{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Military history Start‑class ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Argentina A‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
On Template:March 19 selected anniversaries
Archive of previous talk.
'Cultural impacts' and 'artistic treatments' sections
These two sections seem to largely cover the same ground and repeat each other - maybe they should be merged? quercus robur 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
swapped articles
Have swapped over the content of the passage on 'cultural impacts' from the main Falklands War article with the main article on Cultural impact of the Falklands War, as the former seemed to be far more extensive and thorough. Copyediting of both articles is probably still needed though.. quercus robur 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's fair enough to shorten the main article by simply linking to the new one, isn't it? I'll clean it out, feel free to revert if you don't think that's reasonable, but the information looks duplicated to me. --BadWolf42 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fine by me, I was tempted to do the same myself... quercus robur 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Righto. I'll merge the Argentinian bits in its separate section into it too. --BadWolf42 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a duplication, because I migrated the information via cut and paste when I created the daughter article. I've now summarized the section. -Fsotrain09 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is this required in any way? Why shouldn't this be in the daughter article? If it should, why should it be duplicated? --BadWolf42 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The summary, you mean? See the content guideline on that. -Fsotrain09 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is this required in any way? Why shouldn't this be in the daughter article? If it should, why should it be duplicated? --BadWolf42 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything there requiring you to have a summary after a spin-off, but I shan't complain if it's wanted and someone's willing to keep them synchronised. --BadWolf42 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Prince Andrew as Exocet decoy?
Prince Andrew "revealed in an apparently inadvertent admission shortly after the war that he also flew missions as an Exocet missile decoy."
I've heard this story repeated many times, and while I've found a few mentions of the 'fact', I've seen no actual quotes from him or the Royal Navy. Mostly, it's word of mouth, message boards and the like, although the BBC has stated it as if it were fact. For all the proof I've seen so far, it could well have been British tabloid hyperbole that has survived as a related meme. I believe the whole use of helicopter towed Exocet decoys has never been elevated above rumour status anyway.[1]
If anybody here has some authority on the subject, and of course some sources, then please comment/edit. At the least, provide a link to a direct quote from the Prince or the Navy as to his involvement, to elevate it above urban legend and, more relevantly, to secure it's continued inclusion here. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone claimed using helicopter-towed Exocet decoys, and whilst I've not heard or read a direct quote from him, the use of radar return enhancers does not seem generally disputed. I'll have a quick look through my material and see if I have anything better, but AFAICS, a cite from the BBC is still a cite and, on the face of it, a bloody good one, if anyone can pin down the reference. Does anyone dispute 820 squadron provided radar decoys? If not, then we can clear this up by despecifying the claim. --BadWolf42 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that the citation from the BBC[2] says: "Famously, he flew as a so-called Exocet decoy to protect warships from missile attack." Famously, and yet the words were seemingly never recorded. The word famously here seems to suggest we all should know, and if we don't know then we're the only one! However, I'm not afraid to admit that I've never once seen a direct quote where he said he ran such missions, and that I've only ever seen reference to it as an established fact as time has moved on. "As you will remember..."[3] etc. Where is the candid admission of inspiring Royal duty? Did the lucky journos present at the gaffe just sit on their mealticket instead of publishing it? Yeah, right. For all the quotation we have he could well have just mentioned the alledged practice and made no claim to actually running such missions himself. It seems very unusual to not be able to find verbatim 'foot-in-mouth disease' quotations from the Royals. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I seem to recall it was on camera rather than to written journalists, but I too have been unable to find reference to it. I think the employment of of radar return enhancers (towed or otherwise) is not officially acknowledged (despite various companies selling them), so that would make sense. The Prince's own short biography steadfastly avoids mentioning it, despite listing a number of other tasks 820 carried out, therefore I think it probably is fair to remove the claim as unsubstantiated.--BadWolf42 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- There used to be something called Chaff(H) or Chaff Helicopter. Rather than being dispensed from the 3inch launcher onboard the chaff foil is unloaded out of a helicopter door. It was used in the 80s and it may be that being referred to. It does mean that the cab is in the air, in the vicinity of the threat weapon, but it's not the cab that is the decoy. As I recall it was intended to be Chaff Charlie or Delta, so used early in an engagement. I can't comment on its efficacy though.ALR 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was certainly used as a technique (along with ships firing off chaff rockets) on the way down to con the shadowing 707 into thinking that the battle group had the amphibious force with them. Sandy Woodward was consequently a little irritated when the BBC announced they weren't!--BadWolf42 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Article Size
I definitely think, as a third-party observer, that it is time to spin off some of the sections into daughter articles. The "cultural effects in the UK" section looks especially promising as a potential daughter article. Thoughts? -Fsotrain09 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I've created Cultural impact of the Falklands War. Now those subsections need summarizing. -Fsotrain09 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sinking of HMS Sheffield
"Sheffield was deaf to the tell-tale Exocet seeker radar at the time as the ESM equipment on board had been switched off to enable the use of the satellite transceiver. The two systems, due to poor design, interfered and could not be used simultaneously."
Was this really an example of poor design? I'm no engineer, but I would be surprised if it were possible to use a powerful receiver simultaneously with an adjacent powerful transmitter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:BlaiseFEgan (talk • contribs)
- Agreed, I don't think in 1982 this was considered poor design and thats quite a bold assertion for an uncited comment. Infact HMS Sheffield was considered to be one of best class of warships in the world at that time. I believe the general consensus is that the events happened in the wrong place at the wrong time as far as the ship was concerned and as a result it was hit badly where as at different time it *might* have survived. But really thats all purely speculation. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to say I over-editorialised in that comment, probably by applying modern standards to the 70s ESM design, and therefore the statement should be amended. I shall do this at the next opportunity, if no-one else has. However considering the T42s one of the best classes of warship around at the time is foolhardy, they were distinctly second division, and that's being kind by assuming the second division wasn't empty. Sheffield wasn't the most advanced ship the world had ever seen, but she still should not have been caught with her knickers down, and that's a fact agreed by pretty much everyone involved.--BadWolf42 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, radar and ESM can co-exist, so why not a satellite uplink? I'd be surprised if the sat transmitter were stronger than a T42's search radar. --BadWolf42 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The satellite equipment was a rush fit and a new to the Britsh navy in 1982, ESM equipment can coexist with ships onboard transmitters using pulse blanking. However a ships radars operate at a much lower frequency than that of a missile head radar. Therefore it is consevable that the frequency of an Exocet missile head will be close to the frequencies that are used in satelite transmissions. Also pulse blanking a communications channel will not work at the output is continious, with a radar, it spends a large portion of itoperating cycle listening for returning echos.
Poor spelling edit war by User:Tashtastic
User:Tashtastic is continuing to change uncoordinated to a bizzare and archaic spelling unco-ordinated (twice today as of Sunday 13 August 2006 1800GMT). Here are two (British) dictionary links that cite uncoordinated as correct and do not recognise his perculiar fetish of what is "proper English spelling".
Cambridge Online Dictionary showing coordinated
Same, not recognising archaic spelling
Oxford Concise showing coordinated
Oxford Concise not recognising co-ordinated
It seems he has history with poor spelling edits, and is clearly being bloodyminded. Recommended courses of action? --BadWolf42 18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're asking for recommended courses of action, my main recommendation would be not to resort to personal attacks as you did in your edit summary here. With the matter at hand, the Collins English Dictionary Complete & Unabridged lists only 'uncoordinated' with no alternative given. It does list both 'coordinate' and 'co-ordinate' but uses the former in all examples. 'Unco-ordinate' is just plain ugly so I'd be inclined to not use it even if dictionaries listed it. But they don't, so get rid of it. Martín (saying/doing) 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extra datum. As for your main recommendation, whilst personal, it seems quite a fair given the inability to follow the cite links (or at least contest them). Twice. But point taken. --BadWolf42 18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- He's still at it, offering proof by assertion here.--BadWolf42 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd hate to see something so seemingly trivial go to arbitration or mediation. Have you tried to email or message the user in question? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think he's been overtaken by other proof by assertion mediations he's engaged in, so hopefully we're out of the line of fire. Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Major edits 14 Aug 2006
I've made some heavy edits today. To outline them in case anyone wishes to alter/contest them:
- I've exported all but one line from the Cultural Impacts section to the new article.
- I've pulled the Impact in Argentina section, hived off most of it to the Cultural impact of the Falklands War and put the remaining Junta collapse paragraph into the Analysis section, where there was an almost identical one.
- In that Analysis section I've moved the Political to the top as the Junta's collapse was probably the biggest impact of the war.
- In that Political analysis section, I've thrown out two paragraphs that seemed to be non-political, speculative and hand-waving, and also a bit about Warsaw Pact military planning, which may or may not be related, but surely wasn't political in its normal sense. I've also moved the collapse of the Junta ahead of the re-election of Thatcher, as it's rather more significant and has a markedly more demonstratable connection.
- The remembrance memorial in Buenos Aires photograph has been moved to Cultural impact of the Falklands War.
- Old discussions (no contributions for a couple of weeks, or with an obvious resolution) have been archived to Talk:Falklands War/Archive01.
I hope these aren't too contraversial, and I don't think any cited information has been discarded. Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Battle for Stanley ?
Its the fisrs time it has been reffered to as that. Its not such a good title. No battle was fought for Stanley because it was surrended. The battles previous to that are important and should not go under that header. Goose Green has its own section why not the others.
- I believe it was called:The Fall of Port Stanley in the 80's. Necessary Evil 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused. There was hard fighting to deal with the forces, supplied and based upon Stanley, in the defences set in the hills - the best defensive positions - immediately surrounding Stanley. That, to my mind, is correctly called "The Battle for Stanley". Toby Douglass 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
POW numbers
In the beginning of the article:United Kingdom - 2 taken prisoner.
57 marines from Naval Party 8901 were prisoners of war after the British surrender April 2nd. Should they be included in United Kingdom......taken prisoner? Does anyone know how many members of the Island's Defence Force that were POWs? On the press photos from April 2nd, there was a man wearing a hunter's gear sitting among the marines. Necessary Evil 21:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reading "74 days - An Islander's diary of the Falklands occupation" by John Smith, it seems clear (if not explicitly stated) that members of FIDF were not taken to Argentina along with members of NP 8901. Instead they were returned to their homes. (p32 ff) Jim Whitaker 17:38, 29 December 2006 (GMT)
Please add to the article referencing your sources with a <ref></ref>. Dont worry about making mistakes if you are new as I will fix them, SqueakBox 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands instead since I think the material to which the discussion section referred may have been moved there? Thanks for the welcome - I think my edit may need help since I may not have worked out the <ref></ref> tags properly? I have added the book to the references since it seems to complement the others listed. --Jim Whitaker 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Trenchfoot
Not sure where to put this. I took an EMT class and one of the instructors said that a significant number of Argentine casualties were from trenchfoot, resulting in many amputations. He said this was due to failures of command, with some troops not changing their socks for most of the duration of the conflict. He had a disgusting slide show of the injuries so I think it is probably true, but I don't have any references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs)
- As ever - we cannot include unreferenced information even if it is true - see WP:Verify. Megapixie 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I know, that's why I put it in discussion rather than the article, but thanks for pointing that out and including the links. So who is "we" in this context, are you one of the owners of wikipedia or just someone with a misguided sense of your place in the world?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs)
- Sigh. Just someone who was under the impression we were here to build a free encyclopedia. Megapixie 07:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"sigh" you are also an asshole who writes out "sigh". The reason that I bothered to put this out there (once again, in the discussion page rather than the article) was so that someone like who you aspire to be would chime in with quality info, not so that some asshole like you would direct me to the rules of wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs)
Campaign Box
Thought a campaign box would be useful:
A class or B class?
Is this an A class or a B class. It says both at the top and I will remove the one that is wrong. Baseracer 15:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Different projects can have different definitions of what falls in which class. Check the assertions of each wikiproject and change the classification if you see it fit. Mariano(t/c) 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Casualties
Though officially 258 British died during the conflict, in the Spanish article they cite the Argentine army on a much bigger unofficial number, somehow supported by Germany:
- "(1) Según cálculos hechos en la República Federal Alemana, las bajas británicas habrían sumado más de 700 muertos y 1.500 heridos. Teniendo en cuenta que, durante los 3 años de la guerra de Corea, Inglaterra perdió 537 hombres, la simple admisión de 255 muertos en 45 días de operaciones indica el más elevado promedio de bajas por día de combate sufrido por los ingleses desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial."
- "(1) Acording the calculation mady by the Federal Republic of Germany, British casualties would have added over 700 dead and 1,500 wonded. Considering that during the 3 years of the War against Korea England lost 537 men, the lone admision of 255 dead in 45 days of operations give the highest rate of casualties per day of combat by English forces since the World War II".
Yet I haven't been able to find any other source for it. Anyone knows zee German language? Mariano(t/c) 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the German study calculated that 700 Britons would have died in a high-intensity war like the Falklands War. Normally an attacker should have 2-3 more men than the defender. The Britons attacked a numerical superior foe in most of the land battles. If Pucarás had been dropping napalm at the British ground forces, if Argentine paratroops had been attacking the bridgehead at Port San Carlos, if the weather had been more windy at ARA 25 de Mayo's aborted attack, if the Argentine services had cooperated, if the Argentine bombs had exploded.... — then the British death toll would have been higher.
- Argentina admit that UK lost 'only' 255 men in the war, but have taken the loser's privilege of presenting the fact, that it took North Korea a whole three YEARS to kill 537 Britons, while Argentina managed to kill 255 in only 45 DAYS. Necessary Evil 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- You know, napalm was used on occasion, by Pucarás. Toby Douglass 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that you need to look at where those losses were, and appreciate that the actions were some 30 years apart. Many of the losses were at sea with survival rates in the cold waters of the winter south atlantic leading to survival times in terms of minutes. In the land environment weapon effect was much greater than that available in Korea etc. It's not a like with like comparison.ALR 15:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, at least 100 from General Belgrano died of Hypothermia, but the sailors of Royal Navy were issued with modern, orange immersion suits. Another aspect regarding cold weather is that several wounded (on land) were 'preserved' by the freezing temperatures, and survived against all odds.
- Medical improvement in general since M*A*S*H 4077 does also makes the Korean War/Falklands War comparison stranger.Necessary Evil 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- With regard to the casualty rate at sea, I wouldn't suggest that a once only survival suit would provide much improved survivability in the South Atlantic. It depends on having adequate insulation underneath it and wearing it properly. The suit itself is really only a waterproof covering and is pretty light. It's really to manage the couple of minutes from first entry until one gets into a liferaft where the mass of bodies offers an increased ambient temperature.ALR 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The comparison is, of course, dull. I was pointing to the death toll. Any reference to the German study? By the way, check the wounded/dead ratios of each one; clearly the British were better prepared to treat the wounded. Mariano(t/c) 09:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've made an enquiry to the discussion page at the German wikipedia[4]. They should know it.Necessary Evil 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Mariano(t/c) 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- At the Spanish wikipedia [5] Argentine and non-Argentine users are debating the German calculation. The Argentine army's homepage doesn't give a direct reference to the German calculation. Cálculos hechos en Alemania - "calculations done in Germany" sounds like an toothpaste ad with "according to scientific research" with no direct reference. Germany sounds so conveniently neutral, so....
- Regards Necessary Evil 10:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
2082
In 1984, the secret plans for Operation Overlord were released. 40 years seems like a fair time span to me. But the Falklands War's archives will be released after 100 years. All that secrecy will nurture a lot of myths and conspiracy theories. Why?:
- To cover up 700 dead Britons?
- I doubt it, UK can't get 700 families to disappear.
- To cover up UK's nuclear threat?
- In a desperate situation, a nuclear power could be using it. Soviet Union wouldn't go to war for Argentina.
- To cover up clandestine operations from Chile?
- Very likely.
- To cover up that HMS Invincible was hit?
- Why was the Royal Navy so frank about the other ship losses?
- But according to [6] Naval Airman B. Marsden "died on H.M.S. Invincible and was buried at sea". He wasn't a Sea Harrier pilot or involved in a helicopter crash, so if a member of HMS Invincible dies, the ship could have been attacked!
- To cover up that French arms have NO-GO enemies? (selfdestruct codes)
- Possibly.
- Possibly.
Necessary Evil 11:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well - I can clear one of those up for you. According to "Falklands Air War" (Highly highly recommended) Airman Brian Marsden was killed on the deck of Invincible on 15 June 1982, when in heavy seas an "aircraft tug" broke free and crushed him against the carriers' Island. My money would be on ops from Chile / spys inside Argentina. Megapixie 12:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- So he didn't even died during the war, no wonder the date of death wasn't published at SAMA82. Necessary Evil 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- as the secret exists, something must be out there. The Chilean Connection was described in detail by Sir Lawrence Freedman but there were another versions of the facts originated in Argentina such: the ship attacked by the Daggers on May 1st just in the beginning of the UK operations was in fact HMS Sheffield and badly damaged. Differences with the real number of SeaHars damaged/shot down on the same day and after. the fact the british sustained these first loses in what they first thought was just a picnic take them to refuse to accept Peru 's President peace plan (when Argentina already do it) deliberating sinking Belgrano out of the war zone to force argentinians to fight showing thatcher desesperate 's decision of go to a war at all costs to clean her internal problems . Also the real role of the US thought all the conflict (deliberately less appraised in favor of the uk strength) maintaining a real air bridge from the US to ascension delivering all kinds of suplies from Sidewinders, Shrikes to fuel and ammunition and last but not least some hints of war crimes carried out by british troops against argentine prisoners (with no firm evidence) Jor70 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Jor70. Do you know if the Argentine government has imposed a 100-years secrecy on its 1982-war archive? Regards Necessary Evil 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Of course not, there is a Democracy down there! :) There was a Libro Blanco "white book" released soon after the war that was used on the war trials and military head chiefs (Galtieri, Anaya, .. ) were condened to prision by the armed forces supreme council when democracy was restored under the Alfonsin administration in 1984 Jor70 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Argentina in fact is having trouble facing up to their loss in the conflict. Fabricated stories of Argentinian military successes created by the Junta's propaganda/publicity machine during the war maintain their currency because the mass of people, understandably, emotionally reject what happened; they do not *want* to believe it, and so they choose to believe stories of victory and success. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Is there any explanations of the following in Libro Blanco:
- Why wasn't the air bridge in April used on a few bulldozers to lengthen the Port Stanley runway, instead of 12,000 soldiers. If FAA had deployed high performance jets on the islands, Mirages could have created air superiority, and Skyhawks would have had more than 5 minutes to find their targets AND they could reach the British Task Force East of the islands.
- Why didn't the junta wait to 1983, when HMS Hermes and the Vulcan bombers were scrapped and HMS Invincible was sold to Australia. ARA would have acquired more exocet missiles and type 209 submarines.
- Why did ARA redrew ARA 25 de Mayo to port after ARA General Belgrano's loss? The aircraft carrier had plenty of ASW aircraft and ASW helicopters plus six destroyers to protect it from British submarines. Was it because of a nuclear threat to Southern Argentina?
- Why didn't 80 percent of the Argentine bombs explode? The Argentine air force must have known the performance envelope of the bombs.
- Why didn't Argentine paratroopers attack the Port San Carlos bridgehead, when most of the British infantry was fighting at Port Stanley?
- Did the authorities found any trace of SAS in Argentina?
- Evil, the Libro blanco should not be confused with the 2000's one, you can find it as "Informe Rattenbach" and the spanish version is here Was done by the military in late 1982 and I think a little too soon. There are not direct answers to yours questions in the report. I can resume you that the april 2 "invasion" (a long dream of Anaya not Galtieri since it was naval ops chief) was launched due the Georgias incident, a war was never imagined by the arg mil who were still negotiating april 23 when the brits retake georgias and they realized how the real situation was (in fact all 2nd april invasion troops had returned to the mainland ) In that moment, last week april, the decision was to fill the islands with a great number of troops , again not for combat but for dissuasion and you need to remember that there was another caotic situation with Chile which Argentina was virtual in a cold war condition since 1978. Chilean armed forces positioned their troops along the southern border forcing ARA maintain the marines brigade in Tierra del Fuego and argentine army southern regiments in Patagoina. About the so comment deployment of combat Jets to Stanley, I personally think they could not operated from there with the brit naval gunfire. pucaras, machis and T-34s had a hard time there and the mirage or a-4 wouldnt made any differences once in the air against the seaharrs if they were still armed just with shafrirs or aim9b againsts the aim9l. for the other questions, I personally think, that the arg armed forces where focusing in those years against an internal enemy not to a foreign war which the last one was 150 years before. Not only the bombs didnt explode ( replaced in late may with some given by the israelis ) but also san luis torpedoes didnt work and the lack of jointness was a vital part that helped the brits too. Jor70 12:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- That answered many questions, since it was last-minute decisions, and not long-time planning. But I still don't understand why ARA 25 de Mayo was redrawn with all her ASW capacity. Since Argentina and Chile share 5.150 km of borderline, a sea war isn't the first thing coming to my mind. The narrow Strait of Magellan is unfit for aircraft carriers, and as far as I know, ARA had fast patrol boats stationed there. ARA 25 de Mayo wasn't that necessary in an eventual Argentine-Chilean war. Some of ARA's destroyers and corvettes were armed with Exocet MM38 missiles (the type hitting HMS Glamorgan) and a helicopter could guide these missiles from a high altitude (like a very high radar mast) toward the British task force. Do you have any idea why ARA redrew from the fighting (except COAN, ARA San Luis and units trapped on the Falklands Islands)? Regards Necessary Evil 14:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- ARA 25 de Mayo was an obsolete World War II era carrier, and was probably unseaworthy. In any case, she was being stalked by several RN nuclear subs, who would have finsihed her off if she came too close to the taskforce. Astrotrain 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- She was part of Task Group 79.1 and WAS seaworthy. She was World War II-vintage, like ARA General Belgrano, but was modernised for jet operations. According to a Salamander book called Modern Naval Warfare from late eighties, the Argentine Task Groups 79.2 (three corvettes) and 79.3 (General Belgrano with escort) were shadowed by RN submarines, but not Task Group 79.1 (25 de Mayo with escort). Royal Navy failed to find ARA Veinticinco de Mayo May 2nd, when her 8 Skyhawks should have carried out a raid on the British Task Force. A sudden loss of wind, made it impossible for the 24 knots of the carrier, to create enough headwinds for the heavily fuel- and bombloaded Skyhawks to take off.
- Not quite accurate. Winds dropped; the planes could have taken off with a reduced bombload if the carrier had turned into the wind, but that would have meant sailing directly towards the British; this was something that was not welcome, since the fleets were only about 150 miles apart and British Task Force thoroughly outclassed the Argentinian force. As such, the Argentinians backed off, sailed away, opening the range, with the mission postponed till the next day; but then in the end didn't happen. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do you believe that the sinking of Belgrano was an eye-opener for the Argentine Navy Command (gee, they really have submarines down here and - gee, ships could be sunk outside MEZ), Astrotrain? Necessary Evil 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was an eye-opener, but not in the sense you're questioning. The navy knew they were at war and knew it was deadly dangerous. However, none of the crew had been in combat before and the first time a ship is sunk really does ram the message home - and in that sense, I think it was an eye-opener. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well fom what I have read she was being stalked by HMS Splendid (although Splendid did not find her). I think that if she was detected then she would have been attacked, and would have been sunk. The 25 de May was of course the main target, as the only Argentine aircraft carrier. However even if she had launched her aircraft- would they have been effective in any attack on the Task Force? The Sea Harriers/Sea Wolf systems would have slaughtered them. And once she lost her aircraft- the carrier would be useless.
- Of course maybe the Argentine navy, after Belgrano, released they could not possible compete against a nuclear submarine fleet, and decided to withdraw to save their capital asssets. The British were only really interested in the carrier tho, Splendid did not attack the Hercules when she was spotted off the Argentine coast later in the war. Astrotrain 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the Argentine High Command didn't seem to have any problem in sacrificing scores of Skyhawks, but the Task Force's lack of AEW might have caught the British with their pants down. I still believe that 25 de Mayo could have mustered a better anti-submarine screen than Belgrano. Belgrano was escorted by two Pacific War veterans, while 25 de Mayo was escorted by two modern type 42 destroyers. Of course Royal Navy knew all about the type 42's blind angles, but ARA also had three modern French build frigates/corvettes (which failed to detect that HMS Spartan was shadowing them) and 25 de Mayo had 6 S-2 Tracker ASW aircraft and 5 H-3 Sea King ASW helicopters deployed. Combined, they stood a better chance than Belgrano.
- I just think that it's strange: Admiral Anaya (the navy member of the junta) was most excited about bringing the Malvinas home and Operation Rosario was almost a navy-only operation. It's like he suddenly realised that ships can be lost in a war, and withdrew the navy from the war, abandoning 12,000 teenage soldiers to their fate on the islands.Necessary Evil 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- althought are facts like the us satellites and radio codes given by the chileans that could justify their action I sadly agree. While the air force sacrifice their pilots in an matter that they supposdly did not need to participate according to ARA (at least initially) and the Army give what had available at the time, the navy, main mind of the recuperation, did not risked their ships after the belgrano sinking. If you go to a war you need to accept the consequences, more if the majority of crew of those ships were not conscripts . Thanks God I can assure you that today ARA is very different. Jor70 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You say "if you go to war, you must accept the consequences". But this war was so artifical; the Argentian claim to the Falklands has been deliberately exploited and magnified by the State over the decades prior to the war. In childrens geography textbooks, the Islands were draw much larger than their real size, to make it seem that they were a major loss to the country! And then the Junta, to keep themselves in power, capitalised on what the people had been decieved into believing, started the war, paid for it with the money taken by tax from the people, conscripted the sons of the people to fight, and then got them killed. "If you go to war, you must accept the consequences" - this isn't about that. This is actually about lacking freedom and liberty in your own country, and the consequences that follow from *that*. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Prob because losing a ship (especially the sole aircraft carrier) would be a larger psycological blow than the deaths of some soldiers or a few jets. Astrotrain 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can't stop thinking of old fashion Honour and Glory. General Manuel Belgrano was one of the founders of Argentina, and it must have been some kind of disgrace for the Argentine junta, to lose a ship with his name. May 25th is the Argentine Independence Day and would have represented the same shame, if it was lost too. At the beginning of World War Two, the German pocket battleship Deutschland was renamed Lützov, because Hitler feared that the loss of a ship with the name Deutschland (Germany) would have a significant negative psychological and propaganda effect. Regards Necessary Evil 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Brits also kept the Queen Elizabeth 2 well away from the combat area- and didn't even send the Royal Yacht Britannia as a hospital ship- for similar reasons. Astrotrain 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Stupid comment, but Argentina's Independence Day is July 9. May 25 is a very important day, however, thus the same concept about shame would apply. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the enlightenment, Sebastian. UK newer cared much about their ANZAC allies - Gallipoli 1915 and anchoring SS Canberra in the hornet's nest in the San Carlos Waters, May 23rd 1982. Necessary Evil 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Driving on the left
There is a typically British sentence which says the islands' residents continued to drive on the left. This sounds like a big act of defiance, but perhaps the fact that the vast majority of the islands' roads are single track should be pointed out? We're hardly talking six lane motorways here! --MacRusgail 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
A road only has to have two lanes in order that the side of the road on which ones drives becomes important - not six lanes. However it could do with some references.
84.70.159.152 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"War" or "conflict"
I've heard it stated that the Falklands was a conflict, not a war, as neither side officially declared war. Is this correct? Our article doesn't seem to refer to this, either to confirm it (which would require an article name change!) or to scotch it as an urban myth. Certainly, contemporary politicians seemed to be careful to call it a conflict. --Dweller 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was no formal declaration of war - but these days it seems to have gone out of fashion - see Declaration of war by the United States. Falklands War is by far the more common term War Conflict. I'd suggest leaving it as war. Megapixie 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the UK, use of the word "pacific" in place of "specific" is also common, but it's still incorrect. If it is incorrect, we can move and redirect. If it's an urban myth, we should note it as such in the article. Declaration of war by the US is irrelevant, as it wasn't a party to the war/conflict! --Dweller 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The common name for it is "Falklands war" so that's the article name. GraemeLeggett 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Argentina still wants the Falklands Islands and Britain is spending a lot of money on Mount Pleasant. Recent politicians would like to solve the disagreement peacefully. In such an atmosphere the political correct word "conflict" is better then the word "war". Like two drunks in the court trying to degrade their beer fight to a debate.
- What happened in 1982, was that the armed forces of two sovereign states were fighting. If that wasn't a war, I don't know what should be called a war.
- Hitler didn't declare war prior to invading Poland in 1939, so it should be called "World Conflict Two". The declaration of the MEZ (all ships being sunk by nuclear submarines 200 nautical miles from the Falklands Island) April 12th was a declaration of war IMHO.
- I don't know User:Dweller's agenda, but it doesn't make the world more peaceful to rename wars as conflicts. IMHO the everlasting dispute between Argentina and UK could be the "Falklands Conflict" and the bloody incident could be the "Falklands War". Necessary Evil 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no agenda, other than wanting Wikipedia to be accurate and I resent the comment. Not sure what I've done to deserve assuming bad faith. I'm trying to establish or scotch an urban myth, as explained at the top of the thread. After Hitler invaded Poland, Britain declared war. I have actually now found a reputable source for support of what I thought might be a myth - the style guide for the Times newspaper asks journalists to refer to this as "the Falklands conflict because war was never formally declared; if the phrase has to be used, write Falklands war (l/c) [i.e. lower case for the w of war]" ([7]). --Dweller 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is still referred to as the Falklands War by the vast majority (including the Spanish equivlanet in Spain), no matter what one newspapers says. Interestingly it says to use Six Day War, but this was also never declared. Astrotrain 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If a country declares that all ships within 200 nautical miles of the UK will be sunk - without warning, that would definitely be a declaration of war. Since a war is a war, as long as one of the participants declares it, the Falklands War was a war, dixi.
- However, in the seventies Iceland and the UK had coast guard cutters and warships ramming each other. The British newspapers called it the "Cod War" - a pun on the term "Cold War". So if newspaper editors should be in charge of the naming of wikipedia's articles, there would be total chaos.
- I'm sorry that user:Dweller is resented, but at least I didn't wrote "hidden agenda", for what it's worth.
- Stalingrad is called Volgograd today, but it is still called the "Battle of Stalingrad", not the "Battle of Volgograd". The Cold War wasn't declared at all, but nobody would understand the "Cold Conflict". If the Falklands War is renamed to "Falkvinas Conflict", contents would be: "- the British conflictships were conducting antisubmarine-conflictfare, when suddenly one of them was hit by a missile. The conflicthead of the missile didn't exploded - 11,313 Argentinians were PoC (Prisoners of Conflict)-" and in 2007 the conflict veterans would be commemorating the "skirmish of Mount Longdon", the air conflict, the "skirmish of Goose Green" etc. Necessary Evil 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment about "hidden" agenda and if that was an apology, it's pretty lame, but I'll accept it. Many of your other arguments are inherently and obviously logically flawed. There's no point arguing if this is the level of debate. I sense that there's some POV flying around here, or perhaps there's a history of POV regarding this article. Given the subject matter, perhaps that's inevitable. I'll make a light edit, hopefully POV-free and non controversial. As with anything in WP, if you think I've got it wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me and I welcome this. --Dweller 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I admit that my last paragraph was pretty babbling. The NPOV issue here has primary been to avoid nationalistic statements like:"our brave boys exterminated the bastards" or "the cowardly enemy murdered our heroes" etc. Compared to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas where Argentine nationalists are claiming that 1.300 Britons died on the Falklands Island in 1982 and are writing "MALVINAS BELONGS TO ARGENTINA" frequently, I think that en.wikipedia is pretty NPOV. But you seems to refer to another type of POV?? Necessary Evil 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just to add my two cents, I agree that the name should stay "war". Falklands Conflict could be a new page, assuming somebody wishes to create it, and its contents could be the history and the continued "fights" about sovereignty of the islands (of which the war was just a chapter). However, I believe that Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands has this well covered so that may not make sense either. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the blanking of the section I added to the article last night. Astrotrain's edit summary "irrelevant what the times calls it, it is the Falklands War in almost all sources (inlcuidng Spanish equivalent" is both false (use of the terminology is fairly widespread, with >1.1 million Google hits) and contrary to WP policy, as The Times is a reputable source. Other reputable sources include The Telegraph ([8]), The Sun ([9]), The Guardian ([10]), The Financial Times ([11]),the RAF ([12]), the British Army ([13]) and the Navy ([14]). --Dweller 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is an article about the war- not what some newspapers might happen to call it now and again. The Telegraph article for example mentions "Falklands War" about four times, and "Falkalnds conflict" only once- so it seems to be just a writing style. Astrotrain 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose then that it's irrelevant how the British armed forces refer to it. --Dweller 10:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The offical account is titled "Official History of the Falklands Campaign", but I personally go by "titles should represent common usage" from WP:naming GraemeLeggett 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The times style guide probably differs from WP:MoS in hundreds of ways. Looking at the times online "Falklands Conflict" is used 91 times without "Falklands War" where as "Falklands War" is used 264 times without "Falklands Confict". The Sun (hardly a good source) "Falklands War" 174 times without "Falklands Conflict" Falklands Conflict 3 times without Falklands War. The Telegraph Falklands Conflict without Falklands War 169 times and "Falklands War" without "Falklands Conflict" 500 times. The RAF is about 40/60 in favour of "Conflict", but the MoD as a whole is massively pro "Falklands War" [15]. NavyNews is split about 40/30 in favour of "Conflict". "Falklands War" is clearly the most commonly used term. Megapixie 11:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing (and never have disputed) that "War" is the more commonly used term. Have you read the edit I made to the article last night? I can't really understand why it was necessary to blank the content. --Dweller 11:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The "issue" is called in spanish "Guerra de las Malvinas", not "Conflicto de las Malvinas". I stand for War. --Neigel von Teighen 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality
it lists here who signed the agreement that ended the conflict. It specifies who was Argentinian, but only says "Royal Marines" instead of something like "British Royal Marines". I think the British should be added to make the article more netural. Codu talk contribs email 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO "Royal Marines" is the name of the Royal British Marines in the English language. If in doubt, there is a wikilink. To everyone "Royal Air Force" means "Royal British Air Force" and "CIA" means "United States Central Intelligence Agency". The other Wikipedia have similar words: In German "Luftwaffe" (Air Force) means the "German Air Force" and in French "Marine Nationale" (National Navy) means the "French Navy".
- Furthermore Argentina is not a monarchy, so Royal Marines cannot be confused with the Argentine marines. Necessary Evil 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Question regarding MI6 activity
If I remember correctly, John Nott disclosed / claimed in his memoirs that during the war MI6 bought up open-market stocks of Exocets through front companies, and that their operatives sabotaged other Exocets that were available for sale. Anybody know any more about this? Regards, Notreallydavid 07:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's discussed in Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-Qaeda by John Keegan.ALR 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Much obliged. Notreallydavid 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ascension
The main British airbase was at Ascension, correct? Could a picture be placed in the article so people know where it is in relation to Las Malvinas? Fephisto 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit: because it is still rather far away, isn't it? Fephisto 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- To where, sorry? <_<
- According to England, Falkland Islands. Fephisto 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure we an drum one up. --BadWolf42 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
1976 warning
Documents released under the Thirty year rule show that Harold Wilson's governement was warned of possible invasion in 1976[16]. I think this should go in the article. Totnesmartin 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverts
I'm a bit annoyed. I spent a few hours working on the page, but most of my changes have been removed - without discussion or comment - by BadWolf42. I don't spend my time here for the effort I put in to be thrown away by someone who happens to disagree with me but doesn't have the decency to actually explain why and justify his views. Toby Douglass 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Military : Harriers
There is half a sentance in the Military section, "whilst it proved the small but manoeuvrable jump jet as a true fighter aircraft". I took this out originally, it was reverted back in. I've taken it out again.
The reason for this is that the engagments Harrier fought were simply a case of staying on station and firing Sidewinders at incoming or departing strike aircraft. There was very little engagement; Harrier was operating as a deployable missile platform - and even then, against much older, cheaper and less capable aircraft, which were not even fighters, but strike aircraft, and which were not trying to engage the Harriers at all, but avoid them.
Concluding from these sorts of engagements that the Harrier is a "true fighter aircraft" is ENTIRELY improper.