near miss at periscope depth

[TLAM Strike]

The masts are so high in the first picture that if there was a sub there they would risk striking the sail on the bottom of that patrol craft.

Now on to the RN Carrier being sunk. The whole thing probaly came from an Argintine attack on the hulk of the Altantic Converyor which was deployed as a decoy for the RN Carrier TFs. The AC was a big ship with a retlivly empty deck with a few discarded aircraft (from the prevous Exocet attack) so its easy to see why a pilot flying a high speeds while being shot at might think it was a carrier.

[Cohaagen]

The Atlantic Conveyor was never used as a decoy. She was hit by two Exocets and the munitions on board began burning. Some time later, after the inferno had died down, it was decided to survey her to see if she could be taken under tow to salvage the critically-needed cargo. When an RN ship, I can't remember which, returned to her they found that the bow had broken off and the ship was completely burned out and a total loss. AC was then scuttled. There were no Harriers on board, just Chinooks.

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

The Atlantic Conveyor was never used as a decoy. She was hit by two Exocets and the munitions on board began burning. Some time later, after the inferno had died down, it was decided to survey her to see if she could be taken under tow to salvage the critically-needed cargo. When an RN ship, I can't remember which, returned to her they found that the bow had broken off and the ship was completely burned out and a total loss. AC was then scuttled. There were no Harriers on board, just Chinooks.

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Initially the warships Alacrity and Brilliant went to her aid, then the tug Irishman.

http://www.naval-history.net/F47opsweek9.htm

[rifleman13]

So what class of submarine was that in the picture again?:hmm:

[Enigma]

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Had the Argentine pilots taken out all those Paras and Marines, I suspect the death toll on their side would have ultimatly been a helluvalot higher...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Had the Argentine pilots taken out all those Paras and Marines, I suspect the death toll on their side would have ultimatly been a helluvalot higher...

Do you mean the death toll of the pilots or the soldiers :hmm:

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by rifleman13

So what class of submarine was that in the picture again?:hmm:

ARA Santa Cruz - TR 1700 Class.

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century

mmm, as far as I know one of top land commanders (Julian Thompson) titled his book about the war "No Picnic"

Considering the british infantry is probably the best in the world, the argentine conscripts did a good fight, specially those in the Marine Infantry.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

mmm, as far as I know one of top land commanders (Julian Thompson) titled his book about the war "No Picnic"

Considering the british infantry is probably the best in the world, the argentine conscripts did a good fight, specially those in the Marine Infantry.

Para's and royal marines were the spear head of the fight they are basically the eliete of the infantry on both sides.

If you ask anyone who wants to join the army what they want to do most say para you do get the odd sod say things like bomb disposal logistics ect.

[Cohaagen]

I believe in titling his book "No Picnic" Thompson was referring to the multitude of mainly logistical factors weighing in against the task force - operating 8000 miles from home in Antarctic conditions with an enormously stretched supply train against an enemy who was fighting just 300 miles from his (more or less in his back yard), coping with the loss of nearly all their troop-carrying helicopters, much cold-weather clothing, arctic rations and other vital equipment on the Atlantic Conveyor, never being able to establish adequate air superiority, etc etc.

As far as the actual fighting went, after Mt Harriet General Thompson said something to the effect of "with a platoon of Royals I could have held that hill for a hundred years". Considering that the Argentines outnumbered the Task Force troops more than 2:1 in total numbers and even up to 5:1 in individual battles, that in every battle the British were attacking well dug-in troops on mountaintops who had the benefit of heavy machineguns, supporting artillery, snipers, and the traditional tactical advantage that defending troops always have, it was - all things considered - a remarkably bloodless campaign for the UK as far as the ground war went. When you look at what the Germans did defending Monte Cassino even though vastly outnumbered it puts things into perspective. In the South Atlantic it was the British who were the far smaller number, yet each hill folded one after another. That's not to say the fighting wasn't fierce - it was in places, but expected British casualty figures calculated prior to each battle were ten times the number they actually were. By the time the Ghurkas were about to attack Mount William the Argentine troops were abandoning their positions and in general flight.

The Argentine conscripts got a rotten deal, being duped into an invasion that was bound to end in disaster, and were apparently seriously mistreated and abused by their officers. When the Paras entered Stanley, the found most of them had dysentry - they didn't even know how to prepare proper field latrines. Ken Lukowiak wrote in A Soldier's Song of how he found the body of a young conscript who had been shot by one of his own officers.

[Jimbuna]

Gota agree wholeheartedly....the Argentine conscripts were betrayed by their superiors.

pity about the sniper/mercenaries that were taken to Tumbledown.

[FIREWALL]

Haven't all you nerds about wrung all the " yuk yuks " out of this yet ?

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Gota agree wholeheartedly....the Argentine conscripts were betrayed by their superiors.

pity about the sniper/mercenaries that were taken to Tumbledown.

I don´t think they were betrayed. Just some officers and NCOs were better than others.

About the mercenaries, on Tumbledown were only elements from the BIM5 (Marine Infantry Battallion 5). The mercenary issue is just a myth: a man was killed because he was speaking american english. So what?

Regarding troop strenght, it´s true the english troops were outnumbered all along the islands. But in every attack they had numerical superiority: concentration principle against fixed positions.

My point is the average argentine infantrymen fought well, according the circumstances. Of course, the Paras and Royal Marines were far better trained and motivated troops (as I told before, IMHO the best infanrty in the world). But the fought wasn´t one sided.

A recent example about a one sided battle, I think is the 1991 Gulf War.

[Marcantilan]

Well, I spoke with some submariners.

The ship in the foreground is the ARA Punta Mogotes, an ex-USCG Point class boat.

No one heard about the manouvers of the ARA Santa Cruz. All of them called it very dangerous, but no one claimed the pics as fake.

I will keep investigating...

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

Well, I spoke with some submariners.

The ship in the foreground is the ARA Punta Mogotes, an ex-USCG Point class boat.

No one heard about the manouvers of the ARA Santa Cruz. All of them called it very dangerous, but no one claimed the pics as fake.

I will keep investigating...

Hey thanks for the info, that's really interesting. I suppose the rules in the navies of the world haven't always been so strict, or strictly obeyed. I've been trained to be in the army but even we have had close call - situations. Last time in a field exercise we had a truck back over a crate full of explosives, lucky really that nothing blew up. I was standing just a few meters away.