Jump to content


Photo

Mythbusters: Moody Brook


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#61 BillB

BillB

    Scooter Trash Gunphobic, apparently

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:English East Midlander in Glasgow, UK
  • Interests:most things military, military modelling, Vespa motor scooters, Staffordshire Bull Terriers

Posted 14 December 2004 - 0844 AM

Originally posted by FlyingCanOpener:
Bill,

The Argies couldn't do anything with their Pucaras, especially after the SAS took care of them at Pebble Island...  Posted Image


Fair one, mate, although I don't think they were all down there from Goose Green after the Harriers hit the place and the Argentines decided it was too vulnerable to ground raiders. Ironic, that. Posted Image I think some went to Stanley, and they did strafe 2PARA and dropped napalm on them durng the Battle of Goose Green.

all the best

BillB
  • 0

#62 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 14 December 2004 - 1031 AM

Ox wrote:

KJ, Have you read the book Los Chicos De Guerra, I think. I read an English translation many years ago and it contained some bizarre accounts of Gurkha attacking Argentine troops whilst on drugs.

We aren´t short on myths this side of the pond either. The gurkhas being source to many myths, i.e. the one BillB mentions, about stoned gurkhas running wildly into MG fire, the other one about gurkhas scalping, slicing the ears or beheading argie corpses (the myth actually saying that gurkhas were paid a a head-price for each argie killed). I think we covered this last time (or was it the time before that ??), anyway the myth about gurkhas beheading the dead or even POWs started as some POWs from Darwin were guarded by gurkhas. One brit officer told them to behave, or the gurkhas would eat their ears. Somehow this turned into a rumor and then into a myth. About the first bit, the stoned gurkhas running beserk, that was mainly war time propaganda, and should be evaluated as such. Same thing about the BBC broadcasts aimed at the kelpers, according to which Argentina had emptied all jails of thiefs and rapists, and send them to the islands to terrorize civilians. War propaganda, which should be evaluated as such.

It also gave some moving accounts of the conditions the conscripts fou8ght under and their naivety in thinking the British would not fight.


The description of everyday life in the sangers is very lifelike, as confirmed to me by some former conscript veterans.

As about the naive hypothesis that the UK could be forced to negotiate, isn´t that the whole flawed rationale by which the Junta retook the islands in the first place?? Conscripts were told in the begining they would not have to fight. Of course after the first brit bombs started to tumble down on May, all that changed.

Is this book considered accurate in Argentina?


Believe me when I say, I do my best to bust those myths in spanish speaking fora, as well. Sometimes I get laughter, sometimes anger from other fellow posters. I have moved some to read, though.

The events described in this particular book you mention are considered accurate by those who have only a shallow knowledge of the war. I hasten to add that this may include the mayority of former conscript veterans as well. As awfull and discrimanatory as it may sound, it depends on the cultural background of the individual and the effort the individual has put on learning about the war. I have done a fair amount of reading, drawn from different sources, most of them by british authors, and consider myself ´versed´ enough to completely disregard such crap. Sadly, way to many argies are willing to believe these and many other myths.

I think these kind of myhts (nurtured to the point that they are taken as facts by the uneducated) are simply a natural, unconcious response to what we (Argentina, the side who lost the war) see as a deliverated denying/twisting/hiding of facts that sorround the war on the side of the british. A popular belief is that the UK put a 75 year secrecy seal on the Falklands war files cause you got ´something to hide´. Posted Image

KIng Jester
  • 0

#63 Grant Whitley

Grant Whitley

    True Heart of the Aztec

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,286 posts

Posted 14 December 2004 - 1254 PM

Originally posted by BillB:
According to van der Bijl's "Argentine Forces in the Falklands", 30 per cent of RI 8 were long term conscripts and recalled reservists, and I suspect the same applied to at least two more RIs. I should think that is a bit more than a "smattering". With ref to RI 25, given the generally low standard of Argentine training, I should be interested to know exactly what they mean by Special Forces type training (van der Bijl refers to techniques rather than training). Somehow I doubt it equates to the generally accepted meaning of the term.


I found my copy of this earlier today, and IIRC what van der Bijl said was merely that the regiment was 70% conscripts. He did not make any statements as to the other 30%. At a minimum, some portion of that 30% is going to be officers and NCOs. Also, wasn’t RI 8 deployed on West Falkland? I think a company or so might have been helicoptered over to East Falkland to fight at Goose Green.

Also, van der Bijl’s book seems okay, but I’ve always approached it with caution. It says right in the front of the book that the book was largely compiled from Argentine sources, but given the numerous linguistical errors, it’s obvious that the author does not speak Spanish, or speaks/reads it poorly at best. That leads me to question exactly how accurate some of his information is. I’m at work and unfortunately don’t have the book handy, but I think this is the book which hilariously misspelled Veinticinco de Mayo as Vientrecinco de Mayo- vientre meaning bowels, or womb or uterus in some instances! I believe he had artillería de campaña misspelled as campana, which means bell, rather than campaign. Maybe van der Bijl was trying to make a point about the training of the crews, who quickly pealed out towards the rear when they came under fire.

Anyway, come on. You are going to yank the beard of one of top half dozen militaries on the planet and you assume they are going to roll over and take it quietly...


That’s just it, though: they were yanking the beard of those in Whitehall, not the military. The decision to retake the Falklands was a political one, and the Argentines had gambled that the British nation would roll over, nevermind the military.

maybe, but your line of argument here seems to me to equate to "we are going to be aggressors so we will only be called upon to fight when the weather and other conditions are favourable, so we can afford have a crap army". Call me old fashioned, but I thought an army or armed forces were supposed to be ready top do their job whenever necessary, and if the conscription system was unable to do that then there were some serious structural problems.


Argentina’s resources were rather more limited than those of Britain. Admittedly, they probably could have gone to two year conscription terms. It would be interesting to know if they found the one year terms to be advantageous from some standpoint.

AFAIK there was only one Brit sub, but fair point. With ref to your closing question, I don't see why they could not have made better use of what they actually used without risking the navy. The air attacks could have been far more effective with some careful targetting and discipline on the part of the pilots. The latter were undoubtedly courageous, but they had a bad habit of attacking the first thing they saw, which is why the RN vessels acting as perimeter radar warning posts took such a hammering. Look at the problems the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor caused the Task force, and consider what effect a dedicated and focussed effort against the ships carrying supplies.


I suspect that the problem was finding them. Many of the Argentine planes(the Skyhawks in particular, I believe) lacked modern avionics packages. Also the British were employing tactics to keep the Argentines from using the positions of the Harriers to be able to accurately estimate the locations of the Brit carriers.

Also keep in mind that the Argentine pilots were flying from the mainland- I’d bet that their loiter time was somewhat limited, which may have led to the tendency to attack the first thing they sighted, as you say. Additionally, the weather was poor for much of the campaign and this precluded Argentine air operations at times. Incidentally, the Harriers had an all-weather capability, did they not?

The Argentines could also have made better use of their Pucaras and the Special Forces people they had against the British logistics train once the advance on Stanley began. As I understand it the British logistical operation was run on a shoestring, and it must therefore have been vulnerable to disruption. The Argentines had helos to move observer teams around with, and they could have called in Pucaras, jets and arty too. A heli borne arty raid would have caused havoc I suspect, and a bit of co-ordination with the air force and navy air could have drawn off British air cover to protect the helos.


The Pucaras were obsolete COIN aircraft- they would have suffered heavily at the hands of British MANPADS.
  • 0

#64 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,131 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 14 December 2004 - 1333 PM

FAA Aircraft did not have long loiter time once they arrived at the Falklands. IIRC, they had about 4 minutes before turning for home, so as soon as they saw a White Ensign, they went after it.

As for the Harriers, they were first generation Harriers and did not have all-weather capability...
  • 0

#65 Ox

Ox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 618 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 0640 AM

King Jester said.

Same thing about the BBC broadcasts aimed at the kelpers, according to which Argentina had emptied all jails of thiefs and rapists, and send them to the islands to terrorize civilians.


Where did you hear the BBC broadcast saying this? I remember a lot of British propaganda on the beeb being of the starving ill equipped untrained conscripts up against our super dooper techno marvels and ironmen troops ilk. In the press it was more nazi junta kill them all gotcha etc tripe but I never heard those thiefs and rapists broadcasts. I used to listen to the world service quite avidly during the war and if anything their broadcasts were less pro British than their UK radio, a number of broadcasts said that the Argentine forces were amongst the more proffesional in South America.
  • 0

#66 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 15 December 2004 - 0710 AM

Ox wrote:

Where did you hear the BBC broadcast saying this? ....but I never heard those thiefs and rapists broadcasts. I used to listen to the world service quite avidly during the war and if anything their broadcasts were less pro British than their UK radio, a number of broadcasts said that the Argentine forces were amongst the more proffesional in South America.

There is a book, can´t remember the title or author right now, its called something like ´First person accounts, 80 faces from the Falklands war´. Its a collection of short interviews to veterans of both sides, main political leaders of the time (including Maggy, Nott and others) and three kelpers, IRCC. One of kelpers refers to the BBC broadcast, warning civilians about the alledged rapists and thiefs amongst the argie conscripts.

I take is as war propaganda tactic, to avoid any possible fraternization between kelkpers and argies. What I do not know, is if the BBC ever broadcasted, after the war, a dsiclaimer, or if these poor women still believe what they were told back then.



FlyingCanOpener

IIRC, they had about 4 minutes before turning for home, so as soon as they saw a White Ensign, they went after it.
As for the Harriers, they were first generation Harriers and did not have all-weather capability...


About 10 minutes over the channel area, 5 over East Falkland is often cited.
Skyhawks (IFR capable) could enjoy some more, but the extra time was often deviated to take longer appproach routes, in order to try avoid Sea Harriers packs. Daggers (ex-israely Neshers) had to take always the same route due to fuel shortage, and relied mostly on speed and low altitude to avoid the CAP.

As for the SHARs, the FRS-1 had a radar, Blue Vixen IRCC, but this one was plagued with problems and never worked to full satisfaction. Nevertheless, SHARS flew missions by night. IRCC two SHAR pilots probably collided mid-air and got killed.

King Jester
  • 0

#67 Ox

Ox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 618 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 0725 AM

I suspect that the thieves and rapists story may well be along the same lines as the drugged Gurkhas. A local rumour that was quickly taken as fact by the locals, Mrs so and so heard it on the radio , from the beeb you know so it must be true. I am going to have a poke around and see what more I can find out about it. I will post anything I find but it may be a couple of days. To me it doesn't quite fit the nature of BBC broadcasting. Not questioning that the BBC did it's bit in the propaganda war but I would like more info on this. Of course the BBC would also repeat what the MOD said without much thought , goose Green, unfused bombs and 50p phone calls spring to mind. Does anyone know if the Falkland Islanders grow a lot of turnips because I clearly remeber a story on TV about Agrentine conscripts living of stolen turnips, how the hell they knew that beats me another MOD line I guess.

Packs of Sea Harriers? I thought they operated in pairs apart from the early stanley bombing missions. As far as I know the two Sea Harriers that collided were lost in fog rather than at night.

[Edited by Ox (15 Dec 2004).]
  • 0

#68 JOE BRENNAN

JOE BRENNAN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,970 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 0742 AM

Originally posted by Ox:
Many moons ago I read accounts, can't remember where now, that there were at least 3 UK subs , The Conqueror, another SSN that briefly made contact with the Argentine carrier maybe Splendid or Supurb and a diesle sub that turned up in Stanley after the war.


Splendid and Spartan departed for the Falklands even before Conqueror. Valiant and the diesel Onyx arrived in late May. Superb was reported in the press as on its way in early April, but wasn't.

On hindsighting the campaign the Argentine concept was untenable once the assumption of no armed British response proved false. I don't think a lot more could have been expected from the Argentine air arms operating from the mainland, they exceeded reasonable objective expectations as it was. The campaign would have to assume unbreakable sea blockade in the time it took nuclear subs to get there. In fact again as it was British restraint in not sinking any Argentine ships found at sea one the subs arrived, they observed a number of them apparently, was better for the Argentine's than might have been expected. A potentially workable concept, needing advance preparation with the campaign in mind, would be massive sea mining while the sub window was open (some minefields were laid) and more critically, rapid airfield construction on the islands suitable for all strike a/c plus an air transport train sufficient to support the force after a well planned surge of shipping (with the stuff for the airfields) got there before the blockade, immediately after the invasion.

Viewed through the prism of WWII air/sea/land island campaigns the fighting on the islands themselves were an anti climax, only one outcome once the British were established ashore. Also in view of WWII it's rather amazing the Argentine military was so little inclined in planning and special capabilies useful for such a campaign, say compared to US and Japanese more or less acting out years of plans in the Pacific, far from perfectly in either case, but not as if the mission was to suddenly be asked to land on Mars. The potential threat of Chile isn't really an excuse.

This area most of all is where incompetence is the only reasonable verdict, IMO. It's not comparable to a war where things don't go as you plan, so it's rougher than you except. That's 50% of the time in war more or less. It's a different category where fairly forseeable eventualities of one of a few long known potential real world missions for a nation's military lead to 100% defeat and national humiliation with no apparent plan to cover them.

Joe



[Edited by JOE BRENNAN (15 Dec 2004).]
  • 0

#69 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 15 December 2004 - 0826 AM

Packs of Sea Harriers?


Sorry, lost in translation. CAP equates to PAC (Patrulla Aerea de Combate) in spanish, thus PACs or misstyped packs.

I agree on your reading of the BBC broadcast. Probably a scare tactic by the MoD, to originate a rumour, which slowly grew into a myth. As I said, don´t know if this is still today popular believe amongst kelpers, or not.

King Jester
  • 0

#70 Ox

Ox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 618 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 2100 PM

Originally posted by King Jester:
.

I agree on your reading of the BBC broadcast. Probably a scare tactic by the MoD, to originate a rumour, which slowly grew into a myth. As I said, don´t know if this is still today popular believe amongst kelpers, or not.

King Jester


sorry I didn't make myself clear. I suspect that the rapist and robbers myth started in the Falklands from the locals and that the BBC did not start it, though I would not rule it out. The problem with it coming from the BBC is that it would not be very effective propaganda. The falklanders were in daily contact with the Argentine troops who by all accounts mostly behaved well, surely the locals would see that most were young conscripts rather than dastardly evil swine. Anyhow I will see what I can find out and let you know, If you can come up with the name of the book and author that would be a help
  • 0

#71 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 15 December 2004 - 2249 PM

Joe, I'm not sure how much terrain in the Falklands is suitable for airfield construction (at least for the use of high performance aircraft). The place is pretty hilly and boggy. RAF Mount Pleasant took something like four years to open (officially opened 1st May 1986) though the runway may have been in use sometime in 1984.



[Edited by Chris Werb (16 Dec 2004).]
  • 0

#72 FirstOfFoot

FirstOfFoot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,815 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:ISSF target rifle

Posted 15 December 2004 - 2310 PM

Originally posted by King Jester:
As for the SHARs, the FRS-1 had a radar, Blue Vixen IRCC, but this one was plagued with problems and never worked to full satisfaction.


Nope, Blue Fox in the FRS.1 - Blue Vixen didn't go into service until the early 1990s with the FA.2.......

As for radar performance, HMS Invincible had no problems at all with Blue Fox; Sharky Ward talks highly of its performance in his book "Sea Harriers over the Falklands". HMS Hermes' squadrons had some issues with it (to do with calibration procedures and equipment).

Blue Fox was a very basic radar; it's what the RB could afford at the time, and the claim was that all it needed to do was to look up and see BEAR and BADGER against a clear blue sky....

Blue Vixen was a very different beast; the first radar designed to work from the outset with AIM-120 (the AMRAAM), and a rather effective package, if I say so myself Posted Image It meant that the most capable fighter in Western European hands for a few years couldn't break the speed of sound except in a dive, and wasn't in the hands of the RAF Posted Image Posted Image
  • 0

#73 JOE BRENNAN

JOE BRENNAN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,970 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 0512 AM

Originally posted by Chris Werb:
Joe, I'm not sure how much terrain in the Falklands is suitable for airfield construction (at least for the use of high performance aircraft).  The place is pretty hilly and boggy.  RAF Mount Pleasant took something like four years to open (officially opened 1st May 1986) though the runway may have been in use sometime in 1984.


I'm not sure it is either, but either you build fields (or extend Port Stanley's field), or are able to sustain sea communications, or very likely you lose such a campaign. I suppose longer range a/c or lots more aerial tankers could be another angle. Anyway still amazing the Argentine military establishment gave apparently such little thought to basic questions of the concept of such a campaign over such a long time before it.

Joe
  • 0

#74 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 16 December 2004 - 1633 PM

JOE BRENNAN

I'm not sure it is either, but either you build fields (or extend Port Stanley's field), or are able to sustain sea communications, or very likely you lose such a campaign. I suppose longer range a/c or lots more aerial tankers could be another angle. Anyway still amazing the Argentine military establishment gave apparently such little thought to basic questions of the concept of such a campaign over such a long time before it.

Apparently after the early euforia of a succesfull landing operation, argie military planners (who as already pointed out would have prefered to launch this campaign, if at all, a few years later on and during spring months, rather than fall), had to make contingency desitions.
The original idea was to have some 2000 to 4000 troops stationed on the islands, while 'aggresive' negotations with the UK took place. As the Task Force set sail for Ascension, this plan was rapidly seen as unsufficient, and army units which where not even prepared to deploy on a weekly exercise where regrouped and flown in by commercial airliner. Aerolineas Argentinas, the former argie flag airline flew some 9000 troops to the islands, the sea route already considered to risky and slow for massive personnel movement during these innitial build-up.

Much of the heavy equippment was supposed to follow by sea. There where two problems to this, one is that we did not have our best men in the logistics bussines, and second that there simply was no suitable port to clear the cargo on Stanley. Already the limited ammount of heavy stuff, such as M-35s and Unimogs, AML-90s, OTO howitzers, AAA, food, fuel, UH-1 helos, etc, etc had comletely maxed out the navy's own transport capacity. Most of the army stuff was to be transported by ELMA (flag shipping line) and other commercial liners, but logistic problems delayed the departure of most of the cargo. IRCC RI 12, which was based on Darwin, did never get their winter gear, tents, field kitchens, heavy mortars, engineer equipment, etc, which stayed stranded at some port in Argentina.

Same about the perforated metal planks for airstrip construction (can't remember how they are named in english), the same kind used extensively in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc). IRCC 9000 square meters (about 4 acres) of metal planks had been readied to extend the strip at Stanley (if this was possible at all is questionable, as the old Stanley strip had a huge rock boulder on one end and a boggy area on the other end, which limited potential lengthening of the runway).
Anyhow, by the time the ship was loaded with all the goodies our logisticians had come up with, the priorities had changed, as suddenly there were five times more troops to feed on the islands. The metal planks had to be unloaded again, and wait for the next ship. Long story made short, they ended up as taxing and parking areas on San Julian airfield (a small civilian airfield) where A-4Cs and occasionally Daggers operated.



FirstOfFoot

Nope, Blue Fox in the FRS.1 - Blue Vixen didn't go into service until the early 1990s with the FA.2.......


Correct, my mistake about the radar. Anyhow, even if the performance of the Blue Fox was somewhat limited, it can safely be compared with the Cyrano II on the Mirage IIIEs and or the Agave on the Super Etendards (this is in a2a mode). As it turns out, SHARs flew few CAP mission at night, while Mirage IIIs flew only a handfull escort sorties at night, close to the end of the war (a pair of Mirage IIIs from Grupo 8 being the very last argie combat planes to depart for a combat mission, callsign Pluton, at dusk on June, 13th) and SUEs where virtually grounded after the last Exocet had been fired.
Night/all weather capability was therefore not a severe handicap for the RN, as the only argie aircraft (should I say the most likely to show at night?) where Hercs, Canberras and occasionally a lonely Neptune, as most of the fighters, CAS/COIN aircraft and helos were grounded at night anyway.

King Jester
  • 0

#75 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 16 December 2004 - 1642 PM

I'm getting my ideas together about a couple of questions posted here, in regards to "fresh" conscripts vs. "seasoned" conscripts, etc, etc.

Will post ASAP.

King Jester
  • 0

#76 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 16 December 2004 - 2242 PM

I'm not sure whether Port Stanley runway was significantly lengthened after recapture*. What I do remember is that it had a portable arrestor system installed to handle the Phantoms. This isn't as weird as it sounds as some UK RAF airfields (Coningsby for instance) had an arrestor system and aircrew practiced with it. Presumably even land based Argentine A-4s still had arrestor hooks.

The trouble with putting high performance aircraft on Port Stanley (I think the highest performance Argentine aircraft based there was the MB339) is that you end up making it even more of a target. You might be able to put your planes in some sort of prefabricated HAS, but the airfield covered a relatively small area.

*According to the RAF, Stanley runway wasn't just lengthened but reconstructed:
[url="http://"http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/british_military/1982_2.html"]http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-...ary/1982_2.html[/url]

[Edited by Chris Werb (17 Dec 2004).]
  • 0

#77 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 03 January 2005 - 2147 PM

Well, still no ideas on how to proof or bust this myth...? Depending of course on which version is the "myth" for any one...

What would constitute a good "proof"?

Personally, and that should have become obviuos to all readers at this point, my opinion is that the brit version is simply unsustainable.

Started as the unconfirmed testimony of what RMs claim to have "heard", grown in strenght by the input of happy postwar publishers and retrofed by the flawed rationale that the argie landing "necessarily" needed to be "ferociuos" in nature (along the lines of "why else would you invade"? to ask the brits to join in for tea?), the brit version seems to be unquestionable matter of fact to many.

Have you ever asked yourself following?

Kelpers kept coming and going at will for the most part of April, driving past Moody Brook, could nobody confirm or refute what the RMs alledgly heard that morning?

King Jester

PS: Ox, I could not retrieve the correct name of the book or author, for that matter. Browsed the online catalog of the library where I boroughed it in the first place, but couldn't find the title. As I said, a small softcover book published early in the 80s. Title along the lines "Portraits: 80 interviews on the Falklands War" or something like that.
  • 0

#78 Ox

Ox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 618 posts

Posted 04 January 2005 - 0311 AM

King jester.

I am not sure what you are referring to when talking about what the Marines heard and how this could be confirmed by the locals.

I have been exchanging emails with the BBC about the Falklands War broadcasts but am getting nowhere in tracking down the wobbere and wapists broadcast.When I get something of interest either way I will post it.
  • 0

#79 BillB

BillB

    Scooter Trash Gunphobic, apparently

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:English East Midlander in Glasgow, UK
  • Interests:most things military, military modelling, Vespa motor scooters, Staffordshire Bull Terriers

Posted 04 January 2005 - 0624 AM

Calm down, KingJester, I'm working on it but got sidetracked by Xmas etc. Suffice to stay at this stage that the evidence I have examined clearly shows that your beloved myth exists largely in your own mind, given that the misconception has been pointed out in British published works since at least 1989, and was apparent with a bit of careful reading in earlier accounts. Always assuming that the provenance of the latter does not automatically debar the evidence in your eyes, of course.

However, as a taster and with ref to your stuff below about allegedly unconfirmd RM testimony about what they and passing Falklander civvies heard and saw, how about a bit of evidence from an Argentine officer....

In his account of the action, Lieutenant-Commander Sanchez Sabarots, overall commander of the Ca Cdo Anf and leader of the party detailed to deal with Moody Brook barracks, claims that his orders from Rear-Admiral Busser included instructions to include a firepower demonstration in his assault. This was to be visible from Government House as it was intended to overawe the British governor in conjunction with Giachino's snatch attempt and the main Argentine landing.

To this end, once he had established that the barracks were unoccupied, he had his MG gunners fire a lot of tracer in the air before settling down to await first light. That the forepower demonstration was heard far and wide appears to be confirmed by Sabarots, who noted that the lights in Port Stanley seemed to go out after the first burst. See Middlebrook, The Fight for the 'Malvinas': The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 30

I'll get back and fully demolish your contention with proper references and so on later. :)

all the best

BillB

Well, still no ideas on how to proof or bust this myth...? Depending of course on which version is the "myth" for any one...

What would constitute a good "proof"?

Personally, and that should have become obviuos to all readers at this point, my opinion is that the brit version is simply unsustainable.

Started as the unconfirmed testimony of what RMs claim to have "heard", grown in strenght by the input of happy postwar publishers and retrofed by the flawed rationale that the argie landing "necessarily" needed to be "ferociuos" in nature (along the lines of "why else would you invade"? to ask the brits to join in for tea?), the brit version seems to be unquestionable matter of fact to many.

Have you ever asked yourself following?

Kelpers kept coming and going at will for the most part of April, driving past Moody Brook, could nobody confirm or refute what the RMs alledgly heard that morning?

King Jester

PS: Ox, I could not retrieve the correct name of the book or author, for that matter. Browsed the online catalog of the library where I boroughed it in the first place, but couldn't find the title. As I said, a small softcover book published early in the 80s. Title along the lines "Portraits: 80 interviews on the Falklands War" or something like that.

View Post


  • 0

#80 King Jester

King Jester

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the office, for now...
  • Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 04 January 2005 - 1939 PM

BillB wrote

your beloved myth exists largely in your own mind, given that the misconception has been pointed out in British published works since at least 1989, and was apparent with a bit of careful reading in earlier accounts.


Carefull reading...that seems to be the key issue.
I have been slapped in the face with the "myth" at least two times in this forum, and the "myth" is portrayed by half a dozen british web sites on or about the Falklands War that I know off (and that is because I usually stop reading the more apologist ones before I even get there).
Guess these people have done little "carefull reading" ??

However, as a taster and with ref to your stuff below about allegedly unconfirmd RM testimony about what they and passing Falklander civvies heard

There is no doubt that they heard something, a lot of MG fire for that matter.

and saw


That is the problem, they saw nothing, but infered. And they infered wrong.

In his account of the action, Lieutenant-Commander Sanchez Sabarots, overall commander of the Ca Cdo Anf and leader of the party detailed to deal with Moody Brook barracks, claims that his orders from Rear-Admiral Busser included instructions to include a firepower demonstration in his assault.

I know the accounts and testimonies of our own people inside out, believe me.
But in former arguments , err, debattes, we had you implied that argentine sources may be a little sqeeded, and that our authors may not have a clue about the meaning of historicall research.

That is the only reason why I have left out personnal accounts from the people who "was there and did that". Becuase I don't want to enter the game of whos word is more thrustworthy. Just consider one fact: the UK government denied systematically for 21 years that nuclear weapons were carried by the Tast Force. The thrut finally surfaced 2 years ago. So much about thrustworthyness.

I'll get back and fully demolish your contention with proper references and so on later.


I all excited. Keep up the good work. ;)

Posted by KING JESTER

Started as the unconfirmed testimony of what RMs claim to have "heard"


My grammar stinks, I'm not even sure what I intended to write. Anyhow, RMs certainly heard a lot of noise, and "claimed" it was a ferociuos attack with MGs and grenades. This remains "unconfirmed".

Ox wrote:

I am not sure what you are referring to when talking about what the Marines heard and how this could be confirmed by the locals


If the RMs could not visually confirm the damage to the barracks in daylight, may be kelpers driving by on the right, yes the RIGHT side of the road, (against their selfdetermination right to drive on the wrong side of the road :D ) could have confirmed visually if the alledged attack and destruction of the barracks had taken place or not. I'm not sure if you can catch a whole lot of detail from the road, but kelpers had more than enough time to find out. Why not ask them? BTW, I think I still have a Joker up my sleeve in this game, regarding visual confirmation of the state of the barracks.

King Jester

PS: BillB Joined: Tue 12 Feb 2002 Member No.: 979

Didn't you say last time, when pointing out my posting habits in regards to the Falklands/Malvinas questions, that I probably hung around this forum starting a long time before you? Turns out to be the other way around.

Have a good one, and I almost forgot, Happy New Year chaps, and all the best for 2005.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users