately deployed it would have nipped it in the bud. A full week passed with warnings being dispatched to the UK before the initial main force of the Argentinians arrival.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

I agree that it could have been ended before it had even started. I've read about the strange events before the war was actually declared. The confused Argentine landings and the flying of the Argentine flag over the whaling station. 

In the end though, it was a pretty safe victory. Argentine conscripts are nothing compared to the professional British soldiers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 15, 2005)

i think the agies didn't think we'd come all the way down there to get them back did they?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 15, 2005)

Probably not. With the political climate of the day, they may have figured Britain wouldn't feel the islands were worth going to war over. If that _was_ the case, they obviously didn't know Maggie Thatcher very well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 15, 2005)

that's what i love about the Falklands, it was the last time Britian as an empire (ok so we weren't really an empire ) was attacked and we said "right, we're having none of this, you, get off our island" and really stood up for what we thought was right, and it was all our own work!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 16, 2005)

A Falklands-Malvinas war video...¡¡¡¡  

A bit grainy but interesting as well.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 17, 2005)

It is interesting. I have not seen much footage of the Falklands war on the web.


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2005)

CB Good video. Someone put a lot of time into loking up bits from both sides of the campaign.


----------



## trackend (Sep 17, 2005)

Some body should have been court marshalled over San Carlos bay 
to enter a landing area with no air defence (not even a bloody barrage balloon) then get all upset when the troop carrier gets the chop was total criminal and awful planing. We recieved a lot of help from the US with sat intel lanc so it was not total an unassited


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2005)

The active PAC was in pursuit of Daggers at that time and the operational Rapier sites were mainly covering the 5 Brigade Headquarters and the new supply base, not the anchorage. TheRapier site covering the anchorage to the east, the direction from which the Skyhawks attacked, had been damaged in transit and a spare part was just being landed by Sea King as the attack came in.


----------



## trackend (Sep 18, 2005)

It doesnt matter if it was damaged in transit or not CB to rely on one piece of kit for air defense is stupid a few barrage balloons would have at least made a low level bombing run over the fleet a bit more tricky. it ended up with small arms fire trying to beat off Jets and guys using bleeding row boats to evacuate the T ship.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2005)

Some pictures of the damage done to HMS sir Tristam by the A-4s

















The HMS Plymouth was also attacked by IAI daggers and took 4 bombs hits and several 30 mm impacts, despite the heavy damage the ship remain afloat.

Dagger guncamera attacking Plymouth, the near splashes are 30 mm hits.






Entry and exit holes of the 30x133 mm Defa ammo in the ships structure.


----------



## Glider (Sep 18, 2005)

CB, The large hole in the funnel was one of the bombs that didn't go off. The Plymouth took a number of hits (including one that blew up a depth charge and caused others to catch fire) but stayed in action, despite being one of the oldest ships in the action aquited herself well.
She was responsible for tha capture of the Submarine Santa Fay, took the lead in shore bombardments and was part of all the major parts of the battle being credited with a number of kills.

A number of people in the navy had a preference for the older ships and there was a feeling that some of the newer ships were fragile. They may have had the extra's but you need to be able to take hits as well as give them out.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 19, 2005)

Glider said:


> CB, The large hole in the funnel was one of the bombs that didn't go off.



It seems that I get overexcited about the 30 mm caliber, you are correct, this holes was caused by the bombs.  



> The Plymouth took a number of hits (including one that blew up a depth charge and caused others to catch fire) but stayed in action, despite being one of the oldest ships in the action aquited herself well



A die hard ship indeed.



> She was responsible for tha capture of the Submarine Santa Fay, took the lead in shore bombardments and was part of all the major parts of the battle being credited with a number of kills



Another crapy action of the Argentine Armada, deploying this old sub against the british...by the way the real name of this sub is "Santa Fe" a province of Argentina.


----------



## Glider (Sep 19, 2005)

Apologies for my finger trouble. The surrender of South Georgia was also signed on HMS Plymouth


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 19, 2005)

And here that particular moment, the Captain Astiz is surrending the Island.






This guy Alfredo Astiz is the prototipe of the officers that make Argentina loose the war, a real expert in "vanishing" people oposed to the military goverment, but with the poorest combat spirit and leadership.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 19, 2005)

Charles, we got rid of ladies threads for a reason. Kindly refrain from posting girly links in the future. Thanks.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 22, 2005)

Trackend, the small arms fire as AA cover was stopped by the High Command. This was because there were soldiers either side of the sound and they would all be firing at the incoming aircraft flying over the sound, this would send bullets flying to the other side and on to the other people!


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2005)

I don't know if they did stop. I saw a number of newsreal shots of attacking aircraft coming in and they weren't firecrackers going off.

They had a similar issue with the Blowpipes. Loads were fired and whilst they didn't get many hits, they did put the attackers off. However they kept comming down on the Para's positions and they don't take kindly to that kind of treatment.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 22, 2005)

It depends when those newsreels were. I'm pretty sure an explanation to the troops what was going on would stop them but then...they were grunts.


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2005)

I have been digging for a book that I had of cartoons drawn by the Army to help morale. There was a brilliant one of a Para 'explaining' to a blowpipe operator why he should be carefull of where they come down. Unfortunately I cannot find it.

Pity as there were some very good cartoons.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 23, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Charles, we got rid of ladies threads for a reason. Kindly refrain from posting girly links in the future. Thanks.



Sorry , I forgot that this was an *ANTI-GIRL* forum...  


My apologize for the off topic, Glider and Plan_D: nice discution.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 23, 2005)

This place is anti-girl?  Why havent you got rid of lanc?


----------



## ariel81 (Sep 23, 2005)

for now on you can post links from naked men,not woman,they are more of the taste of the people here jajajjaa


----------



## evangilder (Sep 23, 2005)

Ariel, you are skating on thin ice here. There is a reason for it and it is not what you allege.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 23, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Sorry , I forgot that this was an *ANTI-GIRL* forum...





ariel81 said:


> for now on you can post links from naked men,not woman,they are more of the taste of the people here jajajjaa


Well the exits are clearly marked fellas, so if you'd rather skip out the door then be our guest.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 23, 2005)

All right.... that is fine, *Good Bye.*

You going to miss me guys.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 23, 2005)

If you are going to leave in a huff because we don't want to get labelled a porn site, then good riddance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2005)

which is a shame, i like your siggy.........


----------



## Medvedya (Sep 27, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> All right.... that is fine, *Good Bye.*
> 
> You going to miss me guys.



Ooh meow! Did he just do the dictionary definition of a 'Flounce'? I think he did.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 27, 2005)

Say, does anybody miss him yet?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 28, 2005)

to be honest i didn't notice he'd gone 

would you guys miss me?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

Do bears with toilet paper do the Cha-Cha?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 28, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Do bears with toilet paper do the Cha-Cha?



Would that be the Cha-Cha Charmin?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

That be them alright.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

So you have that ad too...interesting


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Nope sure aint.

And arial81 I really dont like you comment there. I think the only one so far in this forum besides Lanc that likes guys might be you! Please dont make remarks offending other people here anymore as was stated by other members of this forum you know where the door is and you may kindly leave!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 5, 2005)

Amazing....I took some months off, and you start to post bear pics in this topic.....you guys had lost the track. 8)


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 5, 2005)

I think considering what they had to work with the British did exceptionally well. They were lucky even to have the Harriers if I understand what the official opinion was of carriers!! As far as I know there are only two major countries that still use conventional carriers: Russia and the US. The whole thing was that they had to make do with what they could get. It would have been embarrassing for Britian to have to get the Americans involved so they could have air support from conventional aircraft. They did a very effective job. It is not the aircraft or its capabilities that make it deadly but the pilot in charge, to a certain extent. In Finland Buffalos were downing Bf-109s in the right pilot's hands. Britain had the right pilots and gave them the right training. Argentia blinked at this game, where Britain had called its deadly bluff. Argentia simply did not have the will to go all out to destroy the British totally- there were too many worries about other countries such as the USA crying "Unfair Play" and rushing in shooting on the British side. Quite simply Argentia was playing a last roll of the dice in the Falklands to save its face.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2005)

Adler said:


> I think the only one so far in this forum besides Lanc that likes guys



hey, don't make me come over there and hit you with my purse!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

Official opinion? You mean the government's opinion that carriers, and the Royal Navy as whole is an expense that Britain doesn't need. Which is typical of suits with no practical, or even theoretical, knowledge of combat operations or strategy. 

The Sea Harrier was a capable aircraft though, while Royal Navy pilots are some of the best in the world they do need a capable aircraft to make do. And the Sea Harrier certainly was, and is a capable aircraft. 

I would like to point out that if a Finnish Buffalo ever shot down a Bf-109, it was a mistake. After all, Finland was on Germany's side. 

Are you implying that Argentina held back from destroying the British completely? I think you are. _"Argentia simply did not have the will to go all out to destroy the British totally..."_ Well, you're wrong. Argentina didn't have the capability to destroy the British task force completely, while the pilots were brave and the aircraft were sound, the British were able to defend themselves in most cases rather well. On top of that, certain weapons of the Argentine Air Force were poorly fused or dropped too low to be able to destroy anything. The fact of the matter is, Argentina gave it their all ...and they lost. Once British troops were ashore...game over. 

British standing army vs. Argentine conscripts? Place your bets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

The British military had the capability to destroy the Argentinan military with out a whole lot of effort and they did not need the US to come over.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 6, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> Argentia blinked at this game, where Britain had called its deadly bluff. Argentia simply did not have the will to go all out to destroy the British totally- there were too many worries about other countries such as the USA crying "Unfair Play" and rushing in shooting on the British side. Quite simply Argentia was playing a last roll of the dice in the Falklands to save its face.



Argentia...??? you just invented a new country  

Now being serius the only real user of conventional carriers are USA and France other like Italy, Spain, Russia used a "Sky Jump" like the 1982 british "antisubmarine cruisers".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Here's a site that gives a detailed perspective of the Falklands conflict. 

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html

Here is the writer's conclusions citing the good and bad of the Argentine Forces during this conflict..

The Falklands War provides some important lessons for the conduct of a modern air war. The British learned the importance of having an aerial long-range early warning system to protect the fleet. The successful Exocet attacks alerted all the world’s navies to the dangers of antiship missiles. Britain’s 20 air-to-air kills by Harriers carrying AIM-9L Sidewinders illustrated the importance of keeping a technological edge over the opponent in missile sophistication. Even a slight edge (and the Sidewinders had more than a slight edge over the Matra 530s) can translate into decisive air superiority.26 

For the Argentinians it was less an issue of learning lessons than dealing with the shame of defeat. The senior military leadership was guilty of a string of poor decisions that resulted in the deaths of many brave and dedicated Argentine soldiers, airmen, and sailors—men who deserved far better leaders than they had. General Galtieri and the military junta had blundered into a war without a plan or a strategy. From the start, the junta’s strategy of seizing the Falklands was delusional. Immediately after the Argentinian seizure of the Falklands and the British announcement that they would mount a campaign to retake the islands, the Argentine military contacted the US government and requested that the United States provide Argentina with full intelligence support in a conflict with Britain. When the US intelligence officials denied the Argentinian requests and declared that the United States would stand by its British ally, the Argentine leadership was dumbfounded.27 So convinced were they of the nobility of their cause that they simply assumed the United States and the whole world would line up with Argentine national ambitions. The Argentinians felt bitter about the rebuff, as the junta had never seriously considered that the United States would not wholeheartedly support an Argentine dictatorship and abandon its closest ally.

General Galtieri demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of modern military operations by insisting that the Falklands would be defended by a large land force, largely composed of half-trained conscripts, with few heavy weapons, cut off from sea supply and completely dependent upon a tenuous airlift capability. He and most of the senior military leaders also seem to have had little concept of the use of modern technology in war. For example, the Argentine Army and air force could have lengthened the airstrip at Port Stanley by 2,000 feet and forward based the Skyhawks and Daggers in the Falklands. On the mainland the Argentinians had the engineers, equipment, and pierced-steel planking that would have allowed them to extend the runway within a week or so of starting work.28 However, to get the engineers, materiel, and equipment to Port Stanley would have required reallocating much of the limited airlift capacity. General Galtieri’s strategy to defend the islands with a large number of ground forces committed all the airlift to transporting troops and ruled out any reallocation—and there was simply not enough airlift to do both. In April 1982, in contrast to General Galtieri’s decision, professional air force and naval officers in the United States and Europe thought lengthening the runway on the Falklands was the obvious thing to do.

Admiral Lombardo, the theater commander, does not come across much better than General Galtieri as an operational commander and strategist. His decision to base a large air force (24 Pucaras, six Aermacchi 339s, and six T-34s) in the Falklands is difficult for a professional soldier to comprehend. What did he think that a force of light counterinsurgency planes could do in an aerial environment full of Harriers with Sidewinders, British ships bristling with the latest antiaircraft missiles, and ground forces armed with Rapier and Blowpipe antiaircraft missiles? It was an exceptionally lethal environment for aircraft designed for fairly benign counterinsurgency operations. Many of the operations of the Falkland-based Argentine air units demonstrated a touch of the ethos reflected in Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade. The T-34 Mentors were basic-training aircraft armed with a light machine gun and some rockets suitable for artillery spotting. The Aermacchis were also lightly armed and not suited for antishipping strikes. However, this did not prevent one navy Aermacchi 339 from carrying out a valiant pass with its cannon against the British fleet, slightly damaging one vessel. That was, in fact, the total damage that the Falkland-based 36 fixed-wing aircraft and 19 helicopters inflicted upon the British fleet. The T-34s flew a few reconnaissance missions and managed to survive by hiding in the clouds. The Pucaras fought valiantly—but ineffectually—and most were destroyed or disabled by the end of the war.

Another of Admiral Lombardo’s major operational decisions was to sortie the General Belgrano (an ancient 43-year-old cruiser) towards the British fleet with little antisubmarine defense. It was sunk by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror and caused the greatest single loss of life in the war. The General Belgrano’s sortie accomplished nothing offensively for the Argentinians, and its loss forced a change in strategy that caused them to keep their navy’s capital ships in port for the rest of the war.

General Menendez, the commander of the Falkland garrison, demonstrated a poor grasp of the basics of the operational art. He deployed his poorly trained and poorly armed infantry units into an overextended and badly sited defense line. The British easily overran Menendez’s positions one by one. Indeed, miserable weather and logistics problems caused the British Army and Royal Marines far more trouble than did the Argentine Army. One has to question how General Galtieri ever thought that half-trained, lightly armed soldiers could hold their own in battle against some of the best infantry in the world—the Gurkas, the Paratroop Regiment, and the Royal Marines. General Galtieri and the junta apparently felt that patriotism and valor could overcome all of their military disadvantages.

Indeed, the only Argentine senior commander who demonstrated real competence and professionalism in the Falklands War was the FAS commander, General Crespo. He had to minimize the effect of Argentina’s liabilities: the technological inferiority of the Argentine air force and naval air arm, operations at his attack aircraft’s maximum combat range, the lack of adequate air-refueling capability, and the lack of early warning and reconnaissance assets. Considering these limitations, General Crespo did very well with the forces and capabilities he had available. He used the three weeks prior to the beginning of hostilities to organize and train his strike force to conduct a naval air campaign—a mission in which only two of his small naval air units were previously trained. He learned from his mistakes—apparently the only Argentine senior commander who did. After 1 May, he avoided high-altitude ingress beyond the point where British radar could detect his forces and made great use of low-altitude attacks to avoid detection and achieve surprise. His improvised Fenix squadron creatively baited the British with decoys, forced a response, and stretched their CAP coverage to improve the chances of survival and success of his attack force. The professional competence of his headquarters staff was demonstrated by their ability to plan numerous long-range air strikes and coordinate the very limited air-refueling support.

The record of the FAS in the Falklands War is impressive. The pilots of the Skyhawk, Dagger, Mirage, and Etendard squadrons demonstrated remarkable piloting and navigation skills. The low-level attacks were exceptionally difficult and dangerous. One flight of Skyhawks flew so low during their ingress to attack the British fleet that on arrival at their home base they had to make instrument approaches to landing because a coating of salt (deposited by the spray off the ocean’s waves) obscured their canopies. Argentine official historians continue to claim that the Argentine airmen inflicted far more damage on the British fleet than the British officially admit. However, the losses the British do document are still impressive considering the FAA’s limitations and lack of antishipping training before the war. The destroyers HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry, the frigates HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, the support ship Atlantic Conveyor, the landing ship RFA Sir Galahad, and the landing craft LCU F4 were all sunk by Argentine bombs and Exocets. The destroyers HMS Glasgow and HMS Antrim, the frigates HMS Argonaut and HMS Plymouth, and landing ship RFA Sir Tristram all sustained heavy damage, and another six ships received minor damage. In all, the Fuerza Aerea Sur inflicted the heaviest damage and casualties suffered by the British task force. For that, the FAS paid a very heavy price, losing 22 Skyhawks—19 from Grupos 4 and 5 and three more from a naval Skyhawk squadron. Grupo 8 lost two Mirages, and Grupo 6 lost 11 of its 30 Daggers. The 2d Bomber Squadron lost two Canberras. In all, the FAS lost 41 percent of its aircraft to combat and operational accidents. This is an astounding attrition loss—but it never broke the FAS’s high morale and fighting spirit.

The FAA Transport Command also performed superbly. During April, the small transport force mobilized everything that could fly and airlifted almost 8,000 troops and 5,037 tons of supplies, weapons, vehicles, and fuel into the Falklands.29 Even after the arrival of the British fleet and its proclamation of a full air blockade of the Falklands, the transports continued to fly into Port Stanley by night, bringing in supplies and airlifting out the wounded. FAA transports continued to slip past the British through the last night of the war. These were very dangerous missions—as evidenced by the loss of one C-130 transport to a Harrier sidewinder.

The Argentine air force’s antiaircraft gunners and radar operators performed their jobs with great bravery and competence throughout the campaign. Argentine ground-based air defenses destroyed seven British aircraft, including four Harriers.30 The FAA’s radar operators at Port Stanley were Argentina’s most effective asset for locating and monitoring British ships and planes. They warned Argentine Skyhawk and Dagger pilots of the location of defending British Harriers during their antiship attacks and were credited with preventing the loss of several FAS pilots and their aircraft.

In short, the Argentine air force did surprisingly well in the face of many great disadvantages. Old-fashioned words like courage, gallantry, and honor are the only ones that can be used to describe and explain the combat wartime performance of the Argentine air force and naval air personnel. While the junta and most of the senior Argentine military leadership offer a model of how not to wage war, the Argentine airmen provide a positive and impressive model of competence and courage at the operational and tactical levels of war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Hmmm very interesting post there and I love the siggy FBJ.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2005)

If I can add one point to FJ's posting. There were three reasons why the Argentines thought that they would get help or at least stop the USA from assisting the UK, they were: -
a) The American Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick was adamant that that should be the official policy of the USA. She saw relations with Argentina as being more important than with the UK. American 'advisers' to allies in South America were limited by Congress and Argentina were happy to help fill the gap.
b) On a visit that Galtieri made to the USA he was treated as a superstar. In 1981 the year before the invasion, a senior US official described him as 'A Majestic Figure'. He was often described as 'Argentina's General Patton' in speeches made by the American government and in quotes to the press. Casper Weinberger (Secretary for Defense), Richard Allen (White House National Security Adviser), General Meyer (US Army Chief of Staff) all went out of their way to laud him.
c) He was trained by the US Army on a number of occasions and he described those as being the happiest days of his life.

He had good reasons for believing that the USA would stay out of it. The fact that they didn't, says a lot for the common sense of the President in overriding the recommendations of a number of his advisors and the skill of our diplomats in the USA and UN.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 6, 2005)

> General Galtieri demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of modern military operations by insisting that the Falklands would be defended by a large land force, largely composed of half-trained conscripts, with few heavy weapons, cut off from sea supply and completely dependent upon a tenuous airlift capability. He and most of the senior military leaders also seem to have had little concept of the use of modern technology in war.



Very true, and except for his Air Arm the Argentine Navy also doesnt colaborate almost in nothing in the war effort.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

The only reason I could see relations with S. America more important than with those of the United Kingdom would be the fact that the US wants an influence in S. America.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)

Interesting posts FBJ and Glider, good info.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 17, 2005)

For sometime has been in development a extensive Flight Sim about the air war in the Falkland-Malvinas, it promise to be veeeeery good one.



> The project started in late 2002 as a simple simulation of just the Harrier, and first we thought of having only the islands as scenary, as terrain making would be easier with only the isles represented, intended for simple self-publishing in a shareware style... But the positive feedback was so strong and unexpect, and the project quickly has grown to a organized, professional effort with a programming team, art / 3D modelling team, and extensive research work, with full order of battle, historical accuracy, argentine and british flyable aircraft and detailed cockpits/avionics.




Some pics.




























For more info check their homepage.

http://www.thunder-works.com


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 17, 2005)

That looks like it'll be cool!


----------



## marconi (Nov 18, 2005)

Does anybody know anything about how Argentina managed to capture the Falklands? If I'm not wrong they used their Special Forces to defeat British forces.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 18, 2005)

When the Argentines first attacked, the Falklands were being defended by about sixty-seven Royal Marines and about 120 local militia volunteers.
It wasn't much of a force.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> When the Argentines first attacked, the Falklands were being defended by about sixty-seven Royal Marines and about 120 local militia volunteers.
> It wasn't much of a force.



If I remember right they put up a hell of a fight...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 18, 2005)

Undoubtedly. They were British after all. 
But 67 marines and a small number of "weekenders" simply weren't enough to hold out for very long. The governor finally ordered them to surrender.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

Yes, but now we've got a full base and a permenant complement of troops.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

and four tornadoes, for all the good they'll be


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 19, 2005)

marconi said:


> Does anybody know anything about how Argentina managed to capture the Falklands? If I'm not wrong they used their Special Forces to defeat British forces.



Seems that you dont want to bother in browsing the 5 pages of this topic...  You lazy boy.

I already posted a pic of the Argentine navy commandos taking british prisoners in here:

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/3298/15qg.jpg


----------



## marconi (Nov 19, 2005)

Sorry, didn't noticed it  
Any details of this operation?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 19, 2005)

A good article is this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/KAA.htm

-----------------------------


By the way here is an actual audio from Argentine pilots during mission in 1982.
It's interesting material, if you understand spanish. For those who don't, I am affraid there is no transcription that I know of (learn spanish, you limeys!)  

It starts with a pilot excited about seing other aircraft impacting its bombs on a british ship, then pilots exchanging damage reports (one is leaking fuel and he's assesing if he can make it back to base), then the Malvinas radar reporting 2 CAPs over the area where the attack was made plus another one farther north and a fourth CAP incoming from the carrier's location area.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

Oi, we limey's don't need to learn Spanish. We'll just kick your ass...Spains ass, all of South America's ass...anyone who speaks Spanish ...we'll kick your ass...'cos we do stuff like that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

LOL


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Oi, we limey's don't need to learn Spanish. We'll just kick your ass...Spains ass, all of South America's ass...anyone who speaks Spanish ...we'll kick your ass...'cos we do stuff like that.



Are you on drugs ?.....it was an ironic comment if you dont realize  

I disccuss with you in other topics and you seems a very razonable guy...and then you came with something like this.....  ......double personality maybe ?.


Anyway for others than Plan_D, the audio is from it was the A-4B mission (code name "Vulcano" and "Zeus") who sank the HMS Coventry on May 25th in open waters north of the islands and damaged the HMS Broadsword with a bomb that did not explode and went al the way through the hull.

The "Vulcano" flight was formed by Cap. Carballo, Lt. Rinke, and WO. Carmona (who had to abort due to mechanical problems). The "Zeus" flight was formed by 1Lt Velazquez, Lt Osses, and WO. Barrionuevo (who had to abort after failing during the refueling ops). "Ranquel" was the KC-130 flight, afaik. "Rayo" was the support flight (a Learjet 35)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Are you on drugs ?.....it was an ironic comment if you dont realize
> 
> I disccuss with you in other topics and you seems a very razonable guy...and then you came with something like this.....


I think plan_D was just making a joke, Charles.
I could be wrong though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I am sure he was making a joke. Calm down Charles.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

...I'm pretty sure I was making a joke ...but y'know...these double personalities, they never talk to each other 'cos they fell out years ago. (Over a girl...it's so sad)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

LOL


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 21, 2005)

plan_D said:


> ...I'm pretty sure I was making a joke ...but y'know...these double personalities, they never talk to each other 'cos they fell out years ago. (Over a girl...it's so sad)



Hey!!! you liked a girl? boy you had me fooled.


----------



## R988 (Nov 22, 2005)

I came across this article a while ago, it's probably similar to those already posted but it's fairly comprehensive.

I'll add a video clip to this post of the photo series posted earlier where the A4's attack the British, it's the CNN footage for those that have already seen it.


----------



## Eagle_Giuli (Nov 23, 2005)

Hello from Argentina... I expect all us could discuss the topic with respect and knowledges.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2005)

> Hey!!! you liked a girl? boy you had me fooled.


Dude I dont think u've been here long enough to ring pD's bell like that...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 24, 2005)

> Hello from Argentina... I expect all us could discuss the topic with respect and knowledges



Excepto por algun ingles que se le zafa el tornillo de vez en cuando, ( nunca falta un Erwin suelto por ahi  ) los demas son gente respetuosa y conocedora.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 24, 2005)

Auf Englisch, bitte?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 24, 2005)

Ich kann nicht verseht die deuscht....  ....is that correct. ?


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 24, 2005)

nicht ganz: Ich verstehe nicht Deutsch


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> > Hello from Argentina... I expect all us could discuss the topic with respect and knowledges
> 
> 
> 
> Excepto por algun ingles que se le zafa el tornillo de vez en cuando, ( nunca falta un Erwin suelto por ahi  ) los demas son gente respetuosa y conocedora.



Well I do not speak very good spanish, only German and English but you know what please dont talk about people on here with disrepespect. If you wish to recieve respect than you must earn it and give it in return. If you are going to talk about people then say it in a language that they can understand and dont say it behind there backs. That is something that pisses me off that people talk behind others backs like that. Also if you have a problem with the English keep it to youself, this is not a place to discuss you problems with other people. If you wish to do so then do it in the polotics forum that is the place where you can speak your mind.

By the way here is a rough translation of what he said. Again my Spanish is not very good but here you go:

_Except for any English that escapes the screw occasionally, (a free Erwin is never absent round there) the others are the respectful and expert people_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> nicht ganz: Ich verstehe nicht Deutsch



Better would be _Ich verstehe kein Deuts_ch.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 24, 2005)

close enough


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

Yes it was.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 25, 2005)

Thanks for correcting my german....and no I dont have troubles with nobody.



> Except for any English that escapes the screw occasionally, (a free Erwin is never absent round there) the others are the respectful and expert people



Pretty accurate by the way.


Now I think that a very interesting issue to make debate is tha stament that you can found in several argentine books that admiral Anaya, commander in chief of the Argentine Navy, try desperately of limited the actions of the surface combatans and fought a low intensity conflict is his own mind.

The explanation of this behavior is the strong pro-english tradition of the Navy ( many of the officers and marines were trained in the UK) and the complete lack of interest in have a seriuos frontal confrontation with a Major NATO Power.

In short was Anaya a Traitor or not....?


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2005)

CB I don't know the real awnser but I suspect he knew that he wouldn't stand a chance. He obviously knew that we had Nuclear Subs in the area which would sink anything that he might send in. Plus our ships could take care of themselves, most had Exocet or the Sea Dart. Our Lynx Helicopters have proven themselves to e deadly against smaller ships which the Argentine Navy had quite a few of at the time. Plus of course we had the Carriers. As for the submarines, yours were old and our A/S skills have always been amongst the best in the world.

A naval attack was going to be a difficult mission.

I was suprised that the Argentine forces didn't use mines. There cheap, difficult to counter and would have caused a lot of distruption.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 25, 2005)

weren't the brit forces privy to US spy satellite imagery as well


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 25, 2005)

> CB I don't know the real awnser but I suspect he knew that he wouldn't stand a chance. He obviously knew that we had Nuclear Subs in the area which would sink anything that he might send in



Maybe...probably he dont want to take the political weight of the losses, you know thinking in the future, knowing that the "military" goverments wont last forever.


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2005)

There were rumours that the Argentine Navy were told that if the 25th May left terratorial waters then it was considered to be a target. They knew that we were keeping an eye on it. I don't see any attack working without the support of a carrier.
PB Its never been admitted but we would be astonished if that wasn't the case. The USA gave us a lot of support and I am sure Satellite Photos would be the first thing that we would have asked for.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

It would not surprise me either.


----------



## Eagle_Giuli (Nov 28, 2005)

Of course the US supported to the british forces, the main supports were the AIM-9L sidewinders, and the satellital support.


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2005)

Eagle, Close but not quite. We already had the AIM-9L in our NATO Stocks which we obviously took with us. There is no doubt that we received a lot of logistic support and as I said earlier I would be amazed if we didn't get the photo's as out no1 priority.
It should also be pointed out that the French also gave support including intensive air to air combat training against the Super Entard which of course carried the Exocet. In case your wondering, the Harrier won every combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

And England and bought those missiles long before the Falklands conflict so in that sense that was not really support from the US.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 29, 2005)

> It should also be pointed out that the French also gave support including intensive air to air combat training against the Super Entard which of course carried the Exocet. In case your wondering, the Harrier won every combat.



A good book about this subject and the clandestine operations ( both argentine and british) is this:

http://www.nigelwest.com/thesecretwarforthefalklands.htm

By the way here is some nice art of the war:

*Right on Time:
Argentine Air Force's Douglas A-4B, flown by Alférez Dellepiane, comes back limping after having its fuel tanks peppered by shrapnel and AAA -thus losing all of its fuel-, over Bluff Cove on June 8th, 1982. As soon as the emergency was declared, an Air Force KC-130H was sent over to refuel the aircraft in flight, in order to keep the Skyhawk flying. You can see several fuel leaks from the A-4B leaving their trails. Both aircraft arrived safely at the mainland.* 







*May 21st, 1982. Three Argentine Navy A-4Q's deliver the final blow to HMS Ardent, a British Frigate.The aircraft, flown by Cdr. Filippi, Lt. Arca and Lt Márquez, were shot down later*.






For more check this link and this several pages.

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/eng/mil_4.htm


----------



## Eagle_Giuli (Nov 29, 2005)

Glider said:


> Eagle, Close but not quite. We already had the AIM-9L in our NATO Stocks which we obviously took with us. There is no doubt that we received a lot of logistic support and as I said earlier I would be amazed if we didn't get the photo's as out no1 priority.
> It should also be pointed out that the French also gave support including intensive air to air combat training against the Super Entard which of course carried the Exocet. * In case your wondering, the Harrier won every combat*.




The combats simuled in Britain between Harriers and Mirages IIIE, the Mirages won every of them.


----------



## Eagle_Giuli (Nov 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And England and bought those missiles long before the Falklands conflict so in that sense that was not really support from the US.



I don't know when UK bought that missiles to Raytheon or the US Navy, but I am sure that the UK didn't buy them a long before the South Atlantic War. Why? The half of the Harrier fleet couldn't use them. Only could use the standards AIM-9B and AIM-9J, so I think the AIM-9L wouldn't be a veteran between your troops.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2005)

Eagle_Giuli said:


> Glider said:
> 
> 
> > Eagle, Close but not quite. We already had the AIM-9L in our NATO Stocks which we obviously took with us. There is no doubt that we received a lot of logistic support and as I said earlier I would be amazed if we didn't get the photo's as out no1 priority.
> ...



everywhere i've read states the harriers one them...........


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2005)

Eagle Sorry but you are way off the mark on this. The Mirage was a sitting duck to the Harrier. Its one advantage was straight line speed with afterburner which for obvious reasons is almost a one shot tactic. The Mirage losses energy at a frightening rate once it starts to maneuver and once lost is difficult to gain. The Harrier doesn't and had all the advantages in air combat. 
Its worth noting that the Harrier has a better power to weight ratio than the Mirage E with the afterburner on. Without it, its like comparing a pigeon to a falcon. The exercises were mainly against the Super Entard as it was a plane that we had little experience against in exercises. The Mirage was a widely used plane and one that we had a lot of experience against.

As for your comment on the AIM-9L it is I am afraid incorrect. The Sea Harrier was our latest fighter at the time and had of course could take the latest Missile's. No one has ever questioned that the Harrier used them. No one has ever questioned that the missiles were taken from our NATO war stocks which were of course to be used by all RAF and Navy fighters. Like most airforces we tended to use our older ones up on practice and tests, but when the chips are down and you are going to go to war, you go with the best available.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 30, 2005)

The worst thing was that the Mirages III/V had to use the Rafael Shafrir and the Magic 1 wich both are very crappy compared with the Aim-9L.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

Eagle_Giuli said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > And England and bought those missiles long before the Falklands conflict so in that sense that was not really support from the US.
> ...



1st - England was using the AIM-9 well before the Falklands War. I dont care what varient it was that they were using. The US did not go "Hey you are going to war against Argentina, lets give you some AIM-9's to use against them!" Therefore that was not direct support from the US to England.

The Iraqis were using Russian equipment againt the US in Iraqi Freedom, were the Russians supporting the Iraqi's, No. This equipment was bought before the war.

2nd - Who siad the British were my troops? I am not from England.


----------



## Eagle_Giuli (Dec 11, 2005)

DerAdler:
I know that the UK forces were using the Sidewinders long before 1982, but I am talking specially about the L version of the AIM-9. Not all the Sea Harriers were enabled to use them, as I know. They were modified during the war to be completely in service. Till that, the Harriers and Sea Harriers (specially the firsts) were using other AIM-9 versions, as B and J. I am sorry if I am wrong, but that are my knowledges.

About your example with Iraq/Russia... Russia wasn't an Iraqi ally, but the United States declared officialy, on April the 30th, the support of material supplies to the United Kingdom, and the AIM-9L were part of those supplies, as far as I know. 




Charles:
The Magic wasn't such a bad missile. Although it was under the AIM-9L, it was a modern missile to 1982, but the scenario of battle that Harriers presented (low attitude, low speed) made impossible to the Mirage III to operate. Remember that the Mirages are specially high attitude and speed fighters, as all deltas aircraft are...
Resuming, the tactic of the Sea Harriers was what won the battle, not the ineficacy of the R-550 Magics.




Glider:
I am sorry, I expresed myself so bad that nobody understood what I was trying to say. The Harriers defeated to the Mirages in their scenarios, low-sp, low-at), but the Mirages, as I know, have more than the 90% of the battles at high-high.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2005)

Eagle
Don't worry your English is coming along and some misunderstandings are inevitable. Just be glad I am not trying to communicate in Spanish.

Re the American Supplies of the AIM-9L. They were used to top up the war supplies that we took. Its a small point as had we needed more I don't doubt that the USA would have given us some. All Sea Harriers were able to operate the 9L of that I am quite certain.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 13, 2005)

British infantry under fire:


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 26, 2006)

Attack on HMS Coventry, 25th may 1982.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/4281015223995526/coventry/


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 3, 2006)

Some pics from equipment used by the BIMs ( Marines batallions) in the conflict.

Combat radio PCR-77 with assault gear.







The well know Browning M2HB cal .50 in this case a argentine variant made by FM.






The belgian FN-MAG 7,62 mg, also made by FM; the usual gas settings in this gun gave him a 700 rpm.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 3, 2006)

FM 60mm mortar with HE and Smoke phosphorous proyectiles, the maximun range of this weapon was 1550 m.








FM 81mm mortar ( derivated from the Brandt) with HE normal, HE high capacity and the WP. the maximum range was about 2600 m.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

"C" ration; in this contains: a package of dewatered Coffe with Milk and sugar,1 can of prepared food ( in this case beef with potatoes and sauce), 4 packages of cookies, 3 pots of marmalade, 1 bar of chocolat, 10 candies, 8 pills of solid fuel, a tin heather ( suport to the can) 50 matches and a pack of 20 cigarretes (this last one uselles stuff by the way)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

An amphibius vehicle LVTP_7 Amtrak rolling over the streets of Puerto Argentino/Port Stanley.







Picture from "Osprey essential histories- The falklands."


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

A close-up of this last vehicle, note the naval anchor indentificative of the Marines armor. The guy with a side cap is an army coronel, He carried an FMK-3 9mm submachinegun.








source : ZONAMILITAR


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2006)

Interesting stuff. I don't rate the C ration pack. It doesn't look as if there is enough to keep a man going for a day in a combat situation for an extended period.
Good job there are a lot of sheep on the Falklands


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2006)

Actually C Rats have more food in them than the new MREs. The MREs just taste better. Well some say that the C Rats were better. The best part was the cigarettes though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2006)

A note to that though. The new MRE's have more calories than the C Rats and therefore have more to keep you going than the C Rats.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

Honestly I believe that the "worst" part are the cigarretes because a guy wich adquire this habit under combat stress probably continue with it for life.  

------------------------------------


Another pic of the weapons, this time a 81mm nest. At the left top the shield of the BIM 5 marines.







Source: scan


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2006)

During the Falklands three Marines produced a paper for the forces in the Falklands and the cartoons became very popular.

As it happens one covers this point and is as follows.

Obviously these were produced by the forces for the forces that were fighting, so to call them biased is an understatement. So take them with humour.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

I read some veterans memories and yes, there was a lot of grilled sheep between the troops, specially the Army.

We are carnivores after all.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

Combat patrol.


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2006)

A second one with a slight theme


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 26, 2006)

Repetitive isnt ?


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2006)

I should add that there were cartoons taking the mick out of the RAF, Navy Army and SBS.


----------



## k9kiwi (Dec 26, 2006)

Classic quote from the book

"Don't cry for me Seargent Major" Written by a Brit war correspondant about the Falklands.

Apparently on the attack to Mount Longdon, there was a platoon of Brit Paras who had a feared and hated Seargent. He had made most of their lives miserable, but had a few "Favourites" to pick on.

A few minutes after the attack he stood on an AP Mine and had his foot blown off.

He is lying there screaming....

"I have lost my foot, I have lost my foot."

When the guy he picked on the most shouted.

"No you haven't Sarge, it is over there, now shut the F.. up."


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 31, 2006)

> "I have lost my foot, I have lost my foot."
> 
> When the guy he picked on the most shouted.
> 
> "No you haven't Sarge, it is over there, now shut the F.. up."



Nasty sence of humor.

------


An interesting plate from Ospreys "Military snipers from 1914", the rifle used by the argentine soldier is an original Springfield Armory M-14 with a Night vision scope.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

Love the Enfield. She still shoulders on after almost 100 years. I love that rifle.

Didn't realize that the Argentines were equiped with M-14s (or perhaps M-21s)!!  Looks like US gear too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2006)

jeez where do the argies get off not carrying 170lbs of gear with them... that's just not cricket.....


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

And they are depicted with a better rifle.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2006)

you're jsut trying to bait me aren't you...


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 31, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> jeez where do the argies get off not carrying 170lbs of gear with them... that's just not cricket.....


The Argentinians didn't drive Land Rovers so they didn't have to lug it


----------



## Glider (Dec 31, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> And they are depicted with a better rifle.



Agreed, they normally carried the FN which is a much better rifle than the M14. The FN was not easy to equipe with a scope so they used the older M14 as a snipers rifle.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you're jsut trying to bait me aren't you...



It's not in my Avatar for nothin'. And FAL better than M-14. Yes. I concede. And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 1, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Love the Enfield. She still shoulders on after almost 100 years. I love that rifle.
> 
> Didn't realize that the Argentines were equiped with M-14s (or perhaps M-21s)!!  Looks like US gear too.




Is U.S made M-14 the adaptation to scope were done later. The Marines used also a version of the Garand-Beretta M59 adapted to shoot the 7,62mm NATO.



> jeez where do the argies get off not carrying 170lbs of gear with them... that's just not cricket.....




I dont know what is your accent in the word argie, but this was created in wartime as an offensive a demeaning word, and it remain like that.

I dont think the Mods will care about it but I do.




> And FAL better than M-14




As an assault rifle maybe but the Springfield is more accurate.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2007)

And my choice too, CB.

I don't think Lanc meant anything derogatory. I certainly didn't read that into the "argies" term. Read like "brits" or "japs" to me.

But then some folks have become so politically sensitive that you can't use the term "oriental" anymore either.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2007)

It's another case of the world becoming politically correctness mad. You, Charles, being offended by the term "Argies" would be like me being offended by the term "Brits". 

Argies is not a derogatory term in Britain - so you shouldn't take it as one. Unless you want to be insulted by Argentinian as well.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 1, 2007)

> Argies is not a derogatory term in Britain



I going to accept that as a fact, still that word dont let me a good taste in my mouth.



> Unless you want to be insulted by Argentinian as well.




No problems with the word argentine o argentinian, I feel very proud to be from this country.



> But then some folks have become so politically sensitive that you can't use the term "oriental" anymore either



Not my case just I want to make the things clear in here....I think we did.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2007)

I'm glad you can see that it is not meant as an insult. As I said; the British are the Brits, the Scottish are the Scots, the Japanese are the Japs, the Australians are the Aussies and the Argentinians are the Argies. 

If you wanted to be insulting, I guess you could all those above;

Limeys, Jocks, Nips, Diggers and ... erh, what do we call the Argentinians to insult 'em anyway?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2007)

And Americans are "mutts". We encompass all ethnicities, races, and sexual preferences. 

I know. I'm a redneck. I are one.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2007)

Haha, if you're a Southerner - you can be extra insulted if I call you a Yankee bastard!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2007)

You can't insult me, Plan D. I've heard and seen it all. 

I'm quite comfortable in my genetic pool. And I have a Confederate Flag hanging in my garage!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2007)

Damn it. Oh well, it was worth a try.  *cough* Unionist *cough*


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2007)

Go mbeadh cosa gloine fút agus go mbrise an ghloine. 

Cheers!


----------



## k9kiwi (Jan 1, 2007)

Meanwhile Lanc is diving for his English-Sheep dictionary to translate the Celtic.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

Go mbeadh cosa gloine fút agus go mbrise an ghloine.

Gee my breadhouse tastes like foot jam, no check that, toe jam.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 2, 2007)

Well, with that issue solved , I go back to pictures.


Scoped FM-FAL








*FN-MAG nest.*


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 2, 2007)

British Kicked ASS!
No airborne harrier losses against any the Argies - the worst that happend was a single cannon shot through the fin of a harrier - didnt do much at all lol - SAS rule- wiped out a whole airfield - the only casualty was a guy tripping over and fracturing his leg or spraining it or something lol! 2 ships were lost however because of a stupid mistake of the captain that prevented the sea fox missile system from shooting down the delivering jets....but the longest bombing mission in history was from a few Vulcans and Victor or valiant refueling jets.....


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

Interesting that the FN MG nest shows the belt outside of the structure. While that may have been easy on the arms, not really a great idea.

What is the tracked vehicle, CB? Reminds me of the US Marine LAVs.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 2, 2007)

Is a posed phot. you know... 




> What is the tracked vehicle, CB? Reminds me of the US Marine LAVs



It is a LVTP-7.








> 2 ships were lost however because of a stupid mistake of the captain that prevented the sea fox missile system from shooting down the delivering jets....but



That was the sinking of the HMS Coventry, but actually were 6 Ship lost by the Royal Navy.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Is a posed phot. you know...



Oh. Sorry. I thought it was a picture from a real war.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 2, 2007)

It was in wartime but no in combat, this is one of combat.

Corporal medic in action from the BIM 5th, this marines batallion lost 30 men killed and 170 wounded, also claimed had killed or wounded more than 200 british in combat.


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> British Kicked ASS!
> No airborne harrier losses against any the Argies - the worst that happend was a single cannon shot through the fin of a harrier - didnt do much at all lol - SAS rule- wiped out a whole airfield - the only casualty was a guy tripping over and fracturing his leg or spraining it or something lol! 2 ships were lost however because of a stupid mistake of the captain that prevented the sea fox missile system from shooting down the delivering jets....but the longest bombing mission in history was from a few Vulcans and Victor or valiant refueling jets.....



Suggest you check your facts before postinng an aggresive entry.

We did lose Harriers to Ground fire,
The shot through the fin was from ground based 20mm
As mentioned the number of ships lost was not two
It isn't the Sea Fox but the Sea Wolf missile system
The longest bombing mission was one Vulcan at a time with the Victors as tankers

Apart from that I don't think you could have been more incorrect if you had tried.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 3, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> It was in wartime but no in combat, this is one of combat.



I knew that CB. I was just returning the sarcasm.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 3, 2007)

Fine, My sarcasm detector is not working  



*1th May, the first air combat over the Malvinas/Falklands:*

By the afternoon a group of three IAI Mirage V “Daggers”, armed with three bombs each, attacked a squad of a destroyer and two frigates (the Glamorgan, the Alacrity and the Arrow). At least one ship was reached by a bomb, and the Daggers returned to the continent.







One of the most significatives was the encounter between a couple of Mirages IIIEA wich were giving superior cover to the attack aircraft and a CAP of Sea Harriers.







The argentine aicraft belong to the VII Brigada Aerea and were manned by Capt. Garcia Cuerva and Lt. Carlos Perona in their second mission of the day. The two jets approached the airspace around Task Force 317, which was sailing to the Falklands to retake them from occupying Argentine forces. Sea Harriers were launched to intercept the Mirage fighters. The Mirages fired first at about five miles distance, but their missiles failed to lock on to their targets. Turning to the left the Mirage jets soon found the two Harriers on their tails. Barton fell in behind Perona and Thomas took a bead on the jet flown by Cuerva. Firing their Sidewinder, air-to-air, missiles, the Harrier pilots got a hit on Peronas Mirage. Perona ejected from his aircraft and came down in shallow water near West Falkland Island. 

Cuervas Mirage was damaged by the missile fired by Thomas, and he attempted to fly his damaged aircraft back to his base , Cuervas expended their last 30 mm ammo over the HMS Hermes carrier wich was in the strait. In the final aproach to the Pt argentino airbase a electrical failure (obviously caused by combat damage) made a shorcut and it unleash a Magic missile, unfortunately this action confused the AAA gunners wich took the MIII as a enemy aircraft and they shoot it down.







Images from:

Exequiel Martínez

www.AviationArt.com.ar


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Glider said:


> Suggest you check your facts before postinng an aggresive entry.



A lot of that seems to come from the new guys does it not...

Oh and nice pics there CB.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2007)

CB thanks for your description of the attack on the 1st May. Its always interesting to see a report from the other sides view.
I have looked at the records that I have and they are very similar. There is no doubt its the same attack as everything is the same such as the pilots involved, the ships and the aircraft.

The differences are small. 
All three attacking bomber Daggers attacked the the three frigates/destroyers and all three caused damage with their 30mm guns but all the bombs missed. The damage was minor with the Arrow suffering most with 8 hits to her funnel and engine air intake, one man being wounded by shrapnel. The Alacrity was shaken by a near miss and took on some water from a leak which was sealed by the damage control team. The area was later pumped clear and a patch applied.

Cuervas aircraft didn't straff the Hermes in the channel, the Hermes was kept far from the shore to the east of the Falklands for the entire battle. Such was the distance from shore, the Admiral on board became know widely within the fleet as 'Windy' Woodward, a play on his name Sandy Woodward. Both carriers were kept out of harms way as it was recognised that had one been hit the conflict was over.

When Cuervas approached the airfield there is no mention of a missile being fired by his aircraft by design or not. A Falklander on the ground saw the incident and described that he saw a plane heading towards them and the Argentine forces opening up with eveything they had. He saw three hits on the aircraft which then crashed with the Argentine soldiers cheering like mad.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 4, 2007)

It could be some diferences but minimal, my sources are all argentines and I tend to rely only on those ( no ofense) because some information wich is available on british websites is just a copy of and old info about 1985-86 wich have many mistakes.

For example a source claimed that the HMS Ardent was sunk by 14 rocket of 68 mm and a bomb of 230 kg launched by an MB-339. 

Well the Mb-339 339 have 8 Zuni rocket of 127 mm and no bombs ( the technician tough that the primitive launching system in that italian aircraft would made any attack with bombs suicidal) but the most important, that ship were sunk by A-4Q with snakeyes bombs ( It was hit several times before that final attack)

Aniway I will continue with this topic tonight, no time right now.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2007)

No offence taken. I tend to rely on researched books and cross references. Often for me the deciding factor is the level of detail contained and applying logic. 

My main source is Air War South Atlantic which was written with the full co operation of both the British and Argentine forces including visits to the bases of both sides and interviews with the people who particiated in the conflict. If you don't have a copy I recommend it.

Poor old Ardent, I have her hit by almost everything apart from a MB399. 
The first plane to hit her was a Dagger that hit her with a 1000lb bomb. This hit her by the Hanger destroying her helicopter (suprise) and the Seacat AA missile as well as blocking the ammunition run for the 4.5in.
Secondly she was attacked by 3 airforce Skyhawks which hit her in the stern with two more bombs thought to be 500lb
Lastly she was attacked by three more Naval Skyhawks, when she was hit by two Snakeye bombs, one at least again hit the stern. Not suprisingly this was the final blow and she had to be abandoned.

On the same day an MB339 did launch a solo attack on HMS Argonaut using 5in rockets. Could that be the cause for confusion. He was Lt Crippa and was awarded the Argentine Medal for Heroisam and Bravery in Combat for the attack, which frankly I think he deserved. The only damage was superficial and no one was hurt, but his bravery is unquestioned.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 4, 2007)

Indeed but the Crippa mission was the *first* of the day, he was on some armed recce flight and have no idea that the Royal Navy was on the San Carlos strait.

Off course with that information available began the large scale attack of the Armada and Air Force aircraft.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2007)

*The Argentine Navy A-4Qs vs the HMS Ardent, 21th May 1982:*

In the morning Douglas A-4Q from the 2th escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque ( 2 squadron of naval attack.) flown by LT Benito Rótolo (3-a-306, first), Carlos Lecour (3-A-305, second) and Roberto Sylvester (3-A-301, thirst) launch his bombs over the HMS Ardent. One of the bomb launched by Carlos Lecour impact in the ship fuel depot starting a big fire. The british response was hard but the aircraft return to the continent without damage.

The second was comprised by the pilots J.C Arca, the capt corvette A. Philippi ad the leutenant Marquez. 

Jose Cesar Arca remembers:

_*"Teorically we should keep a distance of 19 seconds between the aircraft to avoid any posible fragment from the leading aircraft proyectiles , however in the last Km to the target the Surface to Air missiles menace and the tracers from the warships cannons desorganizated the formation and I ended up just 1 seconds behind Philippi, I saw the 4 bombs separating from his plane the metal fins opened correctly ( Snakeyes 227 kg) one hit the stern of the ship and caused a hell of explosion and smoke, I penetrate this and dropped my bombs , latter I hear the voice of Marquez- Very good sir, one in the stern ¡¡

We evade the ship turning sharply to the left , I think that no more than 20 seconds passed when I hear the voice of Marquez again- Sea Harries 3 o Clock"*_








Few seconds later Marquez aircraft took a full burst of 30 mm Aden cannon and explode giving no chance to the pilot. Phillippi try to evade the british Fighter but his aircraft is also hit and he had to eject , minutes later landed unhurt in the coast and retuned to the argentines lines walking.


*J.C Arca (rigth) A Philippi., picture taken in 1986*






Arca was probably fliying the hardest Mcdonell Doglas in existence and is attacked twice taking hits in both wings and the fuselage. With a serious damage a without hidraulics Arca tough is done. 
However the Sea Harries disingage ( probably due of lack of fuel) an the argentine try to make a landing in the Pt Argentino airstrip. 

The response from ground Control:

*"I can see the sky trough the holes in your aircraft, none of the undercarriage wheels in the the right position, you better go to the bay and eject"*

The pilot did so but the A-4 did not go down and remain circling around putting in danger some houses and pilot alike. 

_*"Is like the A-4 was mad because I had to leave it"*_

Finally the Oerlikon batteries open fire and finished the career of that stuborn aircraft. Arca was rescued from the sea by an Army helicopter belonging to the 601th batallion.







Mortally wounded the HMS Ardent Ardent stopped in the shallow waters of Grantham Sound, the fires in her stern out of control. The Rothersay-class Yarmouth then came alongside to take off survivors. Ardent continued to burn throughout the night, accompanied by the occasional explosion, until she sank the following morning, with only her foremast remaining above the water. The last man to leave was her Commander, Cdr. Alan West, who was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, and served as First Sea Lord from 2002-2006.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

Excellent CB. Great posts.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2007)

The Daggers that made the first attack on the Ardent came from Grupo 6 led by Captain Gonzalez. Originally there were four but one, Lt Luna was hit by a Harrier on the way in leaving three. The other two pilots who took part in the attack were, Captain Robles and Lt Bernhardt. 

The first Skyhawk attack my sources say came from Grupo 5 but I am more than willing to admit that your info is so detailed that this is likely to be an error, in particular as the details of the attack are similar. _This is why I like these discussions, its helps sort the wheat from the chaff_ 

The second attack matches the details that I have. There is one interesting point. Arca mentions the missile threat, Philipi in the interview in the book I have, mentions the smoke from the Seacat missile and thinking that he was lucky they didn't have Seawolf. The smoke was from an unguided chaff launcher fired in the of distrating the attackers, the Seawolf being destroyed in the Dagger attack.

Another interesting point is the damage done to Arca's plane. He was fired at by Clive Morell because his Sidewinder failed to lock on. Clive didn't see any hits with the 30mm, went back to the Sidewinder which now locked on and fired of its own accord. Initially it went as expected towards the Skyhawk but then in Morells words 'it got to within a length or two behind him then stopped guiding and fell into the sea'. 
Its interesting that Morell having done a serious amount of damage to the Skyhawk had no idea that he had even hit it. I also wonder if Arca knows how close he came to being being hit by the Sidewinder, which would have finished him for sure.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2007)

PS when I say second attack I mean the second Skyhawk attack. Apologies for any confusion


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Excellent CB. Great posts.



Thanks very much , it took some time to get the translation and the proper pictures.  



> The Daggers that made the first attack on the Ardent came from Grupo 6 led by Captain Gonzalez. Originally there were four but one, Lt Luna was hit by a Harrier on the way in leaving three. The other two pilots who took part in the attack were, Captain Robles and Lt Bernhardt.




Thanks for the aditional info, in my opinion the Mirages V were the less sucessful aircraft of the war achieving little and taking heavy heavy losses in turn.



> The first Skyhawk attack my sources say came from Grupo 5 but I am more than willing to admit that your info is so detailed that this is likely to be an error, in particular as the details of the attack are similar. This is why I like these discussions, its helps sort the wheat from the chaff




It does, I just describe the Navy attacks in disregard of the Air force.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2007)

Not sure how this will come out as I have scanned it from a poor copy but it might be worth it.

It shows that the Miarages may have achieved little but it wasn't through lack of effort. Most people believe that it was a lack of training in attacking ships.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2007)

Nice picture, in here other MV Dagger coming trough the RFA ..Bedivere ..Tristam ? not sure.








And the effort was a lot, just imagine that they have not the benefits of flight refueling as the S.Etendar or A-4 and they have to carry huge fuel tanks all the mission and back.


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2007)

In one of my earlier postings I mentioned that the Hermes was kept so far East the Admiral achieved the nickname Windy Woodward. There was a cartoon in the series I mentioned earlier, which sums up the view of the rest of the Navy and the Marines who would have liked better support.

Its a quirk of our sense of Humour that we also have a pop at each other


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2007)

Nice pics and good info there.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 6, 2007)

> Nice pics and good info there



Thanks.



> In one of my earlier postings I mentioned that the Hermes was kept so far East the Admiral achieved the nickname Windy Woodward.



I had understand that the carries were moved so far but *after* the beggining of the argentine air attacks.




> Few seconds later Marquez aircraft took a full burst of 30 mm Aden cannon and explode giving no chance to the pilot. Phillippi try to evade the british Fighter but his aircraft is also hit and he had to eject , minutes later landed unhurt in the coast and retuned to the argentines lines walking



Here I found a pic of the pilots of the 2th Attack Squadron, Marquez (KIA 21-5-1982) is signaled with the arrow.








And some aditional pics of the Mirages Vs. Both carried two tanks of 1700 liters and one of 1300 liters giving a clear indication of the large mission range.

*C-402* with two Mk-82 bombs.







*C-430* shoot down over the islands 24-5-1982.







Source:

ZONAMILITAR


----------



## Glider (Jan 7, 2007)

The carriers were never brought in close to the Islands. In fact the calls for the carriers to be brought in increases as the attacks came underway. When the Cruise Liner Canberra was brought into San Carlos, the calls for cover increased as she was a big vulnerable ship and her loss would have had a huge impact, but Admiral Woodward refused to bring the carriers in. 

It was recognised that bringing carriers in would have reduced their room to manouver and given the attacking bombers the opertunity to use to islands to mask their approach. This use of land cover was a major problem for the defenders.

There was serious consideration given to placing the carriers in the open sea with a strong escort between the Islands and the mainland to intercept the bombers before they reached the islands. This would have increased the chances of interception, allowed the ships the freedom they needed and allowed the missiles, in particular the Sea Dart with its long range full reign. However the risks were significant (in particular from Exocet) and as mentioned before, had one carrier been hit, then the campaign was lost.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 7, 2007)

Right, maybe the Canberra caused some kind of confution.









*MIIIEA*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 12, 2007)

This serie of photo belongs to the recce mission of an argentine Boeing 707 (TC-91) from the First Air Brigade. The day was the 21th april 1982 and the Boeing was watching the progress of the Royal Navy in route to the islands. The argentine aircraft was detected ( obviusly) and a Sea harrie climbed to his side. One of the 707 crew take the pictures.













the Boeing itself.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 12, 2007)

Mirage V near miss .


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2007)

Lucky 707 crew.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

it's amazing he had the composure to take those pics, what with the fear that must have been consuming upon seeing such a formidable opponent


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 13, 2007)

Indeed, the argentine crew was not sure if the Sea Harrier was autorized to shoot...ot not. In the following days the Royal Navy decided to bring down any spying aircraft but the Boeings were smart enough to stay out the Sea harrier range.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 15, 2007)

One of the best (if not the best) picture of that war, this image taken by a british seamen shows the two Grupo 5s A-4C of Lt. Rinke ( left) and Capt. Carballo in the final approach to attack the HMS Broasword. the date in "5th may 1982.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

Over here this shot of the Marines marching towards Port Stanley is considdered one of the most iconic of the war...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 17, 2007)

Charles, those are awesome shots.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 17, 2007)

Thanks.



> Over here this shot of the Marines marching towards Port Stanley is considdered one of the most iconic of the war...........



Not as spectacular like the other. I mean just simply some guys walking .


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 17, 2007)

Please... CB your political position is showing through. I would have hoped that you could have risen beyond that. Your previous posts were nonpartisan. That last one was simply beneath you.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jan 18, 2007)

And the passing comment overheard by the Brit reporter.

A company of Guardsmen 6 foot plus being passed by Gurhkas (Low slung tyoes) carrying more weight and hauling A$$ past.

The Guards Officer exclaimed to the Gurhka Officer. "Aren't you worried about them going so fast."

The response.

"Christ NO. My biggest worry is getting the buggers to stop when they see the enemy."

No politics in that. Just what was reported.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Please... CB your political position is showing through. I would have hoped that you could have risen beyond that. Your previous posts were nonpartisan. That last one was simply beneath you.




I have no intention to be "partisan" I simply gave an opinion, as emotive it might be for the british that pic with Union Jack waving is not as spectacular as a real combat foto of 2 aircraft entering his target with the sky around full of explosions....simply that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

k9kiwi said:


> And the passing comment overheard by the Brit reporter.
> 
> A company of Guardsmen 6 foot plus being passed by Gurhkas (Low slung tyoes) carrying more weight and hauling A$$ past.
> 
> ...




There is little doubt that the nepalese mercenaries were a powerful psicological weapon in hands of the british. Before the war some british newspapers published histories of how the Gurkhas like better to use their knives than their rifles, and never take prisoners...things that surely affected more than one argentine soldier. But in fact is not sure if the Gurkhas actually killed somebody in the war, they attacked Mt Willians and taken some casualties mostly due the mines and 155mm howitzers.


*Nepalese soldiers with captured Rheinmetall Rh-202.*


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I have no intention to be "partisan" I simply gave an opinion, as emotive it might be for the british that pic with Union Jack waving is not as spectacular as a real combat foto of 2 aircraft entering his target with the sky around full of explosions....simply that.



Or a bunch of Argentine airmen standing at ease in front of aircraft whose ability to sortie cannot be determined? Don't BS the BSer.


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2007)

CB hope that your not around a Gurkha if you call them a mercenary, they are are very touchy about things like that. Also we have a number of Fijians who serve in the army, including the SAS so go carefully. They are also exellent shots and often win various competitions within the armed forces. 

My cousin was attached to a Gurkha unit for a while and they are a very impressive bunch. One thing that makes them unique in the British Army is that they have the final say on any officer that joins them. After three months the Gurkha NCO's say if the officer is good enough to stay and around 20-30% are rejected. 

They didn't kill anyone in the Falklands as far as I can tell. They were assigned to attack one of the hills in the final few days but when they launched the atttack, it had been evacuated by the Argentine Forces.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 19, 2007)

> CB hope that your not around a Gurkha if you call them a mercenary



I hope that too, fortunately the life spectancy of a Gurkha in this country seems not very promising.  , ( joke )



> They didn't kill anyone in the Falklands as far as I can tell. They were assigned to attack one of the hills in the final few days but when they launched the atttack, it had been evacuated by the Argentine Forces


.


Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

the Gurkhas are some of the finest troops in the British Army- not only are they loyal but they're very feirce fighters...........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 21, 2007)

So they are.


---------------------------

A nice video about the 21th may attacks, in french unfortunately.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVdeFhZkzO0_


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 25, 2007)

*Attack against the HMS Broadsword HMS Coventry. 25-5-1982:*


May 25, 1982, - 15:20 hours:
Argentine Air Force Escuadron III Grupo 5 Skyhawks piloted by Captain P. Carballo and Lieutenant C. Rinke attacked HMS Broadsword. The Argentine pilots dropped their Mark 17, 1000-pound bombs on Broadsword, but the bomb(s) failed to explode when they struck the ships stern. Nevertheless the bombs holed the Broadsword, critically damaged a Lynx helicopter and forced Broadsword to come to a stop.

*Guncamera of A-4C attacking HMS Broadsword.* 





May 25, 1982, - 15:24 hours 

During the Argentine Air Force Escuadron III Grupo 5 attack on HMS Broadsword, north of Borbon Island, the accompanying type 42 class destroyer, HMS Coventry crossed in front of Broadsword's firing line.

As Escuadron III Grupo 5 pilots Captain M. Velazco and Captain Alférez J. Barrionuevo engaged the HMS Broadsword´s Sea Wolf missile system, the Broadsword fired a missile at the Skyhawk deuce - and by a contested account missing the Skyhawks but hitting HMS Coventry with the missile.


*From left to right, Barrionuevo, Carlos Rinke and Ctp Velazco: ( the mustache was a hit in those days)*







Then Captain Velazco's flight attacked by dropped their 1000-pound bombs on Coventry getting a hit that breached the hull near the water line. This caused uncontrollable fires and in 20 minutes Coventry sank.

Computer generated video about the attack ( from National Geographic Channel):


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIQHNPCRWM_


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2007)

On this one the reality was slightly different. The Broadsword and Coventry came under attack by four aircraft, two of which attacked each frigate. On the attack on the Broadsword, the two attacking planes crossed in front of each other and this caused the guidence system to trip out. If they hadn't done this there is little doubt that the two planes would have been doomed, as the ship had two firm lock ons and were simply waiting for them to come into range.
When the system tripped the ship was defenceless and although they did fire one missile, it wasn't guided and was simply fired to try and distract the attacking plane, it didn't hit anything (including the Coventry). The two planes dropped four bombs, three missed, the fourth hit the sea short of the ship and bounced up through the bottom of the flightdeck and carried away the nose of the Lynx being prepared for take off, no one being hurt. 

The other two planes went for the Coventry, again the Broadsword got a lock on and this time the Coventry broke the lock by manouvering between the ships. The results of which we all know, she was hit by three bombs all of which exploaded and she did well to last 20 minutes before turning over.

I am certain that the Broadsword wasn't seriously damaged as a friend of mine who I served with in the RN was on board in the hanger when the bomb came up through the deck, as he said, 'scaring the c##p out of him'. 

The Broadsword did stop to assist with the rescue of the Coventry crew and more than one person mistook the funnel smoke for a fire but she wasn't hurt.

Later in life I met the man who got the Seawolf system up after it tripped the first time. He described it as the loneliest seconds of his life as everyone knew they were defenceless and the only voice he could hear was someone saying, five miles and closing, three miles and closing, while he franctically hit the keys to get it going with everyone looking at him unable to help.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

Wow. Good posts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

how different things may've been if the Phalanx or Goalkeeper systems were in use at the time..........


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2007)

Of the Seawolf had been given the funding to complete. In 1973 I saw the first trials installation on HMS Mermaid during which she shot down a 4.5in shell in flight. There is no excuse why it couldn't have been installed fully operational by 1982.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 26, 2007)

> On this one the reality was slightly different. The Broadsword and Coventry came under attack by four aircraft, two of which attacked each frigate. On the attack on the Broadsword, the two attacking planes crossed in front of each other and this caused the guidence system to trip out. If they hadn't done this there is little doubt that the two planes would have been doomed, as the ship had two firm lock ons and were simply waiting for them to come into range.
> When the system tripped the ship was defenceless and although they did fire one missile, it wasn't guided and was simply fired to try and distract the attacking plane, it didn't hit anything (including the Coventry). The two planes dropped four bombs, three missed, the fourth hit the sea short of the ship and bounced up through the bottom of the flightdeck and carried away the nose of the Lynx being prepared for take off, no one being hurt.




Actually every A-4C carried just one 454 kilograms ( 1000 pounds) bomb so 2 aircraft can only deliver 2 bombs, that mistake is also committed in the Video graphics of the National G. documentry wich the A-4s were portrayed with a centreline drop tank and two underwing bombs, when in fact was the contrary, a centreline bomb and two underwing tanks.










And yes , there was a lucky thing that the ships crossed between and the Seawolf, did not work , I remember saw a crewman saying that he manually aimed the missile and he was waiting to get the A-4 in range.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

Glider said:


> Of the Seawolf had been given the funding to complete. In 1973 I saw the first trials installation on HMS Mermaid during which she shot down a 4.5in shell in flight. There is no excuse why it couldn't have been installed fully operational by 1982.



Glider, I'm sorry but I don't believe that for one picosecond.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

Interesting, CB. Was use of dual wingtanks a range issue or one of necessity of performance on target?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 26, 2007)

Range of course, the Skyhawks reached the islands by itself but sometimes were nursed by the KC-130s on the way home. Aniway the Skyhawks had more time on target that his supposed top cover, the Mirages IIIEA wich had not in flight refueling system.

*Right on Time:*
Argentine Air Force's Douglas A-4B, flown by Alférez Dellepiane, comes back limping after having its fuel tanks peppered by shrapnel and AAA -thus losing all of its fuel-, over Bluff Cove on June 8th, 1982. As soon as the emergency was declared, an Air Force KC-130H was sent over to refuel the aircraft in flight, in order to keep the Skyhawk flying. You can see several fuel leaks from the A-4B leaving their trails. Both aircraft arrived safely at the mainland 







In the attack against the HMS invincible the A-4s and super etendar were refuelled in the way to target and also when they come back to the mainland.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

They didn't drop tanks? Is that normal during a known AAA area for A-4 operations or was that of necessity to for range to make it back home?


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Glider, I'm sorry but I don't believe that for one picosecond.



Which bit don't you believe. The seawolf system has down a number of shells in flight its almost a party piece when trying to sell the system overseas. On one demonstration the RN let the Chinese fire the shell from one of their own ships because they didn't believ that it could be done.


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2007)

This may help and I apologise for having the wrong ship, it was HMS Penelope.

The requirement was issued in 1964, and work began as project Confessor. In 1967, BAC was given the contract for the missile, and Vickers were to build the launcher. Firing trials took place between 1970 and 1976 in Aberporth, Wales, and Woomera, Australia. Trials of the guidance system took place on the Leander class frigate Penelope, and shipboard missile trials took place the next year. On various trials, the missile intercepted both practice and telemetry missiles, aircraft, and even a 4.5" shell. Sea Wolf first became operational on the Type 22 frigates, and was retrofitted to the Leanders


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2007)

Another quote to support my statement

SEAWOLF was the first operational anti-missile ship defence weapon system. It has proved its efficiency against fast sea skimming and high angle supersonic missiles. Vertical Launch SEAWOLF is a fully automatic, fast reaction, high speed, point defence missile system offering an effective counter to multiple missile attack.
VL SEAWOLF (VL = Vertical Launch) is accurate enough to intercept 4.5 inch (114 mm) shells.

and another from the RN website
The state-of-the-art weapon has proved highly effective in shooting down a wide variety of air threats such as fast sea-skimming and high-angle supersonic missiles to strike aircraft. It even has the accuracy to shoot down 4.5-inch artillery shells, and has done!

I think the point is well made matt, check before telling people they are lying.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 27, 2007)

> They didn't drop tanks? Is that normal during a known AAA area for A-4 operations or was that of necessity to for range to make it back home?



No, they never do that, that were carried all the way. Incidentally the first time I saw a Skyhawk without droptanks was in the movie "Top gun" 8)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 28, 2007)

A very interesting video I ve found in Youtube,

_"Argentine Skyhawks in the Falklands fly close to BBC journalist Brian Hanrahan"_ 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FoqEnuC1gs_


A recomendation turn the volume up and just listen that "poom-poom" AAA sound


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

CB, what about these?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_nYB2CrdjU_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_nYB2CrdjU_


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

Very good ones, in the first you can actually see the Rheinmethal RH-202 twin 20 mm AAA gun actually hitting a Harrier. Also is interesting the C-130 footage coming very low, sometimes these aircraft were target of british naval gunfire.


Metallica rocks by the way.


----------



## Glider (Jan 30, 2007)

For some reason I cannot get these to load and run.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 30, 2007)

You probably need to download the latest macromedia flash player. I upload to the forumserver a video very similar in one of the fisrt pages of this topic.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2007)

Thanks I'll give it a go.


----------



## Aggie08 (Feb 9, 2007)

Wow, I haven't been to the forum in a while. 16 pages of glory. Good videos matt, awesome footage!


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 9, 2007)

Man, don't thank me. CB rules this thread.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 11, 2007)

> Man, don't thank me. CB rules this thread.



 , I got to post something about the attack agaist the HMS Antelope but no time right now, so isntead I let you 2 pics of the Army s twin Oerlikon 35 mm in action against aerial and ground targets.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 16, 2007)

*Attack against the HMS Sheffield. 4th may 1982.*

Antecedents: The sinking of the ARA Belgrano.

The late afternoon of the 2th may the argentine Military junta get a shocking news , one of the largest ship in inventory is going to the bottom attacked by a modern Nucler submarine (The HMS Conqueror who coverted itself in the only SSN who fied in anger) Many question whether the ship was ever a serious threat to the British fleet and to this day the attack remains steeped in controversy, more than twenty years after the guns of war fell silent. One thing was for sure...the dreamers who still believe in some kind of negotiation with the Britsh force now really undestand that there was a war.
In the meanwhile the Argentine Navy Air force was working in some retribution.


The aircraft:






In September 1980, fifty pilots and technician personnel of the 2ª Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque (2nd Air Naval Fighter and Strike Squadron) of the CANA (Comando de Aviación Naval Argentina, Argentine Naval Aviation Command) arrived at Rochefort Naval Base, in France. Among the group of pilots were the unit's commander, Frigate Captain Jorge Colombo, and sub-commander, Corvette Captain Augusto Bedacarratz. 


The rest of the pilots were: Corvette Captains Roberto Agotegaray, Roberto Curilovic and Alejandro Francisco, and Warship Lieutenants Luis Collavino, Julio Barrraza, Juan Rodriguez Mariani, Armando Mayora and Carlos Machetanz. All the pilots had hundreds of hours flying A-4Q Skyhawks (the main type of combat plane used by the CANA by that time). 

After three months of French language teaching, they were sent to Landivisiau Air Naval Base, where they flew training sorties in Morane Saulnier planes during 30 days and then began to know their future combat tool - the AMD-BA (Avions Marcel Dassault - Breguet Aviation) Super Etendard. Later, the Argentine pilots started to learn the basic flight lessons in the Super Etendard (a maximum of 50 hours of flight by each pilot) and basic notions about the weapon systems, especially the anti-ship missile AM.39 Exocet. 

But on April 2nd 1982, when the 2nd Squadron was waiting the arrival of the French technical team to put the Exocets in an operational status. One of the first acts of the French government was to declare a weapons embargo against Argentina until the conflict ended. 

Of course, it deprived the 2nd Squadron of the possibility of being assisted by French technicians but the Argentine personnel of the unit, far from giving up, faced on their own the challenge to set up the Exocets. Two weeks later, the software interface between airplane and missile had been solved, and the tests on anti-ship strikes began. Fortunately for the Argentineans, the country had bought from Great Britain two Type 42 destroyers (the same class used by the Royal Navy), the ARA Hércules and ARA Santísima Trinidad. In consequence, the unit's pilots tested and improved the attack tactics against these kinds of ships. The unit had only reveive 5 Exocet before Miterrand say no more, so want to make good use of it.


*The Mission, entering the Neptunes.*

At 5:07 hrs on May 4th 1982, a SP-2H Neptune, serial number 0708/2-P-112, call sign 'Mercurio', belonging to the Exploration Squadron of the CANA, took off from Río Grande Air Naval Base. The plane's crew was composed of three members, and the pilot was Corvette Captain Ernesto Proni Leston.

At 7:50 the Neptune had his first radar contact with a British warship, and Proni reported the news to the CANA. He was ordered to keep contact but with discretion. 'Mercurio' had two other contacts at 8:14 and 8:43. A few minutes later an order from the High Command of CANA arrived to evade any contact until 10:00 hrs. Proni guessed that an Exocet sortie was on the way, and set the Neptune's course to the area of the wreckage of the ARA General Belgrano, pretending to be part of a rescue mission searching for survivors. 







The news about Captain Proni's findings arrived to Río Grande quickly, and it was the turn for Corvette Captain Augusto César Bedacarratz and Frigate Lieutenat Armando Mayora to fly the anti-ship sorties, and all the other pilots helped to prepare the flight paths, points of meeting with the KC-130H tanker, etc. Both Super Etendards took off from Río Grande at 9:45 hrs. Bedacarratz, the leader, (call sign 'Aries') flew the plane 0752/3-A-202, and Mayora, the wingman, (call sign 'Boina') did so with his plane 0753/3-A-203. At 10:00 hrs they met the KC-130H tanker provided by the FAA (Fuerza Aérea Argentina - Argentine Air Force) piloted by Vicecommodore Pessana and received all the necessary fuel to complete the mission. 


*The mission map *(Britains Small Wars)






At 10:35, Corvette Captain Proni did his last climb at 1,170 meters (3,500 feet) and detected a big contact and two medium-size in the coordinates 52º 33' 55'' South, 57º 40' 55'' West. A few minutes later he radioed both Super Etendards and gave the information to Bedacarratz. After that, Proni set his course to Río Grande and landed at 12:04 hrs. His long sortie had reached the end. 

But the mission of the SUEs (nickname given by the Argentine pilots to the Super Etendards) had just begun. Flying at very low altitude, around 10:50 hrs they climbed at 160 meters (500 feet) to verify the coordinates given by Proni, but they found... nothing! Both pilots turned back to searching and Bedacarratz decided to continue. 40 kms (25 miles) later they climbed again and, after a few seconds of scanning, the targets appeared on their radar screens. Both pilots loaded the coordinates in their weapons systems, turned back to low level, and after the last minute check, launched their AM.39 Exocets. The exact time was 11:04 hrs. 


*Fire ¡¡*






Bedacarratz and Mayora landed at 12:04 hrs, exactly an hour after having launched the missiles. It is unnecessary to say that they were received by their happy comrades as heroes.

There still debate if the Exocet explode or not when it hit the Sheffield, in my opinion the 165 kilograms warhead carried by the French missile should done more damage if exploded. the effect were as vicius however. The damage was serius enough to made his crew abandon ship and finally scuttled on the 10 May 1982.


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2007)

Good posting as ever CB. I am certain that the Exocet didn't explode. . When we were sailing into Gibralter and passed a target ship (an old frigate) that had been hit by an Exocet during acceptance trials for the RN. The damage was huge, with a massive hole from just above the waterline up to and including most of the superstructure. How she stayed afloat was a minor miracle.
We were a jolly lot waiting for shore leave and the entire ship went quiet as we passed and realised the power of modern weapons. Its one thing to be told and trained for something, its quite another to actually see it first hand. 

Re the attack on the Balgrano there was no doubt that at the time the Argentine Navy were a major threat. 

On the 23rd April the 25 de Mayo (Argentine Aircraft Carrier) was spotted by the Splendid asked for permission to attack but was denied as she was outside the exclusion zone. 

On the 26th April the_Splendid_ spotted the Argentine Type 42 destroyers and three Exocet Frigates heading it was believed to join the _25 da Mayo_ and was able to follow them for 24 hours until he was ordered away.

The seas around the Falklands were split into four segments and three SSN were allocated to patrol them. _Conquror_ was allocated the Southwest, _Spartan_ the Northwest, _Splendid_ the Northeast.

On the 28th May the SSN's were in position and the Taskforce was approaching the Islands from the Northeast to keep the maximum distance from the mainland.
On the same day SIgnal intelligence and Satellite intelligence advised that the _25 de Mayo_ had again set sail with an escort to the island. Still on the 28th the _Conqureor_ had a contact with the _Belgrano_ group.

To the British, it looked as if the Argentine Navy were preparing a Pincer Attack with two forces against the task force that was approaching the Island.

The _Conqueror_ had trouble with communications as her comms mast had been damaged in high seas but she was easily able to trail the Argentine force at a distance of about seven miles astern. The _Belgrano_ force stayed aoutside the Exclusion zone but only by 25 miles and set up a straight forward zig zag course.

On the 1st May, British signal Intelligence were informed that the _25 de Mayo_ had been informed of the position of the Task Force and gave the position of the Argentine carrier. The _Splendid_ picked up the message but the _Spartan_ didn't and the target was in _Spartan's_ area of patrol.

The British concluded, correctly, that an attack was planned for the morning of the 2nd/3rd May. The nightmare scenario being an Exocet attack by the _Belgrano_ group followed up by the Cruiser, as the task force received an air raid from the _25 de Mayo_.

As the British didn't have an SSN in contact with the _25 de Mayo_, the only option was to take out one of the claws of the attack, namely the _Belgrano_ and the order was given. Even if she was just outside the Exclusion Zone given the tactical situation there was little alternative.

There was another reason for the urgency. The _Belgrano_ was close to an area of shallow water called the Burdwood Bank approx 70 miles wide by 200 miles long. If the Argentine ships had gone over that area the SSN's would have been unable to follow, or at least at extreme risk to themselves.

Had we been in touch with the _25 de Mayo_ there is no doubt that we would have taken them both out, as the Carrier was by far the most important of the two.

Sorry for the length of the reply but the background was vital to understanding the reason for the sinking.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2007)

No problemo, I like long post.

What can I tell you ? fisrt I think that every in here are smart enough to realize that a war is not footbal game that you need to be fair played a always gentlemen, in the other hand The Belgrano sinking was also caused by the bad actuation of the surface combatants of the Navy, moreover in the exact time of the torpedo hits the Belgrano was slowing down and doing some suface target practice instead mantains his speedover 25 knots (it is was old ship but still capable to do that) In the only pic of the cruiser sinking you can see the turrets trained to the left. The captain should be hanged by his incompetence.

And regarding the Exocet yes I agree I get some video of the effect when it actally exploded and it is more espectacular than the Sheffield hole.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqAxsQu8wio_


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 17, 2007)

Hey CB. No offense, but where are you cutting and pasting this stuff from?


----------



## Glider (Feb 18, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> No problemo, I like long post.
> 
> What can I tell you ? fisrt I think that every in here are smart enough to realize that a war is not footbal game that you need to be fair played a always gentlemen, in the other hand The Belgrano sinking was also caused by the bad actuation of the surface combatants of the Navy, moreover in the exact time of the torpedo hits the Belgrano was slowing down and doing some suface target practice instead mantains his speedover 25 knots (it is was old ship but still capable to do that) In the only pic of the cruiser sinking you can see the turrets trained to the left. The captain should be hanged by his incompetence.
> 
> ...




I have information about the Belgrano doing target practice, in fact I doubt that she was as the SSN would certainly have heard her and possibly seen her through the scope and it would have been included in the report.
Re her speed, she was an old ship and still capable of 25 knots but she wouldn't have cruised at 25 knots. She had been at sea for a few days and her cruising speed is more likely to have been in the 18-20 knot bracket.

When a ship sinks its normal for the turrets to turn in the direction of the list. I don't know why but most shots I have seen of sinking ships have this factor.

As for hanging the captain for incompatance thats a bit hard. A modern well trained up SSN was always going to beat a WW2 cruiser (even if we did use a WW2 torpedo, the Mk 8). The ones who should be hung are the captains of the escorts who ran away and never came back to pick up the survivors. Most of the crew got off the ship and I believe more died in the water than on the ship.


----------



## Glider (Feb 18, 2007)

Apologies I should have started 'I have no information about the Belgrano doing target practice'


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2007)

Yes, the contest is likely to be win by the subamarine, but if Bonzo put his ship at 25-27 knots it would be a less vulnerable target.



> The ones who should be hung are the captains of the escorts who ran away and never came back to pick up the survivors



I have no problem executing that people too.









> Hey CB. No offense, but where are you cutting and pasting this stuff from?


 
No cutting and pasting nothing...you perhaps try to know my *sources* in the last post ?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i5c-V3xD2Q_

The part of the footage showing an Exocet released is wrong however, that Aircraft in from the Aeronavale.


----------



## Glider (Feb 19, 2007)

I have no problem executing that people too.
.[/QUOTE]

Remind me never to really, really upset you


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2007)

You are british...so I dont have to explain you that in wartimes some drastic measures are needed.


----------



## Glider (Feb 21, 2007)

If you execute everyone who makes a mistake then: -

a) You will not learn from the mistakes that are made
b) No one will make a decision in case its a mistake

resulting in : -
c) You lose


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2007)

If the decition involves left 300 men drown to save their own skin I think is justified.

Court martial and straight to the wall.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 12, 2007)

Harrier and Sea Harrier of the Falklands/Malvinas war.













Plates from: Battle for the Falklands, The Air Forces. Osprey publishing.


----------



## Glider (Mar 13, 2007)

A captured 20mm AA gun. There were a number of these around the islands and they caused a lot of concern to the British in the AA role and in the ground role.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 13, 2007)

Those are from the Imperial war museum maybe ?


----------



## Glider (Mar 14, 2007)

Yes. The captured 35mm were refurbished and issued to a reserve RAF regiment to back up the Rapiers. 
Later the guns were put in museums and the Skyguard radars incorporated into a weapons range for air to air combat over the North Sea. This was based on the Nellis principle but has to be over water as we simply don't have the airspace over land. So its not perfect by any means, but its a lot better than nothing.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 15, 2007)

> This was based on the Nellis principle but has to be over water as we simply don't have the airspace over land. So its not perfect by any means, but its a lot better than nothing.




Thanks for that info, I have no idea of the usage of the Oerlikons by the British Forces, just that they were captured.








By the way anybody got some pics/footage of the British field artillery in the war...I cant found nothing significative.


----------



## blue_halloween (Mar 16, 2007)

background: A group of scrap collectors landed on South Georgia an island to the south of the Falklands and started to remove old whaleing sheds, they had no right to be there and were told by the British navy to go.They first raised the Argentine flag declared the island retaken for Argentina and then had to take it down and leave.
At that time Argentiana was ruled by a " junta " goverment meaning, by the military they tried to Politicly " save face " and increase polpularity by invading the Falkland islands. Which they did, we had semi warning they were going to attack but our best shot was a company of marines and a few civilians that were armed. 

while in the army i came back from germany on the sir galahad,It went on to the Falklands , this was a troop landing ship that was caught by argentine A-4 bombers, caught fire and sunk with loss of life .At the start of the war there was a worry that the Argentine navy would attack it was a real serious threat to us. we didnt have any forward bases as such and had to reply on carriers. The Uk declared a ' exclustion " zone around the islands and basicly said any Argentine vessel or aircraft would be attacked if it entered the zone.The Crusier the Belgrano was an ex USN cruiser ( which had survived pearl harbour ) which could have quite easily taken out the British carriers the offical story goes it was crusing up and down with its attack group outside the zone and then made a course change which would bring it in the zone.We attacked with a submarine and sunk it with great loss of life.Some of the looses could be blamed on the fact that the Argentine attack group ran for home as soon as the Cruiser was hit.Thus leaving the surviving crew to the elements.The argentine representative to the Un was quoted as saying " Britania might not rule the waves but she waves the rules " as the belgrano was attacked and sunk outside the exclustion zone.There was world protest at the loss of life and the fact it was attacked outside the zone, i think politicly it was a demonstration that the Uk meant buisness.
With the ARN safely back in port the only thing open to the Argentine " junta " goverment was use the Airforce which they did to the best of thier ability, but the reality was they were far from home flying as low as possable and had not only the RAf harriers ready to bounce them but all the " goalposting " ships on the way in to the targets. I even as a brit cant help but admire the bravery of those pilots., but it was a lost cause as soon as we landed the Argentine army started to be rolled back.Apart from a few profesional troops the main bulk of the Argentines were young kids given a gun and asked to fight against one of the best trained armys in the world they mainly ran, it was only after the British army had " yomped " as we called it ... Yomp meaning a long distance march carrying all our kit of 80 miles across the islands that the last Die hard troops of Argentina started to fight on the outskirts of Port Stanley ( the capitol )but it was all over in days.
I can remember the frustration of being back in the UK and wanting to get down there, and the anger at the world not understanding the situation.To the world it was a fight over an stupid island thousands of miles away from the British mainland , fact of the matter was even though the islands are closer to the Argentine mainland than the Uk the people were given a vote " stay with the Uk or be with the Argentines " They voted to stay part of the Uk. Speak english, use english currency and have an english goverment, and so the Americans need to think, it was to us like an " invasion of Rhode island " small not really worth it but still the USA. 
End of the story is the Uk won the islands back and then fortified it into a major Airbase. Argentina has very little chance now of a " mutal " gain of the island.Its stalemate no Argentine Goverment would dare to policitly try and get a vote to retake the islands and no british goverment would put a " give away " on the Agenda


----------



## blue_halloween (Mar 16, 2007)

As an update i can remember going to see an end of war expo in London they had there a " downed pucara " aircraft the thing was totaly wrecked .There was a sign saying " damaged incured during the fighting " One of my Army buddys who was lucky enough to see the fighting told me that the thing had be brought down with a single round through the radiator. faced with an impossable flight back to Argentina the pilot decided to make a controlled landing which he did and was cpatured. The Aircraft at the time was complete, but later that night half of the Parachute regiment armed with wrenches, screwdrivers and any other tools they could get their hands on stripped it down for souveniers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2007)

blue_halloween said:


> One of my Army buddys who was lucky enough to see the fighting told me that the thing had be brought down with a single round through the radiator.



To experience combat is not lucky...

I have experienced and I think the others in this forum who have will agree with me on that.


----------



## blue_halloween (Mar 18, 2007)

At the time i was trained, young fit and ready to fight.You wanted, to see how good you were, to be tested.Im trying to relate to how i felt then and at the time i was so frustrated at not going, and people that did, in the eyes of a fully trained eighteen year old seemed lucky.I can be quite sure i would have changed my mind under fire but i was,nt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2007)

Just from my experience. When I joined at 20 I knew that I might have to go to war and for that I trained very hard but I had no desire to prove myself or to go to war. I dont think anyone in my unit really wanted to either. 

Then after serving in combat for 14 months I realized that I was correct in not wanting to go to war. War sucks and it is nothing to lucky about...

That is just from my experiences though.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 18, 2007)

> One of my Army buddys who was lucky enough to see the fighting told me that the thing had be brought down with a single round through the radiator.




Uh..????  


Are you talking about this aircraft...?








or perhaps about this ...?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 30, 2007)

*No notices of Blue hallowen..???* Ha ¡¡¡ Why I am not surprized. Some people made "hit and runs", post crap and then disapear.


Well, back on topic, information about Argentine Armada Sbd on request by some Hungarian Member.


The ARA Santa Fe S-21 (Guppy II type) operated in the Falklands and Georgias.
It was used to infiltrate Buzos Tácticos ( Navy divers) during April 2nd and then used to reinforce the presence in the Georgias with a reduced group of marines (codename: Golf)
Damaged due to the impact of an AS-12 missile launched by Sea Lynx in the morning of April 25th, it managed to reach Grytviken.

Later, when the Argentinian forces surrendered, some personnel of the Santa Fe was order to move the sub to another position.Is not clear why but NCO Artuso ,who was operating the "manifold" and have to make fast moves in very short time was shot dead by a trigger happy RN marine.

In the summer of 1984-85 RMAS Goosander and other ship called Salvageman tried to tow ARA Sante Fe, but failed because of the severe conditions at sea.




















The other was ARA San Luis.
The ARA San Luis was a Type 209 german sub, built in 1974 and it’s situation wasn´t the best: refrigeration ducts and main structure covered with incrustations. Due to the need of the ship, divers started the cleaning operations because Mar del Plata’s base lacked of a dry dock.

When te job was finished, the ship was re-supplied and armed with SST-4 and Honeywell Mk37 torpedoes.

By April 11th ARA San Luis was at the sea, travelling to the Falklands. During one of the exercises the fire director computer broke down. Azcueta informed this to his superiors, but with the lack of any other submarine (ARA Salta was at the dry dock) the mission have to continue.







The first contact with the enemy navy was in May 1st, when the sonnar detected the presence of one target cassified as a destroyer.
At 1015 the San Luis launched an SST-4 to the target, but it failed due to the cut of the cable. Then the sub was attacked with depth charges, but managed to escape from it’s persuders.






The last “offensive” mission took place May 11 at 0140 when San Luis launched SST-4 torpedo to one target classified as frigate, but again the torpedo cable failed.
The commander Azcueta broke radio silence and informed his situation. The order: return to the base and try to repair the fire director.
By June 14th personnel of ARA San Luis were still trying to fix the sub to return to the Falklands.

The problem with SST-4 were in the fire train, that allows the explosion of the charge of the war head and the unrolling system of the cable.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 3, 2007)

*Attack against the HMS Antelope, 23th may 1982:*






In this date Argentine Air Force Escuadron III Grupo 5 A-4B and Argentine Navy Third Escuadrilla A-4Q Skyhawks attacked the type 21 Amazon class frigate, the HMS Antelope. During the attack A-4Q/B piloted by Captain P. Carballo was inverted by an exploding missile but damaged it manage to return the mainland.

*Damage on Carballo s A-4.*






A Group 5 Skyhawk piloted by 1st leutenat L.Guadagnini was hit by 20mm cannon in the moment he was dropping his bomb. He manage to hit the Antelope with the 500 kilograms weapon but crashed against an radar mast. 

Another Skyhawk piloted by ensign H. Gómez dropped a bomb on HMS Antelope but the bomb didn't explode.







The Argentine attacks scored multiple bomb hits on Antelope causing serious damage and fires. The still afloat Antelope was forced from combat. During the night, while attempting to disarm an un-exploded bomb, the artifact exploded opening Antelope's hull and cutting the ship in half. HMS Antelope sank in the morning of the day 24th..


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> *The ARA Santa Fe S-21 (Guppy II type) operated in the Falklands and Georgias.
> It was used to infiltrate Buzos Tácticos ( Navy divers) during April 2nd and then used to reinforce the presence in the Georgias with a reduced group of marines (codename: Golf)
> Damaged due to the impact of an AS-12 missile launched by Sea Lynx in the morning of April 25th, it managed to reach Grytviken.
> 
> *


*

CB If it helps, the information I have is that the Santa Fe was first attacked by a Wessex from HMS Antrim that dropped two depth Charges which damaged her so she couldn't submerge. She was then harrased by machine gun fire from the Wessex and a Lynx from HMS Brilliant. The AS12 was fired by a Wasp from HMS Endurance that punched through the fin seriously injuring a machine gunner who had been trying to defend the Sub against the Wessex and the Lynx. 
The machine gunner lost his legs and was taken on bord the Antrim for medical care.*


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> *Attack against the HMS Antelope, 23th may 1982:*



CB My information is similar but different in a few respects. 
During the first attack on the Antelope, Lt Filipini struck the after mast of the Anterlope with his drop tank. He survived the attack and the only damage to the drop tank was a deep gouge to one side of the tank with a fin knocked off. This was checked on landing at Rio Gallegos
Lt Guadagnini was also in this attack and his machine was hit by a Sea Wolf and possibly a Rapier resulting in his death.
A second strike by 3rd Escuadrilla came in almost at the same time and Lt Rotolo reported that they hadn't been expecting the Rapiers to be in place. This unit escaped without loss but on landing Lt Com Zubizarreta drifted off the runway, he ejected and was killed when the seat failed to operate correctly. Strangely enough the plane was later repaired and had he stayed with it, he would have survived. 

Hope this is of interest


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 4, 2007)

> CB If it helps, the information I have is that the Santa Fe was first attacked by a Wessex from HMS Antrim that dropped two depth Charges which damaged her so she couldn't submerge. She was then harrased by machine gun fire from the Wessex and a Lynx from HMS Brilliant. The AS12 was fired by a Wasp from HMS Endurance that punched through the fin seriously injuring a machine gunner who had been trying to defend the Sub against the Wessex and the Lynx.
> The machine gunner lost his legs and was taken on bord the Antrim for medical care.


 
Well, I woulndt cal a FM Fal a machine gun. The Captains word:



> ¿Podría relatar el ataque al "Santa Fe"?
> 
> Bicain: Tenía previsto partir desde la caleta a las 04:00, pero la maniobra de descarga se retrasó casi una hora. Concluida la tarea, ordeno al Jefe de Navegación partir con los motores diesel a la máxima velocidad posible y con la nave lista para ir a inmersión.
> 
> ...



Bebelfish translation:

Could relate the attack to "Santa Fe"? Bicain:


It had predicted to start off from the creek for 04:00, but the unloading maneuver was delayed almost one hour. Concluded the task, I order the Head of Navigation to divide with the diesel engines for the Maxima speed possible and with the ready ship to go to immersion.

The exit of the bay consumed about 50 minutes to us, anticipating to make a defeat similar to the one of the entrance. When we reached open waters surrounded by the penumbra of the dawn, caímos to port, already five minutes to happen to immersion surprise a helicopter to us Westland Wasp that left clouds and it dropped a depth bomb to us that expotó near the security tank. 

The explosion also caused not only the sacudimiento of the ship but the interruption in the provision of energy and the cut of communications. I ordered to turn towards the coast while more airships came near than they reached to launch seeking torpedoes, those that were not effective by the little depth. 

In the connin tower they were of Feldman guard and Muraciole, these crew along with Ghiglione, Mareco, Macias, Silva and Bustamante armed themselves voluntarily with dowry guns FAL and began to repel the attack. This action denied to the helicopters the ship vertical to them and only it allowed to shoot them to us with his light arms of attack. Suddenly, one of the enemy ships sent a missile to us, that I consider must have been AS-ll or AS 12, that hits and crosses the candle. I thought that they had killed all my there outstanding personnel, but when I asked the new features inform to me that only it had been hurt Macias, that lost a leg. The nurse Funes sergeant major made first aid to him, preventing him hemorrhages that him had cost the life (1). 

In spite of the received damages, we could reach the wharf of the British scientific station places setting by the arms of the IM disembarked, that shot to him to the helicopters until with the missiles antitank. With this answer the British airships assumed safer positions. We berthed using the periscope and as soon as the conditions allowed the crew it was descending from the ship, the one that when having some of its perforated tanks, leaned quickly on the bed that was to little depth of the keel. 






My second, the corvette captain Michelis, suggests to move away the submarine off the coast and to sink it, but before the possibility that the ship still had possibilities of sailing, I order to hope until the night to assess the damage and in case of being possible we retired under the protection of the dark (2). Lamentably the Captain Lakes informed me at17:00 that we were going to surrender to avoid a massacre, since the British forces had surrounded the position and two frigates began their harassment. Lakes fulfilled the political directors whom the superiority had imposed him. This is that the English had to take the Georgias with an act from force. Later I could appreciate that the decision had been guessed right by the amount of British forces it jeopardize for the recovery

--------------------

And yes Zubizarreta was hit by a strong cross wind tipical of the patagonian flats.

The Air Force report does not indicate any hit of sea wolf or rapier in Guadagnini aircraft.

A picture of Luciano Guadagnini from 5th Air Brigade killed in action 23-5-1982.






Perversely the british tabloid "The sun" published a cover with the title "Argie suicide attack pilots" in relation with the death of this pilot.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2007)

Very close with the only difference being the Wessex droping the depth charge not the Wasp.
It was almost unheard of for a Wasp to carry a depth charge as they weighed too much for safety. I used to work on the Wasp in the RN and we normally took the doors off to save weight when operating at anything like a full load.


----------



## royal744 (May 5, 2007)

What strange war this was! With not a single Argentinian citizen living in the Falklands, the Argentinians had the cheek to lay claim to these islands which have been British for a very, very long time. One hates to speak of such things, but frankly, the Argentinians - ruled at the time by a bunch of very dim-witted army types - were ssuffering from testosterone poisoning and blithely assumed that because a woman was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, that they could just do the tango and take it. Clearly, they had no knowledge of Margaret Thatcher. They even had the execrable bad taste to cast sexual slurs in her direction which probably sealed the deal for the Argentinians. It is a fact that the French Exocets were a grave threat to the British task force, but the Argies did not have enough of them to make a decisive difference. Little known is role played in the Falklands war of the Asian troops that England also used, some of the best fighters in the world. Frankly, Argentina was incredibly stupid to launch this disastrous adventure and, in the process, lost the only aircraft carrier they had. Now their navy air force has to practice touch and gos on American carriers when they come to call. What a waste this all has been. There are few things as dumb as the male ego given full rein, but then, on the other hand, the British ego and professionalism made relatively short work of the Argentinians.


----------



## mkloby (May 5, 2007)

royal744 said:


> What strange war this was! With not a single Argentinian citizen living in the Falklands, the Argentinians had the cheek to lay claim to these islands which have been British for a very, very long time. One hates to speak of such things, but frankly, the Argentinians - ruled at the time by a bunch of very dim-witted army types - were ssuffering from testosterone poisoning and blithely assumed that because a woman was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, that they could just do the tango and take it. Clearly, they had no knowledge of Margaret Thatcher. They even had the execrable bad taste to cast sexual slurs in her direction which probably sealed the deal for the Argentinians. It is a fact that the French Exocets were a grave threat to the British task force, but the Argies did not have enough of them to make a decisive difference. Little known is role played in the Falklands war of the Asian troops that England also used, some of the best fighters in the world. Frankly, Argentina was incredibly stupid to launch this disastrous adventure and, in the process, lost the only aircraft carrier they had. Now their navy air force has to practice touch and gos on American carriers when they come to call. What a waste this all has been. There are few things as dumb as the male ego given full rein, but then, on the other hand, the British ego and professionalism made relatively short work of the Argentinians.



Margaret Thatcher carried bigger balls as PM than just about any PM in recent memory.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2007)

_"Little known is role played in the Falklands war of the Asian troops that England also used, some of the best fighters in the world."_

Little is known because they did little. The Ghurkas hardly did anything, they were there but the Royal Marines and Paras made all the gains.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 7, 2007)

> What strange war this was! With not a single Argentinian citizen



Untrue.There was about 40-50 citizens living in the islands. Even more the only Airline who reach the islands was Argentine, LADE (Lineas Aereas del Estado)




> living in the Falklands, the Argentinians had the cheek to lay claim to these islands which have been British for a very, very long time



If the britons dont want any claim they shouldnt invaded the islands in 1833



> One hates to speak of such things, but frankly, the Argentinians - ruled at the time by a bunch of very dim-witted army types - were ssuffering from testosterone poisoning and blithely assumed that because a woman was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, that they could just do the tango and take it. Clearly, they had no knowledge of Margaret Thatcher. They even had the execrable bad taste to cast sexual slurs in her direction which probably sealed the deal for the Argentinians , some of the best fighters in the world. Frankly, Argentina was incredibly stupid to launch this disastrous adventure What a waste this all has been. There are few things as dumb as the male ego given full rein, but then, on the other hand, the British ego and professionalism made relatively short work of the Argentinians



Debatable, in any case there is far better examples ( and more modern ones) of "testosterone poisoning" "disastrous adventures" "stupid launchings" and wasted human lives in a scale much bigger than 1982 , and those did not include Argentina, argentine military and not even a military goverment.



> and, in the process, lost the only aircraft carrier they had. Now their navy air force has to practice touch and gos on American carriers when they come to call. .




*PURE, SCANDALOUS and BIG CRAP*, the ARA 25 de mayo was decomissioned in 1997.

Man...there is people who work hard to be perceived as morons in here.


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2007)

Easy CB. It's all a learning process and the debates are educational for all.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 9, 2007)

You see ?... No response at all by "royal744" . I dont know why this topic atract so many trolls/opinators.


----------



## Matt308 (May 9, 2007)

Because it is educational. Hey, I find your posts to be very informative and for the most part unbiased. For the most part. Those who are in disagreement can form an argument. I haven't seen too many of those.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 10, 2007)

> Hey, I find your posts to be very informative and for the most part unbiased.



Oh, thanks for that.


----------



## Matt308 (May 10, 2007)

Great pic. What is the sidearm and the leather mag pouches?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 10, 2007)

The leather pouch Is for a 9mm Sterling smg ,used exclusively by Arg. navy tactical divers.






The sidearm I am not sure, it could be a 9x19 FM High Power...







..or a .45 Ballester Molina.


----------



## Matt308 (May 10, 2007)

You read my mind on the sidearm! I was thinking it was likely the Highpower. However, I would not have guessed the Sterling. Way cool. What I would give...


----------



## rogthedodge (May 10, 2007)

A few facts and the odd rumour to help this thread along.

The sidewinders were NATO-designated stocks for use in a NATO war only (ie Germany). The Brits grabbed them and the US quietly re-started production to replenish the NATO stock - apparently other NATO members were not informed.

VIFFING (vectoring in forward flight - ie a dead stop/upwards movement as the mirage carries on past) was not an approved RN/RAF technique and had been developed by the USM when they were evaluating the Harrier. It was tried for the first time by the Brits during the Falklands work-up. This and the 'new' sidewinders accounted for the harrier's A2A success.

US certainly supplied satellite intel - there was even some discussion of the RN being lent a USN carrier but it never happened for political / practical reasons.

Ships close into the Falklands were due to rely on Rapier AA missile systems for defence but when they unpacked it it was found to be completely useless. If it had worked the results may have been much different.

HMS Glamorgan was hit by a land-launched Exocet, my mate was on the bridge at the time - great quote by a lookout - 'sir, there's a big sparkly thing coming our way'. The ship was turning at the time and the missile exploded in the helicopter hanger, killing the Pilot (my mate's friend) and other crew (about 11?)

Gurkhas didn't kill anyone but their psychological impact on conscript troops with ineffectual leaders shouldn't be under estimated. They're renowned for sneaking about in the dark and playing 'tricks' on other troops - even in the UK. It's also reported their reputation and the smell of curry wafting down from the hills led to many Argentinian positions being abandoned.

There were French technicians still in Argentina once the conflict started matching the exocets to the super etendards - the excuse was that they 'forgot' to recall them. Pictures of the Sheffield were heavily used in subsequent advertising by the french manufacturer.

Rumour - a number of American mercenaries were captured when Stanley fell, after a call to the White House these guys were 'offed' to avoid embarrasment all round. It was such a persistant rumour that UK police travelled down to the Falklands to investigate but failed to turn up any reliable evidence.

This is all from books, newspapers and memory so apologies for any errors but I believe it all to be true (the mercenary rumour has been told me by 2 people who were on the ground at the time but I'd still only class it as a rumour)

I didn't see any of this reported in the other posts, apologies if I missed it - it's late!


----------



## trackend (May 11, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> The leather pouch Is for a 9mm Sterling smg ,used exclusively by Arg. navy tactical divers.



Do they still use sterlings ? CB


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 11, 2007)

> Rumour - a number of American mercenaries were captured when Stanley fell, after a call to the White House these guys were 'offed' to avoid embarrasment all round. It was such a persistant rumour that UK police travelled down to the Falklands to investigate but failed to turn up any reliable evidence.



First time I ever heard of that.



> Do they still use sterlings ? CB



I think they still have some equipped with silencers. ( there is a very famous picture of a navy diver guding british prisoners with one ) but due the large adquisition of material in the mid 1990s now there is several Colt M-4 carbines and H&K MP5 . also the Chilean FAMAE SAF with is nearly a clone of the MP5 is used.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 11, 2007)

Trying to find a source:

Nothing definitive, best so far:

From MoD Oracle Forums: VC killed by Friendly fire?

"Yes there was talk about American Mercenaries being shot, but nothing was ever confirmed either from Argentina or America. It is rather like these conspiracy theories once these stories start they take on a life of their own"



Extract from A very British war: the Falklands remembered - Independent Online Edition > World Politics
includes this mention by a BBC radio reporter - "The only Americans I came across were US mercenaries serving as snipers with one of the Argentinian infantry battalions." Their fate is not mentioned.

ARRSE (British Army Rumour Service) seems to think, collectively it was just a rumour:

"As to the US mercenary story, whether that was complete fantasy or based on the American accents of those English speaking Argentinean POW’s I am uncertain. If there was an execution of some of these, only a certain select few can answer. That one of these few chose to comment upon it to Vince Bramley and his decision to include it in his book was naïve at best." 

From: British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Cultural Corner > > Military History and Militaria > > Falklands War Myths

I'm 99% certain that Scotland Yard detectives travelled down to investigate such was the strength and persistance of the rumours.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Sterling - it's a very dangerous weapon, if set on auto it can easily go off if dropped. Only fired it once - in single shot and it wasn't that great!


----------



## Matt308 (May 11, 2007)

Very interesting Rog.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 11, 2007)

Try as I might I can only find oblique / inconclusive references to the Scotland Yard investigation into the 'mercenary murders' but I'm damned sure it happened (the investigation, not the 'murders').


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 11, 2007)

> HMS Glamorgan was hit by a land-launched Exocet, my mate was on the bridge at the time - great quote by a lookout - 'sir, there's a big sparkly thing coming our way'. The ship was turning at the time and the missile exploded in the helicopter hanger, killing the Pilot (my mate's friend) and other crew (about 11?)




For more about and some images:

Untitled Document


----------



## rogthedodge (May 11, 2007)

Thanks - I babel fished it and it seems to confirm what my mate told me just after the war - that the ship was turned end-on to present the smallest target.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 13, 2007)

The damage inflicted in the HMS Glamorgan could be seen in here:

HMS Glamorgan


----------



## royal744 (May 18, 2007)

Still, all in all, a war - like the current American catastrophe in Iraq - a war that should never have been initiated. Just because some islands are relatively close to a country is no reason and certainly no justification for laying claim to it. If that were the case, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island would be American, and St Pierre Miquelon in the St. Lawrence Seaway would be Canadian instead of French and, by the same flawed argument, Great Britain would belong to France, or perhaps the European continent would belong to the United Kingdom. The reason these arguments seem so foolish is because they are. 

Bronson says 40-50 Argentinians "lived" in the Falklands. I don't doubt it. Several hundred thousand Indians from the Indian Subcontinent live in the US, but I don't think anyone is going to make a case that New Delhi has a claim here. By this line of reasoning, every country neighboring Argentina is in mortal peril, which is not the case. But the Falklands? Easy pickings - or so they thought.

All this justification for trying to steal something that doesn't belong to one is so petty and inexcusably childish it's a wonder that the authors of these arguments don't break out in peals of laughter whenever they see themselves in the mirror.


----------



## royal744 (May 19, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> *PURE, SCANDALOUS and BIG CRAP*, the ARA 25 de mayo was decomissioned in 1997.
> 
> Man...there is people who work hard to be perceived as morons in here.



First of all, apologies to CB regarding the carrier. I misunderstood a show I saw on National Public Television about Argentinian naval aviation during which it discussed how they no longer had an operational aircraft carrier and used visiting American carriers to practice landing and take-off skills. My error.

Secondly, what is a "troll"?

Thirdly, I do stand by the rest of what I said. Thanks,


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 19, 2007)

My response of the number of citizens living in the Islands came after your crappy statement that no argentine people was present and I repeat...The only link of the islands with the external world was the LADE Airlines, no a single british enterprise take the trouble to do that before 1982.



> All this justification for trying to steal something that doesn't belong to one is so petty and inexcusably childish it's a wonder that the authors of these arguments don't break out in peals of laughter whenever they see themselves in the mirror



I completely agree with you,the british shoulndt stole the territory.

And if you dont agree with the Argentine claim, fine, is not the end of the world, 39 million people can live with that. 


And the Argentinian naval losses were a cruiser, 2 small cost guard vessels, a submarine, and two transport ships.


----------



## royal744 (May 19, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> As far as I know there are only two major countries that still use conventional carriers: Russia and the US.



Actually Devo, I don't think the Russians ever quite finished that carrier of theirs and I'm pretty sure it was never operationally used anywhere. The French have a carrier, maybe two. The British clearly do, and the Americans have many. Not sure about the Canadians. I know the Australians had at least one for a time, because I saw it tied up and looking forlorn in Sydney harbor. Carriers are horrifically expensive to maintain, to crew, and to run, and the equipment that uses it costs a bloody fortune. Prestige alone is insufficient reason to own one, or two, or three.. carriers are a greatway to project power far from home, but in this day and age, lose one and there will be hell to pay.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2007)

royal744 said:


> Still, all in all, a war - like the current American catastrophe in Iraq - a war that should never have been initiated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2007)

royal744 said:


> Actually Devo, I don't think the Russians ever quite finished that carrier of theirs and I'm pretty sure it was never operationally used anywhere. The French have a carrier, maybe two. The British clearly do, and the Americans have many. Not sure about the Canadians. I know the Australians had at least one for a time, because I saw it tied up and looking forlorn in Sydney harbor. Carriers are horrifically expensive to maintain, to crew, and to run, and the equipment that uses it costs a bloody fortune. Prestige alone is insufficient reason to own one, or two, or three.. carriers are a greatway to project power far from home, but in this day and age, lose one and there will be hell to pay.




Here are the carriers that are in use today other than the US Carriers, some are nuclear powered however:

*Brazil*: NAe São Paulo (ex Foch [France])

*France:* Charles de Gaulle (R 91)

*India:* INS Viraat (ex HMS Hermes [England])

*Italy:* Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) and Cavour (550) (launched in 2004 expected to be commisioned in 2008)

*Russia:* Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov (ex Tbilisi and then Leonid Brezhnev) and 

*The other Russian Carrier you are talking about was the Varyag and she was never finished and sold to China, but has not been refitted for combat roles*

*Spain:* Principe de Asturias (R11)

*Thailand:* HTMS Chakri Nareubet

*United Kingdom:* HMS Illustrious (R06) and HMS Ark Royal (R07) and HMS Ocean (L12) with HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales under construction.


----------



## royal744 (May 19, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I completely agree with you,the british shoulndt stole the territory.



From The Falklands War (1982) / La Guerra de Las Malvinas (1982)
As a primary school student in Buenos Aires, I remember the indoctrination we were subjected to in geography lessons. We were asked to color the Argentina map in which the Falklands (Las Islas Malvinas) were drawn as a part of Argentina in a disproportionate large size east of the Argentine coast. The fact that the islands are 100% populated by English speaking "Kelpers" (about 1800 of them then, and over 2300 today), who preferred to remain under British rule according to the falkland islands government official statements, was never mentioned to us. Virtually every child in Argentina, to this very day, is made to believe that the islands are Argentine, the people living on the islands are virtually non-existent (and if they do exist, they are not considered a party in the conflict) and that the so called "imperialistic injustice" ought to be settled. Considering this, it is of no surprise that the conflict becomes harder to resolve with time, especially after the tragic events caused by the 1982 war.

Recent British governments had often appeared willing to hand over the islands to Argentina if the islanders would consent to the change of sovereignty. Despite British prodding, this consent never materialized [Rock: p 377-378] As a result, Argentina's several attempts to negotiate sovereignty on the islands with Britain lead nowhere.

Paradoxically, commercial and trade ties have long existed between the islands and the Argentine mainland and these keep expanding with time as long as politics are kept aside. 
----

I can only add that since the British were 'there' in the Falklands long before Argentina was even a country, that all of its claims are entirely spurious. And while were on the topic, where does the name "Malvinas" come from? It certainly isn't named after anything having to do with Argentina.

Finally, if the Argentinians believe in democracy and the right of self-determination, which surely they do, how come they won't accept the fact that the Falkland Islanders temeselves voted 100% NOT to join Argentina?

Hard to believe that Argentina attacked some islands 300 miles off-shore that were populated by a people who didn't speak their language, who had in fact "never" belonged to them, and who had rejected the option to join up with Argentina when it was brought up for a vote.

Lastly, Bronson, you imply that because LADE provides air service to the Falklands, that that somehow gives Argentina a "right" to claim the islands. How absurd is that? Let's make this clear: air service does not accord ownsership in any way, shape of form. What I am looking for from you, Bronson is a recognition that Argentina started a war based on precisely NOTHING other than a desire to steal what was not theirs.


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2007)

royal744 said:


> Actually Devo, I don't think the Russians ever quite finished that carrier of theirs and I'm pretty sure it was never operationally used anywhere. The French have a carrier, maybe two. The British clearly do, and the Americans have many. Not sure about the Canadians. I know the Australians had at least one for a time, because I saw it tied up and looking forlorn in Sydney harbor. Carriers are horrifically expensive to maintain, to crew, and to run, and the equipment that uses it costs a bloody fortune. Prestige alone is insufficient reason to own one, or two, or three.. carriers are a greatway to project power far from home, but in this day and age, lose one and there will be hell to pay.



Spain have a carrier as do India, as to cost the small carriers as used by those countries with these assets (excluding USA and France) are no more expensive than most large Naval Vessels.


----------



## royal744 (May 19, 2007)

Thank you Adler, for your complete listing. Even little Holland, after WW2, briefly had a carrier, which was, I believe, an escort carrier purchased or given to them by the US.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2007)

Yeap and the Russian one though that you were talking about not being completed. You are correct but they did complete the other one of the class and she is in operational use, but not as much as she should be because of the high cost.


----------



## royal744 (May 19, 2007)

Here's an ironic story: The Dutch had an aircraft carrier, given to them, I believe, by the British called by the Dutch the Karel Doorman which was itself the second Dutch Carrier. The original Karel Doorman was a refitted merchant ship redone in 1943, I believe. In any case, the newer Karel Doorman served in the Dutch fleet until about 1968 when it had an engine room fire. After that it was sold to Argentina and became the Veinticinco de Mayo. This is the carrier I thought was lost during the Falklands war, but it was not and continued in Argentinian service until it was decommissioned in 1997. I had no idea the Dutch had an aircraft carrier into the latter half of the 60s.


----------



## royal744 (May 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> Spain have a carrier as do India, as to cost the small carriers as used by those countries with these assets (excluding USA and France) are no more expensive than most large Naval Vessels.



I was thinking more in terms of fleet carriers rather helicopter or even the small VSTOL carriers, but point well-taken, Glider.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2007)

royal744 said:


> Frankly, Argentina was incredibly stupid to launch this disastrous adventure and, in the process, lost the only aircraft carrier they had.


Argentina never lost an Aircraft Carrier during the Falklands conflict. Do you read comic books or take hallucinogenic drugs, probably a combination of both?!?!

This goes to show you the stupidity of some wanna-bees when they attempt to infiltrate a forum such like this with left wing liberal stupidity.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2007)

.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 7, 2007)

Banned so fast ? , poor guy, he entered with wrong foot here.  , but yes it was a little stupid.

*Possible Submarine*

In May 5, 1982 the ARA Tracker S-2E flown by Lt. Enrique Fortini with the support of a SH-3D commanded by Lt. Osvaldo Iglesias, launch a MK-44 SW torpedo following the route of non-identified submarine. This submarine was detected formerly by other Tracker (2-AS-23) flown by Lt. Carlos Ernesto Cal who was flying to find survivals of ARA Sobral ship.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2007)

This often reported incident was a case of mistaken identity as no British sub was actually attacked in this manner. Ironically one, HMS Valient was shaken by an accidental near miss. 
She was monitoring one of the airbases was an A4 had to abort a mission and dumped its bombload before landing, close to where the Valient was monitoring the activity. 
The sub was obviously suprised as the explosions came as far as they were concerned with no warning, from nowhere. Fortunately for the RN no damage was sustained.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 7, 2007)

> Ironically one, HMS Valient was shaken by an accidental near miss.
> She was monitoring one of the airbases was an A4 had to abort a mission and dumped its bombload before landing, close to where the Valient was monitoring the activity.
> The sub was obviously suprised as the explosions came as far as they were concerned with no warning, from nowhere. Fortunately for the RN no damage was sustained.



Nice history  



> This often reported incident was a case of mistaken identity as no British sub was actually attacked in this manner



Perhaps was attacked but not hit.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2007)

No none were attacked. One thing that hasn't changed despite all the technology is the mis identifying of submarine contacts. People think that its a precise art but when the shells start flying it loses its edge.

RN ships that had been in the conflict for a while had got over this learning curve and watched with some amusement new ships claiming contacts as one put it 'every time a fish farted'


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 8, 2007)

Maybe the S-2e blasted a whale


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 21, 2007)

*Operation Black Buck:*







The Vulcan was designed as one of the Royal Air Forces' Triumverate of strategic bombers known as the V-Force. A huge delta-winged aircraft, it was capable of carrying the Blue Steel stand off nuclear missile, and during its career served in the Strategic Bomber role, before converting to the low-level bomber role and finally to the tanker role in its last few years. 

The Vulcan's most well-known operation in the RAF, were the 8,000 mile bombing trips against the Argentine held Falkland Islands in 1982. These were the Black Buck missions. Some Vulcans were equipped with wings pylons to carry the American supplied Shrike anti-radar missile, and plans for the aircraft to carry the Skybolt were abandoned. The last Vulcan was retired from service in March 1984. None of the Vulcan raids actually destroyed Stanley runway, nor did they deny the Argentines using the runway. Craters show in the image below were in fact heaps of earth placed there by the Argentines to make it look as though the runway was damaged. What the Black Raids did did do, was to discourage the Argentine Air Force from keeping fast attack aircraft stationed at Stanley. 

*Hits in Pt Argentino/Stanley aistrip:*






Three Vulcans were deployed to Wideawake airfield on Ascension Island, of which two flew Black Buck raids against the Falkland Islands. Eleven Victor tankers, including a standby aircraft were required to refuel the Vulcans before and after their attacks on the Falklands. The attacking Vulcan was refuelled five times on the outward journey and once on the return journey. These raids, although representing only a small part of the effort directed against the Argentines' on the Falklands, also graphically demonstrated RAF Strike Command's ability to strike the Argentine homeland if it had been necessary. These raids also forced the Argentine Air Force to withdraw their Mirage II fighters to stand defense over the mainland instead of engaging the Royal Navy and RAF Sea Harriers over the Falklands. 

The Vulcans were captained by Squadron Leader Neil McDougall, Squadron Leader John Reeve and Flight Lieutenant Martin Withers. Black Buck One: 30th April and Black Buck Two: 4th May 
Bombing raids on the Port Stanley airfield, The Attacking Vulcan carried 21 1,000lb bombs, and the attacking aircraft were backed up by another Vulcan on standby in case of problems. 



Black Buck Three: 31st May and Black Buck Four: 3rd June 

Missile strikes against Argentine Skyguard radar on the Falklands using American supplied Shrike Anti-Radar missiles on hastily improvised underwing pylons. During the 3rd June mission, the Vulcan sustained damage to its air refuelling probe and was forced to land at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, where the aircraft was impounded until the 11th June, and the remaining Shrike missile was confiscated, This Vulcan was captained by Squadron Leader Neil McDougall.


Black Buck Five: 12th June 
The final Black Buck mission was against Argentine troop positions close to Port Stanley using 1,000lb bombs. 


The Shrike Missile 

The Raytheon Shrike Anti-radar missile was carried by the Vulcans in Black Buck missions Three and Four, to engage and destroy Argentine Skyguards radar's. These missile require an active radar to target, and if the radar is switched off, lose their lock. 


For more detail in this extremely long range bombing attack go to:

Falkland Islands - A history of the 1982 conflict


----------



## Graeme (Jun 23, 2007)

posted twice


----------



## Graeme (Jun 23, 2007)

Poor timing by the Argentinians?

This from 'World Conflicts' by Patrick Brogan pp461 1998.

"The point is illustrated by the timing of the invasion: 2 April 1982. It was in the autumn. If they had waited two months longer, it would have been too late in the year for Britain to mount a counter-offensive, and the Falklands would have been in Argentina's hands undisturbed for the next six months. What is more, the British had just sold one of their last two aircraft carriers to Australia and were preparing to scrap the second, together with several other warships that were used in the task force that eventually recaptured the islands. If Argentina had waited another year, the British would not have had the resources to retake the Falklands, and would have been forced to acquiesce in the _fait accompli_".

(The infamous runway crater, reproduced many times in books and magazines, being a work of deception- is a very interesting 'fact' indeed.)


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2007)

The crater on the runway from the first Vulcan raid was a real crater. The Argentines did use dummy craters after other attacks but that was a real one.

I have seen pictures taken by the British after the war and descriptions as to how difficult it was to fix due to the damage in the soil structure and land heave.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> The crater on the runway from the first Vulcan raid was a real crater. The Argentines did use dummy craters after other attacks but that was a real one.
> 
> I have seen pictures taken by the British after the war and descriptions as to how difficult it was to fix due to the damage in the soil structure and land heave.



I am inclined to agree. I suspect that the photo in question would have been picked at the time to graphically illustrate, for the public, the line of hits. The Ministry of Defence would have had many more, showing far better resolution, but never released?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 25, 2007)

> Poor timing by the Argentinians?



The most definately yes, the british have in mind decomissionating one carrier at the end of that year. 


And note this:







That bombs over the flag still make me nervous.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 28, 2007)

Charles, have you heard of this?

I recently chanced upon a short article written 10 yrs ago about the exploits of one (Lieutenant) Jose Maria Pereyra Dozo, a flying instructor at the Naval Aviation School in Argentina. As a result of the conflict he was ultimately to lead a division of *Beechcraft T-34C Turbo- Mentors* into 'battle', in the role of Close Air Support, based at the Calderon Naval Air Station on Borton Island (Pebble Island). The Mentors were armed with "machine guns and rockets". Eventually they ended up sharing the Island with Pucaras.

In summary they undertook seven missions. Six as armed reconnaissance and one to "intercept a British helicopter landing near Puerto Argentino". It's this mission which fills most of the article, in his own words. Somewhere after just crossing the Falkland Sound they were intercepted by two Sea Harriers. 

He describes in detail how he outmaneuvered the Harrier low on the water seeing "splashes on the water of a burst of cannon fire"(30mm). Jettisoning his load he managed to evade the Harrier in cloud (300metres above sea level). He eventually made it back to Calderon's runway with only a "hole" on the rear cockpit canopy.

The SAS raid on Calderon on May 14 1982 ended any further missions.The aircraft were mostly destroyed or damaged by grenade launchers, explosives and small arms fire but one survived Turbo-Mentor, '1-A-411', which was at one point in time on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, Somerset.
He and his crew were evacuated by army helicopter to Puerto Argentino and managed to penetrate the no-fly zone in a Beechcraft King Air 200 back to the mainland three days later. 

If anything, a good advertisement for Beechcraft aircraft!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 29, 2007)

Nice history thanks. 8)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 7, 2007)

*C-130 "Long range Bomber":*






The AAF also used this venerable transport aircraft to attack the british shipping on route to the Malvinas.

2 aircraft C-130B from the 1th air brigade was modified with a Canberra bombsight and aditional pilons to carry 12 x FAS 250 kg bombs.

The makeshift solution was succesful and the Hercules hit 2 ships, the HMS wye (damaged) and a Liberian tanker ironically called "hercules" that ship was so badly damaged that eventually sunk.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2007)

Dont want to disappoint anyone, but there isn't and wasn't an HMW Wye, well not since WW2 anyway. There was a Britsh Wye a merchant tanker supporting the Fleet with fuel that was attacked by a C130 when on detached from the fleet without escort, but no damage was incurred as the one bomb that hit bounced off her deck and failed to explode. 
As for the Hercules, she was Liberian but was leased by the USA and had nothing to do with the British fleet. She was attacked twice but the C130missed the first time and the bomb that hit failed to detonate and was lodged in her hull. She was scuttled later due to the risk of defusing the bomb not because of the damage in the attack.

I have to say that I don't consider this to be a success. 

How on earth can you miss a tanker, there huge.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 9, 2007)

Was the British Wye alright.

And I did consider that a success since the C-130 was anything but a bomber.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 24, 2007)

Some images of the British AAA defenses in San Carlos strait "bomb alley".

*Bofors 40mm.*








*Rapier in the shore *







*Sea Cat shot* 







*MAG 7,62mm*







Even the FAL was used, look this.
 







All this trown agaist the captain Marcos Carballo and Ensign Carlos Rinke, 25 may 1982.

Clik here

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2955/a4ataqueaz8.jpg


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 24, 2007)

Just a little personal tale about that period I was in the CAF and was sent on a course to US Navy Millington Tennesee for a course . We stayed off base in a lovely Ramada but commuted in everyday our uniforms made us a stand out and we were constantly saluted and being AirForce NCO's this made us very nervous. We were always asked what we were doing there in the US . The standard answer was that we driving to South America to help the Brits and this was a pit stop


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 26, 2007)

Some Argentine aircraft pictures.

A-4 flight refuelling. a single 454 kg bomb is the warload.








Mirage V in the way to the target , 21th may.








Dassault Super Etendar:








Dawn in San julian.








250kg bomb below Mirage V.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 7, 2007)

Commando Battalion 601 Blow pipe section in action, 21th may 1982.







Flt Lt William Glover of the RAF picked up off the water . His aircraft was hit by the british made missile.







The wreck of the Harrier GR 3.


----------



## polebell (Aug 11, 2007)

Gentlemen, There have recently been two articles in aircraft magazines “celebrating” the 25th anniversary of the conflict.

Airforces Monthly May 2007

Falklands 25 years on: The Royal Navy’s darkest day

Aircraft Illustrated Vol 40 No 5 

The fight for ‘Las Malvinas’ 
Sea Harrier at war
25 years on

Some articles are written by UK pilots and others by Argentinean pilots so there is good balance.

Without wanting to become embroiled in political turmoil I was in the UK at the time and from memory there was some talk after the event that the war was an election winner for Margaret Thatcher who (again from memory) was in some degree of political trouble prior to the war, and was unlikely to win the next election. Post the war she gained huge public support and went on to become re-elected. It should be easy enough to check on anyway.

Great site, colorful characters, educational – Keep it up. Cheers and beers from down under.


----------



## polebell (Aug 11, 2007)

Make that 4 articles, it's late here!!!


----------



## trackend (Aug 11, 2007)

polebell said:


> Gentlemen, There have recently been two articles in aircraft magazines “celebrating” the 25th anniversary of the conflict.
> 
> Post the war she gained huge public support and went on to become re-elected. It should be easy enough to check on anyway.



True. but not from or by me, I couldn't stand the woman, bloody nightmare old cow


----------



## Woods (Aug 12, 2007)

Hi all! My first post here. I've been sitting back reading for some time now. There is sure a lot of good stuff on this forum. This thread caught my eye.
I remember some of what went on then. As I remember,the Argintines did a bang up job. And I believe (my opinion) if it were not for the U.S.A. things might have turned out quite different.


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 12, 2007)

@ trackend

Agreed!

Bizarrely Callaghan avoided a Falklands war through a swift military and diplomatic response, got no credit and lost the election.

Thatch pretty much provoked the war through ridiculous decisions and it enshrined her destiny.

No justice!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 12, 2007)

> Without wanting to become embroiled in political turmoil I was in the UK at the time and from memory there was some talk after the event that the war was an election winner for Margaret Thatcher who (again from memory) was in some degree of political trouble prior to the war, and was unlikely to win the next election. Post the war she gained huge public support and went on to become re-elected. It should be easy enough to check on anyway.



I dont going to get involved in politics either, but I think that both countries had enough reasons to get involved into the war.

Argentina had because it was regaining a territory perceived as own.

UK had because it was defending a territory under his jurisdiction.

As native of this land I firmly believe, moreover I am convinced that the Argentine reasons for war were by far more legitime than the british ones.


----------



## trackend (Aug 12, 2007)

You said you did'nt want to get involved in politics then straight away do just that. Its pretty obvious CB how you stand, your favourite subject is The Falklands you do tend to make it sound like it was a much larger conflict than it was, perhaps because Argentine has'nt been in any wars outside its own boarders for yonks ,fair enough. 
But I stand elsewhere, I don't decry any of the service personnel involved they did their duty and 907 very sadly lost their lives however it was a small conflict and I believe avoidable hence my total dislike of Thatcher and Galtieri.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 12, 2007)

trackend said:


> I believe avoidable .



I expressed the same opinion while working as a junior draughtsman in the Dept. of Defence in 1982.

I was nearly lynched by the senior draughtsmen.

In no uncertain terms it was explained to me that if the Commonwealth could get involved it would mean "more overtime-more money", as experienced during the Vietnam conflict.

Sad.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 13, 2007)

> You said you did'nt want to get involved in politics then straight away do just that. Its pretty obvious CB how you stand.



I am expressing my opinion, if mi opinion is politically loaded sorry but that is.



> your favourite subject is The Falklands you do tend to make it sound like it was a much larger conflict than it was, perhaps because Argentine has'nt been in any wars outside its own boarders for yonks ,fair enough.



It is not my intention to make it larger or smaller, my intention is to post here pictures that I am pretty sure nobody never saw outside Argentina.

The images that most people had saw about this war is the HMS Antelope exploding and some Argentine soldiers surrendering.

That was all? ...well, I dont think so. 



> But I stand elsewhere, I don't decry any of the service personnel involved they did their duty and 907 very sadly lost their lives however it was a small conflict and I believe avoidable hence my total dislike of Thatcher and Galtieri



Smaller than Irak ? More avoidable that Irak? hmmmmm.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2007)

The Falkland Islanders consider themselves British and that is that.

I have no probs with CB standing up for his country and feeling pride for some of the achievements of his armed forces. The pilots were as brave as brave can be.

If he continues to post articles and pix from his side then it will give a more balanced view on the whole conflict.


----------



## Glider (Aug 13, 2007)

Personally I believe that this thread has been an example of how things should be undertaken. 
Politics have been kept out of it and the communications have been kept to the facts. Indeed there have been a number of entries where CB and others have presented the position as they have seen it and by comparing both sides of the point in question, a better understanding has arisen for all participants. 
Give and take has taken place with good grace and no one has been blind to the facts or dogmatic.

As the driving force behind the thread, I believe that CB deserves a lot of credit for this.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 13, 2007)

Woods said:


> I remember some of what went on then. As I remember,the Argintines did a bang up job. And I believe (my opinion) if it were not for the U.S.A. things might have turned out quite different.




I have to ask... What in your opinion did the US contribute?

_I think the Brits got some Vulcan spare parts out of a US museum...

The General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix which survived Pearl Harbor. (It's odd to think that the English torpedeod a pearl Harbor survivor!)
_


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 13, 2007)

Since no air to air refuelings of the
Vulcan had been carried out since 1967, many of the fuel
probes of the aircraft had deteriorated. In fact, some
spare parts had to be retrieved from museum aircraft
throughout the world. 

The Falkland Islands Conflict, 1982: Air Defense Of The Fleet

.


----------



## trackend (Aug 13, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Smaller than Irak ? More avoidable that Irak? hmmmmm.



Of course it was smaller than Iraq, military death toll alone is currently just on 4000.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 13, 2007)

> Of course it was smaller than Iraq, military death toll alone is currently just on 4000.



Sorry to hear that, but I think tha the material losses of UK were bigger in 1982



> The Falkland Islanders consider themselves British and that is that.
> 
> I have no probs with CB standing up for his country and feeling pride for some of the achievements of his armed forces. The pilots were as brave as brave can be.
> 
> If he continues to post articles and pix from his side then it will give a more balanced view on the whole conflict.



The fact is that I dont need to feel proud of ashamed in order to post, everything is history and I Insist...I am pretty sure that there was several pics and information that nobody knows until I ve posted that, nationalism or personal prouds asides.




> Personally I believe that this thread has been an example of how things should be undertaken.
> Politics have been kept out of it and the communications have been kept to the facts. Indeed there have been a number of entries where CB and others have presented the position as they have seen it and by comparing both sides of the point in question, a better understanding has arisen for all participants.
> Give and take has taken place with good grace and no one has been blind to the facts or dogmatic.
> 
> As the driving force behind the thread, I believe that CB deserves a lot of credit for this



Thanks, there is some idiocy posted in the pages 4 and 5, but nothing of that is mine.

The number of lectures in this topic (the bigger of the entire "Modern" section) seems to confirm your toughs.


----------



## Woods (Aug 13, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I have to ask... What in your opinion did the US contribute?
> 
> _I think the Brits got some Vulcan spare parts out of a US museum...
> 
> ...



The U.S.A. Navy and Air force. Once again...the United States bailed 'merry old England' (again)out of a jam. Without U.S.A. Naval and air support, the Brits would have been blown away. Hmm.. WW1,WW2. And here.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 13, 2007)

Woods said:


> The U.S.A. Navy and Air force. Once again...the United States bailed 'merry old England' (again)out of a jam. Without U.S.A. Naval and air support, the Brits would have been blown away. Hmm.. WW1,WW2. And here.



You mean logistical and satellite support? 

It's not like the USS New Jersey pounded Port Stanley and B-52's razed Buenos Aries.. What support are you referring too? In any case I'm sure American quasi-support helped the Brits but I wouldn't say it constitutes a Bail out...

As far as WW1 and WW2 goes, is that really necessary to mention? If it wasn't for France in the Revolutionary war, We would have lost for sure ...

so what!!! what is the point of your sarcasm?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2007)

Woods said:


> The U.S.A. Navy and Air force. Once again...the United States bailed 'merry old England' (again)out of a jam. Without U.S.A. Naval and air support, the Brits would have been blown away. Hmm.. WW1,WW2. And here.


What air support in WW1


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 13, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> What air support in WW1





Lafayette Escadrille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2007)

Sorry to sidetrack this thread


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 14, 2007)

CB - I'm sorry to go off-topic, this is a good thread and much of the discussion has been knowledgeable, sensible and very even-handed (with national pride, deep wounds, and many casualties on both sides) it's a credit to all - until very recently..................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Woods - I really think you're going to struggle here, so far you've done nothing but post badly thought out personal opinions, based on little or no evidence, and when you're challenged you ignore it and go and post tosh on another thread (I've seen your 'contribution' to the WW2 leader thread  ).

Some of your previous 'insights' on this thread:

*'The Argentinians did a bang-up job' ?? *
The Argentinian air force did well, brave lads and paid a terrible price, The Argentinian navy really pushed for the Malvinas Op and then (pilots aside) did very little of note when the lead was flying.

The Argentinian Army were good when numbers were on their side but with months to prepare they just sat there, created poor positions, and waited for the victory parade. All through the advance to Stanley UKF kept expecting to run into Argentinian patrols but didn't as the Argentinian Army didn't bother putting the work in.

Poor sods but they paid the price for inept leadership tactics. They were described by the Brits as being short on small-unit tactics, over-reliant on equipment and tied to a doctrine that promised massive support that, in the end, wasn't there as the Paras Ghurkas attacked their positions.

A 'bang-up job' ? I'd hate to see your definition of failure!

*US Navy Air support* ?? 
Woods are we talking the same war here? What exactly were you doing in 1982??

US support was limited to satellite INT (and not that much of that), transhipping facilities at Ascension (which is a UK base leased under the 50 4-stacker WW2 deal and therefore use can be claimed by the UK in times of need) and the agreement to re-stock NATO stockpiles of the advanced Sidewinder (UK had paid for these but they were 'NATO war-only' stock and therefore strictly were off-limits for a non-NATO op) [this is in my previous post if you'd bother to read]

The last was crucial and much appreciated.

There were very early discussions about the US lending UK a proper aircraft carrier but all realised it was impractical.

This support was countered by Kirkpatrick's disgraceful and partisan showing in the UN which didn't go down well here (or do her any favours in the long-run).

'Bailed out' - hardly! Assisted?, yes but that's what allies do for each other. Menwith Hill, Fylingdales, Fairford, Iraq (twice) - do these names mean anything to you?

Woods, I really don't think you're doing enough research to make a positive contribution on any of the threads on this forum.

This is a sensible, informed and grown-up forum. You're coming across as ill-informed, prejudiced and possibly too immature to enter into sensible debate. 

You may not be but it's up to you to show that you're not, rather than confirming the impression you've created so far.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CB sorry to sidetrack, hopefully we can carry on with the sensible debate soon. 
FWIW UK death toll in Iraq is certainly not 4,000 - more like 260 (and rising )


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

I work with the ex engineering PO from HMS Endurance and he has given me some interesting info on the original onset of the conflict and the SBS Royal Marine covert incursions.


----------



## polebell (Aug 14, 2007)

Well the question must be asked... Will you share it?


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

He recalls the ship being sent to deal with the scrap dealers and how they had informed the UK of the situation requiring a much larger contingent than the limit resources available and that included the marine group they picked up to swell their onboard contingent. They had encountered the Argentinian transport that had already landed a sizable force but without orders nothing was done. He told me the feed back from the powers at be in the UK was very indecisive and despite numorous requests for immediate dispatch of reinforcments it seem to fall on deaf ears.
Being an artic survey vessel she could move amongst the ice so was involved in the insertion and support of the groups on South Georgia .
The warnings for a larger invasion force had been given to London with enough time to get troops deployed but the UK was very slow in reacting (his words not mine).


----------



## polebell (Aug 14, 2007)

This is only my opinion of the conflict:

The Argentinian pilots performed far better than anyone imagined at the time (possibly excluding Argentinians). Whilst this sounds like an oxymoron I think the Argentinians won the battle yet lost the war!? The dead and wounded from the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram were bad enough, without the learnings regarding magnesium alloy, ships and missiles.

Had the Poms sold their aircraft carriers slightly earlier the war probably would not have taken place (at least you would like to think so) I remember reading in a very old flight magazine how many old planes (Victors and Vulcans) it took to get a couple of Vulcans to Port Stanley, and whilst it was possibly successful it was also quite embarrassing (the Vulcan had already been retired(?) and superseded by the Tornado)?

Most importantly there is a great clip of Argentinian and Pommy planes in San Carlos sound in this site, all credits to the author (I tried to upload it but it doesn't appear to be happening) - it's entitled: 1982_758.wmv

"Played hard - done good" applies to both parties in this instance, I think?

Does anyone else have other video clips of the war?


----------



## polebell (Aug 14, 2007)

Thanks Trackend, when you say "scrap" are you talking from the hulks that litter the area or land based scrap?


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

The whaling station,
This exert from History and Diplomacy
CSC 1987
explains the crux of what was know as The South Georgia incident

Located 800 miles southeast of Stanley, South Georgia is an
isolated island approximately 150 miles in length and
characterized by a harsh winter climate. In 1982, it was the
home of a number of scientific research bases manned by
approximately thirty members of the British Antarctic Survey Team
at Grytviken In September 1979 an Argentine scrap metal dealer named
Constantine Davidoff had contracted with a firm in Edinburgh to
remove 35,000 tons of scrap metal from abandoned whaling stations
at Leith on South Georgia. Trouble began when Davidoff
inspected the whaling stations in December 1981 and escalated to
crisis proportions when his workers returned there in March 1982
to begin dismantling operations.
To understand the confusion which surrounded the South
Georgia incident, it is necessary to review some background
relating to the 1971 Communications Agreement. The agreement had
established the so-called "white card," a document which provided
the holder freedom to travel between the Islands and Argentina.
At the time of the initiation of the United Nations program of
decolonization, described in chapter 3, Britain had listed the
Falkland Islands and Dependencies (which included South Georgia)
as one of its colonies. Thus, as far as Argentina was concerned,
the holder of a "white card" could legally travel to South
Georgia as well as the main Islands. But by December 1981, when
Davidoff first visited Leith, Britain insisted that the South
Georgia was a separate colony governed directly from Britain and
administered from the Islands only for the sake of convenience.
Accordingly, a British regulation was established which required
anyone disembarking on South Georgia to first obtain official
permission from the commandant of the Antarctic Survey Team at
Grytviken. Argentine officials were apparently never formally
notified of the new status of South Georgia or of the requirement
to check in at Grytviken.
Davidoff arrived at Leith aboard the Argentine icebreaker
Almirante Irizar on 20 December 1981, completed his inspection,
and returned to Argentina. Although he had been in touch with
British embassy officials in Buenos Aires on several occasions
during 1980 and 1981, it remains unclear whether or not he was
aware of the British regulation which required him to check-in
with officials at Grytviken before going to Leith.
On 31 December, Island Governor Rex Hunt informed the
British Foreign Office of Davidoff's unauthorized visit at Leith
in South Georgia. The governor insisted Davidoff was aware of the
requirement to obtain clearance at Grytviken and succeeded in
convincing the Foreign Office to lodge a strong protest with the
Argentine government. Argentine officials subsequently rejected
the protest, claiming no knowledge of Davidoff's trip.
Davidoff apologized for the incident in person at the
British embassy in Buenos Aires on 23 February 1982. He then
stated his intent to send workers to Leith, South Georgia to
begin scrap metal dismantling operations and requested detailed
instructions to preclude any further misunderstanding. The
British ambassador requested guidance from Governor Hunt. On 9
March, having not received the guidance, Davidoff formally
notified the British embassy that 41 of his salvage workers would
sail from Buenos Aires for South Georgia on 11 March aboard the
Argentine naval supply ship Bahia Buen Suceso and remain there
for four months. On 11 March, having still not received the
guidance, the salvage crew sailed for South Georgia.
Arriving at Leith on 19 March 1982 with their white cards,
the salvage workers raised the Argentine flag and sang their
national anthem. Four of the British Antarctic Survey scientists
observed the Argentines and, after informing the workers that
their activities were illegal, reported the incident by radio to
Governor Hunt. On Hunt's advice, the British Foreign Office
secretly dispatched 22 Royal Marines aboard HMS Endurance from
Stanley to South Georgia with the mission of expelling any scrap
metal workers who failed to leave on their own recognizance.
The British ambassador in Buenos Aires protested the landing
of Davidoff's men at Leith and all but a dozen of the workers
left South Georgia aboard Bahia Buen Suceso sometime between 21
and 23 March. Then, on 23 March, the British Foreign Office
informed Argentine Foreign Minister Costa Mendez that Endurance
had been dispatched to expel the remaining group of Argentine
workers. Costa Mendez expressed surprise that such action had
been taken prior to exhaustion of all diplomatic solutions and
warned of a possible strong reply. He said that Bahia Buen
Suceso might yet return to retrieve the remaining workers.
A rumor now circulated among British government officials
that Admiral Anaya had ordered the use of force to prevent a
British attempt to remove the workmen by force. This rumor was
confirmed on 24 March, when over one hundred Argentine troops,
under command of Captain Alfredo Astiz, disembarked from the
armed Argentine naval survey ship Bahia Paraiso under orders to
"protect" the remaining workmen. The Royal Marines aboard
Endurance arrived in time for their commander, Lieutenant Keith
Mills, to covertly observe Astiz's men unloading arms and
supplies from Bahia Paraiso in the vicinity of the scrap metal
salvage sight. Mills reported this sighting to officials in
London, who in turn ordered him not to take any action that might
provoke an armed response, presumably because London was
frantically trying to resolve the crisis by diplomacy.
Argentine and British diplomats failed to defuse the South
Georgia crisis during the next few days. On 26 March, an
announcement was made on British television, which later proved
to be premature, that two British nuclear submarines had deployed
from Gibralter to the South Atlantic. Bahia Paraiso sailed from
South Georgia on 27 March , leaving the Argentine troops and
remaining workmen behind. Then on 28 March the Argentine press
reported the cancelation of all navy leave and the departure of a
number of naval vessels for operations at sea. By then British
intelligence had predicted the invasion of the Islands would
occur on 2 April. Prime Minister Thatcher dispatched nuclear
submarines to the South Atlantic and warned Governor Hunt of the
imminent invasion.
The warning was warranted. Operation Rosario was well
underway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2007)

[quote="Woods]The U.S.A. Navy and Air force. Once again...the United States bailed 'merry old England' (again)out of a jam. Without U.S.A. Naval and air support, the Brits would have been blown away. Hmm.. WW1,WW2. And here.[/quote]


This is not the thread for this discussion of WW1 or WW2. Take it to another thread...

Also I suggest you learn you history a bit more....

....the US did not save England in WW1.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 14, 2007)

> CB - I'm sorry to go off-topic, this is a good thread and much of the discussion has been knowledgeable, sensible and very even-handed (with national pride, deep wounds, and many casualties on both sides) it's a credit to all - until very recently..................



No problem from my side, in regard of your post I think the Argentine army paid a high price for rely heavily in the non profesional troops, but there was some regiments like the Army Infantry 25 (Regimiento Infanteria 25) and the special section of that wich deployed some sniper .

The RI 25 wa smostly bases in Staley/Pt Argentino so it only participate in the last battles.

The BIM 1 ( 1th regiment marines) wich was the best for cold weather combat since his Patagonian training remained in Tierra del Fuego protecting the Super Etendar bases and a possible attack by Chile. ( Chile, another question that worth for a future post  ) 

Colonel Mohamed Ali Seineldin. Infantry Regiment 25.















With Rear admiral Busser and Colonel Castellanos.







And yet one more of Col Seineldin, this time as portrayed by Paul Hannon in the Osprey s Men-at-Arms 250th "Argentine Forces in the Falklands".


----------



## polebell (Aug 15, 2007)

Thanks for the detailed account Trackend, it's appreciated. I wasn't aware of how complicated/confused/politically obtuse the issues were leading up to the war.

As an amusing aside and totally off the track ( I haven't thought about this for 20+yrs) but seeing your address I am reminded that I don't have much time for people from Canvey Island as it was a copper from there (or worked there) that slept with a girlfriend of mine back in.... 1982/3!!! Maybe you would like to come to Aus and I can reciprocate?!!! Only joking!!! history eh - sh*# happens. 

Good on ya!


----------



## trackend (Aug 15, 2007)

You could give it a whirl PB but my wifes a nurse and used to handling a bit of bovver you'd have a needle in your knackers quicker than you could say stuff Rolf Harris.
I speak from experience she assisted when I had my vasectomy done

Sorry Ive gone off track if you want to read the whole seminar on the Falklands it's been put on a web site.
The Argentine Seizure Of The Malvinas [Falkland] Islands: History and Diplomacy


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 15, 2007)

tut tut tut ....
Bloody Copper....


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 16, 2007)

CB for sure there were some good Argentinian troops, perhaps there was a realisation it wasn't going to end well and only the conscripts were left to face the Paras. I wouldn't wish it on anyone to defend against that lot. MILANS WP grenades, nasty stuff to face.

Ah the Chile thing - Pinochet and the build-up of troops on the border? That only came out here after he escaped extradition to Spain. Sounds like it was a major factor in the end-result.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 16, 2007)

> Ah the Chile thing - Pinochet and the build-up of troops on the border? That only came out here after he escaped extradition to Spain. Sounds like it was a major factor in the end-result



I cannot say that was a major factor in the final outcome of the war, but it influenced, there is no doubt.

You can hear that from Mrs Tatcher herself in this video.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=milMu-0tpW8_


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2007)

The real losing factor for Argentina was the simple fact that they didn't attack the right ships. The transports and carriers should have been their primary targets, but they concentrated their efforts on warships which were sent out to bait them anyway. 

I know several people who served in several arms in the Falklands and they all say the same; "We had no doubt once our feet were on the ground, we'd win." 

You also have to remember that the war was only fought with the first wave of the British counter; I know a lad who was on Ascension Island waiting to transport to the Falklands with armour. The British Command knew that armour would be able to operate on the Falklands after the Blues and Royals proved it. The Argentinians were about to see tanks rolling toward Stanley.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 20, 2007)

This might of been mentioned, but didn't the Argentines have a problem with "dud" 500 pound bombs? I remember reading that a number of A-4s hit their targets just to have their bombs bounce off the deck of the ship..


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This might of been mentioned, but didn't the Argentines have a problem with "dud" 500 pound bombs? I remember reading that a number of A-4s hit their targets just to have their bombs bounce off the deck of the ship..



A few didn't go off but I read that the bombs were not fused correctly. the bombs were functional but were not armed..

dropped too low


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 20, 2007)

Yes that's my recollection too. 

Unless my memory is playing tricks the 'non-exploding' factor was mentioned on the BBC and the Argentinian forces corrected the problem. 

Safe to say the Navy weren't too impressed.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 21, 2007)

> The real losing factor for Argentina was the simple fact that they didn't attack the right ships. The transports and carriers should have been their primary targets, but they concentrated their efforts on warships which were sent out to bait them anyway.



The problem was that the pilots didnt attack the ships they want the most, but the ones more likely to hit, if you emerge in mid a heavy flak at low altitude and saw a frigate ahead is very likely you try to hit this and get the hell out of there and no searching for a more valuable ( but no visible at list no in that moment ) ship.

Aniway, the HMS Tristam, HMS Galahand, HMS Fearless, RFA Sir Lancelot and Atlantic Conveyor were hit, the Lancelot survived because the bomb dint explode.

The problem with bombs was no a easy solving one, there was a complicated balance to gave the bomb the time fuse correct enough to explode inside the ship and not passing it trough and also let the Aircraft go away enough to not being blasted with the explosion.

*Hole is HMS Antelope, the bomb explode later while was try to defuse.*








*Bomb inside the HMS Argonaut*


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Aniway, the HMS Tristam, HMS Galahand, HMS Fearless, RFA Sir Lancelot and Atlantic Conveyor were hit, the Lancelot survived because the bomb dint explode.



Just a small point but the Atlantic Conveyor was of course hit by an Exocet not a bomb and the Fearless wasn't hit at all but one of her landing craft was sunk by air attack some miles from the Fearless.

By the way they are excellent photographs, well done


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2007)

The Atlantic Conveyer wasn't even the target but its destruction was the single most effective attack by the Argentines and the biggest setback for the British.

The Argentines should have tried to push the British back at San Carlos.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2007)

The Argentine Air Force flew into the British bait almost everytime. which were the destroyers and frigates. The only ship on your list which was the right one to hit was the _Atlantic Conveyor_. 

The Argentines should have been aiming for the tankers, supply ships and LSLs in that order. The British warships should have been considered unimportant in the battle. The targets were all wrong, it was the same mistake made by the Japanese in World War II. 

I don't know what the Argentine pilots were told before operations but it should have been to hit the supply ships in sight, ignore the warships. 

_"HMS Tristam, HMS Galahand, HMS Fearless, RFA Sir Lancelot and Atlantic Conveyor were hit"_

I do have to point out here that it's _Sir Tristram_ and _Sir Galahad_, none of which need the HMS because they're both RFA ships like _Sir Lancelot_. And they're not supply ships; they're LSL or LSTs. 

The Argentines had chances on the _Canberra_, _Stromness_, _Europic Ferry_ and _Norland_ on the first days of the landings. I believe the _Canberra_ was attacked that morning unsuccessfully by a Pucara.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 22, 2007)

> The Argentines should have been aiming for the tankers, supply ships and LSLs in that order. The British warships should have been considered unimportant in the battle.



The problem with the frigates was the they posed a serious treath to the aircraft operation of supply and recce aircraft, so in that way there was also a strong need to destroy those.



> The targets were all wrong, it was the same mistake made by the Japanese in World War II.



I suppose this must be the fashionable and elegant way to forget the loss of 4 first class frigates. 

The Canberra was always sought, I had heard some intercom tapes of argentine pilots and that big ship is always in the mouth of everybody, but in the end it remain a esquive target.







I am not saying anything new but to me the war was lost in the soil of the islands, in there the Brits make the difference.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 22, 2007)

Great pics as always, CB.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2007)

_"The problem with the frigates was the they posed a serious treath to the aircraft operation of supply and recce aircraft, so in that way there was also a strong need to destroy those."_

The only warships that truly posed a threat to the supply aircraft was the aircraft carriers. But you're right, the ships were there for defence and that does pose a threat to aircraft - but they're not going to swing the war. The strong need was to destroy the supply. 

_"I suppose this must be the fashionable and elegant way to forget the loss of 4 first class frigates."_

No, Britain doesn't need to forget the loss of its vessels. We won the war, or have you forgotten that. There's still a Union Jack flying above the Falkland Islands. That might be a bitter pill for you to swallow. 

I'm just looking at the tactics of the Argentinians and they were wrong. Maybe Argentina have studied them for the next time your government tries for the islands. 

By the way, if you're going to claim to be the knowledge on the war at least get the ship types right. HMS _Sheffield_ and _Coventry_ were Type 42 Destroyers; HMS _Ardent_ and _Antelope_ were Type 21 (Amazon Class) Frigates. So, to be correct, the Royal Navy lost two frigates and two destroyers. 

_"The Canberra was always sought, I had heard some intercom tapes of argentine pilots and that big ship is always in the mouth of everybody, but in the end it remain a esquive target."_

The _Canberra_ was a target for a propaganda value. How embarassing for the Argentine soldiers to be taken off the islands by the ship that Argentine propaganda had claimed to be sunk.


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2007)

I think its worth rememberng that the role of the RN was to defend the merchant/assult and other various support vessels from attack. In this they achieved their aim. No ship in the defended are was hit.
The aircraft that made it past the outer defences, were under such pressure that they missed all their targets. 
How they missed the Canberra which was such a massive, obvious, stationary and unarmed (apart from some small arms) target was almost a wonder.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Great pics as always, CB



More to come..



> No, Britain doesn't need to forget the loss of its vessels. We won the war, or have you forgotten that. There's still a Union Jack flying above the Falkland Islands. That might be a bitter pill for you to swallow.



The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain, I never claimed that the Uk did loss the war.  




> By the way, if you're going to claim to be the knowledge on the war at least get the ship types right. HMS Sheffield and Coventry were Type 42 Destroyers; HMS Ardent and Antelope were Type 21 (Amazon Class) Frigates. So, to be correct, the Royal Navy lost two frigates and two destroyers



Thank you for sharing you overwhelming naval esxpertise.



> The Canberra was a target for a propaganda value. How embarassing for the Argentine soldiers to be taken off the islands by the ship that Argentine propaganda had claimed to be sunk.



I find more embarrasing the last 0-3 agaist Brasil in Copa America.  

Actually a more valuable target for the so called "Argentine propaganda" was the carrier HMS invincible, because his name (undefeatable) it was attacked by a mixed flight of Navy and Air Force aircrafts the 31th may but the damage never could be clearly confirmed and it gave place to a lot of speculations.









> How they missed the Canberra which was such a massive, obvious, stationary and unarmed (apart from some small arms) target was almost a wonder.



it was a extremely lucky ship I guess.


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Actually a more valuable target for the so called "Argentine propaganda" was the carrier HMS invincible, because his name (undefeatable) it was attacked by a mixed flight of Navy and Air Force aircrafts the 31th may but the damage never could be clearly confirmed and it gave place to a lot of speculations.



The Invincible wasn't attacked on the 31st and certainly wasn't damaged at all at any time.

I left the FAA before the conflict but had a number of friends on board the Invincible, plus some of the other vessels and can promise this was the case.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 23, 2007)

My mistake, was the 30th may, in here an account of the argentine version of the attack.

Argentine Aircraft in the Falklands


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2007)

No problem but the Invincible wasn't hit of that I am sure. 
Re the posting its interesting and some bits I can help with others I cannot.

I do not know about the Avenger putting up a white smokescreen but I do know that at full power the Type 21 does pump out a fair amount of dark smoke as does the 4.5in gun. I have flown in a Hunter using an attack profile at sea level against a number of RN vessels and it was one thing that always suprised me. It happens when they increase speed at maximum power. That may explain the smoke colour question.
Re the Black line painted down the side. At the end of the conflict the Invincible was replaced on station by another ship of the same class. The Black line (on both sides of the ship) was a quick and easy method of ensuring that the crews could identify one from another at long distance. Harrier crews would often take off and land in radio silence and it cut out some of the confusion.
How were they misidentified, no idea.

Hope this is of interest


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 24, 2007)

Not getting into this argument but:

"The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain"

Great line!! 

Sure you were never a British NCO ??


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Not getting into this argument but:
> 
> "The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain"
> 
> ...



I liked that line too


----------



## fer-de-lance (Aug 26, 2007)

The Argentine Navy A-4Q Skyhawks had Mk-82 Snakeyes which were well suited for the type of attack in San Carlos. Their pilots were also trained for anti-shipping attacks. The successful attack on HMS Ardent was a clear demonstration of the lethality of this combination.

The Fuerza Aérea Argentina pilots had to have a "crash course" (pardon the pun) on anti-shipping attacks. Ironically, it was British design 1,000lb bombs (Mk-17) which were not going off due to being dropped at lower than intended altitude at too high a speed.

There had been suggestions that the attack on HMS Coventry by Fuerza Aérea Argentina A-4B was successful because because parachute-retard bombs were used. However, official accounts indicate that standard Mk-17 were used. The difference may have been that the attacks (in more open waters) were conducted at high enough altitude for the fuse to function. Nevertheless, HMS Broadsword had a close call in the same action when a Mk-17 skipped off the water, passed upwards through the flight deck, knocked off the nose of the Lynx helo and landed in the sea on the other side without going off.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 26, 2007)

> Not getting into this argument but:
> 
> "The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain"
> 
> ...



No, and If there is a god, he will save me of that asignment. 



> I liked that line too



The good lines seems to fluently came out of me in this last times  



> The Argentine Navy A-4Q Skyhawks had Mk-82 Snakeyes which were well suited for the type of attack in San Carlos. Their pilots were also trained for anti-shipping attacks. The successful attack on HMS Ardent was a clear demonstration of the lethality of this combination.



Yea, If you read some earlier pages you will find some post of mine about the snakeye issue.

Aerospatiale Gazelle in action:







Detail of the armament.


----------



## Udet (Aug 27, 2007)

Charlie, several months ago i had the chance to meet someone from your country, and it was his opinion that the Argentina vs. England thing for the Falklands will re-erupt sooner or later; it was also his view that next time England will not be in such position to assemble a task force like the one they sent during the first war in the 80s.

What you think?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 27, 2007)

Nice lingerie there Udet  

Well, in my opinion another war is *very unlikely*, however the military option could not be completely trown away given the lack of undestanding of both parts involved in the Malvinas conflict.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2007)

Yeah CB.

Too much blood already.

Whatever happens to the future of the Islas Malvinas, lets hope it don't involve shooting.

What lack of understanding are you talking about?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 28, 2007)

_"The ink of your tattoos definately have damaged your brain, I never claimed that the Uk did loss the war."_

Since that sentence makes no sense, it's not worth a hearty response. 

_"Thank you for sharing you overwhelming naval esxpertise"_

No problem. Maybe next time you try and play the clever one; you can actually get the facts straight. 

_"I find more embarrasing the last 0-3 agaist Brasil in Copa America."_

Since you weren't an Argentine soldier in the Falklands conflict then my comment wasn't directed at you. And if you find anything to do with football an embarassment, you're just sad. 

_"Actually a more valuable target for the so called "Argentine propaganda" was the carrier HMS invincible, because his name (undefeatable) it was attacked by a mixed flight of Navy and Air Force aircrafts the 31th may but the damage never could be clearly confirmed and it gave place to a lot of speculations."_

'Actually' ... the 'so-called' Argentine propaganda made a big deal about the _Canberra_ and claimed that she had been sunk. _Canberra_ would have been a bigger deal because it had a larger place in the hearts of the British soldiers and public. So, for propaganda value, _Canberra_ is higher up the list. 

It's obvious you wouldn't enjoy being a British NCO - after all, it was they that led the British Armed Forces across the Falklands. You wouldn't like destroying your own people, and reminding your own nation of its bankruptcy. 







The Falkland Islands look much better under British rule anyway - at least they know what real money looks like.


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2007)

Calm it down Plan D. I repeat what I said earlier in the thread, I meant it then and mean it now. I am not a moderator but I suggest you keep things down. DOn't be the dogmatic or blind one..



Glider said:


> Personally I believe that this thread has been an example of how things should be undertaken.
> Politics have been kept out of it and the communications have been kept to the facts. Indeed there have been a number of entries where CB and others have presented the position as they have seen it and by comparing both sides of the point in question, a better understanding has arisen for all participants.
> Give and take has taken place with good grace and no one has been blind to the facts or dogmatic.
> 
> As the driving force behind the thread, I believe that CB deserves a lot of credit for this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2007)

Lets just keep this whole thread civil by all parties okay.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 28, 2007)

> Since that sentence makes no sense, it's not worth a hearty response.
> 
> No problem. Maybe next time you try and play the clever one; you can actually get the facts straight.
> 
> ...



I Just remember an old magazine of 1983 claiming the sinking of the Invincible, no about the Canberra, since I was jus 3 at the time of war I dont remember TV news or radio programs.

Actually I respect the good fighters, I dont need to be an expert to realize that in 1982 the the fighting qualities of the average british Army soldier was superior of average soldiers but there was accusations ( several ones) against the british soldiers and NCO to commit war crimes in Malvinas, I dont want to be involved with those accusations.
Also I have another reasons but this is more private nature.



> and reminding your own nation of its bankruptcy



I think you get stuck in the old news, in the finantial breakdown of 2001 but the country had recoved almost completely of that crisis.

Everything that remind me my nation pleased me, since I am very proud to be native of this land, you cannot say the same. *You are the one who is ashamed to be british as you have explained in a detailed topic*

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/proud-british-4010.html

But in the end I am talking with a guy with the signature "discriminate every mtf...". 

Why I even try ?  




> Yeah CB.
> 
> Too much blood already.



Too much ? well call me blood thirsty if you like but less than 1000 deads for a europen country size islands doesnt sound much to me.




> What lack of understanding are you talking about?



All the comercial/trade agreements with Britain achieved in 1990s with the president Menem had been completely revoqued by the Kirchner, nobody ( in both parts) had try a serious dialogue, they all had proposed monologues.

The relation with Britain seems to go back to the late 1980s.


----------



## Udet (Aug 28, 2007)

Charlie, thanks! I concur (she is really something isn´t she?).

Mr. Glider, how´s the health? Hope much better.

But what do you people think (Charlie, Glider), to what extent could be true that if in the event of a new military clash between Argentina and England around the Malvinas, then Great Britain would not be in a position to assemble a similar type of task force?

Not a Malvinas expert at all, but what i do know is that the Argentinian Air Force proved a very very tough and capable enemy. Even if they made significant mistakes during the battle, i do not think the Brits ever came close to expect the losses they had to swallow at the hands of the brave argentinian pilots.

Someone told me he saw a History Channel anniversary special about the Falklands war where the British commander of the Task Force stated something like "we were on the verge of collapse, but to our luck the commander of the Argentinian army units on the Falklands did collapse first..."

So if the words of the British commander made an accurate description of the overall situation, then what could happen if the British would not be capable to assemble a "decent" task force in the future?


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2007)

Udet said:


> Charlie, thanks! I concur (she is really something isn´t she?).
> 
> Mr. Glider, how´s the health? Hope much better.
> 
> ...



Its a good question and to be honest until the new Carriers are in service with the F35, then the UK will have to depend on the forces in situ. They would no doubt put up a fight, but it would only have one result. Once the carriers are in place, then it becomes a different ball game.

There is also no doubt that the Argentine air forces of all arms performed better than anyone expected but the losses were less than the UK allowed for. 
Re the comment that the UK forces were on the verge of collapse, I cannot argue with a senior officer in the field at the time. 
I suspect the problem had more to do with the equipment, as opposed to the men collapsing. For example it should be remembered that literally every Sea Harrier we had, was in the front line. There were no reserves, non in support, none even in the UK and every one lost, was one less to fight with. Those in the front line had been operating in particually difficult battle conditions with only the spares and support available on the carriers, thousands of miles from home for weeks. Urgent spares were air dropped to the fleet by Hercules but there are only certain things that can be delivered in this manner. Sooner or later they were going to start breaking down. Their reliability was well beyond what anyone could expect but there is always a limit.
This also applied to all the heavy equipment and other helicopters that were being worked so hard and the single Chinook is well known. Another example were the Wessex helicopters on the Atlantic Conveyor, some of which were rebuit machines from hanger queens, this wasn't common knowledge. 
It was without doubt, a close run thing.

Re health, thanks for your concern. I was cleared last week and am now in remission with 3 monthly checks.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2007)

Britain has a garrison of troops on the Falklands and would take any sign of a military build up very seriously. Not an easy option.

Not enough blood for ya CB? How much more would you like? 

Boy, I don't even have an answer for that.


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Britain has a garrison of troops on the Falklands and would take any sign of a military build up very seriously. Not an easy option.
> 
> Not enough blood for ya CB? How much more would you like?
> 
> Boy, I don't even have an answer for that.



Suggest you try to think beyond the end of your nose. 

So what if they took it seriously, what exactly can they do with a flight of aircraft and no support, no carriers, no additional troops as there all in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you cannot make a sensible comment, you may want to think about shutting up, read what others post and learn.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2007)

Troops can be deployed.

Yeah...I'll ask guys who have served there our are currently serving there. So I can learn. 

As Ex RAF I don't need an education on the military preparedness or lack off of current armed forces. I can just ask an old pal.

I get told to shut up quite often. I just throw them in jail for the night so that they can calm down.


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Troops can be deployed.


From Where?


> Yeah...I'll ask guys who have served there our are currently serving there. So I can learn.


Suggest you do that and you will get the same reply, from where?



> As Ex RAF I don't need an education on the military preparedness or lack off of current armed forces. I can just ask an old pal.


Again I suggest you do that and guess what, you will get the same reply, from where?[/QUOTE]



> I get told to shut up quite often. I just throw them in jail for the night so that they can calm down.


Why doesn't that suprise me.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 28, 2007)

> But what do you people think (Charlie, Glider), to what extent could be true that if in the event of a new military clash between Argentina and England around the Malvinas, then Great Britain would not be in a position to assemble a similar type of task force?
> 
> Not a Malvinas expert at all, but what i do know is that the Argentinian Air Force proved a very very tough and capable enemy. Even if they made significant mistakes during the battle, i do not think the Brits ever came close to expect the losses they had to swallow at the hands of the brave argentinian pilots.



The problem for argentina is the same of Britain, it have less aircraft and less naval power than 1982. It is very probable that in case of a new war argentine will not be capable to inflict the damage done in 1982.

That reduction in military equipment does not respond to a economical reasons but to a political agenda of the civilian parties that had the power since 1999. 



> Britain has a garrison of troops on the Falklands and would take any sign of a military build up very seriously. Not an easy option.



Yeap and his intelligence information is a little outdated, An argentine TV channel was allowed to make a guided trip for the base, and they have posters in the wall with profiles of the Navy a-4Q and the Canberra B-mk 62. 

Just for the record, the A-4q was no longer active since 1988 and the Canberra was retired in 1997.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 28, 2007)

Hehehe...


----------



## The Basket (Aug 29, 2007)

The Argentine film crew were shown not much.
All you have to do is look at a reference book such as Janes and it will tell you Argentine Airpower. I had a Jimi Hendrix poster long after he was dead. Posters are not there as a scource of info. I didn't know that the whole of British Intelligence was based on a poster. Learn something new everyday.

Argentina would face economic sanctions if it invaded which would ruin the economy.
The Americans would be directly or indirectly support the UK in any operation.
The Argentines would have to do a bit of ethnic cleansing to remove the natives.
The British people would want a response. It may take a long time coming but something would have to happen.

And Argentina invaded because it didn't believe there was going to be a war in 82.

So...The Argentines are going to have to plan and execute an invasion in total secrecy. Fight and defeat a garrison of troops. Face economic ruin. Have the Americans against them. Be the bad guy for kicking out the islanders. And face any military threat which the British throws at them.

If the Argentines do invade and successfully then British servicemen will be killed. Even if it takes time, there will be a response. That would be a political have to.

Lets see what response I get. If someone has an answer for each of those scenarios then please tell me.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 29, 2007)

Excuse me, Glider, where were my politics comments at first? I don't like the little snide comments made, which you seemed to find so funny. So, I believe it was CB that started dragging it down - and I'll just carry on. And you're right, you're not a moderator ... 

As for you, CB, maybe you should a little more then if you've never seen propaganda of the _Canberra_ being sunk. But you are right, I'm ashamed of this country now. The Falklands was the last time this country seemed to show classic British spirit; the generations of low-life losers that Britain is developing now doesn't make me forget about the heritage of Great Britain which is still there for me to love. 

I don't know why you try, CB, but I was all up for keeping it civil and strictly unpolitical. But since your BS attitude brought it down a notch because you didn't agree with everything I said; I had to respond.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 29, 2007)

> The Argentine film crew were shown not much.
> All you have to do is look at a reference book such as Janes and it will tell you Argentine Airpower. I had a Jimi Hendrix poster long after he was dead. Posters are not there as a scource of info. I didn't know that the whole of British Intelligence was based on a poster. Learn something new everyday.
> 
> Argentina would face economic sanctions if it invaded which would ruin the economy.
> ...


.

Uh, I almost agree with your entire post...but Etnic cleansic, Argentina wasnt Serbia last time I check.  



> don't know why you try, CB, but I was all up for keeping it civil and strictly unpolitical. But since your BS attitude brought it down a notch because you didn't agree with everything I said; I had to respond.



If I like to talk about politics I dont need the permition of any member, specially one like you, ignore my post, I will ignore the yours.


----------



## trackend (Aug 29, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Argentines are going to have to plan and execute an invasion in total secrecy. Fight and defeat a garrison of troops. Face economic ruin. Have the Americans against them. Be the bad guy for kicking out the islanders. And face any military threat which the British throws at them.



Im not sure of the exact numbers but Great Britain maintains between one and two thousand troops there, which is a reasonable sized force along with Tornados based at Mount Pleasant and early warning systems etc and I bet a pound to a penny satalites are keeping an eye on things so the chances of a secret invasion is very remote. I think the chances of and invasion of any sort in the foreseable future is very remote. 
Just as remote is a political settlment, as it would be political suicide for either the Argentinian or the British govenment to conceed ground.

How long the Falklands argument will continue is anyones guess, mine is 40-50 years then based purely on the cost of maintaining a presents I suspect it will result in British withdrawal and Argentina will bang the gongs and claim a great victory, unless they have another military coup before then, then who knows what will happen.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 29, 2007)

I was browsing some books in PDF and I ve found this two pics, with are of argentine prisoners some minutes after his capture.

It is interesting to note a detail, in both ocassion they were hancuffed and blindfolded, I dont understand this practice wich seems like a precaution against a serial murder. It was for to impose some kind of psichological stress on them or what ?


Marine captured near the beachhead in may 21th.






Air force personnel.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 29, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I was browsing some books in PDF and I ve found this two pics, with are of argentine prisoners some minutes after his capture.
> 
> It is interesting to note a detail, in both ocassion they were hancuffed and blindfolded, I dont understand this practice wich seems like a precaution against a serial murder. It was for to impose some kind of psichological stress on them or what ?
> 
> ...



CB - the purpose of the blindfold is not for humiliation - there's a purpose for it... so they have no orientation. Brit units likely had staging or holding areas where they grouped the prisoners prior to their transfer up the chain. If a prisoner managed to escape, and was not blindfolded, they would be able to reveal all sorts of information regarding the enemy back to friendlies.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 29, 2007)

No offense CB but are you trying to be a sh#t stirrer.....
The reason is exactly what Mkloby said.... I thought that would have kinda been self evident but anyway....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 29, 2007)

> CB - the purpose of the blindfold is not for humiliation - there's a purpose for it... so they have no orientation. Brit units likely had staging or holding areas where they grouped the prisoners prior to their transfer up the chain. If a prisoner managed to escape, and was not blindfolded, they would be able to reveal all sorts of information regarding the enemy back to friendlies



I was not assuming humiliation but intimidation, thanks for your answer. Still seeing those pictures dont let a god taste in my mouth.



> No offense CB but are you trying to be a sh#t stirrer.....



I am not trying to be anything, I posted an ilustrated question and received a proper answer by Mkloby.
I have no idea what stirrer is but must be nothing good. Relax man, drink a beer, make a koala sandwich or something but dont come here with that attitude.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 30, 2007)

My father had that happen to him during basic quite a few times. It's part of training; they would release the recruits and give them a few hours before they gave chase with dogs and the like. When, or if, caught a hood would go over your head and they'd throw water over it. Then they'd give you a little slap - and all you had to do was; name, rank and number. Hell, those Argies probably got it better than those Brits did in training.

And upon showing those pictures to my dad - he says that they didn't treat the conscripts like that. The ghurkas scared them senseless as it was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I was browsing some books in PDF and I ve found this two pics, with are of argentine prisoners some minutes after his capture.
> 
> It is interesting to note a detail, in both ocassion they were hancuffed and blindfolded, I dont understand this practice wich seems like a precaution against a serial murder. It was for to impose some kind of psichological stress on them or what ?



CB there is a purpose as mkloby has pointed out. It is standard operating procedure for most military forces even today. For instance in Iraq whenever we captured insurgants they were handcuffed and blindfolded before being put on our helicopter.

It is not for humiliation purposes but rather to keep them from knowing where they are being brought to. Normal practice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> No offense CB but are you trying to be a sh#t stirrer.....
> The reason is exactly what Mkloby said.... I thought that would have kinda been self evident but anyway....




He was not doing so Aussie so I suggest you dont provoke anything either...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I was browsing some books in PDF and I ve found this two pics, with are of argentine prisoners some minutes after his capture.
> 
> It is interesting to note a detail, in both ocassion they were hancuffed and blindfolded, I dont understand this practice wich seems like a precaution against a serial murder. It was for to impose some kind of psichological stress on them or what ?


I went through an a abbreviated survival school. When I was captured I was blindfolded and later on hosed down - SOP.

BTW it was about 103F outside, I didn't mind getting wet....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 30, 2007)

> CB there is a purpose as mkloby has pointed out. It is standard operating procedure for most military forces even today. For instance in Iraq whenever we captured insurgants they were handcuffed and blindfolded before being put on our helicopter.



I see, but I dont think your example is 100 % accurate, Insurgents/ terrorist are not an conventional army and they didnt deserve tha same treatment.



> I went through an a abbreviated survival school. When I was captured I was blindfolded and later on hosed down - SOP.



Scary. You supposed captors were the British Paras ? ( joke  )


Enough words, some pictures.

*Awaiting the landing 20 mm MG emplacement near Pt Argentino/Stanley.*








*Landing ships on his way*







*Tired british soldier*.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 30, 2007)

CB - rest assured Adler's example is in fact 100% accurate. It does not matter if the enemy captured is a partisan, insurgent, or regular forces. That is standard operating procedure in the US Army and Marine Corps - and likely most other military organizations throughout the world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I see, but I dont think your example is 100 % accurate, Insurgents/ terrorist are not an conventional army and they didnt deserve tha same treatment.



Nope that is 100 % accurate. If they had been Russian Soldiers it would have been no different.

That is the normal practice for I would say 99% of all standing militaries.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 30, 2007)

I only can say that the argentine Armed forces did not imposed that kind of sight limitations or handcuffing to the prisoners taken during the conflict.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2007)

Well they fit into the 1% then. 

There are many reasons why it is done and none of it is humiliation.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 31, 2007)

sorry CB for accusing you but armies have been restraining P.O.Ws on capturing for obvious reasons for a least 100 years since the great war.......

P.S i do not eat koloa sandwiches- thats what kangaroos are for...


----------



## trackend (Aug 31, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I only can say that the argentine Armed forces did not imposed that kind of sight limitations or handcuffing to the prisoners taken during the conflict.



True. 
They just decided to invade a peaceful island and humiliate civilians at gun point.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 31, 2007)

Civillians thats camo they have got on.......


----------



## trackend (Aug 31, 2007)

I wasnt talking about the picture, I was talking about the comment A1001.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2007)

He's right though. And I believe it's needed to point out that the Argie troops thought it wasn't required since the British troops were captured in the place they were garrisoning - there's nothing new for them to see. Or maybe the Argie conscripts hadn't been trained properly.


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

This one was (nearly) my punch-up. Volunteered to go as soon as the task force started to be put together, the thought process being: “There are going to be 2 sorts of Air Traffickers, those that have gone, and those that are going! So I may as well go while it is ‘Interesting’!” 

And it was! Didn’t get down until immediately after the fighting had finished and learned a lot about myself! Best tour I had: Harriers, then F4s with the aluminium runway, 5 arrester cables, a recalcitrant PAR and a Flying Order Book that basically comprised one handwritten sheet – “get the aeroplanes out and back safely and without breaking anything “.

Checking out the twin 35mms around the place, the crews of which had been supplemented by conscripts, I noticed that they had obviously not been trained on the composition of the 7(?)-round clips that fed the guns. It would appear that they had reasoned “we’ll use one round of each type of (colour coded) ammunition that we have: so we’ll have a red striped one, a red and green striped one, a green striped one (etc) AND ONE OF THESE PRETTY ALL-BLUE ones". The latter were inert Drill Rounds! Therefore, the maximum number of ‘Bangs per Barrel’ was 6 before a major Stoppage took place, usually much less than this as the Drill Rounds were mainly in the middle of the clips for some reason. Don’t ask what the Gun Capt must have been doing….


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 31, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> And it was! Didn’t get down until immediately after the fighting had finished and learned a lot about myself! Best tour I had: Harriers, then F4s with the aluminium runway, 5 arrester cables, a recalcitrant PAR and a Flying Order Book that basically comprised one handwritten sheet – “get the aeroplanes out and back safely and without breaking anything “.
> 
> :


What were you guys using a Quad Radar for Par's with terminal from an air defence radar slaved to ATC.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 31, 2007)

> sorry CB for accusing you but armies have been restraining P.O.Ws on capturing for obvious reasons for a least 100 years since the great war.......
> 
> P.S i do not eat koloa sandwiches- thats what kangaroos are for...



No hard feelings. 

Aussie, forget all that chewy meat, take a trip here and try the best beef in the world.  






asado argentino - Busqueda Google de imÃ¡genes


----------



## trap one (Aug 31, 2007)

CB
The reason for blindfolds and handcuffs is twofold.
1st to stop captured personnel from seeing what is around them and then giving this information back to their own side if released. The Argentinion service personnel were returned to the main land after a period and as the British were staying they didn't want any information going back. The initial failure of the Argentine Forces allowed the British captives to give information when they were returned.
2nd It also prevents captives from knowing what is going on around them or where they are, so they are less likley to make a successful escape.
Once interned in a POW camp then all these restrictions would be removed and POW's would be free to move around and it would then be up to the captors to prevent anything of interest being seen by the POW's.

On a personal note I admire a lot of the Argentine airmen for their courage in pressing their attacks and for doing their jobs on the Islands under fire.
The conscripts were badly led, clothed and supported but it didn't stop the majority of them fighting battles that resulted in large numbers of casulties om both sides.
Tactically the British were superior to the Argentines in all areas of the conflict, and that with the equipment leads in some but not all areas resulted in the events being finished the way they were.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 31, 2007)

I'll let that argument about the beef rest, i happen to live on a beef farm and are very fond of our meat but anyway....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 1, 2007)

trap one said:


> CB
> The reason for blindfolds and handcuffs is twofold.
> 1st to stop captured personnel from seeing what is around them and then giving this information back to their own side if released. The Argentinion service personnel were returned to the main land after a period and as the British were staying they didn't want any information going back. The initial failure of the Argentine Forces allowed the British captives to give information when they were returned.
> 2nd It also prevents captives from knowing what is going on around them or where they are, so they are less likley to make a successful escape.
> ...



Thanks for your information but...I dont meant to be rude but you arent saying anything new/ or something that wasnt not already mentioned here...are you ?

Is funny how the word "conscript" quickly replaced the word "soldier" in every british book/magazine/website, and fill a gap in this war, it seems that until 1982 every war in the entire world was fought with enlisted/volunteer personnel.

Also seems like the britons have a mini-orgasm with that word.


----------



## trap one (Sep 1, 2007)

CB
Not trying to repost just summarize what everyone else had said. I do apologize if it sounded any other way.
The "conscript" is a word that describes the way a soldier is recruited into the forces. Actually I certainly acknowledge that all wars are fought with the majority of combatants being "conscripted" into the forces. 
There is never a chance of always winning because one side is "conscripted" and one side is "volunteer". I have been to the Islands more than once, it takes a special leadership to be able to motivate and command in such hostile conditions. I believe that the Argentine army didn't have that Leadership/command skills and so the Lads on the front line (conscripts for the most part) were let down. If they had then I suspect that casualties would have been higher on both sides and the end of the conflict would have been further towards the end of the year. You only have to look at the Vietnam wars, with all sides involved having conscripted forces and volunteers. But the side most willing to take casualties and continue to fight, when the other sides became disenchanted with the war as they lost the propaganda war, were the eventual winners. 
The Falklands/Malvinas conflict can be reviewed by us as it happened so long ago and hopefully it would not erupt again. 
I build a lot of "what if models " and as arm chair generals we can say what we would have done. But none of us would have politicians telling us we can't have the money or do this or that because they say so. 

As for the Orgasm no not for me, either way people who go to war be they volunteers or conscripts are going to die.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 1, 2007)

Ethnic cleansing is in general use now CB not just for the former Yugoslav wars.

If Argentina ever rules The Falklands then you are going to have to deal with a British population who doesn't support Argentine rule. People who don't like their leaders usually do something about it.

The prisoner thing is another issue. Sure the Brits may have done some bad things but did the Argentines do anything bad either? Maybe only a few soldiers guarding a large number of prisoners so maybe some of restraint has to be used.

The conscript thing is absolutely true. I ex military and there is a world of difference between conscripts and pros. I don't know how long conscripts served in Argentinas army but it maybe 2 years? Against long serving guys with plenty of training and experience.
My uncle served in Korea as a conscript as a signaller and he hardly thought it good. He never went to the Army careers office to be a soldier...the Army came to him. Not Motivated...not what he wanted. Serve his time and go.
In life...the guy with the most training, the most experience and the most motivation will win almost every time.


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Sep 1, 2007)

> What were you guys using a Quad Radar for Par's with terminal from an air defence radar slaved to ATC.



No, we had nothing to do with the Scopies (FIADGE - Falkland Islands Air Defence Ground Environment) – quite right too, you never know what you might catch! They had their (captured) TPS-43 and other stuff up on Mt Longdon (or was it Kent?) - which was the best place for them (in more senses than one!) - and we had an air-mobile Plessey AR-1 ATC Surveillance Radar that fed into a Cossor SLA-3B PAR that was long past its sell-by date. We also had a mobile TRN-26 TACAN and a DF kit so that we could ‘go passive’ if we needed to. 

The AR-1 cabin was on the North side of the airfield and fitted beautifully between 2 rock outcrops that formed a wonderful natural blast wall for protection; it couldn’t have been better if it had been built by the Royal Engineers! And of course it camouflaged magnificently.

The AR-1 actually supplemented the TPS-43 rather nicely as most AD Radars have a large ‘overhead’ due to their PRF. I was being checked out on radar on my day 2 by an RN type who, fortunately, was cross-trained as a Fighter Controller when the line from Ops rang;

Me: “Approach – what is it Ops?”

Ops:	(about 9 octaves above middle C) “AIR RED, AIR RED, AIR RED!”

Me:	(superciliously) “Don’t you mean EXERCISE air red, air red, air red?”

Ops:	“NO I F****** DON’T!”

The Targets suddenly appeared on the edge of our cover (and inside FIADGE’s), 2 pair of Harriers were scrambled, Rapiers went weapons free, GPMGs were manned and my RN colleague conducted a 180 x 5 converting to a Fox 2 shot about 15 miles out with Harrier Lead 2. Fortunately, Harrier Lead got a visident on Target 1 just as he was about to pickle a 9L. And identified a Sea Harrier! All a bit too close for comfort. In sum, all a bit of a comms screw-up that would take _faaaaar _to long to detail here.

Still, good lessons learned all round.


----------



## trackend (Sep 2, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Also seems like the britons have a mini-orgasm with that word.



I'm British and I don't have a mini orgasm with that word. If a squaddie is not a regular and not a conscript pray tell what are they? The only other type I can think of, off hand is a mercenary.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 2, 2007)

> The "conscript" is a word that describes the way a soldier is recruited into the forces. Actually I certainly acknowledge that all wars are fought with the majority of combatants being "conscripted" into the forces.
> There is never a chance of always winning because one side is "conscripted" and one side is "volunteer". I have been to the Islands more than once, it takes a special leadership to be able to motivate and command in such hostile conditions.


 


> I'm British and I don't have a mini orgasm with that word. If a squaddie is not a regular and not a conscript pray tell what are they? The only other type I can think of, off hand is a mercenary



Volunteer or not both are soldiers, but I guess this word might be a very radical one for some british sources/members. 




> Ethnic cleansing is in general use now CB not just for the former Yugoslav wars.
> If Argentina ever rules The Falklands then you are going to have to deal with a British population who doesn't support Argentine rule. People who don't like their leaders usually do something about it.



Sorry basket but you are becaming definately silly, if you have an seriuos idea spit it out, but this.... 


Recreation of the attack against Pebble island airfield, 14-15th may 1982


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 5, 2007)

*The ears collector.*

A macabre hobby of the Malvinas war.












Source : Daily Telegraph


----------



## trackend (Sep 6, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Volunteer or not both are soldiers, but I guess this word might be a very radical one for some British sources/members.



I agree CB they are both soldiers but if one soldier is a Professional and has seen action and the other one is told to don a uniform and has not there is a world of difference.
Quite a few of the British forces had been involved in conflicts before the Falklands (Northern Ireland for example)
Thats not to decry conscripts WW2 was mostly fought by conscripts.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 6, 2007)

OK CB...do you want silly...personal abuse...ah well.

The point you are ignoring is that the local British population don't want to be Argentines. So therefore in any referendum...they will vote UK. 

Therefore how can the Falklands ever be Argentine?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 6, 2007)

The Basket said:


> OK CB...do you want silly...personal abuse...ah well.
> 
> The point you are ignoring is that the local British population don't want to be Argentines. So therefore in any referendum...they will vote UK.
> 
> Therefore how can the Falklands ever be Argentine?



That's a point - but here's something else to consider. English actions and policy over hundreds of years directly caused the demographics of Ireland to change drastically, particularly in the north. Does that make it legitimate British soil now? There obviously isn't a clear cut answer. However, us Catholics are breeding you out of the north because for some reason protestants don't like to have children. (major problem throughout much of europe).


----------



## Hop (Sep 6, 2007)

> That's a point - but here's something else to consider. English actions and policy over hundreds of years directly caused the demographics of Ireland to change drastically, particularly in the north. Does that make it legitimate British soil now?



There are very few countries in the world that weren't taken at gun/sword point some time in recorded history. Is Texas legitimate American soil? California? All the west was taken by the US more recently than Northern Ireland.



> However, us Catholics are breeding you out of the north because for some reason protestants don't like to have children. (major problem throughout much of europe).



That's a general western problem, not limited to Protestants. Spain and Italy have the lowest birth rates in western Europe, last I saw, and I don't think many Protestants remain there. (It also affects affluent countries like Japan and South Korea, so it's not really a Christian thing at all).

BTW, the same is true in the US. How long until the Mexicans take back Texas, California and the rest? I believe California already has as many Hispanics as whites.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 6, 2007)

The Basket said:


> OK CB...do you want silly...personal abuse...ah well.
> 
> The point you are ignoring is that the local British population don't want to be Argentines. So therefore in any referendum...they will vote UK.



Personal abuse ?, moi ?  

Is not that I am ignoring the "british" population,I am simply talking about the 1982 war in disregard of other political considerations.



> Therefore how can the Falklands ever be Argentine?



I dont know, but in any case I wont get bother about the racial and religion issues of the islanders, the people here dont much pay attention to that aniway. Argentine always embraced all colors and religions without making any difference, my grandfathers can tell you that. Not many countries in the world could do so. 

But as I say before, my participation in this topic is to talk about the 1982 war, not much else.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 6, 2007)

Hop said:


> There are very few countries in the world that weren't taken at gun/sword point some time in recorded history. Is Texas legitimate American soil? California? All the west was taken by the US more recently than Northern Ireland.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you making an issue of nothing Hop? You didn't hear me say whether one line of reasoning was right or wrong, did you? I brought up situation to illustrate it's not cut and dry and who is presently inhabiting an area that is in contention.

Good points on birth rates. I was only referring to the traditional large Catholic family (which obviously doesn't hold true anymore if you look up national birth and fertility rates!) With respect to births per female, Europe as a whole is at about 1.4 I believe. The estimate is that to maintain population you need about 2.1 births per female (not considering immigration). This will have obvious implications for Europe, and much of the west, over time when you do consider immigration and shifting demographics. More likely rooted in socio-economic factors.

Back to the thread topic...


----------



## trackend (Sep 6, 2007)

mkloby said:


> That's a point - but here's something else to consider. English actions and policy over hundreds of years directly caused the demographics of Ireland to change drastically, particularly in the north. Does that make it legitimate British soil now? There obviously isn't a clear cut answer. .



I think this could better be carried on in another thread however I agree with your comments MK as you rightly point out much of the same argument same could apply to countless other nations eg North America. Canada, Australia, even Argentina.
A historic line as to sovereignty has to be drawn somewhere.

Sorry for going off thread guys.


----------



## rogthedodge (Sep 6, 2007)

On the ears thing, it's been reported many times before. It's a wierd, sadistic (even from dead bodies) and disgraceful thing to do. It was tolerated in some US units in 'Nam but it's, rightly, an offence in our Army


One small solace in the story is that it shows such things are not tolerated in the British Army. There's no debate, why McGlaughlin Jnr should even think there's a case for an award is beyond me. Sure he was brave but a brave wierdo

BTW I think the 'war crimes' comment refers to the mercenary / execution rumour I posted earlier in this thread. Doesn't make it true but confirms it was a strong rumour there was some investigation (?)

Poor taste comment - couldn't help noticing 'Scouse', if it's not hubcaps radios ............  Only joshing Scallies!


----------



## Graeme (Sep 6, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> But as I say before, my participation in this topic is to talk about the 1982 war, not much else.



What information do you have on Operation Corporate? Was the 707 fitted out for reconnaissance/surveillance or simply long range 'eyes in the sky'? The magazine only mentions it once, in this caption. 





Would the Skyhawk have 'won the war'?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 6, 2007)

> What information do you have on Operation Corporate? Was the 707 fitted out for reconnaissance/surveillance or simply long range 'eyes in the sky'? The magazine only mentions it once, in this caption.



Page 14 of this topic.



CharlesBronson said:


> This serie of photo belongs to the recce mission of an argentine Boeing 707 (TC-91) from the First Air Brigade. The day was the 21th april 1982 and the Boeing was watching the progress of the Royal Navy in route to the islands. The argentine aircraft was detected ( obviusly) and a Sea harrie climbed to his side. One of the 707 crew take the pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The eye and the radar was used, but mostly the eye.

According to crew a seadart was fired but missed.



> Would the Skyhawk have 'won the war'?



Dont think so, probably would made it longer.



> On the ears thing, it's been reported many times before. It's a wierd, sadistic (even from dead bodies) and disgraceful thing to do. It was tolerated in some US units in 'Nam but it's, rightly, an offence in our Army
> BTW I think the 'war crimes' comment refers to the mercenary / execution rumour I posted earlier in this thread. Doesn't make it true but confirms it was a strong rumour there was some investigation (?)



I only hope that this kind of "tribal" practice wasnt the rule in the British soldiers.
The war crimes histories are mostly based in two books. "To hell and back" and "Green eyed boys", both described several cases of prisoners execution by british paratroopers.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 6, 2007)

Thanks Charles.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 7, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> On the ears thing, it's been reported many times before. It's a wierd, sadistic (even from dead bodies) and disgraceful thing to do. It was tolerated in some US units in 'Nam but it's, rightly, an offence in our Army
> 
> 
> One small solace in the story is that it shows such things are not tolerated in the British Army. There's no debate, why McGlaughlin Jnr should even think there's a case for an award is beyond me. Sure he was brave but a brave wierdo
> ...




Rog - individuals may have condoned it, but never the US military. Please don't attempt to make it appear as if such atrocities are acceptable in the US military, but not condoned in the Brit military.


CB - do you know what year Argentina took possession of their King Air 200s? I remember you posting some pics of them in this or another thread.


----------



## rogthedodge (Sep 7, 2007)

Never said it was acceptable or condoned by US military authorities. Key words being 'tolerated' and 'some'.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 7, 2007)

> CB - do you know what year Argentina took possession of their King Air 200s? I remember you posting some pics of them in this or another thread.



The navy received two batchs, one of B-80s in 1975 for training and other of B-200 equipped for photo recce and transport duties in 1980-81.

In 1994 the survivors were equipped with air-to-sea radar for detecting intruding fishing boats in the patagonian coast.

*1982.*







In 1998 were replaced in that task for the P-3C orions.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 7, 2007)

Bravo, CB. Bravo.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks man. 8) 



> _On May, 21st, then Lt. Horacio Sánchez Mariño (Argentine Army), flying
> Bell UH-1H AE-418 helicopter, took of on a commandoes insertion flight
> near Mount Kent, during the Malvinas War. He was intercepted by a
> Harrier CAP that, even though it could not shoot down the said
> ...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks - good info CB


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 7, 2007)

You re welcome Mac.

There was other biturboprop in service in 1982.
Interestingly the navy after burning out his last Lockheed P-2 Neptune in the very long range mission against the HMS Sheffield rented to Brazil 3 EMBRAER EMB-111 Bandeirante with searching radars. 






However the aircraft did not fullfill the spectancies of the navy pilots. Probably the Beech 200 would be better with the proper equipment.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 7, 2007)

I have been told that slow moving aircraft are a very difficult target for fast movers with guns only. In fact, a 130J driver told me that his odds in a mountainous area were surprisingly good against a high speed fighter.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Sep 7, 2007)

i have heard stories about korea where one american jet was trying to shoot down a korean bi plane that had been bombing american airfields, the sabre even with full flaps and undercarriage down was still going to fast. In the end he shot the bi-plane down however stalled and crashed killing the pilot....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 9, 2007)

> I have been told that slow moving aircraft are a very difficult target for fast movers with guns only. In fact, a 130J driver told me that his odds in a mountainous area were surprisingly good against a high speed fighter.



It seems to be true, also in the Navy T-34C mentor used over the islands, check the first message of Graeme in page 22, actually the first post of page 22 and the last one are two jewels  



> i have heard stories about korea where one american jet was trying to shoot down a korean bi plane that had been bombing american airfields, the sabre even with full flaps and undercarriage down was still going to fast. In the end he shot the bi-plane down however stalled and crashed killing the pilot....



I know the Koreans used Polikarpv P-2 , but I think his most usual predator was the F4U Corsair.


*It hurts ¡¡*

Ricardo Lucero, Dagger pilot, scream of pain after being hit by seadart and forced to eject in San carlos waters, 25th may 1982.

The pilot broke a leg in the process and was captured by the HMS Fearless.







The dark skin colour of Lucero gave place to a funny incident, the britons believe for sometime that the argentine air Force was using Peruvian pilots. 

In fact Peru helped Argentina selling 10 Mirage Vp, those planes were ferried by peruvians pilots to Argentina , but they came too late for participate in combats and in any case the Air Force ( obviously) rejected the entusiast requeriment of the peruvians to fly combat missions against the Royal Navy.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2007)

Why turn down the offer of help?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 10, 2007)

Probably because the Argentine Goverment didnt want to involve a third country in the war.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 12, 2007)

Napalm filled tanks pictured in Goose Green, those were designed for use in A-4 and FMA IA-58. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depend in wich side are you looking for) those were never used against ships, it would be no "fuze troubles" with this.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2007)

If Argentina turned down the offer of help; it would have only been to save an alliance against them. If Peru joined in on the Argentine side it would have most likely led to South American countries joining on the British side and probably the U.S would have stepped in with force.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 13, 2007)

> If Peru joined in on the Argentine side it would have most likely led to South American countries joining on the British side and probably the U.S would have stepped in with force.


----------



## José Luis (Sep 14, 2007)

Glider said:


> Why turn down the offer of help?


and


CharlesBronson said:


> Probably because the Argentine Goverment didnt want to involve a third country in the war.


I was in service in that period and there were a couple of corridor rumors regarding this. Without any order, one said that USA intelligence pressed a lot the Junta Militar to avoid the use foreign countries ops and continue to rent tools, the second one said that for political reasons, they were lefties, Argentina didn't accept people.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2007)

So, once again, CB proves he cannot grasp the real world.


----------



## José Luis (Sep 14, 2007)

plan_D said:


> So, once again, CB proves he cannot grasp the real world.


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Really. 
However, I try to clarify. Up to now, the info that CB was given, or better, the info that I red from him here were always right. At least for what I know.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2007)

Have you just said that him saying four British destroyers were sank in the Falklands was right?


----------



## Glider (Sep 14, 2007)

plan_D said:


> So, once again, CB proves he cannot grasp the real world.




I am afraid that I don't understand this comment. If this referring to his last reply to a posting of yours I admit to not knowing where you were coming from. 
There was absolutley no chance of anyone joining in the war on the side of the UK. Like it or not, large parts of the world see the UK as the imperialist aggressor and are more than happy to see us on the losing side of a dispute.
Chile was the best ally that we had and they have their own long standing border disputes with Argentina, namely the Beagle Channel, which no doubt had something to do with the assistance the UK received. 

Can I ask on what grounds you based your scenario?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 20, 2007)

Quite silent here since the last Gliders question  

I wonder why ?

OTO Melara 105 mm howitzer of the 4th airborne artillery regiment in action.







The barrel in full recoil.







In some ocassion the enemy was engaged aiming trough the barrel given the close range of the british advance.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

Okay the last one was a little over the top, CB.


----------



## Glider (Sep 21, 2007)

Have to agree with you on that. The British used those Italian 105 howitzers for a while and they have AT sights, so looking through the barrel is a little unlikely.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 21, 2007)

Hey...CB.

I read that the Argentines had SA-7 Grail Shoulder launched heat seekers...this right?

Do you have a list of all Argentine air defence assets in the Falklands and any kills they may have?


----------



## mfg (Sep 21, 2007)

A couple of shots of Tornado F3's of 1435 Flt based in the Falklands now. 
There are plans replace the F3's with the Eurofighter Typhoon by the end of 2007, we will wait and see


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

> Okay the last one was a little over the top, CB.



Not really, probably some kind of canister shot were used.









> Hey...CB.
> 
> I read that the Argentines had SA-7 Grail Shoulder launched heat seekers...this right?
> 
> Do you have a list of all Argentine air defence assets in the Falklands and any kills they may have?



Yes, 30 were bought in Libia in may 1982, the ony task I remember for those asigned was to defend the ground launched Exocets.

Air force:

Oerlikon twin 35 mm

Rheinmetall twin 20mm

Army: 

Roland Missiles

Oerlikon twin 35mm

Blow Pipe.

Hispano Hs 804 20mm

Hispano Hs 627 30 mm.

Sa-7


Marines: 

Sa-7


The argentine kills ? well this site have a good account.

One of Our Aircraft is Missing

Obviously more aircraft were claimed by the argentine forces than the list quoted there, specially helicopters.

The air Force claimed one more Sea harrier and a Scout, that dindt appear there.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 21, 2007)

Quiet silence because I've got better things to do; sorry if my world isn't rotating around this discussion. 

I base my scenario on history, and the lessons its given us, Glider. How many times have wars snowballed into larger conflicts for no reason? How many times have wars been thrown out of control because one country saw an oppurtunity, and took it? Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Great Northern War, War of Spanish Succession, World War I to name a few. All those wars have one thing in a common, the vast majority of the combatants had nothing to do with the original cause of war. 

Maybe it doesn't say it in your books, and it doesn't say it in mine, but if you read then think - the Falklands War had the tension to break out into something bigger. If Peru had got involved, Chile would have a reason, then someone else, then someone else, and it's pretty obvious that the U.S would eventually say enough is enough and stick their lot in. 

It might be hard to grasp ...but just think a little and read past 1982


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

Chile is one thing but you wrote:



> led to South American countries joining on the British side



That means entire South America against Argentina and that is 100 % foolish.



> Quiet silence because I've got better things to do; sorry if my world isn't rotating around this discussion.



Yes sure, that comes from a guy with 11,200 messages


----------



## The Basket (Sep 21, 2007)

Hey CB

On the SA-7s...were they bought at the rush for the conflict or was it a long term thing...were they ever fired in anger...who did the training?????

If memory served...interesting about a Libyan connection...I beleive Libya also had air launched Exocets for their Mirage F1s...I bet you guys asked nice for a dozen


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

> On the SA-7s...were they bought at the rush for the conflict or was it a long term thing...were they ever fired in anger...who did the training?????



Yeap, they were bought because nobody was selling anything better.

Was fired but I dont remember any kill with that system.



> If memory served...interesting about a Libyan connection...I beleive Libya also had air launched Exocets for their Mirage F1s...I bet you guys asked nice for a dozen



True, but none come.

*Hs 804, 20mm.*


----------



## plan_D (Sep 21, 2007)

11,200 messages in over three years, and not all in this discussion. I browse and contribute to many on here, but the numbers have been dwindling because I've got things to do at the moment. So, don't think you're high and mighty if I take a while to reply in future.

"South American countries joining in..." doesn't mean ALL of South America, does it? If I said European countries would join in against Germany in World War II, it wouldn't mean all of Europe fought against them. 

Get a grip. Since you didn't reply properly, do I assume you haven't got a decent response?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

> 11,200 messages in over three years, and not all in this discussion. I browse and contribute to many on here, but the numbers have been dwindling because I've got things to do at the moment. So, don't think you're high and mighty if I take a while to reply in future.



Okay, but being brutally honest I dont care any of your aswers, but the ones of more balanced people.



> "South American countries joining in..." doesn't mean ALL of South America, does it? If I said European countries would join in against Germany in World War II, it wouldn't mean all of Europe fought against them.



*And what does mean?* Bolivia joining in ? Guyana joining in ? Paraguay joining in? Brasil joining in ? Did the british need a samba squad?

You wrote senceless post and then is my fault  

No other south american country than Chile was willing to attack Argentina, even less willing if the allied was Britain.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 21, 2007)

Chile, South American...makes my comment valid. And if Chile had something to gain, which it would have, it wouldn't have cared about being allied with Britain. And more balanced people...like you? Haha. You try to be subtle in bad mouthing Britain, but it's about as subtle as a brick. And when you get it back, you don't like it. And if you didn't really care, you wouldn't reply, would you?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

> Chile, South American...makes my comment valid



It did not.



> And more balanced people...like you? Haha. You try to be subtle in bad mouthing Britain, but it's about as subtle as a brick. And when you get it back, you don't like it. And if you didn't really care, you wouldn't reply, would you?



Well I dont remember being subtle with what opinion do I have with the britain claim or the the argentine one.

Aniway you are right, I shouldnt reply, but there is so many stupidity flying around...I cant resist.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 21, 2007)

'Stupidity' flying around, none of which you've actually attempted to counter. Rather you attempt personal attacks that have no real significance to anything but your own attempt on inflating your ego. You provide pictures (nice pictures, I can't deny) of the war then copy and paste articles that I find it hard to believe you've ever read. 

Why waste your time and effort in trying to get one over on me? Why don't you just read a little more, learn a little more and then if you think I've said something that's wrong - counter it and maybe I'd concede. Instead of ranting because I didn't say exactly what you wanted to hear. 

Perfect example was you getting butt-hurt and going off on one because I said the transport ships should have been the target. Ranting about how four top class destroyers were sunk and I was trying to forget about them hardly put up a good case against me, especially since two were destroyers and two were frigates. 

So, why bother? I'm wasting my time now, but I ain't got anything better to do for the next ten minutes while my dinner cooks. What's your excuse?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

Yea man...whatever.  

Talking about artillery here I found avideo in Youtube showing the Ga4 pieces in action.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYIPB2x01-Q_


----------



## Theo (Sep 21, 2007)

Hi I'm new here. Forgive me if this is a stupid question but I've always wondered about this since the Falklands war. The model A-4s that the Argentines flew could not mount any version of the sidewinder missle and this is why they did so poorly against the Harriers?


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 21, 2007)

The A-4 was not used as a fighter it's role was as a strike aircraft.

.


----------



## Theo (Sep 21, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The A-4 was not used as a fighter it's role was as a strike aircraft.
> 
> .



Thanks but that doesn't really answer my question. So the A-4s went in unescorted by fighters? I've seen pictures of A-4s with sidewinders mounted on their wings. I suppose the Argentines didn't have any.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 21, 2007)

I believe that the variants B, C and Q did not had the capabilities of carring Sidewinders, in any case neither in the AAF or the Navy never was intended to use those in the war in this aircraft type.






Most of the missions were flew unescorted.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 21, 2007)

Excellent pic.


----------



## José Luis (Sep 27, 2007)

Theo said:


> Thanks but that doesn't really answer my question. So the A-4s went in unescorted by fighters? I've seen pictures of A-4s with sidewinders mounted on their wings. I suppose the Argentines didn't have any.


Several missions were unescorted, other escorted (see [POST=here;265098]).[/POST]. 
For what regard the A4 used by Argentina during the war, for these aircrafts, never was intended to use so sophisticated weapon (there was a veto from USA to sell AIM9 to Argentina)


----------



## The Basket (Sep 27, 2007)

Did the Argentines have stocks of any Sidewinder and did any aircraft have the ability to fire them?

I know you had Magics. Did the Daggers have the capabilty to fire Magics or Sidewinder? Was the Etendards ever fitted with Magics?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 27, 2007)

Yes, Etendars did use Magic, but those were not deployed in the war.

The AAF had AIM-9B AIM -9c, completely useless variants.

The sidewinder could be fired from the Mirage IIIEA and Mirage V.


----------



## José Luis (Sep 28, 2007)

Thanks CB, even linked, I was unable to answer (meetings!!!).


----------



## The Basket (Sep 28, 2007)

Yep 9 Bravo against 9 Lima.

Is that Mirage V or Dagger?

Did you have any Isreali AAM due to having Daggers? Can't think of many French jets with Sidewinder.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 28, 2007)

Daggers actually, the Daggers used the shafrir in the early days of the war, but then were completely turned to the bombing role.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2008)

More stuff I ve found in this last times.

British paratroopers.







Casualties of the attack of the Argentine Air Force on HMS Sir Tristam and Sir Galahand.












This last two are from:
"Red and Green Life Machine: Diary of the Falklands Field Hospital" ( Rick Jolly )


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 14, 2008)

CB, where the eff have you been?????


----------



## timshatz (Jun 15, 2008)

Uggggghhhh, flash burns, nasty stuff.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

Yes, horrible indeed

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2008)

CB

How does Argentina view the Malvinas now?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2008)

> CB, where the eff have you been?????



Dont tell me that you miss me ?  

Well, you know I am a little lazy to post in forums in wich I am not moderator, but aniway youll see me around in this next days.








> CB
> 
> How does Argentina view the Malvinas now?



Err...hummm, just browse a little the 33 pages of this topic and there is chances that you found out.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Yeah I did miss you. I missed this thread. Good to see you back.


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2008)

I admit that I have missed your contributions, its good to have you back


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Yep, whether you agree with CB or not on some of his posts, his ability to moderate the thread is awesome and worthy of a good read.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Uggggghhhh, flash burns, nasty stuff.



At least based upon the treatments they appear to be rather superficial 2nd degree burns.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2008)

> Yeah I did miss you. I missed this thread. Good to see you back.





> I admit that I have missed your contributions, its good to have you back



Hehe thanks you guys, ill try to post more material then.

*Argie IAI Dagger attacking a frigate* ( or destroyer or whatever a british combat ship is called) , I am not sure in the splashes are from the 30mm Defa or some flak of the ship.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knVGQ3zl7lI_


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

Looks like suppresive fire from the airplane. Does NOT look like defensive fire based upon the holographic sight recording.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2008)

Yup, I agree, it seems that the argentine pilot had some troubles in get the aircraft steady or is doing it in order to avoid british gunfire. 

The bif fat 30 mm bullet is nasty when actually hit the target, some radar controllers in HMS Brilliant were injured (or killed I dont remeber well) when his ship was strafed in that way, this are impacts in the side of HMS Arrow.

( edited ..link dont work)


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2008)

I am pretty sure that she is a Rothsay class Frigate under attack. The splashes I am confident are from the aircraft. The AA fire from the frigate would have been limited to one x 20mm, one Seacat and any mg's she could have scraped together. I suspect the aircraft is under fire as there is a lot of jinking about. 
Its possible that the pilot may have been under the impression that she was a Leander CLass firgate some of which had the twin 4.5 replaced by a Seawolf which was far more dangerous and the hull of the Leander was very similar to the Rothsay so its an easy mistake to make


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 16, 2008)

Yup, probably so, the aiming is pretty bad actually  

Soldiers with penguin (again)








With captured Flag.







Achtung mines.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 19, 2008)

*Air attack , an insight view.*

The argentine attack against HMS Argonat from the british point of view, 21 may 1982:



> I read with interest your info regarding the attachk on HMS Argonaut.
> 
> I was Heavily involved in this attack in being on the flightdeck of the ship at the time.
> 
> ...













> The guys on the left are the same as the rest of us, "Jumpy" towards the end of out time there we are even getting excited seeing seagulls oftem mistaking them for distant aircraft - You get like that sometimes.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

I have been reading some of the post in this threa, and have to say that it is a very impressive thread. I feel humbled by the depth of knowlewdge, and the fairness in the assessment.

I have to ask a question, and hopefully wont tread on any toes by doing that. I have always been an avid fan of the Sea Harrier, and have read in various accounts that they were responsible for shooting down something like 29 argentinian aircraft. They owed something of their success to two things, the sidewinders they were carrying, and their ability to "VIFF". 

Is any of this true, or am i completely mistaken. If I am mistaken, to what extent was the british carrier air power affecting the air battle over the TF?


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I have been reading some of the post in this threa, and have to say that it is a very impressive thread. I feel humbled by the depth of knowlewdge, and the fairness in the assessment.
> 
> I have to ask a question, and hopefully wont tread on any toes by doing that. I have always been an avid fan of the Sea Harrier, and have read in various accounts that they were responsible for shooting down something like 29 argentinian aircraft. They owed something of their success to two things, the sidewinders they were carrying, and their ability to "VIFF".
> 
> Is any of this true, or am i completely mistaken. If I am mistaken, to what extent was the british carrier air power affecting the air battle over the TF?



The influence of the Harrier it was huge as its performace was significantly better than anything the Argentine Forces had. The crews were well trained and were operating under radar control. On top of this the Sidewinders were of the latest type and the radar was pretty good as well so it was a potent fighter.

The ability to VIFF is often mentioned but it only of any use as a last ditch evasive technique, you gain height but lose a huge amount of energy, by the time you get it back the other aircraft is long gone. I have not heard of any occasion when it was used in combat. There was one occasion where the ability to slow down using the adjustable exhausts was used and that was to finish off a Pucara that didn't want to go down.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 25, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I have been reading some of the post in this threa, and have to say that it is a very impressive thread. I feel humbled by the depth of knowlewdge, and the fairness in the assessment.




Here ..Here.. On that statement...

And me being a dumb American..For some reason I was thinking the Falklands was not a big deal ..I know ,,I know It was called a war for a reason ..War is well .........War..duh.....But at the time it was going on the American News just past it off as no biggie.. ....  ...

I hate the news ...
My respect to both sides and those who were there


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm with you Haztoys, this has been a most humbling thread and much thanks to CB and the contributors.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

The Sea harriers are gone now I notice...a sad day I think. I understand the Brits intend to build a large carrier, and to use F-35s....but not until 2013


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 26, 2008)

> I have been reading some of the post in this threa, and have to say that it is a very impressive thread. I feel humbled by the depth of knowlewdge, and the fairness in the assessment.
> 
> I have to ask a question, and hopefully wont tread on any toes by doing that. I have always been an avid fan of the Sea Harrier, and have read in various accounts that they were responsible for shooting down something like 29 argentinian aircraft. They owed something of their success to two things, the sidewinders they were carrying, and their ability to "VIFF".
> 
> Is any of this true, or am i completely mistaken. If I am mistaken, to what extent was the british carrier air power affecting the air battle over the TF



Thanks.

My opinion is that more important than any intrinsecal flying characteristics of the Sea Harrier was his armament, the Sidewinder L was the most vicious killing machine of argentine aircraft.




> *Is worth to mention than before the war started some british pilots fought simulated battles between Sea Harrier and Mirage IIIE of the Armee del Air and the differences were not as big as later found in the Malvinas /Falklands war.
> 
> Those differences were probably explained by
> 
> ...



Quote of "Dios y los Halcones" book, God and the Hawks by Cpt Marcos Carballo.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

In a sense there was carrier loss arising from the Falklands. Just before the conflict arose, the Australian Government had negotiated the sale of the Invincible to replace the ageing Melbourne. The Navy at the time, to try and force the Australian Governments hand produced a report that indicated the need for major expenditure to extend the life of the Carrier (Melbourne) for another 10 years. This was to put pressure on the Australian Government to expedite the purchase of the Brit thru deck cruiser. 

Then the war was fought, and all of a sudden the Brit Government wre not nearly as keen to offload their carrrier. There was a change of government in Australia, and the carrier issue became a political issue. Seems the outgoing Fraser government had not costed the 500 million it would take to put aircraft on the thing. New government arrived, cancelled the deal to buy the Invincible, and then also said it was not worth refitting the melbourne one more time. They scrapped the Melbourne, and the RAN has been without one ever since. So in a sense, the Flaklands cost Australia its carrier. A bit ironic

We were equipped with A4-Gs in the '70s, which carried as standard AIM-9 sidewinders on our FAA aircraft. We used to train to use our A-4s as air defence aircraft, as well as strike aircraft. We had only iron bombs at the time. The A-4s we thought were pretty good at their job. As a trainee, I watched several "hypothetical" excercises at the tac warfare school (a huge ampitheatre building with this massive computer that allowed us to simulate battle situations for training purposes. An enormous playstation inother words), that pitted the A-4s against aircraft of our near neighbours. Our Indonesian neighbour at the time had 16 ex-CAC f-86s, and a number of Mig-17s, Mig-19s and a few Mig-21s. I remeber the A-4s were considered competent against everything except the Mig-21s, and the Mig-19s were considered a bit of a habdful if they were missile armed. 

I knew that the sidewinders were a major source of attrition against the Argentinians, but have never quite understood why the argentinians did not carry their own (or did they???). Also, didnt the Miragee IIIs carry matra air to air as well. If so, why werent they used.

In the RAAF we too had Mirage IIIs, which were equipped with matra, I believe the RAAF did not think much of the system. The general consensus in the RAAF was that the MIIIs were good aerodynamically, but fairly simple and austere in the electronics area. 

What were the Argentinian observations???


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

melbourne with her skyhawk flight embarked, 1976 or 7, Enterrprise in the background


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

Detail of RAN A4 number 882. This is not my photo, it was taken of someone I knew years ago (Baddams), photo by Laurie Hillier. Caption reads

_Down chains, off brakes, come ahead slowly !” Newly promoted LEUT ‘Bruiser’ Baddams RAN nervously applies generous throttle to get N13-154903 (side number 882) rolling forward as the ship (HMAS ‘Melbourne’ CVS-21) starts a roll to stbd, threatening to tip his lightly loaded (note the lack of external fuel tanks or armament) a/c backwards over the side. That single white line the a/c’s nosewheel is about to cross is the flight deck safety line (the edge of the landing path visible to the upper right), illustrating how narrow the ship’s flight deck was and just how far the WIDE wingspan of the RAN’s twin prop S-2G Tracker ASW a/c reached …That’s why the ship was modified to add what we called the ‘tram tracks’ jutting out over the ship’s side. These allowed a number of Skyhawk's to be parked along (over) the ship’s side aft of the ‘island’ … which is also why they ended-up with that curious (and hopelessly ineffective) yellow paint all over their leading edges, as may be seen on 882). It probably also accounts for why 882 has another a/c’s nose cone … the ‘control’ part of corrosion control was almost non-existent aboard ship. _

Things were very tight on the Melbournes flight deck esp when trackers were embarked. I agree with the comments in the caption. Corrosion on the CAG was a constant problem , but particulalry bad on the A4s for some reason.


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 27, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I have been reading some of the post in this threa, and have to say that it is a very impressive thread. I feel humbled by the depth of knowlewdge, and the fairness in the assessment.
> 
> *Well said mate. * I was working on vulcans at the time.Their were 4 RAF Harriers shoot down. * parsifal * The sea harriers will still be flying in 2013,they are being MODed.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

Just one more (sorry, i really dig the A4). image of A4-G of 805 sqn 

A VF805 (despite that blue yellow tail !) A-4G. N13-154904 (side number 883) snagging #4 wire (while still airborne: note the fully extended MLG struts still deployed speed-brakes) aboard HMAS ‘Melbourne’ CVS-21 circa 1980. This is what would be classed by the LSO as a ‘ … just made it’ pass ‘ … that’ll cost you a round the wardroom tonight’. 805 sqn A4s apparently carried 2 x 20mm cannons: despite the weight penalty involved (and subsequent reduction in fuel carried), all 805 sqn a/c carried 2 of ‘em with full (75 rpg) ammo canisters. VC724, on the other hand, only fitted guns ‘when required’. It’s unusual that the a/c doesn’t have a blue headed ‘captive’ AIM-9B ‘Sidewinder’ on the launch rail. Must have been light on for wind over the deck that day. (Picture Laurie Hillier)


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 27, 2008)

​*Argentine aircraft lost* 

*Saturday 3rd April *

[a1] - Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 shot down at Grytviken, South Georgia by Royal Marine small arms fire.

*Saturday 1st May *

[a2, a3, a4] - One Pucara of FAA Grupo 3 destroyed and two more damaged and not repaired at Goose Green by CBU's dropped in attack by No.800 Sea Harriers flown by Lt Cmdr Frederiksen, Lt Hale and Lt McHarg RN (8.25 am). Lt Jukic killed in the destroyed aircraft.

[a5] - Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 shot down north of West Falkland by Flt Lt Barton RAF in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (4.10 pm). Lt Perona ejected safely.

[a6] - Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 damaged in same incident north of West Falkland by Lt Thomas RN in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder. Then shot down over Stanley by own AA defences (4.15 pm). and Capt Cuerva killed 

[a7] - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down over East Falkland by Flt Lt Penfold RAF in No.800 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (4.40 pm). Lt Ardiles killed. 

[a8] - Canberra B.62 of FAA Grupo 2 shot down north of Falklands by Lt Curtiss RN in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (5.45 pm). Lt Ibanez and Gonzalez ejected but are not rescued.

*Sunday 2nd May *

[a9] - Lynx HAS.23 of CANA 1 Esc embarked on ARA Santisima Trinidad lost in flying accident probably to north of Falklands.

[a10] - Alouette III of CANA 1 Esc lost on board ARA General Belgrano when she was torpedoed and sunk to south west of Falklands.

*Monday 3rd May *

[a11] - Aermacchi MB-339A of CANA 1 Esc crashed into ground near Stanley approaching airfield in bad weather (4.00 pm). Lt Benitez killed.

[a12] - Skyvan of PNA damaged by naval gunfire at Stanley on the night of 3rd/4th and not repaired.

*Sunday 9th May *

[a13, a14] - Two A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4 lost. Possibly damaged by Sea Darts from HMS Coventry or crashed in bad weather, with one aircraft found on South Jason Island. Lt Casco and Lt Farias killed.

[a15] - Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 shot down over Choiseul Sound by Sea Dart fired by HMS Coventry (4.10 pm). Crew of three lost.

*Wednesday 12th May *

[a16, a17, a18] - Two A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 shot down off Stanley by Sea Wolf fired by HMS Brilliant and third aircraft hit sea trying to evade missile (1.45 pm). All three pilots, Lt Bustos, Lt Ibarlucea and Lt Nivoli killed.

[a19] - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over Goose Green by own AA fire (2.25 pm). Lt Gavazzi killed.

*Saturday 15th May *

[a20-a25] - Six Pucaras of FAA Grupo 3; [a26-a29] - Four T-34C Mentors of CANA 4 Esc; [a30] - Skyvan of PNA, all destroyed or put out of action at Pebble Island in raid by D Sqdn SAS (early morning) 

*Friday 21st May *

[a31] - Chinook CH-47C of CAB 601 destroyed on ground near Mount Kent by Flt Lt Hare RAF in 1(F) Sqdn Harrier GR.3 using 30mm cannon (8.00 am).

[a32] - Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 badly damaged on ground near Mount Kent in same attack by Sqdn Ldr Pook and Flt Lt Hare RAF in 1(F) Sqdn Harrier GR.3's using 30mm cannon (8.00 am). Destroyed on 26th in same position by Sqdn Ldr Pook using CBU's.

[a33] - Pucara of FAA Grupo 3 shot down over Sussex Mountains by Stinger SAM fired by D Sqdn SAS (10.00 am). Capt Benitz ejected safely.

[a34] - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down near Fanning Head by Sea Cat fired by HMS Argonaut or Plymouth, or more likely Sea Wolf from HMS Broadsword (10.30 am). Lt Bean killed.

[a35] - Pucara of FAA Grupo 3 shot down near Darwin by Cmdr Ward RN in one of three Sea Harriers of No.801 NAS using 30mm cannon (12.10 pm). Major Tomba ejected.

[a36, a37] - Two A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4 shot down near Chartres, West Falkland by Lt Cmdr Blissett and Lt Cmdr Thomas RN in No.800 Sea Harriers using Sidewinders (1.05 pm). Lt Lopez and Lt Manzotti killed.

[a38] - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down near Teal River Inlet, West Falkland by Lt Cmdr Frederiksen RN in No.800 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (2.35 pm). Lt Luna ejected.

[a39, a40, a41] - Two Dagger A's of FAA Grupo 6 shot down north of Port Howard, West Falkland by Lt Thomas and a third by Cmdr Ward RN in No.801 Sea Harriers using Sidewinders (2.50 pm). Maj Piuma, Capt Donaldille and Lt Senn all ejected.

[a42] - A-4Q Skyhawk of CANA 3 Esc shot down near Swan Island in Falkland Sound by Lt Morell RN in No.800 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (3.12 pm). Lt Cmdr Philippi ejected.

[a43] - A-4Q Skyhawk of CANA 3 Esc also shot down near Swan Island in Falkland Sound in same incident by Flt Lt Leeming RAF in No.800 Sea Harrier using 30mm cannon (3.12 pm). Lt Marquez was killed.

[a44] - A-4Q Skyhawk of CANA 3 Esc damaged over Falkland Sound by small arms fire from HMS Ardent and again in same incident as above by Lt Morrell using 30mm cannon. Unable to land at Stanley with undercarriage problems and Lt Arca ejected (3.30 pm).

*Sunday 23rd May *

[a45] - Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 flew into ground near Shag Cove House, West Falkland attempting to evade Flt Lt Morgan RAF in No.800 NAS Sea Harrier (10.30 am). All crew escaped.

[a46] - Agusta A-109A of CAB 601 in same incident near Shag Cove House, West Falkland destroyed on ground by Flt Lt Morgan and Flt Lt Leeming RAF in No.800 NAS Sea Harriers using 30mm cannon (10.30 am).

[a47] - Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 also in same incident near Shag Cove House, West Falkland damaged on ground by Flt Lt Morgan with 30mm cannon (10.30 am). Then believed shortly destroyed by Lt Cmdr Gedge and Lt Cmdr Braithwaite RN in No.801 Sea Harriers with more cannon fire.

[a48] - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over San Carlos Water by unknown SAM (1.50 pm). Claims that day include "Broadsword" Sea Wolf, "Antelope" Sea Cat, and land-based Rapiers and Blowpipe. Lt Guadagnini killed. 

[a49] - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down over Pebble Island by Lt Hale RN in No.800 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (4.00 pm). Lt Volponi killed.

*Monday 24th May *

[a50, a51, a52] - Two Dagger A's of FAA Grupo 6 shot down north of Pebble Island by Lt Cmdr Auld and a third by Lt D Smith in No.800 Sea Harriers using Sidewinder (11.15 am). Maj Puga and Capt Diaz ejected, but Lt Castillo killed.

[a53] - A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 damaged over San Carlos Water by ship and ground-based air defences and crashed into King George Bay, West Falkland on flight home (1.30 pm). Claims that day include "Argonaut" and "Fearless" Sea Cat, and Rapier and Blowpipe SAM's. Lt Bono lost.

*Tuesday 25th May *

[a54] - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down north of Pebble Island by Sea Dart fired by HMS Coventry (9.30 am). Lt Palaver killed.

[a55] - A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 destroyed over San Carlos Water by a variety of weapons, claims including small arms fire, "Yarmouth" Sea Cat, and Rapier and Blowpipe SAM's (12.30 pm). Lt Lucero ejected.

[a56] - A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 damaged over San Carlos Water in same attack, and then brought down north east of Pebble Island by Sea Dart fired by HMS Coventry (12.45 am). Lt Garcia killed.

*Thursday 27th May *

[a57] - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 damaged over San Carlos Water by 40mm Bofors from HMS Fearless or Intrepid, and crashed near Port Howard (5.00 pm). Lt Velasco ejected.

*Friday 28th May*

[a58] - Pucara of FAA Grupo 3 crashed into high ground between Goose Green and Stanley returning from attack in Goose Green area (c10.00 am). Lt Giminez killed.

[a59] - Aermacchi MB-339A of CANA 1 Esc shot down at Goose Green by Blowpipe SAM fired by Royal Marine Air Defence Troop (5.00 pm). Lt Miguel killed.

[a60] - Pucara of FAA Grupo 3 shot down at Goose Green by small arms fire from 2 Para (5.10 pm). Lt Cruzado ejected and became POW.

*Saturday 29th May *

[a61] - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down over San Carlos Water by Rapier SAM (12.00 pm]. Lt Bernhardt killed.

*Sunday 30th May * 

[a62] - Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 lost in the morning in uncertain circumstances near Mount Kent, possibly to own forces fire.

[a63, a64] - Two A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4 shot down east of Falklands by Sea Darts fired by HMS Exeter, although 4.5 inch gunfire from HMS Avenger may have hit one (2.35 pm). Lt Vazquez and Lt Castillo killed.

*Tuesday 1st June *

[a65] - Hercules C.130E of FAA Transport Grupo 1 shot down 50 miles North of Pebble Island by Cmdr Ward RN in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder and 30mm cannon (10.45 am). Crew of seven killed.

*Monday 7th June *

[a66] - Learjet 35A of FAA Photo-Reconnaissance Grupo 1 shot down over Pebble Island by Sea Dart fired by HMS Exeter (9.05 am). Wing Cmdr de la Colina and crew of four killed.

*Tuesday 8th June * 

[a67, a68, a69] - Two A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over Choiseul Sound by Flt Lt Morgan RAF and a third by Lt D Smith in No.800 NAS Sea Harriers using Sidewinders (4.45 pm). Lt Arraras, Lt Bolzan and Ensign Vazquez killed.

*Sunday 13th June *

[a70] - Canberra B.62 of FAA Grupo 2 shot down west of Stanley by Sea Dart fired by HMS Exeter (10.55 pm). Pilot, Capt Pastran ejected safely but Capt Casado is killed.

Postwar - Captured at Stanley 

[a71-a81] - Eleven Pucaras of FAA Grupo 3

[a82-a83] - Two Bell 212's of FAA Grupo 7

[a84-a86] - Three Aermacchi MB-339A's of CANA 1 Esc

[a87] - Puma SA.330L of PNA

[a88] - Chinook CH-47C of CAB 601

[a89-a90] - Two Agusta A-109A Hirundos of CAB 601

[a91-a99] - Nine Iroquois UH-1H's of CAB 601

Unknown Date

[a100] - Pucara of FAA Grupo 4 reported lost over in the Atlantic on reconnaissance mission from Comodoro Rivadavia


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 27, 2008)

*BRITISH AIRCRAFT LOST * 
*Thursday 22nd April*

[b1, b2] - Two Wessex HU.5's of C Flt, No.845 NAS, RFA Tidespring crashed on Fortuna Glacier, South Georgia in bad weather. All crew rescued.

*Friday 23rd April *

[b3] - Sea King HC.4 of No.846 NAS embarked on HMS Hermes crashed into the Atlantic at night in bad weather south west of Ascension (8.15 pm). Pilot rescued but PO Aircrewman Casey lost.

*Tuesday 4th May*

[b4] - Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes shot down over Goose Green by radar-controlled, 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.10 pm). Lt Taylor RN killed.

*Thursday 6th May *

[b5, b6] - Two Sea Harriers of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible lost in bad weather, presumably by collision, south east of Falklands (9.00 am). Lt Curtiss and Lt Cmdr Eyton-Jones RN lost.

*Wednesday 12th May *
[b7] - Sea King HAS.5 of No.826 NAS, HMS Hermes ditched in sea with engine failure east of Falklands (2.35 pm). All crew rescued.

*Monday 17th May*

[b8] - Sea King HAS.5 of No.826 NAS, HMS Hermes, then to the east of Falklands, hit the sea late at night because of altimeter problems (10.30 pm). All crew rescued.

*18th/19th May*

[b9] - Sea King HC.4 of No.846 NAS deliberately destroyed by its crew near Punta Arenas, southern Chile around this date.

*Wednesday 19th May *

[b10] - Sea King HC.4 of No.846 NAS, then embarked on HMS Hermes crashed into sea north east of Falklands, believed at the time due to a bird strike although this is now open to doubt (7.15 pm). Of 30 men on board, the aircrewman, 18 men of the SAS, a member of the Royal Signals and the only RAF man killed in the war are all lost. The two pilots were saved.

*Friday 21st May*

[b11, b12] - Two Gazelles of C Flt, 3 CBAS shot down by small arms fire near Port San Carlos (c8.45 am). Pilot Sgt Evans RM killed in the first incident and pilot Lt Francis RM and crewman L/Cpl Griffin RM in the second.

[b13] - Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF shot down over Port Howard, West Falkland probably by Blowpipe SAM (9.35 am). Flt Lt Glover ejected and injured, was taken prisoner-of-war.

[b14] - Lynx HAS.2 of No.815 NAS destroyed in bombing attack on HMS Ardent in Grantham Sound by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6 (2.40 pm).

*Sunday 23rd May*

[b15] - Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes crashed into sea north east of Falklands shortly after take-off and exploded (7.55 pm). Lt Cmdr Batt RN killed. 

*Tuesday 25th May *

[b16] - Lynx HAS.2 of No.815 NAS lost when HMS Coventry sunk north of Pebble Island in bombing attack by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 (3.20 pm).

[b17 - b22] - Six Wessex HU.5's of No.848 NAS D Flt; [b23 - b25] - Three Chinook HC.1's of 18 Sqdn RAF; [b26] - Lynx HAS.2 of No.815 NAS, all destroyed by fire when "Atlantic Conveyor" hit to the north east of Falklands by Exocet from Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc.

*Thursday 27th May *

[b27] - Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF shot down over Goose Green probably by 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.35 pm). Sqdn Ldr Iveson ejected to the west, hid up and later rescued.

*Friday 28th May*

[b28] - Scout of B Flight, 3 CBAS shot down near Camilla Creek House, north of Goose Green by Pucaras of FAA Grupo 3 (11.55 am). Pilot Lt Nunn RM was killed. 

*Saturday 29th May *

[b29] - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible ready for take-off, slid off the deck as the carrier turned into wind to the east of Falklands (3.50 pm). Lt Cmdr Broadwater RN ejected and was safely picked up.

*Sunday 30th May*

[b30] - Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF damaged near Stanley by small arms fire from Argentine troops. Ran out of fuel short of "Hermes" and Sqdn Ldr Pook RAF ejected to be picked up to east of the Falklands (12.20 pm).

Tu*esday 1st June *

[b31] - Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejected and was later rescued from the sea. 

*Sunday 6th June*

[b32] - Gazelle of 656 AAC Sqdn accidentally shot down west of Fitzroy by Sea Dart SAM fired by HMS Cardiff (1.10 am). Pilot, Staff Sgt Griffin, crewman L/Cpl Cockton and two Royal Signals passengers killed.

*Tuesday 8th June *

[b33] - Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF landed heavily at Port San Carlos with partial engine failure, and was damaged beyond repair (12.00 pm). Wing Cmdr Squire escaped unhurt.

*Saturday 12th June *

[b34] - Wessex HAS.3 of No.737 NAS destroyed when HMS Glamorgan hit by land-based Exocet off Stanley (3.35 am).


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 27, 2008)

*BRITISH SHIPS LOST DAMAGED* *​* * Saturday 1st May *

HMS Alacrity - slightly damaged by bomb near misses

HMS Arrow - slightly damaged by cannon fire

HMS Glamorgan - slightly damaged by bomb near misses, all off Stanley by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

*Tuesday 4th May*

HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.

*Wednesday 12th May *

HMS Glasgow - moderately damaged off Stanley by unexploded bomb (1) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Bomb passed through hull but damage took some days to repair and she shortly returned to UK. 

*Friday 21st May*

HMS Antrim - seriously damaged in Falkland Sound outside San Carlos Water by unexploded bomb (2) dropped by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. UXB removed but damage took some days to repair.

HMS Broadsword - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6.

HMS Argonaut - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by rockets and cannon fire from Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc, and then seriously damaged by two unexploded bombs (3/4) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Removing the UXB's and carrying out repairs took a number of days and although declared operational, she soon sailed for the UK.

HMS Brilliant - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6. (Different attack from "Broadsword")

HMS ARDENT - badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs - hits, UXB's (5+) and near misses - dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island. Sank the following evening.

*Sunday 23rd May*

HMS ANTELOPE - damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs (6/7) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.

*Monday 24th May*

RFA Sir Galahad - damaged by unexploded bomb (8) and out of action for some days,

RFA Sir Lancelot - damaged by unexploded bomb (9) and not fully operational for almost three weeks,

RFA Sir Bedivere - slightly damaged by glancing bomb, all in San Carlos Water probably by A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4. 

*Tuesday 25th May *

HMS Broadsword - damaged north of Pebble Island by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bouncing up through her stern and out again to land in the sea.

HMS COVENTRY - sunk north of Pebble Island in same attack by three bombs.

ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.

*Saturday 29th May *

British Wye - hit north of South Georgia by bomb dropped by C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 which bounced into the sea without exploding 

*Tuesday 8th June *

HMS Plymouth - damaged in Falkland Sound off San Carlos Water by four unexploded bombs (10-13) from Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

RFA SIR GALAHAD - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.

RFA Sir Tristram - badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.

LCU F4, HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.

*Saturday 12th June *

HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 27, 2008)

That's a lot of naval assets the Brits lost. Didn't realize it was that significant.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 27, 2008)

> We were equipped with A4-Gs in the '70s, which carried as standard AIM-9 sidewinders on our FAA aircraft. We used to train to use our A-4s as air defence aircraft, as well as strike aircraft. We had only iron bombs at the time. The A-4s we thought were pretty good at their job. As a trainee, I watched several "hypothetical" excercises at the tac warfare school (a huge ampitheatre building with this massive computer that allowed us to simulate battle situations for training purposes. An enormous playstation inother words), that pitted the A-4s against aircraft of our near neighbours. Our Indonesian neighbour at the time had 16 ex-CAC f-86s, and a number of Mig-17s, Mig-19s and a few Mig-21s. I remeber the A-4s were considered competent against everything except the Mig-21s, and the Mig-19s were considered a bit of a habdful if they were missile armed.



Nice pictures, the aussie carrier seems very much alike the 25 de mayo used until 1992.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr5s0hdCo0E_

The argentine A-4s both Air Force and Navy aircraft did not carry sidewinder by the simple fact they didnt had the avionics needed to shoot that missle, the Air Force A-4B/C avionics was particulary poor compared with teh latef A-4g, F, and M models.




> I knew that the sidewinders were a major source of attrition against the Argentinians, but have never quite understood why the argentinians did not carry their own (or did they???). Also, didnt the Miragee IIIs carry matra air to air as well. If so, why werent they used.
> 
> In the RAAF we too had Mirage IIIs, which were equipped with matra, I believe the RAAF did not think much of the system. The general consensus in the RAAF was that the MIIIs were good aerodynamically, but fairly simple and austere in the electronics area.
> 
> What were the Argentinian observations???



The electronics was considered adecuate, not briliant but adecuate the problem was really the missile armament, the IIIEA carried Magic 1, the IAI Nesher carried Sidewinder b/C and the IAI Shafrir....all those were really CRAP, with capital letters.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 27, 2008)

By the way, I am curious about this signature:






What this suppose to mean ? that Britain have no honour until 1982 ?  

Or maybe they had but losted it in some year in the post ww2 ? 

If she losted it...why ? and when ?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 27, 2008)

CB... Why push the envelope. You are above this. And you only quoted half of his siggy. The other half is quite telling actually.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 27, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> Here ..Here.. On that statement...
> 
> And me being a dumb American..For some reason I was thinking the Falklands was not a big deal ..I know ,,I know It was called a war for a reason ..War is well .........War..duh.....But at the time it was going on the American News just past it off as no biggie.. ....  ...
> 
> ...



Wow  ...After reading the British loses just posted ...I realy feel in the dark..  ....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 27, 2008)

> CB... Why push the envelope. You are above this. And you only quoted half of his siggy.



Sorry, but I dont mean anything derogatory, I am just curious...why the word "regained" ?. I am not an english language expert but I suppose if somebody re-gain is because it had lost it.  

And dont worry, despite my usual "high flight" I dont mind to "descend" in the dirty and muddy terrain in order to get the matters right.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 27, 2008)

CB--Any info on all the bombs not going off as they should ...What they were and who made them.. On the ships hite post it look like alot did not .. Strange..


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 27, 2008)

Yea, I have some info but those need to be passed trough the translator Mark 1, that is ...me


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 28, 2008)

*CharlesBronson*


AVRoe said:


> parsifal said:
> 
> 
> > I have been reading some of the post in this threa, and have to say that it is a very impressive thread. I feel humbled by the depth of knowlewdge, and the fairness in the assessment.
> ...


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 28, 2008)

If any one is intrested look at this site.The Falklands War


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 28, 2008)

That was a good read AVRoe.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 28, 2008)

Agreed, evcellent read. Does anyone know how many aircraft were claimed by British Rapier SAM's?


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 29, 2008)

Rapiers were used by the Royal Artillery in the Falklands Campaign, credited with shooting down some 20 aircraft!!!.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 29, 2008)

Cheers mate. I'm interested because I use to be a Rapier air defence gunner when I was in the Army.


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 29, 2008)

I worked alongside 16 SQN RAF Regiment at Wildenrath(in Germany) on the Rapiers.Great bunch of guys, of there heads. *Good times. *


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 29, 2008)

One thing that really does stick out in this campaign is the fact that low tech A-4s with dumb bombs were able to make so many strikes against British ships. That really begs the question of whether this was the turning point for the British Navy to seek better close-in weapon systems.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 29, 2008)

It was for sure, most of the success was for flying so close to the ground and shaving the wavetops. The british ship whom participated in the attack against Irak in 1991 were equipped with all kind of Flak, porcupine like. Obviously that was due the experience of 1982 war.

By the way dont Think I forgot the pleads for info about the bomb question but I am still working on it, is a looong article.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 29, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> By the way dont Think I forgot the pleads for info about the bomb question but I am still working on it, is a looong article.




Not rush .. Your one of the people who post here "I" realy in joy ..Your stuff is just not another US..German ..Mid East post ...Not that thats bad thing ...Nice to have the mix...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 29, 2008)

Thanks man, let me say that I have the virtue of continuity.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2008)

well thats better than the curse of incontinence


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 30, 2008)

*The Argentine Bomb question part1.*

Translation of an article first edited by the monthly magazine "Guerra Aerea por las Malvinas" ( Air war for the Malvinas) Reguero publisher, 1987.






*The true History of argentine bombs.*

Even today, more than 4 years after the end of the war for the Malvinas exist in a lot of media- including some foreign publications and studies- interroganst about the efficience of bombs used by the Argentine aviation.
Those doubts turned around the quality of maintenance of bombs, right arming or their fuzes, the presumed obsolencence of those artifact or the lack of training of the personnel in charge.

Now is possible to end the polemic and provide and answer to the classic question: *why the bombs didnt explode *? 
For that an expert was called, the vicecomodoro (1) Arturo Pereyra who during the War was precisely the specialist in Armament of the Departament of Operation High command air Force South, wich was created for conducting tactical, defensiva, suppy and strategical operations in its influence Area ( the patagonia)

When the war started the Argentine Air Force was studing adecuation of its weapons systems in order to operate over the sea, both in interdiction against supply ships or direct attack to warships.

The first idea was that attacking those "floating fortresses" like the english warship were, filled with flak , missiles and radars with the materiel in existence and according to the classic doctrines of employement was impossible.

According to the NATO recomendations, in order to strike a frigate like the british one a minimum of 16 aircrafts are needed, in a way that those saturate the ships radars and the defenses could be penetrated.

The idea is that even some could be shot down, others will reach the target.
That same doctrine indicates also the optimal angle of attack of the aircraft, a dive of 45º starting from an altitude between 3000 and 4000 meters. 
In that scenario with the weapons in hand of the Argentine Air Force it could meaning the destruccion of all its aircarfts, maybe before a single bomb would be launched.


(1) No idea how the rank vicecomodoro in translated in US or UK ranks.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 30, 2008)

*The argentine bomb question part II*

As result other system was adopted, based in the achievement of some degree of surprize, with a very low flight and a bomb drop nearly over the target.

But that bringed the need to modificate the bombs, specifically the fuzes, the part called "fire train" (meaning the system wich makes the explosion) in a way they will explode at the moment of impact.

This fact wich seems easy, is actually the result of a delicate balance between several factors. In first place you need to consider the arming safety, a device present in every bomb wich avoid the detonation until a preselected distance from the launching aircraft.

This device requires 1, 2 or 3 seconds, depending on setting, to arm the bomb.
Given the way used by argentine aviators wich implied to launch the bomb at 250 meters per second at very close range. the space of time between they left the aircraft and hit the target wasnt enough for arming.
This problem was discussed with the pilots and they agree to reduce the arming time, sacrificing safety in favour of efectiveness.
Is worth to mention that not only they agree...sometimes that were reduced to fullfill the desire of the pilots.

After being armed the bomb, it teorically should explode in the moment the target is hit.

But if that happens it would damage the launching aircraft since the time would match the moment in wich the aircraft passed over the target due the bomb and aircraft velocity are more or less the same.

And not only the attacking airplane but also other components of the formation making the attack a "suicide mission" thing that was never in the mind of argentine pilots.

"when you define the retard of explotion - explains Vicecomodoro Pereyra- you must choose between two ways, one safe for the launching aircraft and other adecuate for maximum damage on the target. As the risk in this late case is excessive you need to put away target damage efficience to provide safety for the aircraft to avoid suicide missions. That time could not be inferior to 8 or then seconds"

Now other problem is on the table, the hull of this modern warship is very thin. 10 to 12 mm, reinforced only with an armor of 25 to 50 mm in the magazine area. If the bomb in its trajectory does not find any hard surface, as the engine or some bulkheads it would go trough from side to side.

If you consider that the average width of the hull is 15 meters and the bomb velocity is 250 m/s that gave as result that teorically, without any possible "drag" created by internal componentes of the ship, it should take only 0,06 seconds to get trough the hull.
Is obvious then the dificulties to adjust the parameters between those very tight figures.


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2008)

CharlesBronson;369576
The first idea was that attacking those "floating fortresses" like the english warship were said:


> I don't claim to know what the NATO reccomendations are and I am not saying you are wrong, but in the early 70's during exercises we worked on the basis of three aircraft to take on a frigate, sixteen may well be sufficient to take on a small task force.
> 
> The ships in the Falklands were not that different from those in the early 70's (apart from the Tiger which would have been very handy to have around).


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 1, 2008)

> I don't claim to know what the NATO reccomendations are and I am not saying you are wrong, but in the early 70's during exercises we worked on the basis of three aircraft to take on a frigate, sixteen may well be sufficient to take on a small task force



I cant help you there, my knolewge is limited to the source above.

The translation will continue soon.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 1, 2008)

Thanks CB for the translation. I agree with the physics of the analysis, but wonder why such a simple math problem was lost on the A-4 mission planners. Perhaps a technical mission planned without technical analysts. A MAJOR mistake if you ask me.

One could argue that the low level tactics were necessary and, perhaps, genius with British AA capabilities. But I would argue that without sophisitcated weapon fuses or weapon flight retardation, the mission profile was rife with risk.

What is confusing to me is the complete utter lack of indication that the weapons ultimately detonated. Assuming that the fuses were set too long for detonation in the target hull, you would expect them to detonate after they had passed through. And contrary to that expectation there were more than a few occasions where the "live" bombs remained embedded in the target ship and did not explode. Seems awfully peculiar given the small number of ordnance dropped and the detailed after action reports.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 2, 2008)

> What is confusing to me is the complete utter lack of indication that the weapons ultimately detonated. Assuming that the fuses were set too long for detonation in the target hull, you would expect them to detonate after they had passed through



Yea I see your point. Sometimes the fuzes even with setting "long" after the hit didnt make explode the bomb wich was embedded inide the ship. That could have two explanations.

Too "hard" fuzes, meaning that they need a really hard blow in order to start the ignition process or defective timing device, maybe in the following part Pereyra explain it.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 2, 2008)

yeah something is amiss here, CB. I think there is another technical reason than fuse length.

In the Korean war they were using WWII bombs and they were notorious for being duds, but as I recall that was due to the age of the explosive fill.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 3, 2008)

Funny image of a surrended argentine weapon in Stanley 14th 1982. This FM FAL has a image of the virgin Mary in the stock, I suppose the guy who carried it hoped that figure would help him avoid the british bullets and in the same time a supreme power would "guide" theirs to the target.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 3, 2008)

Where old FALs go to die.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 3, 2008)

I dont know, ask the britons they took it  , actually the argentine made FAL was better because it was full automatic, the british is semiauto.

They captured a lot of FM MAGs, FALs, FAPs, FN M2HB, FM HP 9mm pistols and so. All remained in service because they were compatible with british ammunition...a double edged weapon I think.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 3, 2008)

Oh the possibilities.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> (1) No idea how the rank vicecomodoro in translated in US or UK ranks.




In Commonwealth navies it would be "Vice Commodore", with "Commodore" being junior to Rear Admiral, and above Captain. Vice Commodore is one rank below Commodore obviously. We still use them in Naval Reserves Auxilliary, but I don't know if the UK or Australia does.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 4, 2008)

Thank you Freebird.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 4, 2008)

Powerful picture, CB.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 5, 2008)

Two more:

A-4B and IA-58A in San Julian AFB







454 kg bomb below an A-4b.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 5, 2008)

Man those thousand pounders are HUGE!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 5, 2008)

And british made, sorry about that.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 5, 2008)

I remember an interview with a British soldier who said they used Argentine ammo because of supply problems.

If the Argentines didn't have compatible rounds then they would have ran out!

The SLR was an elephant gun...full auto...eeeek! Only one round was enough. I can imagine that such a weapon would be uncontrollable in full auto.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 5, 2008)

Yea, Argentina accepted all NATO standars and never belong to NATo  , aniway I had saw some display by trained guys who controlled the FAL very well, some guys even modified it to practical shooting like this:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efo7caxdBPg_


----------



## Airframes (Sep 7, 2008)

Some interesting views on the FN FAL rifle there. One of the reasons the British forces adopted the design as semi-auto was to do with 'tradition'. As the British army had not had a semi / full auto rifle before 1958, being equipped before then with the Lee Enfield No. 4 .303 inch cal. bolt-action rifle, it was still 'the done thing' to teach aimed, accurate single shots to infantry soldiers. There was also an element of the possible/probable waste of ammo, the thinking being that, give a soldier, paricularly a conscript under National Service, a fully auto weapon, and he will fire it fully auto, thereby wasting ammo, and probably not hitting the target. (spray and pray.) Another reason the British-made version of the FAL, known as the L1A1 SLR (Self Loading Rifle.) in British service, was introduced as semi-auto only, is that the FAL had a (supposed) reputation,on full auto, of bang, bang - jam. In other words, after one or two rounds fired on auto, a stoppage would occur. Although this is a generally held and accepted belief, personally I have never experienced that, and I have used both weapons in action. The L1A1 COULD be fired full auto, by a simple alteration to the sear, but this was highly unofficial, and a chargeable offence if caught doing so! The L1A1 did not have the heavier barrel or heavier bolt assembly of the FAL, required for full-auto operation. Nevertheless, it was an extremely powerful weapon with the standard NATO 7.62mm round. That bullet could go through a double course brick wall at 300 yards! Hit a target with a FAL /SLR, and it stayed hit!!!


----------



## JugBR (Sep 11, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> *Yea, Argentina accepted all NATO standars and never belong to NATo * , aniway I had saw some display by trained guys who controlled the FAL very well, some guys even modified it to practical shooting like this:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efo7caxdBPg_




maybe because its an north atlantic alliance and argentina is in south atlantic.

but it was seriously considered at carlos menen administration. i could be wrong but argentina was thinking about sending troops for the gulf war, also i dont know if other presidents supported that ambition after menen administration.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 11, 2008)

Australians had both the semi and the full auto versions of the SLR. They were used in Vietnam. From memory the auto version was not found to be popular. It had accuracy problems, used too much ammo in the jungle, and IIRC had a tendency to jam. 

Its very easy to convert the semi auto version to full auto. All you need is a small file


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 12, 2008)

*Argentine Canberra navigator Remains identified*

PRELIMINARY DNA tests have identified human remains, returned to Argentina from the Falklands in August, are likely to be those of Air Force navigator Captain Fernando Casado. 

Captain Casado is believed to have been shot down during the last air incursion before the end of the Falklands War in June 1982. According to Buenos Aires newspaper Clarin, Captain Fernando Casado (37) who was married with three children, was co-piloting a Canberra MK-62 which together with a second bomber left Rio Gallegos on June 13 at 2130 hours carrying bombs. His aircraft was likely to have been shot down by a British missile. The Canberra pilot survived but Captain Casado did not eject in time. 

*Fernando Casado.*







The preliminary DNA reports are from Argentina’s National Genetic Bank, Durand Hospital Immunology Department. The results of the tests were apparently sent to the Argentine Foreign Affairs Ministry last week. Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Taiana refused to comment until the family had been informed.

Clarin said the remains were DNA tested and compared with those of Captain Casado’s living brother. 

The report continues, “The Argentine Air Force from the very beginning speculated that the remains could have come from the Canberra’s incursion given the place where they were found. Although discovered in 1986 they were held at Stanley Police Station. 








Mercopress


----------



## timshatz (Sep 12, 2008)

Sad story. At least they are bringing him home.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 12, 2008)

Yea, some confort to family also.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 12, 2008)

I miss the British aircraft industry. Beautifully brutish airplane.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 12, 2008)

the color of argentinean camouflage are beautifull too.

i should write something about the role of brazil in this war. but everytime im here i cant stop to loook the pictures. great pictures.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 12, 2008)

You sure will not have to write much, by the way your avatar is dis-gusting, change it.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 12, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> You sure will not have to write much, by the way your avatar is dis-gusting, change it.



Wrong thread CB. His avatar was rated a 3.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 12, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> You sure will not have to write much, by the way your avatar is dis-gusting, change it.



no way no change the avatar is cool i liked.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 12, 2008)

Oh.. I see...is a self picture.



> Wrong thread CB. His avatar was rated a 3



No idea what that means. Is 3 a feel like vomit qualification ?


----------



## JugBR (Sep 12, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Oh.. I see...is a self picture.
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that means. Is 3 a feel like vomit qualification ?



im sure you have looked more prettiest men before cb, sorry im so ugly.
anyway, about the role of brazil in the war:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/mu...-argentina-nas-malvinas-14934.html#post398503

sure brazil wasnt neutral in the conflict, we supported the right that argentina have over malvinas officially and in background had also a cooperative and non neutral policy.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 12, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Oh.. I see...is a self picture.
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that means. Is 3 a feel like vomit qualification ?



I apologize, CB. Jug's avatar didn't rank a 3. That would be too optimistic. It ranked a 2.1.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/rate-avatar-sig-above-you-13735-11.html


----------



## JugBR (Sep 12, 2008)

well thats true lollll

but i liked, its a funny picture, people liked too, is good.

but santos+dumont rank a perfect 10 ! and its just a basic photomontage, no skills in photoshop at all.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 14, 2008)

If that is 2.1 the mine is 800.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 14, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> If that is 2.1 the mine is 800.



sure cb, this mirrage is awesome ! wonderfull plane !


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 16, 2008)

Well... you have no avatar now, you are definately improving. 


Pictures of men from the Regimiento Infanteria 25 seccion C. That section was commanded by subteniente ( sorry I dont know ranks "translation " here) Edgardo Esteban.
The pictures were taken the 21th may at abouth 17:00 hs. The section claimed 3 british helicopters destroyed near the invasion beach, 2 were confirmed by british sources.












Also british sources indicated those fresh faced soldiers *allegedly* were responsible to shoot some of the helicopter survivors in the water.

More images of the RI25C in the 25th may could be seen here. If you know some spanish you will enjoy the different accents of Argentine regions in this one.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npAc2g4s3c0_


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 16, 2008)

I'm guessing you mean sub lieutenant.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 17, 2008)

It was easier than I tought. Thanks.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 19, 2008)

*Finally in Home*

*Argentina honors last airman downed in Falklands’ war.*

In a moving military ceremony the remains of an Argentine Air Force Canberra navigator shot down over the Falkland Islands in 1982 were handed on Monday to his family for burial in *Cordoba*.

*Mayor Casado urn and sword before been handed to his family*






The ceremony in the military premises of Buenos Aires Aeroparque was headed by Defence minister Nilda Garré and Deputy Foreign Affairs minister Victorio Taccetti as well as Joint Chief of Staff Brigadier Jorge Chevalier and the whole command from the Air Force, several of them Malvinas war veterans. 

Mayor (post mortem) Fernando Juan Casado and his BMK 62 Canberra were shot down on June 13th, the day before the end of the conflict, but remains were not found until 1986 in a near by beach, and were later deposited in the Stanley Police station. 


Earlier this year the remains were returned to Argentina and with the scientific support of the country’s Genetic Data Bank, following DNA tests they were identified as belonging to navigator Casado.

During the ceremony Argentine Air Force commander Brigadier Normando Constantino expressed gratitude to the ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs for their efforts in obtaining the remains.

Constantino also thanked the Genetic Bank for the identification and praised Mayor Casado who was to be the last airman downed over the Islands during combat with the British task force.

The last mission, two Canberra escorted by two Mirage III, left from Rio Gallegos to bomb Port Harriet House at 21:30 hours but only one of the bombers returned. His companion pilot Roberto Pastrán managed to parachute and was made prisoner.

The Canberra was shot down by a Sea Dart missile from HMS Exeter in Fitz Roy. The following day Argentine forces surrendered in Stanley.

The ceremony ended with the presentation of the remains plus a Malvinas veterans’ cap, graduation sword and an Argentine flag to his widow and three children, one of them Air Force captain.

Casado’s remains and his family were then flown to *Cordoba* in a Hercules C-130 for the final resting place in the Malvinas mausoleum of Carlos Paz cemetery.

Brigadier Chevalier and Constantino are both Malvinas war veteran pilots. Chevalier belonged to the Canberra bombers wing.


(Mercopress)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2009)

*British intelligency reports:*

Some reports dated march 1982, the political landscape and a possible argentine invation.

Apendix, The secret war for the Falklands, Nigel West.


----------



## Blaydon (Feb 6, 2009)

If people are interested in some of the british view point books I think are good:

Reasons in Writing by Major Ewan Southly-Tailour RM

Ex commander of the RM detatchment in the falklands and helped planning the amphibious ops and took part in them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falklands The Air war Various Authors

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Harrier over the Falklands Cdr Sharkey Ward DSC AFC RN

CO 801 NAS


----------



## Waynos (Feb 8, 2009)

Vulcan 607 is worth a look too.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2009)

4 good pictures of the Navy`s Super Etendars In operations, may 1982.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 18, 2009)

A-ha! TY very much for posting those pics CB, I will shortly be building a 1/72nd scale model of another Etendard from that squadron, and those pics will no doubt be useful!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2009)

You re welcome. For more you can go here:

AvNaval

Fotos e imagenes de la Armada Argentina


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 18, 2009)

Thanks again, I've also got a Pucara, Mirage and Skyhawk to build, so I'm sure I will find some useful reference stuff in here


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 20, 2009)

About the IA-58 I made a topic with every variant and some history here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/fma-ia-58-pucara-coin-aircraft-1599.html

Color profiles:

www.AviationArt.com.ar

Several pictures:

Pucaras del Grupo 3 de Ataque


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 10, 2009)

*Argentine pilot buried 
Remains buried with full military honours*

10 April 2009

The remains of an Argentine pilot discovered in the Falkland Islands have been laid to rest. 

1st Lieutenant Jorge Casco, a pilot in the Argentine Air Force, was killed when his aircraft crashed on South Jason Island in 1982.

At the end of the conflict, he was buried in the cemetery at Darwin, East Falkland, but several years later additional remains were discovered by the UK Military close to the site where his Skyhawk aircraft crashed.

At the request of the Argentine Government, they were returned to Argentina in July 2008 for DNA testing that confirmed that they did belong to Lt Casco.

His family asked that these remains were reunited with the partial remains that were buried at Darwin in 1982.

The Initial Force Protection Flight at Royal Air Force Halton and members from 2 Squadron RAF Regiment were tasked with providing a bearer party to assist at the reburial of Lieutenant Casco with full military honours. The ceremony was conducted by Monsignor Michael McPartland.

In line with previous protocol and in accordance with the Geneva Convention, the UK military provided military honours at the burial, including a firing party. Members of Lt Casco’s family flew to the Falklands for the reburial.

Sgt Dean Vaughan said: “It was a great honour for us to assist in the burial of Lt Casco. “The professionalism of my team was something the Royal Air Force can be proud of.

“The right levels of protocol were adhered to and his family were most certainly moved by the ceremony.”


----------



## timshatz (Apr 13, 2009)

RIP


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2009)




----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 4, 2011)

Great Video showing the capture on Leutenat Ricardo Lucero by the crew of HMS Fearless 25th may 1982. Fun fact: the dark skin of Mr Lucero gave place to some speculations that peruvian pilots were flying along argentine pilots again the british Forces, in fact Peru sold 11 Mirages VP but further help was rejected by argentinian Goverment. Lucero was flying an A-4c and probably was hit by Seacat missile.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI5M9lX9nKY_


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 7, 2011)

Not Exactly 1982 but I thought it could like the britons here, this is the HMS Glamorgan, this County class destroyer was hit by a land based MM.38 exocet in june 1982.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFKDs1kwItY_


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

Ah yes the Falkands. I am still ed with the Sun newspaper headline 'GOTCHA' with a picture of the Belgrano sinking and all those poor buggers in the sea.
This link sums up what a lot of people, including me, felt about the Falklands conflict.
The Sun newspaper on the Falklands | Media | The Guardian
Cheers
John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 9, 2011)

Personally I dont feel offended by any Headline.The argentine newspapers of the period were triunfalistic as well, the big differente was that they had no option because we were on a 7 years period of no free speech allowed (dictatorship you know)


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

CharlesBronson said:


> Personally I dont feel offended by any Headline.The argentine newspapers of the period were triunfalistic as well, the big differente was taht they had no option because we were on a 7 years period of no free speech allowed (dicattorship you know)



It was a very jingoistic period with Thatcher beating the war drum ( to get re-elected for a disastrous 3rd term) 
Most Brits had never even heard of the Falklands ! 
Mind you it was the last time that Britain had the capacity to launch a long range attack on our own.
If you guys invaded tomorrow, it'll be all yours.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2011)

arent the british miltary attempting to address that with thir new carrier and the JSF? I read somewhere that the RN now had fewer than 30 frigates....any truth to that? And have they scrapped their amphibious and C&C ships?

I also thought the brits maintained a permanent and more significant military presence on the island. Aproximately squadron sized air and battalion sizd ground force?????


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

parsifal said:


> arent the british miltary attempting to address that with thir new carrier and the JSF? I read somewhere that the RN now had fewer than 30 frigates....any truth to that? And have they scrapped their amphibious and C&C ships?
> 
> I also thought the brits maintained a permanent and more significant military presence on the island. Aproximately squadron sized air and battalion sizd ground force?????



We cannot fight half the Muslim world and still defend some insignificant islands in the South Atlantic. Unless there is oil involved....sorry to be cynical.
The new carriers are, well, not the solution. One is to be operational, the others mothballed. We have to borrow from the French these days.
The recent defence expenditure cuts have destroyed our capacity.
We fight illegal wars we cannot afford while our schools have to ask parents to buy pencils and our old people (WW2 vets) are treated poorly.
I would say more but, that will get political and is not appropriate for this forum.
John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 9, 2011)

> Mind you it was the last time that Britain had the capacity to launch a long range attack on our own.
> If you guys invaded tomorrow, it'll be all yours.
> Cheers
> John



Invade ? The only we can invade is a british pub of Buenos Aires, nothing else.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

CharlesBronson said:


> Invade ? The only we can invade is a british pub of Buenos Aires, nothing else.



Very good, that makes us equal then...pity it took so many lives to get to this 'stalemate'
John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 9, 2011)

Argentina and Britain had for many many years special relations both politically culturally and economically, dont think for a minute that make me happy that Uk is in a poor state military speaking, I would love to see both countries big and strong, and to solve this stupid dispute peacefully.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

CharlesBronson said:


> Argentina and Britain had for many many years special relations both politically culturally and economically, dont think for a minute that make me happy that Uk is in a poor state military speaking, I would love to see both countries big and strong, and to solve this stupid dispute peacefully.



Well said, I agree completely with you, that is why the Falklands conflict was so ridiculous.
We welcomed the Argentina rugby team in the last rugby world club and cheered you on to try and beat the French.
Our economic problems beset us and something has to give and most people would rather accept a reduced armed forces than another cut in health care.
The Falklands dispute could be solved tomorrow if the will is there to do so.
I'm really glad to have talked this over with you.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2011)

At the risk of treading on sensibilities, isnt the basic problem that whilst the islands are geographically and historically part of Argentina, people wise it is more british than Britain. They want to stay part of Britiain do they not? 

What do you do with that....a very difficult problem, and probably no satisfactory answer....


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

parsifal said:


> At the risk of treading on sensibilities, isnt the basic problem that whilst the islands are geographically and historically part of Argentina, people wise it is more british than Britain. They want to stay part of Britiain do they not?
> 
> What do you do with that....a very difficult problem, and probably no satisfactory answer....



Spot on Parsifal, That is the nub of the problem. 
So, what do we do? 
Agree with the Argentine government to let them be British or fight again ?
After years of fighting in the middle east and the casualties that continually shock us I am not sure that there is any appetite for another punch up over the Falklands.
That's assuming that we could reach out that far.
cheers
John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 28, 2011)

Real combat footage of the 105mm mountain guns in action in the last days of the war.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnEZwnRuQR8_


----------



## Glider (Jan 7, 2012)

Interesting letter in the paper today. It was written by a naval officer who at the time was responsible for the Seawolf Testing programme. There was concern that the air launched version of the Exocet used different frequencies to the sea launched versions. He asked the French for details of the frequencies used and had a reply within four hours.
This showed that the frequencies could in 50% of the cases distrupt the Seawolf missile. The next night an amended version of an amended version of the printed circuit board was tested at HMS Collingwood and corrected circuit boards were immediately flown from Brize Norton and parachuted to the ships at sea. 

The key was the swift response of the French with the required details.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 7, 2012)

Great find, Glider. One would expect it to be so, but .... 

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 7, 2012)

That is pretty interesting.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 1, 2012)

*Pilot who shot down Argentinian fighter jet in Falklands war comes face to face with the man he thought he had killed*



> For 25 years, Neil Wilkinson, a Royal Navy Gunner from Leeds, lived with the guilt of shooting down an Argentinian pilot during the Falklands War.
> 
> Day after day, images of the Douglas A4 Skyhawk jet bursting into a plume of smoke and plunging into the Falklands hills, played on his troubled mind.
> 
> ...



Read more: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb0OHA8m_ak_


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2012)

Great story Charles!

I deleted some of the text that were advertisments to make reading the story easier.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2012)

Pretty impressive shooting as well, six shells and one kill.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 1, 2012)

Glider said:


> Pretty impressive shooting as well, six shells and one kill.



True, and take in consideration that the Royal navy use the old 40-60 Bofors not the faster firing 40-70 in those times.








> Great story Charles!
> 
> I deleted some of the text that were advertisments to make reading the story easier.



No problem, here images at the A-4 crash site of M. Velasco.

BBC News - In pictures: Back in the Falklands


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 1, 2012)

Way cool!


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 1, 2012)

Great story!


----------



## Airframes (Feb 2, 2012)

Certainly is.


----------



## woljags (Feb 2, 2012)

I saw one of the ships coming back into Portsmouth after the war,i was on a ferry coming back from the Isle of Wight,it had a large flag draped over the side of the ship and when the wind lifted it the largest hole i have ever seen in a ship,it was a wonder the ship made it back,i don't know what it was but it was a warship


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 2, 2012)

woljags said:


> I saw one of the ships coming back into Portsmouth after the war,i was on a ferry coming back from the Isle of Wight,it had a large flag draped over the side of the ship and when the wind lifted it the largest hole i have ever seen in a ship,it was a wonder the ship made it back,i don't know what it was but it was a warship



If you post this in an argentine forum the people would inmediatly to tell "that was the HMS Invincible"


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 2, 2012)

CB, you needed an LOL after that post. I know you better.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 2, 2012)




----------



## ALE777 (Feb 3, 2012)

I want to know "why" the British Empire did not encourage to do this "Slapstick" (that is making today) with the CHINESE GOVERMENT, when they had to RETURN the HONG KONG Island...in this case, they accepted the terms imposed by the Chinese "friendly"...
COULD SOME BRITISH CITIZEN EXPLAIN THIS TO THIS ARGENTINE?

Suppose I say to the people of USA "Forget the December 7, it happened a lot of years ago!" "Why to remember every year?"


----------



## ALE777 (Feb 3, 2012)

Dear vikingBerserker: I like the Zeppelin Ztaaken too...recently I buyed in Powell Books (by $9.90!!!) a 1919 Jane's that have the Staaken!!! I want to make a 1:72 scale model of this bomber. I know I can find it in Roden, but I want to make from zero, with my hands!!!


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2012)

Certinly. Hong Kong was always going to be handed back to China after an agreement signed with China in 1898 gave the UK the land for 99 years. After that period the UK carried out the terms of the agreement and gave the land back to China.

No such agreement exists regarding the Falklands.

The position is and always will be if the people on the Falklands want to join Argentina then they will be allowed to. Its worth noting that some partys in Scotland want to split from the UK and the Government have proposed that the People in Scotland have a vote for or against a split . If the vote is yes, then Scotland will leave the UK and be a nation on it own. 

The rules are being applied in a consistant manner.


----------



## ALE777 (Feb 3, 2012)

The same thing like in Scotland happens are the same with the Irish people...its coming to my memory a song of U2 now...do you remember that song too? and what happened with the India? Thanks for your answer...


----------



## Njaco (Feb 3, 2012)

ALE777 said:


> I want to know "why" the British Empire did not encourage to do this "Slapstick" (that is making today) with the CHINESE GOVERMENT, when they had to RETURN the HONG KONG Island...in this case, they accepted the terms imposed by the Chinese "friendly"...
> COULD SOME BRITISH CITIZEN EXPLAIN THIS TO THIS ARGENTINE?
> 
> Suppose I say to the people of USA "Forget the December 7, it happened a lot of years ago!" "Why to remember every year?"



Ale, we do not discuss politics here. Be very careful what you post.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2012)

ALE777 said:


> I want to know "why" the British Empire did not encourage to do this "Slapstick" (that is making today) with the CHINESE GOVERMENT, when they had to RETURN the HONG KONG Island...in this case, they accepted the terms imposed by the Chinese "friendly"...
> COULD SOME BRITISH CITIZEN EXPLAIN THIS TO THIS ARGENTINE?
> 
> Suppose I say to the people of USA "Forget the December 7, it happened a lot of years ago!" "Why to remember every year?"




Dear Ale

I am not a British citizen, and I am very mindful of the ban on political debates, so I am going to be very careful in my reply and very reluctant to reply further.

There is not much camparable to the falklands/malvinas and Hong Kong. Hong kong was a leased territory that was always understood to be Chinese territory. That meant the land always had to be returned to its owner the Chinese eventually. In the case of the mavinas, no such lease eists, and the people of the islands are clear that they want to remain part of the British Isles. The argentine claim for the islands is mostly based on their proximity to Argentina, and their long past historical links. its a difficult delicate situation, I admit, but it is not at all comparable to Hong Kong. 

Perhaps a different point of view to your own, .......


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 3, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> CB, you needed an LOL after that post. I know you better.


Not sure what "LOL" means. If you are pointing that my post was a joke, well is not a joke I am merely describing a hipotetical situation. The HMS invincible attack story is a good story wich includes 2 good pilots killed (that difinately is no joke), you cant blame the people here for believing in what the surviving pilots said. Most of the narration of the attacks against the Royal navy could be (more or less) being confirmed in british sources, is not the case with the HMS Invincible.
If you ask me, well some years ago I was sure, but today I have several doubts on it.


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2012)

The fog of war is every bit as thick now, as its ever been. I do not blame the pilots for thinking what they saw or the people of Argentina in believing them. 

The story i don't believe, is the ship coming home from the Falkland with a big hole in the side covered by a flag. It wouldn't be seaworthy for such a voyage and would have been patched up before sailing.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 3, 2012)

Glider said:


> The fog of war is every bit as thick now, as its ever been. I do not blame the pilots for thinking what they saw or the people of Argentina in believing them.
> 
> The story i don't believe, is the ship coming home from the Falkland with a big hole in the side covered by a flag. It wouldn't be seaworthy for such a voyage and would have been patched up before sailing.



Could be as long the hole is well above the flotation line, well...just an idea maybe not , is not my area, I live 1100 km far from the sea you know.


----------



## woljags (Feb 4, 2012)

sorry i saw this with my own eyes and it was above the waterline on the super structure bridge area and it was not a carrier


----------



## parsifal (Feb 4, 2012)

At the time the RAN was considering purchase of the Invincible. it was deferred until after the flaklands war, and eventually cancelled when the Hawke labor Govt won the election in late '83.

Just after the Invincible returned, an australian survey team went over the ship. i saw their report....ther was no mention of missile damage, no mention of major repairs. the ship was in good condition, though in need of refit after her operations in the Sth Atlantic.

Claims of a missile hit on this ship are not supported by the observations of independant witnesses.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2012)

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that claims that the Invincible was damaged by missile fire are wrong. There are even pictures of the ship returning home with no damage to it. 

There were however several destroyers that were damaged by bombs and missiles. Maybe that is what our friend above saw with the flag draped over it?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 4, 2012)

yes, almost certainly one of the Destroyers


----------



## Glider (Feb 4, 2012)

I am certain that it wasn't a carrier, they were well protected and were not hit. As for damage I do not buy it, that any ship would sail the whole of the North and South Atlantic with a large hole in the side. Its a dangerous and stupid thing to do

Ships were damaged but there were repair facilities in the area for emergecy repairs and the Assention Islands for more extensive repairs before making it back to the UK. The only ship I can think of that would probably have come home with significant damage is HMS Glamorgan which was hit in the side of the Hanger by an Exocet. However this wasn't a hole in the hull and wouldn't impact her ability to sail, and might not have been patched. However that is only a guess. There are probably some photos of her returning around which would confirm things one way or the other.

I do not doubt that you believe what you think you saw, but I also doubt that it was actually there. 

If you want an example of what can be done to repair a ship after combat you could do worse than look at pictures of HMS Exeter when she arrived back in the UK after fighting the GS. Its amazing what can be done to avoid bad publicity.

Just found the photo, pretty impressive but no flag. Have you any idea which ship it was or where you were when you saw the ship


----------



## woljags (Feb 4, 2012)

i'm sorry please read my post again i have said it was not a carrier and it was on the super structure,ie not on the water line,it was a ship shaped like this but to not believe an eye witness because your photo doesn't show what i know was there,come on


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2012)

I am not denying what you saw. I am only stating that I do not believe that Argentina damaged the Invincible.


----------



## Glider (Feb 4, 2012)

woljags said:


> i'm sorry please read my post again i have said it was not a carrier and it was on the super structure,ie not on the water line,it was a ship shaped like this but to not believe an eye witness because your photo doesn't show what i know was there,come on



There is a misunderstanding on my part. The picture does show the damage, its the big black area just forward of the rear radar. My incorrect understanding was that the hole you described was in the hull but we seem to agree that it wasn't. I would suggest that the Glamorgan is the only vessel that fits the description you gave. 

I worked with someone whose son was on HMS Glamorgan and am glad to say he wasn't hurt. She was as you would expect, as worried as hell when the first news of the hit came in.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2012)

Glider, you're right, the ship in the photo is the Glamorgan, which was hit by a land launched Exocet in the aircraft hangar. That explains the blackness. She was nicknamed "The Glamorous Organ" in service!



> COULD SOME BRITISH CITIZEN EXPLAIN THIS TO THIS ARGENTINE?



Are you asking why the Brits fought for the Falklands and not Hong Kong? Hong Kong was returned to China because it belonged to them and Britain had it "on loan", if you like. The Falklands is waaay more complicated, but putting it bluntly, the Argentine government attempted to forcibly take the Falklands without the islanders' consent. Galtieri's government did not ask the islanders what _they_ wanted. The British government did, and their reply was, as it is now, to be British. The islanders _are_ British; they eat fish and chips, speak English, have peely wally white skin not designed for sunny climes; Stanley is like some small town in Essex or in _any_ of Britain's Home counties.

As an aside, you could argue that Thatcher's motives for launching Corporate were more than just the honour of the Islanders! She got back into power based on the war, she wouldn't have otherwise!

I apologise if I am being too abrupt, but my intention is not to personally offend. What I have written here _is_ how it is, however, without agenda (I'm not actually British) or reason to upset our Argentine friends, or anyone else on this forum.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2012)

On another matter; y'all might find this of interest. This is an account of the Avro Vulcan bomber raids designed to disable Argentine radars on the island.

Part One

Thirty years ago on 2 April 1982 Argentine amphibious forces embarked ashore and wrested control of Stanley, the principal town in the Falkland Islands from the small British military garrison there. Realising that effective air support was a necessity in the retaking of the desolate, far flung island colony, the RAF chiefs quickly drew up a plan to utilise their long range bomber units, at the time in the throes of disbandment.

The use of the Vulcan, the last of the ‘V’ bombers still in its intended role – the Victors were undertaking in-flight refuelling, a less glamorous but no less skilled occupation, was fraught with the potential for failure. If successful, the rewards were numerous; their deployment meant the direct application of enormous fire power on pin-point targets, not to mention the psychological impact the big bomber’s presence would have on the enemy.

Surviving at Scotland’s National Museum of Flight, Vulcan B Mk.2 XM597 flew a 6,800 mile round trip from Wideawake airfield on Ascension Island, to fire AGM-45A Shrike anti-radar missiles at Argentine radar installations deployed on the Falklands on two separate sorties. Although overshadowed by the achievements of fellow Falklands War veteran Vulcan B.2 XM607, which became the only 'V' Bomber to have dropped bombs in anger after disabling Stanley Airport's runway with a well placed stick of bombs, XM597 led an active service life, incorporating some notable firsts and lasts for the type.

Completed in 1963 as the sixty-first Vulcan built, XM597 was the first to be modified on the production line for carrying the cancelled Douglas GAM-87A Skybolt Air Launched Ballistic Missile, and the last to be fitted out for carrying the Avro Blue Steel stand-off nuclear missile. Although selected as one of five Vulcans for long range air raids during the Falklands War, XM597’s role in weapons trials prior to its operational debut was vital for the use of the Vulcan in that conflict. It was an unscheduled stopover in Brazil that earned it lasting notoriety, however. This event in the aircraft’s history is discreetly evident today, recorded as a Brazilian flag painted on the port side of its nose, next to two missile symbols denoting operations flown during Operation “Corporate”, Great Britain’s plan to re-take the Falkland Islands.

At the time of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the Vulcan was in the twilight of its career and a reduction in numbers of serviceable aircraft had already begun. After examination of the existing Vulcans still in service, ten were initially selected for Operation “Black Buck”, the long range bombing offensive against Argentine controlled Port Stanley Airfield. This number was eventually narrowed down to five suitable aircraft; XL391, XM597, XM598, XM607 and XM612.

Criteria for selection to undertake Black Buck raids included the incorporation of Skybolt modifications, the fitting of functional in-flight refueling equipment and that each aircraft had to be powered by the 18,000 lb st thrust Bristol Siddeley Olympus 301 powerplant. Each Vulcan was fitted with two Delco Carousel Inertial Navigation System (INS) units removed from stored British Airways’ Vickers VC.10s.

Because much equipment had already been disposed of by the Vulcan units, in the frantic rush to prepare for deployment, museums and scrap yards were approached in the search for serviceable supplies. Vulcans already in museums were robbed of their workable refueling probes and any other equipment that could be used in support of the Black Buck aircraft.

On 29 April 1982, twenty-seven days after the Argentine invasion, XM597 departed RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire as reserve aircraft for XM598 and XM607 on their 4,100-mile flight to Wideawake Airfield, Ascension Island in the mid Atlantic Ocean, roughly half way between the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands. XM597 returned to Waddington later that day.

This was to be the pattern for each Black Buck raid flown from Wideawake; a primary aircraft set off, followed by a reserve, fully equipped to carry out the mission if the primary aborted. If all checked out aboard the primary, the reserve returned to Wideawake after several hours flying time. Each raid was to be flown by a single Vulcan due to the logistics of the refueling effort, requiring as many as fifteen Handley Page Victor K.2 tankers to ensure the attacking and support aircraft were fully fueled during the marathon incursion.

Throughout April and May 1982, XM597 carried out weapons trials for the possible carriage of laser guided bombs and AS.37 Martel TV guided missiles on makeshift pylons constructed from metal girders discovered lying about at Waddington. The pylons were fitted to hardpoints initially incorporated into the Vulcan’s wings for the carriage of the Skybolt missile. The plumbing for the cooling and electronic systems for the canceled American weapon housed the cabling for the carriage of stores under the wings.

Hastily designed by Squadron Leader Chris Pye, Waddington’s mechanical and engineering officer, the under wing pylons subsequently became known as “Pye pylons”. These were fitted to the Vulcans after refinement at RAF St Athan for operations, although based on Sqn Ldr Pye’s designs. Aside from those still fitted to XM597, the Museum of Flight holds an original set of Pye pylon ‘prototypes’ built at Waddington.

Eagle-eyed observers notice that the port wing pylon fitted to the Vulcan is larger than its opposite under the starboard wing. This is because it was intended that the Vulcans carry an AN/ALQ-101 E-10 ECM pod, known as the “Dash Ten”, on the smaller pylon and a Martel on the other. In RAF use by Blackburn Buccaneers, the Dash Ten ECM pod was capable of jamming modern US supplied Argentine search radars, whereas the elderly “Red Shrimp” radar jamming equipment located in the Vulcan's bulbous tail section was not considered powerful enough to do so.

During trials, both laser guided bombs and Martels were dropped from the aircraft; three 1,000 lb High Explosive laser guided bombs were carried internally or a single Martel was carried externally. On 4 May the first flight carrying a single Martel round and a Dash Ten pod was made. The next day, XM597 carried out the first live firing trial with a Martel (sans warhead) at the Aberporth Firing Range in Wales. Despite these efforts, neither the Martel, nor the Dash Ten pod were deployed for Black Buck operations because of concerns over their performance after long hours exposed to the cold at high altitude.

Laser guided weapons were not carried by Vulcans during the Black Buck raids either, but due to the Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) operations required for successful attacks against Port Stanley Airfield, AGM-45A Shrike anti-radar missiles were covertly supplied by the United States at the beginning of the conflict. Fuel tanks were fitted in the Vulcans' bomb bay when carrying the Shrikes, reducing the number of refueling points required on these missions.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2012)

Part Two:

XM597 arrived at a busy Wideawake airfield on 27 May and immediately she was readied for her first operation. Black Buck Four took place on the night of 28 May with XM597 as primary aircraft and XM598 as reserve. Crewing XM597 was Sqn Ldr Neil McDougall (captain), Flg Off Chris Lackman (co-pilot), Flt Lts Dave Castle (nav-radar), Barry Smith (nav-plotter) and Rod Trevaskus (air electronics officer). Since Vulcan pilots had abandoned in-flight refueling practice by 1982, a sixth crewmember was shoehorned into the confines of the Vulcan’s five-place cabin to visually aid in this delicate operation. XM597’s sixth crewman was Flt Lt Brian Gardner.

Carrying a single Shrike under each wing, ‘597’s role was the destruction of the American supplied Westinghouse AN/TPS-43 search radar, which had been providing support to Argentine strike aircraft attacking the British Task Force. BB4 was aborted five hours after departure when one of the supporting Victor tanker’s in-flight refueling Hose Drum Units failed. 
Two days later, on the night of 31 May/1 June, Black Buck Five was launched, again a SEAD mission with ‘597 as primary, coordinated with a Harrier strike on Port Stanley Airfield. An 801 Squadron, Royal Navy Sea Harrier from the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible provided top cover. Flt Lt Dave Castle recounted the raid some years later;

“…At 200nm from the Falklands, and after refueling five times en-route from a fleet of Victor tankers, XM597 descended to 300ft above the sea and ingressed to Port Stanley airfield at 300kts. At just under 40nm, she climbed to 16 000ft and attempted to locate the TPS-43 radar with both active and passive sensors (H2S radar and ALQ-18228 Radar Warning Receiver). A game of 'cat and mouse' ensued between the Vulcan crew and the Grupo 2 VYCA crew of the TPS-43 radar.”

“After 40 minutes XM597’s crew successfully located the TPS-43 mobile radar with some degree of certainty and ripple fired its Shrike missiles, one of which impacted 10 metres from the target, inflicting minor blast damage to the radar's waveguide assembly. The TPS-43 radar was then wisely shut down by the Argentinian crew who feared further attack, which then allowed RAF Harriers to attack Port Stanley relatively unopposed.”

Over the combat area a ‘hostile’ airborne intercept radar target was tracked, but nothing else was heard. The Vulcan returned to Wideawake precisely 16 hours later, having just flown the longest air strike in history; it remained so until bettered by Boeing B-52 Stratofortresses during Operation Desert Storm nine years later. Since the results of BB5 were deemed inconclusive however, Sqn Ldr McDougall and crew were told they would have to do it all again.

The same mission, aircraft and crew was specified for Black Buck Six on 2/3 June, but there would be no Sea Harrier top cover on this raid. This time four Shrikes were carried; each under-wing pylon was fitted with a cradle to carry two missiles each. Two of the missiles were optimised for attacking the TPS-43 radars, with the other two programmed for targets of opportunity, such as the Sky Guard fire control radars aiding the Oerlikon Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA).

During this raid the Argentine radar operators were alerted to the presence of the Vulcan and they switched off their search radars when the aircraft was on approach to the islands. After ‘loitering’ overhead for forty minutes unsuccessfully attempting to entice the TPS-43 into action, Sqn Ldr MacDougall decided to take a risk by descending from the safe altitude of 16,000 feet to within range of the Oerlikon AAA. This ploy worked and the Vulcan was illuminated by a Sky Guard unit. Two Shrikes were fired and the radar was destroyed. Four Argentine radar operators were killed.

After further unsuccessful taunting of the TPS-43 into activity, XM597 then made a hasty departure for the refueling point that would take the aircraft home, as its fuel situation was critical. An RAF Nimrod supplied guidance for rendezvous with the Victor tanker for the last refueling before reaching Ascension Island. On the first prod of the Vulcan’s probe into the Victor’s trailing basket, a loud bang was heard from the cockpit and fuel sprayed all over the windshield until dispersed by the slipstream. The tip of the probe had fractured, preventing further reception of fuel by the Vulcan.

The hapless crew found themselves in dire straits, as there wasn’t enough aboard for the journey back to Ascension. Realising the predicament they were in, Flg Off Chris Lackman did some hasty calculations and recommended that they fly at an altitude of 43,000 feet for a more economic fuel consumption by the thirsty Olympus engines.

Flt Lt Castle later recalled;

“…There were no pre-arranged or recognised diversions and the crew’s brief was to ditch the aircraft should the final refueling RV fail. Reluctant to ditch XM597 in the South Atlantic the crew elected to climb to 43 000ft for best range/endurance performance and headed west towards South America (and Brazil). Before entering Brazilian airspace the unused Shrikes had to be jettisoned to prevent any potential embarrassment to the British Government and Brazilian authorities should land-fall be made. Unfortunately, one missile 'hung-up', which was to create additional problems later. Before the aircraft could resume heading for the Brazilian coast, the Vulcan was then turned onto a southerly heading to avoid a small fishing fleet, exacerbating further the fuel dilemma.”

“After de-pressurising at 43,000ft and jettisoning secret documents and film through the crew escape hatch, XM597 then descended to around 20,000ft. Fortunately, XM597 was able to unwittingly evade a pair of Força Aérea Brasiliera F-5s that had been scrambled to intercept it.”

A serious problem arose when sensitive documents were put in a canvas hold-all and hurled out the underside door; on closing, the door refused to seal, preventing full pressurization of the cabin and forcing the occupants to breathe pure oxygen. This had the effect of making the crew’s voices (in the words of Sqn Ldr McDougall) “…sound like Donald Ducks!”, which made communication with Brazilian Air Traffic Controllers considerably difficult! Contact was made with Rio de Janeiro 250 nautical miles out on a VHF distress frequency.

“With insufficient fuel for a procedural instrument approach into Rio's Galeão International Airport, XM597 was flown to the overhead where it commenced a spiral descent and visual approach. The aircraft was landed with only 2,000 lbs of fuel remaining in the tanks, insufficient for a missed approach procedure and visual circuit in a Vulcan.”

On landing at Galeão Airport, the wayward Vulcan was immediately impounded by the Brazilian authorities. The crew was given the option to leave, but they decided to remain, although they were not allowed to leave the air base without escort, as they had no passports or documentation with them.

The next day, news of the Vulcan’s internment in Brazil had reached the front page of newspapers around the world, causing much embarrassment to the British government as the aircraft was still carrying live ammunition; the Shrike missile that refused to jettison from its pylon. On landing the aircrew hung their anoraks over the missile to shield it from press photographers, who appeared en-masse shortly after the aircraft’s arrival. 

One of the conditions of the release of the aircraft and its crew was that it was not to take any further part in Operation Corporate; the Brazilians also stipulated that the Shrike missile was to remain in Brazil. Initially the Brazilians incorrectly identified it as a “Sidewinder”, and to hide the aircraft’s true operational role, the British crew played along with this. One Brazilian newspaper article reporting the incident showed a photograph of the Vulcan with the weapon on the pylon circled and identified in the caption as a; “míssil ar-ar Sidewinderh.

The aircraft and crew remained with their Brazilian hosts for seven days before returning to Ascension on 9 June, the Shrike missile staying behind as requested. Three days later XM597 departed Wideawake Airfield for RAF Waddington, its brief part in the Falklands War over. For his sterling leadership during the Black Buck raids, Sqn Ldr MacDougall was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Some months after the cessation of hostilities in the South Atlantic, XM597 took part in an historic moment on 17 December 1982; the last operational Vulcan scramble before the type’s retirement as a bomber. Seven aircraft took part in the momentous occasion before 44 Squadron’s disbandment as the last active V Bomber unit. Later that day, XM597, accompanied by three other Black Buck Vulcans, XL391, XM607 and XM612, carried out a farewell flight around former Vulcan stations Coningsby, Cottesmore, Finningley, Scampton and back to Waddington.

After an illustrious RAF career spanning some twenty years, XM597 was sold to the Royal Museum of Scotland in April 1984. Piloted by Sqn Ldr Bill Burnett, the infamous delta bomber flew into East Fortune Airfield, her last resting place, on the twelfth of that month. A large crowd of well wishers turned out to see her final landing at East Fortune, including Sqn Ldr McDougall DFC, the aircraft’s former commander during the Black Buck raids that thrust her into the limelight as one of only two Vulcans to drop its weapons in anger.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 4, 2012)

I was in Goose where the RAF did its lo level training when the Falklands occured and it didn't take very long til we had no Victors or Vulcans on the ramp I wish I knew what skin numbers the birds were or if they took part in the attack . For those of you not familiar Goose Bay was where they did their lo level training it had an area about the size of W Germany (before they cheaped out to use that little valley in Wales) and the only real area that could not be used was the area where the migratory caribou were transiting


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 6, 2012)

Those missile signs near to our flag still make me nervous, thank for the aditional info, I did posted some on Black Buck earlier (cant remember wich page though)

do you want to know how is like being *hit by a Sea harrier Sidewinder* "L" and survive ?

in here C.N (ret) Philippi (navy a-4q shot down 21th may 1982 after striking HMS Ardent) told his story (english subtitles)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uWNrH7Pm4I_


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 7, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> Not sure what "LOL" means. If you are pointing that my post was a joke, well is not a joke I am merely describing a hipotetical situation. The HMS invincible attack story is a good story wich includes 2 good pilots killed (that difinately is no joke), you cant blame the people here for believing in what the surviving pilots said. Most of the narration of the attacks against the Royal navy could be (more or less) being confirmed in british sources, is not the case with the HMS Invincible.
> If you ask me, well some years ago I was sure, but today I have several doubts on it.



CB, you damn well know what LOL means. I have no dog in the fight of the revisionist history of the Falkland's War. However, to imply that a warship returning to port with a drastic war wound is to be mocked by her inherent "HMS Invincible" moniker is beneath you. You are a far better forum member than that. Let's chalk this misunderstanding up to my langauage barrier with your post, for your ability to command two different languages is far beyond my capabilities.

Carry on...


----------



## Readie (Feb 7, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Are you asking why the Brits fought for the Falklands and not Hong Kong? Hong Kong was returned to China because it belonged to them and Britain had it "on loan", if you like. The Falklands is waaay more complicated, but putting it bluntly, the Argentine government attempted to forcibly take the Falklands without the islanders' consent. Galtieri's government did not ask the islanders what _they_ wanted. The British government did, and their reply was, as it is now, to be British. The islanders _are_ British; they eat fish and chips, speak English, have peely wally white skin not designed for sunny climes; Stanley is like some small town in Essex or in _any_ of Britain's Home counties.



Nicely said. 
30 years later and the issues are still there and the sabers still being rattled....
The biggest irony is that in 1981 very few Brits even knew where the Falklands where as they were hardly everyday news.
But, with a warhorse like Thatcher in charge we were not going to surrender sovereignty of the Falklands.
Spin forward to 2012... will Cameron take the same stance?
Time will tell.
John


----------



## parsifal (Feb 7, 2012)

I find thatsadly ironic. Whatever her other and subsequent failings. Thatcher was an effective war leader. She managed to take the nation from blissful ignorance and apathy over the islands and turn the Argentaine invasion into a searing national issue.

Today, Cameron has an enormous advantage relative to Thatcher.....people are well aware of the islands, and have not really forgiven the Argentines. The country is more well postured for war or at least resistance than it was in 1981. Yet somehow I have my doubts about Cameron. I doubt he has the necessary fortitude and conviction to repeat what thatcher did....


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2012)

Hi Charles Bronson, that link was terrific. I remember seeing that documentary on telly. Very interesting. I think I read an article in an aviation magazine written by C.N (ret) Philippi. 

I remember a trip round Spain I took with a couple of mates of mine and myself back in the mid 1990s, we stayed in a pension in Barcelona and had a few drinks in a bar, where we met two Chilean girls, and an Argentine girl and guy. We all got talking (the Chilean girls were real nice  ) and for some reason the Falklands war came up - I swear it wasn't me! It was probably my belligerent Scottish mate Brian, Anyway, the Argentine bloke then went silent and started weeping, which had the effect of stopping the rather free flowing conversation. 

He went on to describe how he was a young 16 year old in 1982 and had been conscripted into going to defend the Malvinas. I can't remember what he said he did there, infantry I think, but he said it was a miserable time. The islands were cold - they had no real shelter and the food was dreadful. The weapons they had were hand-me-downs from WW2. He described how at first everyone thought that they were the best because of what they had done, but when they heard that the Royal Navy were on their way, he said he knew that things were getting serious. He said that a lot of the young guys got scared because the RN has such a big reputation in Argentina. He said that the surrender was the most shameful thing he had ever lived through. His story was most compelling and I really felt sorry for the guy. Needless to say, he got a few more rounds thrown his way to help him drown his sorrows. I still remember that night; very poignant.

I never got the Chilean girl either...


----------



## Readie (Feb 8, 2012)

parsifal said:


> I find thatsadly ironic. Whatever her other and subsequent failings. Thatcher was an effective war leader. She managed to take the nation from blissful ignorance and apathy over the islands and turn the Argentaine invasion into a searing national issue.
> 
> Today, Cameron has an enormous advantage relative to Thatcher.....people are well aware of the islands, and have not really forgiven the Argentines. The country is more well postured for war or at least resistance than it was in 1981. Yet somehow I have my doubts about Cameron. I doubt he has the necessary fortitude and conviction to repeat what thatcher did....



You are quite right Michael. 
Thatcher had a more capable armed forces that could deliver an attack at considerable distance. The Canberra has gone and so has the Harrier. 
The British are not adversed to war as the recent war on terror has shown, we may be sliding down the world power rankings but, given the chance of a punch up and we'll be there. 
Cameron will have to thread carefully..whatever he decides to do. 
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 8, 2012)

http://www.bobhenneman.info/belgrano.htm

With no offense intended to my Argentine associates on this forum, I suggest that naming a football league "The General Belgrano" is a very sad gesture.

Argentina rename football league after sunk Falklands war battleship General Belgrano - News - MirrorFootball.co.uk

Can you imagine a US football club or division named "Pearl Harbor" or perhaps "December 7"? 

Argentina needs to _move on_. It's neighbor Brazil is becoming an industrial and resource-based powerhouse while Argentina sulks over perceived insults and symbols and looks inward. There's oil off the shores of the Falklands. It will be much more economic to support exploration and extraction from Argentina than from Britain. Can Argentina co-operate ...? Not if they are the declared enemies of the Falklands' citizens.

The original "war" was started as a political distraction. Tell me, please, that this is not more of the same, Mrs. Kirchner.


MM
Proud Canadian


----------



## A4K (Feb 8, 2012)

Nuuumann, very moving post mate. Poor [email protected]


----------



## Readie (Feb 8, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> He went on to describe how he was a young 16 year old in 1982 and had been conscripted into going to defend the Malvinas. I can't remember what he said he did there, infantry I think, but he said it was a miserable time. The islands were cold - they had no real shelter and the food was dreadful. The weapons they had were hand-me-downs from WW2. He described how at first everyone thought that they were the best because of what they had done, but when they heard that the Royal Navy were on their way, he said he knew that things were getting serious. He said that a lot of the young guys got scared because the RN has such a big reputation in Argentina. He said that the surrender was the most shameful thing he had ever lived through. His story was most compelling and I really felt sorry for the guy. Needless to say, he got a few more rounds thrown his way to help him drown his sorrows. I still remember that night; very poignant.



That is the other side of it of course. The British Royal Marines SAS versus much less experienced Argentina ground forces.
The outcome was never really in doubt.

I was thoroughly dis gusted with the Sun headline 'GOTCHA' when the Belgrano was sunk. The picture of the sinking ship with men in the water was a low point in British journalism.

John


----------



## Readie (Feb 8, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> The original "war" was started as a political distraction. Tell me, please, that this is not more of the same, Mrs. Kirchner.
> 
> 
> MM
> Proud Canadian




Of course Michael. When is it not?

John


----------



## rochie (Feb 8, 2012)

Readie said:


> That is the other side of it of course. The British Royal Marines SAS versus much less experienced Argentina ground forces.
> The outcome was never really in doubt.
> 
> I was thoroughly dis gusted with the Sun headline 'GOTCHA' when the Belgrano was sunk. The picture of the sinking ship with men in the water was a low point in British journalism.
> ...



Ahem, cough , cough ......... John there were one or two Para's there as well !!!!!

and Ghurka's as well as a couple of Guards units !


----------



## Readie (Feb 8, 2012)

rochie said:


> Ahem, cough , cough ......... John there were one or two Para's there as well !!!!!
> 
> and Ghurka's as well as a couple of Guards units !




Profuse apologies Karl. I was in 'Plymouth mode' when I typed that...

John


----------



## rochie (Feb 8, 2012)

that would account for it then


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2012)

Plymouth mode???/ you got me....what is that


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> http://www.bobhenneman.info/belgrano.htm
> 
> With no offense intended to my Argentine associates on this forum, I suggest that naming a football league "The General Belgrano" is a very sad gesture.
> 
> ...



Weird to say the list. I think the league subname changes every year, the earlier carried the name of a deceased president. 



> He went on to describe how he was a young 16 year old in 1982 and had been conscripted into going to defend the Malvinas. I can't remember what he said he did there, infantry I think, but he said it was a miserable time. The islands were cold - they had no real shelter and the food was dreadful. The weapons they had were hand-me-downs from WW2. He described how at first everyone thought that they were the best because of what they had done, but when they heard that the Royal Navy were on their way, he said he knew that things were getting serious. He said that a lot of the young guys got scared because the RN has such a big reputation in Argentina. He said that the surrender was the most shameful thing he had ever lived through. His story was most compelling and I really felt sorry for the guy. Needless to say, he got a few more rounds thrown his way to help him drown his sorrows. I still remember that night; very poignant.
> 
> I never got the Chilean girl either...



He is talking a lot of crap *THERE WAS NO 16 YEARS OLD soldiers, concription age began at 18*

It has been said more than one time that the equipment and supplies of the regular argentine infantry wasnt very good. It was an important factor among others (that are too long to explain here) contribute to undermine the moral/fighting spirit and eventually caused the downfall of the garrison. I dont know what he means with "WW2", the equipment was more like the 1960s, as the main weapon, the FAL rifle.

That situation has been unfortunately exploited many times to ridiculizate the argentine war effort for political/economical/wathever purposes, some people continues to do so, and not only foreigners, you got an example in your own post.

By the way you got *really lucky* to meet a good looking chilean girl, usually they are plain ugly (with moustaces you know)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2012)

Another post to expand my answer



michaelmaltby said:


> Argentina needs to _move on_. It's neighbor Brazil is becoming an industrial and resource-based powerhouse while Argentina sulks over perceived insults and symbols and looks inward. There's oil off the shores of the Falklands. It will be much more economic to support exploration and extraction from Argentina than from Britain. Can Argentina co-operate ...? Not if they are the declared enemies of the Falklands' citizens.
> 
> The original "war" was started as a political distraction. Tell me, please, that this is not more of the same, Mrs. Kirchner.
> 
> ...



Brazil is not a powerhouse, is a a country with nice people and some industrial base but the rate of literacy are low and inequalities between social sectors are huge. You can never achived full develeopment if you are anchored by that.
I dont vote F de Kirchner, no in 2007 nor 2011, but the Malvinas thing is a state politics (not sure if that is the proper translation of the term "politica de estado") that means every president since 1944 has been talking with the britons about the issues (some more strongly than others) Of course the 1982 war embittered the things for a planned dialogue but other countries had been in war with more losses and fighting fro more territory and more valuable teroritory that a small southernmost archipielago so I am confident eventually with a couple of leaders less mouthy than F de K / Cameron the thing will go smoothly.

And talking about war and the people, the argentine people was not (during the period of time april-june) against the war...to confront I let you this link, far closer to home (your home ) than the falklands.

File:Mar15-peace-protests-mtl.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 8, 2012)

Thanks for the link, CB. Montreal *Quebec* is Canada's Brazil so I'm sure you'll understand. 

"... politica de estado" .... National Interest ...?

Cheers,

MM


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2012)

Yes, I know, the people of Canada opposed to the war in irak, but canadian Govermente collaborate with the war effort nevertheless, probably that was "political distractions" or "smokescreen to cover internal troubles", who knows.



> "... politica de estado" .... National Interest ...?



yea, that is more accurate, grazie.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2012)

> He is talking a lot of crap THERE WAS NO 16 YEARS OLD soldiers, concription age began at 18



Probably a missed memory by me. Why would I have reason to doubt this guy? As for the WW2 era weapons, I used to know a Brit who fought in the Falklands and was at Stanley examining the cache of weapons left behind. He said he saw Lee Enfield rifles and a manner of American rifies from the same period. I've seen photos in a book of such a pile and you can clearly see Lee enfield rifles; the caption even mentions it. Were you there at the time? 

As for "ridiculizate the argentine war effort for political/economical/wathever purposes", no one is doing that; certainly not the chap I met. He was genuinely sorry to have been involved. Why wouldn't he be? Don't tell me you think every Argentinian was in favour of going to war? I've read a lot on the Falklands War and apart from the odd bit of tabloid journalism I've read nothing of ridicule of the Argentine forces in serious books and articles on the conflict. Where have you seen it?



> By the way you got really lucky to meet a good looking chilean girl, usually they are plain ugly (with moustaces you know)



Off comes the gloves!  I've heard the same about Argie women, too!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Probably a missed memory by me. As for the WW2 era weapons, I used to know a Brit who fought in the Falklands and was at Stanley examining the cache of weapons left behind. He said he saw Lee Enfield rifles and a manner of American rifies from the same period. I've seen photos in a book of such a pile and you can clearly see Lee enfield rifles; the caption even mentions it. Why would I have reason to doubt this guy? Were you there at the time? Did you fight in the Falklands War?
> 
> 
> 
> Off comes the gloves!  I've heard the same about Argie women, too!



Can you provide the photo ? Lee Enfield was never bought by any brach of the argentine armed forces, the standarization of rifles began in 1871 with the Remington rolling Block, then 1891 with the Mauser 7,65mm, 1909 again Mauser with modernized m98 action, 1962 with the FN FAL manufactured under licence by FM, 1994 Steyr AUG and M16 (although the FAL is still is in use by the green volunteer and Mountain troops) The Marines deployed some Garand-Berettas M1959 in the war but hardly any similarity with an Lee-Enfield.

I know however British deployed Lee-Enfields caliber .308 as sniper rifles maybe you see one captured and then "recaptured".

There is a good reason to not believe, if the narration start with a lie (or inexact memory if you like) there are fair chances that the rest of the story isnt complete correct also.

I wasnt old enough to participate in that war, I was born in 1979. The stories of veterans are always appealing stories but in this topic I think is best to stick to the facts .



> I've heard the same about Argie women, too!



The argentine women is in such level that I dont going even to discuss that. Come and see, eventually you will be thankful. The case of Chile in particular is pityful, the chilean Tv is packed with with argentine anchors, presenter, models, actresses, etc simply because the locals are too damn ugly.


----------



## rochie (Feb 9, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Plymouth mode???/ you got me....what is that


plymouth being all things Royal Navy.
i did originaly just put Para's but thought i'd better include the other as well being as good a chap i am !


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2012)

Its worth remembering that the standard British sniper rifle in the Falklands was a L42 a modified Lee Enfield, Argentina may have also used similar WW2 based rifles for sniping. The standard weapon was of course the FN rifle and there wee plenty to go around. The standard weapon carried by British support or second line troops was the Sterling SMG but in the open vista's of the Falkland most people swapped them for captured Argentine weapons. These were very similar to the British SLR and didn't cause any problems with training or use. 


As for the person who was spinning a tale about being in the Argentine Army, tragically there are people like him are in every country.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)

"... the war in irak".

How did we get _there_ ..? 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)

My favorite "ugly, mustached" Chilean woman ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2012)

How dare you Michael!!! You know damn well that there are no hot women outside of Argentina!


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2012)

If thats not hot then I admit your standards are a lot higher than mine


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)

Is it my Glock or are you just glad to see me ....?

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)




----------



## Readie (Feb 9, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Plymouth mode???/ you got me....what is that



Plymouth ('Gus' in service slang) is home to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who went to the Falklands. I thoughtlessly overlooked the others that Karl pointed out.

The Falklands Vets are very close to Plymothian hearts as are all the vets from battles that 'our boys' fought and fight to this day.

John


----------



## Readie (Feb 9, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> View attachment 192129
> My favorite "ugly, mustached" Chilean woman ...



NCIS Home Page
NCIS is American ( isn't it?)
John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 9, 2012)

Glider said:


> Its worth remembering that the standard British sniper rifle in the Falklands was a L42 a modified Lee Enfield, Argentina may have also used similar WW2 based rifles for sniping. The standard weapon was of course the FN rifle and there wee plenty to go around. The standard weapon carried by British support or second line troops was the Sterling SMG but in the open vista's of the Falkland most people swapped them for captured Argentine weapons. These were very similar to the British SLR and didn't cause any problems with training or use.
> 
> 
> As for the person who was spinning a tale about being in the Argentine Army, tragically there are people like him are in every country.


I have check just to be sure but I am almost 100 % positive there were no Mauser sniper in malvinas, I have seen M14s and FAL with scope used as sniper by the argentine forces.









> My favorite "ugly, mustached" Chilean woman ...



Must be recently waxed, noooooo, just kidding  . Is a easy matter to solve Just Dare to create a picture topic called "Chile vs Argentina" or whatever the name you like for that particular matter and you will see. I wont enjoy a so easy victory upon you beloved trasandinian women.



> NCIS is American ( isn't it?)
> John



I guess they are scratching the bottom of the barrel, is not easy one.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)

Special Agent Ziva David aka Cote de Pablo

Cote de Pablo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"... Is a easy matter to solve Just Dare to create a picture topic called "Chile vs Argentina" or whatever the name you like for that particular matter and you will see.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Argentina: Ugly people strike back

Sounds like Argentines spent _too much_ time and money admiring themselves in the mirror .... I got the impression from your previous posts, CB, that you were a rugged pampas-kind-of-guy,  not a cafe-crowd metro sexual. 

This is my standard of beauty -- along with smoldering dark-eyed NCIS Agents who can look after themselves. We don't go for silicon injections, botox and lip enhancements in the Muskogee .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2012)

Glider said:


> If thats not hot then I admit your standards are a lot higher than mine



Oh, she certainly is. I wonder how that can be though, she is not from Argentina? How is that Charles?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)

".... Brazil is not a powerhouse, is a a country with nice people and some industrial base but the rate of literacy are low and inequalities between social sectors are huge. You can never achived full develeopment if you are anchored by that."

You can try, CB, 

Argentina vs Brazil «Ranking of the World's Richest Countries by GDP» - Classora Knowledge Base

MM
Proud Canadian


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 9, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh, she certainly is. I wonder how that can be though, she is not from Argentina? How is that Charles?


You can go to the topic you closed about argentine women in the multilingual corner, then compare those women with the one above, I dont need to add anything more.



> You can try, CB,
> 
> Argentina vs Brazil «Ranking of the World's Richest Countries by GDP» - Classora Knowledge Base
> 
> ...



Yes, the gross income is high, but the income per capita is low, far lower than the argentine for example (we dont claim to be a powerhouse). Aniway if they manage to reduce the extreme poverty, the extreme inequality of incomes and the extreme crime they *might* have a chance (althought remote) to become a developed countries

By the way in questions of women there is other proud canadian wich has *gotten right*, is a pleasure to see one of your fellow countryman with real taste and not clouded by any tv series

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...e-Luisana-Lopilato-named-new-face-Ultimo.html


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 9, 2012)

Women with looks are everywhere in the world in equal quantities , like to see half of these beauties when they wake up with no make up , maybe argentinian women are better at camoflauge then most . Then the next question is what do they look like at 35 .


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 9, 2012)

"... (we dont claim to be a powerhouse)".

Underachieving. At the turn of the 20th Century - before WW1 - Europeans invested in Argentina, migrated to Argentina, and believed that the 20th Century belonged to Argentina. What happened, CB. Your country has everything ...? 

The GDP graph I linked to isn't about standard of living, it's about GDP. Gross Domestic Product. Standard of living doesn't create JOBS and wealth. It just creates comfortable people. GDP creates wealth, jobs, and ultimately, PROSPERITY. 

Why would the residents of the Falkland wish to join Argentina when such a choice would _lower_ their standard of living, CB? (see Tables link below )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

MM


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 9, 2012)

> My favorite "ugly, mustached" Chilean woman ...



Damn, she's UGLY...


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Damn, she's UGLY...



You need to get out more


----------



## Readie (Feb 10, 2012)

Wandering back to the Falklands briefly (as you do) and Charles' comment about solutions to the disputed territory.
As long as the people who live in the Falklands want to be British citizens then no British PM will abandon them. 
Whether their claim to British citizenship is relevant in 2012 is another question.
There are parallels with the Northern Irish and their desire to be British. Look at the trouble that has caused over the years....
No easy answer I'm afraid.
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> You can go to the topic you closed about argentine women in the multilingual corner, then compare those women with the one above, I dont need to add anything more,



My point was this:

There are beautiful women everywhere in the world, all over the world, and Argentina does not have monopoly on that. You saying so is insulting to everyone else. Maybe you should get out of your country a bit more, you are becoming more and more clouded. 

*Now get this thread back on topic (about the Falklands), or I will CLOSE it as well. *


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 10, 2012)

".... Whether their claim to British citizenship is relevant in 2012 is another question."

Indeed, it is, John, but Argentina is hardly a subtle suitor ... and ... if you examine the economic charts provided, it is easy to see why Falklanders would see union with Argentina as a _backward_ step -- a near 33% cut in per person GDP/standard of living. 

At the latest revival of this thread I said that _co-operation_ on off shore oil exploration would be a good place for Argentina to start learning co-operation skills - instead of focusing on "conquistador" pilot Prince William Whales, and smashing windows of British banks .....

Glass half-empty or half-full .....? Sadly, some people pine for what they don't possess, 

MM


----------



## Readie (Feb 10, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Whether their claim to British citizenship is relevant in 2012 is another question."
> 
> Indeed, it is, John, but Argentina is hardly a subtle suitor ... and ... if you examine the economic charts provided, it is easy to see why Falklanders would see union with Argentina as a _backward_ step -- a near 33% cut in per person GDP/standard of living.
> 
> ...




Its always about oil and the mistaken perception that Britain will not defend its citizens where ever they happen to be living.

A lot of water needs to go under this particular bridge before any progress is made.
I referred to the Northern Irish and the issues there, sometimes a situation develops where is no solution other than a stalemate...

John


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2012)

Readie said:


> Its always about oil and the mistaken perception that Britain will not defend its citizens where ever they happen to be living.
> 
> A lot of water needs to go under this particular bridge before any progress is made.
> I referred to the Northern Irish and the issues there, sometimes a situation develops where is no sloution other than a stalemate...
> ...



I would often agree with this type of observation but believe that it isn't right in this case. Argentina didn't invade because of oil, and the UK didn't take it back because of oil. After the conflict the UK didn't build up the military defences at great cost because of oil, but because it was British territory that had been invaded. 

It was a matter of principle for both sides and tragically the principles clashed.

I believe that Oil is now being used as an excuse. What oil is doing is giving the Falklanders the chance of a much higher standard of living, far higher than anything they have had in the past. As a result it will reduce any chance of the islanders voting for a union with Argentina. Had it remained a poor sheep based economy then in fairly short time the chances of them voting for a change would have been increased.

I do agree that lot of water will now have to go under the bridge.


----------



## Readie (Feb 10, 2012)

Glider said:


> I would often agree with this type of observation but believe that it isn't right in this case. Argentina didn't invade because of oil, and the UK didn't take it back because of oil. After the conflict the UK didn't build up the military defences at great cost because of oil, but because it was British territory that had been invaded.
> 
> It was a matter of principle for both sides and tragically the principles clashed.
> 
> ...



I should have said that oil is now one of the excuses, not the reason for the 1981 conflict.
Thanks for pointing that out Glider
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 10, 2012)

"... Now get this thread back on topic (about the Falklands), or I will CLOSE it as well."

The devil made me dedicate this post to Charles Bronson's love of beautiful women. (Take note, life is cruel, the flesh is weak and the spirit undisciplined ) A smoldering Christina Aguilera. Sleep sound, CB. 

MM


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2012)

1982, John, but you are right; neither side is giving ground on this, sadly; the issue of oil is just an added complication to an already complicated situation. I couldn't agree more about the mutual co-operation idea, but Argentina's Premier's actions and words have proven she has no intention of contemplating such a thing.

Despite our opinions of David Campbell, I don't believe that the British will sit still if Argentina were to launch hostilities. They will return to the islands in whatever way they can to defend their citizens' honour. You can guarantee that the British military high command are mulling over the details as we speak. You can also guarantee that there is a British nuclear submarine off the coast of Argentina right now, especially since they've sent one of their newest destroyers down on an 'exercise'.

Get out more? I'm already as 'out' as I can get! I'm so 'out' that Google Earth can't even find me!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 11, 2012)

Back on topic, , an excellent overview:

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner: The iron lady of the Malvinas - Profiles - People - The Independent

MM


----------



## Readie (Feb 11, 2012)

Another view.
BBC News - Argentina claims UK sent nuclear sub near Falklands

Big talking...but, who's going to do the walking?

John


----------



## The Basket (Feb 11, 2012)

Readie said:


> Another view.
> BBC News - Argentina claims UK sent nuclear sub near Falklands
> 
> Big talking...but, who's going to do the walking?
> ...


 
This Falklands thing is getting busy. Not sure what Argentina are trying to do.

How do they know a nuclear sub is about? Like to know that. As long as it not in El Rio de la Plata then it ain't no business.

'Hector Timerman demanded that the British confirm the location of nuclear submarines in the region'...er....no.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 11, 2012)

Basket, read Mrs. K's profile since her husband's death and you'll have your answer:


@#683 Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner: The iron lady of the Malvinas - Profiles - People - The Independent


----------



## Readie (Feb 11, 2012)

The iron lady ?
Not another...
Dear god, its taken us years to recover from the last one....

John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 11, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... (we dont claim to be a powerhouse)".
> 
> Underachieving. At the turn of the 20th Century - before WW1 - Europeans invested in Argentina, migrated to Argentina, and believed that the 20th Century belonged to Argentina. What happened, CB. Your country has everything ...?
> 
> ...



My dear Michael, I have the deepest appreciation for the people living in the islands, they are hard working people living in a isolated place in a remote location and they make the most of it. I am also aware that the majority wont vote for a union with the rest of 23 argentine provinces. However I also must add they live in a artificial kind of enviroment in wich everything is quite nice, with artificial high wages, with artificial wealth from almost free imports taxes. They have no unemployment and almost no crime. The challenges that everyday is faced by any average citizen in any large american city (and with american I am talking about the entire continent, Argentina, USA, Canada) or any large british city like the ones caused by violent crime, massive inmigration by lesser countries (and all the tensions associated to that) transportation issues, political confrontation issues, racial issues, religious issues etc, etc are completely strange for them.

That simply is not the real world.

In that "perfect" enviroment, why would anybody see the need of joining to anybody else and perhaps compromising his usual comfy lifestyle ? I am sure that I wont.
Also in the same way I feel there is a large portion of cinism in the *Falklands representatives* whom always praise and enjoy the benefits of having a relative large british military presence in that territory but in the same time they wont be so happy if in a near future the islands are "invaded" by a large portion of non-military british citizen looking for jobs/new lifestyle, opportunities, they would scream at loud specially if they are aware of the social and cultural empoverishment of the Uk in the past 30 or 20 years. 

They have the option to say "no thanks" simply because Argentina is not a military power, if not they will be learning about general San Martin, general Belgrano, 9 de julio, 25 de mayo and others argentine dates/figures in school right now. Fortunately for us argentine we can say proudly that there were no rapes/assasinations/collateral damage on any kelpers by the argentine forces during the the period of time occuping and reclaiming the territory, and that all coming from a supposedly indiciplined, terroristic, amateur military force by a majority of unexperienced soldiers (oh my god, I wrote soldiers, sorry about that ...is conscripts, I dont want to deprive anyone here with that always pleasure giving word) commanded by supposedly "dirty war like" officers.

Some more "professional", well now, well advertised military forces cannot claim the same.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 11, 2012)

Christina Aguilera? she could crush walnuts with those thighs...

Thirty years ago Roger Waters had this to say:

Breszhnev took Afghanistan and Begin took Beirut,
Galtieri took the Union Jack,
And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser with all hands,
apparently, to make him give it back...


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 11, 2012)

CB, your view of Argentina being as you put it "a supposedly indiciplined, terroristic, amateur military force by a majority of unexperienced soldiers commanded by supposedly "dirty war like" officers" is a view that you continue to advise us about how we, or the rest of the world see the Argentine forces. You are probably right, I have no grounds to believe that the Argentine forces or the Argentine people for that matter are not peaceful, but with regards to the Malvinas, history and your premier's words do not support that point of view. In the words of Bazil Faulty; "you started it..." and while the people on the islands might be pleased that the Argentine occupiers were not bloodthirsty, nor did they commit heinous crimes, I bet they were none too pleased living under their occupation either. It was thrust apon them without option.

As for their peaceful idyllic lifestyle; who are you or the Argentine government to say it is not realistic to continue that way? I live in a remote community, perhaps not that remote, but isolated nevertheless and it is my choice to do so, as it is the Islanders. Island life on the Falklands is clearly sustainable, since it has continued for years, but one constant since 1982 is the threat of Argentine invasion again.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 12, 2012)

Dios Mio CB

Your English is better than my Spanish I wager.

You cannot occupy and reclaim at same time.

Your argument is spurious at best. 

Any British Government would last as long as a egg sandwich if they even thought about giving up the Falklands.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2012)

"... The challenges that everyday is faced by any average citizen ... etc, etc are completely strange for them. That simply is not the real world."

You want to take that away from them ..... . I don't know, CharlesBronson, I don't know. You've described the exact situation that exits on other islands such as the Hebrides, Faros, Shetlands etc. etc. These island populations of Celts and Anglo Saxons may be living in a bubble(s) but why would you believe that should change .... ? or believe that the population would _want_ it to change. Are the Falklanders arrogant? Do they make racial taunts at Argentina. Do they look down at y'all on the mainland .... . I don't know. I _do _know that islanders can be very prickly ... , and in this case we're talking islanders standing up for smaller islanders. Couldn't be more of a red flag ....

I do not mean to be dismissive, unkind or generally ignorant. I would love to visit Argentina .... my niece (a climber living in Chamonix, France) toured your country in a blue Ford Falcon station wagon and climbed in Patagonia a decade ago. She loved it. 

But - that said - I feel about the Falklands the way I feel about Formosa/Taiwan. And that is: RESPECT AND PROTECT THE WILL OF THE RESIDENTS (if they are not hurting others or making trouble). 

I'm not a socialist . I don't believe that distributing the misery is any more desirable than sharing the wealth. Anybody can use force to coerce or to impose submission -- the art lies in winning respect and loyalty without coercion.

I do not believe David Cameron sought-out confrontation now any more than I believe Margaret Thatcher sought out confrontation 30 years ago. In both cases a political leader in Argentina picked open an 'issue' that was there ..... under the surface .... waiting to be picked like a scab. It is exactly that kind of political play that was employed in the streets of Germany in the 1920-30's. Sorry to say that, my friend, but there it is.

Oil is a business and an opportunity to reset history ... Norway, Newfoundland, two examples. I strongly suggest what I have suggested from the outset -- and even referenced in private email to you. Co-operation is a win-win for Argentina and for the Falklands. Two half-full glasses make a full glass. Two half-empty glasses make AN EMPTY GLASS .

Thanks for your frank and thoughtful reply , CB.

Chairs from the Great White North

MM


----------



## Readie (Feb 12, 2012)

*I do know that islanders can be very prickly ... , and in this case we're talking islanders standing up for smaller islanders. Couldn't be more of a red flag ....*

On the money there Michael.
If we are not prepared to defend our countrymen then who will?

The Falklands was a gift for Thatcher and she made the most of it.
Victory in the South Atlantic aside, we had to suffer another 4 years of misery before the Conservative party / electorate saw sense and got rid of her.

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2012)

".... we had to suffer another 4 years of misery before the Conservative party..."

Now, John, you know the rules about about _politics_ ..... 

MM


----------



## The Basket (Feb 12, 2012)

BBC News - Falkland Islands: A shortage of eggs

South America once traded happily with the islanders, supplying all their needs. But Buenos Aires has been working hard to cut the islands off. 

Recently, Argentina persuaded other South American countries to turn Falklands-flagged vessels away from their ports. Ships rounding Cape Horn heading for the Falklands are routinely stopped, searched and delayed, so much so that merchant vessels have largely given up trying

Argentina has also restricted air traffic. There is one flight a week from Chile. Argentina won't allow more than this to pass through its airspace. Now Argentina is threatening to close even this last link with mainland South America. 

These are not the actions of a friend.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2012)

"These are not the actions of a friend"

The battle of Wills | The Sun |News

We'll fight to the bitter end for Las Malvinas: Argentine warning to 'conquistador' British as William lands in the Falklands | Mail Online

Inflation in Argentina is running 20 odd % P.A. .... IIRC. It's running 3.5 - 4.5% rate in Britain, Chile, Brazil and the Falkland Islands themselves.

What is this hostility really all about?

MM


----------



## The Basket (Feb 12, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> What is this hostility really all about?
> 
> MM



Good question. Sabre rattling is all good and well but first you need a sabre. Argentina has 2 options in my view...1) Play nice or 2) Invade.

This 3rd option of screaming and stomping like a spoilt child gets no respect from me or the British Government or the Falkland Islanders.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2012)

Sorry lads but if you want to lure me in a heated political debate you will fail, since I didnt vote FernandezdeK I dont obliged to defend or condemn every action of her, beside the women have enough resources to defend herself. I did my best effort in post 688 to produce an articulate response in the best english language that my fingertips could provide (remember, in my house only spanish and italian is spoken, english is third in my list of languages before german) 

Michael, is quite evident reading other topics that you like very much this kind of political oriented posting, but if you care to navigate the 47 pages of this topic you will see I tried hard to post only about the military aspects (wich are by the way quite interesting), so again look at the 688, I wont repeat myself, anybody is free to interpretate the way they like the most. 



> In the words of Bazil Faulty


Nuumann: who is that one ?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2012)

688 WAS A GREAT POST, CB. It kept the thread alive after Christina Aguillara's thunder thighs ...  ... 

I don't care who you voted for - it's not my concern nor is the state of Argentina's 'geist' . But as a_ taxpaying Argentine_, I would be want my government to use diplomacy and economics to secure my future prosperity -- not jingoism.

I always appreciate and admire your_ clinical detachment from politics_, CB, your threads are always interesting and factual. 

MM


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2012)

Who is Bazil Faulty is going to take a long time to answer...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 12, 2012)

> 688 WAS A GREAT POST, CB. It kept the thread alive after Christina Aguillara's thunder thighs ...



Well...if you think there is "thunder" in that tights ...  difinately I am not the only one who need to get out more. 



> Who is Bazil Faulty is going to take a long time to answer...



Dont worry, is not important after all.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 13, 2012)

"... Who is Bazil Faulty is going to take a long time to answer...

He is John Cleese of Monty Python fame as "Basil Faulty" the co-proprietor of "Faulty Towers" an English seaside resort hotel (I think). It is not my 'thing'. I thought one of the Brits would get it .....  and explain

John Cleese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That 'fat' "after" picture of singer C.A. scared me when I saw it - after your "the nubility of Argentine women" rant and it was so graphic that I wanted to share my nightmare with you, Mr. B. 

Chairs from the GWN

MM

Watch for yourself, CB:

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...959l0l18765l13l13l0l0l0l0l278l2289l0.8.5l13l0


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2012)

Specifically this one 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yhAeeL8UiY_


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 13, 2012)

Let me be the first to say that Aguilera is not Canadian she 100% american , please note I`m aware of this becuase I am a fountain of useless knowledge and this is as useless as I can think of


----------



## Readie (Feb 13, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Who is Bazil Faulty is going to take a long time to answer...



Basil Fawlty of Fawlty Towers is a brilliant BBC comedy series. Its based around a hotel run by the Fawlty's and their staff.
Not very PC but, damn funny.
Loads of clips on You tube.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngEMj4krpA_
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> Sorry lads but if you want to lure me in a heated political debate you will fail,



I don't think anyone is trying to do that. You opinions and posts are respected (maybe not agreed with though.... They are just posting their opinions as well.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 13, 2012)

I think ther were only 17 episodes of Fawlty towers. Had a great impact for such a short run. funny as hell, and so British......anoys the hell out of everyone else mind you

Remember "Cart door"???


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2012)

> please note I`m aware of this becuase I am a fountain of useless knowledge and this is as useless as I can think of



Ahhh, don't be so hard on yourself, Neil 

Sadly, there's no way anyone would dare make anything as politically incorrect as FT now; looking back, it's like the world has changed so much in thirty years, (...and bringing the thread back on topic now...)the only thing that hasn't is that the Argentine government is still banging on about the Falklands.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 13, 2012)

Our always beloved neighbours from the east doing what they do best, is no surprize that country s map look like a serpent.

[Video] Chilenos en Malvinas: Que quede claro que no apoyamos a los argentinos Cooperativa.cl


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 13, 2012)

It's certainly _windy_, CB ... 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 14, 2012)

Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g3-21BWhxM_

MM


----------



## Readie (Feb 14, 2012)

parsifal said:


> I funny as hell, and so British......anoys the hell out of everyone else mind you...



Only because they don't get the humour Michael. We are laughing at ourselves as much as anyone else and that is a very British thing to do.

John


----------



## Readie (Feb 14, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g3-21BWhxM_
> ...




Michael,
To watch the 'Iron Lady' film is too relive the nightmare.
Why Ms Streep would want to be cast as Thatcher is beyond me.
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 14, 2012)

MM


----------



## The Basket (Feb 14, 2012)

I heard the next Argentine plan in this war of handbags escalation is 'Yo Mama' jokes.

I hope David Cameron has a thick skin.


----------



## Readie (Feb 15, 2012)

The Basket said:


> I hope David Cameron has a thick skin.



He seems blissfully unaware too...

John


----------



## Njaco (Feb 15, 2012)

Readie said:


> Michael,
> To watch the 'Iron Lady' film is too relive the nightmare.
> Why Ms Streep would want to be cast as Thatcher is beyond me.
> John



$$$$$$$$


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 15, 2012)

And then there's Sean Penn ..... Mr. AmbASSador:

Sean Penn says UK should not have sent William to Falklands | Falkland islands News | The Week UK


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 15, 2012)

There was even a guy named Peck that just left the Malvinas to claim assylum in Argentina, 
Man born on the Falkland Islands given an Argentinean national identity card | Mail Online


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> There was even a guy named Peck that just left the Malvinas to claim assylum in Argentina,
> Man born on the Falkland Islands given an Argentinean national identity card | Mail Online



That one probably saw my topic about argentine women.

Now something interesting I ve found, this is the narration by the british ace (5 kills) Nigel Ward of how he shot down a Pucara.

LiveLeak.com - Shot Down in the Falklands

Ward recalls with all the details an attack (by Mirage V) against HMS Minerva frigate wich caused some deaths and injured sailors. Now when I am entering in the Minerva ship and veterans websites (there are 2 or 3) nobody says nothing about that incident...why ? is somebody hidding something ?, all the thing smell fishy to say the list.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 15, 2012)

Sharkey got 3 kills. Not 5 not an ace.

Just coz a guy say something dont mean it right.

No reason to hide losses. I thought Argentina had Daggers and not Mirage V.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2012)

The Basket said:


> Sharkey got 3 kills. Not 5 not an ace.
> 
> Just coz a guy say something dont mean it right.
> 
> No reason to hide losses. I thought Argentina had Daggers and not Mirage V.



I stand corrected , I would say 4 because because the t-34C he damaged was withdrawn from service so I give him and "extra" kill. The daggers are Mirage Vs most of the time, few of the 39 daggers bought by argentina were actually made by israel, in many of them the identificatory tag of the Toulouse factory was still on.



> No reason to hide losses.



Any reason for a pilot would made up that narration ?, if anybody can provide more info about the Minerva I will be very happy.


----------



## Glider (Feb 15, 2012)

HMS Minerva was part of the reinforcements that arrived on the 26th May and they were known as the Bristol group. In the official records she is down as being damaged during the conflict which would tie in with the narrative.

Can I ask which part of the narrative do you question?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2012)

Glider said:


> HMS Minerva was part of the reinforcements that arrived on the 26th May and they were known as the Bristol group. In the official records she is down as being damaged during the conflict which would tie in with the narrative.



You sure it was the 26th ? Because:

LiveLeak.com - Shot Down in the Falklands

Tomba s Pucara was shot down the 21th may, that is confirmed, if the ship arrived the 26th was not the Minerva who directed Lt Ward attacks against that pair of IA-58s. And if it was you data is incorrect.



Glider said:


> Can I ask which part of the narrative do you question?


Nothing in particular, I have the utmost respect to pilots like Nigel Ward, but as I seem to unable to find any casualty inside the HMS Minerva...well that let me a bad taste in my mouth and some suspicions (I am pretty sure that any person hit with 30mm gunfire in the head cannot survive, sorry for my frankness)


----------



## The Basket (Feb 15, 2012)

Not sure what your point is. Dates dont match so info is wrong.

Never use one source of info. And the deaths of British personnel are well documented.

Unless its all one big conspiracy. I hope MI6 are not reading this...loyal British subject that I am.


----------



## Glider (Feb 15, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> You sure it was the 26th ? Because:
> 
> LiveLeak.com - Shot Down in the Falklands
> 
> ...



There is no doubt that she is down as a damaged vessel in the records so someting hit her, however they also say that the Bristol group, didn't reach the Falklands until the 26th. 

Apart from that I can only speculate, but if she was anywhere near a carrier then she may not have reached the Falklands before the 26th also shemay have been further out as a radar picket before that date, which would have some logic. The RN could and did use vessels in this manner as a hit on any of the transport vessels would have had dire consequences.

As for the man hit in the head, he may have made it. A shell would almost certainly have exploaded before penetrating that far into the ship so its probable that he was hit by debris of some type. The guy on the radio had just been hit, confusion would have understandable and head wounds bleed a lot. Jumping to the wrong conclusion can easily happen when in pain, shock whilst trying to concentrate on the radar and the guy in the air as a first priority.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 16, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Christina Aguilera? she could crush walnuts with those thighs...
> 
> Thirty years ago Roger Waters had this to say:
> 
> ...



Roger Waters and Eric Clapton. Like eating escargot with ketchup.


----------



## Readie (Feb 16, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> ... eating escargot with ketchup.



If one insists on eating snails then ketchup is the only way ...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 16, 2012)

Glider said:


> There is no doubt that she is down as a damaged vessel in the records so someting hit her, however they also say that the Bristol group, didn't reach the Falklands until the 26th.
> 
> Apart from that I can only speculate, but if she was anywhere near a carrier then she may not have reached the Falklands before the 26th also shemay have been further out as a radar picket before that date, which would have some logic. The RN could and did use vessels in this manner as a hit on any of the transport vessels would have had dire consequences.
> 
> As for the man hit in the head, he may have made it. A shell would almost certainly have exploaded before penetrating that far into the ship so its probable that he was hit by debris of some type. The guy on the radio had just been hit, confusion would have understandable and head wounds bleed a lot. Jumping to the wrong conclusion can easily happen when in pain, shock whilst trying to concentrate on the radar and the guy in the air as a first priority.



I dont think anybody with 30mm hits in the skull, even fragments, could survive but that is not the point aniway. The point is wich was the ship with killed people by 30mm cannon inside, I would like to know to verify some data, that could denied or confirm some conpiracy theories so usual in many other forums. I am beggining to think mr Nigel Ward mistook the Minerva with other ship, Probably the HMS Brilliant, Argonaut or Antrim, frigates that were heavily attacked by gunfire.


----------



## Glider (Feb 16, 2012)

He certainly could have done, Minerva was hit but as I said by what I do not know.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 16, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> I dont think anybody with 30mm hits in the skull, even fragments, could survive but that is not the point aniway. The point is wich was the ship with killed people by 30mm cannon inside, I would like to know to verify some data, that could denied or confirm some conpiracy theories so usual in many other forums. I am beggining to think mr Nigel Ward mistook the Minerva with other ship, Probably the HMS Brilliant, Argonaut or Antrim, frigates that were heavily attacked by gunfire.



CB, one does not claim that 155mm shell to the head is deathly. Rather one would claim that a 155mm shelling has resulted in head injury. I see no difference with 30mm. It was collateral damage. Either direct fragmentation or material debris.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> CB, one does not claim that 155mm shell to the head is deathly. Rather one would claim that a 155mm shelling has resulted in head injury.  I see no difference with 30mm. It was collateral damage. Either direct fragmentation or material debris.



Well the statement of "Sharkey" Ward is my source

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=68d_1329322509&comments=1#comments

I cannot ad much more to the equation. I assume many people here had seen some of those Apache guncams and the nasty effect of the 30mm ammunition. The M230 "chain-gun" of the AH-64 use the same cartrigdes the Mirage III and V. And think that those shots are fired from an helicopter in a statonary flight, in the Falklads the aircraft was advancing towards the target at a rate of 500 to 600 knots so the energy deliveredd on target is far more, granted after going trought the ship hull plates (wich in those particular frigates wasnt much 10 or 11 mm thick) it would loss up to 40% energy but stilll...

But my search is aiming to found the ship not 1 or 2 more or less casualties.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 17, 2012)

"... those shots are fired from an helicopter in a stationary flight"

Apaches "hover" when they're firing their chain guns ..... ?

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 17, 2012)

His point is that the kinetic energy of a fast mover will necessarily be more.

My point is that it was not a direct hit to the head. It most certainly was debris or shrapnel, which MAY have been possible.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... those shots are fired from an helicopter in a stationary flight"
> 
> Apaches "hover" when they're firing their chain guns ..... ?
> 
> MM



Yes, like this:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgrLCZxiUs_


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

@CharlesBronson:

"... I would like to know to verify some data, that could denied or confirm some conspiracy theories so usual in many other forums."

Thankfully, it has been my experience that "conspiracy theories" don't last long on _this_ Forum, CB. 

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Apaches "hover" when they're firing their chain guns ..... ?
> 
> MM



They don't have to...

I am sure that it is more accurate if you do however.


----------



## bowfin (Feb 18, 2012)

That surviving Chinook of the Falklands could be said to be one of the most storied individual British aircraft EVER. I know, a pretty big boast, but it flew in the Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Three of its pilots won the Distinguished Flying Cross while flying it.

Bravo November - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> @CharlesBronson:
> 
> "... I would like to know to verify some data, that could denied or confirm some conspiracy theories so usual in many other forums."
> 
> ...



You know, there are conspiracy theories about everywhere, from who made the pyramids up to 9/11, obviously I am intelligent enough not to believe most of them. The particular one refering to the Falklands war is if british did hide some of the personel losses on ships. Dont blame me for that, is just something I ve read several years ago and I ve seen keep going in argentine forums.




> bowfin
> 
> That surviving Chinook of the Falklands could be said to be one of the most storied individual British aircraft EVER. I know, a pretty big boast, but it flew in the Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Three of its pilots won the Distinguished Flying Cross while flying it.
> 
> Bravo November - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I remember seen a vid on that Ch-47, cant remember where though.


----------



## Glider (Feb 19, 2012)

I don't know what we can add to the conspiracy theory. We know the RN has her down as a damaged ship, we know that at least two were injured and one of those might have been killed. There is a debate over when she arrived at Falklands sound. She may or may have not have been misidentified on the 21st. However with respect to those involved it isn't much of a conspiracy theory.

We know she arrived home on the 3rd September with no obvious signs of battle damage so a bomb or missile hit can be ruled out. A few 30mm holes are easily patched up and painted over on the voyage back.

Can we ask what is the conspiracy theory as it must be bigger than a couple of potential casualties? I am happy to do what I can to get to the bottom of whatever the question is.


----------



## Readie (Feb 19, 2012)

In 1982 during the Falklands War Minerva was part of the 'Bristol Group' and thus joined the war rather late, not reaching the Falkland Islands until the 26th May. While there, Minerva performed a number of duties, including escort for other vessels. 
She suffered no damage during her deployment during the Falklands War. She returned to Devonport in September, crowds greeting her upon her return.

Damage? what damage?

John


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2012)

*BL 755 Cluster Bomb in the Falklands.*
Examining bomblets of the BL755 cluster munition dropped dropped by Sea Harrier on the Stanley airport, 3 may 1982. The damage done by 1000 pounds bombs launched by Avro Vulcan is also seen.
LiveLeak.com - BL 755 Cluster Bomb in the Falklands.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 23, 2012)

OT on the Falklands, but CB this ones for you: 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmTIE2kDft4_

MM


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> OT on the Falklands, but CB this ones for you:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmTIE2kDft4_
> ...




*FOR ME* ??? wen I did asked for a vid of actions in Iraq ?? I embedded an example of 30mm firing but I didnt put actual firing against living people but carboard targets in Japan.

I found all that (iraq) war dis gusting and complete unnecesary, both Argies and Brits are *proud* of his involvement in the Faklands war, complete the opposite happened in Iraq (sorry if offend anyone here but thats is how i feel) so please Michael *refrain* to post those kind of vids if not teh mods will close this down with th excuse I talking too much off-topic.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 23, 2012)

".... wen I did asked for a vid of actions in Iraq "

Never.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 29, 2012)

More artistic guilt and self-loathing ... 

Give Falklands to Argentina, says Pink Floyd star Waters | Falkland Islands News | The Week UK

I guess he's another brick in the wall


MM


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 29, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> *FOR ME* ??? wen I did asked for a vid of actions in Iraq ?? I embedded an example of 30mm firing but I didnt put actual firing against living people but carboard targets in Japan..



Wound a little tight today, CB?



CharlesBronson said:


> *FOR ME*I found all that (iraq) war dis gusting and complete unnecesary, both Argies and Brits are *proud* of his involvement in the Faklands war, complete the opposite happened in Iraq (sorry if offend anyone here but thats is how i feel) so please Michael *refrain* to post those kind of vids if not teh mods will close this down with th excuse I talking too much off-topic.



You are not sorry. But appreciate false gesture. Even though you are absolutely wrong. Your personal emotions are affecting your logical reasoning. And no, nobody is going to shut down the thread for such a minor digression.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 1, 2012)

After Sean Penn, the experts have their say:

Falklands: after Sean Penn, the experts have their say | Falkland Islands News | The Week UK

MM


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 1, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Wound a little tight today, CB?
> 
> You are not sorry. But appreciate false gesture. Even though you are absolutely wrong. Your personal emotions are affecting your logical reasoning. And no, nobody is going to shut down the thread for such a minor digression.



I am sorry indeed, because I feel that there was and there is very good people involved in a bad, dirty conflict. I know is a sensitive issue, I renew my apologies, I wont bring that topic to this discussion anymore.



michaelmaltby said:


> More artistic guilt and self-loathing ...
> 
> Give Falklands to Argentina, says Pink Floyd star Waters | Falkland Islands News | The Week UK
> 
> ...



I heard that guy bought a large, fancy estancia in the Santa Cruz province, Patagonia, because is fanatic of trout fishing...I guess that is the place he would take cover when the people in Britain start to throw some sharp objects to him.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 1, 2012)

Roger Waters... another musical hero caught up in his own political web of stupidity. He and Sean Penn should be lovers. I really wish that artists would be artists and politicians... farmers. The world would be a better place.

CB - Were most of the general purpose bombs used by Argentina effectively WWII era bombs. Specifically, the 500lb GP bombs that had time fuses that were known to travel through British ships and not detonate. Might you have some information?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 2, 2012)

".... I really wish that artists would be artists and politicians... farmers. The world would be a better place."

Just stick to "artists" ... without government "subsidies" (AKA the Canada Council Arts Grants). Please ... please ... keep the artists out of *politics*. .

"... a large, fancy estancia in the Santa Cruz province, Patagonia" God's Country 

Chairs, CB

MM


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 2, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Roger Waters... another musical hero caught up in his own political web of stupidity. He and Sean Penn should be lovers. I really wish that artists would be artists and politicians... farmers. The world would be a better place.
> 
> CB - Were most of the general purpose bombs used by Argentina effectively WWII era bombs. Specifically, the 500lb GP bombs that had time fuses that were known to travel through British ships and not detonate. Might you have some information?




Not exactly, the ww2 british bomb was the Mk 17, 1000 pounds, this weapon was bought along the Avro Lancaster, avro Lincoln, BAC Canberra so they were vailable in number. The bombs was designed for medium/high altitude drops so is quite logical that it didnt work too well and was tricky to fuse it correctly for sea skimming attack like the ones made by argentine aviation.


----------



## Glider (Mar 2, 2012)

I think you will find that the RAF used the same bombs on the Vulcan raids, which were anything but low level


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 6, 2012)

Scratch away ... and more details emerge:

BBC finds evidence that French helped Argentines sink our ships | Falkland Islands News | The Week UK

MM


----------



## Readie (Mar 6, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Roger Waters... another musical hero caught up in his own political web of stupidity.


 
Self indulgence is any unpleasant side of Mr Waters. The university educated wealthy that we must still feel sorry for....

John


----------



## Readie (Mar 6, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Scratch away ... and more details emerge:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUZu8bvxJs4_
> ...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 6, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> Scratch away ... and more details emerge:
> 
> BBC finds evidence that French helped Argentines sink our ships | Falkland Islands News | The Week UK
> 
> MM



And probably the BBC might find tomorrow that* Bin Laden had a beard*. In the other hand france sold the missile but wasnt very helpful after 2th april, several software limitations were solved by argentine naval technical officers.

A more detailed explanation of the attacks and how the exocet works you can find in my liveleak channel.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d53_1328821380


----------



## The Basket (Mar 7, 2012)

It is known that there was a French team in Argentina with the Exocet Etendard combo.

It was A French weapon system after all. Question is whether they acted by themselves or acted with full knowledge of the French government.

The French were very helpful to the British so I have no problems with this. End of the day, the Etendards were Argentine so they pulled the trigger. And war is war. The Etendard pilots flew a top notch combat mission with a kill so fair play to them.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 7, 2012)

"... my liveleak channel."

Great link, CB. Thanks. 

MM


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 7, 2012)

The Basket said:


> It is known that there was a French team in Argentina with the Exocet Etendard combo.
> 
> It was A French weapon system after all. Question is whether they acted by themselves or acted with full knowledge of the French government.
> 
> The French were very helpful to the British so I have no problems with this. End of the day, the Etendards were Argentine so they pulled the trigger. And war is war. The Etendard pilots flew a top notch combat mission with a kill so fair play to them.



Not confronting but complementing your post: The French team leaved argentina the 2th april in the afternoon following direct orders of Paris. Some of the training was still uncomplete, the software and procedures to comunicate range and location data between the CFS-Agave radar on the Super Etendard and the small radar and navegation inside Exocet wasnt fully teached to the argentines in that date and it had to be completed by local technical officers of the 2nd navy attack squadron.



michaelmaltby said:


> "... my liveleak channel."
> 
> Great link, CB. Thanks.
> 
> MM



No problemo.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 8, 2012)

Int-er-esting.
Did you know that british intelligence was that the exocets were not operational?
Which is why the Sheffield attack was so surprising. U saying the Frenchies had nothing to do operationally with the exocets?

Hey CB...why weren't the Etendards used on normal missions? Exocet only if I recall.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2012)

The Basket said:


> Int-er-esting.
> Did you know that british intelligence was that the exocets were not operational?
> Which is why the Sheffield attack was so surprising. U saying the Frenchies had nothing to do operationally with the exocets?
> 
> Hey CB...why weren't the Etendards used on normal missions? Exocet only if I recall.



Barely, if I remember correctly the 2nd squadron pilots had only two classes with the frenchs before his departure and only theorical. When the delivering of SUEs and exocet was renewed in 1983 the french comission came again but evidently the 2nd squadron pilot and ground crew had master the AM39 missile techniques at that time.

There is an excellent documentary of 2008 on that, unfortunately not very useful if you dont understand spanish.

The SUEs were not used for air-to-air purposes because at that time the magic missiles were not available, neither for dropping dumb bombs because the less expensive A-4qs was felt as more practical, remember that the Navy had only 5 SUEs in april-june 1982 and one of them was grounded as spare parts source.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 9, 2012)

Eh? Didn't the Mirages use Magics?


----------



## Glider (Mar 9, 2012)

I think you will find that they used Sidewinder


----------



## The Basket (Mar 9, 2012)

I think you will find they had Magics.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 10, 2012)

The Basket said:


> Eh? Didn't the Mirages use Magics?



The Navy high Command always likes to be independent to the air force relating weapons system, the only cooperation between the both forces in the War was the in flight refueling. The planification of targets and airstrikes was always independent between the 2 Forces.

Argentine Navy had sidewinders b/c/d and the Air Force had Magic 1, Sidewinder b,c, and the israeli missile Shafrir, pure crap compared with the Sidewinder Lima.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 10, 2012)

Inter service rivalry is always good for the people your fighting against.

I heard a few more tales so indulge me please. Did Israeli technicians help during the war?

Did Peru offer assistance and was it welcome? They offered Mirage V and even to fly combat missions.


----------



## Glider (Mar 10, 2012)

CharlesBronson said:


> Argentine Navy had sidewinders b/c/d and the Air Force had Magic 1, Sidewinder b,c, and the israeli missile Shafrir, pure crap compared with the Sidewinder Lima.



Basket, we can call that one a draw


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 10, 2012)

> Inter service rivalry is always good for the people your fighting against.



I agree.



> heard a few more tales so indulge me please. Did Israeli technicians help during the war?
> 
> Did Peru offer assistance and was it welcome? They offered Mirage V and even to fly combat missions.



There was no israeli technician at the time of war. Peru sold 10 MVP with no hesitation, some of the pilots ferring those aircraft (big accent in the word some) offered themselves to strike missions wich obviously was turned dow by the AAF. the Mirages V were useful aircraft but since they arrived 10th or 12th june (sources varied) they didnt make any difference in the war.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 10, 2012)

I read that all Limas fired were tail chases and not the celebrated all aspect head on shots.

I wonder if the Golf would have been any worse.

We have our American friends for there gift of Limas and use of Wideawake.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2012)

> We have our American friends for there gift of Limas and use of Wideawake.



Not only that, also for the Shrikes the Vulcan used to destroy Argentine radars on Stanley. Rumour has it that the Americans offered the Brits a carrier, too.


----------



## Glider (Mar 11, 2012)

The Sidwinder L were not strictly a gift from the USA, they were taken from the RAF NATO war stocks but the replacements were shall we say rushed through by the USA. As for Widawake the Assension Islands are British and the agreement with the USA re the airfield always allowed for its use but there is no doubt that without the assistance of the USA it's use wouldn't have expanded as quickly as it did.

On the other side of the coin I seem to remember that there were a couple of US engineers who assisted the Argentine Navy with the support of the A4 Skyhawk. However I could be wrong on that.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 11, 2012)

Another read is the Israelis offering Argentina gear thru Peru.

Including longer range tanks for the Daggers.


If the Americans didn't want UK to use Wideawake then that is that.

Bizarre that the runway was modern because it was an emergency landing sight for the Space Shuttle!

Wars are won and lost on such coincidence.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2012)

More:

Britain and Argentina were on verge of sharing Falklands | Falkland islands News | The Week UK

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2012)

Anniversary Day today:

BBC News - Argentine papers mark anniversary of Falklands War

MM


----------



## rochie (Apr 2, 2012)

was watching some stuff last night and my thoughts are with those lost on both sides, i was lucky my dad came home safe 30 years ago


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2012)

Yes today is considered the 30th anniversary. Time to pause reflect and remember i think


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 17, 2012)

It seems the predator isn't just the U.K. -- it's capitalism

World turns on Argentine President Kirchner over YPF oil nationalisation| News | The Week UK


----------



## Glider (May 20, 2012)

Unfortunately I lost the document but there was an interview with the Captain of HMS Coventry that was sunk during the conflict. He made an interesting statement saying that he knew when the A4's took off, the payload they were carrying and even the names of the pilots. He also knew that he was too close inshore and this made him vulnerable and had said this in no uncertain terms to Admiral Woodward who insisted that he maintained station.

The bit that I found of interest was the knowledge of the attacking aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (May 20, 2012)

Argentinian British sympathizers feeding sensative information or intercepted communications perhaps?


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2012)

The info was too detailed and in real time so some sort of communications intercept was the more likely


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 21, 2012)

Glider said:


> Unfortunately I lost the document but there was an interview with the Captain of HMS Coventry that was sunk during the conflict. He made an interesting statement saying that he knew when the A4's took off, the payload they were carrying and even the names of the pilots. He also knew that he was too close inshore and this made him vulnerable and had said this in no uncertain terms to Admiral Woodward who insisted that he maintained station.
> 
> The bit that I found of interest was the knowledge of the attacking aircraft.


 
They knew an attack was inminent because they catched the transmitions of the Learjet 35 which was acting as FAC aircraft, maybe in there he could knew about the type of attacking craft (I dont think so but aniway...) but I seriously doubt that Hart-Dyke knew the pilots name and the payload. The type 42 radar could see always when the KC-130 was "feeding" the a-4 because its range (some 200 nautical miles I believe) so the surprize was little. I have almost every documentry on the HMS Coventry demise and never heard of this issue before.



Matt308 said:


> Argentinian British sympathizers feeding sensative information or intercepted communications perhaps?



The correct word would be traitor, there are many Argentinian British sympathizers, I am one, but surely I wont pass sensitive info to anybody in wartimes.


----------



## The Basket (May 21, 2012)

The airfields where the Skyhawks and Super Etendards took off are when known.

All you needs is a pair of binculars and a telephone and job done.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 24, 2012)

The Basket said:


> The airfields where the Skyhawks and Super Etendards took off are when known.
> 
> All you needs is a pair of binculars and a telephone and job done.



Not all the aircraft take off from the same airfield, there were 2 in the island of Tierra del Fuego and 2 more in the mainland (province of Santa Cruz) . This 4 airfield were separated each other by a considerable amount of miles. If there was any of that sort it could be made by a team of SAS or something inserted in an clandestine operation. But after the failure of the raid to destroy the Super Etendards (operation Mikado) it does not seem likely that the British Military attemp to another special operation in the mainland, I dont say is not possible, we all know the skills of those special teams, but to me seems not likely. I dont think there was any argentine national involved in passing information to the enemy, there were several people against the military Goverment who ruled the country in 1982, but not in that way. If not an argentine national or an british clandestine operation to keep an eye on the airfields...who then ? There is another possibility, the observation by a foreigner of group of foreigners who could pass unnoticed in the southern territories of Argentina.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 2, 2012)

Good point CB.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 25, 2012)

Some 30 years ago, the slugging match in the sea.

LiveLeak.com - Falklands War; the ship losses (part 1 of 2)

LiveLeak.com - Falklands War: the ship losses (part 2 of 2)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 26, 2012)

"Slugging match ..." ?

Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or

Loss of HMS Hood

Cheers,

MM


----------



## The Basket (Aug 6, 2012)

I am sure the British would have had enough resources to keep check on 4 airfields.

from what I have read, the task force knew of when a raid was on.

A clandestine operation to watch is very different from a shooting match. If the British didnt know a Argentine fighter was airborne then you have to ask who was running this show and why was he in charge.

An attack on an airfield was a decidedly dodgy affair with taking the war to the Argentine mainland and the possible loss of civialian life. War is a diplomatic nightmare and neutrals may have come off the fence if that happened.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "Slugging match ..." ?
> 
> Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Well...that was a "poetic" license. Now I realize slug is another word for bullet, english is a difficult language and I got 4 others in my head..




The Basket said:


> I am sure the British would have had enough resources to keep check on 4 airfields.
> 
> from what I have read, the task force knew of when a raid was on.
> 
> ...



The special operation called MIKADO was underway but the scout helicopter had a a mechanical failure and the secrecy was destroyed.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2015)

Guns, Colt Mk12, jammed in a Skyhawk in the worst possible scenario, a incident or air combat.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55Wy-vS-iEU_


----------

