Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
while this is a superficially smart move, you do realise that creating a dedicated Falklands thread is going to kill off every other thread and your page hits? It was always interesting to observe how any topic, no matter how arcane or focussed on something really completely unrelated to TITSTSNBN could degenerate into a “we need a carrier” vs “they are impregnable, SF ninjas included” slugfest. Like the 6 degrees of separation, 6 posts into any topic and we are arguing about the ruddy islands.
Worried.
James
… TITSTSNBN is obviously a typo, but interesting that my auto-spell-check should choose that. It’s a subliminal SSN, or even SSBN that clearly we need instead of any stinking carriers.
wf
@James: aww, I thought we had you coming around for the need for a USS America at least. I suspect the Falklands mania is related to the fact that it’s the only active threat to the UK atm, and that “carrier decisions” made in the 60′s, early 80′s, and now 2010 have all been proven wrong in short order (I admit the latter is a matter of debate).
@TD: why not have a voting series? Threats can be specified by commenters, people can vote on them, then we can specify remedies, followed by another vote, etc, ending up with budgeting for remedies that get the final vote? Might reduce some of the handbags at dawn stuff
That can be topped Peter, by George Galloway. He’s on “This Week” telling people that we should hand the islands “back” to Argentina and calling Christina Kercher “delightful”. I swear he only does it to create controversy and bring the spotlight onto himself.
Props on the side to Alan Johnson for telling Galloway that he can’t talk about the Islands without considering the “events of ’83″.
Shower of twats.
Think Defence
Still, Abi Titmus is on now which kind of compensates
some info on the conference “Falkland islanders will join soldiers, reporters, policy-makers and academics for the first time to discuss the conflict that shook their lives when the University hosts a conference on 26-28 April to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.
British and Argentinian historians of the conflict and journalists who covered it will share their analyses, perspectives and memories with residents of the islands and the service personnel who fought for them.
Among the conference highlights will be: Sir John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence who despatched the Royal Navy Task Force, opening proceedings; Major-General Julian Thompson and Commodore Michael Clapp, describing how the amphibious phase of British military operations was planned; and Professor Peter Hennessy assessing what British intelligence knew of Argentinian intentions on the eve of the invasion.
A panel of islanders including Patrick Watts, the former head of Falklands Radio who was broadcasting when Argentinian soldiers captured his studio on 2 April 1982, will also describe their experiences and recollections.”
x
BZ Kent!!!
My local campus would probably campaign for the FI to be given over to the Argies!!!!!
Peter Elliott
Over on the F35 thread where we are discussing beach-head logistics (obviously!) @TD linked to some pictures of FIPASS. I had not realised that this ‘interim’ facility is still in use over 25 years after it was built.
interesting point, which i have frequently banged on about, about the problem with protracted and nasty wars, and how they are sapping the british tolerance for elective war.
x
I note the 10 O’clock News on Al Beeb on this anniversary day doesn’t have a special report from Stanley or anywhere else on the islands. No they are in the Argentine. Like all reasonable fair minded people I like unbiased journalism but really Argentina today of all days?
@ Jedibeeftrix
I thought I had missed it until I saw your link and rememberd not only iPlayer but also that I have unlimited downloads.
jedibeeftrix
it is worth watching, max is an unashamed army man as his quote in the spectator (pre-SDSR) showed, but he is a good historian whose books i’ve been reading for fifteen years:
“My own strongly held view, shared by some much cleverer people on both sides of the Atlantic, is that the only credible way forward is to undertake a drastic restructuring, which explicitly prioritises ground forces. We should plump for a properly funded fighting army with appropriate support, including helicopters and transport aircraft, and a big commitment to unmanned drones. In a rational world the RAF, already smaller than the US Marine Corps’s organic air wing, would be integrated with the army.”
x
@ Jedibeeftrix
I am very familiar with Mr Hastings, his writings, and his quirks. Did he really say merge the RAF with the Army? What a noodle! Everybody knows the RAF belongs to the RN…..
Peter Elliott
Worthwhile viewing.
As to where it all leads, historians tend to say you need to look at least 100 years either side of an event like the Falklands to understand its significance fully.
I am looking for some reference books evaluating/documenting aspects of the Falklands conflict.
The information sought includes:
In particular:
Land battle – what kit worked/didn’t and what lessons were learnt. Do any books/articles detail the post-conflict evaluation of the kit as used by the soldier on the ground (i.e. Milan, Carl Gustav 84mm, 66mm, SLR, boots, uniform etc)? The more detailed the information the better.
Is there any robust data on Blowpipe/Rapier use/effectiveness? And the same in relation to the use of Stinger. Also what about an evaluation of CVRT use in ground the attack fire support role and helicopter use in ground support.
And while we are on the subject:
Sea battle / submarine warfare– Latterly conducted evaluations into the sinking of HMS Coventry /HMS Sheffield and also Sea Dart/Sea Wolf effectiveness. Also what is considered a scholarly account of submarine operations – British and Argentinean?
Air battle / Air defence – How effective was the Task Force air to air defence? How successful was the Argentinean ground to air defence on the Island mainland – Blowpipe, SA-7, Roland/Tigercat, AAA use? Is there robust Air combat loss/damage data?
I appreciate that after the conflict a lot of material was published but I am looking for updated references and (latterly written) cross-examinations of the preceding accounts.
Recommendations would be appreciated.
“a transplanted population does not have the right to self-determination” – not an argument likely to go down well in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean….
Observer
lol Wise.
Tell me again where the name “Argentina” came from?
I never knew the Argentinians were decended from the Aztecs and Incas.
Gloomy Northern Boy
@Observer – Whilst agreeing with the sentiment, the Historian in me compels me to point out that the Aztecs were in Mexico and the Incas in Peru; not quite sure who was in the Argentine…but clearly not the current inhabitants, who committed an act of genocide with respect to the indigenous peoples quite late in the C19th…
x
The Argentines were still butchering the indigenous peoples of South America twenty years after the current British colony was established.
Also it appears the oil deposits may not be up too much. Though I feel sorry for the Islanders I wet myself laughing because there is nothing for the Argentines to grab.
EDIT: Apart from the fish.
Observer
@x, like in the 80s, it was never about oil. It was more about a distraction from the crappy internal situation and pride building in the nation. If they had managed to hold on to the Islands, they would have gotten a very similar boost to their popularity that Thatcher did after the war, which would have made control of their population much easier.
In fact, judging from the current situation, it is still about pride, distraction and credibility.
Think they saw a general British withdrawal of engagement to everything but the Home Islands and tried to take advantage of the situation, but bungled it badly. A few fingerpointing as to the fact of the general British withdrawal worldwide, some rumours that the Falklands would be next to be cut off, some helpful economic assistence and assurance of future support “in case of abandonment” and they would have been in a good position for a referendum.
x
@ Observer
Thanks. Not of that is covered in the 100 or so books I have on the Falklands Islands War…
The presence of oil was more cherry on top and perhaps a possible solution to Argentine money worries. Though saying that their elites would have prospered and the Argentine exchequer would have seen little. It probably is even more amusing there is nothing there seeing as who would have benefited.
Observer
“Thanks. Not of that is covered in the 100 or so books I have on the Falklands Islands War…”
I sense a great sarcasm in the Force…
But honestly, if they had gone on a campaign of insinuation, the UK would be in a very hard pressed situation to respond.
Politician: “We will NOT abandon the Falklands whatever the Argentinians say!”
Joe Public: “Where the hell is that and why are we paying for an island in South America when we have a budget crisis at home?”
This would have been the likely response in the 80s without the invasion.
wf
@Observer: true. But as it turned out, the original garrison and all the other island needs could have been easily met via fishing license income, as occurred after the war. As with many things post WW2, the defeatist attitude relied on doing nothing and then proclaiming failure….
x
I wonder if they will allow Christine-thingy to borrow these?
Imagine these and the LSTs of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela all heading for the Islands in a spirit of Latin American solidarity? Gosh lummy. (Jokin’…….)
If tiny Peru can build such ships shows what a state Argentina is in financially. Shame really. She should be as rich as Australia.
I’m fine with them putting on a ‘show of strength’ around the time of the March referendum, but they should at least try and make it a valuable training exercise rather than simply a brief stunt.
I have long advocated a minimum of 8 Typhoon in a light squadron plus a battalion that can simultaneously garrison and conduct cold weather/mountain training.
jedibeeftrix
Why is the army there at all?
If Mt Pleasant isn’t a job for the RAF Regiment I don’t know what it!
Huh? What’s this? A shiny new thread dedicated purely to the Islands that shall not be named? (you missed a trick with that one boss).
And in true honour of the Internet…. first.
So . . . what about the Falkland Islands are going to be discussing here then? Possible training areas for the Weaponised Phil Platform?
Shhhhh!
The WPP may or may not be already deployed near a penguin as I write this…..
The site needs to have a pro-forma Official Secrets Act to sign…..
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/29/foreign-office-summons-argentine-diplomat-limiting-trade-counterproductive
@ Gareth J
I hope they served Chilean wine.
I rather like a red Chilean…
TD,
while this is a superficially smart move, you do realise that creating a dedicated Falklands thread is going to kill off every other thread and your page hits? It was always interesting to observe how any topic, no matter how arcane or focussed on something really completely unrelated to TITSTSNBN could degenerate into a “we need a carrier” vs “they are impregnable, SF ninjas included” slugfest. Like the 6 degrees of separation, 6 posts into any topic and we are arguing about the ruddy islands.
Worried.
… TITSTSNBN is obviously a typo, but interesting that my auto-spell-check should choose that. It’s a subliminal SSN, or even SSBN that clearly we need instead of any stinking carriers.
@James: aww, I thought we had you coming around for the need for a USS America at least. I suspect the Falklands mania is related to the fact that it’s the only active threat to the UK atm, and that “carrier decisions” made in the 60′s, early 80′s, and now 2010 have all been proven wrong in short order (I admit the latter is a matter of debate).
@TD: why not have a voting series? Threats can be specified by commenters, people can vote on them, then we can specify remedies, followed by another vote, etc, ending up with budgeting for remedies that get the final vote? Might reduce some of the handbags at dawn stuff
Latest nonsense from El Presidente:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17227792
That can be topped Peter, by George Galloway. He’s on “This Week” telling people that we should hand the islands “back” to Argentina and calling Christina Kercher “delightful”. I swear he only does it to create controversy and bring the spotlight onto himself.
Props on the side to Alan Johnson for telling Galloway that he can’t talk about the Islands without considering the “events of ’83″.
Shower of twats.
Still, Abi Titmus is on now which kind of compensates
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/02/falklands-opening-ceremony-to-celebrate-clearance-of-mine-fields-left-by-argentina
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/morrissey-falklands-belong-to-argentina-7492503.html
Gareth Jones
Morrissey is responsible for one of the biggest
‘WTF happened there’
moments in my life. You go to bed one night, and he is:-
The Adolescent whining mouthpiece,
for a bunch of posey
Bed wetting
Angst ridden
Middle class teenagers with silly flat top haircuts.
You wake up and somehow he has got:-
‘Poet of his generation’
status.
Go figure.
Ps
First move in any attempt to retake the Falklands from a new Argy occupation.
Find Morrissey and stick that Rose bush back up his ar*e
You know those stealth web camera sheep we got down there? I think they’ve recieved a offensive up-grade…
http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/02/02/4007777244.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
Interesting story about what the French were up to in 1982.
Good article in the Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110759/A-dirty-war-Life-Falkland-Islands-invasion.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/falklands-oil-exploration-is-illegal-says-argentina-7583088.html
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/22/peru-ministers-disagree-and-public-opinion-divided-on-hms-montrose-incident
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/27/world/europe/uk-argentina-falklands-nobel/index.html
Well he can join Penn’s mine clearance party.
The university where I work is holding a conference, open to anyone on the Falkland’s war:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/history/events/conferences/falklands.html
some info on the conference “Falkland islanders will join soldiers, reporters, policy-makers and academics for the first time to discuss the conflict that shook their lives when the University hosts a conference on 26-28 April to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.
British and Argentinian historians of the conflict and journalists who covered it will share their analyses, perspectives and memories with residents of the islands and the service personnel who fought for them.
Among the conference highlights will be: Sir John Nott, the Secretary of State for Defence who despatched the Royal Navy Task Force, opening proceedings; Major-General Julian Thompson and Commodore Michael Clapp, describing how the amphibious phase of British military operations was planned; and Professor Peter Hennessy assessing what British intelligence knew of Argentinian intentions on the eve of the invasion.
A panel of islanders including Patrick Watts, the former head of Falklands Radio who was broadcasting when Argentinian soldiers captured his studio on 2 April 1982, will also describe their experiences and recollections.”
BZ Kent!!!
My local campus would probably campaign for the FI to be given over to the Argies!!!!!
Over on the F35 thread where we are discussing beach-head logistics (obviously!) @TD linked to some pictures of FIPASS. I had not realised that this ‘interim’ facility is still in use over 25 years after it was built.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/01/31/falklands-government-advances-in-options-for-a-proposed-new-port-facility
good docu by max for the beeb:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01fkc3v/The_Falklands_Legacy_with_Max_Hastings/
interesting point, which i have frequently banged on about, about the problem with protracted and nasty wars, and how they are sapping the british tolerance for elective war.
I note the 10 O’clock News on Al Beeb on this anniversary day doesn’t have a special report from Stanley or anywhere else on the islands. No they are in the Argentine. Like all reasonable fair minded people I like unbiased journalism but really Argentina today of all days?
@ Jedibeeftrix
I thought I had missed it until I saw your link and rememberd not only iPlayer but also that I have unlimited downloads.
it is worth watching, max is an unashamed army man as his quote in the spectator (pre-SDSR) showed, but he is a good historian whose books i’ve been reading for fifteen years:
“My own strongly held view, shared by some much cleverer people on both sides of the Atlantic, is that the only credible way forward is to undertake a drastic restructuring, which explicitly prioritises ground forces. We should plump for a properly funded fighting army with appropriate support, including helicopters and transport aircraft, and a big commitment to unmanned drones. In a rational world the RAF, already smaller than the US Marine Corps’s organic air wing, would be integrated with the army.”
@ Jedibeeftrix
I am very familiar with Mr Hastings, his writings, and his quirks. Did he really say merge the RAF with the Army? What a noodle! Everybody knows the RAF belongs to the RN…..
Worthwhile viewing.
As to where it all leads, historians tend to say you need to look at least 100 years either side of an event like the Falklands to understand its significance fully.
I’ll wait and see.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/04/14/argentina-shame-on-you-editorial-from-canada-s-globe-and-mail
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/lifestyle/we-didn-t-plan-for-the-falklands-it-was-on-the-hoof-1-3711946
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/04/25/falklands-lawmaker-rejects-argentine-proposal-for-direct-air-link-with-buenos-aires
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9176779/Falklands-war-anniversary-Welsh-Guardsman-Tracy-Evans-speaks-of-entering-the-unknown.html
Have a read of this
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/12/a-museum-paying-homage-to-those-who-fought-on-both-sides
I am looking for some reference books evaluating/documenting aspects of the Falklands conflict.
The information sought includes:
In particular:
Land battle – what kit worked/didn’t and what lessons were learnt. Do any books/articles detail the post-conflict evaluation of the kit as used by the soldier on the ground (i.e. Milan, Carl Gustav 84mm, 66mm, SLR, boots, uniform etc)? The more detailed the information the better.
Is there any robust data on Blowpipe/Rapier use/effectiveness? And the same in relation to the use of Stinger. Also what about an evaluation of CVRT use in ground the attack fire support role and helicopter use in ground support.
And while we are on the subject:
Sea battle / submarine warfare– Latterly conducted evaluations into the sinking of HMS Coventry /HMS Sheffield and also Sea Dart/Sea Wolf effectiveness. Also what is considered a scholarly account of submarine operations – British and Argentinean?
Air battle / Air defence – How effective was the Task Force air to air defence? How successful was the Argentinean ground to air defence on the Island mainland – Blowpipe, SA-7, Roland/Tigercat, AAA use? Is there robust Air combat loss/damage data?
I appreciate that after the conflict a lot of material was published but I am looking for updated references and (latterly written) cross-examinations of the preceding accounts.
Recommendations would be appreciated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9708671/Argentina-launches-campaign-to-undermine-Falklands-referendum.html
“a transplanted population does not have the right to self-determination” – not an argument likely to go down well in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean….
lol Wise.
Tell me again where the name “Argentina” came from?
I never knew the Argentinians were decended from the Aztecs and Incas.
@Observer – Whilst agreeing with the sentiment, the Historian in me compels me to point out that the Aztecs were in Mexico and the Incas in Peru; not quite sure who was in the Argentine…but clearly not the current inhabitants, who committed an act of genocide with respect to the indigenous peoples quite late in the C19th…
The Argentines were still butchering the indigenous peoples of South America twenty years after the current British colony was established.
Also it appears the oil deposits may not be up too much. Though I feel sorry for the Islanders I wet myself laughing because there is nothing for the Argentines to grab.
EDIT: Apart from the fish.
@x, like in the 80s, it was never about oil. It was more about a distraction from the crappy internal situation and pride building in the nation. If they had managed to hold on to the Islands, they would have gotten a very similar boost to their popularity that Thatcher did after the war, which would have made control of their population much easier.
In fact, judging from the current situation, it is still about pride, distraction and credibility.
Think they saw a general British withdrawal of engagement to everything but the Home Islands and tried to take advantage of the situation, but bungled it badly. A few fingerpointing as to the fact of the general British withdrawal worldwide, some rumours that the Falklands would be next to be cut off, some helpful economic assistence and assurance of future support “in case of abandonment” and they would have been in a good position for a referendum.
@ Observer
Thanks. Not of that is covered in the 100 or so books I have on the Falklands Islands War…
The presence of oil was more cherry on top and perhaps a possible solution to Argentine money worries. Though saying that their elites would have prospered and the Argentine exchequer would have seen little. It probably is even more amusing there is nothing there seeing as who would have benefited.
“Thanks. Not of that is covered in the 100 or so books I have on the Falklands Islands War…”
I sense a great sarcasm in the Force…
But honestly, if they had gone on a campaign of insinuation, the UK would be in a very hard pressed situation to respond.
Politician: “We will NOT abandon the Falklands whatever the Argentinians say!”
Joe Public: “Where the hell is that and why are we paying for an island in South America when we have a budget crisis at home?”
This would have been the likely response in the 80s without the invasion.
@Observer: true. But as it turned out, the original garrison and all the other island needs could have been easily met via fishing license income, as occurred after the war. As with many things post WW2, the defeatist attitude relied on doing nothing and then proclaiming failure….
I wonder if they will allow Christine-thingy to borrow these?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=824
Imagine these and the LSTs of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela all heading for the Islands in a spirit of Latin American solidarity? Gosh lummy. (Jokin’…….)
If tiny Peru can build such ships shows what a state Argentina is in financially. Shame really. She should be as rich as Australia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9797902/Defence-chiefs-prepare-new-plans-to-defend-Falkland-Islands.html
Make of it what you will.
Good. More please. Make it really, really obvious
@X
I’m fine with them putting on a ‘show of strength’ around the time of the March referendum, but they should at least try and make it a valuable training exercise rather than simply a brief stunt.
I have long advocated a minimum of 8 Typhoon in a light squadron plus a battalion that can simultaneously garrison and conduct cold weather/mountain training.
Why is the army there at all?
If Mt Pleasant isn’t a job for the RAF Regiment I don’t know what it!