Quoted: Quoted: Yeah its still really a touchy subject. While in Uruguay for two years lots of people would talk about the Falklands. I even had the chance to read some of the propaganda mags put out by the argentines. They were showning off their knife fighters to counter the publicity the British were getting by bringing in the Gurkhas. Many of the people I talked to were still quite upset about the Falklands and felt the British took advantage of them, being more advanced and all. One thing that hasn't been touched on here is the problems with materiale. I believe that the argentines were without alot of the gear they needed. I remember reading that they only had like 5 or 10 rounds a piece. We (the British) were actually outgunned in a lot of things. Aircraft; Their Mirage and IAI Dagger aircraft were supersonic and they had loads of them and plenty of A4 Skyhawks. They also had close air support aircraft based on the Falklands Artillery; Ditto, the British had 6 105 guns and a handful of Scorpion light tanks (30mm & 76mm guns). The Argies had a load of Panhards with 76,mmguns plus plenty of 105mm & 155mm Artillery Infantry Weapons; They generally had more heavy support weapons. They had .50 BMG's which proved very deadly, so much so the the British Army promptly adopted MA Duce after the war. Night Vision gear; Argies had a good stock of starlight scopes. Ammunition… they were awash in the stuff, the British troops were amazed how much stuff they were capturing, good job too, they used FAL's and 7.62 like us… very thoughtful. Likewise personal gear, their parkas were much better then ours. Overall we were outnumbered by between 2-3:1 in boots on the ground and they had more fire support. However, Britains professional troops won through by sheer guts and determination. Andy

Andy,

Your forces were also smart enough to use superior naval and air mobility to establish local superiority at times and places of your choosing. The argentines didn`t have enough troops to secure both major islands with a surface area  probably bigger than the Netherlands. Also the psychological state of siege the Royal Navy created on the defenders was a major force multiplier. In Max Hastings book (IIRC), debriefed Argies stated the naval gunfire support "never stopped." Also the RN confirmed at San Carlos water the lessons of Dunkirk and Guadalcanal, determined seapower will outlast airpower.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Andy, Your forces were also smart enough to use superior naval and air mobility to establish local superiority at times and places of your choosing. The argentines didn`t have enough troops to secure both major islands with a surface area  probably bigger than the Netherlands. Also the psychological state of siege the Royal Navy created on the defenders was a major force multiplier. In Max Hastings book (IIRC), debriefed Argies stated the naval gunfire support "never stopped." Also the RN confirmed at San Carlos water the lessons of Dunkirk and Guadalcanal, determined seapower will outlast airpower.

I'd agree with you there… however air mobility was a big headache after losing Atlantic Conveyor and her Chinnooks. Only one Chinnook (ZA718) was landed and she had a very busy war! She carried 81… yes 81! fully equipped Paratroops from Goose Green to Fitzroy in one lift!

ANdy

They had lots of very good gear, but they took on one of the most professioanl armed forces in the World hoping they would not fight… a dumb move. Andy

No, They took on Margaret Thatcher,thinking she wouldn`t let them fight!  DUMB, VERY DUMB!

Quoted:  They had lots of very good gear, but they took on one of the most professioanl armed forces in the World hoping they would not fight… a dumb move. Andy No, They took on Margaret Thatcher,thinking she wouldn`t let them fight!  DUMB, VERY DUMB!

Very good point Sir!

I miss Margaret Thatcher… we need someone like her back at the helm of this country…



Margaret and Ronald… the Team that won the Cold War

Andy

Some very interesting and intriguing aspects of the Falklands War.

If I recall correctly, the Brits were already hampered by foolishly failing to maintain a conventional aircraft capability and instead had to depended on the "Through-deck Cruiser" Invincible and the converted carrier Hermes.  In fact, the Brits were going to sell Invincible to Australia until the Argies moved in on the Falklands.  

The Argies had fine aircraft, weapons AND pilots.  The primary failure on the part of the Argies was they did not possess the ability to provide an adequate aerial refueling capability for their Mirages/Daggers.  This eliminated their greatest "paper" advantage over the Harrier - their speed.  

What if the Argies were able to sink one or two carriers?  This would have brought forth the wildest possibility ofall - the Royal Navy buying/leasing an aircraft carrier from the United States Navy.   This would have opened up a huge can of worms practically and politically.

Also, the capture of Argie equipment reportedly lead the "discovery" by British troops that metric FAL magazines could be reliably used in "inch" Commonwealth FAL rifles.

Actually the US Navy was prpared to immediately Lend Lease one to two Guam class LPHs in the event the Royal Navy carriers were lost or damaged. It was also stated by our government that sufficient "advisors" would be made available to help operate the ships. The US Gov`t made it very clear it would go to the edge of co-belligerency to support the UK. It`s not generally known, but the US Military heavilly supported the Operation Corporate both logistically, and through the allowing the use of our satellite communications and intelligence assets.

Quoted: What if the Argies were able to sink one or two carriers?  This would have brought forth the wildest possibility ofall - the Royal Navy buying/leasing an aircraft carrier from the United States Navy.   This would have opened up a huge can of worms practically and politically.

Ronald Reagan had already told Margeret Thatcher that the US would loan us a carrier if we lost one…

However, HMS Illustious finished building early and headed south in August with Phalanx and AEW aircraft, and another assault carrier, HMS Bulwark (a sister ship of HMS Hermes) was being taken out of mothballs and being reactivated. If we had lost both carriers we would just have pulled back for 3 months till the other two carriers turned up and went back to war.

Andy

Quoted: Actually the US Navy was prpared to immediately Lend Lease one to two Guam class LPHs in the event the Royal Navy carriers were lost or damaged. It was also stated by our government that sufficient "advisors" would be made available to help operate the ships. The US Gov`t made it very clear it would go to the edge of co-belligerency to support the UK. It`s not generally known, but the US Military heavilly supported the Operation Corporate both logistically, and through the allowing the use of our satellite communications and intelligence assets.

Yes to all of this… Royal Navy Officers visited Norfolk to discuss the details with the USN.

Military support! you bet! My Brother in law was an operations manager at Widewake Airfield on Acension Island in 1982… wall to wall US Transport planes 24/7!

Andy

Quoted: Some very interesting and intriguing aspects of the Falklands War. If I recall correctly, the Brits were already hampered by foolishly failing to maintain a conventional aircraft capability and instead had to depended on the "Through-deck Cruiser" Invincible and the converted carrier Hermes.  In fact, the Brits were going to sell Invincible to Australia until the Argies moved in on the Falklands.   The Argies had fine aircraft, weapons AND pilots.  The primary failure on the part of the Argies was they did not possess the ability to provide an adequate aerial refueling capability for their Mirages/Daggers.  This eliminated their greatest "paper" advantage over the Harrier - their speed.   What if the Argies were able to sink one or two carriers?  This would have brought forth the wildest possibility ofall - the Royal Navy buying/leasing an aircraft carrier from the United States Navy.   This would have opened up a huge can of worms practically and politically. Also, the capture of Argie equipment reportedly lead the "discovery" by British troops that metric FAL magazines could be reliably used in "inch" Commonwealth FAL rifles.

The United States and the UK have special relationship and the treaties between the two trump all others.  The Argentinians knew this too.

our forces were also smart enough to use superior naval and air mobility to establish local superiority at times and places of your choosing.

Arbob makes an excellent point about asymmetrical application of force. The Brits used their mobility superbly.

IIRC, the Exocet hit wasn't fatal to Sheffield. What was fatal was the lack of smoke control hindering Damage Control efforts. Of course, it took STARK before the US Navy took to heart the lessons of the Falklands.

It is a good thing the Argies didn't know how to fuze their bombs for low altitude drops. That spared the Brits many casualties. However, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Brit pride was on the line and the Falklands wouldn't be allowed to stay in Argie hands.

The Falklands are also a warning about configuring your navy for a specific mission set. The UK Navy was supposed to be ASW 'heavy' in the NATO grand war plan for the Atlantic. I think that proved detrimental, though not fatal, to their efforts.  

This kinda thread is what makes this site special IMO...very interesting and entertaining.

Can you guys tell me why the Argentine's started this fight in the first place?

Prestige?

Their government need something to do?

Lots of support - YES, CARRIER or LPH - NO, not hardly.  A CV or LPH without crew or aircraft complement would have been useless and the Brits wouldn't  have been able to crew them up.   Nice idea but total BS.   And even if we supplied it with birds the Brits wouldn't have been able to crew the ship even if they could handle the Helo's. Yeah they got good sailors and a lot of the equipment is very similar on the bridges, CIC's etc, the Engineering plants would need a few weeks to a few months to get a competent  crew in place.

The only place we actually made it clear that we would use our forces was to ensure the territorial integrity of Belize when the Brits there were moved to the combat zone.

Quoted: Lots of support - YES, CARRIER or LPH - NO, not hardly.  A CV or LPH without crew or aircraft complement would have been useless and the Brits wouldn't  have been able to crew them up.   Nice idea but total BS.   And even if we supplied it with birds the Brits wouldn't have been able to crew the ship even if they could handle the Helo's. Yeah they got good sailors and a lot of the equipment is very similar on the bridges, CIC's etc, the Engineering plants would need a few weeks to a few months to get a competent  crew in place. The only place we actually made it clear that we would use our forces was to ensure the territorial integrity of Belize when the Brits there were moved to the combat zone.

Impressment anyone?

Just kidding Andy.

Here's a pretty good run down of the carrier situation and the Falklands War.

Aircraft Carriers and The Falklands Conflict

I don't know shit about the Falklands war, so heres a bunny with a pancake on its head

Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/PhoenixPearl.gif USS Pheonix, survived Pearl Harbor, later sold to Argentina to become General Belgrano.   Interesting aside. She was sunk by two WWII Mk 8 torpedoes made in 1944! ANdy

It's funny how the world works....

For the record, Vito: I wasn't saying the Belgrano was illegitimately attacked. As you rightly said, war is war. They started it, you finished it. Case closed.

However, it is a matter of some contention whether the attack was in accordance with Britain's declared rules of engagement. While it does little to deligitimize the attack, it does raise the specter of a black eye if the ROE were vilated.

Either way, I rooted for you guys while it was going on, and they recognize that their invasion was a preposterously stupid thing to do.

ETA: Amen on the Cold-War winning team of Ronnie and Maggie. What a crying shame she couldn't have followed him as President!

all Royal Navy Pilots went to Top Gun at Miramar

Very interesting, Andy...were they flying their own Sea Harriers at Top gun?

And no, the book I mentioned was not told from a stricktly Argentinian perspective; like I said, it wasa written by a Brit, who just wanted the whole story told.

Can you guys tell me why the Argentine's started this fight in the first place?

Why the war was fought: The ruling Argentine Miilitary Junta was mismanaging the economy, the populace was restive, so the generals ressurected Argentina's old claim to the "Malvinas"and launched a War.  The invasion itself was a walk-over for the Regular forces who conducted it; the populace went crazy with enthusiasm, but they had forgotten the mettle of the nation they had decided to fight. If they would have taken one of Uruguay's islands, they might have succeeded. Against the UK they no chance in hell of winning.

Like a German NCO reported to Field Marshall Model during the Arnhem (A Bridge Too Far...now celebrating its 60th anniversary) battle about the British Paras:"General, these are real men. The only way we are going to get them out...is feet first".

Quoted: Here's a pretty good run down of the carrier situation and the Falklands War. Aircraft Carriers and The Falklands Conflict

Good Link. one thing it doesn`t mention is that the RN was suitably impressed by the Atlantic Conveyor experiment, that it later leased the US Navy`s experimental Arapahoe system. This was a system of cargo containers that were equipped with the maintenance and command facilities to allow a shipyard to do a conversion in two to three day period. They used it both in the south Atlantic and off the coast of Lebanon in 1983 to support UK peacekeepers.

Quoted: Lots of support - YES, CARRIER or LPH - NO, not hardly.  A CV or LPH without crew or aircraft complement would have been useless and the Brits wouldn't  have been able to crew them up.   Nice idea but total BS.   And even if we supplied it with birds the Brits wouldn't have been able to crew the ship even if they could handle the Helo's. Yeah they got good sailors and a lot of the equipment is very similar on the bridges, CIC's etc, the Engineering plants would need a few weeks to a few months to get a competent  crew in place. The only place we actually made it clear that we would use our forces was to ensure the territorial integrity of Belize when the Brits there were moved to the combat zone.

You're right, the Brits wouldn't be able to crew the the systems. But Americans would be doing all this. British pilots would still be using the decks.

The falklands has always been my 'favourite' war. I'm doing a paper on it for my master's as I speak.

Probably the best book I've read is Admiral Woodwards' One Hundered Days. Doesn't go into the same overall detail as, say, Hastings, but it's not supposed to. It's a very enlightening look into the thought processes that the commander went through, and is a damned entertaining read to boot. Not very dry at all.

I have also read the Fight for the Malvinas, and the sinking of ARA Belgrano is of course covered. It is stressed in the book that the Argentine military considered it a 'fair cop', and in no way were accusing the British of foul play. Only propogandists and politicians were making such accusations.

Probably the most arrogant book I have ever read is Sea Harrier over the Falklands, by 'Sharkey' Ward. The commander of 801 Sqdn, this guy gives the impression that if he had been in charge, he could have won the war single-handed with much less loss to the UK. Then again, as a fighter pilot, I guess arrogance is a given.

On the 'honour and decency'  bit, he also makes not of the fact that the Brits had been astonished that Canberra, the Great White Whale (cruise liner pressed into service as a troop transport) came out completely unscathed from Bomb Alley.  Middlebrook discovers that as the Argentine pilots came over the hill, they saw the huge white ship sitting there, decided that it was a hospital ship and left it alone, taking precious seconds to aquire and align with another target instead of simply bombing it anyway.

NTM

Hmmm. Think I need to update my library with some Falklands books.

Just a question, as I was only about 10 when the war was on and remember it going on and watching it on the evening news, why didn't the US participate more? Was it because the UK only asked for a certain level of help?

Great thread, very enlightening!

Quoted: This kinda thread is what makes this site special IMO...very interesting and entertaining. Can you guys tell me why the Argentine's started this fight in the first place? Prestige? Their government need something to do?

There are three reasons why governments go to war:  fear, honor, and interest.  In the Falklands/Malvinas honor was how the government sold the conflict to the population.  The Malvinas were Argentine (they said) and the Agries were going to liberate the islands.  Some of the troops were surprised when they weren't welcomed by the islanders with open arms.

Interest is probably a more compelling reason.  Besides prestige, the Falklands are moneymakers and there may be oil offshore.  With a little more careful planning and a better appreciation of Operational Art the Argies could have pulled it off.  6 months longer and there would have been no British carriers.  If the Argies had acted quickly to extend the runways on the islands, they could have based TACAIR much closer to the fight.  Instead, all of the front line Argie planes were flying from the mainland.  They did have some air support on the island, but not Mirage/Skyhawk.  

Thanks for all the new info, especially Andy.  It makes me sad and angry that GB could have such a proud history of military victory, and freedom, and yet be over run by liberals from within. I hope you get your country back some day.

My dad being a limy and all, I remember being very proud of the Brits during the Falkland Island war, as  they hung onto their tiny shred of empire across 2 oceans.  Watching the news back then is what got me into ebr's.  I wanted to get a L1A1, and I still do.  IMHO, arguing about whether the Brits could have lost is pointless. Any conflict can be decided by just a few random events.  Right now, we are just one virus away from loosing to the Muslims.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Argentinians have had excellent pilots in their Air Force for decades.  The former General of Fighters for the Luftwaffe, Adolf Galland was invited by Peron after WWII to lead and train  the Argentine Air Force along with some excellent former Luftwaffe pilots, he did this for about a decade after WWII.  Gen. Galland was among the best leaders and Aces of all time (104 victories).  Gen Galland was highly respected by the USAF and RAF. No shit? I've always been a fan of Galland, from what I've read he was one of the few who actually had the balls to stand up to Hitler & tell him the truth about the war. Is it true that he had an ashtray installed in his BF109 for his cigars? Galland did stand up to Hitler and especially Goering, for example Goering wanted Luftwaffe pilots to shoot down parachuting pilots for which Galland told Goering to shove that order up his ass. Yes, he did have a cigar lighter installed in his Bf-109, he also invented the Galland Hood for the Bf-109 which improved visibility incredibly for his pilots.  Galland ALWAYS looked out for the welfare of his fighter pilots and wouldn't have them do something that he wouldn't do himself, much like a Jimmy Doolittle.  Galland also looked out for the welfare of downed pilots that where captured in his area of operations, he would often give them a good dinner with drink and make sure they got proper medical attention if needed, one reason Adolf Galland was never considered a War Criminal. If you add his fighter pilot skills, intelligence, charisma, leadership, and tactical skills on the Strategic level, Adolf Galland is the greatest fighter pilot of them - hands down.

One interesting Galland factoid, I recall reading that he had a preflight ritual of drinking a glass of red wine with a raw egg in it before every mission.  Sounds like it could be healthy, but not my cup of tea.

Quoted: our forces were also smart enough to use superior naval and air mobility to establish local superiority at times and places of your choosing. Arbob makes an excellent point about asymmetrical application of force. The Brits used their mobility superbly. IIRC, the Exocet hit wasn't fatal to Sheffield. What was fatal was the lack of smoke control hindering Damage Control efforts. Of course, it took STARK before the US Navy took to heart the lessons of the Falklands. It is a good thing the Argies didn't know how to fuze their bombs for low altitude drops. That spared the Brits many casualties. However, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Brit pride was on the line and the Falklands wouldn't be allowed to stay in Argie hands. The Falklands are also a warning about configuring your navy for a specific mission set. The UK Navy was supposed to be ASW 'heavy' in the NATO grand war plan for the Atlantic. I think that proved detrimental, though not fatal, to their efforts.

Yes, the Bomb Fuzing…

One of the BBC's Village Idiots mentioned this in a despatch and the Argentunes started 'loft bombing'… thanks BBC! However the 'pop up' at the end of the bomb run did make engagement easier…

The ASW bias of our Fleet was a definate handicap. It was always assumed we would operate mid Atlantic with a US Carrier Batttle Group providing the main air cover and the main threat was anti ship cruise missles…  The Seawolf system on the T22 Frigates was a true star of the Falklands War and in open water proved deadly to attacking aircraft, however it was a point defence weapon. Also the lack of AA cannon was a very definate handicap… immidiatly after the War everybody got single and twin 30mm cannons retrofitted.

Andy

Quoted: Lots of support - YES, CARRIER or LPH - NO, not hardly.  A CV or LPH without crew or aircraft complement would have been useless and the Brits wouldn't  have been able to crew them up.   Nice idea but total BS.   And even if we supplied it with birds the Brits wouldn't have been able to crew the ship even if they could handle the Helo's. Yeah they got good sailors and a lot of the equipment is very similar on the bridges, CIC's etc, the Engineering plants would need a few weeks to a few months to get a competent  crew in place. The only place we actually made it clear that we would use our forces was to ensure the territorial integrity of Belize when the Brits there were moved to the combat zone.

The offer of carriers was more a 'Moral Support' thing than anything… it was an offer that allowed the Task Force Commander to bring his carriers in closer knowing that losing one was not a 'fatal blow' to the Royal Navy  

If they had been transferred it would have been post war, it was clearly understood that they would not be transferred for use in offensive operations., purely as a 'stop gap' while we built replacements.

Now, if they 'had' been transferred, how would it have worked? It was never discussed to that depth, but there were two options…

(1) Transfer the ships to the RN and assemble a crew in Norfolk and give them 3 months of sea training then send them back to UK wityh a skeleton US crew as technical support… least likely in my opinion.

(2) My personal take is they would have done a repeat of what the Royal Navy did in 1943 when we transferred one of our Fleet Carriers to the US Navy when they were short of carriers after Midway.  

The Royal Navy transferred HMS Victorious and her complete crew to UN control. She sailed to the US, all the crew were supplied with US Navy uniforms (everyone was so impressed by the US kit the the Admiralty adopted it in 1945 as standard kit), the Ship was given a basic refit to fit US 3" AA guns and change some of the RT equipment. The ship was then commisioned into the US navy as USS Robin and sailed to the Pacific with a British Crew, a US command staff, some USN aircraft and crew and flying the Stars and Bars…

ANdy

I have a great respect for British short range AAW missiles. Was it a Sea Dart or a Sea Wolf that shot down a Silkworm heading for one of the BBs in the Gulf War?

You know we are getting rid of 5 Aegis cruisers. For the price you guys are paying for the new AAW platform you could have all five and perform some serious upgrades.

Quoted: Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/PhoenixPearl.gif USS Pheonix, survived Pearl Harbor, later sold to Argentina to become General Belgrano.   Interesting aside. She was sunk by two WWII Mk 8 torpedoes made in 1944! ANdy However, it is a matter of some contention whether the attack was in accordance with Britain's declared rules of engagement. While it does little to deligitimize the attack, it does raise the specter of a black eye if the ROE were vilated.

Now the question of the Rules of Engagement… the problem here was that at the time we could not tell what we knew from Sigint that the Argentines were up to, If we had, the case for sinking the Belgrano was then immidiately clear, but we couln't so everybody started the tinfoil theories.

Admiral Lombardo had devised a plan to attack the main Britsih Task force in a pincer movement using his carrier to the north and a SAG to the south comprising Belgtrano and two exocet armed 'Fletcher Class' Detroyers.

The British had SSN's tracking both Argentine TAsk Groups with orders to attack either if the entered the TEZ or commenced offensive air operations. On the morning of the attack, the wind dropped and the 25 de Mayo was unable to launch. The Belgrano hwoever was still heading inwards when the Captain of Conqueror radioed Northwood (RN HQ) to tell them that Belgrano was approaching the Birdwood Bank and he would have to break off the tail. It was decided that allowing the Belgrano (15x6" guns) and two DD's (with 6x5" each) get into gun range was too big a risk. Already a what was effectively a 'charge of the light brigade' was  being assembled using the light T21 Frigates (who were fast, expendable and Exocet armed) to attack the Belgrano if he got past the SSN. Lewin told Maggie the situation and she said do what needs to be done… and Conqueror was told to sink her.

Andy

Quoted: I don't know shit about the Falklands war, so heres a bunny with a pancake on its head users.rcn.com/eglandau/bunny_pancake.jpg

Have some respect asshole, soldiers died there!

Quoted: I have a great respect for British short range AAW missiles. Was it a Sea Dart or a Sea Wolf that shot down a Silkworm heading for one of the BBs in the Gulf War? You know we are getting rid of 5 Aegis cruisers. For the price you guys are paying for the new AAW platform you could have all five and perform some serious upgrades.

Sea Dart (area defence) was the missile… it was only time it ever angaged it's primary design threat, a big Russian Anti Ship Cruise Missile!

Sea Wolf is the point defence missile, so accurate, it shoots down 4.5" shells as a system check!

There are a lot of people in our Navy who would give their right arm for those Aegis ships… however for purely political reasons, (cutting defence spending  to give more welfare handouts to the sheeple to buy the next election) we are losing platforms at the moment… not good. We have a 5-7 year capability gap opening up before our new builds come into service.

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: I don't know shit about the Falklands war, so heres a bunny with a pancake on its head users.rcn.com/eglandau/bunny_pancake.jpg Have some respect asshole, soldiers died there!

Yes, many brave men on both sides……

There are no bad feelings towards the Argentines within the British Armed Forces (or the public…)





Photographs of the main Argentine War Cemetary… it's kept tended and respected as well as we tend our own

As a friend of mine put it… "it was the right war for the right reasons against the wrong people". It was a 'gentlemens war', probably the last we will ever see, both sides played by the rules and respected each other, we are starting to be friends again… and its not before time.

Andy

Great thread!

this is a war I was always interested in and wanted to know more about,Andy can you recommend any books that give a history of the war from the Brits side?thanks

Quoted: Now the question of the Rules of Engagement… the problem here was that at the time we could not tell what we knew from Sigint that the Argentines were up to, If we had, the case for sinking the Belgrano was then immidiately clear, but we couln't so everybody started the tinfoil theories. Admiral Lombardo had devised a plan to attack the main Britsih Task force in a pincer movement using his carrier to the north and a SAG to the south comprising Belgtrano and two exocet armed 'Fletcher Class' Detroyers. The British had SSN's tracking both Argentine TAsk Groups with orders to attack either if the entered the TEZ or commenced offensive air operations. On the morning of the attack, the wind dropped and the 25 de Mayo was unable to launch. The Belgrano hwoever was still heading inwards when the Captain of Conqueror radioed Northwood (RN HQ) to tell them that Belgrano was approaching the Birdwood Bank and he would have to break off the tail. It was decided that allowing the Belgrano (15x6" guns) and two DD's (with 6x5" each) get into gun range was too big a risk. Already a what was effectively a 'charge of the light brigade' was  being assembled using the light T21 Frigates (who were fast, expendable and Exocet armed) to attack the Belgrano if he got past the SSN. Lewin told Maggie the situation and she said do what needs to be done… and Conqueror was told to sink her. Andy

Fair enough, and a perfectly reasonable call in a time of war, if you ask me.

It's just that your rendition (which I'm not questioning in any way, BTW) doesn't jive with the Argentine version (I don't remember the details, but they were adamant). My opinion? Fog of war. Life sucks. Either way, it was a warship sunk by the enemy in a time of war. Big surprise.

Quoted: As a friend of mine put it… "it was the right war for the right reasons against the wrong people". It was a 'gentlemens war', probably the last we will ever see, both sides played by the rules and respected each other, we are starting to be friends again… and its not before time. Andy

Indeed. Sad, but true.

I think future wars are going to look like, well, Iraq....  

Quoted: no way in hell could have 4 SSN effectively blockaded the Islands. No control of the air equals no blockade you do not need a large land force on the Islands if the British surface fleet is ineffective.

What are your professional qualifications to make that statement?

Are you a submarine officer in the United States Navy?  The Royal Navy?  Are you a USN Surface Warfare Officer with experience in anti submarine warfare?

Have you ever been in ANYONE'S navy?  Even as an able seaman?

Do you maybe even have a fishing boat?  Jet Ski?

Those of us who are, or have been, professional naval officers simply laugh at your ignorance of the capabilites and effectiveness of modern nuclear powered attack submarines.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Read that one too. My, how the world has changed since those simple times. No Argentinian suicide bombers, head chopper offers or child killers... Hmmmm, maybe they had honor. And decency. And were civilized. Of course, the Peruvians & Colombians more than make up for that... See 'Shining Path' and 'FARC'

Aren't those communist/socialist/maoist guerrilla organizations? I was referring to the legitamate professional army of the nation of Argentina. Not terrorists.

Quoted: Quoted: no way in hell could have 4 SSN effectively blockaded the Islands. No control of the air equals no blockade you do not need a large land force on the Islands if the British surface fleet is ineffective. What are your professional qualifications to make that statement? Are you a submarine officer in the United States Navy?  The Royal Navy?  Are you a USN Surface Warfare Officer with experience in anti submarine warfare? Have you ever been in ANYONE'S navy?  Even as an able seaman? Do you maybe even have a fishing boat?  Jet Ski? Those of us who are, or have been, professional naval officers simply laugh at your ignorance of the capabilites and effectiveness of modern nuclear powered attack submarines.

Amen, bother. Four SSN's could have locked up those islands tighter than you can imagine.

I'll remind our confused friend that we effectively stranged the Japanese Islands during WWII BEFORE we got any air cover, and Germany pretty well did it TWICE to Britain DESPITE the Allies having air superiority.

There is a REASON the old joke is that there are two types of ships in the world: submarines and targets.

If you take a good look at the wording, as Middlebrook did in Argentine Fight for the Falklands, you will note that the wording of the Exclusion Zone statement does not leave ships outside the zone immune to attack. What it effectively said was 'If you enter the zone, you will be engaged. If you're outside the zone, we might still take a shot at you'

All interviews he did with Argentine military personnel after the war indicate that this is how they interpreted it as well, hence no hard feelings.

Let's see.. total books out there..

Max Hastings The Falklands War, Martin Middlebrook had two (Argentine and British sides), Sharkey Ward had his, Adm Woodward put one out, Mike Clapp published one (Amphib commander) as did Julian Thompson (Land force commander). There's another one called 'Mates and Muchachos' which talks more about the cameraderie, there was a series of magazines published about a year afterwards (hard to find now, but I have a copy!), and I think one or two others I've missed.

NTM

IMHO, this is one of the BEST EVER thread appeared on this forum.

Thanks Andy, Thanks to you all for your contributions. It has been a pleasure to read it.

Quoted: The ship was then commisioned into the US navy as USS Robin and sailed to the Pacific with a British Crew, a US command staff, some USN aircraft and crew and flying the Stars and Bars…

We people from Dixie wish it was with the Stars and Bars.  You must have meant the Stars and Stripes.  

I must concur that this is a great thread.

What is the take on the Rapier and how it did?

jd1

I'm going over to our Staff Library now and I'll look up some books for you guys… I'll post tonite!

Andy

Quoted: (2) My personal take is they would have done a repeat of what the Royal Navy did in 1943 when we transferred one of our Fleet Carriers to the US Navy when they were short of carriers after Midway.   The Royal Navy transferred HMS Victorious and her complete crew to UN control. She sailed to the US, all the crew were supplied with US Navy uniforms (everyone was so impressed by the US kit the the Admiralty adopted it in 1945 as standard kit), the Ship was given a basic refit to fit US 3" AA guns and change some of the RT equipment. The ship was then commisioned into the US navy as USS Robin and sailed to the Pacific with a British Crew, a US command staff, some USN aircraft and crew and flying the Stars and Bars… ANdy

Here she is, the HMS Victorious/USS Robin.  She had a steel deck too.



Here she is with the USS Saratoga at Noumea, New Caledonia, 1943.

The best book I read on the subject was Reasons in Writing by Owen Tailyor-Evans, Royal Marines, who surveyed the Islands for the first time since the 1700's while commanding the Royal Marine detachment there two years befor the conflict.  He returned with the Task Force and helped retake the Islands.  

The book makes very interesting reading from a soldiers point of view and does not disguise his anger at the higher-ups who allowed this to happen.  It also shoots down a lot of myths including the fact that the Brits gained air superiority.  

Probably one of the most amazing military victories from a logistical standpoint, the Brits fought a war 8,000 miles away, retaking an Island with over 10,000 dug in troops, no air superiority and little if no ground cover.  
HFG  

Books on the Falklands War……

Here is a link to many of the available books…

http://www.naval-history.net/F01Books.htm

Now for my selection…

If you were 'in it' or want to know what it was like to be 'in it' there is only one book worth reading…
'Don't cry for me Sergeant Major' by Robert McGowan and Jeremy Hands ISBN 0-7515-0932-9

I still have my copy, and it still brings tears to my eyes… both laughter and sadness. It's the war from the 'pointy end' told by the ordinary blokes doing the fighting, not the Generals and Post War 'researchers'. It really is one to get. Although it may be very hard to source in the States. The story of Humphrey, the Gay Steward on the Canberra and 600 Paras still brings tears to my eyes.

An extract from the book…

"At San Carlos, an ancient privy had been discovered at the settlement hall. The hall was being used as a regimental aid post, but the privy with its adjacent washbasin was a closely guarded secret. Officer and indeed some men, who had discovered it and were tired of sneaking off with a shovel on the " Third day ", had decided to make use of this God-sent facility. The word spread. Shovels were laid aside as more and more men headed for this porcelain haven. Hardly surprisingly the ancient's loo gave up under the strain. The last marine successfully to bolt himself inside had little idea that the toilet was to give up in such a dramatic manner. He was heard entering by impartial observers, who with great glee related the event in every detail soon afterwards. He was heard sliding the bolt across. Some witnesses, not know for their reliability, even said that they heard the muted, sound of his trousers hitting the concrete floor. What happened a few minutes later was beyond contradiction. There was a muffled explosion, taken by those outside to be an indication that the marine's bowels were emptying at a great speed. 'Oh Christ' said the voice from within the closet. 'Oh Jesus'. All was indeed not well. What had occurred was later referred to as the Great Loo Throwback, when the tightly packed contents of the outlet were for some reason hurled back into the bowel at some speed. Experts later discerned that this was due to a sudden inrush of seawater from the drain's outlet in San Carlos Water a hundred yards away. But the evidence of the catastrophe, regardless of its causes, was all too apparent. "You dirty bastard", said a marine as the poor man staggered out of the closet. "Look at the state of you" It was true, the last user of the settlement hall privy had received more than was given. Vainly he had used up the few sheets of tissue paper issued in every rat pack, in a small pouch marked 'sundries'. The unmistakable and foul-smelling evidence of his encounter with the toilet hung around him. Men moved away grimacing. The unfortunate one tried to smile, hoping his mates would not desert him in his moment of need..........They Did..."


The Official Royal Navy History  "The Royal Navy and the Falklands War" by David Brown, Head of the Royal Navy Historical Branch. An excellent overall coverage of the 'Official' War.

"Signals from the Falklands" by John WInton. ISBN 0-85052-429-6
An anthology of 'after action' reports by some of the key players and 'ordinary joes' . Excellent book and a real insight. Covers the loss of the Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor through survivors accounts, and the sinking of the Belgrano. A great insight into how the war was fought by the people who fought it.

"The Secret War for the Falklands" by Nigel West ISBN 0-7515-2071-3
The story of Britain secret war by the SAS & MI6. Covers 'Operation Mikado', the planned 'kamikaze attack' by the SAS on the Argentine Airbase at Rio Grande when they planned to crash land two C130's full of SAS troopers onto the base and kill the pilots and blow up the Etendards.

'The Red and Green Life Machine" by Surgeon Cdr Rick Jolly ISBN0-552-99068-X
The diary of Cdr Rick Jolly, the chief Surgeon at Ajax Bay Field Hospital. Every man who made it to his MASH unit survived. Brilliant guy (I've met him) and his book is a 'must have'.

'Ordeal by Exocet… HMS Glamorgan and the Falklands War" by Ian Inskip. ISBN 1-86176-197-X
An excellent portrayal through first hand accounts of life and war on HMS Glamorgan in the Falklands, including her hit by an exocet and the battle to save her. Highly recommended.

'Above All Courage… First hand accounts of the Falklands War' by Max Arthur. ISBN 0-283-99249-2.
A collection of memoirs from the people who fought the war. Covers reminiscences of servicemen engaged in all the key battles and actions of the Falklands War. One of the best books on the subject.

'Task Force Falklands' by David Reynolds. ISBN  0-7509-2845-X
An illustrated history of the Falklands War

'Falklands Commando' by Captain Hugh Manners. ISBN 0-586-06757-4
Captain Manners and his team worked alongside the SAS and SBS during the Falklands War. He describes being landed by the SAS along with his team to direct the Naval bombardments of Argentine positions.

'Amphibious Assault Falklands… the Battle of San Carlos Water" by Michael Clapp and Ewan Southby-Tailyour. ISBN 0-85052-420-2
A first hand account of the Battle of San Carlos by the man who directed it, Commodore Michael Clapp. Highly recommended.

'Through Fire and Water: HMS "Ardent" - The Forgotten Frigate of the Falklands War' by Mark Higgitt. ISBN 184018356X
The story of HMS Ardents war and loss… an excellent read.
 
Andy

Quoted: Quoted: The ship was then commisioned into the US navy as USS Robin and sailed to the Pacific with a British Crew, a US command staff, some USN aircraft and crew and flying the Stars and Bars… What is the take on the Rapier and how it did? jd1

Rapier was a BIG anti climax! Nobody was much impressed with it. It promised much and delivered very little.

Linky to Argentine aircraft lost and by what…

www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm

Quoted: IIRC, the Exocet hit wasn't fatal to Sheffield. What was fatal was the lack of smoke control hindering Damage Control efforts. Of course, it took STARK before the US Navy took to heart the lessons of the Falklands.

HMS Sheffield suffered really bad luck… the missile failed to detonate, but the remaining fuel in the motor started a major fire which caused large quanities of toxic smoke from the laminate wall coverings in the ship. However, the missile cut the main Fire Main and she lost all water pressure. She had a mobile pump but that was forward and played up on the day… the Navy immidialtly ordered all laminates stripped out and supplied spare pumps to the ships after that, along with EBU's (emeregency breathing units) for all the crews.

Andy

Rapier was indeed a dud, but IMHO the British "secret weapon" of the war was their superbly trained infantry.

At that time, the US had the gee-wiz tekkie stuff, but the Paras and Royal Marines did something truly noteworthy...they MARCHED across an Arctic desolation totally lacking in cover in very harsh weather, without any air or ground transport to speak of. And they arrived and went straight into the fight...and most of the battles lasted many hours. I don't know how many US units could have done that in 1982.

Quoted: Quoted: Lots of support - YES, CARRIER or LPH - NO, not hardly.  A CV or LPH without crew or aircraft complement would have been useless and the Brits wouldn't  have been able to crew them up.   Nice idea but total BS.   And even if we supplied it with birds the Brits wouldn't have been able to crew the ship even if they could handle the Helo's. Yeah they got good sailors and a lot of the equipment is very similar on the bridges, CIC's etc, the Engineering plants would need a few weeks to a few months to get a competent  crew in place. The only place we actually made it clear that we would use our forces was to ensure the territorial integrity of Belize when the Brits there were moved to the combat zone. You're right, the Brits wouldn't be able to crew the the systems. But Americans would be doing all this. British pilots would still be using the decks.

Well I take issue with the US crewing the systems, although perfectly legal under various treaties (and disappointing the armchair commandoes here that try to claim the US personnel have never served under foreign commanders,) the political liabilities of the appearance of US going to war against the Argies by lending ships and crews to the Brits would be just as bad as the US supplying the ships, crews and planes and pilots.  No difference in the court of public opinion and you can be damned sure that the KGB would take every advantage afforded by this to attack the US and Brits in liberal Europe, and South and Central America.  Remember this was  when the Cold War was hot and heavy.  Also it's questionable whether we could have received congressioanl approval and funding for it.  Remember the Navy was having a pretty nasty retention problem then

Arapahoe was British wasn't it? may have been a joint venture or idea.  The Brits needed it more than we did.  Arapahoe was  a concept somewhat derived from the Brits converting a few merchies to carry and launch Sea Hurricanes to protect convoys from Luftwaffe long range Condor bombers.  Anyway, the concept is you take a large container ship and using marston matting and additional reinforcement convert the tops of the top containers to a  helo flight deck.  these helos could then be used for a variety of missions, ASW, ASUW,  amphibous landings and after landing logistical support.  Basically making a container ship an LPH.  Helo maintenance shops are pre-installed in containers, etc, Fleet hospital wards, kitchens, etc a variety of things can be inserted into containers to support whatever mission foreseen.  Also the helos can offload containers that aren't overly heavy.  I really doubt you can reinforce the deck enough for Harriers, maybe you can.  In any case the Brits have and had at the time a scarcity of flight decks available.  We have and had scads of decks what with CV's, CVN's, LHA's, LHP's, .  

The concept of using "pre-packed" containers is not totally unused by us. See the USNS Wright (T-AVB-3) and USNS Curtiss  (T-AVB-4)  www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/tavb-3.htm

Marine Aviation Maintenance works out of containers at El Toro and now Miramar/Camp Pendleton. (and East Coast bases).  Ship is maintained in 5 day availability by MARAD.  Mobilization is required.  Most of the birds are moved to  San Diego and loaded on appropriate platform for movement, the containers are secured for sea and loaded on trains, taken to Pt. Hueneme and loaded on the USNS Curtiss,  At the same time the ship operating crew arrives from the shipping company pre-contracted by MARAD or MSC to operate the ship.  By the time the containers are inplace on the ship it is operational and gets sunderway.  On arrival the containers stay on the ship during initial operations,  the helo deck on the ship is used and  support is supplied as needed.  When the air units move ashore the containers are moved off and the ship is returned back to MARAD or MSC for additional logistics voyages.

BTW Exocets so far have caused far more damage  with propellant induced conflagrations than the warheads have caused.

I  can understand why they were concerned about the Belgrano, 6" guns have more than twice the range and a lot more smacking power than 3" guns and I'm pretty sure that the Brits only had 3" guns.  In other  words unless neutralized before arrival, the Belgrano would have probably decimated the Brits ships.  The defence in that situation is to try to run as fast as you can at the big gun ship and try to get in tothe range where your guns if any left can be brought to bear.  Now the Belgrano whcih might have had a speed advantage (at least it's WWII speed) or even if not much of an advantage  turns and maintains a range that it can fire accurately at  and is still outside the 3" gun range.  Also notice the Belgrano has two stern 6" turrets and 3 forward 6" turrets.  So even in a tail chase she bring 6 guns to bear against the brits one or two ad most that can be brought to bear in a stern chase,  and (since I don't know the configuration of the Brits ships) they might not have been able to fire straight forward. (Not unlike our FFG's that  are unable to fire their only "big" gun straight forward.  And by swerving the Belgrano could also unmask their forward turrets also.

Progressive flooding is where a ship fills more and more spaces with water because of holes between, around or over  watertight  spaces and  as it  sinks more water is forced in by pressure  into more spaces causing the ship to sink or list faster in an inexorable process toward the point where positive bouyancy is lost and down it goes.   The idea is you have enough small bubbles in the hull that youdon't get enough water in to lose bouyancy. What I heard was the Belgrano had fire hoses running through several  watertight doors, which were never closed and by the time the powers that be figured out what was happening they no longer had the pump capability to keep up with the water coming in.  Progressive flooding is what sank the Titanic.  Her watertight barriers were athwartship only, not "tall" enough and were not covered.  And a few large spaces as opposed to a bunch of little ones.  She was built such that theoretically, she would never get deep enough for water to go over the tops of the barriers and that two could be flooded and the ship survive.   So as the water started coming in from hull damage 3 sections were holed and as she  sank water could get above the next barrier and that was it  filled up and then over the next barrier.