Mr Delta Whisky 58
Good Afternoon Sir
Sir I just realized that you have change the photo in your profile , you looked more healthy on the previous one Sir -
My regards Enrique
Thanks for your personal story Ordie. I often feel that for those who do not participate in conflicts, personal experience takes the incidents out of the abstract (similar to Jimmy's extraordinary story a few pages back). So much of what is widely circulated here is Britain-centric (as one would fully expect) that a tale such as yours (regardless of size or circumstance) gives a good idea of the scale of impact of the Falklands war.Originally Posted by Ordie
Only for the festive season, I'll be back to my old self before long.
Greetings.
Thank you for the replies. I had hoped one of the official history type books had recorded the daily Argentine claims in the same way as Luftwaffe claims were recorded during the Battle of Britain. Would have been interesting to see just how well the Argentine high command thought the battle was going at certain points.
Anyway, while looking for information I came across this site by Peter Green, a sailor who was on HMS Yarmouth during the Falklands. Has a diary of events, including hourly recordings of Action Stations at peak periods. There are also a few photos that I haven't seen before, unfortunately they're not the biggest.
http://www.twogreens.co.uk/navy/FALK...falklands.html
NL
Thanks NL, that's a new one for me too.
Thanks for this. I find this site very interesting because of the very personal touch.
Ninja Lewis Ref # 1204
Thank you for the link to the diary from HMS Yarmouth by Mr Peter Green , regarding accurate records of how the conflict was going , I don't think there is any , the Rathenbach report is the one done after the war and is considered accurate -
The diary record of Peter Green , with updates or corrections of things that were known after the end of the conflict plus other dairy records and official reports come to be the bassic information needed to start writing the History -
In some cases on our side , a diary record plus an account on the heat of the battle would and could become the bassic information to write a book or to considere it as official report - Without giving enough time to compare records and accounts -
I would say that Books written some years after the end of the conflict should be much more accurate since they have had enough time to compare records and accounts from both sides
Thank you , Enrique
Fascinating account and great photos. On the topic of false/incorrect claims that site gives us an excellentexample. In his diary it states Antrim shot down a Canberra bomber with the Sea Slug. That's obviously what they thought at the time, and certainly Canberra were lost that day.
Local claims such as that mentioned in Planeman's post are one thing, but when they become inflated into national propaganda it's a different matter.
Delta Whisky 58
" national propagand " that is what it looks like from our side , but actually it's not , its History written under one or all of the following circunstances :
1- This was our only conflict in the last century , in Great Britain case it's one more ( ww1 ww2 Corea Viet Nam Golf war 1 Golf war 2 Afganistan and probably some other one that I may forget ) so for Great Britain there is no need of creating or accepting leyends , myth . you just take things are they are and thats all -
2- History written in the heat of the moment
3- Taking says of some report as accurate , when it's not double check .-
If you add up all three of this circunstances , you will most probably have a mistake in your History Book -
There are many accounts that after comparing them with others and making some adjustment come to be quite accurate -
There is one in particular , that every time is been brought to life create in Great Britain the same reaction : Again here come the Argies with their wrong believe about the event -
You already know what I think about it , and you must also realize that for me it is very difficult to talk about it - At the end of this post I will repeat to you my particular and personal thought about it , which by no means may represent or go against an official report , an arm forces report or even any book that may have been written about -
But we all need to understand that if a part of History is written under one or worst on , under the three circunstances mentioned at the beggining of the post , it will probably not represent what actually happen that day -
You Delta Whisky , and all the people of the world other than Argies have seen HMS Invincible navigating the Seas of the world for the last 25 years -
If the History related to this event is written under any or all of those circunstances , it may have a mistake - That is why HMS Invincible for some is under water -
So is all this about propagand , no its History - Can it be proven wrong , in did it can -
Do I have the right to chalenge the History , to doubt about an oficial report - The answere is no , I do not have that right -
Do I have the right of expressing my personal point of view , answere is yes -
Do others have the right to stick on what the original report and account say , yes they do - Will they change their mind about it if proven wrong , probably so -
Its not propagand , it's History writen under certain circunstances -
And in a few minutes I will tell you what I personaly think about it -
Delta Whisky 58
And this is what I think , which is personal and forgive me if it's wrong and in did anyone can prove it to me -
6 airplanes atack , one exorcet launch at the biggest of three ecos that come up in the radar , two Supper Etendard turn back after launching four more planes keep behind the exorcet -
Two planes from the left shot down by misil , two remaining planes keep going , see smoke preasume impact of exorcet on carrier and atack , drop bombs , miss bombs , return to base -
Atack reach west ring of protection of the carriers , atack escorts with the truth believe it was a carrier -
For me Heroes , that even doe had already lost two planes , which was half of the Pac , decided to keep going and not to abort the mision -
And now comes something that I have said before : Not what I see with my own eyes may be what really has happen -
Do I have doubts , yes I do and they are :
Atack went on the west side of the proteccion ring , thinking it was the main force , the exorcet did not hit anyone in that ring , the smoke was canon fire plus shafts towards which planes head to atack -
But the exorcet did not hit anyone there and it still had fuel for another 15 to 20 miles and it was heading north east = Who has it ?
May it have reach HMS Invincible ? It had enough fuel to do so -
If it did so , I would not expect much damage , I would even think that it may have been shot down not in the ring , but when already close to a Carrier -
Thank you Enrique
Ok, some of my Falklands war comparison pics. I've stuck with naval and some air units. There are of course detail errors in my drawings but I hope they are close enough to be acceptable. Usual caveat: completely amateur and based on web research. Feedback welcome.
I'll start with the prettiest picture I've done. Argentinean gun cruiser, ARA General Belgrano. Sunk by British nuclear hunter-killer submarine HMS Conqueror:
Belgrano looks like a battleship but she is actually much smaller, a light cruiser by WW2 standards. Originally a USN boat (USS Phoenix). She also had some lighter 20mm AAA not shown in the illustration (not confident of exact fit at time of Falklands). Weapons:
Carrier comparison. Note the Argentine carrier could not operate the Exocet Super-Etendards until after the war due to incompatibility of various landing systems etc. A-4Q Skyhawks and Tracker ASW aircraft were the main aircraft carried during the Falklands.
Overall surface fleet comparison:
And now the sad one; losses and damage. Of course History tells us that after the loss of Belgrano the Armada turned tail, so the relative loss rates should not be misconstrued. However, British losses of ships, though less so men, were very high. Numbers in brackets show deaths.
One of the first observations is that although it is Argentina that put "Exocet" into popular vocabulary, it's actually the Taskforce that carried more Exocets, it's just that after the Argentine fleet disengaged neither side got to use their ship based Exocets (well, not quite. Two of the Exocet tubes from ARA Segui were removed and used as improvised shore-based launchers, with good effect seriously damaging HMS Glamorgan).
That's before you start counting Sea Dart and Sea Slug SAMs which could be used against ships out to about 30km. I've not been able to confirm whether any British submarines carried Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles; if they did they didn't use them.
The Argentines made good use of the Exocet from the 4-5 Super-Etendard aircraft available (only 5 missiles). The British equivalent was the Sea Eagle missile which could be carried by some Sea Harriers. It's not clear if the Sea Eagle was taken south, if it was it wasn't used in anger:
In the circumstances, most British warship losses/damage was inflicted by dumb bombs from IAI Daggers and Skyhawks. A number of factors limited the numbers of strike aircraft Argentina could muster over the war zone, but the greatest limitation was that the bombs were often dropped too low to activate meaning that many ships were hit by bombs that did not explode. Despite this, UK lost three warships and two logistics ships to dumb bombs. Had all the bombs exploded, the losses would have been far higher.
The bomb equipped Hercules made two attacks, one on a British tanker (bomb hit but failed to explode) and one on an American owned tanker (innocent). The latter was ultimately sunk.
Argentina experimented with dropping medium torpedoes from Purcura close support aircraft though no live attacks were conducted before the war ended. This would have been an interesting scenario as the slow moving Pucura was about the only Argentine combat aircraft most British warships had sufficient air defences to down!
Most British warships (and Argentine) had wholly inadequate close-in air defences consisting of obsolete missiles (Sea Cat) and manually aimed light AA (20mm and 40mm). Neither side had operational CIWS. The relative challenge of shooting down an incoming threat from a 'typical' British warship's perspective:
Sea Cat and Sea Dart were also used by Argentina, all are of British origin. Only the Sea Wolf is credible for close-in defence including missiles (although untested in combat!). But, both the Sea Wolf equipped warships that were attacked by Argentine aircraft where damaged, one by a direct hit from a bomb which went straight through and out the other side! Sea Wolf was found to have limitations with multiple attackers and certain reliability issues but did score kills. Sea Dart performed well, including against aircraft outside it's advertised envelope (over land, low altitude etc) but was not suited to close-in defence leaving the Sea Dart warships vulnerable. Representative ships:
HMS Bristol, Britain's "cruiser" and in many ways the equivalent to Belgrano:
Onto a different subject; the Black Buck Vulcan raids. Much debated impact on the war, here's the less well known anti-radiation weapons fits. The Shrike was simply better and more could be carried, so it was used. Both fits were non-standard:
Air combat. Only the Sea Harrier scored any kills (an Argentine pucura shot down a helicopter though):
The Dagger's rarely flew air-combat missions, and it's not clear if the Skyhawks ever carried the Shafrir missile during the conflict. Some reports suggest at least one Shafrir armed F-86 Sabre was rushed back from retirement to defend Argentina, but saw no combat. The British Nimrod was hastily modified to carry Sidewinders (max 4) in case it chanced upon an Argentine reconnaissance aircraft or that single bomb armed Hercules.
Submarines:
Both sides made attacks on enemy ships but only one, HMS Conqueror, was successful and she used WW2 era unquided torpedoes to do the job. Modern torpedoes had poor results for both sides, although in the Argentine case that may have been user-fault rather than the design:
I think that's all. I'll leave with this very rare photo I found on the net. General Belgrano taken during the Falklands conflict from an Argentine fast attack craft:
Awesome ilustrations! Thanks for sharing!
Reydelcastillo - I find it difficult to understand why no-one from an Argentine point of view has re-evaluated the conflict and put things right. Do the Argentine people prefer to believe an inaccurate picture rather than things how they really were? You take a very matter of fact approach to the whole topic, but not many others do from the Argentine perspective, I have huge respect for you as a result.
Planeman - interesting illustrations, if I ever get around to writing the book which has been in my mind for a number of years, I'll know where to look for an illustrator.
Sir
History written wrong has the risk of creating leyends and myst -
This History has been read by everyone in the Country , so for those that had not have the oportunity of looking some were else for info , it will remain as if it is what actualy happen -
Why has it not been adjusted based on further info , which indicates it is wrong ?
Several reasons :
- How would you kill a leyend/myst when it is still alive ( the two pilots )
- How are you going to change an official report that you have sustained for the last 25 years without loosing prestige and honor -
How would you do it ?
For me and after been able to tell my personal point of view as a Human being and in no way speaking on behalf of anyone - This is the moment that I can finally make this subject " rest in peace " - Because I was able to tell you Sir , why is it that so many Argies think this way -
Thank you for understanding - Regards Enrique -
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
