The Falklands

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.

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' ... 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

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.

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?

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.
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

.

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 ?

Marine captured near the beachhead in may 21th.

Air force personnel.

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....

The Falklands

Senior Master Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Glock Perfection

Senior Master Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads