Want a patch or t-shirt with our adorably heavily armed rockhopper penguin? Both are available from Varusteleka:
https://www.varusteleka.com/en/search?q=penguin
Since I spent a couple weeks hiking across the Falklands and then visiting battlefields (and penguins), it seems reasonable to do a Q&A video about the place and the 1982 war there between Argentina and the UK. All the questions were provided by Forgotten Weapons Patrons:
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
01:38 – How did the FAL perform, seeing as both sides used it?
03:43 – Effectiveness of light and heavy weapons in the war
[Les video link to be added when it posts]
08:49 – Would the British have been better off Yomping with AR15s, like the SAS used?
10:09 – Is there much local animosity to Argentina today?
12:21 – Local food and adult beverages
15:31 – What do people do for fun on the Falklands?
17:52 – Oldest small arm in service during the war?
20:18 – Military equipment wreckage on the islands
22:06 – Value of full powered rifle round in the FI terrain?
24:31 – Minefields
25:44 – Interaction of weapons with different effective ranges
28:46 – Did Exocet spur development of CIWS?
31:00 – What has been done to defend the islands against another invasion?
33:51 – Issues with an army designed to fight the USSR in Europe deploying to the South Atlantic?
35:30 – Weirdest weapon used in the conflict?
36:29 – Field modifications of small arms and unique kit
38:20 – Were British vehicle at risk of damage there?
39:40 – Engagement ranges
40:23 – Relevancy of bayonet fighting
41:28 – Unique equipment used by the Falkland Islands Defense Force
43:27 – American view of the Falklands War today
44:41 – Which Yomp route did we take?
45:01 – Did we visit Ajax Bay or the cemetery?
46:00 – Reality vs my expectations of the islands
46:57 – How would the war go if it happened today instead of in 1982?
48:25 – Did British soldiers use Argentine FALs?
“(…)Weirdest weapon used in the conflict?”
I would bet at Mark VIII as being-out-of-time, according https://weaponsystems.net/system/1220-Mark+VIII
(…)heavyweight torpedo of British origin(…)developed in the 1920’s(…)notable for sinking the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano in 1982 during the Falklands War.
whilst ARA General Belgrano being Brooklyn-class cruiser was of similar vintage, it was not used by forces which intended to be top-most one of world.
First foreign conflict of the Argentinean air force, and the only armed service of that nation not indelibly stamped with utter failure and ignominy–righty or wrongly:
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/fuerzaaerea/gesta-malvinas#:~:text=Durante%20la%20campa%C3%B1a%20b%C3%A9lica%2C%20tuvieron,%2C%20DHC%2D6%20Twin%20Otter%2C
As far as small-arms go, I’d wager among the most obscure would be the L4 Bren guns used by some Royal Marines, the no-forward-assist M16s used by some SAS and possibly SBS, and the Argentine submachine guns Halcon ML-63, PAM-2, FMK-3, and even some L34A1 suppressed British Sterlings…
Select-fire FAL versus L1A1 SLR… FN MAG vs. L7A2 FN MAG…M72 LAW vs. Carl Gustaf 84mm …Exocet vs. Exocet… Skyhawk & Mirage III vs. Harrier … and infamously, loads and loads of Argentine land mines without mine field maps..
“(…)suppressed(…)”
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C238744 suggest that WELROD was used there
After the [2nd World] war, the Welrod was used in places like Korea, Vietnam and the Falklands.
though this seems odd considering considering they have access to suppressed sub-machine guns. Are there any pictorial evidence of WELROD in said conflict?
That last line about ” … and infamously, loads and loads of Argentine land mines without mine field maps.” is something I happen to know a little about. One of the Brits I got to know through them coming to do exercises here in the US was a Royal Engineer who’d been detailed off to do EOD work, and he’d been involved with demining down in the Falklands after the conflict was over.
Supposedly, the real deal with all the issues from a lack of land mine mapping stemmed from two main sources: One, the Argentine conscripts were not all that well-trained, the Argentine officers and NCOs who did know how to do the job properly were never forward-deployed to the Falklands due to a need to keep them in Argentina itself because of threats from Chile… Basically, all the guys that knew how to do such things properly were never involved in it. The whole mining effort was a very haphazard affair, performed by people that had only the rudiments of the necessary training.
The other problem was, what maps and diagrams there were? The Argentines burned them in a fit of pique, quite against the Law of War. The Brits managed to get their hands on some of the records, but the ones that they got ahold of were basically less than useless because the people doing the recording hadn’t known what the hell they were doing, per the first issue I mentioned… The Brits were not particularly happy with the Argentinian military because of that.
Interestingly enough, the Argentinian military used mostly American mine doctrine, which was NATO-based, and derived from the UK in the first place. My British informant said the whole thing was rather like looking at his own guys doing training, but through a circus-funhouse mirror.
Big problem for the Argentines was that few of the troops had compasses or maps, let alone really knew how to use them effectively enough to lay in decently recorded minefields. Their selection of landmarks for the recording also sucked; quite a few of them chose things that were seasonal, and basically which evaporated.
I remember the British press had a few articles about the the poor quality of British equipment, especially boots. One Sunday newspaper had a colour article comparing the Argentinian boot, cut into cross section, and the British issue direct moulded sole footwear. The Argentinian boot had a three layers to its sole, two leather and a rubber outer.
They claimed that British forces were picking these up from battlefields to avoid trench foot, caused by wearing the issue boots. I have no idea if this was true.
Having been a victim of that era’s military footwear, I can attest to both the UK and US possessing utter shiite for boots. The two armies issued what the trade termed “DMS”, or “Direct Molded Sole” boots. The idea was that those would be sufficient for cold/wet conditions around freezing, and you’d be wearing overshoes to keep them dry and warm, preventing trench foot.
Trouble was, the theory never quite worked all that well in reality. Mostly because people’s feet sweat, water gets in over the top of the overboots, and… Well, it was utterly miserable. The issue DMS boots were fine, so long as you weren’t out in freezing wet/cold conditions, and if you were? Well, that was why so many of my peers lost their minds over people changing socks and made a fetish of foot inspections. Deal was, if Private Snuffy got himself frostbite or trenchfoot, that was your career. Regardless of the merits of the situation; if he was your guy, you were cooked if he turned up at the aid station for foot-related issues that someone might work out were due to a lack of diligence on your part. The whole thing was enforced with draconian glee…
Better boots were to be had, but they were mostly made by continental European manufacturers. The Brits were really, really fond of Scarpa boots, and the US forces just bought the official German Bundeswehr winter boot. Usually with their own money…
I remember when the first Gore-Tex ECWCS stuff came out; I would not be a bit surprised if there hadn’t been actual murders committed over that stuff. That’s how superior it was… First guys we saw with it were from Vicenza, out of the Airborne unit down there, and we were all just incredulous at how much better it was than the M1951 crap we had.
The first real cold/wet boot made in the US was the Danner Fort Lewis boot, and that sucker made them a mint; I remember paying around $190.00 for my first pair, and how much they improved my quality of life in the field. Really good boots, well worth the money. Eventually, the Army designed a boot system that could compete with it, and put it on general issue, but before all that happened, there was really no decent cold/wet boot available. The Mickey Mouse boots were great for standing around in sub-zero temperatures, but anyone who ever tried marching or skiing in those things likely has the scars to prove it, about mid-shin. Just remembering those boots and trying to ski on Mount Rainier makes my teeth hurt.
But, yeah… The Brits had shiite boots, for the most part, while in the Falklands. I talked to a veteran of that campaign, and he was the one that convinced me that a good boot was to be cherished, no matter how much the damn thing cost. From what he related, the only guys that had decent footwear down there were the Royal Marine Commandoes who’d been in Norway, and the SAS. Everyone else was left observing what good boots looked like, and resolved to acquire similar ones by hook or crook. Scarpa and a couple of other German manufacturers made bank in the years after the Falklands; from what was related to me, they had agents selling boots by special order out of the backs of cars and vans across much of the UK and wherever else the British Army was, at that time.
In Berkeley at the time, I remarked that Argentina would be a ‘3rd World Country™’ within a week. And yes, some of the red-diaper crowd did try to whip up support for the Argentine junta—which had ‘disappeared’ 30,000 citizens, and had a secret police force organized and trained by escaped Nazis. By attacking English-speaking people, living under a democracy, they were magically transformed into Anti Colonialist Resistance.
You’ve got it all wrong. A classic distorted picture drawn by media. Falkland (Malvinas)
war was not the consequence of an inflated 30000 disappeared ones figure but, a 44 billion foreign debt contracted by the military on behalf and benefit of finance tycoons and charged on taxpayers. By the time the debt was to be honored there were no more Central Bank dollar reserves and panic resorted the military into the conflict as an excuse, not a historical legitimate cause. Argentine military are freemasonry controlled and not by “escaped Nazis”, most brass and top officers were and are more anglophile dudes than bread and butter Americans.
Stop confusing the discussion with facts. This thread gives grouchy old Yanks a chance to air their cliche collections. So far the talk faintly echoes the 1982 tabloid headline ‘Hitler Masterminded Falklands Fiasco!’
Martin, facts are facts and directly related. I would like to go onto specific weapon performance, but all comes from strategic decisions,training, tactics, logistics and ultimately on weapons. Of course, when trying to justify mistakes Hitler it´s always in the both sides of the pond, even when appealing in distorting facts related to the Me262 or Mp44 developments. Nothing farthest from III Reich and Argentine military Gvmt. If you apply conventional Media paradigm to any description you end up a victim of misconceptions.
Yomping. Kit. Hanging around with Johnny a bit too much? I guess that and the high school French impresses the locals at the range.
Negative waves man,always with the negative waves.
Re field modifications of small arms and CIWS. The BBC reported at the time that to deter attacks by Argentinian aircraft some troops tied banks of GPMGs to the ships’ railing pointing skywards. These were fired simultaneously using lanyards to generate a curtain of fire as aircraft approached the decks. Interesting if true but probably only marginally more effective than aimed fire.
The British did have some good operational security. While the single worst casualty incident for the UK military during the war was the 8 June 1982 bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad by three Argentine Skyhawks–killing 32 Welsh Guards, 11 other troops, 5 crew members, and maiming and injuring over 100 others–some of the Argentine bombs were not fused correctly to explode reliably from the altitudes they were dropped at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_Cove_air_attacks#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2056%20British,six%20days%20after%20the%20incident.
Had the Fuerza Aerea Argentina learned from press reports about the fuse issues, there would have been fewer “duds” and more carnage.
Recall that HMS Antelope was destroyed by unexploded bombs that detonated while EOD bomb disposal personnel were attempting to disarm.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2022/may/24/20220524-antelope-memories
The British did have some good operational security. While the single worst casualty incident for the UK military during the war was the 8 June 1982 bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad by three Argentine Skyhawks–killing 32 Welsh Guards, 11 other troops, 5 crew members, and maiming and injuring over 100 others–some of the Argentine bombs were not fused correctly to explode reliably from the altitudes they were dropped at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_Cove_air_attacks#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2056%20British,six%20days%20after%20the%20incident.
Had the Fuerza Aerea Argentina learned from press reports about the fuse issues, there would have been fewer “duds” and more carnage.
Recall that HMS Antelope was destroyed by unexploded bombs that detonated while EOD bomb disposal personnel were attempting to disarm.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2022/may/24/20220524-antelope-memories