Did the British Goverment lie with regard the Falklands - Page 2




 
--
 
December 7th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Not so much about under-estimating, but not being able to do a whole lot about. The best aircraft the UK could send there was the Harrier and not in that great of a quantity either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo
we seriously under-estimated their Air-force...which was why we had so many ships hit/sunk

but the ground war was no contest...after 50 SAS from 22Sqn took port san carlos and we could get the Paras and Marines inland it was pratically over. the falklands terrain is like a mirror of england and we were so used to it....and sheer numbers meant we could take prt stanley and goose green with relative ease
December 7th, 2004  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: NOOOOO


Falklands happened as the argentine president or what ever he is wanted to take it back over and kicked up a fuss.................long story short UK went out to defend falklands.....................

ok we fired apon a argentine ship with out warining which we should not have! which kicked the big fuss up...............so if they torpedo hadn't been released maybe the war wouldn't of been as bad.

but this mis - fire happened due to bad communication................the fire one missed the 2nd hit the bow ..............

the C.O. of the sub mistunderstood the Commands from the head and ended up firing upon the ship they had been sitting under for ages.
December 7th, 2004  
beardo
 
No the falklands happened because the military regime was extremely unpopular and there was an economic crisis, so the military decided to re-take the falklands to ''cheer the people up''
--
December 7th, 2004  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: read it properly


no the argentine priminister at time of ruling wanting ot claim back the land as their own and wanted to change.............................

its plain and simple plus its what they tell you in history of war degree's
December 7th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
Yes as in Northern Ireland.

Quote:
we seriously under-estimated their Air-force...which was why we had so many ships hit/sunk

but the ground war was no contest...after 50 SAS from 22Sqn took port san carlos and we could get the Paras and Marines inland it was pratically over. the falklands terrain is like a mirror of england and we were so used to it....and sheer numbers meant we could take prt stanley and goose green with relative ease
I think it was trying to attack Infantry in the Line formation that killed so many men.
December 7th, 2004  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo

but the ground war was no contest...after 50 SAS from 22Sqn took port san carlos and we could get the Paras and Marines inland it was pratically over. the falklands terrain is like a mirror of england and we were so used to it....and sheer numbers meant we could take prt stanley and goose green with relative ease
The Argentinean Garrison numbered nearly 12,000, the British invasion force numbered just over 7,000.
Anya1982
Quote:
ok we fired upon a argentine ship with out warning which we should not have! which kicked the big fuss up...............so if they torpedo hadn't been released maybe the war wouldn't of been as bad.

but this mis - fire happened due to bad communication................the fire one missed the 2nd hit the bow ..............

the C.O. of the sub mistunderstood the Commands from the head and ended up firing upon the ship they had been sitting under for ages.
The Belgarno was a threat to the fleet.
The Argentineans at this time were attempting to attack the fleet from both flanks with their navy.
The RN high command asked permission of the PM to fire on her.
Maggie gave that permission.
The commander of HMS Conquerer fired with the full permission of both his high command and government.
After the sinking the remainder of the Argentinean fleet fled back to harbour.
December 7th, 2004  
beardo
 
yes but their forces were more spread out. they were trying to occupy land as opposed to stategic locations, and the concentrated forces of the marines and paras took the positions easier than if the argies had put more men defending the ports/towns
December 8th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Yep this is what happened as I know it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beardo
No the falklands happened because the military regime was extremely unpopular and there was an economic crisis, so the military decided to re-take the falklands to ''cheer the people up''
December 8th, 2004  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: no


Thats not whole truth........................yes they asked permission to fire then they were told to hold fire..............poor communication got in the way and they ended up firing...........................my uncle was on that sub at the time and was in the op's room...........

ah by the way that history degree stuff wasn't me..........its what happens when you get auto logged on from emails and your mates can get in!!!!!!

Also i served on my last two ships with guys that were in the falklands war on the ships and the subs
December 8th, 2004  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: bad me


seriously some one needs to gag me when it comes to naval history