Harvin87
The Youth
I dont know if I missed it ... but wich was the British task force order of battle? ...
thx!
thx!
The Falklands War
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
lumpthing
generic lump
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.
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.
Someone posted it in the thread for the civ IV mod -
By pointless, I think a lot of people mean that it was a waste of life in that it shouldn't have happened; the Argentine actions were completely out of order, and given the state of their men on the ground a lot of them were just boys who had very little training, and a lot of them got killed because the officers stopped them surrendering. It was definitely a waste in that respect
Harvin87
The Youth
Someone posted it in the thread for the civ IV mod -
Is the mod out?? ... should be really interesting to play it....
In my sig - in development, fairly early stages. Works going fast, though
RalofTyr
King
If Argentina just waited a year, the British would have scraped their carriers.
Also, if Argentina actually armed their bombs properly, there would have been a lot more British ships sunk.
Also, if Argentina actually armed their bombs properly, there would have been a lot more British ships sunk.
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
Harvin87
The Youth
This is a nice one...
Never saw that one - it's good though
BananaLee
Fruity Penguin
I think The Empire Strikes Back was also used for the First Gulf War.
RalofTyr
King
It was something about how the Royal Navy as going to transform into a sub-hunting fleet for NATO.
As I recall, the Exocet hit a container ship the Argentines thought was a carrier. It was full of helicopters.
One thing I find funny is that a British commander ordered his troops to take off their flak jackets so they can charge faster, as if he thought they could out run a bullet.
Actually what happened as the guys aboard told it was that the Argies fired a missile on the Ambuscade (which was defending the CarrierHermes), so the men fired off chaff (basically a cloud of random dust to confuse the missile), deflecting it into the Conveyor which had almost every single one of our helicopters.
I never heard anything about that last thing, but you need to remember first that the British Army and the invasion as a whole are built on aggression. If you attack fast and violently, then at the least you make your enemy react to you, opening up the chance that he will do something stupid. Also, a lot of the combat was not much further than bayonet-range in places, so armour would have been next to useless against the enemy
I never heard anything about that last thing, but you need to remember first that the British Army and the invasion as a whole are built on aggression. If you attack fast and violently, then at the least you make your enemy react to you, opening up the chance that he will do something stupid. Also, a lot of the combat was not much further than bayonet-range in places, so armour would have been next to useless against the enemy
Harvin87
The Youth
Flying Pig... where/are you in the Royal Navy??
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.
I was in the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment for 25 years. I went to the Falklands as a lieutenant.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Well, it isn't exactly that simple.
1592 Islands discovered by the English
1600 Dutch plot position accurately
1690 English land on the islands and lay claim.
1764 French build first settlement
1765 British land and build settlement
1767 French abandon settlement, which is taken over by the Spanish
1770 Spain expels British colonists
1771 British colonists allowed to return, but Spain reserves a “Right of Sovereignty”
1774 British abandon their colony
1820 Argentina takes possession from Spain as part of its independance
1831 Luis Vernet, the Argentinian governor of the islands, seizes some American fishing ships in a dispute over fishing rights. The Americans show up with some warships and blast the colony to smithereens. There was a prison, and a few prisoners continue to inhabit the island, but no Argentinian officials. The US declares the islands "free of government" so they can fish there legally. The Argentines reassert their claim and establish a new colony in 1832.
1833 The Royal Navy shows up in force and takes over - or reclaims, depending on your perspective - without a shot being fired.
1842 The Falkland Islands officially become a colony within the Empire.
So, its not like the Falklands had never been possessed by Argentina nor had they consistently belonged to the British Empire since discovery and settlement.
Not that I'm supporting the Argentinian claim or anything, just giving a little broader background. Their actions were absurd, and their historical claim was weaker than the British. The British claim is quite a bit older, once all is said and done. Plus there is the principle of self-determination to consider.
Harvin87
The Youth
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.
... sorry!! ... 
Danthor
Warlord
That's just plain wrong. They are over 500 kms away from both the Cape Horn (in Chile) and the Strait of Magellan, which are quite far away between themselves.
Danthor
Warlord
I wouldn't say "barely". We provided full intelligence support throughout the duration of the conflict. Even warned the brits about a year before but they didn't believe us...
Similar threads
