Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 2/20/2006 4:04:36 PM EST
I've been doing a little research in the Falkland Islands conflict. Basically I've been trying to figure out why the US didn't go in side by side with the British to reclaim their territory.

The Brits have backed us in every conflict we've been engaged in. Why didn't we return the favor?

As far as I can tell Reagan had a hard time choosing between a European ally and a South American country with which we had friendly relations.

But after nearly a month of Al Haig's "shuttle" diplomacy, Reagan accepts that hostilities are inevitable and publicly backs Britain and offers military aid. I can't find out why the Brits didn't accept it. It's hard to believe the Argentines would have stayed put if a US carrier group and a couple of SSNs enter the combat zone. It seems likely there wouldn't even have been a shooting war.

Was the Brit response a diplomatic way of saying “thanks, but no thanks!”

Thoughts?
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:54:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 7:56:26 PM EST by tpafl]
I believe Thatcher, not wanting Britian to seem weak, may have felt that accepting U.S. military aid would have been an affront to Britain's national pride. It may have also hurt Britian by giving the appearance worldwide that it could not defend it's interests aboard, thus causing future problems.




Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:10:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 8:13:30 PM EST by sabre_kc]
The Brits had SSNs. It was over when the British decided to go to war.

Sea...owned
Sky...owned (except for the HMS Sheffeild exocet strike, I don't remember the Argintines putting up a fight big enough to make the Brits worry about losing controll of the air.)
Land...taken
War....over

The Argentines didn't think the Brits would fight. American help was not neaded for the British to win. The British knew it. Our moderator role prior to hostilities was the right thing to do for us and our ally GB. We never left the British corner in that fight.

Just my thoughts off the top of my head.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:56:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
The Brits had SSNs. It was over when the British decided to go to war.



Agreed. Once the decision to fight was made, the end was never in doubt (at least as long as the political will held out). But the Junta in Argentina couldn't stop once it had started. In fact, that's the reason they went to war... to take the public's attention off of hyper inflation and all the other domestic problems.

But with just the British as foes, I can see the public going along with it. I seriously doubt that they would have supported the war if they knew they were going to be fighting the Brits AND the Yanks. Any of illusion of possible victory would be squashed, and the war may not have started in the first place.

I would like to find out exactly what the US offered, when the offered it, and what the Brit's response was.

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:02:36 PM EST
Perception is that many people, especially in the Soviet Bloc were watching and the US and Britain wanted to show that the Brits could hold their own in a conflict without help from us Yanks. We were standing by to spot them if they failed, but they didn't need it.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:09:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 9:17:36 PM EST by sabre_kc]
The Reagan/Thatcher bond was a tight one it is said by people that were there. If I were to guess the US made a symbolic gesture of "whatever you need" and were politely told "you would be most helpful in such and such a way, but our country will fight it's own battles this time thank you." Behind the scenes, you can bet Reagan and Thatcher were on the phone getting to the dirt.

Remember any sign of weakness was exploited right away by the USSR and their allies. The picture was bigger than the southern Atlantic and weather or not the old British lion could still roar.

Falkland Islands conflict, part of the Cold War. We were/are the Brits #1 ally and would have backed them 100% I'm sure.

Good thread by the way. I hope you guys don't mind me sticking my head in.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:57:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 10:08:20 PM EST by Manic_Moran]

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
Sky...owned (except for the HMS Sheffeild exocet strike, I don't remember the Argintines putting up a fight big enough to make the Brits worry about losing controll of the air.)



The Argentinian aviators might point to HMSs Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope, RFAs Sir Galahad, Sir Tristam and MV Atlantic Conveyor (Plus assorted other holes in various warships that didn't sink, to include Argonaut which deliberately beached herself, if I recall) as indicators that the sky was anything but owned by the British. Only Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor were missiles, (And Glamorgan, but that was a surface launch), all the rest were sunk by old-fashioned iron bombs, which would be tricky if the British had control of the air.






(Sank in shallow water, recovered)


After the first day, the Argentinians never attempted to contest the airspace in the vicinity of the Harriers. The fighters were kept in Argentina, ostensibly to protect against Vulcan raids. They only sent attack aircraft unescorted and yes, when the Harriers showed up, they shot Argentinians down. Where the Harriers didn't show up, however, things went a bit more in the Argentine direction.



It should be also noted that the Harriers didn't have it all their own way either, a number were shot down by air defenses.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:07:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
Sky...owned (except for the HMS Sheffeild exocet strike, I don't remember the Argintines putting up a fight big enough to make the Brits worry about losing controll of the air.)



The Argentinian aviators might point to HMSs Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope, RFAs Sir Galahad, Sir Tristam and MV Atlantic Conveyor (Plus assorted other holes in various warships that didn't sink, to include Argonaut which deliberately beached herself, if I recall) as indicators that the sky was anything but owned by the British. Only Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor were missiles, (And Glamorgan, but that was a surface launch), all the rest were sunk by old-fashioned iron bombs, which would be tricky if the British had control of the air.

After the first day, the Argentinians never attempted to contest the airspace in the vicinity of the Harriers. The fighters were kept in Argentina, ostensibly to protect against Vulcan raids. They only sent attack aircraft unescorted and yes, when the Harriers showed up, they shot Argentinians down. Where the Harriers didn't show up, however, things went a bit more in the Argentine direction. It should be also noted that the Harriers didn't have it all their own way either, a number were shot down by air defenses.

NTM



I did not mean to make the fight seem small, easy, or insignificant. My point was the British knew before the start of the fighting they would control the air. Would they have to fight for it? One would think they planned to. But did they think about moving their navy into an area controlled for a long period of time by the enemy, I seriously doubt it.

I didn't mean to be short about the conflict itself, I was talking about American involvement.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:11:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
My point was the British knew before the start of the fighting they would control the air.



I don't seem to recall ever reading anything that said that the British were confident of any such thing. Indeed, Woodward's book points out that the RAF thought the operation was doomed due to overwhelming opposition air power. Woodward also makes clear that his deployment (Africa Campaign Medal jokes, etc) was out of respect for the Argentine aviation capabilities, he was highly reluctant to put high-value ships within reach of the enemy air force. Again, not an indicator that the UK thought they had control of the air, even at the time of San Carlos, the carriers were kept well out of reach.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:28:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
My point was the British knew before the start of the fighting they would control the air.



I don't seem to recall ever reading anything that said that the British were confident of any such thing. Indeed, Woodward's book points out that the RAF thought the operation was doomed due to overwhelming opposition air power. Woodward also makes clear that his deployment (Africa Campaign Medal jokes, etc) was out of respect for the Argentine aviation capabilities, he was highly reluctant to put high-value ships within reach of the enemy air force. Again, not an indicator that the UK thought they had control of the air, even at the time of San Carlos, the carriers were kept well out of reach.

NTM



I have not read Woodward's book, perhaps I should. I could learn more about the conflict to be sure. I'm not speaking of anything I've read or seen. Just my gut.

Why would the British send and invation fleet to land Marines if they thought they wouldn't have at least local control of the air? An anphibious operation would not have been possible without good guys overhead. I think any prudent commander would not have put carriers any closer than nessasary. My point was the British had to have the air to land the troops. They brought the troops with them so somebody at the planning level thought control of the air would be achieved.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 5:07:55 AM EST
Well to answer your first point, the US provided significant military asistance to the UK. We turned over all unnecessary satellite communication capacity to the Brits. We provided the latest version of Sidewinder (AIM-9L, IIRC). We literally took them off NORAD assets IIRC. Sidewinder may have been the single most important weapon of the war. We provided some of the first production Stingers for the Brits to try out. We also provided Satellite reconniasance as needed. We also publicly offered to replace any Royal Navy carrier losses with 2 of our LPHs (Guadalcanal Class ships). So we gave the Brits significant military assistance short of direct intervention.


As for control of the air, the RN knew they would not have air supremacy. They strove to provide local control for their operations. They knew from the start it might get messy. AS with Dunkirk, they felt correctly as it turned out, it would be possible to operate with acceptable losses. Sea power has more staying power than air power.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 5:24:34 AM EST
tag
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 5:56:01 AM EST
It doesn't seem like they needed any help.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 5:56:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By arbob:
Well to answer your first point, the US provided significant military asistance to the UK. We turned over all unnecessary satellite communication capacity to the Brits. We provided the latest version of Sidewinder (AIM-9L, IIRC). We literally took them off NORAD assets IIRC. Sidewinder may have been the single most important weapon of the war. We provided some of the first production Stingers for the Brits to try out. We also provided Satellite reconniasance as needed. We also publicly offered to replace any Royal Navy carrier losses with 2 of our LPHs (Guadalcanal Class ships). So we gave the Brits significant military assistance short of direct intervention.



Good info, Bob. Thanks. I obviously need to get the library.I still wonder why we didn't go in shoulder to shoulder.

1. We didn't offer
2. We offered and the Brits declined
3. We offered and the Brits selected things ale cart?
4. We offered to under specfic circumstances that never came about.

Is anyone else of the opinion that if we had sent a CVN group topped of with F14s and A6s there wouldn't have been any fighting except perhaps a few air engagements?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:11:30 AM EST
Good topic Brother

I will have to look into this. I didn't know there was that much fighting down there.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:22:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Shooter_Doug:

Originally Posted By arbob:
Well to answer your first point, the US provided significant military asistance to the UK. We turned over all unnecessary satellite communication capacity to the Brits. We provided the latest version of Sidewinder (AIM-9L, IIRC). We literally took them off NORAD assets IIRC. Sidewinder may have been the single most important weapon of the war. We provided some of the first production Stingers for the Brits to try out. We also provided Satellite reconniasance as needed. We also publicly offered to replace any Royal Navy carrier losses with 2 of our LPHs (Guadalcanal Class ships). So we gave the Brits significant military assistance short of direct intervention.



Good info, Bob. Thanks. I obviously need to get the library.I still wonder why we didn't go in shoulder to shoulder.

1. We didn't offer
2. We offered and the Brits declined
3. We offered and the Brits selected things ale cart?
4. We offered to under specfic circumstances that never came about.

Is anyone else of the opinion that if we had sent a CVN group topped of with F14s and A6s there wouldn't have been any fighting except perhaps a few air engagements?



We didn`t offer, and I don`t think the UK asked for direct intervention. We were also working mighty hard to repair relations with south america after 4 years of Jimmy Carter. That plan went right in the crapper until the sandanistas starting scaring people. A cold war USN CVBG and ARG would have been able to secure an open sea beach head, which the RN couldn`t do, and the F-14s with their E-2 Hawkeyes would have fought "the outter air battle" doctrine as it was at the time. That is kill the argies as far away from the Falklands as possible. That`s with one CVBG. If you send two, one can act as blocking force between the south american mainland and the Falklands, and interdict the argintine air force and navy even farther away. We actually did this during operation Urgent Fury, the liberation of Grenada. The CVBG around USS America was positioned between Cuba and Grenada to intercept any cuban attempt at interference while the USS Independence CVBG and the USS Guam ARG assaulted the island.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:29:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:

I have not read Woodward's book, perhaps I should. I could learn more about the conflict to be sure. I'm not speaking of anything I've read or seen. Just my gut.




It's pretty good reading, not very dry at all. It's not exactly an authorative source over -what- happened, but he does say why he made the decisions he made. People such as Ward believe that the submariner over-estimated the enemy air threat, though I'm not sure how much of that was just said with the benefit of hindsight. For example, much is made of the AIM-9Ls (All-aspect) the British had vs the AIM-9Bs (Rear aspect) that the Argentinians had: This ignores the fact that the Argentinian fighters could carry radar guided R-530 missiles, which are also frontal aspect, and out-range the Harriers' sidewinders. The lucky break was that the Argentinians never attempted to send Mirages up against the Harriers except on the first day, when they happened not to be armed with anything but the short-range missiles.


Why would the British send and invation fleet to land Marines if they thought they wouldn't have at least local control of the air? An anphibious operation would not have been possible without good guys overhead.


As mentioned above, they figured they'd survive with acceptable losses. Again, the British got sortof lucky: Argentine pilots coming over the hill generally went for the first target they saw, almost always a warship. The exception was Canberra, a large luxury liner pressed into troopship service which the Argentinians couldn't miss seeing. However, as it was painted white, the Argentinians thought it was a hospital ship and didn't bomb it. Had she been sunk or even just bombed a good bit, there would have been serious reprecussions. The British were fortunate that only the two RFAs were hit when loaded (Almost a company of Guardsmen were taken out of the fight in a single attack) and that was towards the end of the war when the issue wasn't in as much doubt.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 2:59:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 3:00:12 PM EST by sabre_kc]
Man I think I might be responsible for a hijack. I didn't mean to discuss what happened during the war. My thoughts were simply about why the US didn't fight side by side with the UK.

Once again, my contention is that the UK simply didn't need an American carrier battle group to regain the territory.

Would an American battle group have helped? Sure.
Did the Argentines fight hard? Without doubt.
Did some things not go the way the British planned? Unquestionably.


"The Brits have backed us in every conflict we've been engaged in. Why didn't we return the favor?"


I did not mean to oversimplifiy this conflict. I have not read much about the subject. My point was the British planned, for whatever reason, to go it alone. After deplomacy failed, the British plan was executed and I might add it worked.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:36:31 PM EST
Fair enough. I think Tpafl about nailed it then: National standing wouldn't allow for the UK to be seen to be reliant on the US military might.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:11:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
Man I think I might be responsible for a hijack.



No problem. Threads are like kids. You do your best to give them a good start, then they go off and live a life of their own! Oft times it's more interesting than the one you had imagined for them!

Back to the topic... so the consensus is the Brits never asked... officially anyway. I'm sure there were plenty of discussions at lower levels along the lines of, "If we were to ask for X, would you give it to us?" Or, "If Y happens, we can’t publicly ask for this. Could you offer it?"

I like Kissinger’s quote “Countries do not have friends. They have interests.” But I like to think the US/UK relationship goes a little deeper than that.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:39:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Shooter_Doug:

Originally Posted By sabre_kc:
Man I think I might be responsible for a hijack.



No problem. Threads are like kids. You do your best to give them a good start, then they go off and live a life of their own! Oft times it's more interesting than the one you had imagined for them!

Back to the topic... so the consensus is the Brits never asked... officially anyway. I'm sure there were plenty of discussions at lower levels along the lines of, "If we were to ask for X, would you give it to us?" Or, "If Y happens, we can’t publicly ask for this. Could you offer it?"
Actually one conversation like that apparently happened. The Admiral in charge of the British defence staff called the Chairman of the JCS to ask for the satellite capacity. With the time difference he woke the Chairman in the middle of the night. The Chairman of the JCS, half awake replied," I know what you want, and it`s already done." Or words to that effect. I believe I read that in Martin Middlebrook`s book.

I like Kissinger’s quote “Countries do not have friends. They have interests.” But I like to think the US/UK relationship goes a little deeper than that.

Link Posted: 2/24/2006 3:54:50 PM EST
Good thread. I'll see if I can't dig around to find another topic I would like answers for. There are some smart guys in here.

Oh, and I'll read a little before I post.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:11:18 PM EST
I know a guy that was on a tanker (US Merchant Marine) under US govt. charter. He told me they delivered jet fuel to a UK base on Asension Island during that period. I know that wasn't direct military support but it certainly let the Brits know which side we were on.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:33:20 PM EST
What was the last U.S. warship lost? The Pueblo was captured, but was not a warship. The Cole was damaged, but was recovered.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 3:29:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By tfod:
What was the last U.S. warship lost? The Pueblo was captured, but was not a warship. The Cole was damaged, but was recovered.



If you count subs (and accidents for that matter) we lost both the Scorpion and Thresher. As far as a surface ship lost to enemy action... hmmm. WWII, has to be. I'll do a quick google. Nothing fast. I'll keep looking.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 11:33:08 AM EST
Lets say they had plenty of training prior and during mission. The Blues and Royals ( Queen's Household Calvary/Body gaurds/only Tank unit deployed. Had their junior officers smoked buy this old man. But we gave alot of traing to their units before the fun even started
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 1:53:03 PM EST
Well, technically, CVR(T)s, not tanks.

NTM
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 2:23:45 PM EST
Only armored force long way from a MBT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:08:19 PM EST
Tag/Bump.


-K
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:31:00 PM EST
Don't forget the France's role in all this.......in that they gave the UK codes to defeat the Exocet missiles used by the Argentinian Air Force.......another reason for their sea supremacy.

The UK still needed help........

I guess that's why French military exports haven't done so well......."yes, we'll sell you weapons......but if asked, we'll give your enemy the means to defeat the weapons we sold you."

The French......
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 1:54:32 PM EST
You should e-mail Andy (Vito113). Apparently the Brits wanted the source code for exocet and the French would not supply it. Shortly after the Falklands War ended, the RN began to transition to the US made Harpoon antiship missile.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 8:14:56 PM EST
France. Figures.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:57:36 PM EST
Shooter_Doug,
While you are researching the Falklands War could you find out why the Brits left their ships at anchor in the harbor where the Argies could easily target them?

The reason I ask is because when I was in Vietnam on a ship we would leave the harbor as the sun was going down and come back in the morning to resume loading & off-loading. This was done at ports along the coast of course. Up the river in Saigon the ships had to stay overnight.

Ten years later I watched those ships getting hit in the Falklands on TV. I couldn't believe how they just left them sitting there, making them easy targets. Common sense would tell you to get out of there.

seahorse

sea = US Merchant Marine
horse = Engineer
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 6:06:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 6:08:43 AM EST by arbob]
Seahorse,
I think there were a number of reasons the Brits didn`t move their ships. First, most vessels were civilian vessels who`s crews were not used to operating in groups in close proximity to one another. Add to that the restricted waters of San Carlos Water, it was probably the better move to moor the ships and tough it out. Plus the civilian ships were neither built nor equipped to rapidly off load under such conditions. The damage done to the LSTs at bluff cove was due to the fact that one of the commanders on the scene treated it as an administrative landing and apparently dragged his heels allowing the Argentines an opportunity to score.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:44:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 9:07:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By seahorse:
Shooter_Doug,
While you are researching the Falklands War could you find out why the Brits left their ships at anchor in the harbor where the Argies could easily target them?

The reason I ask is because when I was in Vietnam on a ship we would leave the harbor as the sun was going down and come back in the morning to resume loading & off-loading. This was done at ports along the coast of course. Up the river in Saigon the ships had to stay overnight.

Ten years later I watched those ships getting hit in the Falklands on TV. I couldn't believe how they just left them sitting there, making them easy targets. Common sense would tell you to get out of there.

seahorse



Unless you want the off-loading to occur only at night, there wasn't much choice in the issue. The Argentine pilots bombed using the Mk1 Eyeball, so all the attacks were daylight ones. Secondly, San Carlos provided probably greater safety than the open waters did: An aircraft coming over the hill had only seconds to acquire, identify, line up on, and attack a target before they were past it. This is balanced by the fact that the defending ships didn't have a lot of time to acquire the inbounds either, but most of the ship weapon systems were short-ranged anyway. Thirdly, the ships would have had to spend a lot of time travelling fro and to in order to reach a 'safe point' in the open water, where the Argentine Etendards (Which could shoot at night if they wanted to) couldn't get at them.

NTM
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 11:09:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 10:13:59 AM EST
We did provide unrep support (fuel, beans, bullets, etc) to the Brit battlegroup enroute to the Falklands.

There was a show on one of the cable channels recently. Apparently all of the heavy lift helos went down on one of the container ships that was sunk. That's why the Royal Marines ended up having to hump fron one end of the island to the other, and didn't have much in the way of artillery support. It prolonged the hostilities and left the Brit ships vulnerable for longer.

I served on the USNS Saturn (T-AFS 10) and USNS Sirius (T-AFS 8), ex-RFA Stromness and ex-RFA Lyness respectively. Stromness/Saturn is a Falklands War veteran. Both were great ships to serve aboard.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:05:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 8:09:03 PM EST by Manic_Moran]

Originally Posted By birdbarian:
Apparently all of the heavy lift helos went down on one of the container ships that was sunk.



One CH-47 survived, it had flown off Atlantic Convoyer before the missile hit. Named the Flying Angel, in one lift, it transported an entire battle-equipped infantry company. (Some 120+ troops and their gear)



NTM
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 8:13:58 AM EST
MMM - With all due respect (I certainly appreciate your posts), the CH-47 Chinook is only rated for 33 fully-equipped troops.
www.army.mil/fact_files_site/chinook/index.html

It one hellova machine and it is great to see them still being built & flown, but lifting a full company is a stretch. Let's try a platoon. That I can believe.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 1:46:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By seahorse:
MMM - With all due respect (I certainly appreciate your posts), the CH-47 Chinook is only rated for 33 fully-equipped troops.
www.army.mil/fact_files_site/chinook/index.html

It one hellova machine and it is great to see them still being built & flown, but lifting a full company is a stretch. Let's try a platoon. That I can believe.




Actually, he`s correct. I don`t recall how far they flew, but they crammed at least 120 troops in that single bird. I recall reading about it not long after the war. I wouldn`t have wanted to be on that flight!
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 8:42:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By arbob:
Actually, he`s correct. I don`t recall how far they flew, but they crammed at least 120 troops in that single bird. I recall reading about it not long after the war. I wouldn`t have wanted to be on that flight!



Goose Green to Fitzroy. It's about 30 miles one way, a 15 minute hop, give or take?

Curiously, that chopper (callsign Bravo November) has the distinction of being the only chopper to have served in every major operation that the RAF has partaken in since the Chinook entered British service. Several of its crew have been decorated. It's a lucky bird, you know that when it retires it will be put into a museum.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 11:54:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By arbob:

Originally Posted By seahorse:
MMM - With all due respect (I certainly appreciate your posts), the CH-47 Chinook is only rated for 33 fully-equipped troops.
www.army.mil/fact_files_site/chinook/index.html

It one hellova machine and it is great to see them still being built & flown, but lifting a full company is a stretch. Let's try a platoon. That I can believe.hr



Actually, he`s correct. I don`t recall how far they flew, but they crammed at least 120 troops in that single bird. I recall reading about it not long after the war. I wouldn`t have wanted to be on that flight!hock.gif




Yep, It happened.. BN operated round the clock in absolutely atrocious condition for two months without a single service part or service tool available… pretty amazing! BN is still going strong!
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:02:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By birdbarian:
We did provide unrep support (fuel, beans, bullets, etc) to the Brit battlegroup enroute to the Falklands.

There was a show on one of the cable channels recently. Apparently all of the heavy lift helos went down on one of the container ships that was sunk. That's why the Royal Marines ended up having to hump fron one end of the island to the other, and didn't have much in the way of artillery support. It prolonged the hostilities and left the Brit ships vulnerable for longer.

I served on the USNS Saturn (T-AFS 10) and USNS Sirius (T-AFS 8), ex-RFA Stromness and ex-RFA Lyness respectively. Stromness/Saturn is a Falklands War veteran. Both were great ships to serve aboard.



Yep, Stromness was a great ship… and the Skippers daughter was pretty hot.h.gif
Link Posted: 4/18/2006 7:28:14 PM EST
There were some other things the US did to assist the Brits along logistical lines, especially in the Ascensions. remember the US had defense treaties with both parties, and until the balloon really went up was actively trying to prevent the war. Plus the US was trying to appear unbiased as much as possible up until the Haig missions went south. You can bet that more helos would have been delivered quickly if needed.

Even though we are close allies, there is not much interchangeability between naval systems, so spare parts wouldn't have helped. whole ships would have been better, but the training time is at least a few months.

If it had gone longer I probably wouldn't have been surprised to see some kind of air raid early warning assistance.
Top Top