Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
British Military - The Falklands War
Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: British Military - The Falklands War

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    devon united kingdom, its the bit south west in the uk
    Posts
    53

    Default British Military - The Falklands War

    i am interested in hearing from anyone regarding this 'war' .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q
    Last edited by Quentin Rees; 04-07-2007 at 04:39 AM. Reason: spelling

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin Rees View Post
    i am interested in hearing from anyone regarding this 'war' .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q
    The Falklands are discussed under 'Other Wars'.

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


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    Some people just didnt want to search the site before open new topics. Moved to a more logic place.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    From the Wiki Quentin.

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

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

    2 SBS were used to liberate South Goergia, and 6 SBS reconitred East Falkland, mainly by Klepper.
    Last edited by 1000ydstare; 04-10-2007 at 03:23 AM.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    17 years old brit killed in action.

    This is a really young soldier.

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


    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-364


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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default

    Interesting topic,PK.

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

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


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    The ban on under 18s only extended to NI, as a media concession.

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

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

    Although I would wager all were better trained and prepared than their over 18 conscript opponents in the Argentine Army.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    The Brit Military traditionally had under 18's throughout its history. Boy Drummers in the 19th Century could be as young as 8.

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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,928

    Default 18

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

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

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


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    ESSEX
    Posts
    4

    Smile Young Soldiers

    As has been stated by a number of people already apart from NI young lads have been deployed to serve with their units.

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

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

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

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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    I joined at 16 and spent 2 years in training. Apprentices trainded for 2 years, Junior Leaders for 1 year and Junior Soldiers for 12 weeks followed by make work until they were old enough for an adult training unit.

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

    To be honest, I don't think it is a bad system to keep them at home until they are 18.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    184

    Default

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

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

    Memory is better than I thought.

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

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    ESSEX
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Lone Ranger

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

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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    And yet Amnisty International still view Britain dimly for having a Junior Army, well A Junior Regiment at least.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •