PDA

View Full Version : Falklands/Malvinas war pictorial. Post yours ¡¡¡.



Pages : [1] 2

Panzerknacker
06-12-2007, 09:55 PM
Two questions here.

A) Is the HMS Sir Tristam the ship in the foreground ?

B) Why the hell this people is smiling/laughing?


http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8563/nuevaimagen369he.jpg

Man of Stoat
06-13-2007, 08:47 AM
Brits can, and will, laugh at anything. This is largely why we don't generally hold long-term grudges.

It is also considered polite to smile when your photograph is being taken!

mike M.
06-13-2007, 09:58 AM
......

Gen. Sandworm
06-13-2007, 10:09 AM
That looks like VICTORY...and a good reason to smile

Dont know if victory and smiling would be the first thing on my mind after having the crap bombed out of me. Plus if this is the HMS Sir Tristram then you have 50 dead coworkers. At least according to this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/8/newsid_2500000/2500607.stm

BDL
06-13-2007, 11:03 AM
Dont know if victory and smiling would be the first thing on my mind after having the crap bombed out of me. Plus if this is the HMS Sir Tristram then you have 50 dead coworkers. At least according to this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/8/newsid_2500000/2500607.stm

In situations like that, you can laugh or you can break down and cry. Whatever it takes to stop yourself going mad.

Panzerknacker
06-13-2007, 11:46 AM
That looks like VICTORY...and a good reason to smile


Hu ?, the ship is not argentine if you mean that.


In situations like that, you can laugh or you can break down and cry. Whatever it takes to stop yourself going mad

That sounds like a more possible explanation.

mike M.
06-13-2007, 12:08 PM
.......

1000ydstare
06-23-2007, 02:37 AM
The ship in the back is RFA Sir Tristam.

The lads smiling are just enjoying a moment of mirth on board the ship, probably a funny (possibly quite sick, by most of the posters opinions) quip or joke.

Yes, there is a ship in background, where 50 lads have died, but in a war where the casualties came in daily, you either laugh or take yourself somewhere quiet and put a bullet in your head.

British humour is not understood by many, and British forces humour is understood by fewer and is generally very dark.

The men in the picture know, that you can't dwell on the deaths of even close comrades in situations like this. Their ghosts will come knocking soon enough.

Panzerknacker
06-23-2007, 09:32 AM
A place strictly for the images of the war, air, sea, land, homefront and everything related.

Please post your picture and dont feel guilty about it. ;)


http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/slarke/images/falklands.jpg

Rising Sun*
06-23-2007, 10:45 AM
I'd like to post a picture of all the men who survived the war and who were honoured by their nations.

But it's not possible as Britain carefully hid the distastefully wounded in all public ceremonies.

Just the same as all countries promise their men a land fit for heroes while the guns are firing, and forget them; their families; and their sacrifices the moment the guns stop firing.

Panzerknacker
06-24-2007, 01:32 AM
Well, since nobody want to start i ll give a try:

Mayo square 14.00 Am 2th april 1982.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1633/plazaac3.jpg

1000ydstare
06-24-2007, 02:07 AM
Two questions here.

A) Is the HMS Sir Tristam the ship in the foreground ?

B) Why the hell this people is smiling/laughing?

A) Yes.

B) Unfortunatly there is only one way to understand. YOU yourself have to go through some of worst moments in your life, when your freinds may not come out the other side, and you just let your self go.

As I said above, the ghosts and memories will come back, but for now, it is just pure joy and relief.

Or in this case, they are just blinkering themselves to the horrors of what has happened.

Rising Sun*
06-25-2007, 07:53 PM
Why did the "Falklands/Malvinas Pictorial. Post yours iii" thread get inserted at posts 9, 10, and 11 into this thread and this thread, which used to be "Britsh Humour" get retitled "Falklands/Malvinas Pictorial. Post yours iii"?

It's confusing.

Panzerknacker
06-25-2007, 08:31 PM
I merged the two topics.


Or in this case, they are just blinkering themselves to the horrors of what has happened.

A strange way, thanks for your answer.


Another view of the Tristam.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6936/01gj8.jpg


( edited to rezise image)

Panzerknacker
06-25-2007, 08:36 PM
Back to the UK.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/buques/tristam/04.jpg

1000ydstare
06-25-2007, 11:21 PM
A strange way, thanks for your answer.

Is there any other way? Probably better to blinker yourself than sit and think "tomorrow we may die in firery hell in side a maze of metal corridors that will fill with with smoke and darkness..... who wants a cup of tea?"

Panzerknacker
06-29-2007, 08:52 AM
British prisoners.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/2abril/013.jpg



Argentine prisoner ( Marine I think) captured 21th may, handcuffed and blindfolded, nasty.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/018.jpg

more pics soon.

Rising Sun*
06-29-2007, 09:13 AM
Nasty?

Because he's bound and blindfolded?

This is what a real war crime involving a blindfolded POW looks like. Except that moments later this Australian POW, like countless other Australian, American, British and Dutch military and civilian prisoners of the Japanese, was dead, unlike the Argentinian POW who is being shepherded rather than driven to the slaughter.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3804/powjd4.jpg

For what it's worth, the British soldier on the left in the picture in the previous post is not holding his weapon to shoot or threaten, but merely to guard, the prisoner.

Unlike the Japanese with the sword about to kill an Australian prisoner with no more ability to protect or defend himself than the Argentinian prisoner who is being treated rather better by his British captors.

Panzerknacker
06-29-2007, 09:50 AM
This is what a real war crime involving a blindfolded POW looks like. Except that moments later this Australian POW, like countless other Australian, American, British and Dutch military and civilian prisoners of the Japanese, was dead, unlike the Argentinian POW who is being shepherded rather than driven to the slaughter.


I dont say a crime, I just said nasty.


Galtieri in the islands.

http://i12.tinypic.com/4kn279g.jpg




snowy times.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/ingles/soldingles.jpg

1000ydstare
06-29-2007, 10:55 AM
What was nasty was Argentina embarking upon the path that would lead to war, ie invasion of the Falkland Islands.

If the Argentine Marine POW is like that, there is a reason for it. He not likely to just be a POW that they didn't like the look of, or a lowly conscript. I am guessing he is likely to know the sort of info that the Brits wanted at that time. It is highly likely to be undergoing TQ or Tactical Questioning, which is not a War Crime although it is likely to be a little nasty.

Information gathered this way, may help British soldiers live, and Argentine soldiers too.

Incidently Panzerknacker the pics here....

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html

Which all show the faces of the Royal Marine POWs and the pictures of them lying face down on the ground, as APCs rumble past, also border on war crimes. POWs should be protected from humiliation.

In the old days this would include things like draging them through a city on a cart for civvies to throw fruit at. Nowadays a commander (of any rank) should consider photos, the internet and television.

Now let's have a quick look at some evidence of other Argentine atrocities which are equal to or greater than the piccy of a blindfolded and bound POW.


Bussers was visibly upset when the former Governor refused to shake his hand. Negotiations proceeded at a very civil level, apart from the interruptions by the anti-British Major Dowling, who later mistreated Cpl. York's section. After talking to Busser, Hunt consulted Norman and Noott and agreed to surrender. At 9.30 am, 149 years of British Colonial rule came to an end, the Falkland Islands were now in Argentinean hands. The Argentine flag was raised over Government House to cheers from the Argentine troops. Hunt was allowed to change into his official ceremonial regalia and was driven to the airport in his official car. (a London taxi) At the airport he was placed aboard an Argentine C130 Hercules and flown to Montevideo and from there he was flown back to London.

No such niceties for the members of NP 8901. The Royal Marines were stripped of their weapons and webbing and forced to lie face down on the ground in front of Government House with their hands behind their heads. They were not physically mistreated by the Argentines, but the humiliation they all felt was terrible. The Argentine press took many photos of the Royal Marines lying face down on the ground with Argentine marines guarding them. The Argentines did not realize it at the time but by taking these photos of the defeated Royal Marines they had just added smoke to the fire that was now burning in the heart of the British public back in Britain. When these photos were later published in newspapers in Britain there was an outcry of support for the British Government to take back the Falkland Islands.

The Royal Marines of NP 8901 and the members of the Island's Defence Force were moved to the playing fields where more pictures were taken. On the picture on the right at least one member of the Defence Force can been seen as well as several Royal Navy personnel. Also, at least three of the sitting men are making rude gestures towards the photographer. The Royal Marines were later marched to the airport and placed on a C130 Hercules heading for Montevideo. As one of the Royal Marines was being marched onto the aircraft he turned to his Argentine guard and said " Don't make yourself too comfy mate, we'll be back ". He wasn't wrong. After returning to the UK and giving much valuable intelligence to the Task Force commanders, Major Norman and his men returned to their Moody Brook barracks 76 days later as part of 42 Cdo RM.

Cpl York and his section of five Marines who were isolated on the western side of the narrows saw from their position that the Argentines were laying an ambush for them. As they had a Gemini hidden on the opposite side of the headland, they decided it was time to make a tactical withdrawal. Loading their kit into the the Gemini, and in order to avoid detection paddled their way to make good their escape. Suddenly round the headland came an Argentine Destroyer at full speed. It quickly spotted them, and in the words of Marine ‘Butch’ Urand ‘I think we did 100 mile per hour!’. And to its everlasting credit the Johnson outboard motor sprang into life, and they made good their escape, first hiding behind a Polish Fishing vessel and then running their Gemini into the shallows out of reach of the Argentines. They lived in caves on diddle-do-berries for three days before their final capture. When taken, the Argentines were a little confused as to what rank three badge Marine Urand was (three Badges being long service stripes) because is chums had nicknamed him ‘The General’. Being older than the rest, The Argentineans decided that discretion was the better part of valour and introduced him to ‘The General’ to the local naval commander, an Argentine Admiral.

Marine Jeffery Urand and the rest of NP8901 were flown to Argentinia, Marine Urand and his little party were kept separately from the remainder and intensively interrogated. Although no physical violence was used, the technique was aggressive and at times threatening. Their heads were shaved and they were kept in solitary confinement, before eventually being sent home. Now back again with the task force, Now suddenly he heard the unforgettable voice of his interrogator again. A officious Argentine captain was addressing a company of forlorn conscripts before dispersal on to the airfield. Marine Urand strolled up behind and tapped the Argentine captain on the shoulder:’ ‘Allo My Darlin’, Fancy us meeting like this again,’ The military police officer paled, Gulped and quickly disappeared into the ever changing throng of POWs

So it would appear that the British weren't the only ones that were committing "war crimes" on POWs.

Keep 'em coming Panzerknacker.

Maybe you can explain the Napalm, made up and ready for use, at Goose Green? Or was that the British's fault?

Or the Mines indescriminatly laid on the islands? Or was that the British fault as well?

I really wouldn't get in to a p1ssing competition on this one mate, because I WILL research everything and bring it to bear.

Rising Sun*
06-29-2007, 11:49 AM
I dont say a crime, I just said nasty.


Fair enough.

So, to evaluate just how nasty it was, what happened to the Argentinian in the picture?

Bamboo under the fingernails?

Water torture?

Something akin to the Burma Railway?

Something akin to the Kempei Tai?

Tied to a tree and bayoneted until he died?

Staked out in the burning sun until .... (Nope, it's cold down there and, worse, the Argentinians staked out their own soldiers in the cold. That's nasty!)?

Or just starved and finished the war half his original body weight ... (Inflicted purely by Britain as distinct from similar results inflicted by Argentina's own army, which is nasty!)?


Or did he just have a hood over his head?

Oh, yes. Very nasty.

Rising Sun*
06-29-2007, 12:06 PM
British prisoners.


On the nasty scale from 1 to 10, where would you rate (a) a blindfolded and bound POW being taken somewhere and (b) a blindfolded and bound POW about to have his head chopped off?

Panzerknacker
06-29-2007, 05:18 PM
Incidently Panzerknacker the pics here....

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html)

Which all show the faces of the Royal Marine POWs and the pictures of them lying face down on the ground, as APCs rumble past, also border on war crimes. POWs should be protected from humiliation.


You mean this ?

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/2abril/007.jpg



http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/2abril/008.jpg



http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/2abril/010.jpg



http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/2abril/011.jpg


who knows....maybe some officer of the tactical diver unit had lost a contact lens and the brits were helping to found that.


Jokes aside, relax man and post some picture.

1000ydstare
06-30-2007, 02:44 AM
I would post the pics but I couldn't get them off the site, that is why I indicated their location instead.

The point I am making, although the soldiers in the pictures aren't being a abused, and could argueably be said to be better treated than the Argie in the blindfold. The Argentines used these pictures as part fo their media offensive.

Which in itself is a bit nasty.

Rising Sun*
06-30-2007, 08:17 AM
The point I am making, although the soldiers in the pictures aren't being a abused, and could argueably be said to be better treated than the Argie in the blindfold. The Argentines used these pictures as part fo their media offensive.

I don't have a problem with the photos of the British prisoners in Panzerknacker's last post, or any use of them at the time or since.

Any more than I do with the blindfolded Argentinian or countless other photos of POW's in any other war at or after the point of capture, if they're just routine pictures of the routine consequences of capture.

There is a 'home side' sensitivity at times to such issues.

The deplorably exultant 'Gotcha' headline on the sinking of the Belgrano strikes me as a lot more offensive than a picture of what seems to be a routine manner of dealing with disarmed British prisoners after capture.

My training a dozen or so years before the Falklands War would have had prisoners lying prone with their hands clasped behind their heads (as in one of PK's pix), or sitting cross-legged with their hands clasped behind their heads, after a quick and thorough search which, if resisted, could have resulted in anything up to death.

One can argue that such things offend the laws of war


...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Article 13, Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I don't think they offend the laws of war or common sense any more than a picture of someone in handcuffs being escorted into court or a police station in civilian criminal matters.

1000ydstare
06-30-2007, 10:37 AM
To be honest rising sun, I feel the same way about the Gotcha and all of the POW pictures.

The Suns headline was a bit insensitive and quite frankly, base. It is to be remembered however, it was actually pulled when the full casualty figures came in. The Belgrano casualty list shocked the British as much as the Argentines, bearing in mind that the Brits had been in combat in NI for years.

The POW pictures, well C'est la guerre. Brit or Argie, even the bit where the Argies treated the stragglers that were caught later maybe a bit rough, but in the context of a war there are no biggies.

What will annoy me, is someone deliberatly posting such pictures in a manner that makes one side or other out to be the bad guy. Especially where the side painted out to be the good guys are responsible for as bad or worse behaviour.

Lone Ranger
06-30-2007, 06:55 PM
http://www.redandgreen.co.uk/images/13.jpg

British SBS treating wounded prisoners at Fanning Head San Carlos. When it came to the treatment of wounded men, the British prioritised them according to need rather than nationality.


The conscript prisoners looked absolutely terrified, and apparently believed the stories they had been told by their superiors that the British were rather fond of eating any prisoners that they captured! Even though they had been expertly treated by the SBS medics with battlefield splints and bandages for their bullet wounds, they were still very wary.


My boys and I had but a single purpose: to make sure no wounded marine, paratrooper, guardsman or Gurkha succumbed to his injuries. Nearly 200 enemy wounded were also treated with the same considerations, inspired by the "humanity in victory" that Nelson had prayed for on the morning of his death off Cape Trafalgar.

Dr Rick Jolly OBE

In 1998, while visiting Argentina with HRH The Prince of Wales, he prepared and sent ahead a list of Argentine wounded treated by his team, enquiring as to what happened to them. When the Argentine authorities spoke to their own people and found about the British battlefield care of their wounded, they invited over fifty of them to the ceremony in Buenos Aires - and then appointed him as an Oficial (Officer) in the Orden de Majo (Order of May) in recognition of his humanity.

Rick Jolly is the only man to have been decorated by both sides.

1000ydstare
07-01-2007, 12:32 AM
Rick has a book out now, where some of the quotes above come from.

"red and green live machine" the nickname given to the field hospital.

580 British casualties came in, only 3 succombed to their wounds whilst there. 200+ Argentine casualties were also treated.

Included in this was influx of 160 casualties in just 2 hours, from the Welsh Guards and the Bluff Cove/Sir Tristam incident, and the nearly 50 wounded Paras from Goose Green.

Rising Sun*
07-01-2007, 06:56 AM
What will annoy me, is someone deliberatly posting such pictures in a manner that makes one side or other out to be the bad guy. Especially where the side painted out to be the good guys are responsible for as bad or worse behaviour.

Agreed.

Plus a picture doesn't necessarily tell us what's really happening, even if it seems to be obvious.

Panzerknacker
07-01-2007, 11:26 AM
British SBS treating wounded prisoners at Fanning Head San Carlos. When it came to the treatment of wounded men, the British prioritised them according to need rather than nationality.

Nice picture, that is the spirit, more pictures and less words.



Army chaplain (catholic) on duty.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/comulgar.jpg



Just arrived troops.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aerptoarg/007.jpg



AFB.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aerptoarg/003.jpg



Splinter damage after the air attacks 1th may.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/1mayo/005.jpg

1000ydstare
07-01-2007, 12:58 PM
http://www.gregoryferdinandsen.com/EZE2001/EZE_Images/Falklands%20Memorial%20(6).jpg

Looks a bit young doesn't he?

http://www.gregoryferdinandsen.com/EZE2001/EZE_Images/Falklands%20Memorial%20(11).jpg

The memorial of the Argentine dead. So many young lads killed for the governments vain stupidity.

1000ydstare
07-01-2007, 01:05 PM
No offence Panzerknacker,

But somehow a memorial that remembers the dead of such a fools errand (from the area of Ushuiai) that also declares there will be a return, somehow doesn't seem right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/UshuaiaFalklandsWarVictimsMonument.jpg/800px-UshuaiaFalklandsWarVictimsMonument.jpg

http://www.warshipsifr.com/media/canberra_2.jpg

Canberra (the Great White Whale) returns home.

http://www.mjmorgan.dircon.co.uk/support/Spartan's%20Falklands%20Return2-2.jpg

HMS SPartan returns home

1000ydstare
07-01-2007, 01:17 PM
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1982/1101820510_400.jpg

With the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War coming up next month, British security forces on the Falklands are getting ready for any actions taken by Argentines. “The Argentine government is very different from the one in 1982 but is pressing its sovereignty claim and has reduced co-operation,” said Falklands governor Alan Huckle on recent rhetoric from the Kirchner administration.

Interesting point, as well as the SLR (British) and FN FAL (Argentine) being the same (except the Argentine weapon was able to go Auto by switch, than by modification with a match stick). Both sides used the GPMG, another FN product. British tracer was red and the ammo was 4:1, 4 ball to 1 tracer. Argentine tracer was green, and 1:1:1 or 1 ball, 1 AP and 1 tracer.

No too long in to the war, this became irrelevant as the British used Argentine ammuntion that they had captured.

Probably by men such as these.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/726F7643-4F17-4BB6-8CCB-8E17F5636E27/0/FKD002028.jpg

Men of the Support Coy, 45 Cdo, Yomping to Port Stanley with the Union Flag high on the whip antenna of a PRC-350.

One of the most famous images of the War.

And here is another famous image, and controversal.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/images/jollyroger.jpg

HMS Conqueror returning to Scotland, with a Jolly Roger flying to indicate a successful cruise (ie the sinking of ARA General Belgrano).

Some people, including British people, thought it a bit off. Actually it is a tradition taht dates back to the very earliest submarine actions in the Royal Navy. So the PC Brigade can do one.

She also could have had a broom to indicate a "clean sweep", every target engaged sunk. But for what ever reason, she did not fly a broom.

Panzerknacker
07-02-2007, 07:23 AM
Nice but the monument are post 1982.

Landing.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/ingles/densembarco-pow.JPG



Gurkhas

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/ingles/falklands0142dq.jpg




Gurkhas ?


http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/ingles/falklands0121vs.jpg

1000ydstare
07-02-2007, 11:04 AM
Gurkhas?

Nope, they are Brits. At a guess I would suggest they are Scots Guards. Purely because they are equipped with civie bergans. 3 Cdo Bde (with 2 and 3 Para) didn't have time to purchase these, but 5 Inf Bde did.

WRT memorials, They are pictures relating to the falklands regardless of when they were taken or the objects in them built.

The topic doesn't specify anything specific about the pictures other than they are Falklands pictures.

Soooooo.....

http://z.about.com/d/cruises/1/0/R/8/falklands002.jpg
a Rock Hopper penguin, indiginous to the Falklands.

Panzerknacker
07-02-2007, 11:41 AM
Nope, they are Brits.


OK.



WRT memorials, They are pictures relating to the falklands regardless of when they were taken or the objects in them built.

The topic doesn't specify anything specific about the pictures other than they are Falklands pictures.

Soooooo.....



A penguin ? give me a break. :rolleyes:




Men of the Support Coy, 45 Cdo, Yomping to Port Stanley with the Union Flag high on the whip antenna of a PRC-350.

One of the most famous images of the War


Your picture dint came out.

1000ydstare
07-02-2007, 02:20 PM
Your picture dint came out.

Well, it did on my original check, and I have just popped up to have another look and it is still there.

Must be YOUR computer.

Let's see if these come out....

http://www.bdmlr.org.uk/Photo%20Library/SC%20Falklands%20Pilots.JPG
Pilot Whales stranded on a beach, the Soldiers are there to help them. Just one of the many tasks undertaken by the British Garrison to help conservation and the environment.

Although the squad assigned to pick up penguins from the end of the runway is a mere myth used on gullable females in clubs. The pretense being the penguins watch aircraft take off and fall on their backs, where upon they can't get up again.

http://www.wku.edu/~david.keeling/djkpics/DJK-Falklands.jpg
THe Union Flag flying proud, on West Point Island of the Falklands. Long may it fly.

http://z.about.com/d/cruises/1/0/T/8/falklands004.jpg
Mixed in with the rockhopper penguins and their chicks were black browed albatrosses and their young. Many of these albatross, with their distinctive black eye brows and bright yellow-orange bills, had followed our cruise ship the Hanseatic from Ushuaia, Argentina, to the Falkland Islands. The black browed albatross make their nests, which look like a small pot or cone, from mud and grass. They are usually found on steep, rocky slopes. We were fascintated to see these two species--the rockhopper penguin and the black browed albatross--living together A single black browed albatross egg is incubated for 68 days, and the chicks fledge at 120 days. The black browed albatross is the most abundant of all the albatrosses, with over 600,000 pairs found world-wide.

I love going to the Falkland Islands. I always like to get amongst the nature.

Panzerknacker
07-02-2007, 07:31 PM
Righ on, now the picture is visible.

Well...after this very illustrative Nat geo gallery we going back to the war.:)


Soldiers with penguin (again)

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3487/pinguinowv7.jpg



With captured Flag.

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/448/mlv28ys.jpg


Achtung mines.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6627/mlv76ek.jpg

1000ydstare
07-03-2007, 12:40 PM
Very rare photo, that bottom one.

It is of the ONLY MINE sign the Argentine Sappers took to the Falklands.

Panzerknacker
07-03-2007, 07:46 PM
Colonel Mohamed Ali Seineldin. Infantry Regiment 25.

http://www.redargentina.com/malvinas-argentinas/Seineldin3.jpg



http://www.redargentina.com/malvinas-argentinas/seineldin5.jpg


With Busser and Castellanos.

http://www.redargentina.com/malvinas-argentinas/seineldin2.jpg

1000ydstare
07-03-2007, 11:55 PM
Anothing interesting point in the bottom photo.

The white blob on the back of the guys helmet is his First Field Dressing. The Argentines took (for some reason) to taking them out of the packets and putting them on their helmets.

Quite why this practice, which rendered the FFDs un sterile and thus useless, was adopted and by who I don't know.

Rising Sun*
07-04-2007, 08:40 AM
Anothing interesting point in the bottom photo.

The white blob on the back of the guys helmet is his First Field Dressing. The Argentines took (for some reason) to taking them out of the packets and putting them on their helmets.

Quite why this practice, which rendered the FFDs un sterile and thus useless, was adopted and by who I don't know.

Two possibilities spring to mind.

One, it was emulating what some Americans did in Vietnam with (unopened as far as I recall) field dressings, playing cards (ace of spades very popular), and sundry other items strapped to their helmets.

Two, if it was always strapped to the back of the helmet it might be an improvised identifier for troops behind for the wearer's function or leadership.

Panzerknacker
07-04-2007, 09:50 AM
Colonel Seineldin making a grave for a captured Union Jack. Nasty guy.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/seineldinyrosario.jpg

1000ydstare
07-04-2007, 03:21 PM
There was a raid by the SBS in which the very practice of wrapping the FFDs around the helmets.

The SBS were going to wear mine tape around their helmets to greet the incoming troops (the old mine tape was a 2in gauze, similar to medical gauze). On their CTR to their dismay they realised the OPFOR were wearing their FFD in exactly the same fashion!!!!

Like I say, why this strange practice came in to effect I don't know.

WRT to burying the Union Flag on the Falklands, not a problem. From it will grow a tree, from which a bountyful harvest of Union Flags can be gathered everyday a dawn!!! :D

Lone Ranger
07-04-2007, 03:38 PM
Colonel Seineldin making a grave for a captured Union Jack.

Is that the same guy who was imprisoned for crimes during the dirty war?

1000ydstare
07-04-2007, 03:51 PM
Bloody Hell LR, good spot.

from the wiki.

10th Motorised Infantry Brigade
Commander: Brigade General Oscar Joffre. Brigade home base: Buenos Aires Province
...
25th Regiment (RI 25), 9th Infantry Brigade (attach to 10th Brigade) — airmobile, East Falkland (†13)
Commander: Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed A. Seineldin.

1000ydstare
07-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Some info on the "full stop" legislation

From http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/research/seminars/ILA/Cerna.doc

Given the continued tension between the government and the military in December 1986, the Argentine Congress passed the first of what became known as the Argentine amnesty laws. The “Full Stop” Law (Punto Final- Law No. 23.492) imposed a 60-day deadline on the initiation of proceedings against those accused of crimes committed between 1976-1983 during the “dirty war.” The law was designed to put an end to the trials of military officers, but in fact, it had the opposite effect and the deadline accelerated the proceedings and almost 400 military officers were prosecuted.

In reaction, Major Ernest Barreiro decided not to appear in response to a court summons, and other military officers supported his rebellious attitude. On April 15, 1987, Lt. Col. Aldo Rico led an uprising of these insurgents who called themselves the “Carapintadas” (Painted Faces). They alleged that they were not trying to carry out a military coup but pressured the Government to stop the trials against the military. Argentine civil society responded with a huge rally against a possible new military coup. President Alfonsin, however, showed up personally at the School of Infantry in Campo de Mayo, where the military had barricaded itself, and negotiated with the rebel officers. As a result, the Argentine Congress passed the second of the amnesty laws, known as the “Due Obedience” Law (Obedencia Debida –Law No. 23.521). This Law was a variant of the defense of “superior orders” and granted immunity to all military officers acting under the orders of their superiors and below the rank of Colonel.

Apparently the officers threw a childish strop as they realised they were going to face the music, and they couldn't dance.

Col Seineldin was banged up as late as 1990, and tried to start a coup from prison.

Panzerknacker
07-04-2007, 06:30 PM
Is that the same guy who was imprisoned for crimes during the dirty war?

Nope, he try to make a coup in 3/12/1990 ( not from the prison), failed and was sentences to life imprisoment. Received a presidential pardon in 2004.


Argentine Air force personel captured.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7688/dibujoav7.jpg



Testing guns.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9200/fseafafw1ay.jpg



Aerospatiale Gazelle in action.


http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/7762/mlv159mrad6.jpg

1000ydstare
07-04-2007, 11:50 PM
The LMG mags were favoured because they held 30 rounds instead of the usual 20 of the SLR mag.

However, they needed some modification as the springs were generaly not up to the task of pushing the 20 rounds up. On the LMG the mags were fitted to the top of the weapon, similar to a Bren.

Never seen tracer taped to the butt like that. It would take time to remove and load, probably by taking the mag off and putting the tracer in the top.

It is generally preferred to load a mag up with tracer, takeing off the ball mag and putting it on when needed.

Don't recall the Gazelle being hampered by having only one engine or it's lightweigth construction.

Man of Stoat
07-05-2007, 01:40 AM
Sorry, 1000 yard, L4 magazines require no modification for use on the SLR: I've got one, I use it in competition, and I know several other people who do the same. No one who actually uses one that I know has ever modified them in any way.

The only way I can think of that this myth came about would be people "liberating" knackered ones in which the spring has become weak.

Also, in comparison with L2 magazines (the straight 30 round magazines that the colonials used in their SLR based support weapons), the springs in the L4 magazines are usually slightly stronger, in my experience. This is one thing which, when given the choice, I bought an L4 magazine in place of an L2

Rising Sun*
07-05-2007, 04:14 AM
Also, in comparison with L2 magazines (the straight 30 round magazines that the colonials used in their SLR based support weapons), the springs in the L4 magazines are usually slightly stronger, in my experience. This is one thing which, when given the choice, I bought an L4 magazine in place of an L2

Some colonials used the L2 magazine in SLR's in Vietnam, but its greater length could be a problem in situations where ground hugging while firing was critical.

Panzerknacker
07-05-2007, 08:23 AM
Well..the Gazelle was definately vulnerable, two of these were shot down by the squad comanded by Benjamin Gomez-Centurion, (the guy in the right) in matter of minutes with combined FAL fire. This incident was already mentioned.

http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/gomezcent-esteban.jpg



MG nest.

http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/gada601-18.jpg



Argentine Army Chinnok.

http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/BAC-601-5.jpg




http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/BAC-601-4.jpg

Rising Sun*
07-05-2007, 09:19 AM
Well..the Gazelle was definately vulnerable, two of these were shot down by the squad comanded by Benjamin Gomez-Centurion, (the guy in the right) in matter of minutes with combined FAL fire. This incident was already mentioned.

http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/gomezcent-esteban.jpg



Did he shoot them down with his gun, or just his megaphone? :D



MG nest.

http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/gada601-18.jpg



Silly photographs are taken for domestic propaganda purposes all the time, but that would have to be one of the all time worst MG positions in history.

Can you see why, Panzerknacker?

And it's more than just one reason. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the absence of his No. 2.

Panzerknacker
07-05-2007, 09:20 AM
And yet one more of Col Seineldin, this time as portrayed by Paul Hannon in the Osprey s Men-at-Arms 250th "Argentine Forces in the Falklands".


http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5720/seineldindy9.jpg

1000ydstare
07-05-2007, 12:35 PM
Never knew that MofS, never used one myself, but you are right that most were cast offs from the Brens. Normally nicked from the armourers shop!!!!

They did sit higher too, when on your belt buckle, but was handy.

What is the difference between the Gazelle and the Scout? Both have one engine, both similar size.

A helicopter can be brought down few shots no matter how big or how many engines they have.

Lone Ranger
07-05-2007, 02:21 PM
The magazine of the LMG version of the BREN was designed to be compatible with the emergency use of SLR magazines. Hence, the LMG magazine will also usually fit the SLR. However, it was by no means all SLR that would accept them, some had feed problems.

Panzerknacker
07-05-2007, 06:56 PM
Silly photographs are taken for domestic propaganda purposes all the time, but that would have to be one of the all time worst MG positions in history


So ...what ?

Propaganda is an integral part of any war, and the 1982 war wasnt the exception.


First Sargeant Jacinto Batista Tactical diver unit

http://i3.tinypic.com/x2syvo.jpg



http://www.bichosverdes.org/Batista.jpg



J.B also have his color plate in MAA 250.:rolleyes:

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/3792/batistatt7.jpg

Digger
07-05-2007, 07:55 PM
Batista? Didn't he become a wrestler?:shock:;)

Sorry guys I couldn't resist a little joke. Fascinating thread and thanks to you all.

Regards digger

1000ydstare
07-05-2007, 11:39 PM
And back to the propaganda/geneva convention of protection of pows again!!!!

Oh, well. They may have been taken prisonner, but these same men came back down as part of 42 Cdo (a Coy of 42 was sent to reclaim South Georgia and never got to the Falklands) a sorted things out on a more level playing field.

ie not a whole Army versus a understrength company :D

32Bravo
07-06-2007, 02:52 AM
Those pictures of Royal Marines lying on the ground as prisoners, were an excellent piece of propaganda. When the British public saw those pictures of their 'boys' being splashed accross the newspapers, being treated that way - the war was on, and they were up for it.

Panzerknacker
07-06-2007, 09:03 AM
Those pictures of Royal Marines lying on the ground as prisoners, were an excellent piece of propaganda. When the British public saw those pictures of their 'boys' being splashed accross the newspapers, being treated that way - the war was on, and they were up for it.


Agreed.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1579/cccccrb8.jpg

Panzerknacker
07-06-2007, 09:14 AM
And this is my favorite of all, Cap Marcos Carballo and ltn Carlos Rinke attacking the HMS Broadsword, 25th may 1982.

http://i7.tinypic.com/67861rm.jpg

Rising Sun*
07-06-2007, 10:01 AM
And this is my favorite of all, Cap Marcos Carballo and ltn Carlos Rinke attacking the HMS Broadsword, 25th may 1982.

http://i7.tinypic.com/67861rm.jpg

Would the target be the enemy water?

'Cos that's where all the fire is going.

And, unless my failing memory fails me, Broadsword survived this attempt to sink it by the apparent cunning Argentinian plan to generate fatal waves by churning up the ocean with ill-directed fire.

Or did it disappear in the big white plume at middle, one third from right?

Gen. Sandworm
07-06-2007, 10:11 AM
Would the target be the enemy water?

'Cos that's where all the fire is going.



Maybe a recently submerged enemy sub. Or maybe they are just trigger happy.............who knows!

My bet is that it was Lochness monster trying to join the fight.

1000ydstare
07-06-2007, 10:25 AM
Definitaly hard to see why you like that picture Panzerknacker.

It is just bullets going in to water.

WRT the propaganda, definitly a back fire, but at that time the Junta really didn't believe they were going to be bitchslapped by the IRON LADY.

They were just revelling in their shortlived victory.

Panzerknacker
07-06-2007, 10:54 AM
I like because it shows the heavy AAA fire that the argentine pilot had to withstand in those days.

Carballo hit with the Broadsword wth a 500 kg bomb but it didnt explode.

http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/broadswoard/004.jpg


http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/broadswoard/003.jpg



http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/broadswoard/001.jpg



http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/broadswoard/002.jpg

1000ydstare
07-07-2007, 01:26 AM
I wonder what the WREN is doing on the boat?

She is far right on the close up of hte name, with the crew standing along the netting. WRENs did not go to sea in them days.

Many bombs dropped by the Argentines did not go off. They were fused wrong.

HMS Plymouth also suffered bomb damage but no explosion.

Similarly the Harriers also dropped bombs on the Narwhel (A trawler used by the Argentines for Int gathering) that didn't go off!!!

The SBS had to board it later.

32Bravo
07-07-2007, 12:49 PM
I wonder what the WREN is doing on the boat?


Perhaps she is the reason the bomb didn't explode - it was a chivalrous bomb?

The photo is probably taken as the ship returned to Plymouth Sound or Portsmouth. They probably choppered her in (excuse the pun) to chear up the jolly Tars, and the ones with funny 'greeny' looking berets.

Panzerknacker
07-07-2007, 04:43 PM
HMS Plymouth also suffered bomb damage but no explosion


Some images of the HMS Plymount hit by bomb the 8th June, and for 30mm guns earlier.


Cannon hits.

http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/plymouth/03.jpg


http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/plymouth/05.jpg



Bombed, the ship seems wasted form this view but I guess the damage wasnt severe.

http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/plymouth/06.jpg


http://members.libreopinion.com/ar/elmalvinense/buques/plymouth/04.jpg


The bomb hole.

1000ydstare
07-08-2007, 12:31 AM
Can assure you it looks worse than it actually was.

She is tied up in UK now as part of a museum.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/liverpool/mf68.jpg
She is the larger of the two ships closest to land.

There is a U-boat, HMS Onyx, another ship HMS B something, and a light ship also there. And a landing craft from the falklands.

The damage, is painted up in red, so it is clearly visable. (for museum purposes).

Rising Sun*
07-08-2007, 07:51 AM
I like because it shows the heavy AAA fire that the argentine pilot had to withstand in those days.

Are you sure?

Reference right hand top corner. About one fifth in from top and same distance from side is an object which I can't make out, but could be a plane.

Anti-aircraft fire directed at that object and the plane which took the photograph would be likely to be on a trajectory which wouldn't hit the water in the photo.

The large plume on the right is not consistent with other alleged AA fire, but might be with something dropped from the object I can't indentify.

Even if it's AA fire, it's not a patch on what the Americans and Japanese routinely flew into in the Pacific, which wasn't a patch on what everybody flew into in Europe.

32Bravo
07-08-2007, 08:03 AM
Are you sure?

Reference right hand top corner. About one fifth in from top and same distance from side is an object which I can't make out, but could be a plane.



It appears to be a Skyhawk to me. It also appears to have something attached to its underwings, possibly bombs. I would assume that drop-tanks would have been released by this time?

Rising Sun*
07-08-2007, 09:31 AM
It appears to be a Skyhawk to me. It also appears to have something attached to its underwings, possibly bombs. I would assume that drop-tanks would have been released by this time?

How can you see that?

Let me know who your optometrist is.

Or maybe it's time for me to stop buying cheap Chinese spectacles at markets.

I wasn't even sure there anything there, apart perhaps from an unfortunate albatross.

32Bravo
07-08-2007, 10:44 AM
How can you see that?

Let me know who your optometrist is.

Or maybe it's time for me to stop buying cheap Chinese spectacles at markets.

I wasn't even sure there anything there, apart perhaps from an unfortunate albatross.


As I said - not every marksman can be a sniper. :D

Rising Sun*
07-08-2007, 12:40 PM
As I said - not every marksman can be a sniper. :D

By your standards of visual acuity, I'd be bloody lucky to avoid falling over my seeing eye dog! :D

It remains for Panzerknackers to explain why AA fire is directed into the ocean rather than the more conventional approach of firing it into the air, where the planes are.

32Bravo
07-08-2007, 02:06 PM
By your standards of visual acuity, I'd be bloody lucky to avoid falling over my seeing eye dog! :D

It remains for Panzerknackers to explain why AA fire is directed into the ocean rather than the more conventional approach of firing it into the air, where the planes are.

I think I could explain that, but I wouldn't want to steal PK's thunder.

By the way, have you been at the porridge again? :D

Panzerknacker
07-09-2007, 05:21 PM
It remains for Panzerknackers to explain why AA fire is directed into the ocean rather than the more conventional approach of firing it into the air, where the planes are

You are wrong, I dont have to answer that, the british gunners have.


Anti-aircraft fire directed at that object and the plane which took the photograph

No airplane take that picture, It was a crewmember of the HMS Broadsword.

Panzerknacker
07-09-2007, 06:35 PM
Mirage V near miss.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6905/sancarlosdaggerxp0.jpg


Aerospatiale Gazelle down.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/7517/gazelle1982fx4.jpg



A-4.

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/7472/a4vv9.jpg



Sea Cat shot

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4016/sdfkn0.jpg

Rising Sun*
07-10-2007, 07:54 AM
You are wrong, I dont have to answer that, the british gunners have.

You don't have to answer that, or you can't?


32Bravo

Sitrep.

Out :D

Panzerknacker
07-10-2007, 09:41 AM
I have my guessing, a bad aim , but as I said I am not the best person to answer that.:rolleyes:

Bofors 40/70 onboard British ship (Fearless?)


http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/455/pe12wu2.jpg

Rising Sun*
07-10-2007, 09:55 AM
No airplane take that picture, It was a crewmember of the HMS Broadsword.

Fair enough.

I've misunderstood the photographer's standpoint.

1000ydstare
07-10-2007, 12:43 PM
The rounds in the picture are probably (all though they don't look right) hitting the water to engage a low level aircraft. Bad aim is not going to extend to a gunner shooting in to the water, instead of the air.

As for the Gazelle, Three were shot down, two by the Argentines, and one by a Sea Dart from HMS Cardiff in a friendly fire incident.

The two shot down by the Argentines was over San Carlos by substantial Small Arms fire.

Panzerknacker
07-10-2007, 06:58 PM
More images of the British defenses.

Bofors 40mm.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/2764/people217ae.jpg



Rapier in the shore of San carlos.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1867/sam13cn.jpg



Even the MAG 7,62mm were used .

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7343/stickyleach31nq.jpg

Rising Sun*
07-11-2007, 11:01 AM
The rounds in the picture are probably (all though they don't look right) hitting the water to engage a low level aircraft. Bad aim is not going to extend to a gunner shooting in to the water, instead of the air. My bold

That's my problem.

Could be wind on the spray but it looks like the rounds are coming from the left of picture.

But why the big plume on the right? Very different calibre to the rest. If it's a round.

Certainly there are WWII pictures of similarly disturbed water, but with rather more ships in the area and rather more planes attracting their fire.

While PK has presented the picture as AA fire, why isn't it just overshoot from aircraft fire at the ships, or from aircraft out of the picture?

It just looks wrong spread all over the area unrelated to targets ships' gunners might be firing at.

Lone Ranger
07-11-2007, 05:59 PM
The big plume is weird. Are we sure this was Broadsword and not Coventry?

Broadsword only had medium calibre guns, Coventry also had the 4.5" gun.

Panzerknacker
07-11-2007, 06:41 PM
Here:

http://www.hmsbroadsword.co.uk/falklands/thewar/bomb_alley_5th_day.htm


And a bigger picture for the benefit of the near sighted members.

Clik here

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2955/a4ataqueaz8.jpg

1000ydstare
07-12-2007, 12:42 AM
IMH The large splash is possibley from the ship. I reckon most of the small flashes are actually rounds coming from Carbello, in the main.

The splashes aren't coming from the ship. Even if the gunners were having a sighting problem, aiming in to the sea and then bring them guns up, the splash patteren would be different. It would be closer together.

The only other option is that small arms were used too.

Lone Ranger
07-12-2007, 04:12 PM
I think I've figure out what the big splash is. The ship is firing 20 mm cannon, could it be a shell burst, the rest of the splashes are the previous bursts?

32Bravo
07-12-2007, 04:32 PM
Kimo Sabi, where have you been? I feel neglected. :)

I think you are right, in part. The larger splash is that of the 4.5" gun, the others are those of lesser caliber weapons, including the Jimpie.

Panzerknacker
07-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Kimo Sabi, where have you been? I feel neglected

Easy there.

And yes, the smalls arms were definately used...man I think if the britons had bricks in their ships they probaly used against the incoming aircrafts too.:mrgreen:


Fal vs Mirage.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3991/falagaistmirageft9.jpg



http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/2403/55wm1.jpg

( Public healt announce, the cigarrete is bad for the health)

1000ydstare
07-13-2007, 01:34 AM
And yes, the smalls arms were definately used...man I think if the britons had bricks in their ships they probaly used against the incoming aircrafts too.

So would you mate, if you were on the receiveing end.!!!

Rising Sun*
07-13-2007, 10:00 AM
I think I've figure out what the big splash is. The ship is firing 20 mm cannon, could it be a shell burst, the rest of the splashes are the previous bursts?

Probably not.

You can see a faint mist around the other splashes. They're lower and smaller. They weren't the same size as the big plume.

Walther
07-15-2007, 05:15 PM
Colonel Mohamed Ali Seineldin. Infantry Regiment 25.

http://www.redargentina.com/malvinas-argentinas/Seineldin3.jpg



http://www.redargentina.com/malvinas-argentinas/seineldin5.jpg


With Busser and Castellanos.

http://www.redargentina.com/malvinas-argentinas/seineldin2.jpg

This used to be standard practice with the British forces in WW2, to keep the shell dressing (unopened, in it's khaki cover) beneath the camouflage net on the back of the helmet for fast access. The Field Dressing was carried in a special pocket on the right hip on the Battle dress trousers.

Jan

Panzerknacker
07-16-2007, 10:52 PM
British paras Monte Longdon

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/2791/mlv1003gb4.jpg


What is the the thing carried as backpack in the second man fron the right ?

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5348/montelongdon56pw1.jpg

1000ydstare
07-17-2007, 12:44 AM
Panzerknacker.

The man second right in the lower picture, appears to be carrying a Milan post. It is what the holds and then fires and controls the Milan weapon during flight.

Similar to the one in the Right hand bottom corner of the top pic. Yu can also just make out a Milan tube.

The two lads in teh top picture are undoubtedly carrying Argentine .50 cal ammo. The British at the time did not deploy a .50 cal weapon, but during the course of the war collected Argentine .50 cals and ammo.

Note the guy on the right in the top photo has his bayonet fixed.

Lone Ranger
07-17-2007, 04:04 AM
It is a Milan firing post. Both the Marines and the Paras developed a technique to man-pack Milan in the Falklands. Even with the missiles removed from their containers for nearly 4 weeks and exposed to the conditions in the Falklands they all worked as advertised. The packs weighed close to 120 lbs though.

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 04:11 AM
It is a Milan firing post. Both the Marines and the Paras developed a technique to man-pack Milan in the Falklands. Even with the missiles removed from their containers for nearly 4 weeks and exposed to the conditions in the Falklands they all worked as advertised. The packs weighed close to 120 lbs though.

Was the 120 lbs when loaded, or unloaded?

1000ydstare
07-17-2007, 07:12 AM
The Paras, Marines and other Infantry units (Gurkhas and Guards) already knew how to man pack Milan, it was a "man portable" weapon. (Honest).

IIRC it requires 3 men to move a post (and ammo) during the Falklands, I have seen pictures recently showing 4 on the British Army website. I think extra kit has been added to the Milan post.

The reason behind this portablity was so dismounted troops could move independently of their vehices setting up tank traps on the European field of battle. The moved with something like 3-5 shots between them.

It is now more in vogue to mount these weapons on vehicles.

The 81mm Mortar also breaks down in to a 3 person lift, as does the GPMG (SF). Ammo resup is obviously a problem if man packed.

120lb is actually the average weight for a rifleman in war.

Specialists such as the Milan crews, Machine Gunners, Mortar Men, radio ops etc, often carry more.

Lone Ranger
07-17-2007, 08:52 AM
The Paras, Marines and other Infantry units (Gurkhas and Guards) already knew how to man pack Milan, it was a "man portable" weapon. (Honest).

Did you every have to carry the b*****d? The guys who carried it across the islands have my respect.

Rising Sun*
07-17-2007, 09:28 AM
120lb is actually the average weight for a rifleman in war.

This is where we've lost the plot.

60 to 80 lbs carried in WWII, at least for Australians fully equipped against the Japanese.

How can we have all the air support and supply and other marvels of the modern world yet burden our riflemen with so much more weight?

Someone needs to get a grip on themselves in the planning areas.

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 09:31 AM
120lb is actually the average weight for a rifleman in war.


Yes, 120 pounds including the rest of his kit. However, soldiers soon learn the difference between that which is is worth keeping and that which is better ditched - be it equipment or rations. The mortar and anti-tank teams, as with signallers drew the short straw.

I wasn't questioning the man-packable capability of the Milan, nor the fact that they used them. In fact, as I'm sure you know, they were recommended to Jones at Darwin Ridge, but he wouldn't hear of it - probably because he was focussed on momentum, and he was caught up at the front (nature of the beast, and leading from the font). If he had remained a little further back, perhaps he would have considered the proposal and thought it a better option for maintaining momentum - who knows?

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 09:33 AM
This is where we've lost the plot.

60 to 80 lbs carried in WWII, at least for Australians fully equipped against the Japanese.

How can we have all the air support and supply and other marvels of the modern world yet burden our riflemen with so much more weight?

Someone needs to get a grip on themselves in the planning areas.

Unfortunately, the enemy took away our hoverable toys. :D

Everything had to be manpacked.

Panzerknacker
07-17-2007, 04:07 PM
All right thanks, initially I tough it was a flametrower but I knew none was used in those days.

I think the Milan was used to destroy MGs nest since there was no tanks in the islands, at list no Argentine ones.

1000ydstare
07-18-2007, 06:52 AM
Milan, 66mm and Charlie Gees were all used on bunkers and trenches in lieu of tanks to shoot at.

The Charlie Gee was used (possibley the first time in anger) against the Corvette attacking the lads on South Georgia causing damage and the boat stayed clear after that.

The first in action firing of a Milan is reportedly against a low flying aircraft.

120lbs soon mounts up. 1 liter of water weighs in at a hefty 1 Kg (2.2lbs) figure you would require anything up to 10lbs worth of water alone for a day or two. Food, sleeping bag, rifle, grenades, ammunition and I would say you are pretty close to 120lbs already.

There is nothing to do at the planning stage to reduce this burden, it is required to maintain efficiency. Whether or not it can be carried by vehicles or helis is another matter.

Today you can also factor in body armour to the overall weight.

The lads don't fight carrying this weight, the bergans are cached to the rear.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2007, 07:29 AM
120lbs soon mounts up. 1 liter of water weighs in at a hefty 1 Kg (2.2lbs) figure you would require anything up to 10lbs worth of water alone for a day or two.

Depends on climate, geography and water discipline.

A litre on good water discipline will easily do for a day in the tropics if you start out hydrated, for life but not comfort, but you wouldn't want to keep it up for days or you'll lose vital salts and dehydrate and become ineffective.

What you need to carry depends upon what's available for refilling canteens.

As an aside, a mate of mine in Vietnam was with another bloke refilling their platoon's canteens (about fifteen extra canteens each) from a water hole in enemy country when a stuff up throwing wrong coloured smoke resulted in their unit calling in an airstrike on itself. He and the other bloke saw what happened and saw the jets swinging to fire on the smoke near them. He started running. It was all in slow motion. Took him a while to realise he was dragging about fifteen full canteens on a lanyard. His speed improved dramatically when he slipped the lanyard.


Food, sleeping bag, rifle, grenades, ammunition and I would say you are pretty close to 120lbs already.

My recollection is that 60 lb for Aussies in WWII was their weapons; ?50 to 60 rounds .303; their webbing; and what they could fit in their '37 pattern basic pouches and back pack, which was a pretty small back pack (still got one - about a quarter the size of the giant packs my kids wear to school which I reckon are sufficient to conquer Mt Everest!)


The lads don't fight carrying this weight, the bergans are cached to the rear.

On planned attacks.

Ambushed, you fight with what you have on or try to ditch it, sometimes both at the same time.

Panzerknacker
07-18-2007, 09:10 PM
Some aircraft pictures.

A-4 flight refuelling.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aviones/010.jpg



Mirage V

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aviones/003.jpg



Dassault Super Etendar:

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aviones/004.jpg



Dawn in San julian.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7365/untitledah1.jpg


250 kg bomb below M V.

Eagle
07-19-2007, 08:38 PM
Panzer, excellent pics. In order to add some info to the photos:


1. An A-4C Skyhawk making a refuel from a KC-130H Hercules, during a real combat mission in 1982 (is not an exercise or maneuver in peace time)

2. Two Mirage V Dagger being guided by a Learjet 35A agaist the Royal Navy fleet. If my memory doesn't fail, that was on June the 8th, when those Daggers attacked the frigate HMS Plymouth.

3. Dassault Super Etendards with the anti-ship missile AM-39 Exocet. This photo wasn't taken during the war, but some month later in an exercise in the South of Argentina.

4. Nothing to say... Excellent pic from a noble Mirage V Dagger, nowadays Finger

5. Note the spanish exploding mechanism "Kappa E".

Eagle
07-19-2007, 09:56 PM
http://ar.geocities.com/laperlaaustralfotos/images/fotos/fotos1/presos.jpg
April 2nd. The Rosario Operation was succeeded. An Argentine Special Forces member (from the Amphibious Commandos, Argentine Navy), is guiding to surrended Royal Marines in Stanley, town which was renamed the same day as Argentine Port. It was one of the most known and recognized photographs from the war.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/690/elmariocarcaraa0jp.jpg
The Argentine cargo ship "Río Carcarañá" is burning after being attacked by British Harriers, on May 16th. The vessel was abandoned and after the Argentine surrender in June, was moved to Argentine Port coasts in order to be sunk by more aerial attacks.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1513/33xv.jpg
The Argentine submarine "Santa Fe" is sinking near South Georgia, while a tug boat tries to move it to the UK. The Santa Fe was attacked by British helicopters on April 25th.

Eagle
07-19-2007, 09:58 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/1er-Contacto.jpg
A British Sea Harrier intercepts a Boeing 707 from the Argentine Air Force, before the hostilities begining, on April 21st.

http://img446.imageshack.us/img446/8195/learjet32tp.jpg
An Argentine Canberra, an ironically British-Build bomber, and a Hawker Siddeley HS-125 from the former oil state-enterprise YPF. This aircraft joint to the Volunteers Phoenix Squadron, formed by civilian aircrafts and pilots who decided to being part of the war. The Phoenix Squadron

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3474/113ql.jpg
A Harrier engine, after it was shoot down by Argentine forces.

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/arrow.jpg
The Red Arrows saluting the HMS Arrow, which had been hit during the conflict by Argentine aerial attacks, during its return to Britain.

Gen. Sandworm
07-19-2007, 10:59 PM
Off-Topic!

MY GOD the man lives. Where have you been? Nice to have you back! :D

Eagle
07-20-2007, 07:35 PM
His excellency Gral Sandworm,

It's nice to read that I am welcome again to the forum. I comment there wasn't only one point about my ausency, there were a lot, for instance studies, which takes a lot of my time -I am studying two universitary carreers, Commercial Aviation and International Relationships-, work, and really I've decided to use my little time on the internet to post in spanish-language forums, because of the time that reading and writing in english takes to me (of course always more than a post in my own language, that's logic).

But after a chat with Marcelo or Panzercknacker, I've decided to return in order to see how is all and how are you all here. I've returned after 13 months of ausency in order to keep a continue and permanent stay here, or at least I'll try it.

Some things had changed from the last time I've participated in the forum. I was a high school boy with 17 years. Now I'm a pilot, and after the unforgetable traditional trip to Bariloche, a little more serious student (now at the University as I've said before) :D, but with the same willingly of discussing and share information.

Regards from Arg.

Dani
07-21-2007, 12:17 AM
I've returned after 13 months
Nice to have you back.

Lone Ranger
07-21-2007, 04:24 PM
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1513/33xv.jpg
The Argentine submarine "Santa Fe" is sinking near South Georgia, while a tug boat tries to move it to the UK. The Santa Fe was attacked by British helicopters on April 25th.

For info, the British chose to sink Sante Fe in deep water away from the harbour. They didn't think it was worth anything as a war prize after the helos had finished with it.

hola y recepción detrás

By the way my Spanish is crap but I do make the effort.

32Bravo
07-21-2007, 04:43 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/1er-Contacto.jpg
A British Sea Harrier intercepts a Boeing 707 from the Argentine Air Force, before the hostilities begining, on April 21st.

http://img446.imageshack.us/img446/8195/learjet32tp.jpg
An Argentine Canberra, an ironically British-Build bomber, and a Hawker Siddeley HS-125 from the former oil state-enterprise YPF. This aircraft joint to the Volunteers Phoenix Squadron, formed by civilian aircrafts and pilots who decided to being part of the war. The Phoenix Squadron

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3474/113ql.jpg
A Harrier engine, after it was shoot down by Argentine forces.

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~cyberheritage/arrow.jpg
The Red Arrows saluting the HMS Arrow, which had been hit during the conflict by Argentine aerial attacks, during its return to Britain.


That's Plymouth Breakwater in the background, with Drakes island coming into view on the right of picture.

Panzerknacker
07-26-2007, 08:28 AM
30 mm Mirage cannon hits in the HMS Arrow.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/buques/arrow/02.jpg




http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/buques/arrow/03.jpg




http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/buques/arrow/01.jpg




http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/buques/arrow/04.jpg


Some big holes there.

Panzerknacker
07-29-2007, 06:49 PM
SAS in Malvinas.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/Image11.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/his20team20below20Mount20Kent.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/Parachute_drop.jpg

Panzerknacker
07-29-2007, 06:50 PM
Representation of the night attack on Pebble island 14th may 1982.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/Night20Insertion201.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/C6E4BAEDBCB6C0C720B9DAB0DDC6F7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/C6E4BAEDBCB6C0C720C7AAC4ABB6F320B0F.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/SAS-2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/SAS-3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/malcon73/SAS-4.jpg

1000ydstare
07-30-2007, 11:09 AM
From the film "Pebble Island".

Real back to traditional valuse for teh SAS this raid.

It is what the SAS did in the desert against Rommel and co.

Interesting fact. The bombs used in the desert were bags of explosive (usually a loose powder/granules) so that when they were thrown on to the wing, they didn't roll of.

On Pebble Island they used small arms and satchel charges.

Panzerknacker
08-06-2007, 08:58 PM
Casualties of the attack of the Argentine Air Force on HMS Sir Tristam and Sir Galahand

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9428/12345ox4.jpg



http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3681/123456vs9.jpg


"Red and Green Life Machine: Diary of the Falklands Field Hospital" ( Rick Jolly )

Panzerknacker
08-08-2007, 07:16 PM
Commando Battalion 601 Blow pipe section in action, 21th may 1982.

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/9828/blowpipecw6.jpg


Flt Lt William Glover of the RAF picked up off the water . His aircraft was hit by the british made missile.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2751/gloveryx5.jpg


The wreck of the Harrier GR 3.

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1504/blowpipe2ho9.jpg

Panzerknacker
08-21-2007, 09:22 AM
Awaiting the landing. 20 mm Mg emplacement near Pt Argentino.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9003/desembarcoxu5.jpg

Panzerknacker
08-23-2007, 12:13 PM
May 28th, 1982. This was the last attempt to prevent the fall of Puerto Darwin to British Hands. The Operation was carried out by Argentine Army's 601th Aviation Batallion, made up by Bell UH-1H, SA330 Puma and Agusta A109A helicopters.

http://www.aviationart.com.ar/galerias/militar/Agusta.jpg

1000ydstare
08-27-2007, 12:53 PM
http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/9828/blowpipecw6.jpg

Interesting to note, Blowpipe was used by both sides during the Falklands. It was pretty bonk.

Mainly because the missile was slwoer than the aircraft it was trying to hit!!! Unless the aircraft was coming at you, you didn't have much chance of hitting it. The Harriers were slower than most of the Argentine aircraft, so I don't know if they had a better chance.

Was it the 601 Bns Agustas that were "borrowed" by the British at the end of the war?

Panzerknacker
08-27-2007, 09:39 PM
The blow pipe was not the most brillinat AAA system in use by the Army.

Of the 5 times use twice it failed to lock in the objetive, 2 locked but achieved no hits and the fitht was the one who bring down Glover.


Was it the 601 Bns Agustas that were "borrowed" by the British at the end of the war?


I guess so, I dont have any picture of that helicopter captured.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5005/awdwdfl3.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-28-2007, 02:03 PM
You really think a British-made missile would be so rude as to shoot down a British-made jet?

Lone Ranger
08-28-2007, 04:00 PM
No more so than the AIM-9L that shot down several A-4 Skyhawks and a Hercules....

Panzerknacker
08-28-2007, 06:08 PM
You really think a British-made missile would be so rude as to shoot down a British-made jet?


:D, well I dont know or it was too bad or wasnt properly manned, that variant of the Blow PIpe need to aimed continuosly to the target meanwhile someother MANPDS are fire and forget like the SA-7/16.

Pánzon
09-02-2007, 05:08 AM
I hope this picture is new for you, got it from a book that a "friend of mine" never returned "Falklands, Task Force South".....

I have no idea of his origin more than that, not having the book anymore I can not mention its author.

http://www.ecv56condor.com.ar/~panzon/Dagger_bajito_sobre_buque_britanico.jpg

:shock::shock:

http://www.ecv56condor.com.ar/~panzon/Dagger_bajito_sobre_buque_britanico.jpg

Dani
09-02-2007, 10:49 PM
Off-topic: please change your avatar into a ww2 related one.
Thanks.

1000ydstare
09-03-2007, 12:07 PM
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5005/awdwdfl3.jpg

Delightful :D

Having been on these horrible creations I can point out that the boys on board are probably dying to get off#!!!

Observe the front of the craft, under the ramp. A good 1 meter of motino there me thinks. These craft are flat bottomed which mean they rock like a bugger in anything but a mill pond.

Pánzon
09-03-2007, 01:27 PM
Off-topic: please change your avatar into a ww2 related one.
Thanks.

Done 1000ydstare, excuse me 4 this but i did no realize the avatar should have to be in relation with WWII, I always use the same avatar as the aliens always made me laugh.

Cheers,

Pánzon

1000ydstare
09-04-2007, 11:34 AM
Personally mate, I don't mind what your Avatar looks like, it is a site rule up held by the MODs.... ie Dani, not my good self.

Dani
09-04-2007, 02:46 PM
Gracias Pánzon!;)

Pánzon
09-04-2007, 03:17 PM
My pleasure Dani,

BTW, have yo seen the Dagger? Low, isn´t it?

Juan.

Panzerknacker
09-05-2007, 09:57 PM
Hola Panzon, bienvenido al nuestro foro, (ese nombre me suena)

By the way the Dagger is here. :D

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6638/daggerbajitosobrebuquebon7.jpg

Panzerknacker
09-06-2007, 07:05 PM
It hurts ¡¡

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2068/faact9bg5.jpg

Ricardo Lucero, Dagger pilot, scream of pain after being hit by seadart and forced to eject in San carlos waters, 25th may 1982.

The pilot broke a leg in the process and was captured by the HMS Fearless.

Panzerknacker
09-08-2007, 07:22 PM
The dark skin colour of Lucero gave place to a funny incident, the britons believ for soetime that the argentine air Force was using Peruvian pilots.In fact Peru helped Argentina selling 10 Mirage Vp, those planes were ferried by peruvians pilots to Argentina , but they came too late for participate in combats and in any case the Air Force ( obviously) rejected the entusiast requeriment of the peruvians to fly combat missions agaist the Royal Navy.

tankgeezer
09-08-2007, 09:52 PM
It is an odd part of the male human psyche that urges them to join a fight, even if it does not directly involve them. I remember years ago, when Serbia invaded Croatia, I wanted to go there,grab a crew, climb into a tank, and go hunting.Logically, it made no sense, but vicerally, it made perfect sense. A very strange feeling .(it would have been a glorious *** kicking...):twisted:

Pánzon
09-09-2007, 04:20 AM
Hello there,

In a "pack" of a VHS + book edited by the BBC "Falklands, Task Force South" ( I think it is more than 20 years old), in the video there is a footage of Tte Lucero just being brought to one ship ( if I do not remember bad it was the fearless) after his ejection...... there is some drama in the footage as Lt Lucero had a dislocated joint, I think it was one of his legs and was in tremendous pain when surrounded by sailors and at the same time he was being looked after by medical team...... you can see his terrible pain+ fear in his eyes and you can see how they shot him with I think was morphine for his enormous pain inside very same he had tried apparently to attack.

I thank the British forces for the treatment and for having taken the task of rescuing him from the water and given treatment to ease his suffering, there was chivalry demonstrated in that event once and once again.

Cheers.

Pánzon.

Panzerknacker
09-09-2007, 11:52 AM
It is an odd part of the male human psyche that urges them to join a fight, even if it does not directly involve them. I remember years ago, when Serbia invaded Croatia, I wanted to go there,grab a crew, climb into a tank, and go hunting.Logically, it made no sense, but vicerally, it made perfect sense. A very strange feeling .(it would have been a glorious *** kicking...)Oh, I am pretty sure you would do a great jo in a M-60.
I thank the British forces for the treatment and for having taken the task of rescuing him from the water and given treatment to ease his suffering, there was chivalry demonstrated in that event once and once again.It was surely chivalrius in that event, but unfortunately wanst always the rule in the land combats.

Lone Ranger
09-09-2007, 02:46 PM
It was surely chivalrius in that event, but unfortunately wanst always the rule in the land combats.

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.

Pánzon
09-09-2007, 03:32 PM
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.

Panzerknacker
09-09-2007, 04:02 PM
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.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/ejercito/013.jpg

1000ydstare
09-10-2007, 02:33 AM
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.

Panzerknacker
09-10-2007, 10:32 AM
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.

Pánzon
09-10-2007, 12:55 PM
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".



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.

Panzerknacker
09-10-2007, 06:20 PM
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.

Panzerknacker
09-12-2007, 07:40 PM
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.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/4789/fefwfwfpz5.jpg

tankgeezer
09-13-2007, 07:32 PM
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.

Panzerknacker
09-13-2007, 09:59 PM
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.

http://i14.tinypic.com/4xqqarr.jpg

Firefly
09-14-2007, 02:42 AM
Wasnt Napalm declared illegal before 1982?

Lone Ranger
09-14-2007, 03:19 AM
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.

Rising Sun*
09-14-2007, 05:33 AM
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.

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.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 08:10 AM
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.
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.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 08:15 AM
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.
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.

Panzerknacker
09-14-2007, 08:24 AM
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:

Chevan
09-14-2007, 08:28 AM
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,


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.

Rising Sun*
09-14-2007, 08:32 AM
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.

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.

Panzerknacker
09-14-2007, 08:44 AM
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 ?.....http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9933/bduhim3.gifhttp://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9933/bduhim3.gif


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:

Chevan
09-14-2007, 08:58 AM
Nucler attack agaist the south american continent ?.....http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9933/bduhim3.gifhttp://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9933/bduhim3.gif

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?

Panzerknacker
09-14-2007, 09:27 AM
Seems definately crazy to me...but what I know ?. :rolleyes:

tankgeezer
09-14-2007, 12:51 PM
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?

I think sometimes Chevan's intent gets lost in translation, if so, this may help. Unless a government was a direct, and immenent nuclear threat to England, or The U.S. there would be no permission to use a device against any country in the Americas. (even Hugo Chavez) Napalm against ships would be more a terror weapon than anything,(unless it was all one had to defend themselves with) so it wouldnt be on our list of things to do, when we had anti ship missiles, and smart bombs to do the job. I'm not English, but I believe they would act about the same, even in the heat of the moment. (Thats my 2 kopecs worth,,:) )

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 10:00 PM
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:

Only to be used on leftists...:)

Lone Ranger
09-15-2007, 04:01 AM
Napalm was actually used, rather attempted to be used, by the Argentine Air Force at Goose Green. It was dropped too far away to be effective, luckily.

Funny how PK seems so keen for the Argentines to use such an inhumane weapon, what was that about war crimes?

Panzerknacker
09-15-2007, 01:21 PM
Only to be used on leftists...


Sadly not even against those. The guerrilla was mostly urban.



Napalm was actually used, rather attempted to be used, by the Argentine Air Force at Goose Green. It was dropped too far away to be effective, luckily.

Funny how PK seems so keen for the Argentines to use such an inhumane weapon, what was that about war crimes?


I suppose that all involves the context in wich you use the weapon, not the weapon itself, the british crying about the extremely limited use ( If was used at all) of napalm by the AAF in Malvinas sound s as stupid to me like the Argentines crying about the use of the Beluga BL 755 cluster bomb by the britons.

Even Robacio the commander of the B.I.M 5 was agaist its use...crazy. You simply cant win a war in that way :rolleyes:

For my part I say...toasted it !!

Lone Ranger
09-15-2007, 01:56 PM
Its a documented fact that it was used at Goose Green, a fact that has been acknowledged by Argentina - though it should be pointed out that the Goose Green commander had disobeyed orders in preparing and using it.

Pánzon
09-15-2007, 02:19 PM
I would like to say, from my position of a newcomer in this forum, very respectufully and knowing that perhaps this will nor gain me much friends.....

Could we keep on exchanging pics about the Malvinas/Falkland conflict? Praise the enormous demonstrations of valour on BOTH sides with respect, exchange little things that are starting to appear 25 years later? In an environment of mutual respect?

Can we forgive and try to understand? can we try to be friends? put the conflict in its time frame and learn why England and Argentina should NEVER have gone to war at the end of the 20th century?

I sincerily do not understand........ I go to England several times a year..... the minute they hear I am an Argie at ANY pub... they never let me pay a drink and we chat a lot about the battle.....

I´ve even been a guest in a RAF / RN base........... I heard nothing more than respect from those people....... proffessional soldiers, pilots..... trainees in the 9th squadron...... at the BAE Systems hawk simmulator building.....:) where I got bored of flying the Hawk simm....... I found nothing but respect from the English so far when discussing the conflict.....

It was a gentlemen war.......

Let us start respecting each other....... why we should be fighting over the lack of vision that our respective leaders had at that time? unable to prevent a war...... among two good countries that have been always friends?

What has to do the guerrilla in the 70´s with the conflict? Who was worst? "Butcher Harris" or Galtieri..... I sincerily would not start mixing things this way....

Let us leave the battles for the futbol or now rugby teams and let us pay homage to the heroes on both sides.... they deserve it....... from the 17 years old kid scared to death but never left his battle station inside the guts of a Frigate without even a pistol to defend himself to the pilots that gave their lives on both sides?

We could learn a lot from each other and since we are "the next generation" it is our responsability to act according to humane thinking.....

Let us forgive each other....... let us exchange greetings and get closer, let the British understand why the Argentines think that the Islands are Argentine and let us understand why they came to recover them...

It is a pitty we can not do it over a beer....... this is the way to talk things....

PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!!

Juan.

Lone Ranger
09-15-2007, 03:09 PM
I would like to say, from my position of a newcomer in this forum, very respectufully and knowing that perhaps this will nor gain me much friends.....

I don't know about that, I'm kinda getting to like you.


Could we keep on exchanging pics about the Malvinas/Falkland conflict? Praise the enormous demonstrations of valour on BOTH sides with respect, exchange little things that are starting to appear 25 years later? In an environment of mutual respect?

Amen to that.


Can we forgive and try to understand? can we try to be friends? put the conflict in its time frame and learn why England and Argentina should NEVER have gone to war at the end of the 20th century?

Totally agree.

But I'll tell you one thing that does worry me for the future. It seems like an awful lot of your countrymen seem to think that they only lost the war because the British cheated and that the British did not behave with honour. PK's "war crime" thread has raised an awful lot of hackles round here.

I'll tell you why that worries me for the future, because its in many ways the same attitude that a lot of Germans extremists cultivated after WW1 (that the German army didn't really lose the war). It also worries me that the Argentine Government continues to try and exert pressure on the Islands through many petty little measures, such as denying flights, interfering with the fishing rights, all the political grand standing at Mercosur, OAS etc and acting to stop the Islands participating in the South American games. Because all these petty actions don't build bridges and just acts to further alienate the islanders. Because its only by building bridges that any sort of rapprochement will ever be achieved between the islands and Argentina.

And while the current feelings on animosity linger, and there is a belief that Argentina didn't really lose the war last time, some idiot is going to be tempted to try again.

Panzerknacker
09-15-2007, 03:13 PM
Could we keep on exchanging pics about the Malvinas/Falkland conflict? Praise the enormous demonstrations of valour on BOTH sides with respect, exchange little things that are starting to appear 25 years later? In an environment of mutual respect?

The topic is for pictures and the discussion of the pictures posted. And that include the discussion of the use of napalm.

Me parece que todavia no entraste en la dinamica del topic. :roll:



I sincerily do not understand........ I go to England several times a year..... the minute they hear I am an Argie at ANY pub... they never let me pay a drink and we chat a lot about the battle.....


I hope that the argie word is not after the f.... :rolleyes:


PK's "war crime" thread has raised an awful lot of hackles round here.

Is the awful truth.

Pánzon
09-15-2007, 03:26 PM
Lone ranger........


Totally agree.

But I'll tell you one thing that does worry me for the future. It seems like an awful lot of your countrymen seem to think that they only lost the war because the British cheated and that the British did not behave with honour. PK's "war crime" thread has raised an awful lot of hackles round here.

I'll tell you why that worries me for the future, because its in many ways the same attitude that a lot of Germans extremists cultivated after WW1 (that the German army didn't really lose the war). It also worries me that the Argentine Government continues to try and exert pressure on the Islands through many petty little measures, such as denying flights, interfering with the fishing rights, all the political grand standing at Mercosur, OAS etc and acting to stop the Islands participating in the South American games. Because all these petty actions don't build bridges and just acts to further alienate the islanders. Because its only by building bridges that any sort of rapprochement will ever be achieved between the islands and Argentina.

And while the current feelings on animosity linger, and there is a belief that Argentina didn't really lose the war last time, some idiot is going to be tempted to try again.

You are just listening to part of the story, the posibilities of my country developing a Hitler like are to be discarded......... I am sure there is some poople that thinks like that, but it is not so in reality a significant ammount...

I do not want nor I will discuss the sovereignity subject over here, I do not think this is the appropiate place. I just want to remember the heroism, the acts of bravery and gallantry......... the flame wars are for different characters than me.

Cheers,

Juan.

Pánzon
09-15-2007, 03:30 PM
PK,


I hope that the argie word is not after the f....

Not at all my friend, I think you do not enough Britons............ they respect us a lot......... and they are very friendly....

Buy a ticket and go to England and you will see for yourself.

Cheers,

Panzerknacker
09-15-2007, 03:40 PM
Not at all my friend, I think you do not enough Britons............ they respect us a lot......... and they are very friendly....



Nice, it means that some british members here need to learn manners from his countrymans :)




Buy a ticket and go to England and you will see for yourself.



Hmmm, I prefer not, I like more Italy.

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/ar/elmalvinense/aviones/009.jpg

Panzerknacker
09-15-2007, 03:50 PM
By the way:



Praise the enormous demonstrations of valour on BOTH sides with respect


I cant
why ? I did not believe that every soldier in Malvinas displayed a "enormous demonstration of courage" that is simply not true.

Pánzon
09-15-2007, 03:52 PM
PK,


Hmmm, I prefer not, I like more Italy.

Take my word, go to England........... and try to bury fanatism well deep.... you will be able to walk around Trafalgar Square with an Argentine flag as a cape and a nice light blue and white colour and will not get nothing more than friendly smiles......... and you will not pay a single drink.....:)

Italy is also something not to miss, try to combine the two trips on one.........;)

BTW Can I ask respectfully which "age bracket" are you in?

Juan.

Panzerknacker
09-15-2007, 03:59 PM
The people here like so much that made a topic about me. In there you ll find personal info.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5245



and try to bury fanatism well deep....


Fanatism...? I am not a fanatic and I am not confortable with you using that word in regard of me, please dont.

Pánzon
09-15-2007, 04:04 PM
Fanatism...? I am not a fanatic and I am not confortable with you using that word in regard of me, please dont.

You are right PK, I respectuflly withdraw my previous comment, I hope you understand..... that word is not what expresses what I wanted to say.

My most sincere apologies.:)

Juan.

1000ydstare
09-16-2007, 03:33 PM
Grettings, again, I have been away... AGAIN>

Time for a tidy up.




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.

My bold, I do beleive that I pointed out that I was not talking about site members. Actually I was thinking about Erwin, and what I have read in the general press. Not you, so you need not post such things. I tell the truth, I do not lie to make my point of view more grandiose.


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.

Read my posts. You will find at least one that points out that although the Gurkha Riflemen never joined battle it is conceivable that the Battalions Fire Support Company (Milan, Mortar and GPMG SF) did indeed inflict injuries or death on the Argentine forces. As they were used to support a Scots Guards attack.

As Panzon states, you will probably be very surprised by the Britishs opinion of the Argentines. As a nation we tend to respect our equals, although to be fair YOU may not realise it is respect. If you were in a British pub, you would not be harmed or barrated for your nationality, even a military pub. Your views on the other hand I could not garuntee your safety. Not neccesarily such that the islands are yours, or how the forces fought, but you would find that many would find your views on the use of Napalm and on the men who fought distastful.

Remember, they have been there, you will never be. Those you have been there tend to stick together.

I speak from experience. I have been a guest in to a Argentine bar on Ops and they have been our guests, with no problems what so ever. Other than good natured alterations of both countries maps (which define Falkland Islands Br. or Malvinas Ar. or similar).


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.

You let yourself down. I would suggest you take yourself to a battlefield or a site of a recent burning, and smell the air. You will find once you have smelt burnt flesh and heard the wounded howl, and you have seen the more seriously injured you would never wish such on anyone. Could you imagine the skin of a living being, animal or human, black and crispy? and brittle enough to crack and blood to come out or to come completely away at the touch?

Lone Ranger
09-16-2007, 03:40 PM
Feel free to give more infraction points, I will wear them as a badge of honour, if the above is what you truely believe. It would be the sign of a petulant fool.

Infraction points?

Cuts
09-16-2007, 04:36 PM
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.


...

For my part I say...toasted it !!

Because you have been fortunate enough to have had no experience of war.




Pánzon, a warmhearted, albeit belated, welcome to the site.
I've read through your posts and you come across as someone who is willing and able to debate points without getting het up or inflamed by rhetoric, hysteria or fantasy. Thank you.

Panzerknacker
09-17-2007, 07:15 AM
My bold, I do beleive that I pointed out that I was not talking about site members


Before Panzon arrival there was only two Argentine member and only one active...:roll:


As Panzon states, you will probably be very surprised by the Britishs opinion of the Argentines. As a nation we tend to respect our equals, although to be fair YOU may not realise it is respect. If you were in a British pub, you would not be harmed or barrated for your nationality, even a military pub. Your views on the other hand I could not garuntee your safety. Not neccesarily such that the islands are yours, or how the forces fought, but you would find that many would find your views on the use of Napalm and on the men who fought distastful.

If its so (I have my serious doudts) That fact havent see reflected in the internet forums , and I mean all forums not just this.

Actually I know several british people, but not for traveling to UK , but for stay in Cordoba, there is a lot of Hunters of this nationality wich I ve enjoyed long conversations, however that does not change a bit of my opinions about the war and the opinions of "some" britons here.



You let yourself down. I would suggest you take yourself to a battlefield or a site of a recent burning, and smell the air. You will find once you have smelt burnt flesh and heard the wounded howl, and you have seen the more seriously injured you would never wish such on anyone. Could you imagine the skin of a living being, animal or human, black and crispy


I am sure that the dead when the boilers explode inside The Belgrano or the ones killed in the destroyed british ships were left "black and crispy" that means we shoulnt use aircraft bombs, torpedos or Exocets ?

It sure dont. :rolleyes:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9428/12345ox4.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3681/123456vs9.jpg

Pánzon
09-17-2007, 02:37 PM
HI PK,

Those pics are gross mate, why do not you wipe them out? for civility sake....;)


Pánzon, a warmhearted, albeit belated, welcome to the site.
I've read through your posts and you come across as someone who is willing and able to debate points without getting het up or inflamed by rhetoric, hysteria or fantasy. Thank you.

Many thanks Cuts, I appreciate the welcoming, let us see if we can talk like we are about these matters...

Something ver funny happened today, I gave a car ride to a colleague of mine, who results to have been in the 3 Para for 13 years.

He is 36 now, so he was never there....... he was surprissed when I mentioned Co (PM) Jones and Mayor (then) Chris Keeble..... they all know the story ..........a good chat will arise from there...

We arranged to seat one of this days, him with a couple of pints and myself with at least two liters of coca cola and have a long chat where perhaps some old buddies of arms will attend, veterans of the Falklands...... I really look forward to that and I prommise I will report on the meeting..... for the moment !! I know the real name of "Andy Mc Nab" !!!

Somebody has to start building bridges, perhaps the "confidence" offered by the oportunity of discussing issues without having to use the torch may be a beginning....... the best in order to achieve this........... is to start with the "easy" parts....... then learn how to debate the difficult matters....... then explain very carefuly that an eventual Argentine sovereignty will mean no change whatsoever for the islanders status....... but...... can´t we put this on hold for the moment and post Falklands/Malvinas pics?

I am starting to like this forum, you will have me here often.

Cheers,

Juan.

tankgeezer
09-17-2007, 04:45 PM
Quote: "Those pics are gross mate, why do not you wipe them out? for civility sake...."

The thread is about pictures of the war, and so these are.if you want the sunny day, playing cards, and music type of pictures, thats fine too. but one sided. Show it for what it really is, War. Panzer Knacker is not wrong to post them, nor are his motivations, or beliefs for doing so, posted or otherwise.
Since when has War been civil? Since when has it been fair?
I am no moderator, but I see there is some bad form in some of the responses to P.K.'s postings. Just my tuppence worth. - Raspenau -

Panzerknacker
09-17-2007, 07:23 PM
HI PK,

Those pics are gross mate, why do not you wipe them out? for civility sake....


I am just simply making a point.
Any conventional armament could cause severe burns not just the napalm.

I am pretty sure that the argentine sailors wich were near the boilers of the Belgrano when those explode after the torpedo hit were cooked in the most horrific way...we should forbidd torpedos then?



The thread is about pictures of the war, and so these are.if you want the sunny day, playing cards, and music type of pictures, thats fine too. but one sided. Show it for what it really is, War. Panzer Knacker is not wrong to post them, nor are his motivations, or beliefs for doing so, posted or otherwise.

The same goes from my part, Panzon If you can found one picture in wich both argentines and british are enjoying togheter an asado/BBq the 1th may 1982 feel free to post it. :roll:

1000ydstare
09-18-2007, 02:34 AM
The pictures have been posted before and received no complaint, I would not see any point in taking them down. I could find much worse to prove my points, graphically.

ref only two Argentine members being active. That is pointless arguement. Just admit you made a mistake. I quite clearly pointed out that I was not aiming at specific site members, regardless of how many are active etc.

I only recently realised that Panzon is indeed Argentine, as up till then I didn't really know. i do not look specifically for peoples nationality. You would also remember a certain British person who came on not so long ago who I also disliked for his attitude.

It is teh attitude that I mark, not the nationality, (which can be lied about anyway).

I feel the bit I put in about not being about site members was more than adequete to inform all on the site that I was not talking specifically about site members in general, or youself in particular.

Ref burns and weapons.

You are correct, a torpedo in the boiler room would also cause burns. However, and this is a big point, the weapon is not designed to cause such wounds, they are a seperate issue.

If you punch someone in a bar, and they land on a candle, would you expect to be charged for Arson?

Napalm on the otherhand, due to it's manufacture being petrol and polystyrene thickner (amongst other things), is specifically designed to stick to things. ie Humans.

I appreciate that you may not fully follow the logic behind this, BUT weapons are designed to be as humane as possible. This is why bullets are specifically designed to international agreed standards, and the modification of them is illegal.

Napalm can in no way be changed, as it would just become a huge petrol bomb, with out the sticky stuff, or just a big pile of goo without the igniter and the petrol.

Hence Napalm, White Phos and Flame Throwers tend to be banned by many countries.

It is not the secondary affects of the weapons that are taken in to consideration, as they are highly variable. It is the primary affect.

If the Torpedoes used by the Royal Navy, had pierced the skin of the Belgrano and sprayed Napalm in to the boiler room then they would be not nice. That the boilers cooked off when the cold water hit them, is unfortunate but a risk the firemen take.

It may be interesting to note, that in many sinkings the firemen and other engine room personnel are often the worst hit, even in civialian sinkings such as the Titanic. The cold water hitting the red hot boilers cause explosions.

I must admit, I didn't know it had been used though. I thought it was just stock piled at Goose Green.

The point about the burns from other incidents in the Falklands is just one of your smoke screans to defend the undefendable. Napalm is not nice, and has been banned by many countries, end of.

1000ydstare
09-18-2007, 03:44 AM
A few quotes from the t'internet.


In a few cases, napalm has incapacitated and killed its victims very quickly. Those who do survive suffer 3rd degree burns, damaging the vascular dermis, and are generally in terrible pain and have huge scars all over their bodies. Victims who suffer 2nd degree burns from splashed napalm will be in significant amounts of pain, as it doesn't sear the flesh enough to destroy the nerves.


"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phuc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius."

Phuc sustained third-degree burns to half her body and was not expected to live after the attack, but after surviving a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations, she survived and became an outspoken peace activist.

Pánzon
09-18-2007, 01:58 PM
I take note of the point, I just seen so much footage of the Bahia Agradable ( Bluff Cove) consecuences of the attack led by 1st Lt Cachón then that it makes me weep for the terrible suffering..... the pics simply make me sick, but off course it does not give me the authority to request them removed from the forum....

I seem to be a sort of strange character, so much interested on war as an "amateur historian" and unable to see those images without thinking that any living entity able to inflict that type of injure on another, and of the same kind.......... let´s leave it at that...

I still do not understand how Britain and Argentina went to war......... so terrible things happenned there....... altough they are maybe "games" in comparisson with what happens in Irak for example.......

Sometimes I think that humanity does not deserve to populate this planet.....

Anyway, I am wasted, did 12 hs of work non stop and just arrived home...... better to pay attention to my "Commander in Chieff" ( feminine Comander I mean) or most probably I will feel something similar to Napalm over my skin..... as "hell hath no fury, such as a Granadian woman´s ignored"......

Cheers from Sunny Spain.

Juan.

1000ydstare
09-19-2007, 01:28 AM
Juan, if the pictures offend you then you can always take it to the admin blokes on the site.

As I say though, they aren't that gratuitous or graphic, and have been displayed before.

Pánzon
09-19-2007, 12:46 PM
Juan, if the pictures offend you then you can always take it to the admin blokes on the site.

As I say though, they aren't that gratuitous or graphic, and have been displayed before.

NO forget about it.......... could you all pretend I said nothing on the pics...... I do not know anymore how to express that I pitty that people, just that.......

PLease continue with the topic as if I did say nothing....

Cheers,

IPS: I should have taken the red pill and stayed in the matrix...............

Juan.

Panzerknacker
09-19-2007, 08:52 PM
Army Commando batallions 601/602.
Tte 1ero Vizoso, My Castagneto, Cap. Fernandez Funes y Cabo 1ero Coronel.
In knee: Tte Elmiger, SgtoAy Vallejos y Sgto Sánchez.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3664/24220640sg8.jpg


105 mm Oto melara of the 4th airborne artillery Regiment in full recoil after shoting.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8809/ga42jx3.jpg


First leutenat Carlos Chanampa one of the best soldiers of the 4th, in some ocation Chanampa engaged enemy soldier aiming trough the barrel of his gun given the close range of the british advance.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/9687/gaer4chanampaxw1.jpg


Aerospatiale Puma of the 601 aviation regiment lifting a 105 mm piece.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3533/bac6016ve1.jpg

Panzerknacker
09-21-2007, 08:51 AM
By the way I made a indentification mistake earlier.

Gomez-centurion is the guy with the mustache in this picture and have nothing to do with the Gazelles destroyed, Edgardo Esteban , the guy at the right did.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2711/gomezcentestebanvw2.jpg


Both soldiers belong to the RIc 25 a mechanized infantry regiment.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9894/estevespe6.jpg

Pánzon
09-21-2007, 12:14 PM
Gomez-centurion is the guy with the mustache in this picture and have nothing to do with the Gazelles destroyed, Edgardo Esteban , the guy at the right did.

Yes, Gomez Centurion is the moustached officer, he is a personal friend of a friend of mine that I have not seen in more than 15 years.....

He did not gain "fame" for the attack on the Gazelles when the San Carlos landing..... That was Leutenant Esteban, but for being the officer that went to "talk" with Col (PM) Jones 3 Para with the funest consecuences when they realized the British troops were taking advantage of the "momentary truce" to gain advantage during the batttle for Goose Green/ Prado del Ganso.

Mayor Chriss Keeble took command then and the rest is well documented.

Regards,

Juan.

Lone Ranger
09-22-2007, 04:47 AM
He did not gain "fame" for the attack on the Gazelles when the San Carlos landing..... That was Leutenant Esteban, but for being the officer that went to "talk" with Col (PM) Jones 3 Para with the funest consecuences when they realized the British troops were taking advantage of the "momentary truce" to gain advantage during the batttle for Goose Green/ Prado del Ganso. .

Not sure if the language barrier is getting in the way but I don't understand what you mean here?

Pánzon
09-22-2007, 12:33 PM
Not sure if the language barrier is getting in the way but I don't understand what you mean here?

Hi Lone Ranger,

I´ve heard the story from some conspicuos lips adorned with some moustaches some 15 years ago....and considering that I had a German granddad by the name of "Dr. Alzheimer" I am not perhaps recalling the event quite clearly.

Anyway, here I go........

When the battle for Goose Green / Prado del Ganso was at its height, there was a flag for "parliament" or "momentary truce" as the British forces wanted to talk to the officer in command on that particular piece of land.....

Lt Col Jones, advanced to talk and met "half way trough" with Leutenant Gómez Centurión" and demanded the surrender of the Argentine forces in a sort of "arrogant" manner........ the Argentine position was holding very well at that moment and the demand of Lt Col Jones was flatly rejected by Leut Gómez Centurión..... and also insisted that he go back to his position to continue the fight..... I think he gave him 3 0r 4 minutes to do it....

At the same time, the Argentine forces observed that British troops were taking advantage of the "momentary truce" to advance their troops..... when they should have kept their positions.....

As a result, there was a storm of fire from the Argentine troops and the legend says that Gómez Centurión himself killed Lt Col Jones with his side arm........ or he might have been fired at with machine gunfire.....

Thus was this the heroic death of Lt Col Jones...... obviously he did not know who he was threatening........

Mayor Chris Keeble took comand of the battle with the result as we all know now...... his demand for surrender later on was somewhat arrogant too in a sort of "outdated English", but the tactical situation by then was somewhat different.

BTW, IN a VHS from the BBC, Falklands, Task Force South" there is some footage of an interview with Mayor Keeble ( then a Mayor) a couple of years after the conflict and he did not mention the death of Col (PM) Jones but speaks about "solid, gathered fighting, bloody battle......." "No picnic" as they said afterwards.........

So Lone Ranger, this is what I can contribute on mi side on this regard, I hope I made myself clear this time.

Anyway, after my chat with my working colleague who was in 3 Para for 13 years maybe I can get a different version.... or perhaps confirm how it was......

Another detail just for the record........ Leutenant Gómez Centurión is the son of a former governor of an Argentine province, If I am not mistaken, it was the province of San Luis.

Cheers and enjoy your weekend !!! I have to work this "f....ing weekend"

Respectfully,

Juan.

Lone Ranger
09-22-2007, 04:06 PM
Mmm, I'm not sure I buy this story. Col. Jones never met with his opposite opponent and the ceasefire took place after his death; it was arranged by Maj. Chris Keeble after he received news of Jones' death. Before his stupid suicidal charge at the Argentine positions Col Jones had been in the rear.

Sorry but it just doesn't make sense.

Pánzon
09-22-2007, 05:30 PM
Mmm, I'm not sure I buy this story. Col. Jones never met with his opposite opponent and the ceasefire took place after his death; it was arranged by Maj. Chris Keeble after he received news of Jones' death. Before his stupid suicidal charge at the Argentine positions Col Jones had been in the rear.

Sorry but it just doesn't make sense.
Lone Ranger,

Please read my post again...........you will find that we are saying more and less the same......... the only difference was the moment of the death of Lt Col Jones..... you say it was during a "stupid suicidal charge"......... I say It might have happenned differently....... do you know many "stupid suicidal characters" in comand of 3 Para?

I do not really think I am very much off the target...... the "parliament" took place...... the advantage that the British troops "took" while it was going on was eventually the cause of the death of the Lt Col ........ and off course, My Keeble, 2nd in command took over OBVIOUSLY after the Lt Col Jones death.... death that happened in the front, not rear edge of the battle area.

Remember the battle was a long one.........

Anyway, this is as much as I have to say on the matter, surely somebody may contribute with some different facts or views, this is what I ( me) know....... and I am ready to change my mind when confronted with evidence......... remember I told you I heard the story from some lips that knew very well what happened then and in an environment that do not allowed much "inventing" as we knew what we were talking about and the red wine was running....:) I also had the posibility to read lips, observe body language, etc.... remember it was over a dozen years ago and my German grandad´s heritage..........

You do not have to "buy" this story, I freely give it away.......;)

Regards,

Pánzon.

Panzerknacker
09-22-2007, 06:10 PM
Leutenant Gómez Centurión is the son of a former governor of an Argentine province, If I am not mistaken, it was the province of San Luis.


The province of Corrientes actually.

Your history is also quoted in Seineldin book Malvinas, un sentimiento.

http://i8.tinypic.com/6gc040p.jpg

Pánzon
09-22-2007, 06:20 PM
Thanks PK, I will see if this book is somewhere in the "hibrid horselikes" barn and download it, it must be interesting specially coming from Seineldin a character that truly never understood really..... where all his miliary reputation came from as in Malvinas he was allways at the airport, I know it was heavy shelled over the days but.....

At the end of the line they were speaking of him as a hero...... perhaps it was the close command he kept on his troops, how he sustained his morale.... I don´t know.... I left Argentina in 1995 so the only chance to catch on that book would be via download.

Cheers,

Pánzon.

Panzerknacker
09-23-2007, 06:43 PM
Thanks PK, I will see if this book is somewhere in the "hibrid horselikes" barn and download it, it must be interesting specially coming from Seineldin a character that truly never understood really..... where all his miliary reputation came from as in Malvinas he was allways at the airport, I know it was heavy shelled over the days but.....Well I suppose that is like many other characters in Argentine history, a good face but also a bad one.Is not my favorite person aniway.

Lone Ranger
09-24-2007, 03:18 AM
It was 2 Para actually.

In public members of the Parachute Regiment will kick your teeth in if you in any way criticise Jones. In private they'll admit he was a **** head for getting himself killed in a pointless charge that didn't achieve anything.

At the time of his death, the assault had stalled for a variety of reason; all of them as the result of Jones' actions. His commander in the field wanted to outflank the position (Jones ignored his advice), he wanted to use anti-tank weapons (but Jones had forbidden their use because he wanted to save them for the assault on Stanley), he then ordered a frontal assault on a position with interlocking fields of fire and got his best friend killed.

Jones had also exceeded his orders, he turned what was supposed to be a raid on Goose Green into a full frontal assault.

Commanding officers don't lead frontal assaults on machine gun nests. Their position is in the rear managing the battle and getting himself killed at a critical point in the battle could have been disastrous. It was thanks to the actions of Maj Chris Keeble, who at least displayed some brains, that turned the battle around. Reversing many of Jones' decisions they outflanked the position stalling the battle and through some exceedingly brave actions finally took out the position that had caused them so much grief.

If you want to read a brutally honest account of the battle by one of the Paras it was serialised in the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454279&in_page_id=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454305&in_page_id=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454561&in_page_id=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=454968&in_page_id=1811

There is more detail on the controversy surrounding his award here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Jones

That aside, I'm sorry but the account your friend related is full of holes. Col. Jones never met his Argentine counterpart, there was never a truce till long after his death.

Pánzon
09-24-2007, 08:00 AM
Yes Lone Ranger,

It was 2 Para.... I mentioned my somethimes mixed up memory due to my german ancestor, "Dr. Alzheimer":)....... I knew it was 2 Para and still insisted in writting 3.....

I will read the account of the battle. And I said before I am ready to change my views if confronted with evidence. I just brought to this forum, something I heard long time ago in a friends meeting and it seems it brings and interesting exchange of info.

A pitty, one of the "victims" of my emigration from Agentina was the loss of the official book of the Argentine Army in Malvinas /Falklands..... what a pitty, Goose Green/ prado del ganso was very well explained there......with plans and everithing....

Anyway, thanks for your answer.;)

"The truth is out there" we just have to find it........

Pánzon.

Panzerknacker
09-24-2007, 09:31 AM
Commanding officers don't lead frontal assaults on machine gun nests.

Yeap, is always better to drink hot tea and biscuits in the rear. :rolleyes:

Pánzon
09-24-2007, 01:31 PM
Hello Panzer Knacker,

Since you apparently have that book written by Col (RE) MOhamed Ali Seineldin ( what a name btw!) or he is not longer a military man? I do not remember if he was exonerated from the Army after the "painted faces" makeshift revolutions of the late 80s.. That might suport the argument as I remember that the 4th Regiment was reinforced by at least a Co. from RI 25th Regiment.

Could you please scan and post what he says about this event? There is no way I can find that book over here and the exchange of info or versions may help us understand what exactly happenned that day and perhaps have some points in common with the version of the events that I´ve brought to the forum.

I´ll go for the translation.... for the English speaking forum colleagues if you may scan that especific part I feel "obligued".

BTW, I read the first 2 pages of the Daily Mail serial on the battle posted by Lone Ranger..... really terrible......

Pánzon.

Panzerknacker
09-24-2007, 05:53 PM
Sorry but I dont have the book, there is however a extract here:

http://ar.geocities.com/laperlaaustral/gomez.htm



I do not remember if he was exonerated from the Army after the "painted faces" makeshift revolutions of the late 80s.. That might suport the argument as I remember that the 4th Regiment was reinforced by at least a Co. from RI 25th Regiment.

Actually Seineldin was put in the shadows no for the carapintadas incident but the failed attemp against President Menem in december 3th 1990.

Pánzon
09-25-2007, 01:43 PM
Lone Ranger,

Some more information came to me and it seems to support your position, apparently the "parliament" occurred but after the death of Col H Jones and it was between Subteniente Gómez Centurión and an officer by the name of Lt Barry.

The machine gunr that killed Col Jones was manned by Soldier Ledesma, from the section of Tte Estevez.... together with him there were 2 more soldiers of the same section and another of 12th regiment EA and two petty officers of this same Regiment.

With regards of Corporal Abols, I have been informed that he did fire upon another MAG position with Corporal 1st class Ríos also the died Soldier Avila ( RI 12) and corporal Ávila of the 25th regiment.

I regret the term "Bulshit" on the account, surely if we continue in more convivial terms, we can find out more.

Juan.

Lone Ranger
09-25-2007, 02:50 PM
Panzon, the term bullshit referred to the account that I was pointed to, it was not aimed at yourself. If you perceived that my remarks were aimed at you, then I apologise. I appreciate the fact that you took my earlier challenge in the spirit it was intended, I hope in turn you'll appreciate that I tend to speak directly but no offence is intended.

In the mean time I went back to another account of the battle.

"At about 1500? Lt Jim Barry OC 12 platoon from Neame�s D Company concluded that the fight was all but over, at least near the school house, and that the Argentines were susceptible to an offer of surrender. Quite on his own against all commn sense and probably his company commander�s wishes he raised a white flag and moved forward to confer with Lt Gomez-Centurion who turned out to speak fluent english. In his turn Gomez-Centurion believed that the British officer with whom he spoke was 2 Para�s CO and asked him to surrender. The negotiations went nowhere and Gomez-Centurion gave Barry 2 minutes to return safely to his lines. Just then and several hundred meters away a British MG fired; the Argentines thought the truce had been unfairly broken and they killed Barry and his accompanying NCOs. Two Argentine soldiers, almost certainly unarmed, were shot and killed. In his article[120] on the affair Lt. Estaban has continued to claim that Gomez-Centurion confronted 2 Para�s CO and that his soldiers had killed Jones, not Barry, despite irreprochable evidence then and since that Jones had died hours earlier in another part of the battlefield.[121]"

I had to use the Wayback Machine to find a cached copy of the article.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402105449/www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/GooseGreen/Page1.html

Its a fairly truthful account of the battle and refers to the meeting with Lt. Barry.

Panzerknacker
09-25-2007, 05:26 PM
L.R

You might agree or not with the information posted but that does not qualificate you to label that as "bullshit" that is pure agression, the agression is something have no place here.

I am deleting your post.

Lone Ranger
09-25-2007, 05:59 PM
Panzon's own source as well as my own show that it was a pile of dingo's kidneys. I'd apologised for any offence so censoring it is rather pointless.

Panzerknacker
09-26-2007, 09:27 AM
Nice video showing the C company of the Reg Inf 25, the guy who is speaking in 1min 50 sec is the 1th Leutenant Esteban.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=npAc2g4s3c0

1000ydstare
09-26-2007, 11:37 AM
Commanding officers don't lead frontal assaults on machine gun nests.

Yeap, is always better to drink hot tea and biscuits in the rear. (lob sided grin smiley)

What are you trying to insinuate here?

That Commanding Officers drink hot tea and biscuits while their Battalions/Regiments are engageing the enemy?

The CO is normally moving frantically from one place to another, in order to get the best vantage point of the battlefield, possibley right behind the assualting Company/ies.

That is why a CO gets a Bodyguard to protect him.

Col Jones, used his command group as a Rifle section to break the stalemate of the battle.

Care to explain your comment above?

Pánzon
09-26-2007, 01:52 PM
I have received double confirmation that the "parliament" between Gómez Centurión and Lt Barry ocurred hours after the death of COl H JOnes.

ON the rest, the outcome seem to have been the same, with G-C killing Lt Barry as British machine gun fire started before each side of the parliament reached their respective lines. It seems more clear for me now that the officer who killed Lt Barry, was Gómez Centurión with his side arm...

Similar events, a mix up of names.

Lone Ranger,

I did not take ANY ofense from your word, just one btw, I was just trying to say that if we avoid ANY language that might ignite the forum would be great it would be better if we keep on being gentlemen, as you were when confirming that my "story" on the HMS Antelope was true to the point, and I think I am when recognizing that "my version" on "H" Jones death was wrong, that way, we learn to trust each other and we dig together for the truth.

Best regards.

PS: I regret P-K edited you, it wasn´t that bad....:)

P-K,

I hope u did not "sanctioned" Lone Ranger it was a pittance and now everything is on the right track again.:)

Juan.

Lone Ranger
09-26-2007, 03:13 PM
Forget it Panzon, its not the first time PK has over-reacted.

Just so you get to know me a little better, I'm usually pretty impeccable when it comes to background research. I always cross-check sources to make sure as there are inevitably errors of fact in many texts. If I know the subject and spot an obviously erroneous account I call it like I see it but I tend to call a spade a f*****g shovel when it is so egregiously in error.

If I don't know something I check for myself.

It has to be said though the Argentine texts frequently contain outrageous claims. That website PK refers to includes claims that both HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes were either sunk or badly damaged. So it is not surprising that the Brits here tend to be suspicious of them.

Actually that account you've offer does of itself provide an insight into different attitudes. If it were the case that a British Officer had shot a man in the back whilst under a flag of truce, our PK would be screaming war crime. Interesting that the Brits here see it for what it was; an unfortunate set of circumstances and the fog of war.

Ciao for now.

Panzerknacker
09-26-2007, 04:57 PM
L.R and Panzon, this is not the place to discuss about my perfomance as moderator and I have no apreciation whatsoever of the excesive liberties you both had taken towards my person. If somebody have a complain please direct that to the administrators, any more comments like the last 2 post I will deleted in a heartbit.

-Care to explain your comment above?-

I think is self explained dear number, always better stay in the rear and no facing bullets, some argentine officers did it too.

Lone Ranger
09-27-2007, 08:10 AM
If I have a complaint I'll tell you directly, I won't be sneaking off behind anyone's back.

1000ydstare
09-27-2007, 11:49 AM
I am well aware that COs from various countries do like to sit back. British Officers have done it too. Your comment seemed to be aimed at Col Jones and other British COs of the time.

"dear number"? You aren't trying to make out you are better than me in someway are you?

You are a moderator, which means by your very position you serve me rather than the other way around. Think about it.

Lone Ranger, you are probably spot on to be honest about the gun fire. It was a tragic accident in the fog of war.

Pánzon
09-27-2007, 02:18 PM
this is not the place to discuss about my perfomance as moderator and I have no apreciation whatsoever of the excesive liberties you both had taken towards my person.

PK,

Please do not take wrongly........ I was just trying to help calm the waters down.... I have no complains about your moderation...... just wanted to say that L-R did not offend me..... and make a point in saying that some words only lead to pointless misunderstundings and prevent us from digging for the historical truth, which is the ONLY thing in which I am interested.

With regards to the excesive liberties..... I do not understand this..... which one I have taken? Answer to me via MP if you think is the best way.

Cheers,

Juan.

Gen. Sandworm
09-28-2007, 10:15 AM
Im going to assume that everything is just wonderful in this thread?!?! :evil:

Coz if there are problems ......... I get pissed and then I want to shut this section down. Ive had enough F&M sections problems to last me a life time.

So everybody is smiling yes?!?! :mrgreen:

Panzerknacker
09-28-2007, 10:48 AM
My dear General...If is for me you can closed it, the members here had already demonstrated that they didnt care about the pictures that I ve posted... just the senceless discussion and arguments.

Quite sad actually. It didnt encourage the topic whatsoever.

Seems that the good manners that Panzon had described in meticulous detail didnt work here.

tankgeezer
09-28-2007, 11:43 AM
Personally, I liked all of the pictures, I didnt get to see much of the information about this war when it was ongoing. So, the other's dramas aside, this has been a great help. Thanks P.K.

Firefly
09-28-2007, 05:08 PM
Personally I dont get personally involved in this section and try to stay focused on the topic in hand.

If anyone has a problem with anyone in this topic I would ask them to contact me. I assure you any concerns you may have will be dealt with swiftly and fairly, no matter what status the protagonists have. Whether you are a Mod, someone who has made 1 post or 1000 posts matters not to me as I value all of your contributions and comments equally.

I volunteered here because I like the site and like to see it run smoothly and do consider that I work for you rather than the opposite.

Cheers...

Nickdfresh
09-28-2007, 08:34 PM
Incidentally, as a mod at another site, and a consistent long time poster here - the poster also "works for" other posters and lurkers...

1000ydstare
09-29-2007, 03:38 AM
Reply to Gen Sandworm

http://www.colinheatherly.com/images/Smile.jpg

Panzerknacker
08-08-2008, 04:33 PM
Is a shame that this topic had as last picture that one posted by a pretty messed up member wich obviously have nothing to with the thread.

Let see if we can straigthen up a little.

A very good picture of San Julian AFB in may 1982.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f34/rhcp04/Malvinas/IA-58sA-4Csbasebombs.jpg


454 kg bomb below an A-4b.


http://i35.tinypic.com/314dkww.jpg

1000ydstare_redux
08-27-2008, 12:20 AM
Is a shame that this topic had as last picture that one posted by a pretty messed up member wich obviously have nothing to with the thread.

Get a grip mate.

Panzerknacker
08-27-2008, 06:13 PM
Keep the advices to yourself you crazy homosexual troll.

Nickdfresh
08-28-2008, 07:00 AM
Keep the advices to yourself you crazy homosexual troll.

Um, don't you think you're overreacting a bit here?

Panzerknacker
08-28-2008, 05:11 PM
Maybe, but is the only way this people understand.

pdf27
08-28-2008, 05:14 PM
Maybe, but is the only way this people understand.
Maybe, maybe not (I'm not taking sides here). However, if you act like it again I'll lock the thread. This forum is always under closer supervision due to the emotive nature of the conflict it discusses, and language like yours has no place in it. Understand?

Panzerknacker
08-28-2008, 05:20 PM
For me you can lock it right now.

Who is the correct member to discuss the pictures with ? Cuts ? 1000 ydsscares, Lone Ranger ? Firefly ? psst, hardly any pleasure on that.

And sorry my language but that language is the one of a person who has been tired completely for the lack of respect of others towards my post.

pdf27
08-28-2008, 06:16 PM
Respect is not required in here. Politeness is. Learn the difference.

Rising Sun*
08-29-2008, 07:35 AM
Keep the advices to yourself you crazy homosexual troll.

As the forum's resident enforcer of politcally correct expression ;), might I suggest that it is highly inappropriate to give advice. Instead, suggestions should be offered for collaborative workshopping.

Similarly, 'crazy' is a judgmental term based in unanalyzed concepts of self and other which ignores the ultimate futility of attempting to define human thought and conduct in anything but deconstructionist terms. So, 'cognitively different' might better be substituted for 'crazy'.

As for the poofter word (Which includes lady poofters, as my wife the teacher noted when one of her less gifted students described a fight with a gang of Lebanese, resulting in his breathless description of the action: 'Then the Lesbos arrived.'. Alas, it's true.), there's nothing wrong with being mono-gender oriented.

Post-metric, one kilometre should be substituted for 1000 yards.

As staring is inappropriate, sexually harrassing, and borders on stalking, 'stare' should be replaced by 'closely but sensitively observed'

So, applying these considerations, perhaps PK could have offered his comment in a more sensitive way designed to engage 1000yd long redux thingy in collaborative workshopping of the problem to produce strategies to construct a matrix which would enable them to go forward, going forward.

A suitable statement would have been "Keep your suggestions for collaborative workshopping to yourself you cognitively different, mono-gender oriented closely but sensitively observed kilometre long troll.".

I trust that this has been a helpful contribution. :D

redcoat
08-29-2008, 09:08 AM
And sorry my language but that language is the one of a person who has been tired completely for the lack of respect of others towards my post.
I shall pass on the advice my mother use to give me.

"Once you resort to insults, you have lost the argument".

Panzerknacker
08-29-2008, 09:08 PM
I shall pass on the advice my mother use to give me.

"Once you resort to insults, you have lost the argument".

That is a good advice but now I am a less well mannered person than used to be, I think that explains it a little. No more fancy argument, no more brainy conclutions, my aproach now is "if you agree fine, if not i dont care", no neat but again, I am tired.

http://i35.tinypic.com/314dkww.jpg

Rising Sun*
08-30-2008, 12:23 PM
That is a good advice but now I am a less well mannered person than used to be ...

So, if you were still a mod, you'd be more tolerant?

Rising Sun*
08-30-2008, 12:27 PM
.
.Why is it that Latin types have to flaunt their cojones, like the bloke far right?





http://i35.tinypic.com/314dkww.jpg

1000ydstare_redux
08-31-2008, 08:59 AM
PK, I have only just come back on thread, and if you go to the HMS Banford thread, you will see I have put forward a sensible post in response to your own.

Here, I merely commented on a silly comment you had made about my good self.

PS. I am not crazy nor homosexual nor a troll.

32Bravo
08-31-2008, 02:54 PM
I am not crazy nor homosexual nor a troll.

That's not what I've heard. :D

Just kidding. So, where've you been?

Nice to see you chaps getting along as usual in my absence. :D

Panzerknacker
08-31-2008, 08:25 PM
So, if you were still a mod, you'd be more tolerant?


No I wouldnt, there is no reason for that.

Firefly
09-01-2008, 05:42 AM
Back on topic please Chaps!

Chevan
09-03-2008, 02:36 AM
So, if you were still a mod, you'd be more tolerant?
He never was tolerant even when he was a mod.
Forget about it?

Cuts
09-05-2008, 05:40 AM
Rising Sun*, with all due respect to your position as this forum's rightful enforcer of politically correct expression, I believe you may have made a small miscalclation in your example for a better phrase that a demodded member might use should he wish to vent his pleen in a more pacific manner.

In my own opinion a more accurate wording would be:
"Please keep your suggestions for collaborative workshopping to yourself you cognitively different, mono-gender oriented, closely but sensitively observed 914.4 metre long troll.".

I too trust that this has been taken in the correct spirit of contented co-operation.

Rising Sun*
09-05-2008, 05:59 AM
Rising Sun*, with all due respect to your position as this forum's rightful enforcer of politically correct expression, I believe you may have made a small miscalclation in your example for a better phrase that a demodded member might use should he wish to vent his pleen in a more pacific manner.

In my own opinion a more accurate wording would be:
"Please keep your suggestions for collaborative workshopping to yourself you cognitively different, mono-gender oriented, closely but sensitively observed 914.4 metre long troll.".

I too trust that this has been taken in the correct spirit of contented co-operation.

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.

Panzerknacker
09-05-2008, 10:15 AM
Infantry pics.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5277/013patrullandoag8.jpg


http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6811/024comandosds5.jpg


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1911/c4kj1ez7gy8.jpg


Old Oerlikon 20 mm gun.

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/801/a9hr7.jpg


Sea cat.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6818/a13mc7.jpg


FN MAG and FAL with PAF ( antipersonel grenade) installed.

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/462/a11dm3.jpg



Men of Infantry Regiment 25e.


http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9003/malvinas041000way7am1.jpg

Panzerknacker
09-16-2008, 10:11 PM
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.

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5870/mal1ph4.jpg

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/111/malbf6.jpg

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.

YouTube - Malvinas - Regimento Infanteria 25 - Compañía C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npAc2g4s3c0)

Lone Ranger
09-17-2008, 08:59 AM
Also british sources indicated those fresh faced soldiers allegedly were responsible to shoot some of the helicopter survivors in the water.

Thats because they did shoot helicopter survivors in the water, not only British sources but Esteban himself confirmed it.

Panzerknacker
09-17-2008, 02:48 PM
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 ?

32Bravo
09-18-2008, 02:50 AM
War is a dirty business, chaps.

1000ydstare_redux
09-18-2008, 03:24 PM
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.

Panzerknacker
09-18-2008, 05:11 PM
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.

pdf27
09-18-2008, 05:22 PM
As the well the british if a similar incident would happen with one of their ships.
As indeed the crew of U-852 (http://www.uboataces.com/articles-war-criminal.shtml) found, although it was actually a Greek ship...

Panzerknacker
09-18-2008, 05:39 PM
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.