M14 Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Shortly after the war, a local English pub I regularly visited had these to give out. Bear in mind the year, 1982, and the sci fi film cultural phenomenon that was in its early stages still. The second film had come out a couple of years before the war, I think.

I gave this badge, recently, to a good friend who is restoring a Ferret armored vehicle, one he has documented as having served in the Falklands. I figured having it for well over 30 years was enough, and it had a more suitable home for the future.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,823 Posts
In terms of the Infantry soldier, the Battle for the Falkland Islands was the last analog war. Everything was old school.

No GPS or computers.
Radios were bulky and of limited range.
Night vision was only 2nd Generation.
Flashlights were bulky and useless.
No Goretex, and the weather there sucked.

There was even a bayonet fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
If anyone wants to read a reasonably complete yet not unwieldy account of the Falklands battle, I'd recommend THE BATTLE OF THE FALKLANDS by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. It's an easy read and gives a good overview of all aspects of the campaign.
I've got that book around here somewhere, read and re-read it several times. The American diplomatic wrangling between Washington and the UN was painful to comprehend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
The Argentine political atmosphere is less militant than it was in the '80s, so even thought Argentina still lays claim to the islands, it's unlikely the present status quo will change.

The majority of the Falklands' inhabitants (all 3000 of them) are descendants of British ancestry; Brits have inhabited the island since the 1830's, they all desire British administration. The Argentines only base their claim to the islands on the small French colony on the islands being ceded to Spain by France in 1766. British claim to the islands was established a year earlier by Capt. John Byron of the Royal Navy.

It seems ridiculous on the face of it, that such an expenditure of arms and lives was made by two military powers over a small piece of land that has no internal economy apart from some sheepherding. The total lives lost was almost half the population of the islands; one soldier from either side died for every two persons living on the islands.

The minefields only represent 0.1% of the agricultural land of the islands. None of the population have been injured or killed by any mine since the end of the war 35 years ago.

My oldest daughter visited the Falklands last year in November. There are several memorials to the war in Stanley, the capital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
In terms of the Infantry soldier, the Battle for the Falkland Islands was the last analog war. Everything was old school.

No GPS or computers.
Radios were bulky and of limited range.
Night vision was only 2nd Generation.
Flashlights were bulky and useless.
No Goretex, and the weather there sucked.

There was even a bayonet fight.
If it happens again and if the British are able to respond, it won't be too much different from the first time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Do a little homework. There were hundreds of years where it could be said with certainty that the sun did not set on the British empire. Now, it must be said that the Brits have chosen the path of socialism, and have funded that path at the expense of their military power.

The Brits do no have an aircraft carrier. They do not have long distance air refueling aircraft. So what? So when a group of Muslim blow up, stab, and shoot British citizens and claim to be sent there by a thug who lives in Rocca Syria, there is not a darn they can do about it. They can't send a carrier group into the region and launch strikes from it. They can't write cute notes on bombs strapped to fighters on their own soil and then fly a 20 hour mission to deliver the bombs to the Syria.

No, all they can do now is issue strongly worded statements. The UK is an example of what open borders and socialized medicine will do to a country. The USA is headed there now.
You might want to rethink the aircraft carrier statement. The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier lead ship (Queen Elizabeth) will enter service later this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
This fuse thing for the A4 bombs is troubling.

Fuses on bombs dropped by aircraft going 500 mph don't burn. In that era, they armed by a small prop that drove a threaded safety de-arm device into the fuse. When the bomb cleared the aircraft, a safety pin was pulled and allowed the prop to turn in the wind-stream. When the device completed its travel into the fuse, the bomb was armed. A term called fuse arm. After fuse arm, the preset delay would be activated. Yes, a nose fuse and a tail fuse is nice to have.

The purpose of this sequence was so that the bombs could be released without being fused, such as an aircraft emergency. The entire set of bombs and the pylon could be released and impact the ground (sorta) harmlessly. If you were barely flying, dropping the 2000 lb centerline tank, and both sets of pylons (at least another 4000 lbs) might make the difference.

I set a lot similar fuses in this time period. F4 (McDonnell Dougless, like the A4). The A4 pilots were brave. I admire them. But they would have been more effective, maybe win a war, if they had checked their version of the joint munitions effectiveness manual. Those little details are what win/lose wars and possible entire civilizations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
In terms of the world's navies of 1982, the Argentine was only arguably third rate and that's giving it the benefit of doubt, which is why it largely remained in port. The General Belgrano, a heavy cruiser was either the former USS Boise or USS Phoenix of WWII fame and in either case, dated from before even that war. The Brits sank it easily. Argentina's naval air forces were another matter and because of the ineffectiveness of the British Rapier anti-aircraft missile systems, were deployed more effectively than they should have been. This factor was partially offset by the fact that the US didn't provide the Argies with the quick-acting fuzes that would have made the bombs being dropped by their American F-4's far more effective.
No F-4s; A-4s. A-4Bs if memory serves me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
You might want to rethink the aircraft carrier statement. The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier lead ship (Queen Elizabeth) will enter service later this year.
I got $100 that says the Brits won't have an operational fighter flying off that carrier for another 3 years. And you don't get a decade of lost experience back overnight.

I don't believe the Brits have had a fixed wing fighting aircraft launch from a carrier in about 7 years.

The Brits had a ship named Ark Royal for hundreds of years. Until about 15 years ago when they decided to open their borders and fund free stuff for deadbeats.

Call it like it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
I got $100 that says the Brits won't have an operational fighter flying off that carrier for another 3 years. And you don't get a decade of lost experience back overnight.

I don't believe the Brits have had a fixed wing fighting aircraft launch from a carrier in about 7 years.

The Brits had a ship named Ark Royal for hundreds of years. Until about 15 years ago when they decided to open their borders and fund free stuff for deadbeats.

Call it like it is.
Concur.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is at least 2 years out from being 100% combat ready and Prince of Wales is at least another 3-4, that is if everything goes to schedule and they debug the F35, which I'm not sure they'll ever do.

What exactly do they have protecting the islands? A beefed up infantry company with support troops, a couple Tornadoes, a Type 45 or 42 and a couple of subs floating around the islands at any given time. That's not exactly an awe-inspiring show of deterrence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
There were a couple big factors.

The Argies were sent before they were completely ready.
They were short sea mines. This would have denied the Brits the landing area.
The new Super Etentard aircraft were not set up to run on the Argentine carrier yet. And only five Exocet missles had been delivered. This was huge. Instead the carrier had to employ the A-4B Skyhawks. They were actually going to launch a carrier on carrier strike with them. The argie S-2 trackers from the carrier had located the British fleet and not been spotted. The carrier was preparing to launch the A-4B strike fleet but there was no wind that day. The ladien planes could not be launched. By the next day the Belgrado had been sunk and the argies recalled and parked the carrier in fear. By a hairs breath was missed the only carrier on carrier strike since WW2.

On the British side, they had no AWACS. Well they had them, but they couldn't be used on the ski jump carriers. So they went without them. Blind.

They had no large guns to support the landings. An atempt was made to resurrect two 6 inch gun cruisers, but the just took too long to recommission.
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top