Harvin87
The Youth
I dont know if I missed it ... but wich was the British task force order of battle? ...
thx!
thx!
I dont know if I missed it ... but wich was the British task force order of battle? ...
thx!
The British Task Force was made up of: -
Two Carriers
HMS Hermes - carrying 22 Sea King Helicopters (4 standard, 12 with improved anti-submarine equipment, 6 designed for Commando raids carrying upto 27 troops) and 16 Sea Harriers. This was Britains last remaining conventional Carrier and acted as Flagship.
HMS Invincible - 10 Sea Kings (all asm), 12 Sea Harriers. This was one of the new 'Light Carriers' that was developed when the Admiralty - in the face of budget cuts - decided that it could no longer warrant full size carriers.
Two Landing Platforms * 2
HMS Fearless & HMS Intrepid each carrying 4 Landing craft (which in turn carried 100 troops/1MBT), and 4 smaller craft which would carry 25 troops
Note that at the time the British admiralty tended to designate Destroyers as primarily for air defence, and frigates as primarily anti-submarine, but the ships themselves would probably be fairly comparable in overall firepower from a Civ perspective.
1 * Type 82 Destroyer. - HMS Bristol - this is essentially an oversized Type 42
5 * Type 42 Destroyer (Sheffield, Glasgow, Coventry, Exeter, Cardiff): Built in the 70's for fleet area defence. Carried Sea Dart surface to air missiles, a 4.5inch gun and 1*Lynx Helicopter (asw role), asw torpedo tubes
2 * County Class Destroyers. (Gamorgan, Antrim): Built in the 60's for area defence. Carried 2 * 4.5inch gun, Sea Slug multi-purpose surface-air/surface-surface missiles and Sea Dart surface to air missiles
- actually the Antrim had 1 4.5 gun taken out and switched for an Exocet surface-surface launcher.
2 * Type 22 Frigates (Brilliant, Broadsword). Built late 70's. Equipped with Sea Wolf missile (anti air), Exocet (ssm), 1 * Lynx, asw torpedo tubes
7 * Type 21 Frigates (Active, Alacrity, Antelope, Ardent, Ambuscade, Avenger, Arrow) [smaller, cheaper frigates that were built to replace much of the aging fleet in the 70's] 1*Lynx/Westland Wasp, asw tubes, Exocet, Sea Cat missile for air defence (bit of a more dated missile system at that time)
4 * Leander Class Frigates (Andromeda, Argonaut, Minerva, Penelope): built between the 59-73. 2 4.5inch guns, SeaCat anti-air missile. Andromeda also carried Exocets
2 * Rothesay Class Frigates (Yarmouth, Plymouth): built in 60's.
From that it implies you could just use the Destroyer as a template, but perhaps give combat promotions to the Type 21 Frigates in particular, and the Type 42 too.
If it'd be possible to have promotions that up anti air these could be given to ships designated Destroyers and the newer Frigates (the Type 42's, and type 21's with their newer tech being better than the County Class Destroyers). The Frigates similar could perhaps have a boost against Submarines - although all ships that had the Lynx helicopter should have some additional boost.
Those with guns could give a nominal gun bombarment, but vaguely recall it being commented that with the move to single guns on warships the Task force did lack a little in terms of gunnery support.
2 * Churchill Class Subs (Conqueror, Courageous). Nuclear powered built in 70's. Torps and Sub Harpoon anti ship missiles. NB It was Conqueror that sank the Belgrano
1 * Oberon Class Sub - Onyx. Diesel, built in 50/60's. Primary armament Torps, though could also carry mines.
1 * Valiant Class Sub - Valiant. Nuclear, built in 66. Primarily asw role, carried torps and possibly the Harpoon
2 * Swiftsue Class (Spartan, Splendid): Nuclear, built in late 70's. Torps, and sub Harpoon
+ 5 minesweepers (Cordella, Farnella, Junella, Northella, Pict)
Thanks for the well-written article.
I don't think that the war was pointless for either side.
From the Argentinian junta's point of view, a successful war would have bolstered their popularity and thus helped them maintain control of Argentina. That's not a moral justification but it is a cost-effectiveness justification from the junta's point of view.
The point for Britain: Well, obviously I could make the same cynical argument about successful war bolstering popularity from the point of view of Thatcher's government. But I also agree with other posters that the Falklanders' right to self-determination was a genuinely worthwhile reason for Britain to fight the war. With the logic that sparsely-populated, economically insignificant settlements should be simply handed over to the first dictator who claims them where do you stop? If the Argentinian junta had decided it fancied controlling a small village in Cornwall would it be pointless to defend that? I don't see that it makes any difference that the Falkland Islands are 8,000 miles away.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that on Britain's side there were no conscripts involved. Every member of the British Armed Forces who died in that War would have joined the Armed Forces with a willingness to risk their lives for the legitimate right of Britons' self-determination. It's not a cause everyone would want to risk their lives for, but it was their legitimate choice to do so.
On Argentina's side there many conscripts and, given that Argentina was a dictatorship, even the regulars could be argued to have been coerced into joining the Army, since they may have had little choice due to poverty, or, given the lack of free-speech, been prevented from making a genuinely informed choice. It's terrible that so many died for their government's stupid decision but if this horrible cost makes the war unjust then you're basically saying that manipulative dictatorships on a land-grab should be given what they want.
Someone posted it in the thread for the civ IV mod -
Is the mod out?? ... should be really interesting to play it....
We would have scrapped the old Endurance, but never our carriers. I have some understanding of naval warfare, and they are the sort of ship that stays useful forever. Argentina had some excellent bombs (I know the Antelope only went up when the disposal guys screwed up) including the Exocet, which did for our helicopters, so I am told
The Falklands are, simply put, the most pointlessly cold, wet and miserable place on Earth. They are situated right on Cape Horn guarding the Straits of Magellan, and are a British colony from the days of empire which had been almost forgotten until 1982
Care to take that back? Google my motto/look at the avatar then get out.
I was in the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment for 25 years. I went to the Falklands as a lieutenant.
The Falklands are, simply put, the most pointlessly cold, wet and miserable place on Earth. They are situated right on Cape Horn guarding the Straits of Magellan
Did they actually do anything? I so, I'd be happy to put it in.your piece made no mention of the chilean support for britain, the only state in south america to take the british side, of course this was motivated almost solely by their own unfriendly relations with Argentina
barely, but i would imagine the possibility of a two front war may have kept argentina from fully concentrating in its fight with britain
Thanks for the well-written article.
I don't think that the war was pointless for either side.
From the Argentinian junta's point of view, a successful war would have bolstered their popularity and thus helped them maintain control of Argentina. That's not a moral justification but it is a cost-effectiveness justification from the junta's point of view.
The point for Britain: Well, obviously I could make the same cynical argument about successful war bolstering popularity from the point of view of Thatcher's government. But I also agree with other posters that the Falklanders' right to self-determination was a genuinely worthwhile reason for Britain to fight the war. With the logic that sparsely-populated, economically insignificant settlements should be simply handed over to the first dictator who claims them where do you stop? If the Argentinian junta had decided it fancied controlling a small village in Cornwall would it be pointless to defend that? I don't see that it makes any difference that the Falkland Islands are 8,000 miles away.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that on Britain's side there were no conscripts involved. Every member of the British Armed Forces who died in that War would have joined the Armed Forces with a willingness to risk their lives for the legitimate right of Britons' self-determination. It's not a cause everyone would want to risk their lives for, but it was their legitimate choice to do so.
On Argentina's side there were many conscripts and, given that Argentina was a dictatorship, even the regulars could be argued to have been coerced into joining the Army, since they may have had little choice due to poverty, or, given the lack of free-speech, been prevented from making a genuinely informed choice. It's terrible that so many died for their government's stupid decision but if this horrible cost makes the war unjust then you're basically saying that manipulative dictatorships on a land-grab should be given what they want.