Please don’t start that crap again, the British treated casualties according to need not nationality. One of the remarkable aspects of the Falklands War is that both sides are acknowledged to have respected the rules of war.
On this, I go with Lone Ranger, even when i is evident from his “Call sign” that he wants to “range alone”… the behaviour of the British Forces and the Argentines as well was “gentlemanly and humane” at least.
Cheers,
Juan.
Well, Is not the theme of this topic so I suggest take a tour in the one called “War crimes in Malvinas”
Back to the pictures.
Panzon, don’t bother going to the War Crimes thread.
It is a crime against humanity the thread is up, and will definitily lower your IQ reading it.
To paraphrase a well known saying… “War is Hell”.
Unless you KNOW fully of what you talk about I would stay out of such topics. They cause resent and upset, not just on this site, especially if ill-informed people start accusations that can’t be upheld.
To quote the back of Hamburger Hill. “Humanity at it’s worst, by men at their best”.
It is a sad fact that, in a lot of ways, the Argentines didn’t fully know what they were getting in to, or the “rules”.
That is why they (and I don’t mean site members specifically but Argentines in general) beleive such acts as the Belgrano sinking, use of bayonets and a long list of other atrocities are war crimes.
Then wheel out such fiction as they staged a mock attack on Moody Brook Barracks with Tear Gas and pillows to avoid unnecessary deaths, and convienently forget about their little stash of Napalm at Goose Green.
That is why they (and I don’t mean site members specifically but Argentines in general) beleive such acts as the Belgrano sinking, use of bayonets and a long list of other atrocities are war crimes
Pure lies from your part , I Never said that.
Don´t you worry 1000yd Stare,
I am not interested in ANY flame war… I had not, and I will not go into the “crimes of war” subforum…
The Belgrano, in spite of the lost of over 300 of my nationals I consider it a legitimate act of war, he was not there cruising families, that ship was going into war… and I am convinced that it was there to serve as “bait”… more and less as the Ardent and Antelope had to do later on the war…
As per the land actions, let me tell you that my grand dad received 7 bayonet strokes and 4 shots in WW I and almost died… as he was shot and fell on top of the Mauser, thus, any French passing by would bayonet him he never resented the French as he was a proud soldier of the Mikäfer regiment and after the battle his life was saved by a French Dr… who took special care of him and as a result, I am able to write these lines over here… his only reward, was a 2nd class cross of Iron and the loss of his left arm, considering that he was the solo violinist of the Filarmonic of Hannover, at 17 years old… you can imagine how his life was after that… he had to become a glorified bean counter.
I will contribute with what ever I can to the Other Wars, Falklands/Malvinas forum, and that is it my friend… I want to tend bridges, close doors and if it is possible to try to get positions closer in some aspects, flame wars are for idiots and I am far from being one…
Cheers,
Juan.
I am not interested in ANY flame war… I had not, and I will not go into the “crimes of war” subforum…
A quick read woulndt make any harm, I am convinced that you ll learn something that at this time you didnt know.
Funny pic, after so many people telling me so many times I honestly believe that the gurkhas didnt kill anybody in the war, but now looking this picture I have my doubts, they could kill somebody with that bomb trowing apparatus.
Quote: “Tankgeezer, you were right to point this out but I have deleted your post too so as to keep continuity. As usual please feel free to contact me if you have any queries.”
No worries, I should have used a PM for this situation, T Geezer.
Napalm filled tanks pictured in Goose Green, those were designed for use in A-4 and FMA IA-58. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depend in wich side are you looking for) those were never used against ships, it would be no “fuze troubles” with this.
Wasnt Napalm declared illegal before 1982?
No, not until Dec. 1983, and then only if a country ratified Protocol III of the CCW.
The UK unilaterally abandoned the use of Napalm when it renounced chemical weapons in 1957.
It depends on the type of ship, doesn’t it?
A fully closed up fighting ship is going to get scorched externally but I doubt it’d be seriously damaged nor get much in the way of casualties, as demonstrated by the USS Liberty which wasn’t even a fighting ship.
Thats true Ranger, hi.
In the 1983 the only USA did not signed the protocol III that forbid to use the Napalm.
The Britain and the most of European statets has ratified it.
Hi RS 
I 've read the most victims of the Liberty was resault of the explosion of the Israel torpedo- not due to the Napalm bombs.
However the intensive napalm bombing could bring the serious damage of the any military ship.
No, not until Dec. 1983, and then only if a country ratified Protocol III of the CCW.
The UK unilaterally abandoned the use of Napalm when it renounced chemical weapons in 1957
Argentina did not sign those, so…let them burn.
Actually the use of Napalm was seriously limited buy the Argentine High command for “humanitarian reasons”, what a bunch of sissies. :evil:
From any side loking for the using of the wearpon that was forbidden by the Geneva convention by the Argentinians could provoke the Britain for the alternative actions.
For instance the could began to use the glorious BRitish strategic aviation - to make the little bomberholocaust for the Argentinian plants or military sea ports.
In this prospect the situation could be much worst.
And do not forget that the Britain ( to the contrast of Argentine) is the Nuclear State.
The further - the bigger.
So any development of the events in a such way could bring for the Argentine only the additional victims - nothing more.
Cheers.
I think any damage would be mostly external.
Napalm could destroy radio and radar aerials, gun direction systems, etc which would affect the ship’s capacity to fight and defend itself, but I doubt napalm could sink it or even put it at risk of sinking.
Without a hole below the waterline, a ship will continue to float. Napalm could never deliver a hole below the waterline. Or even above it.
Worse, the magazines, gun turrets and any below deck missiles might well remain serviceable. How well they could fight or defend would depend on how much damage had been done to the external systems upon which they rely. I suspect that a WWII gun turret would perform a lot better on visual than radar etc than a Falklands War or later one.
In this prospect the situation could be much worst.
And do not forget that the Britain ( to the contrast of Argentine) is the Nuclear State.
The further - the bigger.
So any development of the events in a such way could bring for the Argentine only the additional victims - nothing more.
Nuclear attack against the south american continent ?..
I think any damage would be mostly external.
Napalm could destroy radio and radar aerials, gun direction systems, etc which would affect the ship’s capacity to fight and defend itself, but I doubt napalm could sink it or even put it at risk of sinking.
Without a hole below the waterline, a ship will continue to float. Napalm could never deliver a hole below the waterline. Or even above it.
Agreed, probably not even a hole but definately destructive agaist the transport ships, the fact is the those does not need to be sink, just put out of action. In the case of destroyers/frigates, if those were unable to launch antiaircraft missiles and let pass the A-4 and mirages undisturbed to attack more calmly the transport ships and british landing troops…:rolleyes:
And why not;)
The little firebombing/nucler demonstration could put into the sense the Junta.
If the Agrentine has bagan to drop the napalm to the British transport ships killing the crews, the britains could use the simular means.
I/m sure the USA would close the eyes and let the Britain ( his closes ally and “small brother”) to use the forbidden wearpon if the Argentinians did it first.
As for the Nuclear bombing…
If the Nuclear war was possible for a long time in the Europe and USA do you seriously think that the South America should avoid of it?