Falklands Conflict

Admin's and Mod's Admins and Mod's - Archive Room
#1861

Interesting that you cite France and the US as exclusively helping us, where do Exocets, A-4 Skyhawks and Mirages come from?

As for the Chileans insulting you on the radio, how very dare they? Imagine insulting someone on the radio while you’re engaged in a real shooting war with a true world power.

Which European countries were at Britain’s side during the war? Name one single unit that fought in the Falklands that wasn’t either British or Argentinian.[/quote]

As Erwin say I’ll do some corrections

*The AM-39 Exocets were purchased to France in 1980, and they arrived to Argentina with the Dassault Super Etendards, by the end of 1981. In April 1982, France took away all the teachers and technicians who were supporting the loading of the Super Etendards and the Exocets. Argentina had to arrange alone to load the weapons and the aircrafts.
France helped to the United Kingdom not only with this retirement of their technicians from Argentina. France put an Embargo to Argentina and supported to Britain in diplomatic discussions. They sent Mirages III and Super Etendards to show to the british forces the skills of these aircrafts.

*The A-4B/C Skyhawks from the Argentine Air Force or the Argentine Navy were purchased in the '70s, and it wasn’t a “help” really. Argentina ask to the United States for the A-4F Skyhawk or the A-6 Intruder, but the Navy only allowed to Argentina to incorporate A-4B and A-4C. Not only was that. When the sold was realized, the US put an embargo about the stock suplies, as the large fleet of Skyhawks of 91 aircraft (50 A-4B Air Force, 25 A-4C Air Force, 16 A-4B/Q/ Navy) was reduced, by 1980, to 58 (30 A-4B Air Force, 18 A-4C Air Force, 10 A-4B/Q/ Navy).
And now let’s talk about the South Atlantic War. The United States provided to the british forces the new missile AIM-9L Sidewinder, supported in all the diplomatic discussions, and provided satellite information to the british forces about the location of the argentine forces, not only in the islands, in the continent too.

*The problem about the insultes of the chileans wasn’t the insulte in fact. They were interceding on the argentine comunications all time, to blockade all the coordinations between the argentine forces.
That wasn’t the only form that Chile helped the United Kingdom. The Chilean Navy had been moving along all the Beagle Channel and the south of the Pacific, simulating an attack, to force Argentina to move forces to the South West and start to see the war as a two-flank war. The Chilean Army moved their forces to the border with the argentine provinces of Chubut and Mendoza, with the same purpose than the Navy.

*About the European help, a help in a war don’t need to be that a country fought with you… All the countries members of the EU supported to the United Kingdom and put a commercial and military Embargo to Argentina and the country who were supporting us (Perú, Venezuela).
France sent Mirages III and Super Etendard with their weapons (aa missiles R-530 and R-550, as missiles AM-39 Exocet) to show the skills and improve the british tactics to the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm. They took away their technicians and military teachers who were supporting the french armaments in Argentina.

#1862

THANKS EAGLE!,TE PORTASTE LOCO! :smiley:

#1863

I see school’s out again.

#1864

Dutch courage ? For a website ?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[quote=“Erwin Schätzer(argentina)”]

our version was failing,because of their poor mantaigning.
yes,your were worst,but ours weren’t working[/quote]
That only shows yet more bad soldiering skills.

#1865

Hmmm.

More ‘racism.’ for want of a better word.

So you’re going to help the world by killing a Kelper ?

You could always offer a trip to the showers instead.

#1866

fck! ANOTHER TIME,THEY ARE BRITISH,THEY WILL FCK ON ARGENTINA BECAUSE THEY ARE FOREINGNERS,WHY DON’T WE KICK THEM,PUT THERE A FEW ARGIES,AND THEN!!!,GIVE THEM INDEPENDENCE!!! EH!!
THOSE BRAVE ARGENTINIANS KICK YOUR ASSES IN THE TWO BRITISH INVASIONS 1806-1807.

Edit by PzKpfw VI Tiger: Just doing a wee bit of censoring on the language.[/quote]

PzKpfw VI Tiger, you’ve edited out the bad language ?
I’m glad I didn’t see the original post !

#1867

I feel the real problem with Erwin is’nt that the Argentine forces got bitch slapped in 1982 but the fact that the rest of South America are still laughing about it.
So a tin pot General and his piss pot army got their arrses kicked 23 years ago It’s history get over it
Having looked at the Argentine military thread the UK had best start producing Centurions and Sarecens again as those Tams and APC thingys look a bit retro.
Now where is my next bottle of Stella.

#1868

iv’e just looked at the map that Erwin posted should’nt the mountains around Port Stanley have been renamed Mt arrse kickio, bitch slapio , ran away like little girlio and oh no here come the guhkaios.
I’ve been drinking again and have exposed myself as no better than Erwin when drunk however in the morning I will be sober.

#1869

Eagle it occurs to me that a lot of the problems re removal of French technicians and their embargo was your Junta’s own stupid fault. They embarked on a war of aggression before their own forces were fully trained and supplied, failing to realise that if Argentina attacked a fellow EEC member France would be obliged by treaty to suspend any active military assistance. Futhermore the French had a number of overseas territories themselves, some of which are disputed, if they had assisted Argentina in a military escapade instead of a diplomatic solution they would have put their own disputed territories at risk.
The US as a NATO ally was obliged to provide support to Britain against an act of aggression, although they initailly took a bit of persuading as some of the administration wished to support Argentina. However it was pointed out that supporting such a unilateral attack would be extremely destabilising and that while Britain was a liberal democracy commited to self-determination Argentina was a fascist military dictatorship with a questionable human rights record.

#1870

Given the circumctances I’m sure the great man himself would not begrudge you the use of that quote.
:wink:

#1871

If you want the Falklands back, then come and fight for them.

The reason almost everyone was on the British side, even if not offering actual useful assistance, was that you invaded another country’s territory.

That sort of thing isn’t done in polite society. It’s why most of the World supported Gulf War 1. It’s why a lot of the World doesn’t support GW 2.

The reason the British are usually on the winning side in a war is that we are good at them, having lots of practice over the years.

More fool the Junta for picking a fight with a country that hadn’t lost a war since 1841 (1st Afghan campaign, although it could be said we lost the first battle but then won the war in the 2nd and 3rd campaigns).

Excepting the example above, we hadn’t lost since 1776 despite having been fighting almost all the time.

If you want a fight that you might win, fight a poor country with a crap army and little experience. We did.

#1872

Spiltted from Argentinian Military.

#1873

Splitted from Religion thread.

#1874

Off-topic:

Temporarily I locked 2 other threads. PLEASE input in this thread ANY post / consideration regarding the Malvinas / Falklands.

Thank you.

#1875

Thanks Dani the whole board was starting to go off topic

#1876

laughing?,they admirate the great courage of our forces against the imperialist enemy,and the poor conditions in which we fought the war,still with great involvement (without the sunking of the general belgrano,i don’t believe the brits could resist)
tin pot general?,what an insult.
maybe they are retro,but our vehicles are great for us,specially the design of the tam,i don’t believe thos turrons or camels would have the same involvement if they weren’t specially designed for this lands (im talking about warfare in this lands).

stella?, :lol: ,you are drinking water man,try a good cold quilmes

#1877

EAGLE,i give you the work to reply this messages,or at least,translate me them,they are too long and boring

#1878

It seems from the links to Argentine sites that Erwin has provided us with regarding the War of 1982 that Argentina has developed victim syndrome. All those poor ill trained conscripts dragged from their homes to invade the Falklands without any notice armed with weapons that did’nt work.
Are we to believe that the invasion force had not been training for the event for weeks prio to the invasion and that no one had noticed the bulid up of the invasion force at ports and airfields prior to the go.

Was strategic planning for the invasion limited to occupation with no contingency for defending against military retaliation from the UK. While it may be true that Galtieri did not think that the UK would attemp to retake the Islands you can not operate on assumptions, if you take a piece of land you have to plan to hold it.

The British task force did not sail in secret, it was broadcast live on TV and it’s progress was reported daily across the world. Argentine forces had substancial warning of it’s approach and it’s make up and yet no effort was made to either prevent it’s arrival or the establishment of a bridge head and further the loss of the Chinooks on the Atlantic convayor leaving the British forces with no option but to tab(walk) towards Port Stanley was reported by the media with photos and film footage of British Troops heading out.

The final stages of the conflict involved British forces attacking up hill against a numerically superior forces who had been dug in for weeks. On paper the final assaults on the hills surrounding Stanley favoured the defending forces yet in each case the defenders failed to prevent the advance.

The Argentine belief that the British forces were all battle hardened veterans is a myth. The last time that the British Army fought a land war was in Korea. At the time the bulk of training was for to distinct types of op either counter terrorist/security with the emphasis on an urban environment( NI ) or primerily defensive op’s against mixed infantry and armour with the warsaw pact as the expected aggressor in European terrain.The most any of the British forces had experienced was the odd sniper or booby trap.

The one thing that made the real difference was spirit. The British fighting man is taught to get the job done with what you have at hand. At the end of the day they were’nt fighting for Queen and Country or for the Islanders . They were fighting for men on either side of them and the honour of their regiment.All things considered they did a good job.

Twenty three years later it’s just a battle honour to us but it is obvious that the bitter taste of humiliation is still in the mouths of some Argentines even those who were not born in 1982. Galtieri wanted to be the hard man of South America but all he achieved was the humiliating defeat of his Army and the loss of his job and leaving his country open to ridicule from the neighbouring countries that he had hoped to intimidate.

In April of 1982 Galtieri was the Hero of Argentina by July he was a tin pot General and political embarrasmentl.

#1879

Erwin im sure if Argentina are wanting to test their military might the Americans will let you come and play in Afganistan or Iraq. But I guess we will have to put you all in the north of Iraq because the Brits are in the south. Dont need you guys standing on the corner bitching about the Falklands and miss a car bomber.

#1880

Am I the only one that thinks this thing is just going round in circles?

Am I also the only one that has noticed that when the Falklands debate heats up a message seems to go out and the number of members posting seems to rise again?

Then again, its up to us to create more interesting topics I suppose…