Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The criminality of the sinking of the Belgrano was even recognized by the British, who accepted that the decision to torpedo it was more linked to a political issue than a military necessity, since the cruise did not represent any type of danger.

The former British prime minister would have ordered the collapse to hinder peace negotiations, as the Argentine military junta seriously analyzed the acceptance of the proposal of the then Peruvian president Fernando Belaunde Terry.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I am sorry B787, She was a Warship not a Cruise ship or a hospital ship or a Fishing Trawler. She was in a Combat zone with other military. She was by the Rules of warFare fair game.

 

[Jeff Head]

Any way the first shot of the war was a murder treacherous act called the sinking of Belgrano

You need to read up on the war and the dates things happened, b787. You are flat wrong.

The two nations were fghting a war that the Argentines initially started by landing on the islands and taking them.

When they would not remove themselves, England made it clear that they would fight to take those islands back.

The Argentine cruiser, if it could get to the islands...or near the task force, could have dne great damage.

England was not going to allow that. so, it was sunk on May 2nd by a British submarine.

However, that was NOT the first act of war fighting.

That happened the day before, on May 1st when the mounted a major Argentine air strike of A-4 Skyhawks, IAI Daggers, English Electric Canberras, and Mirage III escorts who flew out on May 1st to attack ships they believed were already at the islands.

A section of Grupo 6 (flying IAI Dagger aircraft) found English ships, which were firing at Argentine defences and the Daggers managed to attack the ships and return safely. Again, that was May 1st, the day before the crusier was sunk.

As I stated, the the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank General Belgrano on May 2nd..

So it was not the first fighting, or major attacking. The Argentines did that the day before.

In addition, it was a mjor Argentine combatant that could have posed significant risk...and since the Argentines had already attacked English ships off of the islands, they responded by sinking that cruiser. Such are the fates of war.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

What do you think this Panel of Argentine historians say

population of the Falklands is overwhelmingly of British, Scottish, Welsh descent. B787. During the Original war Argentines posted there felt out of place, the culture of the Islands is British.
The population of the Islands is overwhelmingly descendants of the UK not Argentina.
and in March 2013 in the last Referendum the Islands voted 99.8% to stay with the UK.
As to military base? really? as of 2012 the manpower of the UK stationed in the Falklands was 1,350
The RN only really has the HMS Clyde on station a single Corvette, with patrols of SSN and SSBN ships from time to time. Army forces are light infantry with Air defence emplacements. And last but not least a Flight of 4 Eurofighter Typhoons, a Voyager tanker and a C130. From a military standpoint that is more than the Argentines can rally these days but hardly a threat to Brazil.

 

[b787]

population of the Falklands is overwhelmingly of British, Scottish, Welsh descent. B787. During the Original war Argentines posted there felt out of place, the culture of the Islands is British.
The population of the Islands is overwhelmingly descendants of the UK not Argentina.
and in March 2013 in the last Referendum the Islands voted 99.8% to stay with the UK.
As to military base? really? as of 2012 the manpower of the UK stationed in the Falklands was 1,350
The RN only really has the HMS Clyde on station a single Corvette, with patrols of SSN and SSBN ships from time to time. Army forces are light infantry with Air defence emplacements. And last but not least a Flight of 4 Eurofighter Typhoons, a Voyager tanker and a C130. From a military standpoint that is more than the Argentines can rally these days but hardly a threat to Brazil.

yes the farse of the population that population is not native it came after 1833

 

[b787]

You need to read up on the war and the dates things happened, b787. You are flat wrong.

The two nations were fghting a war that the Argentines initially started by landing on the islands and taking them.

When they would not remove themselves, England made it clear that they would fight to take those islands back.

The Argentine cruiser, if it could get to the islands...or near the task force, could have dne great damage.

England was not going to allow that. so, it was sunk on May 2nd by a British submarine.

However, that was NOT the first act of war fighting.

That happened the day before, on May 1st when the mounted a major Argentine air strike of A-4 Skyhawks, IAI Daggers, English Electric Canberras, and Mirage III escorts who flew out on May 1st to attack ships they believed were already at the islands.

A section of Grupo 6 (flying IAI Dagger aircraft) found English ships, which were firing at Argentine defences and the Daggers managed to attack the ships and return safely. Again, that was May 1st, the day before the crusier was sunk.

As I stated, the the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank General Belgrano on May 2nd..

So it was not the first fighting, or major attacking. The Argentines did that the day before.

In addition, it was a mjor Argentine combatant that could have posed significant risk...and since the Argentines had already attacked English ships off of the islands, they responded by sinking that cruiser. Such are the fates of war.

The vessel had entered the British 200-mile exclusion zone around the islands on May 1, but left the next day and was sailing away when it was hit, said Mr Volpe, a naval artilleryman.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

where was the threat to the British fleet?

The Oxford Manual noted in 1913, the prohibition of
Kill or hurt by treason to enemy individuals. What appears in this
Point is that, to the illegality of the attack are added factors that make it possible
And also prevent their effects from being minimized.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ON MEANS OF INJURING THE ENEMY

Art. 14. Principle. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.


Art. 15. Treacherous and barbarous methods. Ruses of war are considered permissible. Methods, however, which involve treachery are forbidden.
Thus it is forbidden:
(1) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the opposite side;
(2) To make improper use of a flag of truce, to make use of false flags, uniforms, or insignia, of whatever kind, especially those of the enemy, as well as of the distinctive badges of the medical corps indicated in Articles 41 and 42.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course the British forget their own manuals when it is convenient

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

yes the farse of the population that population is not native it came after 1833

So did most of the population of the United States, Canada and the German heritage of Argentina.

 

[b787]

So did most of the population of the United States, Canada and the German heritage of Argentina.

equation might give you a like, but the united nations do not

Speaking before the action, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship said the dispute dated back to the United Kingdom’s 1833 occupation of the Malvinas Islands, when that country had illegally expelled the Territory’s authorities and population, implanted its own settlers and taken control of migration policies. “Not all decolonization cases are solved by applying the principle of self-determination,” she emphasized, noting that there was an underlying sovereignty dispute to be resolved by Argentina and the United Kingdom.

Taking a different view, Alejandro Betts, a fourth-generation resident of the Territory, said Argentina’s sovereignty rights were based on a historical title preceding the British colonization.


Ecuador’s representative said the right of self-determination did not apply to the Malvinas question because the Territory’s population had been transplanted by the colonial Power.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He said that the native island population had been forcibly removed, with no chance for return, and replaced by subjects of the occupying Power. The fundamental principle of international self-determination must not be used to transform an illegitimate possession into full sovereignty. General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 confirmed that the right to self-determination was not applicable to the islanders since they were a British population transplanted with the intention of setting up a colony. That population had never been subjugated to a colonial Power as required by resolution 1514.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you do not understand what really the United nations say

 

[FORBIN]

One has to be careful about the numbers aboard the ships, as they fluctuated during the course of the conflict. Hermes sailed with 12 Sea Harriers, Invincible with 8. During the war total losses were six aircraft, to ground fire or accidents, none in air to air engagements. 8 additional Sea Harriers arrived in May, split 4 to each carrier. Also the 10 GR3s arrived and all went to Hermes. 3 GR3s were lost in combat due to ground fire

Yes i add :

Yet Sea Harrier Fleet :

In 1982 the Royal Navy's (R.N.) F.A.A. had 2 frontline Sea Harrier F.R.S.1 Squadrons,800 Naval Air Squadron (N.A.S.) and 801 N.A.S. with 5 Sea Harrier F.R.S.1s each and a training squadron,899 N.A.S.,with further aircraft.

The total

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,reduced to 33 in 1980 when a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

after hitting the ski jump on Her Majesty's Ship (H.M.S.) Invincible.

Of these 33 aircraft,2 may still have been under construction during the Falklands War,giving an actual fleet of just 31 Sea Harriers,including trials aircraft.

Of these 31 Sea Harriers,28 saw action in the Falklands War,an astonishing 90% of the fleet.

This is one of the finest examples of force generation in the history of air warfare

Atlantic Conveyor arrived with CVBG the 18/05 with 8 Sea Harriers and 6 Harriers almost all fighters in Rfts arrive later 4 Harriers

- Invincible
Left UK yet 8 Sea Harriers + 4 in Rfts 18/05 total 12
after losses...

- Hermes
Left UK with 12 Sea Harriers + 4 in Rfts 18/05 so 16
in more receive 6 Harriers GR 3 18-20/05
So 16 Sea Harriers + 6 Harriers GR 3 : 22

After for Harriers GR 3 three lost but 4 new received in 2 waves 1st and 8 june

Numbers have increase from 20 to 34 fighters just for landing to San Carlos 21/05 at the right time for UK..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

CV 25 de Mayo

Can't launch A-4 the 02/05 i suspect for two reasons linked her low spped 15/20 kn i find with low winds which don't help.
She coul have a CAW of max 20 aicrafts : 11 A-4, 4-5 S-2 + 3-4 helos
Also a problem 2 elevators in the middle in the deck not convenient
Her steam cat do 44 m long
3200 t fuel in more 450 t for aviation

An excellent article here

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

also

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

CV 25 de Mayo

Can't launch A-4 the 02/05 i suspect for two reasons linked her low spped 15/20 kn i find with low winds which don't help.
She coul have a CAW of max 20 aicrafts : 11 A-4, 4-5 S-2 + 3-4 helos
Also a problem 2 elevators in the middle in the deck not convenient
Her steam cat do 44 m long
3200 t fuel in more 450 t for aviation

An excellent article here

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

also

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Her Steam Catapult was discovered in 1981 to be in need of a major overhaul. The ship had just come out of a big refit to prepare her for the embarkation of Super Etendards which Argentina was buying to replace her Skyhawks. Although the trials were successful, it was discovered the catapult, which had been installed by the Dutch Navy back in 1958, was showing signs of wear and couldn't operate at full power reliably.

The catapult was a 145ft BS4A, the longest fitted to a former RN 'light fleet' (most other such ships had the 103ft BS4 cat, whilst Brazil's Minas Gerais received a McTaggart Scott C1, which was just a commercial designation for the BS4 as it wasn't sold through the UK Government!), essentially the same as fitted to Victorious (two at the bow) 1958-67, Hermes (one to port) 1964-70 and Ark Royal (two at the bow) 1955-67, starboard one removed and port one lengthened to 151ft during her Phantomisation refit. On those RN ships the cat had no problem launching Buccaneers and Sea Vixens, much larger and heavier than the Super Etendard, but it had been in service a very long time (24 years by 1982) and needed some major components replacing. These were ordered from the original manufacturer, and at the start of the war in April were almost ready for delivery, but had not left the UK yet. And never did because of the embargo imposed.

Post War the Argentine Navy had plans to overhaul the carrier, including replacing her worn out Boilers and Steam Turbines with commercially available Diesel engines (presumably a small steam plant would have been retained/replaced to provide steam for the catapult, but funds were never available and the ship was reduced to reserve in the late 80s, finally being scrapped in India in 1999.