The Falklands , with the benefit of hindsight

Broadly true although there are accounts from the Battle of the Bulge of sentries from American British Airborne units wearing both greatcoats and sheepskin flying jackers and there still being instances of people freezing to death at post.
It was rater cold and those freezing to death might not have been able to avail themselves of such kit. Or think having a **** might get them warmer
 
Yes, it was the statement that they were shot down by the Argentine's that I thought misleading.

I know that they were still lost but they were all victim to the loss of a ship, not individually shot down which is the way I read their statement.

Personally I thought the concept of the Atlantic Causeway and Atlantic Conveyor's use was quite inspired. A concept only spoiled by the minor inconvenience of the enemy sinking the Atlantic Conveyor
Using a container ships as auxiliary aircraft carriers was genius, before its loss the Atlantic Conveyor had already successfully moved 14 Harriers down there (about a third of the Harriers deployed?) and flown them off to the carriers
Admiral Woodward or who ever was responsible for disposition of ships never thought that a wacking great 15,000ton grt ship with a mostly flat deck would resemble a carrier. Call it bad luck or serendipity what ever your take on events the Exorcet hit her instead of Hermes. Personally I think Hermes could have shrugged off one hit from a French 550kg warhead kinetic stuff or not she was built to take damage but I'm glad that it didn't happen. Unfortunately pongos and bootnecks suffered. No change their then. With hindsight her disposition at that particular time was a bad move that someone should have spotted unless the conspiracy theorists are right and she was a missile shield, which considering her cargo and the state of the aircraft on her decks seems wildly off the mark to me.
 
They were designed to last one urban tour. Remind me, how long were roulement tours.
When we went to Fort George, it was for 4 months but towards the end, it got extended to 6 months.
Didn’t the Regts on Garrison originally do 18 months and around the same time (Nov 77) go up to 2 years.
 

philc

LE
Often overlooked , the socks were as bad as the DMS boots .
Lightweight trousers and coveralls had a high nylon content and matelots' uniforms were made entirely of nylon to save money .
The bean counters didn't give a second thought to the effects of fire on that type of clothing .
After Sheffield on Hermes we were suddenly all supplied with overalls, thick cotton, I think they were something to do with tanks, very long lasting and comfortable I had them for years. No 8s were then replaced.
 
Did any of the alleged economic advantages for owning the FI ever pan out; fishing, oil etc ?
It wasn't about money.
It was about defending Democracy and Freedom.
I can remember my first thought when hearing of the invasion was, 'we either go and get them back or I am leaving'.
 
Unlikely.

Firstly, at that stage the Americans weren’t giving active support as they didn’t want a fight to happen.
Secondly, and more importantly, the task force had to be assembled and despatched in record time in order to get in position until the south Atlantic winter storms made any task force landing impossible.

The Falklands are even taught now by the USMC and USN as even now, they scratch their head about how quickly ships were loaded

Lessons Learned From the Falklands War
They were giving us active support very quickly into it, invasion 2nd april US tilt towards UK 30th. Just not publicly.
 

rifleair

War Hero
Did any of the alleged economic advantages for owning the FI ever pan out; fishing, oil etc ?
It did for the islands, I went there on a cruise in 16, the guide was telling us that just after the war the Islands chancellor had a budget of nearly £50,000 per year, then they introduced licences to fish in the territorial waters and the chancellor's budget the next year was over £500,000!
 
Did any of the alleged economic advantages for owning the FI ever pan out; fishing, oil etc ?
Fishing yes , oil , not yet .
There is also a booming tourist trade, and the population are no longer dependent the Falkland Islands Company
Most importantly they are under the government of THEIR choice
 

JCC

Old-Salt
So the actual benefit for UK Plc in exchange for the men, money and material seems to be fairly nugatory.
 
So the actual benefit for UK Plc in exchange for the men, money and material seems to be fairly nugatory.
If you are going to calculate everything in Pounds, shillings and pence ,or human lives , please tell me which war in the 20th Century showed a profit for UK PLC ?
 

JCC

Old-Salt
If you are going to calculate everything in Pounds, shillings and pence ,or human lives , please tell me which war in the 20th Century showed a profit for UK PLC ?
I suspect you mean 21st Century - the Empire was built with a fairly hard-headed regard for pounds, shillings and pence; we've been living on their legacy ever since.

I can't detract from the courage nor the skill of those who went to the FI I'm merely asking was it a good idea in the first place.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
When we went to Fort George, it was for 4 months but towards the end, it got extended to 6 months.
Didn’t the Regts on Garrison originally do 18 months and around the same time (Nov 77) go up to 2 years.
My first was 4 months in 83 and trashed a newly issued pair of bch and my last was a 28 month residential which I punched out of a little early
 
I suspect you mean 21st Century - the Empire was built with a fairly hard-headed regard for pounds, shillings and pence; we've been living on their legacy ever since.

I can't detract from the courage nor the skill of those who went to the FI I'm merely asking was it a good idea in the first place.
Actually IIRC the historical literature shows that UK as a whole didn’t make money from the Empire: certain nabobs did undoubtedly but they were effectively subsidised by the public purse. One of the reasons for the retreat from empire was that we couldn’t afford it.
 

JCC

Old-Salt
Actually IIRC the historical literature shows that UK as a whole didn’t make money from the Empire: certain nabobs did undoubtedly but they were effectively subsidised by the public purse. One of the reasons for the retreat from empire was that we couldn’t afford it.
But the UK government did benefit hugely from the money that poured back to the homeland - the government did try to restrain expansion as it was very aware of the costs e.g Rajah Brookes.

I think it's fair to say that Empire was almost entirely driven by retaining control of the magic Indian money tree. e.g. the location of coaling station en route.

The Empire fell apart because, in part, of the colossal cost of getting involved in European wars for reasons (allegedly) of principle, and the newfangled idea that Empire subjects had rights that had to be listened to and addressed e.g. hospitals and schools for the locals.
 
But the UK government did benefit hugely from the money that poured back to the homeland - the government did try to restrain expansion as it was very aware of the costs e.g Rajah Brookes.

I think it's fair to say that Empire was almost entirely driven by retaining control of the magic Indian money tree. e.g. the location of coaling station en route.

The Empire fell apart because, in part, of the colossal cost of getting involved in European wars for reasons (allegedly) of principle, and the newfangled idea that Empire subjects had rights that had to be listened to and addressed e.g. hospitals and schools for the locals.
Early days maybe - but even before WW1 they were looking to divest as Empire was bringing in less than it cost to keep the navy to guard it
 

JCC

Old-Salt
Early days maybe - but even before WW1 they were looking to divest as Empire was bringing in less than it cost to keep the navy to guard it
Absolutely. Hard-headed men built and ran the Empire, soft and fluffy lost it.

So that takes us back to my original question.
 
I
We were not giving the Argentinians the wrong idea, they just did not believe we would fight over an ideal.
Is it not fair to say it was more an Argentinian error of judgement (or perhaps a planned agent provocateur to divert the Argy population's anger at their rafts of issues of the day) that the UK would'nt react with force to a blatant invasion of UK "territory"...leaving aside the whatabooteries of whether "we" ought ot have been there then, or should be now? Watching islanders force marched into a church etc at gunpoint by seemingly unpredicable rag-tag press-ganged "soldiers" made for unsettling viewing at the time.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top