Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)
Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)
^ Ignore the 'Claimed By' bit. They lost.
^ Port Stanley, Falkland Islands
^ RAF Mount Pleasant
Re: Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)
A 58 minute long BBC documentary of the 1982 conflict, presented and narrated by Peter Snow and his son, Dan Snow. Made in 2007.
'The Falklands Play', a 92 minute long BBC political play. Made in 2002
A dramatisation of the political events before and during the conflict.
'The Falklands Play', a 92 minute long BBC political play. Made in 2002
A dramatisation of the political events before and during the conflict.
Re: The Falkland Islands
'Operation Black Buck' - the mission which sent a squadron of RAF Vulcan bombers from the UK to bomb the runway at Port Stanley.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1756
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:07
Re: The Falkland Islands
I watched this for the first time back in 2007 when it aired on the Military Channel. Highly illuminating as I never even heard of the conflict. Great program.SKB wrote:A 58 minute long BBC documentary of the 1982 conflict, presented and narrated by Peter Snow and his son, Dan Snow. Made in 2007.
-
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:07
Re: The Falkland Islands
Btw wasn't the Dutch Marines attached to the RM at the time. why did they not deploy with them to the Falklands?
Re: The Falkland Islands
IIRC, they were disappointed that they didn't, but the Falklands wasn't a NATO deployment.QuaPatetOrbis wrote:Btw wasn't the Dutch Marines attached to the RM at the time. why did they not deploy with them to the Falklands?
-
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:07
Re: The Falkland Islands
do you have a link? So was their amphibious force strictly only for NATO purposes?Pseudo wrote:IIRC, they were disappointed that they didn't, but the Falklands wasn't a NATO deployment.QuaPatetOrbis wrote:Btw wasn't the Dutch Marines attached to the RM at the time. why did they not deploy with them to the Falklands?
- Happyslapper
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 18:12
Re: The Falkland Islands
They just weren't at war with Argentina; not their dog in the fight. New Zealand also considered sending warships as part of the task force, and several senior US politicians (Caspar Weinberger in particular) were keen to militarily support the UK.QuaPatetOrbis wrote:do you have a link? So was their amphibious force strictly only for NATO purposes?Pseudo wrote:IIRC, they were disappointed that they didn't, but the Falklands wasn't a NATO deployment.QuaPatetOrbis wrote:Btw wasn't the Dutch Marines attached to the RM at the time. why did they not deploy with them to the Falklands?
It is upon the Navy under the good Providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend
Re: The Falkland Islands
We did. Just not so you noticed. Trying to appear like the honest broker and all that.Happyslapper wrote:They just weren't at war with Argentina; not their dog in the fight. New Zealand also considered sending warships as part of the task force, and several senior US politicians (Caspar Weinberger in particular) were keen to militarily support the UK.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:49
Re: The Falkland Islands
Indeed so...US assistance with respect to munitions, logistics and intelligence have all been mentioned in the past as having been essential...and I think there was some suggestion that the Cousins might actually lend us a carrier if we needed one, although I don't recall the provenance of that. Likewise, interestingly, the French...who had the Argentine running about all over the place looking for fictitious Exocets.
But not the Spanish, obviously...
Gloomy Northern Boy
But not the Spanish, obviously...
Gloomy Northern Boy
Re: The Falkland Islands
It was USS Iwo Jima (LPH 2); and the Congress would have gladly sanctioned that one. I had some personal involvement in the aftermath in that in the years immediately following, I trained RN officers and senior ratings in USN damage control and firefighting systems and techniques, as apparently the Sea Lords felt that more expertise in those practices might have saved a ship. I don't know if that is true because one cannot disprove a negative; but when I look at Stark, Samuel B. Roberts, and Cole, and the very different outcomes from similar battle damage, I have to think there might have been some credence in their concerns.Gloomy Northern Boy wrote:Indeed so...US assistance with respect to munitions, logistics and intelligence have all been mentioned in the past as having been essential...and I think there was some suggestion that the Cousins might actually lend us a carrier if we needed one, although I don't recall the provenance of that. Likewise, interestingly, the French...who had the Argentine running about all over the place looking for fictitious Exocets.
But not the Spanish, obviously...
Gloomy Northern Boy
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:49
Re: The Falkland Islands
Possibly so, although I believe the extensive use of aluminium in RN Vessels was a big issue in respect of fire management...I'd guess there will be someone hereabouts who knows more about that than I do? I think lessons were probably learned right across NATO and beyond from those events.
Re: The Falkland Islands
Our hulls were HY-80 carbon steel, but until the Arleigh Burke-class went to sea, our superstructures were aluminum. I had a .50 cal round pass clean through CIC in the cruiser to which I was assigned. I was the Tactical Action Officer and we were engaging Iranian Boghammars during Earnest Will, and it was quite an eye opener.Gloomy Northern Boy wrote:Possibly so, although I believe the extensive use of aluminium in RN Vessels was a big issue in respect of fire management...I'd guess there will be someone hereabouts who knows more about that than I do? I think lessons were probably learned right across NATO and beyond from those events.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: The Falkland Islands
I can safely say that I had no idea the fighting got so close to the ships during those times. I'm going to have to do a ton more reading on that conflict...
-
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:07
Re: The Falkland Islands
[/quote]
They just weren't at war with Argentina; not their dog in the fight. New Zealand also considered sending warships as part of the task force, and several senior US politicians (Caspar Weinberger in particular) were keen to militarily support the UK.[/quote]
I guess your're right. Butt was it an issue at the time that the Dutch wouldnt allow them to deploy with the rest of the Marines? Did the Brits understand in a cordial manner?
Were the Kiwis really going to send warships? Why exactly?
They just weren't at war with Argentina; not their dog in the fight. New Zealand also considered sending warships as part of the task force, and several senior US politicians (Caspar Weinberger in particular) were keen to militarily support the UK.[/quote]
I guess your're right. Butt was it an issue at the time that the Dutch wouldnt allow them to deploy with the rest of the Marines? Did the Brits understand in a cordial manner?
Were the Kiwis really going to send warships? Why exactly?
Re: The Falkland Islands
It was a laugh a minute.RetroSicotte wrote:I can safely say that I had no idea the fighting got so close to the ships during those times. I'm going to have to do a ton more reading on that conflict...
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
- Happyslapper
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 18:12
Re: The Falkland Islands
At the time New Zealand was led by a conservative government with Rob Muldoon as PM. He and Thatcher were sort of cut from the same cloth.QuaPatetOrbis wrote:
Were the Kiwis really going to send warships? Why exactly?
Plus at that time New Zealanders themselves strongly identified with the idea of being British post-colonial, with the UK as a true motherland.
They sent warships to relieve standing RN patrols in the Indian Ocean, even abiding by British protocols (not that it's too different from RNZN's anyway). They provided full use of New Zealand's signals intercept facilities, which were best placed to snoop on Argentina's comms. Muldoon also pretty much raced to London to meet with Thatcher, and offered a Leander Class Frigate to relieve a similar type within the TF, should it be requested by the UK MoD (it never was in the end).
He gave quite a well known speech about "the follies of appeasement" (or something like that) which are as apt today as they were in 82! He was certainly emphatic in how NZ considered the UK/FI to be family members in distress, and offered full and if necessary physical support.
Barely recognisable to the political landscape in NZ today sadly.
It is upon the Navy under the good Providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend
Re: The Falkland Islands
Sheffield (and the rest of the Type 42s) had a steel hull and superstructure so aluminium couldn't have played a major role in her loss. Ardent and Antelope did have aluminium superstructures (though steel hulls) but both suffered huge amounts of combat damage which made any issues with aluminium mostly irrelevant. Ardent took seven bombs of between 500 and 1000 pounds which, on a ship of that size, was always going to be fatal whilst Antelope suffered a magazine explosion when some unexploded bombs detonated whilst EODs were trying to defuse them.Gloomy Northern Boy wrote:Possibly so, although I believe the extensive use of aluminium in RN Vessels was a big issue in respect of fire management...I'd guess there will be someone hereabouts who knows more about that than I do? I think lessons were probably learned right across NATO and beyond from those events.
I think the only ship where aluminium might have played a role was Sir Galahad.
- Happyslapper
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 18:12
Re: The Falkland Islands
There was a massive cock-up in the case of Sheffield. Several actually. Starting with the fact that the air search radar was foolishly switched off (albeit only briefly to establish comms), a relatively lacklustre approach to pre-emptive damage control, and poor response once the exocet was identified. All of which centred around some poor leadership onboard. In the case of Coventry, she took 3 direct hits, engine room and JR mess (2 of the largest sub waterline spaces) and beneath the ops rm - there's no coming back from hits like that. Sadly it was the culmination of a series of bad luck incidents which all occurred in quick succession, to an otherwise extremely effective ship. The Broadsword/Coventry pairing were dealing out some serious punishment to the Arg AF/Navy.Foxbat wrote:Sheffield (and the rest of the Type 42s) had a steel hull and superstructure so aluminium couldn't have played a major role in her loss. Ardent and Antelope did have aluminium superstructures (though steel hulls) but both suffered huge amounts of combat damage which made any issues with aluminium mostly irrelevant. Ardent took seven bombs of between 500 and 1000 pounds which, on a ship of that size, was always going to be fatal whilst Antelope suffered a magazine explosion when some unexploded bombs detonated whilst EODs were trying to defuse them.Gloomy Northern Boy wrote:Possibly so, although I believe the extensive use of aluminium in RN Vessels was a big issue in respect of fire management...I'd guess there will be someone hereabouts who knows more about that than I do? I think lessons were probably learned right across NATO and beyond from those events.
I think the only ship where aluminium might have played a role was Sir Galahad.
As for Aluminium, it's the effect of heat, rather than the effect of an impact which is significant. Aluminium deforms at much lower temperatures than steel, hence it was extremely difficult for DC teams to respond while they struggled to open hatches which had contorted, or ladders which would collapse and break. T21's were built on the cheap, for a quick buck, and seized upon by the Wilson government(s). It looked the part, but was not a great warfighter.
It is upon the Navy under the good Providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend
Re: The Falkland Islands
Says who?Happyslapper wrote:There was a massive cock-up in the case of Sheffield. Several actually. Starting with the fact that the air search radar was foolishly switched off (albeit only briefly to establish comms), a relatively lacklustre approach to pre-emptive damage control, and poor response once the exocet was identified. All of which centred around some poor leadership onboard. In the case of Coventry, she took 3 direct hits, engine room and JR mess (2 of the largest sub waterline spaces) and beneath the ops rm - there's no coming back from hits like that. Sadly it was the culmination of a series of bad luck incidents which all occurred in quick succession, to an otherwise extremely effective ship. The Broadsword/Coventry pairing were dealing out some serious punishment to the Arg AF/Navy.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
- Happyslapper
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 18:12
Re: The Falkland Islands
Says the official, now declassified, report:desertswo wrote:Says who?Happyslapper wrote:There was a massive cock-up in the case of Sheffield. Several actually. Starting with the fact that the air search radar was foolishly switched off (albeit only briefly to establish comms), a relatively lacklustre approach to pre-emptive damage control, and poor response once the exocet was identified. All of which centred around some poor leadership onboard. In the case of Coventry, she took 3 direct hits, engine room and JR mess (2 of the largest sub waterline spaces) and beneath the ops rm - there's no coming back from hits like that. Sadly it was the culmination of a series of bad luck incidents which all occurred in quick succession, to an otherwise extremely effective ship. The Broadsword/Coventry pairing were dealing out some serious punishment to the Arg AF/Navy.
http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/boi_hms_coventry.pdf
It is upon the Navy under the good Providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend
Re: The Falkland Islands
Yeah, I first saw that report in 1983 when it was still classified, and I was tasked with training RN junior officers and senior ratings in how to save the ship USN style. I didn't believe it then or now.Happyslapper wrote:Says the official, now declassified, report:desertswo wrote:Says who?Happyslapper wrote:There was a massive cock-up in the case of Sheffield. Several actually. Starting with the fact that the air search radar was foolishly switched off (albeit only briefly to establish comms), a relatively lacklustre approach to pre-emptive damage control, and poor response once the exocet was identified. All of which centred around some poor leadership onboard. In the case of Coventry, she took 3 direct hits, engine room and JR mess (2 of the largest sub waterline spaces) and beneath the ops rm - there's no coming back from hits like that. Sadly it was the culmination of a series of bad luck incidents which all occurred in quick succession, to an otherwise extremely effective ship. The Broadsword/Coventry pairing were dealing out some serious punishment to the Arg AF/Navy.
http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/boi_hms_coventry.pdf
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
Re: The Falkland Islands
Read Section V and then consider what might be done a priori. To a naval engineer and damage control expert it stands out like a sore thumb.downsizer wrote:What don't you believe specifically?
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."