Cant say things would be any different in the US. Especially any info involving Iraq. I know the Falklands happen more than 20 years ago but still alot of info in there maybe not the best to let the public know. Probably nothing as crazy as Erwin’s and his HMS Invincable claim but ya never know. Right up there with the fake moon landing if you ask me.
The Invincible case study, as can be seen in this thread, to some extent is similar to other Falklands War case study - the Chile-based RAF aircraft as Canberras and perhaps C-130s. The fact or not? The British from this forum know it very well as I think. New Statesman vs British Government, journalist Jon Snow vs MoD, etc.
BTW - the subject of RAF in Chile during the Falklands War would be worth of its own thread, if you agree with me…?
Best regards
Greg
Agree also very interesting is the commando raid agaist the Super Etendars , codename Mikado.
And fake claims aside , the usual british maner of keeping under secret archives for long time did not help in that aspect.
Ah, Secrets are kept Secret for various reasons. Even though it was 30 years ago, perhaps some of the details of the Operations thEn are still in use today. It does not pay to give a potential enemy any insights into your operational methods.
As for RAF aircraft based in Chile, well it will be a very long time before anything would be confirmed or not as Chile for one would not want it made public, if it ever happened that is.
We didnt get to have one of the Worlds best militaries by telling everyone exactly what we did or do, did we!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/08/nfalk08.xml
True?
Edited:
In 2005, The Times published: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1670775,00.html
Sir Lawrence Freedman, the historian who has compiled an exhaustive three-volume account of the war, also tells for the first time of an SAS mission to sabotage an Argentine bomber base, which was foiled by bad weather, and of the nuclear depth charges routinely carried by four Royal Naval ships in the South Atlantic.
The book appeared later in 2 volumes:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-History-Falklands-Campaign-v/dp/0714652075
As for Sir Lawrence Freedman, according to King’s College in London http://www.kcl.ac.uk/phpnews/wmview.php?ArtID=1065
He was appointed Official Historian of the Falklands Campaign in 1997. The two volumes of the Official History were published this summer.[2005]
Probably. This sort of thing is never confirmed or denied until the records are finally released - in this case probably around 2082 at the earliest.
True?
Sure is, there is a lot of info from the argentine side, but there is also a very good source in this book.
It include a picture of the commandos in the British Embassy in Santiago , Chile and a very detailed history of the plans for the raid.
I have the spanish version.
This sort of thing is never confirmed or denied until the records are finally released - in this case probably around 2082 at the earliest.
Thanks God I did not have to wait until my 104th birthday to know the truth about it, ¿2082? RIDICULOUS. That fact only feed the false claims and other bullshit I repeat Ridiculous.
The reason is so that anybody who might be involved and be embarrassed by it is long dead. Furthermore, the international complications (e.g. Argentina upset at Chile) will have hopefully calmed down all the way.
Embarrased with what…? a british victory ?
For those who are interested in underground operations and commando operations from the british forces the information is available from several sources if you looking for it . From the argentine side is silly try to hide something , everything is on public records.
Even some oldtimers chilenas generals begun to speeled out in this late days, like the retired Gral Matthei chief of the Chilean Air Force in 1982 who in april of this year told to an Argentine newspaper “I do everything nessesary to make argentina loss the war”.
Computer generated video of the argentine version of the attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSijrB78Vmw&mode=related&search=
Seen the vid before, I think it came from a National geo or something, and someone has added the soundtrack.
Utter tosh.
For a start, the 4 attacking planes are trying to stay low, off the radar. The 2 missiliers pop up launch and the fcuk off, at higher level. Cheers chaps, we’re allright jack.
Anyway, back to it. The ships can accomodate around 1,000 men. And Invincible was fully loaded with Matelots and a few Marines. She also carried a fair few journos.
If she had been hit, then the news would have broken by now. Compare the casualties on other ships hit during hte war, it would have been impossible to keep quiet.
No secrets, no cover ups, no secret navel dock yards in the South Atlantic to rebuild papier mache coverups.
She would have been repainted down south, due to the time she spent down there, not because of any damage.
As for why. I have covered this before. The Belgrano had been sunk, there were some in the Junta who probably took this as a bit of a personal slight. There for they needed a reply.
Why not Hermes, the Fleet and Task Force HQ? Invincible was targetted (and I believe she was) because of her name. Whether this targetting ever got off the drawing board, or even off the ground I don’t know.
That something motivated this attack, and that such build up of info around it is undoubted. That Invincible was never hit is also undoubted.
Reports that one of the downed planes engines hit the ship, and slid in to a elevator shaft (and thus in to the very bowels of the ship/and the hanger deck) are just drivel too. Sentimental clap trap about a man who died, but managed to hit a target for victory.
On the same grounds as the story breaking our about the ship being hit, I often wonder what did happen to the Argentine pilots. The two that were killed. THis must have happened, there must be someone who missed them - family, friends and comrades. So how did they really die?
I think Invincible, because it was a newer, sexier ship. Also, Prince Andrew was serving on Invincible at the time which raised its profile as a target…two birds with one stone.
Possibly, they were pretty keen on him. Many bombs had “notes” to him wrote on by the groundcrew.
Like I say, the name and the crewman.
Militarily is should have been Hermes.
Wont argue with that.
Perhaps this reveals a flaw in the Argentine perception of how the war ought to have been fought. Looking for the high-profile targets with an eye for a headline.
A simillar example, was the they went for warships at San Carlos Bay, instead of the transports. Look at how devastating was the attack on the Sir Galahad and Tristam(?) or the Atlantic Conveyer, and the effect those losses had on the British campaign. They should have gone for more of that.
Seen the vid before, I think it came from a National geo or something, and someone has added the soundtrack.
Nah, you confusing it with the attack against the Coventry, that was from Nat geo.
This clip belong to the movie “Malvinas, estuvimos ahi:”
http://www.creavision.com.ar/afiches.jpg
http://www.creavision.com.ar/sinopsisingl.html
So how did they really die?
Not in a british pub, that is for sure. What a ridiculos question, how you think they die ?
simillar example, was the they went for warships at San Carlos Bay, instead of the transports. Look at how devastating was the attack on the Sir Galahad and Tristam(?) or the Atlantic Conveyer, and the effect those losses had on the British campaign. They should have gone for more of that.
That was probably because most of the Argentine pilots did not choose the target they like…but the one they can hit.
Not sure I follow your meaning here. Do you mean that they hit the supply ships because they were more easily hit than a warship? If so, that would have been the better thing to have done, throughout. As I understand it, the Atlantic Conveyor, was a big container ship which confused the pilots into thinking it was a carrier, or because of its location at the time of the attack it gave the largest blipp to the Exocet target locator. Its been a long time since I read any of this, but I’m certain that there was some confusion there.
The British warships were considered expendable. It was their role to be sacrificed in order to protect the supply ships. The British Admiralty expected far greater losses.
The U-Boats (for example) would never go for a Destroyer when they could go for a cargo vessel.
Not sure I follow your meaning here. Do you mean that they hit the supply ships because they were more easily hit than a warship?
NO, I mean that if an sole A-4 emerged from the haze after a extremely difficult flight over the wave tops and locate a destroyer in his route, it is most likely that the pilot attacked it, and did not attemp to seach for other more “strategic” targets…because in that way wich he could be less exposed to Sea darts, Sea wolfs, Sea Harrier, rapiers, etc.
I hope you undestand know.
Yes, that makes sense with some of the stories I’ve read.
Maybe theywere all targets of oppurtunity, if so I hope the Argentine Air Force has learned, and explained to it’s newer pilots that sometimes you have to expose yourself to extreme risk to hit a target that means somthing.
Still can’t understand why the Argentine Navy didn’t leave harbour and try to engage the fleet. They could have easily interdicted ships on the way down to support the British, either sinking or impounding.
Again, perhaps the risks of the two Subs that we had around, were expanded and the Argeies had to assume there were more.
There were occassions when frigates and destroyers were attacked as targets of opportunity (as described above), however, the attacks on RN vessels in San Carlos water negates that argument in that situation. Pilots came in low, skimming the surrounding hills, again with little time to choose a target before being engaged by the air defences. In that situation the supply ships were the bigger and more numerous targets, particularly the Canberra. The officers of the task force were amazed that it wasn’t taken out, and the ship was soon withdrawn after the first day’s operations to land troops.
In San Carlos Water just south of Fanning Island, sat Canberra, a huge white whale of a target in the now brilliant sun. On the radio net, came the next warning: ‘Hostiles. 170 (degrees). five miles and closing.’ Almost as soon as it was said, four Mirages appeared in the Sky, diving on iAntrim[/i], their cannon shells splashing in the water, making a trail which ended inexorably against the ship’s side. She was firing back with everything she had, and the pilot of the fourth Mirage thought better of it, and banked away from the exploding tracers until he was going straight for Fanning Head - and the helicopter…
…A gunner named ‘G’ cocked the machine-gun. Jolly unplugged his headset and ran for his life, throwing himself into a nearby ditch. When the the Mirage passed harmlessly overhead - despite 'G’s efforts to bring it down - Jolly went back to the Wessex (helicopter) and plugged in again, and Crabtree said, ruefully : ‘Oh, you back with us Doc?’ The surgeon felt thoroughly ashamed.
Out over the Sound, a thin white line rose up into the sky towards a speck on the horizon. There was a puff of dirty smoke, with a fireball in the centre of it, and debris began trickling down towards the sea. …Then a pall of black smoke began to build and over the net someone said, ‘What the hell is that?’ They quickly worked it out: ‘Jesus, it’s Ardent.’
…And still the attacks continued. Canberra seemed to be the main target, though there is a question mark over that: given the persistence and success of the Argentinian pilots that day, it’s curious that they never managed to hit such a large defenceless target: perhaps, as they claim, they did not try.
Early next morning, on orders from London and under cover of darkness, Canberra removed herself from the firing line and sailed to the eastern perimeter of the Total Exclusion Zone, well out of range of Argentina’s planes.
Sunday Times Insight Team.