Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

He also says that there were 3 main Argentine mistakes, one they thought the landings were going to be in the south as this Argentine newspaper from 1982 depicts

I am not commenting on the rest as a good chunk is propaganda, But I will comment on this part.
Why did the Argentines expect the land invasion from the south?
The Answer is, that is where they landed.
The Argentine Marines modeled themselves as a mini version of the USMC as such they used the AAV7, The Same AAV7 as the USMC
As well as LARC-Vs for cargo.
the route from the south was nice and clear allowing such vehicles an easy road in.
The Royal Marine Commando though lack Amphibious armor, Again they place the Emphasis on Commando They don't have anything like the AAV7A1
They landed with LCU Mk 9
and LCVP Mk2 (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

and Landing ships of the Round table class

These ships beached themselves and opened there bow for equipment and troops to be rolled ashore.
the British Ground forces were supposed to be Choppered to Stanley but the Sinking of the Conveyor meant the choppers were gone. They Foot marched across the island against Argentine forces.
Landing at San Carlos Bay would have been nearly impossible for the Argentines as they would have needed to Climb over the hard terrain of a mountain range with armored vehicles. The Brits by being lighter could do it but not with out a hard slog. That's also why this was a light infantry war on the ground.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Oh and before any one chimes in and asks, the British could easily buy AAV7A1's from the US, Or even build them themselves as BAE bought out the original builder ( And Just did the Survivability Upgrade for the USMC). The MOD simply does not see it as a need for their forces.

 

[FORBIN]

The Argentine 1000lb bombs were the same as ours, because they bought them from us! Cheeky sods were dropping our bombs on us!

The Sea harrier CAP was strained at times because of the need to keep the carriers out of range of the Argentine aircraft, meaning the SHARs had long transit times to the CAP station and reduced time on-station, sometimes as little as ten minutes. Being able to refuel at 'Syds Strip at San Carlos Bay helped a lot but wasn't available until the last stages of the war. Two SHAR's on CAP did refuel on the LPDs Fearless and Intrepid at least once to extend their patrol time. Taking off vertically reduced the payload but as they were only carrying a couple of Sidewinders and drop tanks each, the exercise was worthwhile. When launching from Syd's strip, rolling short takeoffs could be employed.View attachment 35764 View attachment 35765 Above: Sea Harrier taxiing on Syd's Strip and Sea harrier landing on HMS Intrepid in San Carlos Water.

And if we look for F-35B even if he is clearly more capable, stealth, radar range, range etc...all the problem wih him can Taking off vertically only without ext loads and with engines heat problems* for deck can be used only with some ships there are limitations.

The second generation of Harrier/Sea harriers was a true improvement especially Sea Harrriers FRS 2 with a decent radar and 4 AIM-120 want or close a F-16 retired after 13 years !!!

For some reasons do about 30 t heavy fighter need very powerful engine but to full weight can' t Taking off vertically and very sophisticated surely less deployable than a more rustic Harrrier or Sea Harrier.

 

[FORBIN]

I am not commenting on the rest as a good chunk is propaganda, But I will comment on this part.
Why did the Argentines expect the land invasion from the south?
The Answer is, that is where they landed.
The Argentine Marines modeled themselves as a mini version of the USMC as such they used the AAV7, The Same AAV7 as the USMCView attachment 35785
As well as LARC-Vs for cargo. View attachment 35786
the route from the south was nice and clear allowing such vehicles an easy road in.
The Royal Marine Commando though lack Amphibious armor, Again they place the Emphasis on Commando They don't have anything like the AAV7A1
They landed with LCU Mk 9View attachment 35790
and LCVP Mk2 (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
View attachment 35788
and Landing ships of the Round table class
View attachment 35787
These ships beached themselves and opened there bow for equipment and troops to be rolled ashore.
the British Ground forces were supposed to be Choppered to Stanley but the Sinking of the Conveyor meant the choppers were gone. They Foot marched across the island against Argentine forces.
Landing at San Carlos Bay would have been nearly impossible for the Argentines as they would have needed to Climb over the hard terrain of a mountain range with armored vehicles. The Brits by being lighter could do it but not with out a hard slog. That's also why this was a light infantry war on the ground.

And Fearless class LPDs the main AA ships for transport 3th RM Cdos Bde and rattached to RN, Round Table to RFA, Royal Flet Auxiliary same organisation now with Albion and Bay classes.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Oh and before any one chimes in and asks, the British could easily buy AAV7A1's from the US, Or even build them themselves as BAE bought out the original builder ( And Just did the Survivability Upgrade for the USMC). The MOD simply does not see it as a need for their forces.

This is the reason why despite constant calls from the sidelines for the RN to buy LHDs instead we have stuck with the LPD/LPH combination for fifty years.

First wave is light infantry landed by helicopter from the LPH to secure the beach head (with supplementary support from the LCVPs from the LPH if necessary.

Second wave will be more troops and armour/ support vehicles landed by the LCUs from the LPDs. More support provided from the LSDs.

An LHD or any ship with a well deck can only use that deck when stationary as it has to be flooded down using ballast tanks aft. That takes an hour or more to so during which time the ship is a big sitting target. RN practice has always been to keep the ships on the move as long as possible for their own defence. Once the beach head has been secured (by 900+ Commandos from the LPH) only then are the LPDs and LSDs brought in to offload the heavy equipment. The QECs will have to double up as LPHs for the next decade or two but some people seem to think this means they will drop anchor within spitting distance of the enemy shore.

No.

They will be sailing at a speed that makes submarine interception difficult between 50-100 miles off shore when they launch the helos and they will be surrounded by all the escorts of a CVBG for defence. Once the Beach head is secured the other amphibs will move in to offload, but the carriers will remain at a safe distance for their own protection... just like in the Falklands.

 

[b787]

I am not commenting on the rest as a good chunk is propaganda, But I will comment on this part.

What is propaganda and why you can not comment?
To answer this we have to ask ourselves

Did Argentina or England accept the same loses?
The answer is not.
This news paper from 1982 claims England lost 6 Ships?
Ask yourself how many ships did England lost?

well pretty much that number but see they say 28 Harriers, in another part of the newspaper they say the CG-86 Iguazu downed a Harrier

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why is important to see the news papers? answer simple, you can see the Argentine Armed forces did not claim the loses England accepted.


If you say England lost only 5 Harriers in combat, you are not neutral, basically you are accepting their claims.

As a Historian you need to consider that both sides very likely exaggerated and lied,
this newspaper says when landing they lost 3 aircraft and 5 Helicopters

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do not think Argentina is totally honest too, but i do not believe England is more reliable, in my opinion, England covered loses with accidents and very likely lost more than 10 Harriers in combat, if you believe as a dogma and personal mantra the British version you are welcomed, but a true historian knows humans lie, and both sides were humans


Here a writer of a Magazine in Spanish says the Harrier is not that good, consider you are mostly a English speaker you do not read what is written in other languages

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

.... And that is Why I did not want to comment. A battle of Newspapers. is a battle of propaganda.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

This is the reason why despite constant calls from the sidelines for the RN to buy LHDs instead we have stuck with the LPD/LPH combination for fifty years.

First wave is light infantry landed by helicopter from the LPH to secure the beach head (with supplementary support from the LCVPs from the LPH if necessary.

Second wave will be more troops and armour/ support vehicles landed by the LCUs from the LPDs. More support provided from the LSDs.

And that is Doctrine. The British MOD Doctrine is the second wave brings in the Warriors, Challenger II's, future Ajax And artillery.

USMC doctrine says why wait for the armor bring the troops in Armor and land it on the Beachhead Hence the AAV7A1 and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle programs. However limitations of weight and technology mean that MBT's are still a pain in the Arse to land. And Changes in technology as well as new threats mean that The Amphibious forces are less the front line And light infantry in Aircraft like the V22 are the first wave.

 

[b787]

.... And that is Why I did not want to comment. A battle of Newspapers. is a battle of propaganda.

the British version is based upon what they wrote in the newspapers, the version you use which favors the English version as the good one does not change much from what it was written in the newspapers in 1982

For example in this newspaper of 12 April 1982, they say England will try to nullify the 25 de Mayo Aircraft carrier with the superior nuclear submarines.The quote even Elm Zurwalt, an american military ex official in 1982, that said the Skyhawk has longer range than the Harrier.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is not that reason the reason is you know the British version is and was from the start different to the one in Argentina have, even today their versions do not match.

As such 5 Harriers lost versus 28 pretty much both are different versions of the same event, both had political needs, and Thatcher needed political ammunition and loses never sell aircraft

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

By the 1980s only the Americans were selling Harriers. The only overseas customer for the Sea Harrier was the Indian Navy, and they'd already ordered theirs. In fact there were suggestions in the UK Parliament that the Indian order for Sea harriers should be usurped in order to make good RN losses. This was not done and India received all the aircraft they ordered. Further orders were placed for the RN after the war.

The RN used a total of 28 Sea Harriers in the Falklands of a total of 34 that had been ordered and delivered. Argentine claims say 28 were shot down, yet when the Carriers returned to the UK they still had Sea harriers on deck? Hermes sailed into Pompey with six Sea Harriers on deck. 10 more had returned to the UK with her but they were flown off to Yeovilton for two days leave before embarking on HMS Illustrious for the return voyage to the South Atlantic to relieve HMS Invincible, which had at least another sqns worth aboard to maintain air cover over the islands. Your newspapers claim 28 were shot down, clearly they were not. QED.
Above: Hermes returns to Portsmouth with 6 Sea Harriers from 800 NAS on deck.
Middle: Illustrious (foreground) relieves Invincible east of the Falklands august 82. 801NAS aboard Invincible, 809NAS aboard Illustrious.
Lower: Invincible returns to Portsmouth with six Sea Harriers from 801NAS aboard.
Oh that's right, according to Argentine Newspapers at the time Hermes had been sunk twice and Invincible had been sunk on the 30th May? This must be the 'replacement built in six weeks by the Americans. They must have built all the extra Sea Harriers for us too...
They must have built a replacement for the Liner SS Canberra which was also claimed sunk. Twice! After the war she was used to repatriate several thousand Argentine soldiers to the mainland, but was initially refused entry by the Junta because... they insisted she was sunk! Slightly embarrassing to have a sunk ship turn up for all to see without a scratch on her...

And you wonder why Argentine Newspapers and other press reports from the time are not given credence by anyone outside of Argentina?

Emotion is not Evidence. During WW2 the Germans constantly made unsubstantiated claims about our losses against theirs. In the movie 'The Battle of Britain' the head of RAF Fighter Command Trenchard is seen being questioned by a Government minister on the discrepancy between the figures we released verses those the Germans claimed, as the American Press weren't sure who to believe. He simply answered "If we're right they'' give up. If they are right they'll be in Whitehall in a week." The Germans gave up. They also claimed the Ark Royal as sunk at least eight times before they actually got her. The Argentine press coverage of the War pretty obviously followed the German pattern, and is held in similar regard today.

I'm not saying the Argentine Air Force didn't shoot down 28 aircraft, it's just... they weren't ours! We counted them all out, and we counted them all back! Minus the six we lost of course!