Shipbuilding in the UK.

quote:

Originally posted by Yeldarb:
Nime,

I was there on one of our ships. I saw what really happened. May I tactfully suggest that you wind your neck in on this one?

You are completely unaware of the tactical situation at the time and have no comprehension of the events.

We all have our rights to our views, but let's get our views in perspective first before we run the risk of causing offence.

B

Brad

No offense intended at all.

My obviously biased interpretation of events from secondhand news coverage must have denied me the information that British ship's construction materials were caopable of high temperature self-combustion.

Analysis of the ships involved suggests that those sunk by bombs could never have survived a direct hit anyway.

Aregentinian conscripts were involved. It's all there if you just Google.

Here's an example but there are many more learned scientific and historical reports scattered acorss the internet with analysis of the conflict, materials and actions. (as one would expect)

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

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Aregentinian conscripts were involved. It's all there if you just Google.

And your point is?

Argentinian conscripts were used for several reasons:

1) The more experienced troops had to stay near the borders with Chile as they feared that advantage might have been taken while they were pre-occupied.
2) Using other troops would have risked an earlier intelligence leak (i.e. highly visible troop movements) which would have compromised the ability to launch the attack.
3) Initially no attack by Britain was expected, so the troops used were only expected to encounter the garrison already on the Falklands (although that was double it's normal size because the Argentinians attacked during a transitional period).

The Argentinian government made a lot of mistakes before and during the conflict (e.g. attacking at a time when they'd only received 5 air launched Exocets and before Endurance was retired) however the Argentinian military impressed in many ways. Not even the French thought that they'd be able to commission the Super Entendards and Exocets by themselves in time to be used, including adapting the planes for in-flight refuelling, plus the work done to modify sea launched Exocets for use from land was very innovative.

And your point is?

If only man men would spend as much time using their remarkable abilities for peaceful purposes we could have...er..um... 3D TV by now.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:

B

Aregentinian conscripts were involved. It's all there if you just Google.

Nime,

I took no part in the conflict and I have not studied the re-taking of the islands in any detail for years but I recall the following: Conventional military thinking is you need at least a 3-1 numerical advantage to take a defended position and a minimum of a 5-1 advantage to invade from the sea against a defended shorline - the fact that the British forces succesfully took the Islands (outnumbered with at least a 3-1 DISadvange) in what was a very dirty war with hand-to-hand fighting (yes bayonets when ammo had run out)is in part due to a demoralised, badly led, part constript army (yes, PART constript)and in part due to what is pound for pound, kilo for kilo the best armed services in the world. On paper the islands should have been beyond re-taking and it is mostly due to the qualities of our armed services that they were - it was a huge achievment. I was all for the invasion at the time but these days I think differently. UN sanctions should have been rigorously and relentlessly persued. Countries like Argentina (as it was)must be economcally and politically islolated by the whole global community until they come into line. The US was it's usual duplitious self, working hard to make something out of the conflict from both sides. American mercenaries in the falklands were caught and shot. Argentine POWs were treated better by the Brits than by their own officers and NCOs. I think we showed great restraint and although as someone else has pointed out this cost British lives it saved lives overall.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
The US was it's usual duplitious self, working hard to make something out of the conflict from both sides.

The US were actually caught in a difficult situation, especially as they had laws in place (dating from the early 1800's) stopping them from supporting old colonial powers in such a conflict.

They did however hand over 100 of the AIM-9L version of the sidewinder, offer the use of a carrier (which was never responded to), help in British efforts to stop the Argentinians buying more Exocets (e.g. when Peru tried to buy some), supply satellite imagery and copious other intel. In return they did ask Britain not to attack mainland targets (which wouldn't have been easy for our forces anyway) as they were concerned that the situation could escalate.

You are confusing me with somebody who cares about your little war. I do not believe in violence on any scale. If any of you thought you were fighting for freedom you now seem to be denying my right to have an opinion and to share it. Simply because it is at odds with your own.

This used to be a unique forum. With loads of new and interesting threads. Intelligent (sometimes heated) discussion and some of the funniest posts on the internet. What went wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
You are confusing me with somebody who cares about your little war.

You seemed to care about it earlier, before you demonstrated how little you actually knew.

quote:

I do not believe in violence on any scale.

You can believe in it or you can choose to pretend it doesn't happen. I take it therefore that you don't believe in defending yourself against agression, and that you'd have happily let Hitler take over the world?

quote:

If any of you thought you were fighting for freedom you now seem to be denying my right to have an opinion and to share it.

The only opinion you appeared to have been stating was your belief in the bollocks you're read on the web.

quote:

Simply because it is at odds with your own.

Simply because it was incorrect, bigoted and untrue would be a more correct way of stating it.

quote:

This used to be a unique forum. With loads of new and interesting threads. Intelligent (sometimes heated) discussion and some of the funniest posts on the internet. What went wrong?

People like you?

Nime is entitled to his opinion however informed or uniformed others believe it to be.

Actually being involved personally in the conflict does not really give your views any greater weight, and from a historical perspective "being there" would tend to make your account less than objective.

Dear Friends,

I never really knew what to make of the Falflands conflict. I was 20 at the time and like many followed the Nine O'Clock News with the daily announcements from that Ministry fellow (MacDonald wasn't it?) every day, actually dreading what might have gone wrong, and yet feeling an undeniable pride in that fact that we (Brtain) did so well under the most obviously unlikely miss-match of numbers involved and so on...

There was no thought with hindsight of conscription, but I think quite a few of my age (I was at farm college) were very keen to sign up had the call come. I would have, but out of duty not pride.

On the other hand my eldest Uncle, who had been in the Second War from day one, and was involved in the fight in Italy and then the occupation of Austria in the immediate post-War period (and was involved in the sad business, under the guidance of Harold MacMillan the polical controller in the occupation, of handing back to Stalin the Russians who fought with the Nazis - the Whaite Russians. They were slaughtered without even summary justice). He was clear in his view that it should never have come to a military conflict, and thought thae fact that it did, showed just how incompetent were the Foreign Office in reading the intelliegence situation. The subsequent necessay re-capture of the Islands, as he put it was to save face and cover the idiocy of the intelligence failure in the first place. His view was that no War is without very nasty and unplanned aspects, but then his own experience certainly coloured that.

Clearly there are no clear cut answers, and the winning was undoubtedly a much closer call than anyone was admitting at the time. I know one guy who was down there, and like my uncle, his view was at best ambivalent about it. He was unvolved in the missile defence thing, and was my Electronics Lecturer, when I did A-levels, as mature student. We remain good friends.

Fredrik

a) See "locked threads" statement by Adam.
b) Grow up?

Hope this helps?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Nime is entitled to his opinion however informed or uniformed others believe it to be.

He's intitled to his ill-informed option, however we're entitled to mock him for it...

quote:

Actually being involved personally in the conflict does not really give your views any greater weight, and from a historical perspective "being there" would tend to make your account less than objective.

I wasn't personally involved (I was still in school at the time) however I was a naval intelligence officer a few years later and at that time the Falklands conflict coloured everything we did, and most of what we were doing was a reaction to the lessons learned.

What I dislike is the sort of points you see being produced by people who know little of the real facts of the conflict, something Nime has clearly been guilty off.

quote:

Actually being involved personally in the conflict does not really give your views any greater weight, and from a historical perspective "being there" would tend to make your account less than objective.

The days when history was written by the victors is long gone; as for being there = less than objective, how does you reconcile that with media coverage of world events? Are reporters more reliable/believable than those involved in an event?

That argument aside, the comment made earlier in the thread which rankled was:

quote:

Judging from the media coverage the whole thing looked like two impoverished banana republics slugging it out in a badly made film farce. Meanwhile disposable extras were dying bravely and being permanently maimed for "Sovereign Territory" and The Flag?

I am simply one of many who ended up 8,000 miles from home undertaking the duties for which we were trained. Like many I joined the Royal Navy to see the world; I accepted that my duty may lead me into situations not of my making, but in which I had a responsibility to do my best for my ship mates, the service and the country. That is what duty, loyalty and service are all about.

By all means mock the politicians who made the decisions, but do not mock those who were there because of those decisions.

The Falklands have some interesting fish stocks and I think I remember that the word oil is also involved with that region as well.

If the Argies (to use a phrase of the time ) had waited and negotiated they would have got the islands peacefully - however they chose to be impatient and generated a resolve for the UK to keep them for a long time.

quote:

Not some scrap over a cold desert island that nobody valued until somebody pretended they wanted it.

By this do you mean the Falklands Islands by any chance? I was always under the impression that the people on the islands did not wish to be joined by force of arms to Argentina and that was the reason the forces sailed south.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:

quote:

Not some scrap over a cold desert island that nobody valued until somebody pretended they wanted it.

By this do you mean the Falklands Islands by any chance? I was always under the impression that the people on the islands did not wish to be joined by force of arms to Argentina and that was the reason the forces sailed south.

Yes Nime can you answer that? The people living on the Falklands were/are British. It is utterly irrelevant whether the islands are 8,000 miles away or 8 miles away - the inhabitants are british and their geographical location did not alter that fact nor diminish their suffering.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
a) See "locked threads" statement by Adam.
b) Grow up?

Hope this helps?

Are you advocating threads be locked if you don't agree with them?

You are not paying attention Lance Corporal.
Now take a deep breath and ask yourself what is wrong with your life.

Like Yeldarb (Brad), I was another one who was there because it was my job, not because I wanted to be there. I had taken the Queen's shilling, so I could hardly object.

In my case I was with the Royal Engineers carrying out Harrier support duties at Port San Carlos. This was not helped by the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor (to an Exocet), which was carrying most of our equipment. Later I moved to Port Stanley (via HMS Fearless) helping with the rebuilding of the runway.

Having left the UK later than the main fleet, we flew to Ascension Island and then hitched a ride with RFA Bedivere (Same type as Sir Galahad) to The Falklands.

Leaving later meant that we had been given full exposure to the "Kill an Argie and win a Mini Metro" type of hysteria that people at home were being whipped up by. Some of the lads I was with actually believed all that guff, right up until the point we were getting bombed in the Falkland Sound.

When I get a new scanner, I could post some photo's (for the Navy boys, who are likely to be interested in this stuff) of the sad sight of the Antelope, which was the first thing that greeted us on the morning after our arrival. This was burning in the Sound, and later broke its keel and sank.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the political decisions to go, real people were involved. They will all have memories of those events, especially as we get closer to the 25th anniversary of the invasion. Nime, you are entitled to your opinion, but think before you post please.

The sad fact is that many more people have subsequently taken their own lives as a result of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, than were killed during the conflict. Given the length of that particular campaign, you can only wonder what guys on duty in the current hot spots are going through, let alone those during the great wars.

I was not at the real "Sharp end" like many (i.e. killing people at close quarters), but I was close enough, thank-you.

Probably the worst experience for me was seeing a load of Welsh Guards, and one of my mates, get injured and lose limbs as a result of a Harrier accidentally firing its Sidewinder missiles as it was taking off from the airfield at Stanley. A field dressing seems pretty useless when faced with someone who has lost both his legs. This happened after the conflict, and was probably only lightly reported at home.

What is the point of this reply? Well in my view, information (or lack of it), as well as how it is interpreted and reported, is crucial.

When on the Island, we often got better information from the Islanders we met (who were listening to the World Service), than our own people.

All wars are full of cock-ups. It is a question of who makes the most. Although technically the odds were against the Brits, the training was always in their favour, especially with the SAS mixing things up. Yes there were Argentinean conscripts, and the point has already been well made, that they were probably better treated by the Brits than their own officers. There were plenty of tales from the Islanders we were billeted with, of conscripts being shot by their own people because they had the temerity to ask for rations to eat.

I was very cynical, when I returned home, about the reasons why we had been sent to war. Britain had been negotiating for years to get rid of the Islands, but once they had been invaded, the Government was backed into a corner.

The prospect of possible future mineral wealth and fishing rights has probably long since been outweighed by the cost of the Task Force, the re-building and providing security cover ever since.

Sometimes, however, you just have to stand up and be counted. The alternative is that every gob shite that wants to run rough shop over the decent, law-abiding majority dominates the agenda, because no one has the courage to stand up to them.

Forgive me for taking up so much space, this is an area that I have kept largely to myself for a number of years, but it does prove that discussion is healthy.

Nic

Mike,

That is the one.

My pictures are not as spectacular as they were taken the following morning. Also I did not have a telephoto lens, for obvious reasons we were not berthed alongside, but she was clearly visible. Very sad to see her fold in the middle and go down.

I will never forget it, clear and cold but bright sunshine. The excitement that followed was being bounced by Pucaras (I think) at low level, and seeing a bomb go through the rigging of the Bedivere, bounce off the water and go in through the doors of the Tristam. Fortunately the bomb did not arm as it was dropped too low.

As a land lubber, I can easily say that I felt much more comfortable above, than below deck, even during the worst parts of the journey.

Sorry for those who think the discussion is about war mongering. From my point of view it is not.

Nic

quote:

Originally posted by nicnaim:
Like Yeldarb (Brad), I was another one who was there because it was my job, not because I wanted to be there. I had taken the Queen's shilling, so I could hardly object.

Nic,

Well said indeed. I live not far from a hostel for the homeless. Two years ago I saw a couple of the 'residents' very drunk and fighting outside. The police were called and there was a standoff for a few minutes whilst one of the drunks shouted obscenities and waved a knife about. The police had drawn their nightsticks and mace and were about to wade in when I walked past them and asked him 'what regiment'? He blinked a couple of times and said '2para'. I asked him 'Falklands?' he said yes and asked me if I was there too. I lied and said yes. He knew I understood him. He just sat down and started crying. The police cuffed him and bundled him into a car. A WPC asked me how I knew. The fact is half the guys in the hostel were in the Falklands, alcoholics and/or drug addicts, all PTSD, all washed up and forgotten and un-cared for, all with criminal records. If all I did for the guy was save him an escorted trip to casuality to have the mace washed out of his eyes then I did more for him than most and that was precious little. LIke I said earlier in this thread - it was a very dirty war.

eric

Aren't you simply confirming what I have been struggling to get across?

Like it or not, war is heavy shit. Bodies are disposable from lowest ranks upwards.

Your enemy doesn't play by the rules of engagement and may be more afraid of their own officers than they are of you. Making most of them lethally suicidalal. They have nothing to lose except final salvation from their own deaths.

Nobody here is understimating the sacrifices you guys made and are continuing to pay for. Is Thatcher on the streets or living in a cold council house which they can hardly afford? Are your former officers on the dole? Are their consciences clear on what you were asked to do? Are any of you being looked after properly when you complain of long term health problems? Are you supported financially when you can't hold down a job after going through a living nightmare? (that still goes on?) The psychological toll of killing and hurting other people for a cause is not easily dismissed. Particularly when you have seen your own comrades maimed and killed so pointlessly. How do they train you for that?

I may be accused of crass insensitivity. But how you are treated when you've given everything for your country speaks volumes about your leaders. Are they suffering now? Or are they still denying there is post traumatic stress syndrome or that the drugs given to you may have been dangerous?

Are they still thinking of the financial costs of taking care of you? Or are they buying even more lethal and ever more expensive defense equipment? And training new (disposable) bods to do their dirty work for them?

Why does it matter?

Tarquers - if you read the Nime anthology of posts back thru the ages you will find that he provides quite a few clues as to his nationality

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
The rude bit in me says, why do you want to know?

I'm curious as to Nimes viewpoint, skewed and ill-informed as it is.

I am even more curious as to why he declines to answer.

Well why do you want to know? What nationalities, in your unbiased view, have a right to an opinion, or don't have a right?

You have a thing about nationality - why?

Please feel free not to answer, a courtesy you would seem to want to make an issue of with others.