Newly released government papers
The country had more faith in our armed forces than Maggie did...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20800447
Fascinating reading.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20800447
Fascinating reading.
Post edited by rich_chandler on
I wanna tell you a story 'bout a woman I know...
Comments
It was hard enough invading europe in 44 and that was just 22 miles away and at the end of the day the telling factor was weight of numbers, materiel availability and the allies ability to get it all across the channel in a rapid organised manner.
On paper you'd have to be nuts to even to think you could retake an island x thousand miles away from an entrenched occupying force that had resupply no more than a few hours away.
Well we'd probably not be able to take them back now, but on the other hand the Argies probably couldn't get near them in the first place now. Our military presence in the South Atlantic is still a bit lame, but their military is even worse. Pretty much just what didn't get blown up last time round ;)
Use of the Ascension Islands
American support - fuel, arms (thanks to Caspar Weinberger)
Argentinian Army being conscripted (= not interested)
Sea Harriers being much better than the Super Etendard
The RAF decided to bomb the airport using a Vulcan, which was just stupid in my opinion!
It was as much a demonstration of superior air power as it was to deny the Argies use of the airfield for jet fighters. If you can fly 4000 miles to bomb Stanley you can do the same to the mainland. Whether or not we ever would is irrelevant really, it demonstrated that we could if we wanted to :)
And the stiff upper lip..don't forget that critical component.
theres a letter between him and margeret thatcher showing his undying love for her
:bleurgh:
Exactly after that raid the Argentinian Airforce detachment in the Falklands was recalled to the mainland just in case.
It also shows that the Thatcher government wasn't listening to the reports that the British Embassy in Buena Aires was sending back, at the time they were telling Downing Street that Galteri was banging the war drums.
It only takes one missile or shell to get through and set fire to the ship and sink it though!
Obviously it has all sorts of fancy new weapon systems and as we both said, the opposition has no money and worn out obsolete military hardware but it's still only one ship.
It will never come to that anyway. They got a foothold before because they turned up and didn't leave when we asked them to. It turned into something resembling a war because we had to invade to remove them they had the advantage in the battles by being the occupying force. That was their chance and it's gone, a continuous navy and air force presence means they can't get a force near the islands now even if they had one to try it.
...and the ability to pooh-pooh Johnny Foreigner.
Not really earth shattering news that Maggie was worried.
Must have worked, mile and ewgf haven't posted...
Far from it, it was brilliant.
It was done to force a strategic rethink by the Argentians, and that it did with devastating consequences. The damage that the Black Buck missions did was 100 times greater than the few holes it put in the runway.
It forced the Argentians to keep their air force on the Argentian mainland. They didn't expect the British to be able to bomb Stanley, and it surprised them when this happened, and they didn't want their planes to get destroyed on the ground or made useless. Having to operate from the mainland hobbled them severely, as their aircraft simply didn't have the endurance to loiter for long periods of time. If they had been able to keep the aircraft on the Falklands, the Harrier force would have been greatly less effective. However, forcing this strategy change on the Argentians gave the Harrier force a massive upper hand.
Sinking the Belgrano was also a correct strategic move, regardless of what the hand-wringers might say.
Absolutely. When even the Captain of the ship, the magnificently named H?ctor Bonzo, agrees that the sinking was justified, it takes a special kind of national self-loathing to consider it anything other than correct. However, 'GOTCHA!' probably wasn't the most sensitive headline the Sun could have come up with considering the loss of life.
Would you as a fleet or ship commander really want to risk your ship(s) going out of port when you know they could be sunk before they reach the harbour wall and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
The ethics of downing the Belgrano can be debated but the military effectiveness is beyond doubt and it almost certainly saved lives on both sides in the long run.
Although it was practical madness it was strategic genius.
Look how far away there planes are, were safe here.
What's that's exploding noise?
Oh sh*t
Maybe they can reach here.
Can they reach the mainland from here?
No way, they can't reach the Falklands let alone the mainland... Oh wait
It isn't the damage you cause, which was minimal, it's the fact that you can do it which causes problems.
Couple that with the knowledge that a nuclear sub(s), very heavily armed with some very nasty weapons is crusing round well within strike distence of all your major cities, which non of your armed forces can even think of reaching in the UK and you gain a massive psychological advantage.
Even the most psychopathic military leaders are not completely stupid, Argentina's military leadership of the time were far from mad, just politically desperate.