PDA

View Full Version : British Military - The Falklands War



Quentin Rees
04-07-2007, 04:37 AM
i am interested in hearing from anyone regarding this 'war' .

I am not an expert in this area and do not wish to say something that is inaccurate. I hope that no one will moderate this item and take it off the web site for some reason, after all its a new thread as yet unexplored.

i have posted other bits only to have them wiped off. the info posted was to show how items posted by others on canoes were not accurate, so i am hoping as thiese are questions rather than accurate statement that it will be allowed.

i beleive the Falklands islands are near ARGENTINA but are the sovereign islands of the British Isles.

i understand that these islands were occupied by british nationals at the time and had a govenor in situ. the islands were invaded by ?7,000? ARGENTINE troops. the army was under instructions ? to invade by the then military junter.

these islands are, i believe, a long way from the united kingdom , they have, offshore, reserves of oil and now a thriving tourist industry.

I also understand that during the invasion /occupation the interior of houses and shops had been used by the argentine forces as toilets. another sad point is that the relatives of the dead Argentine soldiers have to travel to the falklands to visit the graves as the bodies have remained in situ (tended by the british islanders) due to the fact that the Argentine government have reasoning on the lines that the bodies are on argentine soil. people wanting to visit apparently need to have visas and this is a sticking point as the argentine gov think they dont need to have visas and therefore the graves dont get visited.

i only hope that some argentine relatives are able to visit.. its bad enough have your child die in a pointless conflict but quite another not to be able to visit the grave because its to far away to visit.

i would be intersted to here other facets of this history of what i believe the argentine people call Malvinos?

i understand also the Falkland islands also have there own stamps! a little interest for stamp collectors! i dont know wether these stamps have a military theme, i can only hope if they dont have a military theme that a moderator wont take the info off because of it.

as i understand it no canoes were used during this conflict. unless someone knows different.

Q:twisted:

32Bravo
04-07-2007, 12:23 PM
i am interested in hearing from anyone regarding this 'war' .

I am not an expert in this area and do not wish to say something that is inaccurate. I hope that no one will moderate this item and take it off the web site for some reason, after all its a new thread as yet unexplored.

i have posted other bits only to have them wiped off. the info posted was to show how items posted by others on canoes were not accurate, so i am hoping as thiese are questions rather than accurate statement that it will be allowed.

i beleive the Falklands islands are near ARGENTINA but are the sovereign islands of the British Isles.

i understand that these islands were occupied by british nationals at the time and had a govenor in situ. the islands were invaded by ?7,000? ARGENTINE troops. the army was under instructions ? to invade by the then military junter.

these islands are, i believe, a long way from the united kingdom , they have, offshore, reserves of oil and now a thriving tourist industry.

I also understand that during the invasion /occupation the interior of houses and shops had been used by the argentine forces as toilets. another sad point is that the relatives of the dead Argentine soldiers have to travel to the falklands to visit the graves as the bodies have remained in situ (tended by the british islanders) due to the fact that the Argentine government have reasoning on the lines that the bodies are on argentine soil. people wanting to visit apparently need to have visas and this is a sticking point as the argentine gov think they dont need to have visas and therefore the graves dont get visited.

i only hope that some argentine relatives are able to visit.. its bad enough have your child die in a pointless conflict but quite another not to be able to visit the grave because its to far away to visit.

i would be intersted to here other facets of this history of what i believe the argentine people call Malvinos?

i understand also the Falkland islands also have there own stamps! a little interest for stamp collectors! i dont know wether these stamps have a military theme, i can only hope if they dont have a military theme that a moderator wont take the info off because of it.

as i understand it no canoes were used during this conflict. unless someone knows different.

Q:twisted:

The Falklands are discussed under 'Other Wars'.

Canoes were used by elements of the SAS to recce Pebble Island - but I expect you knew that!

Panzerknacker
04-07-2007, 02:59 PM
Some people just didnt want to search the site before open new topics. Moved to a more logic place.

1000ydstare
04-10-2007, 03:18 AM
From the Wiki Quentin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Pebble_Island


Reconnaissance for the raid was conducted by personnel from the Boat Troop of D Squadron, conducting an infiltration by Klepper canoe. The patrol found that strong headwinds would increase the time taken to fly in from Hermes launch point, delaying time on target and reducing the available offensive window to 30 minutes, rather than the planned 90. In light of this information the planning emphasised the importance of destroying the aircraft as a priority, with support personnel as a secondary priority.

Found in one google.

2 SBS were used to liberate South Goergia, and 6 SBS reconitred East Falkland, mainly by Klepper.

Panzerknacker
07-15-2007, 10:54 AM
17 years old brit killed in action.

This is a really young soldier.


The chances of deployment for UK armed forces recruits are not theoretical and no exception is made for children. Under-18s were deployed to the Adriatic Sea and in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis. In April 1999, the media reported that the youngest tank driver, a 17-year-old, was "ready for battle" and had already been deployed in Macedonia. Jason Burt, 17, was killed in 1982 in the battle of MT Longdon, in the Falklands, while serving in the Parachute Regiment. According to his mother, soon after getting "his wings" at 17 he tried to donate blood, but he was told that he was too young. And he was also too young to join 1 Para which was about to be deployed in Northern Ireland. Yet Jason Burt was not too young to be sent to war. In a letter to his family, he wrote he had wanted to join the armed forces and potentially to go to war, but had not expected he would be going so soon. His father stated: "I kept saying he was just a boy, but they kept saying he was a professional soldier."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450582000?open&of=ENG-364


By the way if somebody have more of other than Amnesty source It will be preciated.

32Bravo
07-15-2007, 11:10 AM
Interesting topic,PK.

In March 1971 three Scottish soldiers were kidnapped and shot by a roadsied outside Belfast, by the Provisional IRA. Two of the soldiers were brothers; one of them being EIghteen years of age and the other seventeen. The British government immediately put a ban on soldiers below the age of eighteen, serving in Northern Ireland. I don't believe taht this was extended to other theatres of operations.

As I recall, now we're talking 1982. The first British casualty was a young junior seaman, that received a slight wound in the arm from an air-raid. I think he may have been as young as sixteen. The only resason I remember it was I was struck by how young he was at the time.

1000ydstare
07-15-2007, 02:13 PM
The ban on under 18s only extended to NI, as a media concession.

A under 18 was also killed in the attack by Sgt McKay. He was found proped up by his own rifle, the bayonet had dug in to the ground.

Incidentaly the under 18 soldiers would not have been able to vote in the British elections either.

Although I would wager all were better trained and prepared than their over 18 conscript opponents in the Argentine Army.

Firefly
07-16-2007, 06:10 PM
The Brit Military traditionally had under 18's throughout its history. Boy Drummers in the 19th Century could be as young as 8.

16 year olds can and do still join, I dont see a great problem with this. I thought myself very mature at 17 when I joined and I wasnt 18 for 10 months later. After all, you can get married at 16!

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 07:18 AM
It stand to reason that if a lad can join his regiment at the age of seventeen, then he ought to be able to fight with them at seventeen. Otherwise, junior soldiers' establishments, should run from sixteen to eighteen.

Personally, I have no argument with this. I think the Northern Ireland situation came about because of the press and the emotional way in which they reported the killings of the two brothers.

As I said, I don't know whether the ban on under-eighteens, serving in Ulster, applied to all theatres of operations. I suspect that it did not.

C/S 62
10-02-2007, 05:54 AM
As has been stated by a number of people already apart from NI young lads have been deployed to serve with their units.

In my case I was not allowed to join my company after leaving training as they were deployed in Aden, the reason for this was that the regiment had had a young lad killed in the action at Champion Lines who was only seventeen and six months old. I was seventeen and four months so as a result I had to sit on me derry aire in Bahrain till the regiment returned.

During my time in the army I spent two and a half years training Juniors Leaders at Shorncliffe in Kent, these young lads turned up bright eyed and bushy tailed at the tender age of sixteen years and six months and wanted to be there, any way to cut it short members of the 16 Platoon were cap badged to the Parachute Regiment and after passing out and completing P company they joined either Two or Three Para and the following year were deployed to the Falklands, sadley one of the lads who died at Goose Green was one of them and he was only seventeen and a half.

Sad fact of life but there you go. Youngsters will always want to join and go were their unit is sent no matter what their age. I think that with the greatest respect that PK has lost the plot and as a result of failing to carry the floor so to speak is "Slinging the dirt to cover up his/their own failings".

I look forward to peoples replies and always enjoy a good heated debate as 32 Bravo will testify.

1000ydstare
10-02-2007, 11:29 AM
I joined at 16 and spent 2 years in training. Apprentices trainded for 2 years, Junior Leaders for 1 year and Junior Soldiers for 12 weeks followed by make work until they were old enough for an adult training unit.

I left over 18 but a lass in my intake left at 17 1/2, she had to do rear detail when the Regiment went to Bosnia, but joined us when she was old enough.

To be honest, I don't think it is a bad system to keep them at home until they are 18.

Lone Ranger
10-02-2007, 02:34 PM
If memory serves me correctly whilst you can still join the British Army at 16, you can't serve in an operational capacity till you're over 18. This is because the UK signed a convention related to the banning of child soldiers.

And if memory serves me correctly out of the four 17 yr olds involved in the assault on Mt Longdon, three were killed.

Memory is better than I thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6741239.stm

C/S 62
10-04-2007, 02:34 AM
Lone Ranger

What you say is now correct but sadly for all of the youngsters who died the convention was not signed until after the conflict down south. Sadly there are a lot of young soldiers being used by non-regular armed forces around the world, the best and worst example being Africa albeit that they are forced in to it after being kidnapped, abused and forced to bear arms.

Some so called peoples armies in the ongoing conflicts in and around Central and South America use children as part of their forces but the sad thing is that these youngsters (after years of indoctrination) fully belive in what they are doing and killing some one simplpy because they do not follow the same path is nothing to them. It is a sad world in which we live.

1000ydstare
10-04-2007, 11:35 AM
And yet Amnisty International still view Britain dimly for having a Junior Army, well A Junior Regiment at least.

Firefly
10-04-2007, 12:33 PM
If they were conscripts I could see the point but volunteers? How many good guys would the military lose if they had to wait until they were 18 to join? Its OK if you stay in school till 18 but I certainly didnt want to doss around for 2 years and would probably have went somewhere else.

1000ydstare
10-04-2007, 12:37 PM
Aren't the government trying to insist that kids stay in sckool until 18 now?

Panzerknacker
10-08-2007, 07:55 AM
Sad fact of life but there you go. Youngsters will always want to join and go were their unit is sent no matter what their age. I think that with the greatest respect that PK has lost the plot and as a result of failing to carry the floor so to speak is "Slinging the dirt to cover up his/their own failings".

I look forward to peoples replies and always enjoy a good heated debate as 32 Bravo will testify.
Your so called "great respect" in not such.:rolleyes:

The history is simple, most people know about the 19-20 years old soldiers deployed by Argentina, but few know that the youngest soldiers killed in action were british simple as that.

If you want to dispute that fact go fo it, I really dont care.

Ah...welcome to our forum by the way.

Firefly
10-08-2007, 09:50 AM
The history is simple, most people know about the 19-20 years old soldiers deployed by Argentina, but few know that the youngest soldiers killed in action were british simple as that.

Hmm I'm not too sure what I'm supposed to be getting from this. No one wants to see young men get killed for any reason. Surely though the 17 year old Brits were volunteers, where the 19 year old Argentinians were conscripted. On one hand you have guys who want to be there fighting and on the other you may have guys who considered themselves civilians. So while no one forced the Brits to join, the complete opposite may be true for the Argentinians there.

How much of the force was conscript, and why didnt Argentina put all of its regular troops into the fight instead? Seems to me that when your facing the best one nation has to offer you shouldnt turn up with your second string....

1000ydstare
10-08-2007, 01:24 PM
Argentine conscripts were to report to their bases in Jan 1982, in reality some were still coming in Feb and even early Mar for their mandatory military service.

The war finished on 14 June 1982, the Maximum they could have served is 6 months by this point. They had been pitted against an Army that had been on Ops for year (except one) since the end of the second world war (we still hold that record). They had been heavily committed to Ops in Northern Ireland for 13 years by this point.

The training time for a British Infantry at this time was....... 6 months. The youngest Brit killed on the islands had spent more time in training than his counterparts had spent in service.

And that is just the basic training, not any extra bits he may have done.

The British youngsters were volunteers, they were not forced to join up and they were not beaten or killed by their Officers and NCOs.

The youngest soldier killed on the Islands was killed at Mt Longdon I believe. In the same attack that Sgt Ian McKay VC was killed in. He died following his Sergeant into the battle, and was found propped against his SLR rifle, the bayonet buried deep in to the mud holding his body up.

All three of the lads that followed Sgt McKay did so of their own accord, they were not ordered to, they saw their Sgt (who was acting as their Plt OC at this point) go forward to clear a position and relief their Section who were pinned and try to allow the Company as a whole to move. They followed.

As opposed to cowering in a fox hole as an alledged NCO/Officer shot/grenaded or beat them for being cowardly, when it is highly likely that the high number of PTSD in Argentine Vets were propbably because the full horror of modern war hand been unleashed on minds taht were not prepared to take it.

We could also look at the fact that many Argentines didn't have proper equipment for dealing with the conditions. The Brits had poor boots, and a reapearance of trench foot, the Argies had summer uniforms (in the Falklands winter) and many lacked bergans.

I can't quite see how the two compare. Perhaps you are right Britian is terrible for sending young but correctly trained and equipped personnel to war.

Cuts
10-08-2007, 04:01 PM
...

We could also look at the fact that many Argentines didn't have proper equipment for dealing with the conditions. The Brits had poor boots, and a reapearance of trench foot, the Argies had summer uniforms (in the Falklands winter) and many lacked bergans.

I can't quite see how the two compare. Perhaps you are right Britian is terrible for sending young but correctly trained and equipped personnel to war.

Reference the winter kit, the Brits were already well used to the layer principle for warmth, possibly because of the nature of tabbing, but don't knock the Argentine kit too readily.
The Dubon parkas they were issued are the mutts for standing around in a slit trench but a bugger for F&M.

Just a shame that the only ones available for the lads after each attack were all damaged.

Panzerknacker
10-08-2007, 10:57 PM
Hmm I'm not too sure what I'm supposed to be getting from this


I am not getting much :roll: , simply that there were 17 years old british soldiers that might be better trained that the Argentines ones ( maybe, I dont dispute that) but were definately younger.



How much of the force was conscript, and why didnt Argentina put all of its regular troops into the fight instead? Seems to me that when your facing the best one nation has to offer you shouldnt turn up with your second string....


I ve already answered that in "Operation Rosario"..."the chile question", etc.

1000ydstare
10-09-2007, 12:40 AM
What Firefly is getting at is that he doesn't understand how the age of the soldier is an issue? If we assume a British soldier was pretty well equipped, well trained and prepared, well led and looked after then the average Argentine conscript was ill equipped (on some key points), hardly trained and prepared and led by what can only be described as bullies.

Bearing in mind the situation when the last Royals were captured in the invasion. Three Royal Marines were roughed up by some Argentines who thought they were nails, yet in June when the same Marines saw the same Argentines in the reversed roles, the Argentines bricked it.

And of course the mad desire of the Argentine officers to hold on to their side arms in the POW pens for protection against their own men. Lovely, what a professional army.

I'll answer the questions on the force build up in the Falklands.

The Junta believed that the British wouldn't sail down as fast as they did, and the THREE naval groups (two of whom were based around Belgrano and the Mayo de 25) would smash up the fleet on the way down. This was what the carrier was aiming to do, and made attempts to launch aircraft. The Belgrano had this aim also.

They hoped that the British would not come so quickly, forceing them to endure a horrendous passage through the Atlantic or a longer passage that would take them through the Pacific (can't see this one but hey).

The whole Argentine plan was built around bluster and bluff to get its way to a diplomatic settlement. (Hoping the 9/10s of the law of possesion theory would hold water in the UN).

Unfortuantely, the Junta weren't that bright, certainly in the world politics scheme of things. They thought they would be seen as victors by all of South America, however Chile (and others) used this time to rattle their own sabres (particularly Chile) in order to further their own aims. The Junta also didn't realise that world opinion would be pretty much against them.

With Chile flexing her muscles, and a small disturbance in Argentina itself the bulk of the "good" forces were removed (some as scheduled at the end of Rosario, others not so and others not sent in the first place) and replaced with a conscript garrison. After all the Navy would protect the Islands........ (wah wah ooops!!!).

With Belgrano safely berthed in Davey Jones' locker and the Argentine Navy pulling their boats on to the shore, the Falklands garrison was set for a battle with the varsity.

British troops, well blooded, well equipped, well trained and well p1ssed off that someone had had the gaul to lower the Union Flag without the Queens consent were en route.

With the Argie Navy hiding on the mainland, the Air Force operating (heroically I might add) at the very limits of their endurance, the conscripts were not ready for the fight. They thought they would be seen as heros by the Islanders, and many were not told that the Brits were en route to take the Islands back.

Due to the Chile bit, no mountain troops were available, no Parachute Bde either. Only 1 fifth of the countries Marines (who were better trained) were sent and the Army units that were sent were from Buenos Aires and Tropical areas (they were not accliamatised or trained for the Falklands terraign and weather).

As a guess, the number of conscripts on the Islands would have been around +/- 60 - 70% of the Army units. The Marines, IIRC, had a lower percentage of conscripts, and a better class of conscript too.

The rest is history.

Firefly
10-09-2007, 04:08 AM
What Firefly is getting at is that he doesn't understand how the age of the soldier is an issue?

In a Nutshell, yes. I dont see how age should matter in a Volunteer force. I don't understand the significance of it and find it irrelevant.

I accept the fact but dont understand the context it is used in.

Richie B
04-04-2008, 01:03 PM
And yet Amnisty International still view Britain dimly for having a Junior Army, well A Junior Regiment at least.

Yeah right - good for them

FOAMYOB methinks:mrgreen: