Did Argentina drop napalm on there own dead??

ALavery

Swinger
Which is basically my point. It may have been hit but cause very little damage which with a bit of paint and some Quilmes it would be back on the road again.

We must also consider that on both sides this would have been the first real tank action any had encountered. I feel it is not inconsistent that one one side seeing a vehicle hit, big bang, smoke and crew doing a runner it would seem to have been knocked out. On the other side you are driving along, very big bang, vehicle moves to the side, lots of smoke, screaming, debus/run for it.

When all settles down the damage is only slight and not a burning wreck.
I just don't think any rockets fired impacted on vehicles. I could understand those firing them having that impression, but it doesn't match Argentine accounts. They said rockets were fired at them, but all missed, while there are plenty of photos of an Amtrack that had been peppered with GPMG rounds. I don't know if any of the RMs had ever fired a live round rather than an inert training round before, so I guess that could add to the confusion in the darkness and conditions and adrenaline of the moment - but wouldn't be the first time combatants have had a different impression of an action.

So either the many Argentine accounts are false, the Governor just happened to be looking in the wrong direction, as did the many journalists on the island at the time of the landings (including Simon Winchester of the Times who put his experience in a book published in 83). Winchester, post invasion, stayed on the islands for one more day, visited Moody Brook and described the mess made of it by the Argentines (drove down there seemingly unaccompanied) and left via the airport. No mention of knocked out Amtrack as described by RDP's key witness, which is again strange given a journalist's inquisitive eyes, don't you think. There were four non-Argentine journos on the Island, none of them mentioned seeing the Amtrack (Simon from the times, Ken Clarke from the Telegraph, Bill Langley from the Mail and Simon Greaves from the Sun).

So, it's like Invincible, a very small number of eye witnesses saying one thing against many other voices describing something different, including several neutral witnesses who didn't see a knocked out Amtrack.
 
Last edited:
I would agree with the above. The first part of Ricky's book is a good read and I have no issues with it. However, the second part is mostly fantasy.

There are some eye-witness accounts to the days following the 2nd April which I find troubling. They all revolve around a former marine who rejoined for the defence of Stanley, and then subsequently remained on the islands rather than be repatriated. I simply do not believe he saw a knocked out Amtrack or looked in the back of it. All of these accounts are questionable to say the least, especially as the main eye-witness, RH, who went past the scene of the engagement on his way to the airport in his own red Taxi, no doubt on the look out for traces of the fire-fight, didn't ever mention seeing the "knock-out" Amtrack with his own eyes - which I am sure he would have been the first to do so. So, what can you make of the later appearance of the Amtrack on the side of the road in White City that the aforementioned witness looked inside several times over several days. Who should I believe - RH or the other eye-witness?

Last year there was an article by RDP in Britain at War. It was the usual stuff and tone. The next month the following letter was in published in the magazine as a response to the article. Make of it what you will.

I met the author of the letter during Op Corporate and he used some of my personal photos in his books on the campaign. IMHO Nick van der Bijl has a written several very well researched, balanced and accurate books on the Falklands and his background credentials are impeccable. He was much respected in the Int Corps at the time and was widely regarded as an outstanding Int Operator (although some thought he'd gone a bit native with the Marines ;-) ). He could talk the talk AND walk the walk..

I personally would value his opinion over many others when it comes to establishing the facts.
 
I met the author of the letter during Op Corporate and he used some of my personal photos in his books on the campaign. IMHO Nick van der Bijl has a written several very well researched, balanced and accurate books on the Falklands and his background credentials are impeccable. He was much respected in the Int Corps at the time and was widely regarded as an outstanding Int Operator (although some thought he'd gone a bit native with the Marines ;-) ). He could talk the talk AND walk the walk..

I personally would value his opinion over many others when it comes to establishing the facts.
+1 for your comments ref van der Bijl: I had occasion to work with him in Cyprus some years later.
 
I met the author of the letter during Op Corporate and he used some of my personal photos in his books on the campaign. IMHO Nick van der Bijl has a written several very well researched, balanced and accurate books on the Falklands and his background credentials are impeccable. He was much respected in the Int Corps at the time and was widely regarded as an outstanding Int Operator (although some thought he'd gone a bit native with the Marines ;-) ). He could talk the talk AND walk the walk..

I personally would value his opinion over many others when it comes to establishing the facts.
And another +1 from me, he was on CFA’s staff ride to FI that I was on last year and he was very impressive.
 

Dave-the-rave

War Hero
It's should be pretty obvious by now to anyone thinking clearly that RM did engage an Amtrack with 66's and an 84, and they did hit it at least once. The only thing unclear is the extent of the damage and any casualties. We don't even know how many were in the damn vehicle at the time.
 

Bluenose2

Old-Salt
Nah, there's still a lot of doubt over it. There is a very, very lucid account of the events in RDP's book from the Argentine perspective (and by that, I mean from an officer in that very convoy of Amtracks) which claim it didn't happen. Assuming it was accurately transcribed by RDP, it is one of the more convincing elements of the book.

In the interests of balance, if see I can find what i've done with the book so I can scan and post the relevant pages on here.
 

offog

LE
Nah, there's still a lot of doubt over it. There is a very, very lucid account of the events in RDP's book from the Argentine perspective (and by that, I mean from an officer in that very convoy of Amtracks) which claim it didn't happen. Assuming it was accurately transcribed by RDP, it is one of the more convincing elements of the book.

In the interests of balance, if see I can find what i've done with the book so I can scan and post the relevant pages on here.
have a look in the log pile for the fire that would seem the most useful place to have put it.
 
Nah, there's still a lot of doubt over it. There is a very, very lucid account of the events in RDP's book from the Argentine perspective (and by that, I mean from an officer in that very convoy of Amtracks) which claim it didn't happen. Assuming it was accurately transcribed by RDP, it is one of the more convincing elements of the book.

In the interests of balance, if see I can find what i've done with the book so I can scan and post the relevant pages on here.
Very soon after the action, it was reported in pretty much every paper that “they hit an Amtrak...nobody was seen to get out”.
Now troops may have debussed but were obscured from view, or perhaps sight of the vehicle was not kept long enough to see them debuss, but it was certainly reported that it had been hit and stopped.
 

Bluenose2

Old-Salt
Very soon after the action, it was reported in pretty much every paper that “they hit an Amtrak...nobody was seen to get out”.
Now troops may have debussed but were obscured from view, or perhaps sight of the vehicle was not kept long enough to see them debuss, but it was certainly reported that it had been hit and stopped.
Yep, no argument from me with any of that. I certainly believe they thought they'd hit one, at the very least.

I'm just making the point that there are other versions of events worth reading.

I'll post both versions of events from my kindle edition of the book when I have a few mins.
 
Last edited:
Very soon after the action, it was reported in pretty much every paper that “they hit an Amtrak...nobody was seen to get out”.
Now troops may have debussed but were obscured from view, or perhaps sight of the vehicle was not kept long enough to see them debuss, but it was certainly reported that it had been hit and stopped.
Hadn't it been disabled by being driven into a ditch? I seem to remember somebody saying an Amtrack in Argentina has a 'suspicious' looking repair patch on the bow?

Probably RDP bollocks. And someone was comparing this issue with the Argies saying they sank HMS Invincible. Really? I mean really?
 

Dave-the-rave

War Hero
Yep, no argument from me with any of that. I certainly believe they thought they'd hit one, at the very least.

I'm just making the point that there are other versions of events worth reading.

I'll post both versions of events from my kindle edition of the book when I have a few mins.
You say ''no argument from me with any of that'' yet you say there's still a lot of doubt. The only doubt is the extent of the damage to the vehicle and number of casualties if any.
 

Dave-the-rave

War Hero
In the interest of balance it should be remembered the Enemy claimed they had no intention of harming anyone when they invaded. Just for balance mind. For anyone who doubts the RM after action report. Or testimonies from RM who were there. Or posting on here.
 

Tramin

Clanker
British Commission for Military History » REPORT Falklands / Malvinas Conference, Manchester 25 / 26 April 2019

The Conference Report was updated by Alex Clarke and Louise Clare, this is what they said about Ricky:

"The next day began early again, the first panel was kindly chaired by Professor Freedman, but due to transport issues was comprised only of a PhD student, Jade White and the author of a book about the Falklands War, Ricky Phillips – this was different as most panels had had four members, so it enabled the chair to allow for a more free flowing question and answer session after each of the papers rather than them being handled as a group as every other panel received. Both papers were well prepared and provided interesting perspective, although the other conference organizer, Dr Alexander Clarke, was very happy he was in the next panel and back to standard group question taking as it meant he could dive off at points and help with conference stuff."

Archimedes told us that it was going to be disappointing, but this is almost like endorsing him, I can't believe it.
 
Last edited:

Bluenose2

Old-Salt
In the interest of balance it should be remembered the Enemy claimed they had no intention of harming anyone when they invaded. Just for balance mind. For anyone who doubts the RM after action report. Or testimonies from RM who were there. Or posting on here.
It doesn't it besmirch anyone's reputation to read the other sides account.

The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
 
British Commission for Military History » REPORT Falklands / Malvinas Conference, Manchester 25 / 26 April 2019

The Conference Report was updated by Alex Clarke and Louise Clare, this is what they said about Ricky:

"The next day began early again, the first panel was kindly chaired by Professor Freedman, but due to transport issues was comprised only of a PhD student, Jade White and the author of a book about the Falklands War, Ricky Phillips – this was different as most panels had had four members, so it enabled the chair to allow for a more free flowing question and answer session after each of the papers rather than them being handled as a group as every other panel received. Both papers were well prepared and provided interesting perspective, although the other conference organizer, Dr Alexander Clarke, was very happy he was in the next panel and back to standard group question taking as it meant he could dive off at points and help with conference stuff."

Archimedes told us that it was going to be disappointing, but this is almost like endorsing him, I can't believe it.
Have you never heard the saying "damning with feint praise?".

That isn't an endorsement.
 

Tramin

Clanker
Have you never heard the saying "damning with feint praise?".

That isn't an endorsement.
Maybe, but it's vague enough to make RDP feel like he's been "vindicated" from BH's accusations; and what can you interpret from that paragraph, that Jade White's piece about Col. Jones was also terrible? I don't know what that comment about Dr. Clarke means, either.
 
I have just read the conference report, having been there, My thoughts on what is written are thus...
1) JW and RDP’s papers were included because the chair was the star of the event, nothing more.
2) Read between the lines, it was a panel of 2 and yet by lunch the whole thing was overrunning, due to the lengthy interrogation of RDP.
3) AC was relieved to get ‘back to standard group questioning’, again read between the lines. The q and a was anything but standard.
4) RDP’s paper was well prepared, well obviously because he’s been peddling his rubbish for a few years now.
5) Interesting perspective? That could be interpreted in many ways.
6) I too am disappointed that they were not more honest, having bore witness to it, but it was their event and tarnishing it - understandably - is not conducive to their aim.
7) RDP claims to have blown the audience away, that is not evident in these notes - they refer to other speakers as excellent, etc., him rather blandly. An official BCMH wrap-up from months ago, does not mention him. Jimmy Burns - although not naming him - disparages him beyond reproach. I have stated what I witnessed, and another member on here (Psychobabble I believe, but if I have remembered that wrong, please correct me) asserts that they know people present, and they report much of the same.

I would rather have read a truthful account, but alas, a veiled one is the result.
 
Last edited:
British Commission for Military History » REPORT Falklands / Malvinas Conference, Manchester 25 / 26 April 2019

The Conference Report was updated by Alex Clarke and Louise Clare, this is what they said about Ricky:

"The next day began early again, the first panel was kindly chaired by Professor Freedman, but due to transport issues was comprised only of a PhD student, Jade White and the author of a book about the Falklands War, Ricky Phillips – this was different as most panels had had four members, so it enabled the chair to allow for a more free flowing question and answer session after each of the papers rather than them being handled as a group as every other panel received. Both papers were well prepared and provided interesting perspective, although the other conference organizer, Dr Alexander Clarke, was very happy he was in the next panel and back to standard group question taking as it meant he could dive off at points and help with conference stuff."

Archimedes told us that it was going to be disappointing, but this is almost like endorsing him, I can't believe it.
It doesn't read like an endorsement really. 'The author of a book', 'interesting perspective', 'well prepared'. These are all very meaningless courtesies. Ricky isn't called a historian, his book is not named, and any specifics about him are unmentioned - he's even grouped in with another speaker, rather than considered on his own merits. Those are the kind of remarks a student would receive on an assignment, not a review of an academic work.
I didn't expect him to be disparaged at all in the report, it would be quite weird to do so. It would cause the organisers a lot of trouble in the future, as they'd need to explain to every tom dick and harry who asks the story that resulted in them denouncing someone who was invited to speak at their conference, something that doesn't happen very often at all.

Much better for them to just treat Ricky courteously and not deal with what is, at its core, just a social media shitfest that they have no stake in.
 
I would rather have read a truthful account
Could I suggest changing that to 'warts and all account', lest it be assumed by some readers of this thread that the authors of the report have behaved dishonestly, which I don't think is what you're trying to suggest?

I suspect the reference to Alex Clarke means that he was glad that Lawry Freedman was chairing the thing because it all got a bit feisty. Saying that someone was 'glad' not to be involved in something suggests that something out of the ordinary occurred; the problem is that the way it's written might lead to the sense that Jade White's paper was in some way of a similar nature to RDP's - which, if the whole of the page linked to is read, is recorded as a 'highlight'. Personally, if getting all 'Sir Humphrey' about it, I'd have said 'Both papers were well prepared and provided interesting perspectives, with Jade White's account of H Jones's actions at Goose Green being particularly well received by a number of the veterans who had served with him' [I infer this from Andy Grainger's original report].

That would've said nothing rude about RDP, been accurate about his level of preparation and as for 'interesting', again, there are different ways of reading that...
 
Could I suggest changing that to 'warts and all account', lest it be assumed by some readers of this thread that the authors of the report have behaved dishonestly, which I don't think is what you're trying to suggest?

I suspect the reference to Alex Clarke means that he was glad that Lawry Freedman was chairing the thing because it all got a bit feisty. Saying that someone was 'glad' not to be involved in something suggests that something out of the ordinary occurred; the problem is that the way it's written might lead to the sense that Jade White's paper was in some way of a similar nature to RDP's - which, if the whole of the page linked to is read, is recorded as a 'highlight'. Personally, if getting all 'Sir Humphrey' about it, I'd have said 'Both papers were well prepared and provided interesting perspectives, with Jade White's account of H Jones's actions at Goose Green being particularly well received by a number of the veterans who had served with him' [I infer this from Andy Grainger's original report].

That would've said nothing rude about RDP, been accurate about his level of preparation and as for 'interesting', again, there are different ways of reading that...
Agreed, I did not mean to infer dishonesty, ‘warts and all’ would have been preferable. I concede.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top