I stand corrected, and take it in the correct spirit of contented co-operation.
I confess that, initially, I misunderstood your shortened calculation. I inferred that you had been circumcised since my post.
Upon mature reflection I saw that I had, as you quite correctly pointed out, equated 1,000 yards with 1,000 metres.
I expect you are thankful that I am not in the artillery, on your side.
Infantry pics.
Old Oerlikon 20 mm gun.
Sea cat.
FN MAG and FAL with PAF ( antipersonel grenade) installed.
Men of Infantry Regiment 25e.
Pictures of men from the Regimiento Infanteria 25 seccion C. That section was commanded by subteniente ( sorry I dont know ranks "translation " here) Edgardo Esteban.
The pictures were taken the 21th may at abouth 17:00 hs. The section claimed 3 british helicopters destroyed near the invasion beach, 2 were confirmed by british sources.
Also british sources indicated those fresh faced soldiers allegedly were responsible to shoot some of the helicopter survivors in the water.
More images of the RI25C in the 25th may could be seen here. If you know some spanish you will enjoy the different accents of Argentine regions in this one.
Thats because they did shoot helicopter survivors in the water, not only British sources but Esteban himself confirmed it.
Well, maybe they dont liked british people as much I do.
I am sure youll have the link with Esteban statement in regard of the incident…do you ?
War is a dirty business, chaps.
Dirty yes, but shooting survivors in the water goes beyond the pale. If it did indeed happen. There is the Law of Armed Conflict to go by.
I would imagine the Argentiens would have gone berzerk, if Conquerer had surfaced and machine gunned the Belgrano crewmen in their life rafts.
War is a dirty business, chaps.
Yea, but I guess we are in the quest to find out what was the level of “dirtyness”.
I would imagine the Argentiens would have gone berzerk, if Conquerer had surfaced and machine gunned the Belgrano crewmen in their life rafts.
As the well the british if a similar incident would happen with one of their ships.
KL Heinz Wilhelm Eck, pleaded operational justification during the trial.
I wonder how many people pleaded “operational justification” and get away with that.
Good link PDF.
Far too many, unfortunately.
(BBC iPlayer link here for anyone interested in more about the Suez Maru)
Only one way to find that out, my friend…there is no substitute for experience.
Yes, but should it be that way?
Perhaps, if there were no rules and anything goes then people would think twice before becoming involved in war. A kind of MAD in a conventional fashion.
The rules of the game imply that it is a game and that we’ll all be “Home by Christmas”. Why have rules?
Is it not ridiculous, indeed, to blow someone to kingdom come for doing their duty, and yet accept a truce or surrender under a white flag from those that choose not to do their duty? Why not fight until one side annihilates the other? In some ways, the question returns us to the debate regarding Bomber Harris.
Perhaps “All bets are off!” (to quote Nick), makes for a far better deterrent than nuclear destruction.
Apologies to PK for straying so far off topic, but in my opinion war is atrocious and if people continue to try to destroy each other under any form of justification, then that is shear folly. Accept war for what it is before sending young men to their doom and desist from glorifying it… easier said than done, I know.
Good afternoon Gentleman , I’m looking for Aerial Photos from the conflict , in particular over Stanley and that would show defense positions -
Thanks Regards Enrique
These guys look as if they were straight out of WW2… how could they ever expect to win against the British Army, or did Argentine hope that the British just wouldn’t give a darn about that little island in the South Atlantic?
That particular platoon did not performed bad though, 3 british helicopters down with only light weapons the 21th may.
or did Argentine hope that the British just wouldn’t give a darn about that little island in the South Atlantic?
Galtieri spected exactly that, however the lower rank commanders as Busser, Castellanos and Menendez were not so convinced and warned about the possible british reaction.
That is what I think has happen -
At first no reaction was expected , few troops send to the islands
Then when GB Task Force started the trip heading South , with the blockade in place it was already too late to organize something and that is why what ever could be gather and send was done by air - Too little . too late -
Besides that without Air Cover and without having control of the sorrounding waters , you can’t move troops arround - So at the end , what ever was send to the islands , remmained where initially deployed wich actually was a road with a dead end -
That is really the only scenario I can imagine without everybody in the Argentinian high command suffering from megalomania and a loss of reality…
A nation like Argentina could never expect to defeat a war-hardened nation like the UK in open conflict, especially with the military equipment they had, and on an island with a terrain so unsuitable for guerrilla warfare like the Falkland Islands.
Of course it was an unexpected move from the Britons to actually fight and kill for a worthless little island off the Argentinian coast, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Thatcher had considered it a very personal conflict.
The British Empire had collapsed all over the place over the last half century, and she wouldn’t allow “some Dictator in South America” to further humiliate the UK…
There’s been another nation that failed not only once, but twice because the Brits reacted to the invasion of a seemingly unimportant nation/region…
You could say they have a track record for being ‘easily irritable’. :mrgreen:
That was a good Post -
We went for the Islands because we like to do things now and think about it later -
And you came back for them because you are easily irritable -
Regards Sir
Enrique