Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[PanAsian]

We had a lot of discussion about the Falkland War on another thread and so I went back to the old deleted threads and copied some posts to merge into this thread.

We have tried this before. We have had to close and delete the thread every time.

We will try again now...and I will closely moderate it.

NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES ALLOWED ABOUT THE CLAIMS BY INDICVIDUALS OF THE ARGEMNTINES HITTING THE INVIBCIBLE OR OTHE CARRIER. IT SIMPLY DOID NOT HAPPEN AN WILL NOT BE ALLOWED HERE.

Also, no chest thumping or emotional statements from either side. Discuss the facts.

It is an important occurrence because it was the first modern war where, at sea, anti-shipping missiles were used in a large conflict and had to target and get through vessels built (at the time) for anti-air defense with anti-air missile defenses.

It was also a conflict involving a large naval task force having to travel thousands of miles into the waters of the opposition to take an island back by amphibious and air assault.

Some very hard lessons were learned.

What was learned from the conflict has reverberated down through the decades.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATOR MESSAGE.

Carry on.



--------------------------------------------- Start of Thread ---------------------------------------

I don't know much about the Falklands War but this thread inspired me to do some reading. For those of you more knowledgable, I have a few questions based on this article and others' posts:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1. What is with the Argentine air defense? Sounds like they caused a lot of friendly casualties. Was there no IFF at the time? Or is poor co-ordination primarily to blame?

2. Were the Argentine Skyhawks pure attack aircraft with zero air-to-air capabilities or defensive countermeasures? Seems they were easy pickings every time they encountered Harriers or British SAMs.

3. Were the Argentine command too conservative and that's why they lost the war? I understand Chile was threatening a separate war against Argentina at the time and that may have contributed to the Argentine conservatism. By conservatism I mean not pressing more aggressive attacks.

4. Can it be counted as incompetence on the part of the Argentine air forces in terms of not realizing their munitions didn't work with their tactics? Or was it a calculated move on their part as they had no better option?[/COLOR][/B]

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

5 points that resulted in the Argentinian defeat as identified by the Ministry of defence

First, the Argentina plan was to invade the islands not in April but October/November 1982, this would have allowed them to build a airbase on the Falklands giving them much more "residence" time in the air, infact this would change the entire dynamics of the war

Two, reason they prematurely invaded was because Argentina Junta thought HMS Sparten a nuclear powered submarine was sailing for the islands in March of 1982, Argentina TV station somehow mangaed to get a hold of a false story, when infact it was no where near, infact it wasn't even in the Atlantic it was in the Mediterranean, therefore the invasion plans were brought forward 6 months

Three, Best Argentinian divisions were sent to face Chile incase of a counter invasion

Four, They never had enough Exocets

Five, if they correctly set the right time delay on the bomb fuses

In many ways all of the points lead back to point one, if they had invaded 6 months later rest of the points would take care of themselves, also Royal Navy was about to sell HMS Ark Royal to Austrialia with a load of other ships to be decommissioned by the end of 1982, had Argentina stuck to the original plans of the invasion in late 1982 things would have been very different

OMG I wasnt even born when this war took place but it's such a exciting piece of conflict

 

[bd popeye]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

OMG I wasnt even born when this war took place but it's such a exciting piece of conflict

I was 29 All my body parts worked without the aid of pharmaceuticals.....I remember watching nightly news reports on CNN about the war. the USN took a great, great interest in the Falklands campaign.

The US did aid the British by re-fueling RAF aircraft with KC-135 tankers.

 

[plawolf]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

I was 29 All my body parts worked without the aid of pharmaceuticals.....I remember watching nightly news reports on CNN about the war. the USN took a great, great interest in the Falklands campaign.

The US did aid the British by re-fueling RAF aircraft with KC-135 tankers.

The US also supplied the all aspect AIM9L, which made a massive difference as RN oilots could lock-on to Argentine aircraft from almost any angle, while Argentine missiles could only lock on to the tailpipe of yhe Harriers, amd I believe is one of the main reasons for the Harrier's unexpectedly good showing during the war.

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

I was 29 All my body parts worked without the aid of pharmaceuticals.....

.

OMG too funny!!

the first war i recalling watching was the first Gulf War in 1991, as a kid i remember seeing a green TV screen with tracer fire lighting up the sky, i also remember USN firing those Tomahawks off the big ships, they used to show them on the news on TV at 9pm headlines, but its only very vague i recal that war

 

[steve_rolfe]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

5 points that resulted in the Argentinian defeat as identified by the Ministry of defence

First, the Argentina plan was to invade the islands not in April but October/November 1982, this would have allowed them to build a airbase on the Falklands giving them much more "residence" time in the air, infact this would change the entire dynamics of the war

Two, reason they prematurely invaded was because Argentina Junta thought HMS Sparten a nuclear powered submarine was sailing for the islands in March of 1982, Argentina TV station somehow mangaed to get a hold of a false story, when infact it was no where near, infact it wasn't even in the Atlantic it was in the Mediterranean, therefore the invasion plans were brought forward 6 months

Three, Best Argentinian divisions were sent to face Chile incase of a counter invasion

Four, They never had enough Exocets

Five, if they correctly set the right time delay on the bomb fuses

In many ways all of the points lead back to point one, if they had invaded 6 months later rest of the points would take care of themselves, also Royal Navy was about to sell HMS Ark Royal to Austrialia with a load of other ships to be decommissioned by the end of 1982, had Argentina stuck to the original plans of the invasion in late 1982 things would have been very different

OMG I wasnt even born when this war took place but it's such a exciting piece of conflict

Your points are correct.....but remember the British forces were on enemy grounds, and basically sitting ducks for the Argentinian airforce.

At that time, during the war, i was working at an Electronics defence company in England, and the shop floor were working 7 days a week making munitions.
I also remember, people used to tune into the radio broadcasts during the day, to see how many airplanes our forces had shot down.
Yes, the RN suffered heavy damage, but remember at the end of the conflict, virtually the entire Argentinian airforce had been wiped out............and we won the war in a few weeks!

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

The US also supplied the all aspect AIM9L, which made a massive difference as RN oilots could lock-on to Argentine aircraft from almost any angle, while Argentine missiles could only lock on to the tailpipe of yhe Harriers, amd I believe is one of the main reasons for the Harrier's unexpectedly good showing during the war.

The US did allow the RN to draw in NATO stocks of AIM-9Ls for the SHAR sqns, but in combat the all aspect capability was not required as FAA pilots were trained to engage the enemy in a stern chase and that is how all the successful engagements happened in 82. If the RN had only gone to war with the existing stocks of AIM-9Gs, the result would probably have been the same as the engagements were all well within the '9Gs envelope. More important than the '9Ls all aspect capability though was it's much greater reliability rate, which probably made a greater difference than having 9Gs.

As to the Argentines claim of having the islands back in 20 years... well they said much the same 20 years ago, and probably 20 years before that. Dream on. All their 'anti British Colonialism' rhetoric really should be countered by the fact that what the Argentines themselves are currently spouting what amounts to 'Argentine Colonialism' and indeed verging on 'ethnic cleansing' as they seem to want to remove all the existing islanders (most of whom are 9th generation inhabitants) from the Falklands and start settling their own colonists. They really are living in cloud cuckoo land if they actually believe there is any chance of this happening.

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

true said Obi Wan, overall i think Harrier pilots were much better trained than their Argentinian counterparts, although the Mirage F1 was a pretty fantasic jet back in the days

Argentina tried and they had a go and they did not do that bad at the end of the day, but the better side one

today Argentina has no hope of getting the islands back, with the Royal Navy deploying DDGs like the Type 45 they would not stand a chance, we still have a formidable sub-surface force with new Astute Class coming alone, new SSBN in design phase and Queen Elizebeth Carriers putting the "Royal" back into the Royal Navy

after many decades UK will have not one but two carrier strike groups within a decade and they will be able to deploy both at the same time because now the USN is teaching RN on the "surge" doctrine, which enables navys to send to sea ships on short notice

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

Good points Obi, HMS Sheffield had 2 air launched Exocets fired at it, one of which hit

and Atlantic Conveyor was hit by 2 air launched Exocets

HMS Glamorgan is slightly complicated, the land battery was quickly put together and the first Exocet missed, a second launch was sucessful and the missile headed straight for the ship, however HMS Glamorgan already on guard after the first miss launched a sea dart which forced the incoming Exocet to climb changing its trajectory and as a result over shot the ship, on the 3rd launch the Exocet found its target but the capatin took evasive manouver and managed to minimize the damage saving the day

even before the war started MoD was very nervious about these French built missiles, and like you said undercover operation was started to stop Argentina buying up any more from the Black Market, including Saddam who had stockpiles of Exocets

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: The Falklands War..1982

They were afraid of the same result as what occurred to the vintage light cruiser, the General Belgrano.

Early in the war, the carrier was operating at sea with its escorts...and was prepared to try and come to grips with the British task force.

But, on May 2, after the British HMS Conqueror, Churchill Class SSN, sank that Argentine vessel with over three hundred of her crew being killed, the Argentine carrier group, including the escorting destroyers and the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo all withdrew back to port and stayed there for the duration of the fight.

Otherwise, if they had been able to get past the Brit subs, there may have been a carrier confrontation in 1982.

i know, and in a way i was hoping HMS Conqueror did not attack the Belgrano, because then it would have been the first carrier vs carrier action since WWII