Falklands War - The Untold Story

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
I would think it’s lack of mobility was the limiting factor here, was the Argentine armour ever sufficient a threat that it was needed?

Like many things, the exact nature of the threat did not materialise.

But the Panard armoured cars were there in numbers* that should have made a difference but they were restricted to the few tracks and roads for fear of bogging down.
Argentinian_Panhard_armored_vehicles_at_Moody_Brook.jpg
panhard-aml-90-armoured-cars-abandoned-by-argentine-forces-in-port-stanley-falkland-islands-1982.jpg



* at least 12.
 
I've just read "Scimitar Into Stanley" by Roger Field RHG/D and he as the senior Cav/Armoured officer on the Falklands was very worried about the Panhards should they have to assault Stanley.
Stanley presented a number of threats, but getting there was the immediate problem.

Wombat would only add to the logistical nightmare.
 

CharleyBourne

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Like many things, the exact nature of the threat did not materialise.

But the Panard armoured cars were there in numbers* that should have made a difference but they were restricted to the few tracks and roads for fear of bogging down.
View attachment 671554View attachment 671555


* at least 12.
The Blues and Royals had 7 CVR(T) Scorpion and Scimitar left for the potential assault into Stanley so were at a numerical at least disadvantage and Field in his book does emphasise the potential of the 90mm gun on the Panard compared to the 76 and 37 mm on the CVR(T)s. Luckily the Panards appeared to be in Sh1te state and of the two the Blues and Royals liberated as war trophies, one had to be towed down to the ship.
 

Dwarf

LE
Book Reviewer
The Blues and Royals had 7 CVR(T) Scorpion and Scimitar left for the potential assault into Stanley so were at a numerical at least disadvantage and Field in his book does emphasise the potential of the 90mm gun on the Panard compared to the 76 and 37 mm on the CVR(T)s. Luckily the Panards appeared to be in Sh1te state and of the two the Blues and Royals liberated as war trophies, one had to be towed down to the ship.
Added to that the (CVRT) had the advantage of better mobility, with the Panhards restricted. I think they would have been successful against them.
Plus given what we know about Argentine morale and skills I reckon that if they had lost a couple then they would have been in retrograde movement quite quickly.

They might have been a problem if used as point defence in and around Stanley.

But as with a lot about the Argentines, their potential was far greater than their actual performance.
It was still correct to worry about their potential though.
 

Londo

LE
Stanley presented a number of threats, but getting there was the immediate problem.

Wombat would only add to the logistical nightmare.
Caused by the shortage of helicopters . The Wombats plus ammo would have had to be moved everywhere by the missing helicopters , that had gone down with the Atlantic Conveyor .
Would have been nice to see them in action against the Panhard armoured cars but they just weren't needed in the end .
 

CharleyBourne

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Added to that the (CVRT) had the advantage of better mobility, with the Panhards restricted. I think they would have been successful against them.
Plus given what we know about Argentine morale and skills I reckon that if they had lost a couple then they would have been in retrograde movement quite quickly.

They might have been a problem if used as point defence in and around Stanley.

But as with a lot about the Argentines, their potential was far greater than their actual performance.
It was still correct to worry about their potential though.
I'm hopefully going to do a review on the book for here and will read it again before doing so. But I think Field says that the CVR(T)s mobility would have been negated in any battle for Stanley as obviously the Panards would have been operating on road.

Field when attached to 2 Para for Wireless Ridge as "Armour Liaison Officer" quickly pointed out to Lt Col Chaundler who wanted to use the troop of CVR(T) as a "blitzkrieg" weapon in close support, that this would make the vehicles vulnerable due to their light armour that could just about keep 7.62 out but would be destroyed by .50cal and above and even sustained bursts of 7.62. He stressed that CVR(T) should be used in a stand off/fire support role, taking advantage as far as the terrain allowed of the main armarment, co-ax and above all the night vision sights. Chaundler to his credit took the advice of the expert on the ground.

This was proved to be correct and it was commented on that had CVR(T) been deployed at Goose Green/Darwin then the casualty rate would have been lower and there would not have been the reliance on 84mm and eventually, MILAN to clear positions with the subsequent problems with ammunition supply. Field offers a caveat in that the terrain at Goose Green was different to that at Wireless Ridge and Tumbledown where the vehicles were also successfully deployed, being much more open with longer fields of fire and that the Argentinians with an abundance of heavy weaponary, not least tank-busting Pucaras, would have probably caused heavy casualties among the RHG/D
 
Added to that the (CVRT) had the advantage of better mobility, with the Panhards restricted. I think they would have been successful against them.
Plus given what we know about Argentine morale and skills I reckon that if they had lost a couple then they would have been in retrograde movement quite quickly.

They might have been a problem if used as point defence in and around Stanley.

But as with a lot about the Argentines, their potential was far greater than their actual performance.
It was still correct to worry about their potential though.
MILAN and Charlie G were on the ground and would’ve tackled the Panhard issue.
 

Dwarf

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm hopefully going to do a review on the book for here and will read it again before doing so. But I think Field says that the CVR(T)s mobility would have been negated in any battle for Stanley as obviously the Panards would have been operating on road.

Field when attached to 2 Para for Wireless Ridge as "Armour Liaison Officer" quickly pointed out to Lt Col Chaundler who wanted to use the troop of CVR(T) as a "blitzkrieg" weapon in close support, that this would make the vehicles vulnerable due to their light armour that could just about keep 7.62 out but would be destroyed by .50cal and above and even sustained bursts of 7.62. He stressed that CVR(T) should be used in a stand off/fire support role, taking advantage as far as the terrain allowed of the main armarment, co-ax and above all the night vision sights. Chaundler to his credit took the advice of the expert on the ground.

This was proved to be correct and it was commented on that had CVR(T) been deployed at Goose Green/Darwin then the casualty rate would have been lower and there would not have been the reliance on 84mm and eventually, MILAN to clear positions with the subsequent problems with ammunition supply. Field offers a caveat in that the terrain at Goose Green was different to that at Wireless Ridge and Tumbledown where the vehicles were also successfully deployed, being much more open with longer fields of fire and that the Argentinians with an abundance of heavy weaponary, not least tank-busting Pucaras, would have probably caused heavy casualties among the RHG/D
Some very good points, but I'm not envisaging them in a panzer vs panzer manouvre situation. But I see them more as being able to find stand off fire positions that the Panhards would find difficult to access and their main weapon would have been sufficient. In combination with Milan then I can see quite an effective defence.
 

Dwarf

LE
Book Reviewer
MILAN and Charlie G were on the ground and would’ve tackled the Panhard issue.
Agreed and I had mentioned Milan as being sufficient.
Even if they had got close I imagine a 66 or two would have caused them problems, or at the very least to engage reverse gear.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
My first CSM was in Aden the year I was born.
My first day in Bn 1982, march into CSM’s office as ordered. Above him was a GOC’s commendation framed from GOC Middle Eastern District for meritorious service as a Corporal in 1st Bn SCLI for six months starting the day I was born!
Apparently he was one of Bob Bogans boys and did undercover work in Aden!
Many years later I meet up with a Yeoman of the Guard who joined Bn when I left and he stated that his replacement on retirement hasn’t even joined the army yet!
I spent the first fortnight of the Falkland war in Aldershot training for the army tug of war competition! No ammo for battle camp as it had been shipped south but plenty of time for sports
 
Last edited:

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
The Blues and Royals had 7 CVR(T) Scorpion and Scimitar left for the potential assault into Stanley so were at a numerical at least disadvantage and Field in his book does emphasise the potential of the 90mm gun on the Panard compared to the 76 and 37 mm on the CVR(T)s. Luckily the Panards appeared to be in Sh1te state and of the two the Blues and Royals liberated as war trophies, one had to be towed down to the ship.

One account I read stated that the Argentinians would keep the engines running on the Panards near constantly.
This was for 2 reasons, to keep the batteries charged but also to run the heaters for warmth.

Thus when captured, though low milage, they had high engine hours.

Also, just prior to surrender, they were ordered to disable them. Some attempts were quite successful.
 
One account I read stated that the Argentinians would keep the engines running on the Panards near constantly.
This was for 2 reasons, to keep the batteries charged but also to run the heaters for warmth.

Thus when captured, though low milage, they had high engine hours.

Also, just prior to surrender, they were ordered to disable them. Some attempts were quite successful.
I recall seeing a group of them parked not far from Moody Brook in 82/83.
 

Yokel

LE
MILAN and Charlie G were on the ground and would’ve tackled the Panhard issue.

Not to mention the SS11 armed Scouts from 3CBAS and 656 Sqn AAC. Presumably the Scouts deployed to Germany would have had an anti tank role, the the SS11 was primarily an anti armour weapon. There was also the Harrier GR3 - with laser guided bombs.

Why did the Argentine forces deploy them? Did they ever take part in any action?
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Not to mention the SS11 armed Scouts from 3CBAS and 656 Sqn AAC. Presumably the Scouts deployed to Germany would have had an anti tank role, the the SS11 was primarily an anti armour weapon. There was also the Harrier GR3 - with laser guided bombs.

Why did the Argentine forces deploy them? Did they ever take part in any action?

They seem to have been concentrated around Stanley and the war was over before the fighting actually got into Stanley.

Though both Sapper Hill and Wireless Ridge are pretty much adjacent to Stanley.


If we had landed at Yorke Bay as they had done and we were expected to, then they could have been quite useful in that region.
 

rmn

LE
They seem to have been concentrated around Stanley and the war was over before the fighting actually got into Stanley.

Though both Sapper Hill and Wireless Ridge are pretty much adjacent to Stanley.


If we had landed at Yorke Bay as they had done and we were expected to, then they could have been quite useful in that region.
Does forget the LVTP-7 Amtracs which the Argentine forces brought over on the initial invasion (20 in total I believe) then returned very quickly as they were found to be unsuitable for use on the Falklands terrain.

I have the impression that the terrain on North Eastern Falklands is pretty much impassable for any vehicle unless the driver knows what they are doing.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Does forget the LVTP-7 Amtracs which the Argentine forces brought over on the initial invasion (20 in total I believe) then returned very quickly as they were found to be unsuitable for use on the Falklands terrain.

I have the impression that the terrain on North Eastern Falklands is pretty much impassable for any vehicle unless the driver knows what they are doing.

Even the tractors pulled sleds rather than wheeled trailers due to the terrain.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Still do on occasion. Check out the sled near the top of Duke of Edinburgh Street at the moment.

Seen them in use at Yorke Bay removing the old fencing
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
FIDF out playing in the snow. :)
FB_IMG_1655682283342.jpg
FB_IMG_1655682297001.jpg
FB_IMG_1655682290908.jpg
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Does forget the LVTP-7 Amtracs which the Argentine forces brought over on the initial invasion (20 in total I believe) then returned very quickly as they were found to be unsuitable for use on the Falklands terrain.

I have the impression that the terrain on North Eastern Falklands is pretty much impassable for any vehicle unless the driver knows what they are doing.
There is an incidence of a CVR(T) commender jumping down off his vehicle and 'bedding in' up to the knees. The vehicle had barely broken the crust.

We had precisely the right vehicle for the terrain, there. Plenty of people have in hindsight said we should've taken more.

That said, a lot of the terrain in the Falklands is so marginal (in terms of vehicles) that one reason so few were taken is that there were worries that even CVR(T) would struggle.
 
Top