Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARA battles RN in Port Stanley Harbour

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Selous View Post
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1050,3704377

    On the Soviets; there was a rumour that Britain recieved very, very tacit support from the USSR during the crisis. I can't remember where I first got that info, I suspect Hugh Bicheno's book on the conflict as it's the one I have read most.
    I think the 'tacit support' was pretty much confined to the UN Security Council resolutions.


    From Maggie Thatcher's book - 'The Downing Street Years':

    At the UN Tony Parsons, on the eve of the invasion, was busy outmanoeuvring the Argentinians. [ Javier Perez de Cuellar ] The UN Secretary General had called on both sides to exercise restraint: we responded positively, but the Argentinians remained silent. On Saturday 3rd April, Tony Parsons managed a diplomatic triumph in persuading the Security Council to pass what became Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 502, demanding an immediate and unconditional withdrawal by the Argentinians from the Falklands. It had not been easy. The debate was bitter and complex. We knew that the old anti-colonialist bias of the UN would incline some Security Council members against us, were it not for the fact that there had been a flagrant act of aggression by the Argentinians. I was particularly grateful to President Mitterrand , who with the leaders of the Old Commonwealth, was among the staunchest of our friends and who telephoned me personally to pledge support on Saturday. (I was to have many disputes with President Mitterrand in later years, but I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support on this occasion and throughout the Falklands crisis). France used her influence in the UN to swing others in our favour. I myself made a last minute telephone call to King Hussein of Jordan, who also came down on our side. He is an old friend of Britain. I told him our difficulty; I did not have to go into lengthy explanations to persuade him to cast Jordan's vote on our side. He began the conversation by asking simply: "what can I do for you Prime Minister?" In the end we were delighted to have the votes we needed for the Resolution and to avoid a veto from the Soviet Union. But we knew that this was a fragile achievement, and we had no illusions as to who would be left to remove the aggressor when all the talking was done: it would be us.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
      I think the 'tacit support' was pretty much confined to the UN Security Council resolutions.


      From Maggie Thatcher's book - 'The Downing Street Years':

      At the UN Tony Parsons, on the eve of the invasion, was busy outmanoeuvring the Argentinians. [ Javier Perez de Cuellar ] The UN Secretary General had called on both sides to exercise restraint: we responded positively, but the Argentinians remained silent. On Saturday 3rd April, Tony Parsons managed a diplomatic triumph in persuading the Security Council to pass what became Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 502, demanding an immediate and unconditional withdrawal by the Argentinians from the Falklands. It had not been easy. The debate was bitter and complex. We knew that the old anti-colonialist bias of the UN would incline some Security Council members against us, were it not for the fact that there had been a flagrant act of aggression by the Argentinians. I was particularly grateful to President Mitterrand , who with the leaders of the Old Commonwealth, was among the staunchest of our friends and who telephoned me personally to pledge support on Saturday. (I was to have many disputes with President Mitterrand in later years, but I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support on this occasion and throughout the Falklands crisis). France used her influence in the UN to swing others in our favour. I myself made a last minute telephone call to King Hussein of Jordan, who also came down on our side. He is an old friend of Britain. I told him our difficulty; I did not have to go into lengthy explanations to persuade him to cast Jordan's vote on our side. He began the conversation by asking simply: "what can I do for you Prime Minister?" In the end we were delighted to have the votes we needed for the Resolution and to avoid a veto from the Soviet Union. But we knew that this was a fragile achievement, and we had no illusions as to who would be left to remove the aggressor when all the talking was done: it would be us.
      One wonders how the United Nations would have reacted in 1963, if 96 % of Kenyans HAD VOTED TO 'REMAIN British."
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by marktwain View Post
        One wonders how the United Nations would have reacted in 1963, if 96 % of Kenyans HAD VOTED TO 'REMAIN British."
        Well, it would have pissed off the hard liners, that's for sure. And maybe even Obama's pa wouldn't have bugged off to Hawaii, so Barak would not have been eligible to stand for the Whitehouse.

        The reality is that during those 'Uhuru' Mau Mau days it was mostly native Kenyans hitting on native Kenyans - a case of turf and power rivalry between the tribes.
        Last edited by Wooden Wonder; 17 Jun 14, 07:27.

        Comment


        • #34
          WI the 12,000 low-grade Argentinian Amerindian conscripts had been led by an agressive Argentinian "Rommel", who instead of just waiting for the British to come to them, had actually battled them on the landing ground. The result: the Argies still lose, but with with 1000 British soldiers dead, including a lot more "Colonel Joneses".

          With better tactics, is there any way the Argentinians could have driven the British back in to the sea at San Carlos beach, even with the RN blazing away in ground bombardment at zero range with their 4.5", or at least given them something to remember the Ejercito for?

          Last edited by Mifletz; 17 Jun 14, 07:41.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
            WI the 12,000 low-grade Argentinian Amerindian conscripts had been led by an agressive Argentinian "Rommel", who instead of just waiting for the British to come to them, had actually battled them on the landing ground. The result: the Argies still lose, but with with 1000 British soldiers dead, including a lot more "Colonel Joneses".

            With better tactics, is there any way the Argentinians could have driven the British back in to the sea at San Carlos beach, even with the RN blazing away in ground bombardment at zero range with their 4.5", or at least given them something to remember the Ejercito for?

            The young conscript 'Argies' were cold and miserable. Their officers and NCOs largely treated them like cr*p, the weather was cold and damp for much of the time, and the natives were hostile - their hearts were not really into a hard scrap - what most wanted was to go home.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
              The young conscript 'Argies' were cold and miserable. Their officers and NCOs largely treated them like cr*p, the weather was cold and damp for much of the time, and the natives were hostile - their hearts were not really into a hard scrap - what most wanted was to go home.
              They were increasingly aware that in the Argentinian Ruling Junta, the cream sinks to the bottom.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #37
                Colonel Jones was one of a kind, fortunately for the British Army, and 'Chrstine' Keeble in particular.
                ------
                'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                Comment


                • #38
                  If they are daft enough to crowd into Stanley harbour they become one big target. If the RN wants to get really playful then they break Tiger and Blake out of mothballs. Issue the gunnery officers with umbrellas and have a live firex.

                  Then ask for tenders to clear the harbour, only this time we dont let the Argies apply. Thats how the whole thing started.

                  As for the Israelies flogging missiles on there are a couple of things that stop that.
                  1/ The Argentinians do not have the training on the system to make realistic use of it.
                  2/ The arms dealers know that if they want to live to enjoy their retirement its a deal to steer clear of.
                  "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
                    WI the 12,000 low-grade Argentinian Amerindian conscripts had been led by an agressive Argentinian "Rommel", who instead of just waiting for the British to come to them, had actually battled them on the landing ground. The result: the Argies still lose, but with with 1000 British soldiers dead, including a lot more "Colonel Joneses".

                    With better tactics, is there any way the Argentinians could have driven the British back in to the sea at San Carlos beach, even with the RN blazing away in ground bombardment at zero range with their 4.5", or at least given them something to remember the Ejercito for?

                    Nope. The Argentinians lacked the logistics to supply a larger force away from Stanley.
                    "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
                      WI the 12,000 low-grade Argentinian Amerindian conscripts had been led by an agressive Argentinian "Rommel", who instead of just waiting for the British to come to them, had actually battled them on the landing ground. The result: the Argies still lose, but with with 1000 British soldiers dead, including a lot more "Colonel Joneses".

                      With better tactics, is there any way the Argentinians could have driven the British back in to the sea at San Carlos beach, even with the RN blazing away in ground bombardment at zero range with their 4.5", or at least given them something to remember the Ejercito for?
                      Low-grade conscripts are low-grade conscripts.

                      Facing regulars with competent leadership, they did about as well as expected. Even with von Manstein in command, they still had little motivation to fight and less to assume risk.

                      So no, another invalid scenario. Once the Brits got ashore it was for all intents and purposes over.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
                        While France overtly backed the United Kingdom, a French technical team remained in Argentina throughout the war. French government sources have said the French team was engaged in intelligence-gathering; however, it simultaneously provided direct material support to the Argentines, identifying and fixing faults in Exocet missile launchers. According to the book Operation Israel, advisors from Israel Aerospace Industries were already in Argentina and continued their work during the conflict. The book also claims that Israel sold weapons and drop tanks in a secret operation in Peru. Peru also openly sent "Mirages, pilots and missiles" to Argentina during the war. Peru had earlier transferred ten Hercules transport planes to Argentina soon after the British Task Force had set sail in April 1982. Nick van der Bijl records that after the Argentine defeat at Goose Green, Venezuela and Guatemala offered to send paratroops to the Falklands. Through Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, Argentina received 20 launchers and 60 SA-7 missiles, as well as machine guns, mortars and mines; all in all, the load of four trips of two Boeing 707 of the AAF, refuelled in Recife with the knowledge and consent of the Brazilian government. Some of these clandestine logistics operations were mounted by the Soviet Union.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
                          While France overtly backed the United Kingdom, a French technical team remained in Argentina throughout the war. French government sources have said the French team was engaged in intelligence-gathering; however, it simultaneously provided direct material support to the Argentines, identifying and fixing faults in Exocet missile launchers. According to the book Operation Israel, advisors from Israel Aerospace Industries were already in Argentina and continued their work during the conflict. The book also claims that Israel sold weapons and drop tanks in a secret operation in Peru. Peru also openly sent "Mirages, pilots and missiles" to Argentina during the war. Peru had earlier transferred ten Hercules transport planes to Argentina soon after the British Task Force had set sail in April 1982. Nick van der Bijl records that after the Argentine defeat at Goose Green, Venezuela and Guatemala offered to send paratroops to the Falklands. Through Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, Argentina received 20 launchers and 60 SA-7 missiles, as well as machine guns, mortars and mines; all in all, the load of four trips of two Boeing 707 of the AAF, refuelled in Recife with the knowledge and consent of the Brazilian government. Some of these clandestine logistics operations were mounted by the Soviet Union.
                          And what about the military shipments that the UK sent to Argentina?

                          Paul
                          ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                          All human ills he can subdue,
                          Or with a bauble or medal
                          Can win mans heart for you;
                          And many a blessing know to stew
                          To make a megloamaniac bright;
                          Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                          The Pixie is a little shite.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X