Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The battle for Goose Green

@wafubustard It might be an idea for your son to understand some of the reasons why the Argentine military junta invaded the Falklands war. They had taken power in 1976 in a coup and launched a war against left wing elements in the country known as the 'Dirty war' in which over 30.000 people disappeared after being tortured. By 1982 the Argentine economy was going down the pan and in true dictators style decided to launch a popular war to distract the public who were protesting against the government.

As the British Government were giving signs that they were losing interest in the Falklands with big cuts in the Navy - HMS Invincible due to be sold to Australia and HMS Endurance the FI guard ship due to be scrapped. The thought the British Lion had become a mangy old moggy and being tough macho South American men they weren't impressed that the UK was being run by a women - the sainted Margaret.

At first the invasion was hugely popular with the pubic as the Argies are taught with their mothers milk that the 'Malvinas are Argentinian'. However as that mangy moggy, led by a women turned into a snarling spitting wildcat and kicked their arrse. The humiliation was too much for the Argentine public and the military government was forced from power in 1983.

In the first week after the British landings at San Carlos they were under a lot of pressure due to Argentine air attacks with the sinkings of HMS Ardent, Antelope and Cardiff and the Atlantic Conveyer together with all the stores and helicopters.

The action by 2 Para at Goose Green was the first land victory in the war and except for the set back at Bluff Cove with RFA's Sir Gallahad and Sir Tristram led to the following victories in the hills outide Port Stanley and the final Argentine surrender. Not only was the end result that 2,000 British citizens of the FI were freed from the rule of an oppressive military dictatorrship, but so were the people of Argentina as a result of British military action and they have remained democracy since. Not that they will ever be grateful, the barstewards.

Therefore your son might get extra points for mentioning this in todays woke world, rather concentrating solely on an action by 600 white Anglo Saxon males (with only the token few BAME) who to this day are probably still not that into diversity.

From about 41.00 in the video it mentions the affect the loss of war had in bringing down the junta.

Dirty War

30,000 people were 'Disappeared' in Argentina's Dirty War.


 

merchantman

War Hero
Wasn't the Captain of the Atlantic Conveyer who was lost with the ship, a MN veteran of the Atlantic and Arctic convoys?

In the photo below he appears to be wearing medal ribbons, probably from WW2

atlantic_conveyor.JPG
 
The irony is that Malvinas is not even an Argentinian word - it comes from Malouines, the French fishermen who first occupied the islands came from St Malo. From what I read, I don't think the Argentinians EVER colonised the islands, they just saw them as theirs by geographical location.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
@Roadster280

I hadn't thought of that. It certainly makes me stop and think.
Very hard to imagine him in a situation like that in 4years time as he is still so tiny. I dont think he even makes 5ft yet and I have carried a heavier bergan through Norway than he weighs.
One thing that I can guarantee, that change will happen... My son was 14 four years ago, and was a tiny streak of widdle dwarfed by his uniform in the CCF, fast forward four years and he's 6'2", blond, blue eyed and broad shouldered with it, beating the girls back with a sh1tty stick, and desperately willing Covid restrictions to allow UOTC to start up!

Edit: if his A level results had been rubbish, plan B was to join PWRR as a grunt. Sobering for me.
 
Last edited:
The irony is that Malvinas is not even an Argentinian word - it comes from Malouines, the French fishermen who first occupied the islands came from St Malo. From what I read, I don't think the Argentinians EVER colonised the islands, they just saw them as theirs by geographical location.

One of the best books I've read concerning Britain in The South Atlantic is 'Operation Paraquat: The Battle for South Georgia' by Roger Perkins - a bit misleadingly titled as I recall it having all the pertinent history of the region from les Malouines recording sightings of the islands to British charting them, various passing mariners using them, the British administering them and Argentinian attempts to claim all of the territory including attempts at Antarctica.
Those who like to point out the proximity of the FI to continental S. America forget about S. Georgia, Southern Thule et al.
 
@wafubustard It might be an idea for your son to understand some of the reasons why the Argentine military junta invaded the Falklands war. They had taken power in 1976 in a coup and launched a war against left wing elements in the country known as the 'Dirty war' in which over 30.000 people disappeared after being tortured. By 1982 the Argentine economy was going down the pan and in true dictators style decided to launch a popular war to distract the public who were protesting against the government.

As the British Government were giving signs that they were losing interest in the Falklands with big cuts in the Navy - HMS Invincible due to be sold to Australia and HMS Endurance the FI guard ship due to be scrapped. The thought the British Lion had become a mangy old moggy and being tough macho South American men they weren't impressed that the UK was being run by a women - the sainted Margaret.

At first the invasion was hugely popular with the pubic as the Argies are taught with their mothers milk that the 'Malvinas are Argentinian'. However as that mangy moggy, led by a women turned into a snarling spitting wildcat and kicked their arrse. The humiliation was too much for the Argentine public and the military government was forced from power in 1983.

In the first week after the British landings at San Carlos they were under a lot of pressure due to Argentine air attacks with the sinkings of HMS Ardent, Antelope and Cardiff and the Atlantic Conveyer together with all the stores and helicopters.

The action by 2 Para at Goose Green was the first land victory in the war and except for the set back at Bluff Cove with RFA's Sir Gallahad and Sir Tristram led to the following victories in the hills outide Port Stanley and the final Argentine surrender. Not only was the end result that 2,000 British citizens of the FI were freed from the rule of an oppressive military dictatorrship, but so were the people of Argentina as a result of British military action and they have remained democracy since. Not that they will ever be grateful, the barstewards.

Therefore your son might get extra points for mentioning this in todays woke world, rather concentrating solely on an action by 600 white Anglo Saxon males (with only the token few BAME) who to this day are probably still not that into diversity.

From about 41.00 in the video it mentions the affect the loss of war had in bringing down the junta.

Dirty War

30,000 people were 'Disappeared' in Argentina's Dirty War.


Apart from pointing Argentina onto the democratic path, saving the lives of untold future victims of the junta, I wonder what the impact of the war was on other South American countries that were also military dictatorships? I see that both Uruguay and Brazil ditched their military dictatorships within a couple of years of Argentina doing so. Could the British winning in the Falklands have been a direct or indirect cause of bringing democracy to South America?
 
Has anyone suggested Mates and Muchachos yet?

A great book which really lays down the different mentalities at play during the conflict.
Also, someone mentioned about berets being worn during battles. I know the paras used ther lids during attacks etc. and given their good fit, light weight and stability it makes sense, but did any battles take place with troops wearing the standard wobbly, painful and awkward steel helmet and how did troops get on with them?
 

Dwarf

LE
The Argies may have fought differently if they were protecting Spanish speaking natives who had welcomed them as liberators from British oppression.

But they weren't.

They knew they were the bad guys of the piece.
Actually they didn't see themselves as the villains, we were, the horrible pirates who had occupied the islands that were rightfully Argentine for far too long.
Argentine children are taught in schools that the Malvinas are Argentine and those young men saw themselves not as an occupying force but as defending their territory. I went on the Argie Zona Militar a few years back and one lad took umbrage at my use of the word 'invasion' as he said that you cannot invade your own territory. That was the midset.

Having said that the quality of units was mixed but far too many units had conscripts with very sketchy training, who were bewildered at the situation theyfound themselves in. Some officers could be brutal and disdainful with punishments that we would consider barbaric. Pegged out overnight in freezing conditions springs to mind.
Also their logistics was not up to getting supplies out to units outside Puerto Argentina Stanley and with little hot food or maté (drink) then their morale wasn't the highest in more than one unit.
The irony is that Malvinas is not even an Argentinian word - it comes from Malouines, the French fishermen who first occupied the islands came from St Malo. From what I read, I don't think the Argentinians EVER colonised the islands, they just saw them as theirs by geographical location.
Actually the Argentines did have presence on the Islands on a couple of occasions. They also claim that they are inheiritors of the Spanish who did have a settlement.
It's complex but Britain has only had a continuous presence since 1833, before that there were no sucessfully permanent colonies.

 
Actually they didn't see themselves as the villains, we were, the horrible pirates who had occupied the islands that were rightfully Argentine for far too long.
Argentine children are taught in schools that the Malvinas are Argentine and those young men saw themselves not as an occupying force but as defending their territory. I went on the Argie Zona Militar a few years back and one lad took umbrage at my use of the word 'invasion' as he said that you cannot invade your own territory. That was the midset.

Having said that the quality of units was mixed but far too many units had conscripts with very sketchy training, who were bewildered at the situation theyfound themselves in. Some officers could be brutal and disdainful with punishments that we would consider barbaric. Pegged out overnight in freezing conditions springs to mind.
Also their logistics was not up to getting supplies out to units outside Puerto Argentina Stanley and with little hot food or maté (drink) then their morale wasn't the highest in more than one unit.

Actually the Argentines did have presence on the Islands on a couple of occasions. They also claim that they are inheiritors of the Spanish who did have a settlement.
It's complex but Britain has only had a continuous presence since 1833, before that there were no sucessfully permanent colonies.

Saying that though, I have read reports from Argentine troops who arrived only to be shocked to find they were not being seen as liberators and equally shocked to find everything in English. Some really were under the impression that they were there to liberate the islanders from the British yoke.
 
Actually they didn't see themselves as the villains, we were, the horrible pirates who had occupied the islands that were rightfully Argentine for far too long.
Argentine children are taught in schools that the Malvinas are Argentine and those young men saw themselves not as an occupying force but as defending their territory. I went on the Argie Zona Militar a few years back and one lad took umbrage at my use of the word 'invasion' as he said that you cannot invade your own territory. That was the midset.

Having said that the quality of units was mixed but far too many units had conscripts with very sketchy training, who were bewildered at the situation theyfound themselves in. Some officers could be brutal and disdainful with punishments that we would consider barbaric. Pegged out overnight in freezing conditions springs to mind.
Also their logistics was not up to getting supplies out to units outside Puerto Argentina Stanley and with little hot food or maté (drink) then their morale wasn't the highest in more than one unit.

Actually the Argentines did have presence on the Islands on a couple of occasions. They also claim that they are inheiritors of the Spanish who did have a settlement.
It's complex but Britain has only had a continuous presence since 1833, before that there were no sucessfully permanent colonies.


Were the Argies greeted as liberators by a grateful populace?

How many smiling faces were they met with on encountering the Bennies?

Were they offered help and encouragement to repel the British pirates?

I think the reality of the situation soon knocked on the head all the propaganda they'd been fed in Argentina.

Much is made of their conscript army being less effective than a professional one, but Britain has deployed conscripts on many occasions to good effect.

If they really believed they were fighting to defend their Kith and kin (which is what the propaganda told them) we'd still be trying to winkle them out of a superb defensive position now.
 
It may have been mentioned before, but should your son's project include reference to the Argentine air attack on RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram, it would be worth him getting the location right. Although it is still referred to as being "The Bluff Cove Disaster", it actually happened off Fitzroy. The reasons are somewhat complex - and have been written about widely - but in very simple summary the intention was to get the troops to Bluff Cove and the delay in landing them at Fitzroy led to the ships being observed and the air attacks launched.
 

Dwarf

LE
Saying that though, I have read reports from Argentine troops who arrived only to be shocked to find they were not being seen as liberators and equally shocked to find everything in English. Some really were under the impression that they were there to liberate the islanders from the British yoke.
That's also true, it's what they were fed back home and by their commanders.

Were the Argies greeted as liberators by a grateful populace?

How many smiling faces were they met with on encountering the Bennies?

Were they offered help and encouragement to repel the British pirates?

I think the reality of the situation soon knocked on the head all the propaganda they'd been fed in Argentina.

Much is made of their conscript army being less effective than a professional one, but Britain has deployed conscripts on many occasions to good effect.

If they really believed they were fighting to defend their Kith and kin (which is what the propaganda told them) we'd still be trying to winkle them out of a superb defensive position now.
When they hit the Islands they didn't see themselves as the villains, their reception came as a surprise to many and began to change their perceptions. I know a lad in my town, (N.Catalonia) who was actually on the Islands as a conscript, and for him it was the experience of being under fire that changed his ideas. Don't forget they never thought we would actually fight for the Islands and that combat came as a severe shock all up and down the system.

That Britain has deployed effective conscript armies is true, but doesn't take into account that they had better quality and length of training than the Argentine conscripts, some had only been in the military two months. Also that their training was laid on the basis of a professional army whose ethos was defence of the realm and Empire. The Argentine Army was in part designed for action against Chile, in part against native indian unrest, and in part as a force to maintain rule against a civil population. A very different kettle of fish when that relates to quality of soldier produced.

Once they saw that the Islanders were not really kith and kin it certainly didn't help their morale but an army can lose its will to fight effectively given various factors, look at the collapse at Singapore when under-trained and badly led largely conscript troops with inadequate tactics lost to a Japanese Army that should never have won that easily.
The Argentines were badly led, their soldiers were placed in conditions they didn't expect and were lied to by their leaders from the very beginning, factors that were not conducive to effective resistence.
Also bear in mind that once our lads got to know the Bennies they also began to question why they had fought. "The Islands were worth it, the Islanders not" is one quote I heard. I have an ex-RE mate living down there, he loves the Islands but his opinion of the Island-born is not high.


Ed for spelling.
 
Last edited:

Sexton Blake

War Hero
Has anyone suggested Mates and Muchachos yet?

A great book which really lays down the different mentalities at play during the conflict.
Also, someone mentioned about berets being worn during battles. I know the paras used ther lids during attacks etc. and given their good fit, light weight and stability it makes sense, but did any battles take place with troops wearing the standard wobbly, painful and awkward steel helmet and how did troops get on with them?
Mentioned at post No 3 good buddy.

But a brilliant book no less and glad to see more awareness of this relatively rare tome being highlighted on arrse.

Difficult to get now but is a comparison on morale, trg and unit cohesion between the Argentinian Army and the Brits (mainly PARA Regt). Written by an American and some stuff made up I think (One paratrooper interviewed mentions his 'cherry beret', really?) -ISBN 0-08-037439-5
 

Sexton Blake

War Hero
Apart from pointing Argentina onto the democratic path, saving the lives of untold future victims of the junta, I wonder what the impact of the war was on other South American countries that were also military dictatorships? I see that both Uruguay and Brazil ditched their military dictatorships within a couple of years of Argentina doing so. Could the British winning in the Falklands have been a direct or indirect cause of bringing democracy to South America?
To assist in answering your question try the book I depict below. Absolutely brilliantly written and covers the 'mood' at the time from almost every South American country.

I will have to re-read it now!

HcSbhCq8RwSE6b49LMKwjA.jpg
 

Bluenose2

Old-Salt
If he gets tired of reading stuff, and you have Amazon Prime, then this is a good documentary from the other side of the fence.


It was free-to-watch when I spotted it, not sure now.
 
Chip Chapmans series of tweets on this year’s anniversary had a lot of first hand info and some interesting documents, such as extracts from his notebooks of the campaign
 
'That Britain has deployed effective conscript armies is true, but doesn't take into account that they had better quality and length of training than the Argentine conscripts, some had only been in the military two months. Also that their training was laid on the basis of a professional army whose ethos was defence of the realm and Empire. The Argentine Army was in part designed for action against Chile, in part against native indian unrest, and in part as a force to maintain rule against a civil population. A very different kettle of fish when that relates to quality of soldier produced.'

The best quote that I heard regarding the Falklands War was, surprisingly, by a journo;
'The Falklands War was when a South American Army found that murdering nuns and students was no preparation for picking a fight with the British Army'.
 
WARNING - Potential Thread Drift
I'm not sure of the accuracy of every bit of this story but the guy's style is compelling...
 
Top