Matt308
Glock Perfection
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...
The Falklands (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
rogthedodge
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 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!
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
Chief Master Sergeant
Do they still use sterlings ? CB
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
First time I ever heard of that.
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
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 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!
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
Glock Perfection
Very interesting Rog.
rogthedodge
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 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
Senior Master Sergeant
rogthedodge
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Major
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.
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.
