The Falklands (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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....
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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….
 
What were you guys using a Quad Radar for Par's with terminal from an air defence radar slaved to ATC.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

M
If the Pilot Breaks......
Replies
5
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
F-16C Block 30 "The Bats"
Replies
4
Views
830
Martin06
N
Is the Super hornet much better than F-16?
Replies
6
Views
115
Shortround6
S
Jets and aircraft after the Cold War
35 36 37
Replies
727
Views
26K
Viking1066
the RV-10 Pfeil ***Updated***
Replies
1
Views
1K
_PabloSniper_
Menu
Log in
Register