Falklands 1982: only the RN could have done it?

I wasn’t equating the UK leadership and its actions to the Argentine leadership and theirs if that’s what you thought. Just pointing out that Aunt Maggie was a clever politician as well.

Fair point and yes she was clever and ruthless etc. This didn’t endear her to everybody though. Do you remember when she said no to President Reagan over the international space station? I read somewhere it was a rebuttal because of the USAs invasion of Grenada. Has anybody else heard this or am I on my own?

Phil

Aunt Maggie was a clever politician as well.

true for all politician that’s around for a while… otherwise… :rolleyes:

Yes but she didn’t break international law did she.
Phil

I wasn’t equating the UK leadership and its actions to the Argentine leadership and theirs if that’s what you thought. Just pointing out that Aunt Maggie was a clever politician as well.

You are absolutely right. About 250 for the British forces.
1000 is more like all killed, both Brits (~250) and Argies (~750). My silly mistake, thanks for pointing out.

That’s your problem. I sure would rather extermine the whole frigging invading nation rather than decide to get 250 of my soldiers killed. No qualms about it.
But then again, I care about the lives of my soldiers, not about being PC or re-elected next year.

Now I am scared.

Phil

… and some say Thatcher did the same thing in sending a task force south!

Yes but she didn’t break international law did she.

Phil

Yes, she should have nuked Gral. Menendez and his whole lot in Port Stanley!!! Err…., no wait a minute, I think there is a flaw on that plan :confused:

you thaw not flaw right? Nuking it would provide warmth (and other minor details) for those islands for years to come 😀

And if you don’t have nukes, just use suicide bombers.

What Arthur is saying is that we can nuke some places in middle east because he’s equating suicide bombers to nukes and since they’ve used them…so can we… :rolleyes:

I’d rather that she had elected to get the invaders killed instead.

Yes, she should have nuked Gral. Menendez and his whole lot in Port Stanley!!! Err…., no wait a minute, I think there is a flaw on that plan :confused:

That’s your problem. I sure would rather extermine the whole frigging invading nation rather than decide to get 250 of my soldiers killed. No qualms about it.
But then again, I care about the lives of my soldiers, not about being PC or re-elected next year.

And if you don’t have nukes, just use suicide bombers.

Want to check your source? I forget the exact number of British fatalities during the conflict, but it’s not a million miles away from 240.

You are absolutely right. About 250 for the British forces.
1000 is more like all killed, both Brits (~250) and Argies (~750). My silly mistake, thanks for pointing out.

And as for nuking a remote Argentinian naval base… hmm… I’m not sure whether to find your comment amusing or alarming.

That’s your problem. I sure would rather extermine the whole frigging invading nation rather than decide to get 250 of my soldiers killed. No qualms about it.
But then again, I care about the lives of my soldiers, not about being PC or re-elected next year.

Maybe big-hearted people see thousand of PC reasons for not doing so, but what I see is that a thousand British soldiers got killed because she didn’t.

Want to check your source? I forget the exact number of British fatalities during the conflict, but it’s not a million miles away from 240.

And as for nuking a remote Argentinian naval base… hmm… I’m not sure whether to find your comment amusing or alarming.

An interesting thing about the French is that they might even have considered nuclear weapons (as a threat) if the conventional (and diplomatic) way wouldn’t have worked IMHO.

Actually, in my opinion the interesting thing is that Maggie Thatcher did not use them. She endangered the lives of British citizens rather than eliminate the aggressors.

With her subs and nuke-tipped missiles, she could just have nuked up some remote Argie base in Patagonia and demanded immediate withdrawal, “or else it is a major place next time, and it will go up all the way to the seat of the governement in Buenos Aires if needed to make you desist”.

Maybe big-hearted people see thousand of PC reasons for not doing so, but what I see is that a thousand British soldiers got killed because she didn’t. I’d rather that she had elected to get the invaders killed instead. As many millions as required if they insist.

The first duty of a government is to protect the lives of their own citizens. Which IMO was not well done by this choice.

I am afraid all the replies so far ignore the essential point: Only the British leader of that time had the balls to do it.

Like Maggie or not, she was in a class of her own.
Not a chance in hell that the French, German or whatever other European head of state would launch a re-conquest task force to the other side of the world. Waaaayyy not enough balls in the leader, or in the parliament.

AFAICS, in a hypothetical similar situation only the Serbs would do it, assuming that they’d ever have the military means.
Of course they’d murder so many civilians on the way that they’d force the world to stop them, but they’d have the will. None of the others would. Probably not even Russia today.

That is a question nobody can answer. Apart from France no other country had large overseas interests, so neither had a navy designed for such a job. And in the german case I would find it very strange to have a amphibious battle group with a carrier, when you had the Red Army right on your doorstep.

Blimey. Gordon Brown (texture like sun) has just announced an extra £400m for Defence.

That’ll be a general election in May then. 😉

That war was such a perfect example of why we need navies………I really hope the Brits get their two new big carriers, but the way they keep cutting their deffence budgets…………

Your memory is absolutely spot on Mark, she was indeed the former USS Phoenix, which in 1982 was one of only two ships still afloat which survived Pearl Harbour. The other is the US Coast Guard Cutter ‘Roger B Tamey’, which is moored in Baltimore Harbour. Or at least it was when I was there in 1995.

1982. Picture the scene. NATO one side of the fence, led predominantly by the US, with Britain and France squabbling over the right to be considered second most powerful nation in NATO. Warsaw Pact the other side of the fence, headed up by the USSR, and with, erm, lots of USSR puppets all saying ‘Yes Leonid!’ whenever Brezhnev barks an order.

It’s like a standoff in a school playground, but this time the playground is Germany, and the weapons are nuclear. An uneasy peace has existed for decades, with neither side backing down, and both sides poised. Focused. Ready.

The world watches…

And then all of a sudden, some godforsaken little islands in the South Atlantic, which happen to be governed by Britain, get invaded by Argentina.

The world glances down the globe, raises an eyebrow, chuckles in amusement at the temerity of the Argentinians, and looks back at the stern faces glowering at each other across the Iron Curtain. This is where the REAL stand off is, not down there on some bloody horrible little islands that nobody’s ever heard of.

But in Britain, things are stirring. Paras and Marines on leave are recalled. 48 hours notice to move boys, the Argentinians have invaded the Falklands. “What the hell do they want with Scottish Islands?” asks one bemused Para, showing that even he doesn’t know where the Falklands are. Royal Naval vessels are made ready, troops are mobilised, war stocks broken out, aircraft prepared, a logistics air bridge is set up to Ascension Island, diplomatic talks start, collapse, start again, and collapse again. In days a task force is ready; it sails. More diplomacy, it fails again, the task force passes Ascension Island, nobody really believes it’ll go to a shooting war. Surely the Argies’ll see sense and bugger off home…?

Twenty three days after the Argentinians take the Falklands, Royal Marines re-take Grytvyken on South Georgia, crippling an Argentinian submarine in the harbour.

Bloody hell. It IS a shooting war…!

Five days later; Belgrano is sunk by HMS Conqueror, and a single RAF Vulcan drops a stick of bombs across Port Stanley’s runway. It’s a statement of intent, a message to Leopoldo Galtieri. Look at us Leo, we can fly one of these, all the way down here, drop bombs, and fly it home again. Still want to play, or have you had enough yet?

He still wants to play. Three days after that, the Argentinians gain some revenge. HMS Sheffield is hit by an Exocet; she sinks under tow three days later. Time for another Vulcan. And another one. Argentinian air defences are held back to cover the mainland; Galtieri’s play for the Falklands is a gamble, a play on public support. If a British bomber drops one bomb on the mainland, that support goes…

So the air cover over the islands is reduced. But still the Argentines have a potent anti-invasion force… until the SAS and SBS visit Pebble Island. The fleet moves in closer… into San Carlos Water… and British troops land. Two days later, Goose Green is taken. The British press is full of front page photographs of smiling islanders, grubby faced Paras, and Union Jacks.

But it’s at a price; Ardent, Antelope, Coventry. All sunk while protecting the landings from sustained and highly determined low level Argentian attacks. Then the big blow. Atlantic Conveyor goes down, with all but one of her heavy lift helicopters. The troops on the far side of East Falkland will have to walk to Stanley.

British troops are the most highly trained, highly motivated, and professional soldiers in the world. ‘You’ve got to walk it lads’. Okay, let’s get on with it then.

Mountain firefights, hand to hand, highly experienced Paras and Marines versus terrified teenage conscripts. On 14th June, the message comes through – ‘there are white flags flying over Port Stanley’.

Job done.

So how did the British forces do it?
Determination
Leadership
Logistical excellence

Sure the Harrier helped. Sure the loss of Atlantic Conveyor was a huge blow. AIM9L helped. Argentina only having a slack handful of Exocets helped.

But you have to remember, that in 1982, the global focus was NATO vs Warsaw Pact. Us against Them. Two huge standing armies, standing ready to bludgeon each other to pieces, with little or no manouverist mentality…

…yet somehow, from a standing start, Britain mobilised itself to recapture the first island in 23 days, and complete the whole task in ten weeks.

Personally, I doubt any other nation, possibly excepting the United States, could have done it, not in 1982, not with the way the world was then.

Could we do it now? I’m not so sure…

Anyone got a shot they could post of the old ‘General Belgrano’, if I recall, the former ‘USS Phoenix’ if memory serves?

Mark

I’m not sure if I remember this correctly,but as I recall the primary goal the Argentine Junta had in mind when they decided to annex the Falklands was to keep their grip on power by diverting their own population’s attention away from economic,political and social issues in their own country, and then unite the people against a common enemy under their leadership, just as Bismarck had done when he created the a united German “Reich” after the war against France from 1870 until 1871

… and some say Thatcher did the same thing in sending a task force south!

Anyone got a shot they could post of the old ‘General Belgrano’, if I recall, the former ‘USS Phoenix’ if memory serves?

Mark