I mean, you have to actually find the Belgrano. It was a legitimate threat.
Argentina withdraws from 2016 pact with UK over the Falklands, wants to restart negotiations regarding ownership.
- Thread starter ianh
- Start date
I mean, you have to actually find the Belgrano. It was a legitimate threat.
I wouldn't have put those ships up against a modern (80s) western nuclear attack sub. Arguably they are quieter than the US boats. It would have needed a screen of modern (80s) ASW ships to have a chance. At the time of is sinking I think it was separated from it's escorts. Open to correction on that.
The Argentinian ships would struggled even worse than the RN did against air attack at that time.
I think a ship threat against the carriers was a little over stated as a result.
The days of a cruiser sneaking up on it's targets ended mid WW2 with radar, never mind carriers.
Yes but only when they were much closer to the islands. I repeat that the UK wanted to "show the global reach"! It was a political and psychological manoeuvre.
It was escorting two destroyers both of which were armed with 40nm+ ranged Exocets and was deployed as part of a pincer movement, with the Belgrano group down South and the Ventinicinco de Mayo CV up North with the Task Force planned to be squeezed in the middle, only the sinking in the South scuppered that and forced the CV back to port. If it was just the Belgrano against the TF then it was absolutely outclassed in every way, even if as an "heavily gunned" (in modern terms) escort it had some morale use for the Navy.
Yet history shows thats exactly what the Argentines were scared of, moving fighters from the their South upto bases in the North rediucing the amount of fighters available to escort the attack aircraft. So you can see exactly why the BB raids were a strategic "win" despite being an actual tactical "loss" as, quite rightly, we both said that the Harriers did a far better job attacking Stanley than the BB raids did.
Also, regarding fast jets using Stanley - the UK's intel at the time suggested that lightweight Mirage 5's "could" use the runway (vs the heavier Mirage 3 and less powerful Skyhawks) but I also can't find any definitive proof that they ever actually based any numbers at Stanley (probably a common misperception that I have also had). However the Argentines were definitely increasing the runway length to accommodate more than just the potential use Mirage 5's before the various BB and occasional SHAR raids - Sharkey Ward's book is great on the subject as he also quite rightly points out the tactical worthlessness of the BB raids vs using SHAR for them instead (as you would imagine from a SHAR pilot) whilst also missing the more strategic win the BB raids caused.
Last edited:
"manoeuvre" PR stunt for the RAF
Sigh!
"A request from Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, the commander of the British aircraft carrier group heading south, on 11 April for recommendations for targets to attack in the Falkland Islands led to reconsideration of the possibility of attacks using Vulcans."
"Authority to proceed with the operation, codenamed Black Buck, was given by the War Cabinet on 27 April"
Last edited:
The destroyers were also WW2 vintage. An Exocet isn't going to help against a Nuclear Submarine. As for anti sub capability ASW One of the destroyers ARA Bouchard was actually struck by athe 3rd torpedo aimed at the Belgarno, they didn't notice it, neither noticed the Belgrano was sunk, until they realised it was missing. Crating Exocets into ancient ships doesn't make it that useful alone.
"...At the same time the RAF began asking questions about Port Stanley, Airport. Initially they were interested in the capability of the Argentines there and, through contacts in the Engineer and Railway Staff Corps of the Territorial Army (TA) with the consultants involved in the building of the airfield at Port Stanley, copies of the drawings for the airfield were obtained which gave details of its construction. There was a runway 4100 ft long and 150 ft wide designed to load classification number (LCN) 16 although, in places, it could be as high as LCN 30. The Air Staff were therefore advised that the Argentines would be able to operate lightly loaded Hercules transports from the airport but not fast jets...."
"...There is more evidence that the FAA also practised ‘touch and go’ landings with Dagger’s at Rio Grande on a simulated runway of the same length as Stanley. In a paper for the USAF Air University, Argentina’s Tactical Aircraft Employment in the Falkland Islands War, Gabriel Green USAF stated. While maintenance worked on the modification, the pilots worked on employment options. This included practice of short-field takeoff and landings to determine if sustained operations from the 4100-foot runway at Port Stanley were feasible. They learned it would only be suitable for emergency landings..."
Do you think a single unescorted unarmed Vulcan would be difficult for a Mainland Mirage to shoot down. They are massive targets. It seems on further reading its more likely they withdrew the Mirage IIIEA from Falklands attacks Not because it need to defend against Vulcans. But because it was outclassed by the harriers and couldn't' carry enough fuel to be useful over the Falkland's. It was used as decoy flights, and to moved to as deterrence against aggressive flights by neighbouring Chile. Then also in defence against Vulcan even though Maggie had already said they wouldn't strike the mainland.
That doesn't mean he suggested Vulcans.
Don't get me wrong I think the Black Buck were a quite the flying achievement. Just not very effective militarily. The Vulcan is an iconic aircraft. The noise out of them at airshow's was something else.
Absolutely correct but the raid was approved by the War Cabinet. It has only ever been "suggested" that the RAF pushed for it.
I think its doubtful the army or Navy did.
TBH the UK might have much smaller forces. But they are vastly more capable of anything the Argentinians have. So far ahead.
Pathetic. You obvioiusly hate the RAF. People put their lives on the line to fly those sorties.
Very feeble attempt to conflate two completely different subjects as a strawman.
More like handbag swinging.
If the islanders want to stay British then that is that.
Argentina have no way to make any claim. Just a bit of banter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,134
As far as im aware, Argentinas claim to the Falklands isnt even close to being as strong as that of the UK, I believe it was France who first occupied the Islands anyway? The islanders had a vote, thankfully the results of which are being upheld.
Last edited:
Absolutely 100% correct, which is why I said it was to be used in a pincer against the Task Force (not the Sub) with the Argentine CV as the Northern attack group using strike aircraft and the Belgrano group as the Southern group using the Exocets on the destroyers.
To be blunt no-one cares what I think today, what matters is what the Argentine Military thought in 1982 and they were so worried by the BB raids that they moved fighter aircraft away from Falklands escort duty to protect themselves from a potential (if incredibly unlikely) BB raid, and thats a strategic win for BB, (yay!) even if Sea Harriers did a better tactical job at damaging the airfield.
Here's the UK's classified (since declassified) Intel report from the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Intelligence) dated 7th April 1982 on the use of the runway which on page two, under "Argentine Offensive/Defensive Air Operations", mentions -
"The Argentine Mirage III, Mirage V and their A4 Skyhawks could operate from Stanley Airport with almost full payloads to defend the Island."
So there's definitely some discrepancy in the various intel reports being bandied about which always makes getting a definitive answer on these things far less obvious than it should ideally be IMHO.