User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:32:24 AM EST
[#1]
Quoted:
<snip> Oh, it's you again. Go away; adults are talking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:34:32 AM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Oh, it's you again. Go away; adults are talking. Hello 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:36:35 AM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
no. they would had sent them, and their sheep back home to Manchester, or Birmingham, or whatever. Oh dear, so you are now retracting the "oil sheik" comment you made earlier? You are Joe Biden and I claim my $5 You do realise that the Falklands Islands have been British since 1833? So the current residents were born there? Moving them out to move in a load of Argentinians in would be like kicking the US citizens out of Texas to give it back to Mexico. If you can't do any better than that, don't bother. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:39:52 AM EST
[#4]
Don't know if this has been posted yet:
Acording to his book on the Falklands affair, he was attached to Royal Marine unit as a journalist, and at the end he was voluntold to take a stroll through Port Stanley in civilian dress to get a feel for things, as a surrender was looking likely. In his book he tells of leaving the position, walking a bit, then ditching his uniform and walking into the town while pretending to be a local, and of how he felt horribly exposed and as if everyone was looking at him. Not just the locals there, but he said every Argentine military type seemed to stare at him constantly the whole time he was in the town, and he got so panicked that he even tried waving at some of them, but they just kept staring at him. He then walked back out of sight of town and back towards the British positions, where he was met by the Major who he was attached to. At which point the Major kindly pointed out that he had neglected to remove his face paint when he donned civilian attire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:41:37 AM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
no. they would had sent them, and their sheep back home to Manchester, or Birmingham, or whatever. Oh dear, so you are now retracting the "oil sheik" comment you made earlier? You are Joe Biden and I claim my $5 You do realise that the Falklands Islands have been British since 1833? So the current residents were born there? Moving them out to move in a load of Argentinians in would be like kicking the US citizens out of Texas to give it back to Mexico. If you can't do any better than that, don't bother. More like kicking the Argies out of Buenos Aires and finding a few dozen Minuane people to give it to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:45:22 AM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
-snip- We all get that you don't like the Brits - that's up to you. Not true. Some like to pull the tail of the British lion but overall we like you all ..... except for the wankers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:47:05 AM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
Don't know if this has been posted yet: http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/max-hastings.jpg Acording to his book on the Falklands affair, he was attached to Royal Marine unit as a journalist, and at the end he was voluntold to take a stroll through Port Stanley in civilian dress to get a feel for things, as a surrender was looking likely. In his book he tells of leaving the position, walking a bit, then ditching his uniform and walking into the town while pretending to be a local, and of how he felt horribly exposed and as if everyone was looking at him. Not just the locals there, but he said every Argentine military type seemed to stare at him constantly the whole time he was in the town, and he got so panicked that he even tried waving at some of them, but they just kept staring at him. He then walked back out of sight of town and back towards the British positions, where he was met by the Major who he was attached to. At which point the Major kindly pointed out that he had neglected to remove his face paint when he donned civilian attire. 
Ouch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:47:14 AM EST
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The oil issue has been referenced here many times. There is no need to deconstruct the argument to create burden of proof. Adults are talking. Did you know that the UK and Argentina agreed in 1995 to split any oil revenues (50/50 for discoveries west of the islands, 1/3 Argentina 2/3 UK for discoveries east of the islands)? Argentina then withdrew from that agreement in 2007 so now, by their choice, they get nothing. which was smart as they revenues should be 100% theirs  Did the Kuwaitis settle for anything less? Kuwait was founded in it's present form in 1715. The residents of Kuwait should get all the revenues from their oil and should have a right to self-determination. The British landed on and named/claimed the Falklands in 1690, and after temporary settlements by the French (1764-1767), Spanish (1767-1811), British (1765-1776), and Argentinians (1828-1833), they have been permanently settled by the British since 1833. The residents of the Falklands should get all the revenues from their oil and should have a right to self-determination.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:47:40 AM EST
[#9]
I had a Brit and an Argentine, both of whom had been in the war, in my FAOAC class in 1988. It made for some interesting conversations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:48:53 AM EST
[#10]
Sorry about your thread TML. I was enjoying it yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:50:32 AM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
no. they would had sent them, and their sheep back home to Manchester, or Birmingham, or whatever. Oh dear, so you are now retracting the "oil sheik" comment you made earlier? You are Joe Biden and I claim my $5 You do realise that the Falklands Islands have been British since 1833? So the current residents were born there? Moving them out to move in a load of Argentinians in would be like kicking the US citizens out of Texas to give it back to Mexico. If you can't do any better than that, don't bother. No you are not comprehending. The sheepherdersngo home to England, The Argentinians prosper. The islands are only useful to the scope of their EEZ boundaries. I think Mexico is indeed taking TX back anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:52:33 AM EST
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
-snip- We all get that you don't like the Brits - that's up to you. Not true. Some like to pull the tail of the British lion but overall we like you all ..... except for the wankers. I like them except for royalty. Blegh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:53:03 AM EST
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
no. they would had sent them, and their sheep back home to Manchester, or Birmingham, or whatever. Oh dear, so you are now retracting the "oil sheik" comment you made earlier? You are Joe Biden and I claim my $5 You do realise that the Falklands Islands have been British since 1833? So the current residents were born there? Moving them out to move in a load of Argentinians in would be like kicking the US citizens out of Texas to give it back to Mexico. If you can't do any better than that, don't bother. More like kicking the Argies out of Buenos Aires and finding a few dozen Minuane people to give it to. Are there a few dozen to give it to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 6:59:07 AM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
Don't know if this has been posted yet: http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/max-hastings.jpg Acording to his book on the Falklands affair, he was attached to Royal Marine unit as a journalist, and at the end he was voluntold to take a stroll through Port Stanley in civilian dress to get a feel for things, as a surrender was looking likely. In his book he tells of leaving the position, walking a bit, then ditching his uniform and walking into the town while pretending to be a local, and of how he felt horribly exposed and as if everyone was looking at him. Not just the locals there, but he said every Argentine military type seemed to stare at him constantly the whole time he was in the town, and he got so panicked that he even tried waving at some of them, but they just kept staring at him. He then walked back out of sight of town and back towards the British positions, where he was met by the Major who he was attached to. At which point the Major kindly pointed out that he had neglected to remove his face paint when he donned civilian attire. Read his book - excellent read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:05:58 AM EST
[#15]
Quoted:
No you are not comprehending. Sure - that's what's going on here. The sheepherdersngo home to England, That's like half of the US going back to England and turning it over to the American Indians. The people who live in Falklands Islands are not from Mainland UK they were born in the Falklands Islands; hence them being Falkland Islanders The Argentinians prosper. Unlikely considering the tinpot socialist dimwit that is currently in charge. That money would be pissed away in no time - probably to fund similarly left wing fuckwits who I am sure are big fans of the US/UK The islands are only useful to the scope of their EEZ boundaries. The Islanders will benefit from the oil - isn't that better than Argentina? I think Mexico is indeed taking TX back anyways. Good luck with that - that's a worse idea than the Argies having another go at getting the Falklands back Please try harder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:07:49 AM EST
[#16]
       |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:07:52 AM EST
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No you are not comprehending. Sure - that's what's going on here. The sheepherdersngo home to England, That's like half of the US going back to England and turning it over to the American Indians. The people who live in Falklands Islands are not from Mainland UK they were born in the Falklands Islands; hence them being Falkland Islanders The Argentinians prosper. Unlikely considering the tinpot socialist dimwit that is currently in charge. That money would be pissed away in no time - probably to fund similarly left wing fuckwits who I am sure are big fans of the US/UK The islands are only useful to the scope of their EEZ boundaries. The Islanders will benefit from the oil - isn't that better than Argentina? I think Mexico is indeed taking TX back anyways. Good luck with that - that's a worse idea than the Argies having another go at getting the Falklands back Please try harder. I don't really care about the islanders. They are just pawns to both sides. Royal subjects, no? More like royal suckers. bP and shell wont drill there for 150 years. The islanders will not benefit for some time. Argentina, along with Brazilian interests would start drilling in half a decade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:15:58 AM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
I don't really care about the islanders. . First accurate thing you have typed in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:17:50 AM EST
[#20]
Here's a pro Argentine picture for Dan
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:21:22 AM EST
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:21:26 AM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
The sheepherdersngo home to England, That's like half of the US going back to England and turning it over to the American Indians. The people who live in Falklands Islands are not from Mainland UK they were born in the Falklands Islands; hence them being Falkland Islanders Well, on the plus side since he's in CT Dan will probably soon learn what it's like to have a hostile government take his stuff away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 7:22:15 AM EST
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:03:03 AM EST
[#24]
This is a great thread if Dan would shut the hell up and make his politcally motivated thread to discuss his point of spew!!!!!!!!!! STFU Dan
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:03:09 AM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Wow.
You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. I assume you are either trolling for fun, or you hit your head or something. Am I really? When did BP know about the oil resources around South Georgia? BP has nothing to do with Falklands oil exploration. Desire Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration made the first confirmed discoveries in 2010. Rockhopper says they will be starting production in 2016 so I dont know where you are getting your 150 years idea from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:11:27 AM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't really care about the islanders. . First accurate thing you have typed in this thread. Yes. That and advocating ethnic cleansing of the islanders. I can't believe the crap coming out in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:18:23 AM EST
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Don't know if this has been posted yet: http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/max-hastings.jpg Acording to his book on the Falklands affair, he was attached to Royal Marine unit as a journalist, and at the end he was voluntold to take a stroll through Port Stanley in civilian dress to get a feel for things, as a surrender was looking likely. In his book he tells of leaving the position, walking a bit, then ditching his uniform and walking into the town while pretending to be a local, and of how he felt horribly exposed and as if everyone was looking at him. Not just the locals there, but he said every Argentine military type seemed to stare at him constantly the whole time he was in the town, and he got so panicked that he even tried waving at some of them, but they just kept staring at him. He then walked back out of sight of town and back towards the British positions, where he was met by the Major who he was attached to. At which point the Major kindly pointed out that he had neglected to remove his face paint when he donned civilian attire. Read his book - excellent read. That's the only book I got on the Falklands war, great read. Learned what a "Bergan soldier" was.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:26:04 AM EST
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Obama wants to force the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. 2. The Gen. Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, an American cruiser that survived Pearl Harbor and WWII. Well let's see Argentina to Falkland Islands = 900+ miles, London Uk to Falkland Islands 7900+ miles. I don't know any of the history but that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Brilliant logic. I guess that you think that we should give Alaska to Russia or Canada then, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:29:07 AM EST
[#30]
Quoted:
Umm I don't care what anyones views are on the politics that started the war that is another thread . This thread was "Falklands War photos 1982" not "Politics behind the Falklands War of 1982" you know what? i'm sorry. its my fucking fault. I have shit attitude period and frankly when I see something mentioned on a board that I can't stand I like to throw out a "fuck _____" full in the blank. like: Fuck highpoint fuck german cars fuck diesels fuck argentina fuck north korea so i touched off the tarding of your thread. My appologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:52:27 AM EST
[#31]
To drag this thread back on course, here is a picture of Terry Peck. You wish you had balls as big as this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Peck Taken hostage by Argentine terrorists in the 60s, rescued a family who's house had burnt down on Christmas day, then became a spy after the invasion taking photos of the invasion forces with a camera hidden in a drain pipe. When he found out the invaders were coming for him he escaped on a motorbike and hid in a remote part of the islands for several days. After learning that the British task force had arrived he immediate set off to give them the information he had learned and became a guide for 3para, assisting them with scouting patrols and even helped carry a wounded soldier to safty during the battle of Mount Longdon. He was made a honorary member of the parachute regiment in gratitude. After the war be became friends with an Argentine former conscript. 
Typing out a summary really sounds like the plot of a bad action movie... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 8:57:19 AM EST
[#32]
Quoted: I don't really care about the islanders. They are just pawns to both sides. Royal subjects, no? More like royal suckers. bP and shell wont drill there for 150 years. The islanders will not benefit for some time. Argentina, along with Brazilian interests would start drilling in half a decade. Wrong. They are not Royal Subjects they are British Overseas Territories Citizens. They just held a referendum of the 3,000 Citizens and only 4 voted against remaining under British rule. (that's 4 people, not 4%). Their Government is a Legislative assembly with 10 members elected by the Citizens every 4 years. The first commercial oil discovery in the Falklands is expected to start producing oil in 2017, that's 4 years not 150, and is expected to bring $10.5 billion in tax revenue to the Falkland Islands (not the UK) over 25 years (about $4 million per islander). That field is currently being developed by Premier Oil PLC who have invested $1 billion and expect to spend another $2 billion before they start producing oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:30:00 AM EST
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? I don't have an agenda. I'm saying that the war was a lot closer than credited, and given a few more months of prep on Argentinas side and a few more months of decline on the UK's side, it would had been vastly different. I'm not arguing that Argentina should retake them. They cannot. The UK cares about as much about them as the Argentinian govt would. Place holding pawns for resources underground. Yay another shipment of tea and some BBC! I think just some better naval leadership and interservice coordination would have quite possibly made enough of a difference to change the course of events. If Admiral Lombardo's naval effort had been executed properly and succeeded, I think the British would have lost. Their campaign was hardly a sure thing. It is good for them that the Argentinian leadership was so poor. Their only saving grace today is that in many respects, including some rather important ones, the Argentinian military has declined considerably, and it is therefore not just the British that have declined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:32:12 AM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? I don't have an agenda. I'm saying that the war was a lot closer than credited, and given a few more months of prep on Argentinas side and a few more months of decline on the UK's side, it would had been vastly different. I'm not arguing that Argentina should retake them. They cannot. The UK cares about as much about them as the Argentinian govt would. Place holding pawns for resources underground. Yay another shipment of tea and some BBC! I think just some better naval leadership and interservice coordination would have quite possibly made enough of a difference to change the course of events. If Admiral Lombardo's naval effort had been executed properly and succeeded, I think the British would have lost. Their campaign was hardly a sure thing. It is good for them that the Argentinian leadership was so poor. Their only saving grace today is that in many respects, including some rather important ones, the Argentinian military has declined considerably, and it is therefore not just the British that have declined. It boils down to wind. If the Argies had more of it over the deck, they may have been able to launch an alpha strike against the RN carriers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:32:19 AM EST
[#36]
Ghurkas doing it how only Ghurkhas can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:36:58 AM EST
[#37]
All those FALs give me wood. 
There. I said it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:47:57 AM EST
[#38]
Dang, I'm always in after the arguments flair up. They're friggen' pictures people. Every time someone posts a military picture everyone goes at each other.
Also Lynx helos have always looked like sneaky ass SF type helicopters, and Chinooks are badass too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:58:09 AM EST
[#39]
Didn't the Brits do a Bayonet charge in this war? found some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 10:43:19 AM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't know if this has been posted yet: http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/max-hastings.jpg Acording to his book on the Falklands affair, he was attached to Royal Marine unit as a journalist, and at the end he was voluntold to take a stroll through Port Stanley in civilian dress to get a feel for things, as a surrender was looking likely. In his book he tells of leaving the position, walking a bit, then ditching his uniform and walking into the town while pretending to be a local, and of how he felt horribly exposed and as if everyone was looking at him. Not just the locals there, but he said every Argentine military type seemed to stare at him constantly the whole time he was in the town, and he got so panicked that he even tried waving at some of them, but they just kept staring at him. He then walked back out of sight of town and back towards the British positions, where he was met by the Major who he was attached to. At which point the Major kindly pointed out that he had neglected to remove his face paint when he donned civilian attire. Read his book - excellent read. That's the only book I got on the Falklands war, great read. Learned what a "Bergan soldier" was.
http://x6a.xanga.com/50be06ea23034274459575/m218791288.jpg What does the book say about the L1A1 pictured with what looks like a commercial scope? Was that a DM rifle used at squad level? I knew that the British Army used some scope equipped SLRs during that period. When I say scope equipped I don't mean the SUIT Trilux type optics but something like a Leupold. I'm thinking of setting up my L1A1 as kind of a DM rifle from that period. Thanks, EMSflyer |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 10:46:57 AM EST
[#41]
Anyone been to the Falklands?
I wonder how the fishing is? The pictures of the countryside remind me of Labrador and Iceland. Any trout? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 10:51:26 AM EST
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
fuck argentina! No. Fuck the UK. Fuck the Queen. And fuck the FSA colonizing Las Islas Malvinas. I'm serious. The UK never gave a shit about any of their other colonies no matter how they voted. Why were the Falklands different? It's because the sea around the islands is like the Gulf of Mexico. Tons of oil down there. Yeah...and? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:16:01 AM EST
[#43]
Quoted:
A couple of points... (and I am not going to quote everything and try and get the thread locked!) The UK was seriously considering turning over the Falklands to Argentina before the conflict. snip.... Not quite true, Matt. The Argentinians had been making noises and the UK's stance was that it was down to the Falkland Islanders. The implications and hypothetical scenarios for an Argentinian takeover, either hostile or by consent of the Islanders was considered at length. However, there was never any question of turning over the Falklands unless the Islanders wanted it to happen and even then the islands would be subject to a lease agreement or 100 years. I have seen the documents that set this out but I don't have the document to hand that delivered the diplomatic verdict to the Argentinean Ambassador.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:21:44 AM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well this went tarded.. Because I'm not suckling at the Queen's teets? Nope - because you came and crapped all over thread because it didn't fit with your agenda. We get that you don't like the UK or it's Monarchy, however instead or just saying this and leaving you have to labour the same tired argument. What do you think would have happened to the current residents of the Falkland Islands if Argentina would have won? Do you think their current regime care about them in the slightest? I don't have an agenda. I'm saying that the war was a lot closer than credited, and given a few more months of prep on Argentinas side and a few more months of decline on the UK's side, it would had been vastly different. I'm not arguing that Argentina should retake them. They cannot. The UK cares about as much about them as the Argentinian govt would. Place holding pawns for resources underground. Yay another shipment of tea and some BBC! I think just some better naval leadership and interservice coordination would have quite possibly made enough of a difference to change the course of events. If Admiral Lombardo's naval effort had been executed properly and succeeded, I think the British would have lost. Their campaign was hardly a sure thing. It is good for them that the Argentinian leadership was so poor. Their only saving grace today is that in many respects, including some rather important ones, the Argentinian military has declined considerably, and it is therefore not just the British that have declined. It boils down to wind. If the Argies had more of it over the deck, they may have been able to launch an alpha strike against the RN carriers. How good were the Argies at ASW? I'd think the Brit subs might have had something to say about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:28:19 AM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
How good were the Argies at ASW? I'd think the Brit subs might have had something to say about it. The Brit subs hadn't found the carrier task force at that time. The A-4s were sitting on the deck, loaded, ready to go. They just needed wind. The British submarines in the area had not found the Argentine carrier group but just after midnight on the 2nd, a Sea Harrier from HMS Invincible, flown by Flt Lt Ian Mortimer, an Air Warfare Instructor on detachment from the RAF, was ordered to undertake a radar patrol of the area to the east and north-east of the British Task Force. During this patrol Flt Lt Mortimer first encountered a Portuguese fishing fleet, lighting up the sea and destroying his night vision. As he turned north to avoid this problem, he found his aircraft being scanned by two Type 909 radars, usually associated with the Sea Dart missile system, and at a range of only 7 miles! As his radar reconnaissance tape later proved, he had found the enemy carrier group. The Harrier patrols were intensified in the area for the next couple of hours. An attack was expected by the British commanders soon after daybreak as the Skyhawk had limited night or all-weather capabilities. However, when dawn arrived there was not enough wind for the heavy Skyhawks to take off so the mission was cancelled and Admiral Lombardo turned back to await a better opportunity. http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/MovementsoftheArgentinianNavy.cfm |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:29:40 AM EST
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It boils down to wind. If the Argies had more of it over the deck, they may have been able to launch an alpha strike against the RN carriers. How good were the Argies at ASW? I'd think the Brit subs might have had something to say about it. Well, given that Conqueror was typically anywhere from 100-350 miles from the 25 De Mayo, I'm not sure they could have had a lot of effect. ETA: There was another RN sub in the region as well, but I don't think they ever got near to the carrier either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:31:11 AM EST
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It boils down to wind. If the Argies had more of it over the deck, they may have been able to launch an alpha strike against the RN carriers. How good were the Argies at ASW? I'd think the Brit subs might have had something to say about it. Well, given that Conqueror was typically anywhere from 100-350 miles from the 25 De Mayo, I'm not sure they could have had a lot of effect. IIRC there were three SSNs down there. The problem was the other two had not located the Argie CV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:33:34 AM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It boils down to wind. If the Argies had more of it over the deck, they may have been able to launch an alpha strike against the RN carriers. How good were the Argies at ASW? I'd think the Brit subs might have had something to say about it. Well, given that Conqueror was typically anywhere from 100-350 miles from the 25 De Mayo, I'm not sure they could have had a lot of effect. IIRC there were three SSNs down there. The problem was the other two had not located the Argie CV. I'm going off the net at the moment, as my books are safely at my house where I can't get at them due to road work, but I seem to recall only two SSNs, and a quick net search says it was Conqueror and Courageous. ETA: Further digging indicates you are right--HMS Spartan was the 3rd boat. As an aside, and again, I don't have my normal sources available, but wasn't part of the problem with the air strike the fact that someone insisted that the A-4s take off with max loads, when if they had reduced their bomb loads they could have lifted? I don't know if that is from Hastings' book or another source, but I seem to remember it (and I know they operated with lesser bomb loads when they operated from land bases after Belgrano was sunk.) ETA2: Looks like I was even wronger than I thought---there was another Swiftsure class down there, HMS Splendid, and an Oberon diesel boat, the Onyx, was used in SAS/SBS insertions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:51:12 AM EST
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A couple of points... (and I am not going to quote everything and try and get the thread locked!) The UK was seriously considering turning over the Falklands to Argentina before the conflict. snip.... Not quite true, Matt. The Argentinians had been making noises and the UK's stance was that it was down to the Falkland Islanders. The implications and hypothetical scenarios for an Argentinian takeover, either hostile or by consent of the Islanders was considered at length. However, there was never any question of turning over the Falklands unless the Islanders wanted it to happen and even then the islands would be subject to a lease agreement or 100 years. I have seen the documents that set this out but I don't have the document to hand that delivered the diplomatic verdict to the Argentinean Ambassador.
Fair enough - however the Falkland Islanders were concerned enough to make the trip to London. Love the new sig line - when I saw it on tv I nearly choked on my dinner with laughter! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2013 11:54:41 AM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How good were the Argies at ASW? I'd think the Brit subs might have had something to say about it. The Brit subs hadn't found the carrier task force at that time. The A-4s were sitting on the deck, loaded, ready to go. They just needed wind. The British submarines in the area had not found the Argentine carrier group but just after midnight on the 2nd, a Sea Harrier from HMS Invincible, flown by Flt Lt Ian Mortimer, an Air Warfare Instructor on detachment from the RAF, was ordered to undertake a radar patrol of the area to the east and north-east of the British Task Force. During this patrol Flt Lt Mortimer first encountered a Portuguese fishing fleet, lighting up the sea and destroying his night vision. As he turned north to avoid this problem, he found his aircraft being scanned by two Type 909 radars, usually associated with the Sea Dart missile system, and at a range of only 7 miles! As his radar reconnaissance tape later proved, he had found the enemy carrier group. The Harrier patrols were intensified in the area for the next couple of hours. An attack was expected by the British commanders soon after daybreak as the Skyhawk had limited night or all-weather capabilities. However, when dawn arrived there was not enough wind for the heavy Skyhawks to take off so the mission was cancelled and Admiral Lombardo turned back to await a better opportunity. http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/MovementsoftheArgentinianNavy.cfm Good info - thanks! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
