MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Defence in General => Topic started by: Globetrotter on April 02, 2007, 02:13:47 AM

Title: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 02, 2007, 02:13:47 AM
Tomorrow, April 2nd, there will be 25 years between us and the arrival of Argentine troops to the Malvinas Islands, considered as the begining of the Malvinas war.

I don't expect comments, neither I'll make any, it is just to remember and to honor the ones who died from both sides. I hope you don't see this as a provacative message, but understand my real intention, this post hasn't got any other intention than remember from those who fought and died there.

a tear for them all...
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 02, 2007, 08:09:59 AM
My god.. 25 years ago..man..
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 02, 2007, 06:40:57 PM
My god.. 25 years ago..man..

Argentine people still remember it as if it was one or two years ago. And I am proud of that. I hope we never forget, for not doing the same mistakes...
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 03, 2007, 08:04:30 AM
The Brits would remember it becuase Argentina sunk a few British ships and the world remembers it because Britain sunk the General Belgrano with a nuke powered sub. .wich was the first nuke sub to sink another ship?
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 03, 2007, 06:37:44 PM
I think it was.

BTW, that was a crime of war, as it is called, because our ship was out of the exclusion zone, and they or we couldn't sunk or shoot down anything outside the borders of the exclusion zone. But I guess war is like that :-\
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Viggen on April 03, 2007, 08:37:10 PM
Yupp, war sux!  Politics and propaganda always gets paid in blood.  :(
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 04, 2007, 08:01:29 AM
I thought it was becuase argentina was sending the Belgrano to support their forces, and they couldve done some real damage. like 'an eye for an eye'
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 04, 2007, 06:22:44 PM
with the Belgrano, more than 300 lifes drowned in the freezing waters of the very south atlantic. Half of the Argentine deaths.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Cobra2 on April 06, 2007, 12:57:41 AM
Ooohh that sux  :-X poor guys  :(


Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 06, 2007, 05:20:43 AM
How many Brits were killed on the Shefield and the Atlantic Conveyor?

Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 06, 2007, 01:06:13 PM
How many Brits were killed on the Shefield and the Atlantic Conveyor?

I don't know, but it was not my point to martirize the Argentines only; as we were talking about the Belgrano, I just told you one more piece of info.
Anyway, I am sure there weren't as many people there as there was on the Belgrano.
I'll investigate
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Valiant1 on April 08, 2007, 05:39:37 AM
I was a young teen and I followed that war.  The point of war is that ... there is no point.  I understand how you feel, Globe and I respect that your country sees it as your land.  The Brits see it a different way.  Unfortunately, there's no compromise, nor will there be any in the forseeable future. 

The only thing we can do is honor those who died in battle. 
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 08, 2007, 01:15:38 PM
hmmm! How I wish I could speak :-X
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 08, 2007, 05:42:46 PM

The only thing we can do is honor those who died in battle. 


Well to step away from the grim aspects and avoid politics, we can also look what it meant on technological level and lessons learned. The Sea Harrier proved itself, the newer version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder proved lethal, the Exocet anti-missile proved itself and also the Pucara, which is still an important asset for CAS/COIN. Not to mention the experience of using aerial tankers to extend the range of bombers. The Brits probably also learned from that blue-on-blue SAM engagement.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 08, 2007, 07:26:01 PM
Thanks Webmaster to find out a way to skip politics, as I wouldn0t have resisted much...

Ok, about the statement of  "The Sea Harrier proved itself" I am afraid I can't fully agree with you, because each of the combats that happened were in the envelope of flight that was favourable to that airplane. I am sure that if the combats were in mid to high altitudes, it would have been different, even though we all now that the Mirage III is not a dogfighter. So this shows that British pilots were better trained than Argentines, cause they dragged their enemies to where they had vantages.

I will continue later, cause there is a lot to talk about ;D
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 08, 2007, 10:13:15 PM
So... yes, the AIM-9 "lima" was excellent and did its job well, or at least light years from the French Matra 550, that had to be fired directly from behind.

The exocet was overwhelming, and even when Argentina suffered from a sabotagge the French did, while their technicians were in Arg, before departing because of the war. This is not a theory, it was confirmed by French minister of something...

Well, what can I say about Pucara, it is one of my idols ;D, kidding
But seriously, that aircraft proved that appart from being very good at CAS/COIN it is also a very good chpper haunter.

I haven't heard of blue-on-blue, or at least not with that name... could you explain what is it?
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 15, 2007, 05:25:50 PM
Quote
The exocet was overwhelming, and even when Argentina suffered from a sabotagge the French did, while their technicians were in Arg, before departing because of the war. This is not a theory, it was confirmed by French minister of something...
I didn't know that, I guess UK put some pressure on France.  ;)

Quote
that aircraft proved that appart from being very good at CAS/COIN it is also a very good chpper haunter.
Yep, slow, low, agile and four guns. Not sure how it would look up again a Sidewinder equipped Cobra or Apache though. In the last AFM, there's was an article on a recent exercise, combining Hughes 500 light helicopters with the Pucara in the CSAR mission. Apparently a good combo and a role which might have been given to another helicopter type, if it wasn't for the Pucara's good record.
Do you know how many were deployed in the conflict?

Quote
I haven't heard of blue-on-blue, or at least not with that name... could you explain what is it?
Friendly fire (fratricide), sorry maybe blue-on-blue is a term used only in case of coalition friendly fire??

HMS Cardiff shot down a Gazelle helicopter of the British Army Air Corps. I was just checking out which ship was involved, and then I also read that a UK SBS (Special Boat Service) team found themselves in fire-fight with a SAS patrol, 1 killed, and two Army companies from the same Battalion engaged eachother for an hour, 8 killed. I know that from at least the Gazalle/Cardiff incident lessons were learned and doctrine changes implemented.

NOTE: Discussing Falklands here, so don't go off-topic talking about Iraq's blue-on-blue incidents or anything.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 16, 2007, 05:13:43 AM
And the war also stopped the British from selling one of their carriers, and it was the last conflict were British Bombers (Vulcan) flew combat missions, well, purpose built bombers, not like the Torando and Jaguar....
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 16, 2007, 06:24:36 PM
I have been searching, but the number of Pucaras I can estimate is more or less 100. 25 of them were lost, in combat or ground attacks, damaged by bombs.

Quote
Yep, slow, low, agile and four guns

Four machineguns and two cannons ;)

I'll look for some low level flying photos for you :D
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 17, 2007, 01:42:07 AM
Some Argentine people believe that the war was something that was lost before beggining, now matter what we did.

Here is why:

Suppouse that luckily, we manage to win the war over the South Atlantic. Then the Brits get bored of it, and, with the Vulcnas they had over there, thanks to our brothers Brazilians, the fire one or two Blue Steels (Nuclear Misiles) to Buenos Aires, Capital of Argentina, thus killing about 14 million people, from there, and some other milions from arround the region. The war would be over, and they would have won?

Very difficult to disscus....
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 17, 2007, 08:23:54 AM
Then the Argentines would turn to Sovs, the US would get the shits big time and attack the Sovs. World War 4!
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 17, 2007, 06:21:41 PM
That means that you think I am telling bullsh...???!! :o
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Gripen on April 18, 2007, 03:47:31 AM
nope, thats what the Cubans did. It happens. Soviet Russia always chose people because they knew it would annoy america.. i believe you
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 21, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
Well, don't think the UK would deploy nuclear weapons that easily. Maybe after huge loss of life, or at least prospects of huge loss of life. No, they would maybe have invaded Argentina, with such a coastline and losses in the war, British would have invaded a lot of the country to force a surrender of the islands. The US never deployed nuclear weapons in their cold war "regional conflicts", not did the Soviet, I think compared to these parties the UK was more rational.

I tend to agree it was a lost war, or at least a very short sighted one. There was a tiny chance of the UK having difficult deploying troops such a long way from home, and would have given up the islands to avoid conflict... but considering the UK's government, the Argentine government made a bad judgement call. I think it didn't help Argentina to get the islands back at all, without the war, maybe something would have been settled by now, but now the UK has fought for it so recently... not likely. But I think Argentina has more pressing concerns now than a couple of Islands.

Now let's go back to the facts, instead of this hypothetical/political talk.

About the Vulcans, they were put into action largely as a deterrent, in the same way Lybia and Iraq did with their Tu-22s. Making a statement. Conventional bombing, although not very effective with these bombers, sends the message that they are in theatre and mean business.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 21, 2007, 02:06:16 PM
Ok, about the conventional bombing with Vulcans... there is something I can tell you, I know that most of you, if not all, won't believe it, but I guess I don't loose anything telling you.

The Puerto Argentino Airbase, that was the target of many missions, was never hit, not even once.
The Argentines used a trick against the Brits. Argentines put "mountains" of dirt on the sequence of the bombs would make, so that satellite or recc planes would see that they have made the runway out of service. But when they saw the Pucaras, that took off from P.A., they went back and bombed... but we did the same again.

I know it must be difficult for you to believe.....

And the Vulcans, they said that was better if they were shot down here that if they had to pay the fuel for them to go back to the junk yard... cause they were very near the end of their lifes
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 21, 2007, 03:03:42 PM
The Puerto Argentino Airbase, that was the target of many missions, was never hit, not even once.
The Argentines used a trick against the Brits. Argentines put "mountains" of dirt on the sequence of the bombs would make, so that satellite or recc planes would see that they have made the runway out of service. But when they saw the Pucaras, that took off from P.A., they went back and bombed... but we did the same again.

I know it must be difficult for you to believe.....

And the Vulcans, they said that was better if they were shot down here that if they had to pay the fuel for them to go back to the junk yard... cause they were very near the end of their lifes

That's interesting, what I want to know of how much of it is myth, and how much of it is truth. It's a good tactic, but don't you think a good image analysist would see the difference between a pile of dirt and a bomb crater? It may have caused some confusion, but these people can see the difference between a truck loaded with just some pipes and a truck loaded with missile containers. And how easy are bomb craters of misses to disguise. Also, you have to know how many bombs were dropped, if 20 were dropped and you can 30 piles of dirt, it's a bit suspicious don't you think. At least, they must have thought something was wrong the second time. I can see this tactic work in WWII, but in 1982.... :-\ And as you say, it was the target of many missions, so it's not that they thought it was destroyed. The story might be true, I can believe it, but I doubt that it a very effective tactic.

The other thing you say is just nonsense, maybe some public or media said that as a matter of showing how close it was to retirement, but the crew is more worth than the fuel, no air force would ever consider such a thing, not to mention the political effect of having one of your heavy bombers shot down or crashed on a combat mission. There's also the loss of sensitive equipment. If fuel was really that big a problem, they would have removed equipment and ditched them from Ascension island, don't you think.

Please don't be offended, any war has its myths. Some tactics that are said to have been used a lot and with great effect, often are myths based on a single mission with limited success, if not failure, but with a lot of bravery and wit. I am sure Alyster knows quite a few of these kind of stories from WWII.  ;) What other myths/stories are there for the Falklands War?
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 21, 2007, 05:35:58 PM
I am not offended, I was prepared for it ;)

About the Vulcans, thats just what those old magazines of mine say... maybe not all true, but I believe they referred to the aircraft itself, obviously not the people... ::) I know, I didn't express me correctly :-\

There is another story... and this is a good one and 100% true, I can say that
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 22, 2007, 02:21:22 PM
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/images/bb1bombdamage.jpg)

RAF released image, of Port Stanley/Puerto Argentino, after the Vulcan run. As you can see, the bomb run cuts across the airfield, to make sure it is hit. Clearly bomb craters in my opinion. Not mountains of dirt in my opinion. So I don't believe it, it's a propaganda story.

However, it looks easy to be repaired/prepared for the Pucaras to use it again though. At least until the two waves of Harrier and naval shelling attacks the next day.

And back on those Vulcans, they flew from Ascension island, not from Brazil. One Vulcan diverted to Rio due to refuel problems, one AGM-45 Shrike missile aboard, which the Brazilians seized. Vulcans were not deployed with blue steel missiles, which was not fully developed and was retired already. The UK could have deployed WE177 smaller freefall nukes and were close to introducing the Polaris. Luckily, the conflict never went to that stage.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 22, 2007, 03:21:49 PM
well, I don't think it is impossible to simulate the craters, but its ok, we will never find the truth out, so let it be like a story, it is up to you to believe it or not, I just told it to you.

The vulcans, I didn't say they were armed, the Blue Steel just got to my head, thinking on a Nuclear missile, yes, sure I could have written any nuclear bomb... I just didn't know the Polaris or WE177. And , however, the Braziliand helped :-\

Would you like the next story?
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 22, 2007, 04:24:46 PM
(Polaris is sealaunched by the way, subs.)

Ok, bring on the next story.  :)
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 24, 2007, 02:01:48 AM
I am trying to get the story on the net for back up... :P
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 24, 2007, 11:37:02 PM
Ok, here it is!! Sorry, I thought it would be more aviation related, but it is the maritime version of the Exocet they are talking about. Anyway, I think that you'll find it interesting.

In english for you ;) : http://66.249.93.104/translate_c?hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=es%7Cen&u=http://www.europa1939.com/documentos/exocet.html&prev=/language_tools
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 25, 2007, 01:16:39 AM
Nice, one of those war-time improvisations. It probably was not as effective as an Exocet guided by a ship's or aircraft's radar though.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 25, 2007, 01:46:16 AM
Nice, one of those war-time improvisations. It probably was not as effective as an Exocet guided by a ship's or aircraft's radar though.

we couldn't have launched it from ships or aircraft anyways... I think it was a desperate move, but quite successful :)
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Webmaster on April 26, 2007, 01:08:10 AM
There's an article on the Falklands air war in the AFM of May. Some cool A-4 and Dagger shots. I will read it in a few days.
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 26, 2007, 01:10:06 AM
Sorry for my ignorance, but AFM doesn't ring me a bell :-[

Anyway, I am sure it must be a good read :D
Title: Re: 25 years ago
Post by: Globetrotter on April 26, 2007, 01:51:40 AM
Ok, let us know if there is something interesting in there ;)