Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
I was re-reading an old thread that ST wrote about the Falklands, if the Argies had done a better job on East Falkland - would the Army have built on West Falkland a PSP runway/landing zone so they RAF and RN Harriers could have been based there and then wintered before trying again the next summer?
Also is there any particular reason that anyone knows of that the Argies didn't put people (or Surface to Surface missiles) on West Falkland to try and ttack ships sailing up (or down) that side of Falkland Sound?Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
If that had happened,the R A F could have tankered in the likes of the Jaguar ground attack A/C and aircraft designed from the start for air to air combat, thus allowing the Harriers to get on with their job. But all that would have to be done under attacks from the mainland.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
"...But all that would have to be done under attacks from the mainland..."
Which would surely necessitate retaliation by the British to mainland Argentinian sites, thusly spreading the war.
What then ?
Would we have been willing, how would they have reacted ?Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 4
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
If they'd had any sense, the Junta would have delayed the invasion for 1983 and the 150th anniversary of what they pretend to call the occupation: Invincible sold, Hermes scrapped, Fearless and Intrepid in peices, etc.
The abject failure of the Arg military to put up a fight was systemic. They had no idea of what a real war entailed having only ever fought unarmed students and the Paraguayans back in the 1810s. Their senior officers had been trained by the USA at the School of the Americas in Panama, where they were taught only counter-insurgency. They assumed that the British were a client state of the USA like them who would be kept out of the Western Hemisphere by the Monroe Doctrine, never pondering the place the Royal Navy had in making it President Monroe to hide behind British skirts and shout his warnings in the first place.
Operation Rosario was launched on the assumption that there would be no military response, a judgement based on wishful thinking and ignorance of a scale that would make even Rumsfeld blush. They did not even look on a map for Ascension Island.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Well most Brits thought the Falklands were off Scotland anyway.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 6
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
by GrumpyFred
Well most Brits thought the Falklands were off Scotland anyway.
Μύ
Do you have a source for that? other than the bottom of a bottle that is
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Well most of the Sun readers did. I suppose that counts. LOL
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 8
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
It could have been worse, we could have had the Sun insisting we land an army on U S soil to take back South Georgia.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 10
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
NE J
GF is right. In my group of university friends, I was the only one (including the naval officer) who knew where to find the Falklands on a map, or had known anything about them before the Argentinians invaded. Even in my OTC, most didn't know.
LWLink to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 11
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
by GrumpyFred
Well most Brits thought the Falklands were off Scotland anyway.
Quoted from this message
Do you have a source for that? other than the bottom of a bottle that isΜύ
Its actually a line from the (fantastic) book "The Secret Diary Of Adrian Mole"!
I cannot remeber the entire entry but it goes along the lines of
"Woke Dad up to say that Argentina had invaded the Falkland Isles,Dad started running the bedroom panicking,he thought they were off the coast of Scotland"
VFLink to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 12
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
by LongWeekend
NE J
GF is right. In my group of university friends, I was the only one (including the naval officer) who knew where to find the Falklands on a map, or had known anything about them before the Argentinians invaded. Even in my OTC, most didn't know
Μύ
that is truely depressing, seems the dumbing down of university education has been going on for far longer than is commonly assumed.
(.... and yes I knew where the Falklands were back then and I am younger than you and your university friends)Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
I must admit as a reader, I knew where the Falklands where as well. My books covered the Great War Battle of the Falkands, and of course the famous signall from the Battle of the River Plate. "Can you make the Falklands?"
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 14
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
In reply to TimTrack and others I would just like to question a few points.
Which would surely necessitate retaliation by the British to mainland Argentinian sites, thusly spreading the war.
Μύ
Why would attacks launched from the Argentine mainland against an airstrip on East Falkland have necessitated a British response against the Argentine mainland?
Practically all the Argentine air attacks were launched from the mainland during the conflict and there was never a response against the mainland from the British military.
So why would the situation have change in response to attacks on East Falkland?
In any case the building of a runway on East Falkland before securing a strong position on West Falkland would have be militarily counterproductive, the resources needed to secure and defend East Falkland would have considerably reduced the available forces for the campaign on West Falkland.
As for aircraft being flown to the Falklands under combat conditions brings into question just which RAF aircraft were capable of the journey.
I have recently read βVulcan 607β and the author states that the Buccaneer did not have enough engine oil for the length of flight, if the Buccaneer could not reach the Falklands then could any RAF fighter?
It is a very different matter to ferry Phantoms to the Falklands during peacetime compared to flying into a combat zone 4,000 miles from the next friendly airbase.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 15
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Well, it makes sense if for the duration of a number of months on a semi-permanent base you're being attacked then you want to neutralize that particular threat which is causing you so many problems. Politically it might have been dangerous to extend the war to the Argentine Mainland but Maggie Thatcher had already taken the ballsy decision to sink the Belgrano because of the military threat it posed to the fleet so the option to take out Argentine Air bases on the mainland may have been considered if it had been necessary.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
You would have gotten them there the same way the Vulcans where, by a fleet of tankers. Hard, but their Lords and Masters at the Air Ministry would have insisted because it was these people that convinced the Navy did not need new aircraft carriers as they could cover the fleet without them. So you fly them one flight at a time, carrying some defensive weapons in case they are jumped on approaching, The Tankers would only be supplying fuel one way, and the fighters would be flying at best cruising speed to stay with the tankers, It would have to be the Phantom, as the Lightening was a very short range bird, and the Jaguar was then only a ground attack A/C. The Tornado was just starting to come on line (I think) and the fighter version was still having trouble with its radar. ("Weren't some still flying with bags of cement in the nose instead of the supposed A I radar?)I suppose Maggie could have had a word with Ron and borrowed a number of long range navy type fighters, and again later a flight of Gruman A W A Cs. After all he did say, anything she wanted. Or even asked for one of the U s Navys carriers to be used to allow flights of Phantoms and Bucaneers to fly off within range.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 17
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Unfortunately the Hercules aircraft suffered from inadequate range + also an inability to transport large unit loads such as the larger vehicles or helicopters. It was necessary to introduce other aircraft and , with a degree of irony, the Ministry of Defence had to hire back some transport aircraft , such as Belfasts, which it had sold ten !!! years earlier. It also chartered in some Boeing 707s from the civilians.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 15th June 2009
A what if. The R A F (Or Navy) using either tankers or flying off a borrowed U S aircraft carrier, arrive on the West Falklands and engage the incoming fighters. They would be up against Sky Hawks among other things. In air to air combat, the U S had learned the hard way, that the Phantom could not really go head to head with smaller faster turning Aircraft, and had introduced the Top Gun school. So how would the R A F cope in an aircraft meant to take on unescorted bombers over the North Sea? I like a good what if.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 19
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 15th June 2009
"In air to air combat, the U S had learned the hard way, that the Phantom could not really go head to head with smaller faster turning Aircraft,"
Navy Fighter Weapons School or "Top Gun" had been working for ten years at this point and I think the lessons had been learnt and fully absorbed by this point in time - the F-4's from a leased USN carrier I don't think would have had any problem against the ANA A-4 Skyhawks for following reasons IMO (I set out two options)
RAF West Falkland option - the RAF/RN could have leased F-4E or F-4F aircraft both of which had internal 20mm Vulcan cannons.
The F4's could have operated at high cover far out to sea and therefore forced the A4's (and Super Etenard's and Dagger/Mirage down to low level and right into waiting Sea Harriers)
The F4's could have operated at longer distance (if they'd been F-4J/N or FG.1/FGR 2) by ferrying from a carrier and therefore engaging the ANA A-4's whilst they were still carrying their payload's - getting the ANA and FAA Skyhawls to dump their bombs 50 miles offshore was almsot as good as shooting them down.
The HMS Amercian Aircraft Carrier (would have been interesting what they'd have called her - USS Churchill maybe?) option:
The Harrier could have operated off a full-length carrier and therefore carried a full-complement of weapons and fuel.
The F-4's could have adopted the mission tactics of the NVAF airforce over Vietnam - namely waggon-wheel - where they circle the enemy aircraft, dive in at high-speed for a firing run and then dart off on 'burner and resume their positions over the formation - the ANA and FAA so far as Im aware did not use a CAP to escort the strike aircraft in so this would have meant bomb-carrying aircraft being diverted to escort duty.
The FAA would have been diverted to protecting it's home-bases on mianland as the F-4's could carry a useful bombload to attack the mainland - and could defend themselves (depending on aircraft type - remember the F4 is a multi-role aircraft) whereas the Vulcan although could POSSIBLY get in and out it would be defenceless unless escorted and I'm sure the FAA would have given its pilots virtual suicide orders to get the Vulcan's downed (and the RAF only had a finite supply of aircraft - and crew).Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 15th June 2009
I would agree with all of those points but one. The R A F/F A A had not been in combat since Suez??? The F A A learned quickly that the Sea Harrier could do interesting things. But the R A F would have to learn on the job with their Phantoms. Lessons would be learned, but depending on how quickly, would depend on who was in charge, and was he willing to learn from U S pilots. Sadly (Or not) we will never know.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 21
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
"But the R A F would have to learn on the job with their Phantoms. Lessons would be learned, but depending on how quickly, would depend on who was in charge, and was he willing to learn from U S pilots"
I see what you mean - and Im not being pernickity but I'd have thought the RN - lets put it that way lest we get confused with the FAA, F-All and FA -
could have operated the Sea Harriers inshore and the RAF/RN operated the F-4's offshore and then used the Sparrow/Skyflashg combo to "intercept" the Argies out to sea - anything infront of the radars would have been enemy in this case - I understand this is hardly "Top Gun" tactics but its playing to the strengths of the F-4 and remember that even pre-Top Gun the USAF were getting kills in on the NVAF with F-105's!!! Hardly dogfighting material.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
The U S rate of kill against the N V came right down as the older model Migs seem to be able to out turn them, and the first gen air to air missles left a lot to be desired. Pilots demanded guns again, and cannon pods were fitted. You have to wonder though (And of course there is no proof) If the N V pilots the U S came up against were in fact N V. Or like Korea, Russian.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 23
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
I see your point - I could see maybe Saffa mercenaries maybe flying Dagger's against "the old enemy" in a protracted war? Possibly.
The one thing that the F-4's would have been fab for is flying "wild weasel" missions (F-4G) against Argie air defence both on Falkland (if protracted war scenario) and against mainland so pilots couldn't find their way home.....
I wonder why the Argies didn't immidiately set up an arrestor wire system for fast jets in Stanley to ferry their strike missions in/out?
After all Im sure the Sovs at the time if they'd invaded Europe would have immidiately used NATO FOB's against their former owners.....Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the runway at Stanley grass? Which was why there was no fast jets moved there. Again another case of bad planning by the invading forces. The first ship in after the R Ms were ordered to surrender should have been carrying interlocking metal sheets. Then our task force would have been met further out to sea by Daggers.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 25
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Stanley had a 3100 ft hard runway. Vulcan 607 made it unavailable to fast jets, but they still got their Italian MB339 jet trainers off it.
As stated earlier, the Arg Air force were the least keen on Operation Rosario, and their reluctance to use Stanley may well have been motivated by their Dagger lost on 1 May which was damaged and attempted an emergency landing but was shot down by the teenage conscripts.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 26
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Again, knowing (At least I assume somebody in Whitehall knew???) the state of the country on the Falklands I can't understand why we didn't load Hovercrafts onto the likes of the A C L ships. Much better for what passed as roads.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 27
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Somewhere along the line, it was decided not to take vehicles save a few RM Sno-Cats. On their way down on their North Sea car ferry, the paras watched a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ documentary about life in the Falklands and wondered why the locals were getting about on the 'impassable' terrain in Land Rovers.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Well, at least one of the Harrier pilots should have known something about flying Phantoms. He was actually the last man to take a Fox4 off Ark Royal's deck.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 29
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
A few transfered across to the R A F with their A/C. Met one who still couldn't forget his Navy salute. It looked odd in an R A F uniform
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 30
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
There were a considerable number of light blue uniforms in the Ark for her last commission - and Flt Lt. Murdo Macleod was tail end charlie.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 31
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
GFR,
Is this a serious thread ?
'Dog fights'? 'Top Gun' ? 'Somebody in Whitehall must have known'?
It's mostly fantasyland.
The idea of an airbase on East Falkland was laughed at when it was first suggested by some General/Admiral/Air Whatever/desk jockey.
It was never a serious option, and while it was being built all land troops and ships would suffer. Speed and surprise was the only option.
The reason the Argentinians didn't do as you suggest is that they never really believed that the UK would respond the way it did. By the time they did realise it was too late.
Had they been given an extra 6 months, regular troops would have been withdrawn from mountain and border duties on the mainland to replace the conscripts.
The best troops we had were already there. Those that followed were, in many cases, an embarrassment and a liability. They couldn't even walk to Goose Green from the beach-head !
We would still have won, but at what cost ?Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 32
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
The A C among other stuff carried interlocking metal sheets for building a runway. Sadly lost when the ship was sunk.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 33
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
""The idea of an airbase on East Falkland was laughed at when it was first suggested by some General/Admiral/Air Whatever/desk jockey."
Stanley is on East Falkland judging by position on map!
So I can only presume you mean the British Staff Planners were talked down from an airbase on West Falkland!
And no it's not a joke - as Mummy said if you can't say something nice then don't say anything else at all!Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 34
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Delricks, would you please explain just how the Argies would have rotered in fresh troops with the R N sitting there. Transport aircraft would be sitting ducks for the Sea Harriers, and their Navy wouldn't/didn't put to sea in case they joined the Belgrano. Unless they were prepared to run a convoy Malta style regardless of costs, what troops they had on West Falklands were on their own.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 35
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Grand Falcon Railroad/ Grumpy Fred,
Yesterday was a grumpy day for me, sorry.
Obviously I did get my East and West Falklands mixed up.
If I remember correctly, the idea of an airbase on West Falkland was suggested very early in the campaign, but that's as far as it got.
It was a very nice idea, but a logistical impossibility.
From what I've read, and from what I've heard from former colleagues who were there, the 'British Staff Planners' were one of the biggest problems for the commanders on the ground. Trying to direct military operations from an office in the UK is not a good strategy, especially if the total Falklands knowledge of the 'Planners' comes from a guide-book and a few large scale maps.
The two books I've mentioned are full of examples of this, and it may be that the lack of good communications between the Falklands commanders and the UK were a blessing in disguise.
Air superiority was key, and as the successful Argentinian attack on Galahad (late in the campaign) shows, it was never fully achieved.
Had the troops and ships been forced to spend another 6 months sitting around, Stanley Airport could have been easily repaired, and the troops I've mentioned could have been flown in. I've actually read somewhere that the airport was used constantly during the campaign.
With the British pilots providing cover for the ships and ground forces, who was going to deal with Argentinian reinforcements landing at Stanley ?
As I've already said, the Argentinians didn't expect the UK to respond by sending a task force, and they certainly didn't expect the Marines and Paras to do what they'd been told was impossible. If they had, the thousands of troops lolling around Stanley would have been moved to the mountain areas. Had these troops been mountain troops, then we would have had a very serious problem.
Even the ordinance that sat in Stanley, unused, indicates that the Argentinian commanders had little or no idea what was going on.
I suspect that the artificial runway that went down with the Atlantic Conveyor was destined for Stanley.
Many people don't seem to realise just how close the Falklands was to becoming a disaster for the UK. That it wasn't is down to the Harrier pilots and the troops on the ground, and NOT the Staff Planners.
Once again, I apologise for yesterdays grumpiness, but people of a certain age are allowed to be. It's the law !Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 36
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
I would agree with your last comments. The Brass in HorseGuards were still planning for that war on the plains of Germany. Senior officers on the spot did not want any Guardsmen there. Indeed they requested the Rifle Brigade, but again somebody in HorseGuards decided that they needed the Guards down there and we all know what happened. Again, unlike Marines Para's and most rifle and infantry regiments, Guards Officers do not listen to advice from N C Os. Nor (So I am led to believe) to advice from anybody, whatever rank, that is not a Guardsman. E G Bluff Cove. In any other regiment, the officers would have off loaded their men first. Not so the Guards, and although it was suggested by at least one R M Officer, it did not happen. God protect everybody from Officers who insist they know what they are doing.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 37
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Grumpy Fred
Absolutely correct.
I was talking to a recently retired Colonel last year. He had spent many years with the Commando Gunners, and said that there has been a sea-change within the infantry regiments because of Afghanistan, with 'ordinary' regiments now seeking to match the Marines and Paras (they all have to work together, after all).
He stated that the exception is still the Guards, who still want to do things 'their way', or not at all.
Perhaps it's time to get rid of all the ceremonial nonsense and use the time and money improving the fighting skills of the Guards.
All the pomp, ceremony, horse-flesh and outrageously expensive fancy dress many impress tourists, but not, I suspect, the Taliban.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 38
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
I remember reading that the R Ms were dismayed at the condition of the Guardsmen upon their arrival. They had had no training as such, and had come almost straight from playing Toy Soldiers. Most of their officers were beyond useless. When it was pointed out that the best way to take out a machine gun was to use an antitank rocket, the reply was Guards charge them, more glory that way.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 39
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Grumpyfred - Geography!
Didn't I hear that some Good Ol' Boy from the Deep South ring his local Radio Station in a panic when he heard the Russians had invaded Georgia? (South Ossetia)
Was expecting to see the Red Menace rollin' down Mainstreet, a-whompin' and a-hollerin', and was getting the ol' Peacemaker loaded up ready to sort them out?Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 40
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
LOL
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 41
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
I am surprised that someone with GrumpyFredβs obvious knowledge would use such insulting language when talking about the British army.
The Guards, namely the Welsh and Scot Guards that fought in the Falklands are and were excellent soldiers and certainly never βtoy soldiersβ.
Guards officers are no more useless than any British army officers or Royal Marine officers. If GrumpyFred has any evidence to the contrary then please share it with us all.
As for the nonsense about charging machine guns because there is more glory in it, I can only suggest that GrumpyFred reads accounts of the Battle on Tumbledown.
The professionalism and bravery of the Guards during the battle was every bit as good as the Marines or Paras.
This thread seems to be overtaken by childish comparisons referring to Guards, Marines and Paras.
If a more sensible attitude is taken and a less biased reading of history is used then it becomes obvious that the conflict in the Falklands was suited to lightly equipped troops such as the Marines and paras and not the proper infantry battalions.
The Paras sat out the Gulf war because the conflict required heavy infantry, namely armoured infantry in APCβs supported by tanks. During the Falklands the terrain and distance from any base meant that heavy infantry battalions had to fight in a way they were not trained or equipped for. If the British army was made up of just lightly equipped paras and Marines then it would have been useless in Iraq and in any major war.
If we want childish comparisons then I would point out that the Guards would wipe the floor with the Marines and Paras in any real war with grown up weapons. In fact the Guards have been wiping the floor with any and all opponents for the last few hundred years.
Some toy soldiers that makes them, and their fighting ability is second to none.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 42
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
'Guards Officers do not listen to advice from ...anybody, whatever rank, that is not a Guardsman. E G Bluff Cove.'
GrumpyFred is quite correct about Bluff Cove where Maj Southby-Taylor RM was in charge of amphibious landings with over 20 years of experience of them, but the Welsh Guards major would not budge because he had his orders etc and he was going to Fitzroy (...oooh, what's that whooshing sound?)
The SCots Guards were top notch in 82, far from their image of parade ground inflexibility. Their CO's got the WW2 vintage .50 cal Brownings out of store, a damn sight more effective anti-aircraft fire than the useless Blowpipe missile.
The Welsh Guards had come straight from ceremonials at Buck House and did not take the same appraoch to fitness on their way down on the QE2, a passage that got up the noses of the paras who had come on a North Sea car ferry.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 43
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Just going back to ean earlier post, I was at a talk recently given by one of the COs of the Sea Harrier Squadrons that was down here in '82.
Apparently he was asked whether the Brits had asked to "borrow" a US aircraft carrier to provide them with more capacity, but it turned out that due to the safe operating limits (in terms of deck pitch etc) the only aircraft that could have operated from the decks in the South Atlantic were Sea Harriers, and as these were already all deployed down South. So even with a nice big carrier chock full of Phantoms or Tomcats, the majority of the time the only planes in the air would have been the poor Harriers.
There was talk of putting temporary landing strips in place on some of the Islands on the West, but as has been mentioned these never came to anything, though a temporary strip was used at San Carlos for refueling Harriers.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 44
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Any kind of AEW or AWACS presence that a fixed-wing carrier could have provided would have saved most, if not all, the ships the British lost. It could also have allowed the permanent closure of Stanley airport by interdicting all incoming and outgoing flights.
Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 45
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
englishvote,
It seems someone doesn't know very much about today's armed forces.
The Welsh Guards didn't fight in the Falklands, although they were there.
And the Royal Marines are not, and never have been, part of the British Army.
The Scots were superb at Tumbledown, however, but it was the arrogance of the Welsh officers that caused so many of their own to die on Galahad.
The burden put on the infantry because of the Guards absence on tourist duty has caused them to derided by the others, and the fact that they couldn't even walk the 13 miles to Goose Green has made them a laughing stock ever since (the Paras did it without any problems and fought a battle at the end of it)
As for them matching the Paras and Marines (and the Rifles etc) anywhere away from a parade ground, I doubt if anyone outside the Guards would agree with you, sorry.
There is a shortage of front-line troops at the moment, and to have so many of them prancing around in front of Royalty and London's tourists is a disgrace.
We can't afford this any more. It costs as much for a fancy (bespoke) Guards/Cavalry uniform as it does to equip a front-line soldier in Afghanistan. Add all the horses, carriages, shiny bits and pieces, and man-hours, and you should get the picture.
It isn't childish at all, but claiming that the Marines and Paras were 'lightly equipped' during the Falklands is. The average load was 120lbs, stripped down to 70lbs during battles or patrols.
And my knowledge comes from experience, not books.
I've also spoken to Scots Guards who fought at Tumbledown. Their reasons for the victory ? 'We're Jocks, what do you expect'.
I'm also very curious about this 'real war with grown-up weapons'. what exactly do you mean ? What is the difference, weaponry wise, between the Guards and the Marines and Paras?
Do you know anything about the Marines ?
I would argue that the Marines/Paras/Jocks/Gurkhas etc could do anything the Guards could do, with time and energy to spare. The opposite is not possible.
What is 'heavy infantry'?Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 46
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Urngal,
Knowing the were going to be attacked may have helped, but where were the intercepting Harriers and pilots going to come from?
Everything we had was already there, and the pilots were out on their feet.
And that was just covering the fleet and the bridgehead, never mind the airport.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 47
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Hello again JB-on-Sea,
Ewan Southby-Tailyour (he used to get very snippy about the 'y') knew more about the Falklands than anyone else in the task force. He'd actually mapped most of the seaward side.
I still can't understand why 40 Commando was left at the beach head. Had they been on Galahad, they'd have been fighting to get off!
Although Thompson and Moore have denied it, I think the Guards were meant to be garrison troops. Wilson (5 Brigade) is recorded as putting pressure on Moore to get his brigade involved, and as you've said, they simply weren't up to the job.
Wilsons 'gung-ho' attitude and inexperience is well documented, and on one occasion he almost put the whole operation in jeopardy. Had some Paras not seen this and gone behind his back, the forward momentum would have ground to a halt.
Moore has said he anticipated a counter-attack on the beach head, but all that would have been required would have been the Guards taking over already prepared defences, freeing up 40 Cdo and the Gurkhas who could then move forward.
I've also read and heard about the Guards officers attitude on the journey south. Formal dinners, party nights, everything but preparing for a fight. Someone who was with them told me that they were more interested in the wine list and quality of the smoked salmon than the Falklands terrain, briefings, or preparing their men for battle.
Other reasons for the Galahad disaster were the Guards officer's refusal to put men in an LCVP with ammunition (considering the threat, that rule should have been forgotten about, but flexibility and initiative isn't a Guards thing), and the decision to allow medical supplies to be off-loaded before the men. Whoever made that decision deserves at least some of the blame.
I suspect the 'suggestion' to use the Guards came from the planners at Northwood, who still had little idea of the conditions on the islands.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 48
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Delrick -
given AEW the carriers could have lain 50-100 miles closer to the islands, and could have been scrambled from the deck (or from Sheathbill later on) instead of wasting sortie time and pilot and airframe hours on CAP.Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 49
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Delrick53
The Welsh Guards didn't fight in the Falklands, although they were there.
Μύ
Strange interpretation, I guess dying on board landing ships classes as a holiday cruise does it?
And the Royal Marines are not, and never have been, part of the British Army.
Μύ
I donβt recall anybody saying that they were.
it was the arrogance of the Welsh officers that caused so many of their own to die on Galahad.
Μύ
Was it arrogance or lack of experience, bad communication and Royal Navy indifference to army limitations that ensured that men were left on board?
There is a shortage of front-line troops at the moment, and to have so many of them prancing around in front of Royalty and London's tourists is a disgrace.
Μύ
It is part of the job, and more importantly demonstrates the British army is part of British life and not just numbers to counted when they return in coffins. Remove the military from ceremonial duties and the likes of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ will stop even the half-hearted mentioning of dead British soldiers in Afghanistan.
The average load was 120lbs, stripped down to 70lbs during battles or patrols.
Μύ
There was no way that a rifle battalion could carry their normal equipment on their backs, it comes to tons each not pounds. Rifle battalions train with APCβs rather than parachutes and they would not for one minute think of only taking with them on campaign what they could carry on their backs.
What is the difference, weaponry wise, between the Guards and the Marines and Paras?
Μύ
For a start about 40 Warrior APCβs and masses of support vehicles. More importantly the training involves close co-operation with tanks and heavy artillery. Marines and Paras are trained for different combat situations, it would be madness to send the paras or Marines against a modern mechanised army.
There was a very good reason why the Parachute regiment was not asked to walk to Basra with their kit on their backs. It does not imply that they are in anyway arrogant, stupid or bad soldiers just that the lightly equipped paras and Marines are suited to other roles.
But for some reason there is a daft idea that the Guards should have instantly adapted to the conditions in the Falklands and the fact that they did not is then interpreted to mean they were arrogant and weak soldiers.
I am not sure why you separate Scots from Guardsmen in your comparison, maybe there is a reason why you feel the need to criticise the Guards?Link to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
-
Message 50
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
the Falklands conflict was the perfect arena for the British army and its arms
the invasion was carried out by assault troops - aggressive and used to isolation from the main arms
as they moved into the combat areas they were backed up by the heavy infantry of the guards regiments
goose green was the perfect battlefield for the paras
rhe mountain battles were good for all the troops - tumbledown was taken by heavy infantry
fighting uphill using all arms
all the troops played their part
stLink to this forum: Falklands - if Argentina had resisted the siege
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.