The air war.

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#61

I am surprised that Argentina doesn’t regard the Black Buck raid as a war crime, given that they have a record of crying foul against any British operation that was succesful and did them damage

I found more damaging some of your post :smiley: :smiley: :mrgreen:

And I dont think it was too sucessful, too long missions, too many expended fuel, thousands of hours in the air of both Vulcans and Victors, and few things actually destroyed/damaged.

What are the objects/vehicles claimed as destroyed in the 3 sorties?

…and they’re always on Page Three.

That is something I really love about the British newspapers, you cant get that in an USA today/Washintong post, etc . those conservative americans.

#62

The Black Bucks merely cut the last part of the runway off, that didn’t stop any planes taking off anyway.

What it did to the Argies on the ground, however, was point out that we could touch them, and that we were on the way.

The psycologicl side of the war is something that has not really been covered as yet. But it was an important part of the war.

#63

That is really few in exchange of those complicated missions.

The mission markings on Black Buck Avro Vulcan B2 XM607 photographed in 1982. These are the original mission markings and vary slightly from those presently seen on 607 which is the gate guardian at RAF Waddington.

Note this, 3 mission agaist argentine territory.

#64

Not against Argentine Territory, Panzerkancker.

You really mean “Against the aggressive Argentine occupiers of a British owned Territory”.

Bit of a distinction you know.

Whilst these raids were long winded and used up more fuel than hundreds of local missions. The simple fact was, Britain was a long way a way. THus these were the only ways that the British could get such a bomber down in the battle area.

Had we had a third carrier in the wings, it would have been a dam sight better to send her down with a bomber wing of harriers.

#65

You really mean “Against the aggressive Argentine occupiers of a British owned Territory”.

Agressive ?..I think the humour section is in other place.

Whilst these raids were long winded and used up more fuel than hundreds of local missions. The simple fact was, Britain was a long way a way. THus these were the only ways that the British could get such a bomber down in the battle area.

Had we had a third carrier in the wings, it would have been a dam sight better to send her down with a bomber wing of harriers

The Harrier and sea Harrier attacks were by far more efective agaist this airstrip than any Black Buck.

#66

Ture but I often wonder if there was not a political agenda behind the Black Buck raids.

ie. Look what we can do with our Vulcan. Not just little sorties over russia and back as part of the V force, we can send it around the world.

#67

Invading another country’s territory usually counts as aggressive Pk…

#68

Invading another country’s territory usually counts as aggressive Pk…

Right but I think that prhase will better like this:

“Against the Argentine agressors…”

Agreessive sounds like the soldier beating up Kelpers in every corner.

rrrrr.JPG
rrrrr.JPG760×395 36.4 KB

#69

No, there weren’t many beatings carried out.

But a lot of defecating all over the floors of residents’ houses…

#70

Agressive sounds like Mortars and Willie Pete being used on Moody Brook Barracks with no prior warning…

And MG stop groups to destroy those who would run out of the attacked buildings doors.

Instead, Royal were up earlier than the Argies and managed to hold off 10 times there number for a good deal of time.

I would call them cowardly for their attack, but then I would do the same thing to safeguard my men and catch the enemy on the hop. But I certainly wouldn’t mince about trying to say that I wasn’t aggresive.

#71

I believe that you have just hit the nail on the head, so to speak. It made a statement. This action demonstrated to the world (when one considers that at the time there was a lot of ‘twoing-and-thowing’ on the diplomatic front) Britains determination to use any means to recover the islands. The task force was not ready to land its troops, something had to be done. Another bold headline as a result of the attack, was from the Daily Express (I think) i.e. The Empire Strikes Back - taken from a popular film of the time. The politicians in london new they had to hot things up a little before they became locked into a diplomatic stalemate that could drag on for years while Argentina remained in possession of the islands (Possession being nine tenths of the law - or something to that affect), Britain was stating its claim. It would have mattered not a fig, if the bombs had not destroyed so much as a blade of grass - it was the political impact that mattered - it worked!

And as a result, Margaret Thatcher and her government were re-elected in the subsequent general election - thank you, Argentina!

#72

Vulcan 607 by Rowland White

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915

It’s a novel that’s put together from witness accounts and facts, it’s about the Vulcan bomb run done in the Falklands. It’s well written and gives a good background of the build up to the conflict. I really enjoyed it, it’s like a history book crossed with a novel, I read it in one sitting, it had me hooked!

Regards, SS Tiger

#73

I’d second that, a fascinating book.

#74

Just finish it, very very good. I passed the one at Duxford the day or so after the first raid.

It was the back stories I also found very interesting. The use of Vulcans to test the US air defence in the 60s and finding that they had very little problems getting through. The Red Flag bit was also very interesting as well.

#75

The book also puts to bed the frequently stated help that the US gave with reference to sat photos. It never happened, it was asked for but they would not move a NATO asset. The Victors were used to map locations of Argentinean navel units not satellite photos. Cloud cover would have been a real problem that time of year. But he does talk of funny SA working with RAF aircraft latter on.

#76

By the way, are these the same A-4 gun cameras removed at the start of the conflict because they didn’t work that were mentioned on the Invincible thread?

#77

Glad you guys enjoyed it aswell, it was an awesome feat!

#78

Interesting, could you point me at a reference?

#79

Missed that one LR. Good Spot.

No, what happened was, that in the Invincible raid all the gun cameras were removed. Some say this was a bit silly as the sinking or even hitting of Invincible could never be proved.

Really though, it was to allow the pilots to store their packed lunches though.

They were all refitted afterwards, because the Argentines couldn’t beleive that hte British managed to finish a half built ship, sail her down to the SA with out anyone realising, and then replacing the REAL Invincible with the then unnammed Illustrious.

Obviously no one knows about this, bar a few crack pot Argies, as the British media is so tightly controlled that not one slip of the massive casualties on board the Invincible has ever been mentioned. Even by the families.

The works at Camel Laird worked 20hour days to build what is now Illustrious and launch her on the correct day, so that no one would notice the doppelganger in the SA. None of them or their familes have ever pointed this out either.

HA HA, welcome to the forum of Argie paranoia and their feelings of inadequacy in the world, and often complete refusal to listen to facts.

Shame you weren’t here when AIDES were here. One of them put up a list of about 30 “KIA” Gurkhas, that the brave but half trained Argentine conscripts had “killed”. I think most of the names were actually islands in the Pacific.

#80

[quote=“Lone_Ranger”]

Interesting, could you point me at a reference?[/QUOTE]

You might be waiting a while for an answer from Eagle, I think he did a runner about a year ago.