Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

"We are going to get the Falklands back"


Socio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah i know..i was just replying to a nuke all post.We would probably use Chile as our base if it did transpire that we had another scuffle with Argentina.We wouldn't have had the first conflict if Maggie had taken Pinochets warning up saying that.Would Typhoons/Tornados be able to get to the Falklands from Chile without refueling ?

Argentine AF aircraft were pretty marginal on fuel getting to the Falklands and (some at least) back, and to get to the Islas Malvinas from Chile would mean havin to cross Argentine airspace, or take a long diversion around Cape Horn, so that'd mean all sorts of extra complications, I should think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mekorig

    26

  • Space Commander Travis

    30

  • keithisco

    26

  • Mr Right Wing

    38

Well thats a damn shame then considering our aircraft carriers are mothballed.

If it persuaded David "Cam" Cameron of the errors he'd made, maybe any embarassment might be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argentine AF aircraft were pretty marginal on fuel getting to the Falklands and (some at least) back, and to get to the Islas Malvinas from Chile would mean havin to cross Argentine airspace, or take a long diversion around Cape Horn, so that'd mean all sorts of extra complications, I should think.

Argentine aircraft already had fuel problems reaching the Malvinas. Getting to them from Chile would need fuel carriers. But again, think it twice before thinking of Chile involved in any theorical new conflict.

PD: I have the most respect for the Ghurkas, a people who is fighting for a foreign army that now is beggining to finally recognice them as ecellent warriors. But read again, the PR campgain only worked against conscrips, kids sent to die of cold and hunger without apropiate equipment by our "glorious" leaders back in the 70`s. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argentine AF aircraft were pretty marginal on fuel getting to the Falklands and (some at least) back, and to get to the Islas Malvinas from Chile would mean havin to cross Argentine airspace, or take a long diversion around Cape Horn, so that'd mean all sorts of extra complications, I should think.

Yeah i did a bad misjudgment..thanks 747400...nowt new there... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thats a damn shame then considering our aircraft carriers are mothballed.

We'll have no problem in getting aircraft to the Falklands. They'll just have to be refuelled in the air several times en route.

And the Falklands have an airport so we can use the islands as an aircraft carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PD: I have the most respect for the Ghurkas, a people who is fighting for a foreign army that now is beggining to finally recognice them as ecellent warriors.

The British Army and the British people have known for 200 years that the Gurkhas are excellent warriors. That's why they've been fighting for Britain for that long.

It's just a few politicians - mainly those in the last Labour Government - who don't value the Gurkhas as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll have no problem in getting aircraft to the Falklands. They'll just have to be refuelled in the air several times en route.

And the Falklands have an airport so we can use the islands as an aircraft carrier.

We have an intercontinental fighter-bomber the Tarinis.

We also have other South Atlantic air bases and I'm sure if needed the French will honour our new alliance and provide their carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have an intercontinental fighter-bomber the Tarinis.

We also have other South Atlantic air bases and I'm sure if needed the French will honour our new alliance and provide their carrier.

It was on the Radio today four ships including HMS Edinburgh are patrolling the South Atlantic - Falklands. and you can bet a sub is also there.

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was on the Radio today four ships including HMS Edinburgh are patrolling the South Atlantic - Falklands. and you can bet a sub is also there.

I believe it was HMS Conqueror that got the point across quite nicely in '82.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was HMS Conqueror that got the point across quite nicely in '82.

yep that was the moment the Argies knew they were in trouble. if i can remember after this incident the Argentine navy returned and never left port again. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep that was the moment the Argies knew they were in trouble. if i can remember after this incident the Argentine navy returned and never left port again. :o

Very true - they even high tailed their one aircraft carrier out of there.

Here's an interesting podcost that provides a lot of detail on the Falklands War. It's primarily focused on refuting the absurd claim that the Argies sunk the HMS Invincible, but in doing so give some good detail on the whole thing. It's about halfway down the page.

http://www.yrad.com/cs/index2010.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing to discuss and it doesn't affect the US in any way. If you want to sugar-coat it and claim it's not interfering, by all means pick another word. They still have no right or reason to do it.

I've never agreed with those who say America acts like a global police force but, of late, they do seem to think that it's their responsibility to manage other countries' affairs.

You say this doesn't affect the US in any way but we all know that eventually the US will get drawn into it. The reality is global peace is good for everyone and conversely war is bad for everyone. Maybe instead of bashing America we should be celebrating. As of late peace has not been the US government's top priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did America support Argentina?

not in '82 they didn't, but then Ron and Maggie had, as we know, a Special Relationship, whereas O'Bama's not really that bothered about "Cam" Cameron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not in '82 they didn't, but then Ron and Maggie had, as we know, a Special Relationship, whereas O'Bama's not really that bothered about "Cam" Cameron.

Because Obama's an idiot. The first thing he did when he moved into the Oval Office was throw out the bust of Winston Churchill that Britain gave to America as a gift after 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Obama's an idiot. The first thing he did when he moved into the Oval Office was throw out the bust of Winston Churchill that Britain gave to America as a gift after 9/11.

Britain is hated around the world because if its empire.

When the US has a black president the risk America is taking is that he might habour resentment towards Britain because of the slave trade and the imperialism in Africa. The same problem might also exist if the US had a gay president.

I think the UK should end the special relationship and leave the EU. We are a resource rich nation and can stand on our own feet its our politicians selling us out which gives us the impression we are second rate. We should once again become the harbour of Europe and protect our own businesses from cheap imports from the far east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say this doesn't affect the US in any way but we all know that eventually the US will get drawn into it. The reality is global peace is good for everyone and conversely war is bad for everyone. Maybe instead of bashing America we should be celebrating. As of late peace has not been the US government's top priority.

In case you hadn't noticed, we aren't at war with Argentina now. They know they can't take the Falklands on their own. If the US just keep their nose out, the whole thing will die down without a angry word being fired, let alone a bullet.

Also, if the US really is the beacon of democracy it likes to portray itself as, they should respect the islanders' decision. They want to be part of the UK, the UK wants them to be part of it - how is anyone else's opinion relevant?

The Argentine claim to the Falklands makes as much sense as us asking the French to give us swathes of Normandy and Brittany because we used to control them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain is hated around the world because if its empire

It would be a bit hypocritical of the Americans to condemn another country because of its imperialism.

That would be like the Scots accusing the people of another nation of being tight with money or the amphibian and mollusc-eating French accusing another nation of having horrible food.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the US has a black president the risk America is taking is that he might habour resentment towards Britain because of the slave trade and the imperialism in Africa.

Obama should have more resentment towards America over the slave trade than Britain. Thanks to the efforts of people like William Wilberforce, Britain became the first country in the world to permanently abolish the slave trade in 1807 when it banned it in its Empire.

America, on the other hand, continued with slavery until as late as the 1860s and only a war put an end to it. Even many of those who signed the US Declaration of Independence were, ironically, slave owners and traders.

Obama also would have had a hard time living in the country that he is now leader of as recently as the 1950s, when blacks weren't allowed to sit anywhere they liked on buses in the so called "Land of the Free."

The same problem might also exist if the US had a gay president.

I don't remember Britain ever being involved in a gay trade.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was HMS Conqueror that got the point across quite nicely in '82.

belgrano-sinking.jpg

Yeah. It was HMS Conqueror, a Churchill-class nuclear-powered fleet submarine, which sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War with two Mark 8 torpedoes. 323 Argies were killed in that one incident in a total of 649 Argies who were killed in the whole war.

She is one of only two submarines to have sunk a warship since World War II.

The other incident occurred almost 11 years previously on 8th December 1971 when the Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor sank the Indian Navy's ASW frigate INS Khukri with two Homing torpedoes during the Indo-Pakistani War. 194 Indian sailors were killed.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

belgrano-sinking.jpg

Yeah. It was HMS Conqueror, a Churchill-class nuclear-powered fleet submarine, which sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War with two Mark 8 torpedoes. 323 Argies were killed in that one incident in a total of 649 Argies who were killed in the whole war.

She is one of only two submarines to have sunk a warship since World War II.

The other incident occurred almost 11 years previously on 8th December 1971 when the Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor sank the Indian Navy's ASW frigate INS Khukri with two Homing torpedoes during the Indo-Pakistani War. 194 Indian sailors were killed.

Blackwhite, i will ask you to be respectul and dont refer to those sailors as "argies", as that is a derogatory term for the argentines. Please, call them argentine sailors of just sailors. Death soldiers and sailors, on both sides, deserv some respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we just about won the last Falklands war. if those Argentinian pilots used the weapons correctly - such as the unexploded bombs we'd have had lost a lot more ships. like in any war you need a bit of luck. such luck happened when the container ship ATLANTIC CONVEYOR got hit instead of our carrier. if it would have been the other way around we'd have lost.

obviously this time around the argies are weaker than they were then, but so are we, lets not forget Argentinas possible allies, Brazil and Venezuela, Hugo Charvez is on the record stating if Argentina was to invade the Falklands Venezuela would prevent the British navy entering the south Atlantic. also Brazil they are already being funny about not allowing ships to to dock if bound for the Falklands.

HMS Alacrity - slightly damaged by bomb near misses

HMS Arrow - slightly damaged by cannon fire

HMS Glamorgan - slightly damaged by bomb near misses, all off Stanley by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

Tuesday 4th May

HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5. Erm.... you may want to check on that one chap, i

served in Fearless in 89 ( in pompey dockyard 3 basin mothball fleet) B)

HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super

Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.

Wednesday 12th May

HMS Glasgow - moderately damaged off Stanley by unexploded bomb (1) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Bomb passed through hull but damage took some days to repair and she shortly returned to UK.

Friday 21st May

HMS Antrim - seriously damaged in Falkland Sound outside San Carlos Water by unexploded bomb (2) dropped by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. UXB removed but damage took some days to repair.

HMS Broadsword - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6.

HMS Argonaut - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by rockets and cannon fire from Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc, and then seriously damaged by two unexploded bombs (3/4) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Removing the UXB's and carrying out repairs took a number of days and although declared operational, she soon sailed for the UK.

HMS Brilliant - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6. (Different attack from "Broadsword")

HMS ARDENT - badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs - hits, UXB's (5+) and near misses - dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island. Sank the following evening.

Sunday 23rd May

HMS ANTELOPE - damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs (6/7) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.

Monday 24th May

RFA Sir Galahad - damaged by unexploded bomb (8) and out of action for some days,

RFA Sir Lancelot - damaged by unexploded bomb (9) and not fully operational for almost three weeks,

RFA Sir Bedivere - slightly damaged by glancing bomb, all in San Carlos Water probably by A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4.

Tuesday 25th May

HMS Broadsword - damaged north of Pebble Island by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bouncing up through her stern and out again to land in the sea.

HMS COVENTRY - sunk north of Pebble Island in same attack by three bombs.

ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.

Saturday 29th May

British Wye - hit north of South Georgia by bomb dropped by C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 which bounced into the sea without exploding

Tuesday 8th June

HMS Plymouth - damaged in Falkland Sound off San Carlos Water by four unexploded bombs (10-13) from Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

RFA SIR GALAHAD - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.

RFA Sir Tristram - badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.

HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.

Saturday 12th June

HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Fearless_(L10)&sa=U&ei=dTAVTvfNEcyw8QOu7vgU&ved=0CBUQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNF7E9ChshNYIDTYLNWzK9JGaAA1CQ

Edited by maca02
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm...taking in count that the british were famous for their pirates and their stealing of territory all along thei history, i think pirate is an apropiate moniker. BTW, the british expelled an already established population on the Malvinas and took it, like they tried with Buenos Aires twice before. :innocent:

so you take exception to being called Argies, but its ok to call my dead comrades Pirates <_< arrogant ARGIE fool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you take exception to being called Argies, but its ok to call my dead comrades Pirates <_< arrogant ARGIE fool

That's a good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously this time around the argies are weaker than they were then, but so are we, lets not forget Argentinas possible allies, Brazil and Venezuela, Hugo Charvez is on the record stating if Argentina was to invade the Falklands Venezuela would prevent the British navy entering the south Atlantic. also Brazil they are already being funny about not allowing ships to to dock if bound for the Falklands.

How are the Venezuelans going to prevent a Royal Navy taskforce sailing to the Falklands? I think they've only got about ten proper warships.

Also, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was in Brazil recently. Amongst other things he had a word with the Brazilians over their supposed support of Argentina over the Falklands. But Whitehall sources believe that Brazil is not an active supporter of Argentina, and is keen to deepen its trade links with the UK.

The deputy Prime Minister is beginning a three-day visit to Brazil with universities minister David Willetts, trade minister Lord Green and foreign minister Jeremy Browne to Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and the capital Brasilia. The visit comes amid increasing bellicose language from Cristina Kirchner, president of neighbouring Argentina who last week criticised Prime Minister David Cameron for mediocrity bordering on stupidity over the Falklands.

Sources close to Mr Clegg said that he was planning to raise the dispute at a meeting with Antonio Patriota, Brazils foreign minister this afternoon.

The issue could also come up when Mr Clegg and Mr Browne meet Brazilian vice president Michel Temer shortly afterwards.

Although Latin American states are known to be broadly supportive of Argentinas stance, Whitehall sources believe that Brazil is not an active supporter, and is keen to deepen its trade links with the UK.

The official visit is the first by a British minister since the Royal Navys Falkland Islands protection ship was turned away from port in Rio in January.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/8587218/Nick-Clegg-to-face-down-Brazil-over-support-for-Argentina-in-Falklands-row.html

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.