Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WOI MASTER

British task force

Recommended Posts

I wonder... if argentina would have won the war (sinking for example a carrier) and the task force would not have any more fuel or ammo what would have happend. would it have to surrender and go to argentinian mainland to be confiscated

by argentina. would it go to a neutral country? would it simply stay there until their last ship its destroyed?.

this could be very helpfull to JT story. i personally think that if they had sunk a carrier or other important ship at an early stage of the war the task force would have gone back to the Uk and if it was at a late stage of the war they would surrrender cause they got men on the ground. What do you think? :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In May the British fleet came to the islands with their cargo. During April, the British ships were too far to the FAA could attack.

from 1 May, the Air Force Argentina began the attacks.

Keep in mind that the British had a huge number of battle ships.

When our pilots entered the Strait of San Carlos had no options.

Had to throw the first thing to see.

They also beat up cargo ships such as:

The Atlantic Conveyor which was carrying Harrier, helicopters, tents, spare parts, 1 water treatment plant, vehicles, fuel and others.

 

The Atlantic Conveyor was hit on May 25 by an Exocet

 

conveyor3.jpg

 

ed_imgsnf0570aa_213563a.jpg

 

 

And then you got the attack on cargo ships

 

Landing Ship Logistic (L-3005) RFA Sir Galahad:

Placed hors de combat by three bombs that reached 500 pounds in the engine room and accommodation, when carrying two English army. The explosion of bombs, a fire control. The remains of the hull were sunk by the submarine Onyx as a war grave.

 

 

arts-graphics-2007_1155884a.jpg

 

 

 

Boat Landing Foxtrot4

Placed hors de combat by a pump in the stern, where vehicles carrying Command 5th Infantry Brigade. Shortly after it sank with its cargo.

 

 

image023.gif

 

 

Landing Ship Logistic (L-3505) RFA Sir Tristam:

Three 500-pound bombs hit the house and engulfed in a fire that completely destroyed. The remains were recovered by the British and taken to Britain for subsequent placement in a museum.

 

 

falklands15.jpg

 

 

 

 

RFA Sir Lancelot

Landing ship logistics

A-4C Skyhawk - Fourth Brigade Aviation Administration (FAA)

24-May-82, 9:15 hours

Damaged by the impact of a bomb of 1000 pounds, which did not explode but the band broke starboard and caused a series of destruction to a halt in the accommodation aft. The ship was stranded and evacuated, the team embarked lost.

A-4C Skyhawk - Fourth Brigade Aviation Administration (FAA)

25-May-82

Placed hors de combat by another 1000 lbs bomb explodes, but not penetrate the hull by the banda starboard.

 

RFA_Sir_Lancelot.San_Carlos_Water.1982.jpg

 

 

 

RFA Sir Bedivere

Landing ship logistics

24-May-82, 9:15 hours

Damaged by impacts of 30 mm cannon and a bomb that failed to explode 1000 pounds.

 

 

daggerbedivere.jpg

 

VLCC "Hercules"

 

It is also the story of the attack on the tanker

The VLCC "Hercules" by one of our aircraft "Hercules" trained to carry bombs.

 

fb85c0cd6c77ca88927f524d25f1e0a6o.jpg

 

 

bomber3ck5.jpg

 

 

You see, when the situation arises logistic ships are attacked.

It was not easy but try and achievement.

 

 

Saludos

 

Marcos

Edited by suicidal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Thatcher would have nuked you.

 

LOL I don't think so.

 

It wouldn't had been necessary for Argentina to sink a carrier in order to bring the conflict to a stand (although losing a carrier certainly would have meant the collapse of Operation Corporate since the Task Force relied on air power for obtaining air superiority and support for ground forces - hence the need for placing the carriers outside the range of Argentine land-based aircraft) and force Britain to negotiate, if only Menéndez had used his reserves and stopped the British final assault on Stanley; British forces were nearly out of ammunition, literally firing their last rounds by then, and the assault was being carried out by troops that had been fighting for nearly 72 hours without sleep or food (they had just taken control of the high ridges around the capital after fierce and bloody battles with the Argentines). Menéndez on the other hand had three batallions and enough supplies at his disposal to hold Stanley and stop the British assault, but when he radioed the mainland and talked to Galtieri, he felt so demoralised by the attitude of his superiors that he chose to surrender - he later said he did so thinking of what was best for his troops but in the end, he just gave up after Galtieri told him on the horn: "the responsability today is with you" (in other words, "it's your problem, I'm here some 6 hundred-or-so kilometres away, you see to it"). The Argentines simply quit, their fighting spirit had been broken; they saw no good use in keeping on fighting and surrendered.

 

The day before the surrender, Rear Admiral Woodward told land forces commander, Brigadier General Jeremy Moore, that his Task Force was nearly at the point of being unable to sustain operations and that "... if the Argies could only breathe on us, we would fall over!". In the end I believe had the British not been successful in re-taking the capital of the islands, they would have been forced to sit back and start talking about a cease fire and the prospect of reseting peace talks at the UN, with Argentina now holding the islands hostage and in a position of strenght. But as for nuking the continent? Hard to believe: the nuclear scenario was never contemplated and that has many times been made clear by those in charge of the operation to take back control of the Falklands.

 

The British goal was to retake the Falklands, not to nuke mainland Argentina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Herc carrying bombs on pylons! Amazing! I may not agree with the use they were intended in this case :wink: but I admire the ingenuity none the less! :ok:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Herc carrying bombs on pylons! Amazing! I may not agree with the use they were intended in this case :wink: but I admire the ingenuity none the less! :ok:

 

Wanna know something? in the war argentinians had put pucara rockets on a tractor to use it as a tank!I would have never thougth of that! :clapping:

Edited by WOI MASTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrisBV

 

It is true what you say.

As was learned after the Argentine surrender, the British were in the same conditions as our forces.

His men were just as tired as ours, they were tired of the cold.

And its spirit of war was also low.

All they had was quantity ammunition.

 

 

 

It is said that if England lose this war was very likely to throw a nuclear bomb in Buenos Aires.

 

Coming to do is condemn and had been joined by the rest of South America to the contest.

except chile.

 

 

 

 

Kopis n Xiphos

 

Watch this tractor is the trigger for missiles

Operated with a 6 volt battery and is a cohetera pucara

 

Grunert.jpg

 

Commodore Ruben Sassone, Pilot Pucara aircraft

 

 

 

And this is the best of other cohetera pucara a slide in the defense of Puerto Argentino.

 

3814d4117705226695f1ee1eee2463feo.jpg

 

 

 

The Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

 

Saludos

 

Marcos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBV

 

It is true what you say.

As was learned after the Argentine surrender, the British were in the same conditions as our forces.

His men were just as tired as ours, they were tired of the cold.

And its spirit of war was also low.

All they had was quantity ammunition.

 

 

 

It is said that if England lose this war was very likely to throw a nuclear bomb in Buenos Aires.

 

Coming to do is condemn and had been joined by the rest of South America to the contest.

except chile.

 

 

 

 

Kopis n Xiphos

 

Watch this tractor is the trigger for missiles

Operated with a 6 volt battery and is a cohetera pucara

 

Grunert.jpg

 

Commodore Ruben Sassone, Pilot Pucara aircraft

 

 

 

And this is the best of other cohetera pucara a slide in the defense of Puerto Argentino.

 

3814d4117705226695f1ee1eee2463feo.jpg

 

 

 

The Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

 

Saludos

 

Marcos

wow that reply was fast!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is said that if England lose this war was very likely to throw a nuclear bomb in Buenos Aires.

 

Do you really think that, had the UK lost the war in the South Atlantic and consequently, had its Armed Forces and Government (and Prime Minister) humiliated and defeated, would they even had as close as thought about dropping a nuke on Argentina? Do you think the British people would have agreed to such a thing?

 

Are you aware of nuclear release protocols or under which circumstances is it justifiable to deploy nuclear weapons? Nukes aren't like candy, there are protocols and strategic considerations to deploy them, as well as appropriate justifications for release... and losing a conventional war for an overseas territory certainly didn't make enough justification for dropping a nuke on somebody's sovereign soil.

 

It has being said that British ballistic nuclear missile submarines were on-station in the area of the conflict but so they were around the world as part of the British policy of nuclear deterrence against the Soviets (as it was the case with the Americans, French, etc. and the Soviets on the other side). And the MoD has even admitted that some of the ships of the Task Force did carry nuclear weapons - a standard practice during the Cold War - but that they were removed on their way to the South Atlantic. But so it has been made clear that the nuclear "option" was never an option in the South Atlantic scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is said that if England lose this war was very likely to throw a nuclear bomb in Buenos Aires.

 

Coming to do is condemn and had been joined by the rest of South America to the contest.

except chile.

 

That's pure and gratuitous speculation based on... what?

 

I seriously don't think that ANY South American country would have agreed or stood idly by the nuclear bombing of a fellow South American nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: I seriously hope the developers aren't considering a "nuke Argentina"-type fictional scenario for Jet Thunder :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the most frightening tractor I HAVE EVER SEEN!!! If Welsh farmers ever learn how to do such a thing, the world will be in grave danger! :haha: :lmaosmiley:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I do not understand the protocols which are the countries that possess nuclear weapons.

And like you say, what I think are just speculations.

But I believe in the version that says that after the fighting of May 25 the British thought seriously on the nuclear option in an eventual defeat.

 

 

That's pure and gratuitous speculation based on ... what?

 

It is not free and idle speculation.

 

Many South American countries who helped us during the war, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, Paraguay and others.

They gave us weapons and ammunition.

 

Venezuela offered to help us with 500 of his best commands to shots hand suicide.

 

Brazil helped us during the war by naval pilots, who were acting on reconnaissance missions from the mainland.

 

Peru at the time that NATO had us blocked our ability to procure weapons.

We sold 10 planes with missiles and fuel tanks.

That we use them.

 

And as these countries are also Arab allies that provided us during the war of missiles, mortars, ammunition and artillery AA. and different parts of aircraft.

 

It is nothing strange to think that if the continent has been attacked many Argentine friends had been willing to support us.

 

 

Saludos

 

Marcos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I do not understand the protocols which are the countries that possess nuclear weapons.

 

But I believe in the version that says that after the fighting of May 25 the British thought seriously on the nuclear option in an eventual defeat.

 

Which version is that?

 

According to which sources?

 

Now, as far as foreign aid to Argentina is concerned... some countries helped Argentina, others (namely Chile) helped the UK; after all, Argentina had threatened Chile with invasion after challenging the rule of the International Court of Justice regarding the dispute over the Beagle Channel islands in 1978, just 4 years before the Falklands conflict, why wouldn't then Chile help Britain? Sounds perfectly resonable to me. But then again, helping a foreing ally to wage war against an unfriendly/belligerent/dangerous neighbour (as Argentina, ruled by a ruthless and blood-thirsty military Junta, was at the time) is one thing... and something completely different is to accept, push for or be in favour of a NUCLEAR STRIKE against continental territory. A nuclear strike against a civilian population (Cordoba, Buenos Aires), a flagrant crime against humanity, nothing more, nothing less. Using nuclear weapons against civilians, against a civilian target? That would have spelled disaster not only for the Thatcher office, the British government but for Great Britain as a whole, it would have earned the UK international condemnation and a place amongst the most despicable rogue nations of this Earth.

 

Hard to believe, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is nothing strange to think that if the continent has been attacked many Argentine friends had been willing to support us.

 

If the UK had nuked Argentina? Oh, absolutely! Make no mistake about that!

 

But let me ask you something: do you think the British were crazy or stupid enough to have even thought about pulling such a stunt without even considering the consequences? What kind of repercussions do you think Britain could have faced for bombing a city with nuclear weapons? Again: nukes aren't like candy, they can't be used or released just because somebody fancies it or deployed to one's heart's content. That's the whole reason why in more than 60 years of existance, only two nuclear weapons have ever been dropped in anger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the UK had nuked Argentina? Oh, absolutely! Make no mistake about that!

 

But let me ask you something: do you think the British were crazy or stupid enough to have even thought about pulling such a stunt without even considering the consequences? What kind of repercussions do you think Britain could have faced for bombing a city with nuclear weapons? Again: nukes aren't like candy, they can't be used or released just because somebody fancies it or deployed to one's heart's content. That's the whole reason why in more than 60 years of existance, only two nuclear weapons have ever been dropped in anger.

His right the only nuclear bombs droped in anger (hiroshima nagasaki) wwere thrown as a desperate measure and this was one of the most horrifing attacks ever done. its impossible to think about throwing a nuke unless the country its on edge of a disaster and still it would be very unlikely. UK would have never nuked argentina. if they hadnt even tried to to invade british mainland

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..