30 years ago: the Falkand War

[Kongo Otto]

On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces mounted amphibious landings of the Falkland Island, following the civilian occupation of South Georgia on 19 March, before the Falklands War began.
The invasion met a nominal defence organised by the Governor Rex Hunt, giving command to Major Mike Norman of the Royal Marines.

The British sent a task Force and recaptured the Falklands ending with the Surrender of the Argentinian troops June 14th 1982 after 25 days of fierce fighting.

British losses:
256 KIA
777 WIA
Two posthumous Victoria Crosses were awarded:
Lt. Colonel Herbert Jones OBE, The Parachute Regiment
Sergeant Ian John McKay, The Parachute Regiment

Six RN Ships were sunk in the campaign:
HMS Antelope
HMS Ardent
HMS Coventry
HMS Sheffield
RFA Sir Galahad
RV Atlantic Conveyor

Argentinian losses:
746 KIA
1336 WIA

The Argentinian Navy lost the Cruiser ARA General Belgrano (ex USS Phoenix) sunk by Torpedo from HMS Conqueror.


"Task Force South" a BBC documentary about the Falkland war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsI8CkwU64&feature=BFa&list=UL1XAGzjAMAZ8

[Sailor Steve]

It's hard to believe it's been that long.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Argentine Navy also lost ARA Santa Fe (S-21) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_%28S-21%29) which was captured by Briton and later sank along a pier.

[Catfish]

It indeed feels like it happened two years ago.
Well let's hope Argentina gave up its plans ..


OT
The british fleet was very lucky .. or the argentine dumb.

Regarding this other thread about the conventional submarine types 209, the Dolphin and the latest successor 212:

" ... During the Falklands War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War) the Argentinian Type 209/1200 submarine "San Luis" fired some wire guided torpedos at the British fleet (some sources claim one target was carrier Invincible and its escorts, but this is not confirmed). The inexperienced operators accidentally reversed the polarity in the electric gyroscopes during maintenance so the torpedos could not be steered. ..."

" ... one of the Argentine sailors who was in charge of periodic maintenance of the torpedoes had inadvertently reversed the polarity of power cables between the torpedoes and the submarine. This meant that when the torpedoes' gyros were spun up, they ran "backwards" and thus tumbled on launch, preventing the weapons from taking up their proper heading. ..."

[Kongo Otto]

Here is a documentation about a almost forgotten episode from the Falkland war, the role of the Royal Air Force.

XM607 - Falklands' Most Daring Raid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40knj0qg_Us&feature=related

[Kongo Otto]

It's hard to believe it's been that long.

Yup! I was 17 back then and just started Basic Training in January 1982.
History sounds always so far away, like big old dusty books forgotten in the Library, but History is made around us, everyday.
:salute:

[Skybird]

Regarding this other thread about the conventional submarine types 209, the Dolphin and the latest successor 212:

" ... During the Falklands War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War) the Argentinian Type 209/1200 submarine "San Luis" fired some wire guided torpedos at the British fleet (some sources claim one target was carrier Invincible and its escorts, but this is not confirmed). The inexperienced operators accidentally reversed the polarity in the electric gyroscopes during maintenance so the torpedos could not be steered. ..."

" ... one of the Argentine sailors who was in charge of periodic maintenance of the torpedoes had inadvertently reversed the polarity of power cables between the torpedoes and the submarine. This meant that when the torpedoes' gyros were spun up, they ran "backwards" and thus tumbled on launch, preventing the weapons from taking up their proper heading. ..."

Yes, that story catches me time and again. The British Admiral has admitted some years ago that if the volley would have found its target - he implied that it was the carrier indeed - and put the carrier out of operation, the British force would have needed to accept defeat and withdraw immediately. The Falklands then would have been Argentinian today.

[Oberon]

For the want of a nail, as the saying goes...

[BossMark]

Bloody hell 30 years I was in my second year down the coal mine how time flies.
And do remember it well singing a song in the pub
"What shall we do with the Argentinians"
"What shall we do with the Argentinians"
"Early in the morning"
"Bomb bomb bomb the bastards,"Bomb bomb bomb the bastards early in the morning"

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, that story catches me time and again. The British Admiral has admitted some years ago that if the volley would have found its target - he implied that it was the carrier indeed - and put the carrier out of operation, the British force would have needed to accept defeat and withdraw immediately. The Falklands then would have been Argentinian today.


And: time for a plug here, there is a nice article about the the Argentine subs in the Falkland War in the 08 Submarine Almanac. Do you have a copy? No, well, it's certainly worth $23, you'll enjoy the Subsim book. (http://www.amazon.com/2008-Submarine-Almanac-Editor-Stevens/dp/061518426X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1339251114&sr=8-3&keywords=submarine+almanac) :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Yup! I was 17 back then and just started Basic Training in January 1982.
History sounds always so far away, like big old dusty books forgotten in the Library, but History is made around us, everyday.
:salute:
Oh yeah. I've been writing down my life story for my kids to read someday. My time in Vietnam is still as fresh in my mind as if it were yesterday, yet it was so long ago that today's servicemen and women consider my kids to be old.

[TLAM Strike]

Argentine Navy also lost ARA Santa Fe (S-21) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_%28S-21%29) which was captured by Briton and later sank along a pier.

Argentina also lost the patrol boat Islas Malvinas (Captured), patrol boat Río Iguazú (captured), blockade runner Río Carcarañá (sunk), AGI Narwal (captured/sunk), transport ship Isla de los Estados (sunk), transport Bahía Buen Suceso (captured/sunk), and one more cargo ship whose name I cant find.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Marcantilan will be along shortly to help with the name, hopefully. If anyone here should know it'll be him. :DL

[Jimbuna]

ARA Monsunen - armed coaster: She survived the attack of two British frigates and a helicopter, successfully avoiding them by running aground at Seal Cove. Her supply mission was eventually carried out by ARA Forrest, which towed her to Darwin. Recovered by British forces on 29 may, after the battle of Goose Green.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Monsunen-1976.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Monsunen-1976.jpg)

[Dan D]

That day, when the HMS Sheffield was torpedoed and sunk I was a boyscout on visit to England doing some joint camping with boyscouts from Sheffield which stood for "Sheffield Steel". The whole city was paralyzed. Not good for the morale to name war ships after cities.

[nikimcbee]

Any vets from this conflict here?

[SilentOtto]

Argentine Navy also lost ARA Santa Fe (S-21) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_%28S-21%29) which was captured by Briton and later sank along a pier.

Wow, that was a Balao, the USS Catfish! Thanks for the info! :up:

[mapuc]

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

[Jimbuna]

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

IMHO the Argentinians would have been at risk from the SSNs and possibly have suffered a similar fate as that of the Belgrano.

[Kongo Otto]

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

IMHO the Argentinians would have been at risk from the SSNs and possibly have suffered a similar fate as that of the Belgrano.


Jim most possibly the SSN's would have taken them on before they could reach the RN Task Force with an horrible outcome for the Argentinians.
But i that would happen maybe this conflict would have escalated in to a full scale war.

[mapuc]

I see that you put alot of faith in the SSN.

I don't know if that's a good thing to have!?

Those time I play one of those scenario I mostly kill most of the RN's subs.

But I'm just an average person that doesn't have much knowledge about
naval-warfare- strategy

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Jim most possibly the SSN's would have taken them on before they could reach the RN Task Force with an horrible outcome for the Argentinians.
But i that would happen maybe this conflict would have escalated in to a full scale war.

One sided then IMHO...we had the means and capability to attack their mainland but they have never had the means to reciprocate.

[Marcantilan]

Argentina also lost the patrol boat Islas Malvinas (Captured), patrol boat Río Iguazú (captured), blockade runner Río Carcarañá (sunk), AGI Narwal (captured/sunk), transport ship Isla de los Estados (sunk), transport Bahía Buen Suceso (captured/sunk), and one more cargo ship whose name I cant find.

Here they are:

ARA Santa Fe (sunk, April 25 by air attack)
ARA General Belgrano (sunk, May 2 by HMS Conqueror)
Narwal (sunk, May 9 by air attack)
ARA Isla de los Estados (sunk, May 10 by HMS Alacrity)
GC83 Río Iguazú (sunk, May 22 by air attack)
ELMA Río Carcarañá (sunk, May 24 by air attack)

Yehuín (captured)
Forrest (captured)
Monsunen (captured)
Penélope (captured)
ARA Bahía Buen Suceso (captured)
GC82 Islas Malvinas (captured)

Forrest, Monsunen and Penélope were firstly captured by the Argentine Navy.

Is interesting to note that ARA Bahia Buen Suceso was sunk by HMS Onyx on October 21, 1982. She fired 3 (three) brand new Mk.24 torpedoes, but the first two malfunctioned.

Wire guided torpedoes were imperfect machines in the early `80s, and blaming ARA San Luis crew for the same faults the Royal Navy experienced is, in my very humble opinion, not fair. In any case, the petty officer story and the incorrect wiring is false: see Subsim Almanac 2008 for the proper history...


Regards!

[Marcantilan]

This thread makes me remember some scenarios in Fleet Command

In one of them the maker wrote this

"What would have been if Argentine cruiser General Belgrano had not been sunk by HMS Conqueror on 2nd May 1982 and Argentine Navy had chosen a battle rather then withrawal from the sea ? On 1st May 1982 they had three Task Groups on the sea composed of 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and 1 conventional submarine against Royal Navy's 2 carriers, 4 destroyers 5 frigates and 3 SSN. Argentine Navy had more Exocet missiles on board their ships than the British Task Group at that time.

One thing is to play on of these two scenarios(England or Argentina) an another thing is the real life. But it made me think, what if....

Markus

Well, Argentine Navy did not whitdraw after Belgrano sinking, but the pincer movement on May 1st, 1982 was cancelled due to the inability of the Argentine carrier to launch their Skyhawks AND because a Sea Harrier (801 NAS, Flt Lt Ian Mortimer) from Invincible fixed TG 79.1 position.

In fact, Argentine Navy was retreating to secure waters (less than 120 meters) when Belgrano was hit.

And, in any case, Argentine Navy could not sustain a blue water engagement with a nuclear sub.

Regards!

[Oberon]

Yeah, Marcantilan is right, the Argentinian navy took the correct action in withdrawing to more secure waters. From what I can tell on wiki, and I defer here to those with better knowledge of the make up of Task Force 79, but the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was protected by only two Type 42 destroyers, and the Belgrano by two Sumner destroyers. We had six submarines in the area, five SSNs and the Onyx, which if co-ordinated into a strike force would have, most likely, decimated TF 79 as an organisational force.

The biggest threat from TF 79 would have been the planes from the de Mayo, because as Bomb Alley showed, Argentinian pilots were extremely skilled at low level attack. The threat from the remaining SSK would also have been substantial, and indeed it was enough to keep spooking the RN Task Force for most of the war.

Shows the psychological power of the submarine, both sides were deadly scared of the others submarine arm. :yep:

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for that info Marcantilian, I didn't know that Onyx actually claimed a kill during the war, I thought her primary role was landing SBS, that and breaking her forward tubes on rocks...

[TLAM Strike]

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for that info Marcantilian, I didn't know that Onyx actually claimed a kill during the war, I thought her primary role was landing SBS, that and breaking her forward tubes on rocks...A quick search shows that the 'kill' scored was in October of 82 meaning it was after the war ended.

Apparently the Brits use her for a little SINKEX which included the Onyx.

[Oberon]

A quick search shows that the 'kill' scored was in October of 82 meaning it was after the war ended.

Apparently the Brits use her for a little SINKEX which included the Onyx.

That explains that, ta TLAM :salute:

[Marcantilan]

That explains that, ta TLAM :salute:

Yep, it happened on October 21, 1982. The ARA Bahia Buen Suceso hull was rat infested at the time.

HMS Onyx sunk LSL Sir Galahad too.

(My mistake, the Mk.24 failures happened when torpedoing Sir Galahad...)

Regards!