FALKLAND losses

hey does any body knows how many argies and brits were killed in this campain????

 

236 British and around 700 Argentine

It also cost Britain six ships (10 others were damaged), thirty-four aircraft, and more than 1.6 billion pounds.

I believe now a days the British spend more protecting the Falklands than Argentina spends on their entire military and there are more service on the Falklands than there are islanders.

 

I remember saying when it started that our losses at least would probably be less than road deaths in one county in one year - and was severely bollocked as "unfeeling and callous". (PS I was right).
To my way of thinking if you go to war then someone has decided it's justified, so losses are "acceptable", but road traffic accidents - justify those
Mr Callous

 

Great Britain
255 dead, 777 wounded

2 Destroyers: HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry
2 Frigates: HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope
1 Containership: Atlantic Conveyor (3 Chinooks and 5 Wessexs went down with the HMS A.C.)
1 LSL RFA Sir Galahad

9 Harriers
19 Helicopters

Costs 1,5 to 2,5 Bilion british Pounds.


Argentinia
730 dead, more then 1000 wounded

1 Cruiser: General Belgrano (323 dead)


1 Submarine: Santa Fe
2 Patrolboats: Rio Iguaza, Alferez Sobral
3 Transporter: Rio Carcarana, Bahia Buen Suceso, Isla de los Estados
1 Trawler: Narwal

62 Fighters
3 Transport a/c
34 Helicopters

Costs were/are unknown

 

Were all those ships sunk by Exocet missiles ?

 

No the HMS Coventry was hit by three 227 kg Snakeye-Bombs. HMS Antelope and RFA Sir Galahad were also hit each by 2 Bombs, don´t know the type, sry.

 

A lot of the bombs that hit British ships but failed to go off were American built. Before this starts to look like a dig at the Americans ( always fun ) it should be noted that the Americans didn't give the Argentines the manuals telling how to fuse the bombs for being dropped at low level. Apparently the Argentines were pretty upset about that, they felt it was bad after sales service. :lol:

 

The BBC helpfully alerted them to the fuse problem....

:angry: :bang:

 

HMS Ardent was also sunk by two 454kg(one didn´t detonade) and two 227kg bombs. This picture was taken, after she was attacked by 3 Daggers of the CUECA-Group, hitting her with two 454 kg bombs. At 4 o´clock she was attacked by 3 A-4 Skyhawks of the TABANO-Group, they hit her with two 227 kg and the other ten bombs fall near the ship.

 

What was Argentina thinking ? , they had minor success at first but didn't they know they didn't stand a chance against the most prestigous military ever when they counter-attacked ?

 

I think Argentine thinking runs roughly as follows

Argentine economy was in trouble.
Lot of social unrest :angry:
The Military Junta did not have any easy solutions to these economic problems.
The population of Argentina had long been taught that the Falklands are theirs but that they were stolen by British Imperialists (basically correct) :evil:
They think that the British Government doesn't give a rats ass about the Falklands. (also basically correct)
They think Britain doesn't have the strength to fight a war so far away on its own. (wrong only by a few months )
They think British don't have backbone / balls (delete as appropriate) to fight war over few crappy islands. :lol: (proven wrong)
So they think Ah-Ha short successful war, take everyone’s mind off economic problems. :bang:


In truth the Falklands was a far closer run thing than people think. The British Army was more than a match for the conscripts on the Falklands but at sea things got far too close for comfort.

 

The British Army was more than a match for the conscripts on the Falklands but at sea things got far too close for comfort.

True, but according to more than one account I've read the British had a fairly healthy respect for the Argentine regulars they came up against (1 Para vs Argentine 1st Parachute Regiment at Wireless Ridge).

 

well i think most of the argies who died were abord the general belgrano
but when i study the facts i come to the conclusion that the argie air force did a good job sinking so many rn ships it would be even more if the bombs detonate probarly. But how come havent the brits got a early warning sytem because normally in the modern war a fifghter shouldent be able to come so close to a destroyer or frigatte to drop convetional bombs

 

One thing you have to appreciate is that a lot of the task force was comprised of impressed civilian vessels, so no they would not have early warning systems, but also the support ships of the task force were obliged to anchor in bay (I think, sorry not terribly up on my nautical/geographical terms) surrounded by quite steep hills. This favoured the attacking aircraft over the defending ships.

When Sheffield was hit the Argentine plane that attacked flew incredibly low for the entire journey, the pilot popping up only occasionally to check his radar and then to attack the ship, which due to mis-communication had its anti-air systems turned off.

The rest as they say is history.

As an aside the Argentine pilots were apparently quite highly regarded by the FAA Sea-Harrier pilots, and the Argentine airforce of the 1980s owed much of it's origins to a certain German emigre, Adolf Galland...

 

you mean in open waters the outcome would be an other??

 

The outcome could have been different if Sheffield hadn't turned off her anti-air sytems prior to the attack, but although my understanding of naval matters is not brilliant, yes if the naval campaign had been conducted in open waters it may have been different, on the other hand the transports being that much further away almost certainly would have had a negative impact on the ground war. Perhaps not enough to make enough of a difference, but it would have been a much harder war for the British soldiers.

 

The exocet missiles used are also very hard to detect becuase u cannot trace their radar becuase they only switch it on for a second and they also fly at wave top height.

 

This may be interesting to some - what if the original CTOL carrier Ark Royal had been present instead of the Invincible and Hermes?

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discu ... 1069.topic

 

Actually I don't think it did. The attacking planes could only see the ships once they crested the hill and then they were being shot at with everything from SAMs to small arms. Bottom line pilots had very little time to aquire a target.

 

Argentinians at the time didn't use snakeeyes but exculsevly normal Mk.82 dumb bombs.

Anyone who had seen films of attacking Argentinian A-4's must admit that these guys had brass balls (some major cojones).

Main problem for Argentinians was range. A-4 and IAI Daggers were at their max. range.
Mirage III were were at extreme range. They could patrol over the islands for max 5 minutes. If they went to the deck (where most of the fighting took place) they wouldn't have enough fuel for return.
Camberras flew few mission (with dumb bombs) but after some losses most missions were canceled. Usefulness of
Etendards was limited to Exocet attacks of which only few were availible. Etendard was the only plane that didn't have the range problem as it could be refuled in flight ( Arg. had only two makeshift reffulers C-130).
Macchis and Pucaras (both types were the only planes stationed on the islands) were not useful in dogfights or for attacks on the fleet.

At the same time some planes had to be held in reserve as Chille was making some threatening noises about some desputed territory on Tierra del fuego. UK planes (camberras, sea kings both with Chillean markings) and special forces ( according to my info SBS) operated from Chillean territory.

At the time there was almost no practical defence against Exocet missiles. That was also proven by Iraqis when thay hit USS Stark. Phalanx system was developed specificly for these cases.

Incidently some of the Daggers and Mirage IIIs were veterans of Yom kippur war.