Excellent Falklands war documentary

in which case i stand my outrage down sir!

did you really just say that?

Maybe i misread it?:eek:

The Foreign Office has had more than its share over the years. Incidentally, the “Gay Traitor” was the name of the bar at the Hacienda, named after Anthony Blunt, who was of course, a gay traitor!

Firstly it would of been far more difficult for the SAS and SBS to deploy if the task force was held further out.

SAS are sneaky. They would have came in from under the sea and waltzed slowly right close to their targets. Waltzed in the way special forces waltz that is. They probably would have even got their shots off at opportune times where they concealed the sound of the shots taking place.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=81971 from over on the historic forum with participants from both sides putting information in

There are lots of conflicting stories about this, many claim that she fired at the carriers but her patrol area was around the Falklands wheras the carriers were guarding durban – thats not to say she didnt see or have a crack at frigates 7 or possibly amphibs, but in light of the evidence its unlkely shs ever got sights on invincible or more crucially Hermes – the loss of her would have been crippling which is why she was kept well hidden..

Nor did the airforce despite one or 2 confused reports to the contrary by survivors of the final Exocet mission. And lest i start a flame war by accident I consider the Argentine pilots to be amongst the bravest of the brave, or all the stories about San carlos being bomb alley, and the RN casualties, the aircraft losses the argentines suffered were definatly making it look very much like a 1 way mission. (allegedly Death valley was the argentine nickname)

San Luis apparently conducted an attack on either HMS Yarmouth or Brilliant. On another date she engaged HMS Arrow and Alacrity. There are claims and counter claims as to whether she made attacks on either of the carriers, depends on who you believe. The fact is, though, her mere presence forced the British to plan tactics around her. Also, she could have been devastating on the support and supply ships, if things were different

Since she was a diesel boat, San Luis would probably have had to work with aircraft assets to locate the carriers and proceed out to the general area where they were, but had she had other successes, that probably could have been set up.

I think it is true that the Argentine invasion was not well thought out….They knew the British Foreign Office, which seems to be largely composed of gay traitors,…

did you really just say that?

Maybe i misread it?:eek:

Although most discussions of the Falklands conflict focus on the air battle, since it was the most visible, there was a major component of the war that doesn’t get much coverage because both sides don’t want it played up because it would talk too much about capabilities and also you can’t do “film at 11” of an empty ocean surface.

The Argentinian submarine San Luis was operational in the first part of the war. Essentially she operated at will and carried out multiple attacks on British ships. The attacks all failed for apparently for four reasons. During maintenance prior to the conflict, the periscope apparently was misaligned and so false bearings were generated for initial feed to the torpedoes. The fuses on some torpedoes failed to arm. One torpedo was apparently deflected by countermeasures. There was over-zealous maintenance done on the sub to a number of the torpedoes to the point that they no longer worked (gyros tumbled on launch, etc.), meaning that even with a perfect firing solution the torpedoes are going to miss. She left the area May 17, and did not return before the end of the conflict.

These were major strokes of luck for the British, especially the maintenance issue. In ASW, they were about as good as it got, and they never got close to hitting her. Had her torpedoes worked, the entire British fleet would have had to pull far back while SSNs “sanitized” the area. Who knows, if San Luis had sunk one of their carriers maybe the US would have had to help support her greatest ally.

There are lots of conflicting stories about this, many claim that she fired at the carriers but her patrol area was around the Falklands wheras the carriers were guarding durban – thats not to say she didnt see or have a crack at frigates 7 or possibly amphibs, but in light of the evidence its unlkely shs ever got sights on invincible or more crucially Hermes – the loss of her would have been crippling which is why she was kept well hidden..

Nor did the airforce despite one or 2 confused reports to the contrary by survivors of the final Exocet mission. And lest i start a flame war by accident I consider the Argentine pilots to be amongst the bravest of the brave, or all the stories about San carlos being bomb alley, and the RN casualties, the aircraft losses the argentines suffered were definatly making it look very much like a 1 way mission. (allegedly Death valley was the argentine nickname)

Although most discussions of the Falklands conflict focus on the air battle, since it was the most visible, there was a major component of the war that doesn’t get much coverage because both sides don’t want it played up because it would talk too much about capabilities and also you can’t do “film at 11” of an empty ocean surface.

The Argentinian submarine San Luis was operational in the first part of the war. Essentially she operated at will and carried out multiple attacks on British ships. The attacks all failed for apparently for four reasons. During maintenance prior to the conflict, the periscope apparently was misaligned and so false bearings were generated for initial feed to the torpedoes. The fuses on some torpedoes failed to arm. One torpedo was apparently deflected by countermeasures. There was over-zealous maintenance done on the sub to a number of the torpedoes to the point that they no longer worked (gyros tumbled on launch, etc.), meaning that even with a perfect firing solution the torpedoes are going to miss. She left the area May 17, and did not return before the end of the conflict.

These were major strokes of luck for the British, especially the maintenance issue. In ASW, they were about as good as it got, and they never got close to hitting her. Had her torpedoes worked, the entire British fleet would have had to pull far back while SSNs “sanitized” the area. Who knows, if San Luis had sunk one of their carriers maybe the US would have had to help support her greatest ally.

If Mirages were able to operate off the long runway it would have just given the SAS more targets to snipe.

Firstly it would of been far more difficult for the SAS and SBS to deploy if the task force was held further out.

Secondly it is one thing attacking the strip on Pebble Island but quite another to attack a well defended runway at Stanley. The special forces are not super human, they are very adverse to doing attacks on bases defended by thousands of regular troops. Notice that the idea wasn’t even seriously considered during the war to attack Stanley with special forces and operation Mikado to attack the Super Etendard based at Rio Grande on the mainland never even got off the ground especially after the failed recon mission (operation Plum duff – funny name go figure!).

http://www.eliteukforces.info/articles/sas-versus-exocets.php

In a stale mate I could see the British using subs to threaten Argentine shipping in general. Just the rumor of a British sub kept an entire navy pier side. I cant imagine what would happen if the subs had there way.

You mean today? Let an SSN off the leash, just one, and you’d see tomahawks on C2 facilities and spearfish on any ship dumb enough to leave port. That is the point, Argentina cannot actually fight a war over the Falklands any more, even out much reduced Sub force could cripple the country, yes it would be one hell of an escalation, but it would save british lives.

In a stale mate I could see the British using subs to threaten Argentine shipping in general. Just the rumor of a British sub kept an entire navy pier side. I cant imagine what would happen if the subs had there way.

If Mirages were able to operate off the long runway it would have just given the SAS more targets to snipe.

As Buitreaux points out the mistakes made by the Argentine Junta and millitary were numerous and it is dificult to pin down one major flaw but many millitary planners point out that the failure to extend the runway at Stanley with the steel matting they had purchased from the US was a critical mistake.

By extending the runway with steel matting they could of operated fast jets from Stanley. Their strike packages would no longer of been fuel critical over the task force and they could of operated CAP with the Mirage 3. When operated with plenty of fuel, at altitude and speed the Mirage has better performance then the Sea Harrier as proven when the RAAF Mirage 3 thrashed RN sea harriers in exercises a year or so after the Falklands.

They should of had a cargo ship rented with the matting on and several hundred tons of gravel and army engineers plus equipment ready to go at the beginning of the invasion.

some things that did surprise me:

1. The Argentine navy either didn’t have any ASW capability or its was BAD. I never even here of it being mentioned.

Some was pretty good, other was pure rubbish.

2. Argentina didn’t take the time to get the 25 De mayo fully up and running, or take the time to make sure a forward air field that could support fighters was built at Stanly. this is despite the fact that it took the British task force forever to get to theater.

Our “genious” strategists, believed the tale, that since for the last 6 years before the conflict our country was in control of USA backed dictatorship, that said dictatorship had an automatic alignement with the USA and NATO, that it was a period of “carnal relationships”, and that the junta was doing all the dirty work for the yankees in the central and south Americas, and was being congratulated by Regan to the point of calling an egomaniatical imbecil like Galtieri, in Regan’s own words “a majestic president”, adding the status of the islanders before the conflict, and since Operation Rosario was ordered to be excecuted with no british casualties, these criminals were absolutely convinced that the UK would not fight back, and that the TIAR would kick in. These idiots actually tought that the USA would side with us, or at least, remain neutral.

Can you believe that?!

There was never plans for a war, only for Operation Rosario. Everything that came after that was, almost completely, improvissed.

3. Along with point 2 Argentina didn’t meet the British in a decisive sea battle.

The pincer manouver with the 25 de Mayo and the Belgrano was halted, some claim because of lack of wind, others, that the peace negotiations would end and therefore before any naval battle was launched, the battlegroups were returning to costal waters. Unfortunately, in this retreat, the Conqueror sunk the Belgrano, and any chance of new negotiations were ended, resulting in the all out shooting war we all know.

Most of the fleet, remained close or into port for the rest of the conflict, mainly because of the SSNs, but in no less part, to deal with Chile in case they decided to invade Tierra del Fuego.

If your going to attack a country then its all or nothing they could have pressed the attack with naval and air attacks. I don’t get it.

Completely agree. The amount of bad calls in this short war, mostly from Argentina’s side, is just incredible.

some things that did surprise me:

1. The Argentine navy either didn’t have any ASW capability or its was BAD. I never even here of it being mentioned.

2. Argentina didn’t take the time to get the 25 De mayo fully up and running, or take the time to make sure a forward air field that could support fighters was built at Stanly. this is despite the fact that it took the British task force forever to get to theater.

3. Along with point 2 Argentina didn’t meet the British in a decisive sea battle.

If your going to attack a country then its all or nothing they could have pressed the attack with naval and air attacks. I don’t get it.

No I don’t think the current plan tasks them say way as the Vulcans were in 82 but its a fairly well known secret within RAF circles that its a capability they would like.

With its open architecture Storm Shadow could be integrated onto Nimrod without two much problems giving back a global strike cabability to the RAF. But there is no money for the integration and it would in effect pick a fight with the navy.

I would think they are looking towards a UOR or similar means to slip it in. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bae Systems and MBDA have drawn up some concept documentation about what is required for the process.

Well yes and no, remember the UK had removed British citizenship in 81 to the Islanders and was clearly gearing up to discretely hand over soverignty to Argentina somewhen in the 80’s. The Argentines were already operating the airport at Stanley and everything from education through to supplies came from Argentina. The UK was cutting back the navy to focus on fighting an ASW war in the north atlantic.

Now the Falkland Islanders are British citizens and we have a NATO standard airbase on the Islands. Argentinas armed forces are in a worse state then during the invasion and haven’t the capacity to take on the Island defences before reinforcements arrive by air.

It is interesting to note that the letter that Fox sent to the PM stated cutting Nimrod seriously impacted on the UK’s Falkland response plan.

It’d be interesting to see what that whole strategy consists of. Would MRA4’s be used in a similar way to the Vulcans of ’82? Except using Storm Shadow. They’re the only aircraft we have that could actually perform a mission of that length now well.

Well yes and no, remember the UK had removed British citizenship in 81 to the Islanders and was clearly gearing up to discretely hand over soverignty to Argentina somewhen in the 80’s. The Argentines were already operating the airport at Stanley and everything from education through to supplies came from Argentina. The UK was cutting back the navy to focus on fighting an ASW war in the north atlantic.

Now the Falkland Islanders are British citizens and we have a NATO standard airbase on the Islands. Argentinas armed forces are in a worse state then during the invasion and haven’t the capacity to take on the Island defences before reinforcements arrive by air.

It is interesting to note that the letter that Fox sent to the PM stated cutting Nimrod seriously impacted on the UK’s Falkland response plan.

Do you see any parallels to the impending cuts of the Thatcher Era? when losing those ships would have meant losing the Falklands. and now when we are again thinking of large budget cuts? has history come full circle? or are we talking apples and oranges?

Nope, it’s more of a “this is how they could’ve beaten us if they used what they had perfectly and we were completely inept” kind of a deal.

It wasn’t close, but it wasn’t easy either, we lost a lot of kit on ships due to poor screening deployment and delays in getting ground based air defence set up.