Greythundercloudys
Member
40 years today that started, saw on the news Britain sent around 18 navy ships, probably have only 10 in the hole navy these days, looks like a different century, thatcher in the big jag arriving at number 10.
Falkland war, 40 years ago.
- Thread starter Greythundercloudys
- Start date
warfare is very different these days with the advent of drones etc
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Op Black Buck, two goes at Stanley Airfield, one bomb hit the runway. Longest run on record, all the more impressive considering the kit involved. Most important aspect was morale - depressing Argentine, raising British.
The documentary was called Falklands most daring raid great watch them vulcans were amazing things sad there all grounded now
No, yanks surpassed the record just after 9/11 bombing the taliban with B2 bombers.
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
The Argentinians were running Hercs in and out of Stanley even after the RAF bombed the airfield. In hindsight, and knowing how the RAF plays politics, I concluded long ago that the Black Buck raids were a PR stunt more than anything else.
Last edited:
betweenthelines
Member
- Location
- southwest
No it sends a message out to not believe everything you are told during a war.
Something everyone should bear in mind in the current situation.
- Location
- Limousin
The Falklands war had to be fought. It was a straightforward aggressive invasion by a foreign power of a British territory inhabited by British citizens. I must admit, I was extremely impressed and proud by the outstanding professionalism of the UK armed forces in quickly retaking the islands with the minimum of fuss and disruption.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Curious that one of the folks who “liked” this post is also (on another thread) advocating cowardly acceptance of subjugation by a foreign aggressor.
And what is "like" is it the same word as "agree" ?
Just wondering how the brits got it in the first place
Part of the empire back in the day think it was used as a whaling port there's alot of oil down there aswell we should be bloody getting that out
- Location
- Limousin
The French navigator Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founded the islands’ first settlement, on East Falkland, in 1764, and he named the islands the Malovines. The British, in 1765, were the first to settle West Falkland, but they were driven off in 1770 by the Spanish, who had bought out the French settlement about 1767. The British outpost on West Falkland was restored in 1771 after threat of war, but then the British withdrew from the island in 1774 for reasons of economy, without renouncing their claim to the Falklands. Spain maintained a settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811.
In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
The thing that really, really p!sses me off about the Argentinian governments' - past and present - comments about the Falklands, is that they always, always put in the word 'colonialism'...
And that comes from a country which is the direct result of colonialism, in a colonialist language, and it's always part of a speech of claim on the islands that is based on earlier colonialism.
I once asked the then Argentine ambassador to the UK when his government was planning to hand back all the land and resources there to native Americans. He, very politely, said they weren't, when I then asked him why British colonialism was bad but Argentinian colonialism was alright, he smiled and said something like 'My government's position on the matter of the Malvinas is clear'.
A very pleasant fellow, and no argument with him, because an ambassador has to take his lead from his government, but we both knew it was hypocrisy.
I recall that the CO of one of the Sea Harrier Squadrons did some calculations about the raid, the Vulcan dropped 21 x 1000lb bombs, its 7000 mile round trip required something like 12 Victor tankers to supply enough fuel. Sea Harriers launching from the carriers could each carry 2 x 1000lb bombs, 11 of them would have used less than 40,000 litres of fuel, the RAF used 5 million !!!
The RAF had spent the 1960's stating the message that they could cover the entire World from land bases and the Navy should abandon carriers, this was the RAF proving they could do it, by taking huge risks, using huge amounts of resources and achieving very little. The RAF did however contribute significantly to the fighting when their Harriers headed South to join the Navy, plus all the RAF pilots on secondment to the Fleet Air Arm who were required as the Navy had been decimated due to the RAF's lies.
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
Not so sure about the oil, a lot of holes were drilled but mostly only a sheen of oil came out
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
When I did my industrial placement at BG Exploration, in the late 90s, the chaps there had data that argued otherwise in the extreme. One consultant, from Slumberger from memory, reckoned there were Venezuelan amounts to be had around them. I think that subsequent exploration on the Orinoco Delta will almost certainly have proved him wrong by a large margin, the reserves there now being known be four times what they were then.
But the fact remains that there is an awful lot around the Falklands, probably in the low tens of billions, which would put it somewhere around the level of Qatar, or maybe even up with the US. Not all as easy to get out mind, but... extraction ability is way ahead of where it once was.
All academic of course, since we're all to be going electric and green soon.