The Falklands War

I appreciate what yo are saying but you will find that they had plenty of combat experience through NI. The Doctrine overall was good some. some officers made mistakes so did the press. The equipment was good overall, and plenty of ammo from the states, paid for or lent (if they want it back I can tell Them where it is. ).

 

I did overlook NI, you're right. I was under the impression, however, that none of the units deployed to the Falklands had been there in the time prior to deploying to the South Atlantic. I apologize if that impression is mistaken.

 

Almost, if not every infantry, cavalry and artillary units has or will go to the province, from 1970 to the present. They all perform 6 month tours up to several years.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks, GP.

 

In related news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4507481.stm

 

This day

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 504155.stm

 

Here's a question: Was Admiral Woodward too cautious in his handling of both Task Force and air operations during the war? He kept his forces well away from the islands and only allowed his Harrier force to use less risky (and less accurate) "toss-bombing" tactics after the first one was shot down by Argentine ground fire. Should he have shown more aggressiveness?

 

Based on his limited resources, probably not. In my view.

 

Even though his positioning of the carriers meant that the ships in San Carlos Bay had air cover for very limited times? This was a factor in several of the British ship losses, after all.

 

Plus cockups with the Rapier.

 

The equipment was good overall,

Was it? The Sterling and L1A1 were certainly reliable and proven weapons, but in other aspects apart from ammunintion I thought there were problems.

In the early phases, such as the time of Goose Green there was a notable lack among the ground forces of heavy weapons of any sort, at Goose Green 2 Para's artillery support was down to a handful of ground based pieces (I believe it was 3 105's (On of which was a rogue and resulted in the deaths of a couple of Paras) and the Battalion Mortar platoon, of which the latter's pieces could not be set up properly and had to be emplaced (If that is the correct term) by the Mortarmen themselves standing on the baseplates, more than a couple broke their ankles supporting their battalion mates) and the single gun of a nearby frigate.

The then new DMS Boots also came in for criticism as I understand it, proving neither robust or water-proof in the Falklands.

Then there is the lack of practical logistical support, except as noted for a single Chinook and a handful of lighter helicopters. Most of the transportation of the troops themselves as I understand it (Once aground of course!) was done by foot (In the aforementioned boots), and no book of the campaign is complete without pictures of the Paras and Marines "Yomping" into the distance.

Overall I think the Falklands campaign was a testimony to the dedication and professionalism of the British armed forces in less than ideal circumstances, barring a few initial hic-coughs.

 

Even though his positioning of the carriers meant that the ships in San Carlos Bay had air cover for very limited times? This was a factor in several of the British ship losses, after all.

They would have had even less air-cover if the Argentines had hit the Carriers instead!

In hindsight he probably could have got away with being more aggressive but this knowledge was a luxury he did not have then, he had no way of knowing how many Air launched Exocets the Argentines might have got a hold of, no way of knowing how many surfaced launched Exocets were in the area (The Argentines had managed by the end of the campaign to configure the Exocet to be launched from a flatbed truck) and considering the BBC in a truly monumental blunder gave away early on that the reason more ships were not lost was because the Argentine bombs were being incorrectly fused I think he had every right to be cautious.

(Apparently they were only saved by the fact the Argentines couldn't believe that the BBC would be so stupid as to give that away and carried on fusing their bombs incorrectly throughout the campaign!)

 

Too bad they were so wrong, eh?

I have long wondered just whose side the BBC was on then, as it also broadcast news of the impending para attack on Goose Green just before the troops went in. LTCOL "H" Jones threatened to sue the BBC after the war if any of his men were killed due to this piece of stupidity. As it turned out, IIRC, he was the only fatality his battalion suffered at Goose Green. Ironic.

 

Wrong I'm afraid, II Para suffered 13 dead (I believe, am going from memory here, but certainly more than just Jones were killed including at least one to friendly fire from a rogue artillery piece) and others wounded.

 

They did ventually put parachutes on the bombs so they did pay some heed to the BBC.

 

Thank you, Simon; I stand corrected.

 

Did they hit anything with the parachute bombs? Aside from the ocean, I mean.

 

Unfortuately I believe they did but I will check on that.

 

Please do so; I'm quite curious about this, as I was unaware that the Argentines had used parachute bombs during the war.

 

How it could have all been avoided.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm