Matrix Games Forums

Have you ever read how the Malvinas became the Falklands in the first place?

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

One of the dirty little secrets of the war was that we supplied far more arms to Argentina than the French. Their SeaCat ASM, Blowpipe and Tigercat SAMs were ours, their infantry MG was the same as ours. IIRC, we sold them their boots.

They also had American helicopters and fighters, Belgian infantry weapons and German anti tank missiles. So it would have been a bit harsh to yell at the French. But as to the question, UK-French relations have been about the same since Agincourt

ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was ex-HMS Venerable, Santissima Trinidad and Hercules are both Type 42 destroyers and the FAA flew Canberras on recon.

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Have you ever read how the Malvinas became the Falklands in the first place?

Yes.

I was 11 and can remember being intensely interested, although a little fearful that it might somehow escalate into a global nuclear war. This probably sounds crazy to the younger generation but was a legitimate fear during any major Cold War crisis.

The Aussie media (and less overtly, the government) basically backed the British whilst providing a realistic appraisal of the risks involved. Hindsight demonstrated the dodgy nature of much of their equipment and victory, it seems, was won mainly by good training, good planning, good tactics, toughness, courage and traditional British stubbornness. "Good show chaps, what!" [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I was 11 and can remember being intensely interested, although a little fearful that it might somehow escalate into a global nuclear war. This probably sounds crazy to the younger generation but was a legitimate fear during any major Cold War crisis.

I was a similar age (13). I could be wrong, but seem to remember there being some issue that the British might bomb Argentinian mainland airbases and Russia saying basically 'don't do that, or we might become involved' So there was a possibility of it turning really nasty.

In my naivety I wrote to the MOD asking them for details of which ships had been sent to the Falklands (to help me follow events) and they wrote a nice letter back saying unfortunately that information was a secret. [:D]

I seem to recall a news item that a French ship had been intercepted by the British somewhere trying to supply Argentina with more exocets. I wasn't feeling any love for the French after I heard that!

I also remember wondering why the US appeared to be staying neutral diplomatically, but it soon became clear they were helping us in a quieter way. The AIM9L's certainly gave us a huge advantage in the air.

It's been a long, long time since I dusted it off and pulled it from the shelves and my recollection of distinct details is decidely foggy by now, but that most excellent British military historian Max Hastings wrote a superb book on the subject.


I can well recall the time period of the conflict. At that time in US society the feminist movement was in full swing with all of us pig-headed males being branded as chauvinists and the subject of the possibility of a female president would surface in discussions now and then (quite appropriate now with the looming possibiltes in the coming elections). I recall how I used to turn the tables on the discussions by pointing out that I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a woman for president as long as her name was Margaret Thatcher. I did then, and still do, have a tremendous amount of admiration for the Iron Lady.

I highly recommend Hasting's book on the Falklands War.

1982 was a heady year for me, i turned 16 during the Falklands Conflict and like everyone else i was glued to the telly and eagerly read the newspapers for whatever little info they had

in September '82 I started my apprenticeship at British Aerospace Dynamics, the post-Falklands buzz was evident and you could sense the pride of the employees that their kit was involved, it was intoxicating for a 16 year old to be around that, and how envious I was of the older apprentices who were were more involved with the equipment that helped win the war.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Another little bit of info that may not be widely known, but the US refused to get involved on any military scale. They were very active in the diplomacy, but not so on the military front. I believe a request was made for some. We didn't have enough aircraft carriers or aircraft, and I think seaborne aviation help was requested.

Maybe there were some "underground" transactions going on...but from what I remember of the news back then, we didn't have any backing.

I am going from memory here, and this in 1982, and I may have just listened to the proaganda at the time...but that's what I remember. And the reason I remember it that way is because Thatcher and Reagan were like lovers at the time!!

Anyone remember any different?

I remember Alexander Haig running around from country to country to drum up support for the British against the Argentinian Military Junta of the time....

I recall hearing that the US had supplied AA missles to British ships via sea transfer while the British ships were enroute. I imagine there was some level of intel cooperation, but we never heard anything about that of course.

This is indeed a very interesting topic.

My own memory of the conflict was one of images of the Argentine skyhawks screaming in at low level flying through English ship formations. Also, I recall the land battles but US coverage on the war was essentially useless sound bite shiznit.

I am interested in learning more and I agree this could make for a very interesting game.

[/quote]



I am interested in learning more and I agree this could make for a very interesting game.

[/quote]

Try this:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Falklands- ... 0393301982

and here is an interesting tidbit of history from Wikipedia:

"When Hastings was with the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment as part of the British press corps reporting the Falklands War, the troops were ordered to stop but Hastings received no order and walked on, becoming the first man with the Falklands Task Force to arrive in the capital, Port Stanley. He then arranged an interview with the commanding officer of the Argentine forces who had occupied the islands. It was this audacity that won him a double award in 1982: Journalist of the Year and What the Papers Say Reporter of the Year."

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

the use of the (US administered) Wideawake airfield on (British) Ascension Island was critical, so was the US supply of aviation fuel. read the "Vulcan 607" book for details. that airfield was the busiest in the world for a period of time.

the Vulcan missions were a massive undertaking with little results, but imho not a waste of effort, even if just for morale purposes.. they gave the Brits a victory and (luckily) the main cost was an awful lot of fuel !

As I recall the US supplied jet fuel was not supposed to be used for offensive actions....

There is also a common feeling that the Black Buck missions were a waste of effort. In particular people point to the few hits scored on Stanley's runways. The bomb run was planned in such a way that there was only the possibility of 2-3 hits maximum on the surface from a single bomb load of 21 bombs. The raids (a) Caused the Argentinians to keep their fast jets as a defence against raids on the mainland and (b) Closed Stanley as a base for fast jets, the craters caused were beyond the capability of the Argentine forces to repair at the time and the craters kept on subsiding.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

the use of the (US administered) Wideawake airfield on (British) Ascension Island was critical, so was the US supply of aviation fuel. read the "Vulcan 607" book for details. that airfield was the busiest in the world for a period of time.

the Vulcan missions were a massive undertaking with little results, but imho not a waste of effort, even if just for morale purposes.. they gave the Brits a victory and (luckily) the main cost was an awful lot of fuel !

As I recall the US supplied jet fuel was not supposed to be used for offensive actions....

There is also a common feeling that the Black Buck missions were a waste of effort. In particular people point to the few hits scored on Stanley's runways. The bomb run was planned in such a way that there was only the possibility of 2-3 hits maximum on the surface from a single bomb load of 21 bombs. The raids (a) Caused the Argentinians to keep their fast jets as a defence against raids on the mainland and (b) Closed Stanley as a base for fast jets, the craters caused were beyond the capability of the Argentine forces to repair at the time and the craters kept on subsiding.

dropping bombs on someone is usually considered an "offensive" action [:D]

i would heartily recommend the "Vulcan 607" book as a great read

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

dropping bombs on someone is usually considered an "offensive" action [:D]

i would heartily recommend the "Vulcan 607" book as a great read

[:D][:D] I can't remember the specific, but it probably related the the fact that the US wasn't involved and that Wideawake was a civilian establishment.

Vulcan 607 is a top book, even if I am biased [;)]

Just to correct a few things:

1. The US did do a rush delivery of the all-aspect AIM-9L which gave the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) and RAF Harriers a distinct advantage over the, er, FAA (Fuerza Aerea Argentina).

2. Ascension Island is a dependency of the British overseas territory of St Helena, not a US dependency. Yes, NASA does have dibs on the runway there but Wideawake Airfield is a joint RAF/USAF base.

3. Yes, the satellite imagery was very useful, thanks.

Yeah, well its all been forgotten about now...[:D]

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Have you ever read how the Malvinas became the Falklands in the first place?
[/blockquote]


Yes.

 
Not sure what you mean by these observations? It does not remove the de facto wishes of the population who live there NOW (and in 1982).
 
We can all go back through history and play 'who got there first'. Where would you choose to begin (in 1833 (British), 1816 (Spain), 1600 (Dutch) or its obvious ice age occupancy?) Where does it end?
 
 

Talking about who got there first, I remember there being a little side battle within the british army as to who was going to enter Stanley first when the fighting stopped. The Paras and Commando units were arguing about who should be the first unit in

If truth be told I cannot remember who did get in first....

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Talking about who got there first, I remember there being a little side battle within the british army as to who was going to enter Stanley first when the fighting stopped. The Paras and Commando units were arguing about who should be the first unit in

If truth be told I cannot remember who did get in first....

Max Hastings, according to HansBolter [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

Sorry for jumping in late, but

1) All I remember from the time was that the media portrayed it as a foregone conclusion from the moment the task force sailed. Reading about it afterwards though, the war could have been a much closer run thing, and was potentially disasterous. British history for the next two decades could have been dramatically different.

Many of the military viewed the BBC and the likes as enemy agents and kept as far away from them as possible.

For one many in the media were biased against the war and Thatcher, and only when it looked like the war might be won did they start changing their tone to supporting the government. The BBC was fairly quiet about it giving an extremely disproportionate amount of airtime to people who were against military action, whilst the Mirror was overtly anti-war.

The second was the media broadcasting British military intentions, probably the most notorious being informing the world that the army intended to attack Goose Green. Herbert Jones, commander of 2 Para swore that he'd have two journalists charged with high treason. Fortunately for them he was killed in action and they escaped punishment.

For those who think the war was not worth it: the people there were then and today still are British citizens. They see themselves as British, not Argentinian. They were invaded by a fascist military dictatorship. A democracy is supposed to support the rights of it's citizens, all of them, equally, no matter where they are. And then we have people who live in democracies saying that they should have let the Argies have them, that the rights and wishes of the people living there, fellow citizens, mean nothing. That is sick. if you want proof they could try a referrendum amongst the citizens of the Falklands, but the Foreign Office wouldn't want that as they've been trying to sell out the people on the islands they're supposed to serve for decades.

And the main reason the military dictatorship invaded the Falklands was because they needed to distract the people from their own privations and difficulties. The best way to do this has always been a good war.

the 'war' for the Malvinas served the Argentinian Junta particularly well in distracting the Argentinian people. For weeks previous to the invasion thousands marched through the streets of Buenos Aires demanding the fall of the government. Weeks later they marched through in total support of the government. "wag the dog"

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Have you ever read how the Malvinas became the Falklands in the first place?
[/blockquote]


Yes.

Not sure what you mean by these observations? It does not remove the de facto wishes of the population who live there NOW (and in 1982).

We can all go back through history and play 'who got there first'. Where would you choose to begin (in 1833 (British), 1816 (Spain), 1600 (Dutch) or its obvious ice age occupancy?) Where does it end?

Of course I can't find any reference on Wikipedia now but I recall way back then the story went that in the 1800s the USA had "given" the Brits the Falklands as part of peace negotiations between the UK and France (or Spain) . The islands were not the USA's to give away either.

Maybe someone with better google skills can find the story. Or I dreamed it...

They were invaded by a fascist military dictatorship. A democracy is supposed to support the rights of it's citizens, all of them, equally, no matter where they are. And then we have people who live in democracies saying that they should have let the Argies have them, that the rights and wishes of the people living there, fellow citizens, mean nothing. That is sick.

What self rightous boloney.[8|]

Yes it is sick. Kind of like when the British Empire sent a warship to the Malvinas, forced the Argentine settlers there to take down the Argentine flag and leave...and then replaced them with British settlers who now say they are theirs.[:-]

The Malvinas have been Argentine territory sence the formation of Argentina, always have been, always will be. That cannot be changed.

This is a relic from Britians Imperial passed of going out, stealing others peoples property and then planting their own colonist. Ahhh...yes. Then making a good speech about defending peoples freedoms and all the other poetry.[;)]