Mythbusters: Moody Brook

[BillB]

KingJester wrote:

May be that a few bought into the hoax and felt compelled to find out if its for real?? LOL

For the way I read your first reply, you bought it too. Now show us you're a grown up, and laugh about yourself for while.

BTW, thanks Ox.

 

I've got no problem with laughing at mself, KJ, I do it all the time. However, I had good friends put in harm's way, one of whom lost a leg age 19 back in 1982, and a few too many good men died that I did not know. So call me old fashioned but I don't really see anything humorous about it. That aside, I didn't buy into the hoax and I never bothered to check if it was real. I suspected it was merely a ploy by you to push your fatuous and irrelevant point about Moody Brook as a vehicle for more pro-Argentine propaganda, and you have proved me right.

 

Now, BillB, as you have already admitted you are not willing to debatte this issue in a civilized way, and prefer to react overdefensively, do you care to proof that it's me who brings up the topic regularly? It wasn't me LAST TIME , and in fact this one is the very first time in about two and half years since I visit this great site I have started a topic about the Falklands/Malvinas. You may cross-check the forum database if you wish.

 

No mate, I have admitted no such thing and I am not behaving "overdefensively", whatever that means. I am, however, unwilling to go on another round the houses argument that recovers all the ground we covered last time as I have neither the time nor inclination. I'll hold my hand up and say that I got the bit about you bringing the topic up from another poster's comment, as I suspect you have been around here longer than me. Whichever, I would argue that you did indeed start the pissing contest last time by intruding into a thread about the British performance in the Falklands, which you successfully drew off topic. The evidence is clear to se, thanks to your link.

 

As for who acknowledges evidence or logic, after you could not provide any supporting evidence other than the hear-say myth, you finally acknowledged that Middlebrook was probably wrong about the attack on the barracks and you spun some naive theory about him being unaware of the RAF bombing Moody Brook later in June.

 

This is blatant twisting of the facts, and deliberately so as you admit to having looked at the other thread. The British view that the Ca Cdo Anf destroyed Moody Brook barracks at the outset was based on eye-witness reports from the RM Commandos at the time, which were unverifiable as they surrendered without daylight visual confirmation. The next time British ground forces saw the barracks was after the Argentine surrender, they were wrecked, and it was therefore perfectly logical to assume that this was the work of the Ca Cdo Anf. My comment about Middlebrook was neither naive or a myth. He is on the record as saying Argentines refused to co-operate with his enquiries, and he was therefore perfectly justified in drawing conclusions from the evidence he had to hand. That is what historians do, KJ, although you give a very good impression of being unacquainted with the idea of objectivity and I can therefore see why that might be a novel concept for you. Had your people acted like grown ups rather than replying to his enquiries with childish abuse, the additional facts you keep boring on about would have come out for proper investigation sooner.

 

Do you box? You should! I envy the way you can twist your waist and shift your guard from one side to another in an eyeblink.

 

No mate, it is called keeping an open mind and changing your view according to the evidence as it appears. As opposed to deciding what your position is and shaping the evidence to support it and ignoring the bits that don't.

 

I read some of your posts from the old topic again and compared them with the present ones. Whenever your point about anything you deem to be the most important aspect of an issue starts weakening for whatever reason, that issue immediately bears no more importance to you. Take the case of artillery, where you stressed it several times that we outnumbered your boys. When if was shown with real documented numbers that the combined artillery firepower of the Task Force was at least equal if not superior to ours, you flipped and stated Outnumbered has nothing to do with it, as has been pointed out to you already sic..

 

You can compare with what you like. In some instances I will have reviewed my position in light of new evidence or lines of opposing argument, and in any case, just because the other side win a point that is not the same as winning the whole argument. I have certainly done that with ref to Moody Brook, insofar as I am willing to accept that it was British bombs that did the damage if someone shows me verifiable evidence. See my comment above, that is what historians do, altho with your dogged refusal to accept anything that does not support your perspective I can see how you might find that hard to grasp. I do not, however, "flip" and chop and change merely to make things look good as you suggest. I do this kind of thing for a living, and regard that kind of thing as unprofessional. You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I am being intractable merely because I am a Brit. I am not. If you give me some proper evidence to back up your argument that clearly supersedes my own, I am quite willing to take it on board. Unfortunately you cannot, or at least you could not last time.

 

Be that as it may, The case of artillery is actually a good one. The number of tubes might have been equal, but tell me, how many 155mm pieces did the Task Force deploy? And what is the difference between 105mm and 155mm shells? IIRC this playing the purely numbers game was one of your favoured tactics last time, and it was then and remains a facile and misleading yardstick. As I believe I said last time too.

 

I see the same thing happening here again. Although back in June you had already written that it is unimportant if the argie Ca Cdo Anf had or did not have intend to kill the RMs on Moody Broock or Stanley, you nevertheless sided with the poster who actually brought up the myth back then, and added that wathever way, actually having the intend to avoid bloodshed or just posing as if afterwards is only a blunt attempt to gain moral grounds or justify a wrongfull action.

 

There is nothing "happening again". I've just looked back over the other thread, and any shifting I did there was minor stuff and part of the normal cut and thrust of verbal debate. Whether or not, I would suggest the above actually shows that my underlying contention here has been consistant, and there has therefore been no flipping. And if your position is the case, there is no other way to interpret the actions of Ca Cdo Anf except as a transparent attempt to put a moral face on an act of immoral aggression. That said, if the performance of the Ca Cdo Anf at Government House was anything to go by, it is a shame that the Marines were not set up at Moody Brook...

 

Now, when you suspect I may have something up my sleeve in regards to actually bust the myth (why else would I summon the Mythbusters??) the issue suddenly bears no more importance to you and you redirect the debatte towards the sovereignty issue. You really can change your guard fast.

 

KJ, I have absolutely no idea why you would do anything, but from your performance last time I am convinced you would summon up Jesus Christ and the Devil himself simultaneoulsy if you thought it would support your hopelessly biased position. I really could not give a toss what you pull out of your sleeve from Mythhbusters, unless it comes with a properly referenced list of verifiable sources. And even then, it would be little more than a matter of tengental interest, a very minor historical footnote despite your attempts to blow it up into something more.

 

Finally, although it is off-topic and I shouldn't go off-topic, you should use the word 'sovereign' more sparsely. Some reasons to do so are, in no particular order:

1) The UK took the islands forcefully and wrongfully from a free, emancipated state, which was at the time enforcing sovereignty there.

 

According to you, but not anyone on the thread last time, or in the world at large either. This was all covered in great detail last time, and the majority of opinion went against you then too, I believe. As for the off topic bit, give me a break, KJ. Your motive in starting this thread has been aimed solely at bringing things around to this and nothing else, including fabricating your witty hoax.

 

2) The UK had NEVER peacefull legal domain of the territory, as the islands have been disputed EVER SINCE, including the use of arms on at least to ocassions.

 

See Brasidas' post. Even without that, the only people disputing the matter is yours, the matter being one of complete indifference to everyone up to and including the UN. I also can't help noting that your disputing has overwhelmingly consisted of a combination of whining like spoiled children or talking a good fight that you were manifestly unable to deliver on the one occasion you plucked up sufficient courage to try it. See below.

 

3) The international community has judged the collonial status as it is unacceptable, and urged the parts to negotiate.

 

I doubt very much this is the case with specific regard to the Falklands. Again you are playing fast and loose with the term "colonial" and its various meanings. As I pointed out to you last time.

 

4) By 1982 the islands were in any case 'dependent territories' (aka crown colonny) controlled by, BUT not integral part of the proper UK, according to the UKs own legislation. As of the will of the 'populace', even as of today, 2004, the Falklands are not a self-governing collony, nor do they have parliamentary representation, and remain classified as a 'stage 2' overseas territory. You can check that all in Wikipedia, if in doubt.

 

KJ, if I wanted to check something out I have access to sources a bit more relevant and credible than Wikipedia. However, there is no need as you merely need to consider this. You can cite whatever legalese you like, and slant whatever bits of it you choose but it will not alter the reality of the situation one jot. First, the islanders are happy to remain British and are on the record as firmly NOT wanting to become Argentines. Second, twenty-two years ago your country rashly decided to overturn a status quo that had existed for well over a century and militarily violated British territory of whatever precise legal status, in pursuit of domestic political gain. Despite having more than enough men and resources, through a mixture of incompetence, poor training and lack of will you received a catastrophic defeat at the hands of a force inferior in numbers, equipment and resources. Before you start yiour usual numbers game, it is widely accepted that the British Task Force broke every rule in the book and should have been defeated. The fact it was not speaks volumes about the capabilities of the British armed forces AND the incompetence of the Argentine armed forces given the circumstances.

 

As a result the Falkland Islands are British, the Union Flag flies over them, and there are British troops stationed on the Islands to ensure that it stays that way. You can piss and moan and whine as much as you want, but that is the long and short of the matter. Although you are quite at liberty to try your luck again at any time...

 

best regards

 

BillB

[BillB]

Originally posted by Grant Whitley:

The Argentines could have easily done better.  I believe Hastings goes into some detail about this, but the Argentines had originally planned the operation for a specific time of the year when their conscripts would have been in the service for the better part of a year.  As it happened, they fought the war with a new class of conscripts, many of whom had little or no training.  My recollection is that those units composed of recalled reservists from recent classes of conscripts did quite a bit better. 

Also, the Argentine command was strangely affected by the notion that the British were going to attempt a direct amphibious assault on Stanley and much of their preparation and unit deployment was affected by this.  Some of their best units(RI 25 springs to mind) basically sat out the war because of this.  I suspect that this also contributed to the poor supply situation of the Argentine units on the peaks west of Stanley.

 

All very true, Grant, but does it not all add up to a much less than competent performance?

 

BillB

[SCFalken]

Military Dictatorship vs Representative Democracy.

 

Who to believe.....

 

 

Falken

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by BillB:

All very true, Grant, but does it not all add up to a much less than competent performance?

 

BillB

 

Absolutely. It's just that it wasn't a matter of the Argentine Army's personnel generally lacking "basic soldier skills" on an institution wide basis. Rather, circumstance conspired against them to produce a force composed of unusually green personnel.

 

As for problems with logistics and operational planning, those things happen even to the best forces. I don't think that the mistakes made by the Argentines in this regard were especially egregious.

[Ox]

Originally posted by BillB:

Sorry, Ox, I must be missing something here. What was witty about it?

 

BillB

 

 

I don't think you are missing anything Bill, I think KJ's use of the mythbuster programme, which I share your views on, to raise a topic that he sees as a myth was an original approach to posting on Tanknet. I haven't read through all the thread yet but I took KJ's post to be in the form of taking the mikey at somepeople's mine included views on the subject. the idea that the TV clowns would turn their attention to this is so preposterous it can not be taken serisouly and as such it and the responses to it appealed to my sense of humour and wit.

 

Now I disagree with KJ's view of the Falklands conflict but I did like his approach to raising the subject again.

[BillB]

Originally posted by Grant Whitley:

Absolutely.  It's just that it wasn't a matter of the Argentine Army's personnel generally lacking "basic soldier skills" on an institution wide basis.  Rather, circumstance conspired against them to produce a force composed of unusually green personnel. 

  As for problems with logistics and operational planning, those things happen even to the best forces.  I don't think that the mistakes made by the Argentines in this regard were especially egregious.

 

I agree mate, and it would be an interesting topic to discuss if the politics were kept to a minimum if not excluded altogether. I would say that it appears to me that the point in the first bit ref institutional deficiencies caused the second point ref the make up of the Argentine force on the Islands, and also impacted on their operational planning and other arrangement. The mistakes were prolly not egregious in isolation, but I think they stem from the same source and should therefore be considered as a whole. The same, I hasten to add, can be apllied to the British side, who made in some instances different but equally serious errors and miscalculations. The difference was that a first line army has a pool of institutional experience and flexibility that a second or third line army usually does not.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Originally posted by Ox:

I don't think you are missing anything Bill, I think KJ's use of the mythbuster programme, which I share your views on, to raise a topic that he sees as a myth was an original approach to posting on Tanknet. I haven't read through all the thread yet but I took KJ's post to be in the form of taking the mikey at somepeople's mine included views on the subject. the idea that the TV clowns would turn their attention to this is so preposterous it can not be taken serisouly and as such it and the responses to it appealed to my sense of humour and wit.

 

Now I disagree with KJ's view of the Falklands conflict but I did like his approach to raising the subject again.

 

Fair comment, Ox, and cheers for taking the trouble to explain your thinking. On reflection, you are right and I have prolly been a bit too serious.

 

King Jester, my apologies for reacting in a po-faced (British slang term for humourless!) manner, it was a very imaginative way of broaching the subject, and my personal views on the matter shouldn't really detract from that.

 

Right, now we can get back to the bickering and arguing - sorry, discussion...

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Chris Werb]

Never mind Bill, I'm looking forward to the episode of 'Scrapheap Challenge' where the Argentine Navy team has to put together a viable invasion fleet and get it past a Royal Navy SSN. This would lead to the next series of 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' in which Captain* Alfredo Astiz, General Menendez and Brigadier General Lami Dozo are stuck on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic and bombed and shelled for a month whilst accomplishing a series of bizarre and demeaning tasks. This will be followed by 'Time Team' where Tony Robinson and his colleagues get to unearth a mass burial from AD1978. This could also make a good scenario for 'Silent Witness' or 'Waking the Dead'.

 

*Since promoted.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/astiz.html

 

<

[Ox]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

Never mind Bill, I'm looking forward to the episode of 'Scrapheap Challenge' where the Argentine Navy team has to put together a viable invasion fleet and get it past a Royal Navy SSN. This would lead to the next series of 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' in which Captain* Alfredo Astiz, General Menendez and Brigadier General Lami Dozo are stuck on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic and bombed and shelled for a month whilst accomplishing a series of bizarre and demeaning tasks. This will be followed by 'Time Team' where Tony Robinson and his colleagues get to unearth a mass burial from AD1978. This could also make a good scenario for 'Silent Witness' or 'Waking the Dead'. 

 

*Since promoted.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/astiz.html

 

 

<

 

Just soiled my armour laughing, now that is witty.

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by BillB:

I agree mate, and it would be an interesting topic to discuss if the politics were kept to a minimum if not excluded altogether.

 

I've never been very interested in the various claims to the islands by either side. However, if one looks at Argentina's behavior in the context of their actions several years prior in the flare up they had with Chile over the Beagle Channel, I think it's clear that they were spoiling for a fight.

 

I would say that it appears to me that the point in the first bit ref institutional deficiencies caused the second point ref the make up of the Argentine force on the Islands, and also impacted on their operational planning and other arrangement.

 

I was saying that I do not see evidence of an institution wide deficiency in basic skills. As far as the makeup of the force goes, my recollection(sorry, just moved and my library is still packed up!) is that the Argentine military junta felt compelled to move against the Falklands earlier than had been planned because they were unsure that their government would survive until the next summer. It was primarily this political consideration which caused the Argentine force to be so inexperienced.

 

As for Argentine operational planning, their decision to concentrate forces in Stanley was equal parts lack of understanding of the British need to minimize casualties, and lack of proper nautical charts which would have shown that such an attack was probably impossible anyway- or at least the British considered it to be so. I don't know how realistic it would have been that the Argentines would have had good nautical charts of the Stanley area- these simply may not have been available. As for misreading British intentions/concerns, I don't think one can point to some sort of institutional root for that one. That kind of thing is a guessing game in any case.

[King Jester]

King Jester, my apologies for reacting in a po-faced (British slang term for humourless!) manner, it was a very imaginative way of broaching the subject,

…I've got no problem with laughing at mself, KJ, I do it all the time. However, I had good friends put in harm's way, one of whom lost a leg age 19 back in 1982, and a few too many good men died that I did not know….

 

Right, now we can get back to the bickering and arguing - sorry, discussion...

 

I'm happy to learn you are not po-faced all the time.

 

I got to know a few of our veterans too. I assure you, and I have proven so along my posting here, I have the highest respect for combatants on both sides, and feel the deepest pity for wounded and killed on both sides. I admitt that on previous postings I have nevertheless unleashed my rage on some very few and specific brit players, such as 'famous Mills', 'Sharky Ward' and 'Victoria Cross Jones', and provided my rationale for doing so.

 

As for Moody Brook, or the whole episode of the argie landings on April 1982, no brit died or got harmed on that day. A humorous and non-offending approach is a little license I risked to take.

 

The mistakes were prolly not egregious in isolation, but I think they stem from the same source and should therefore be considered as a whole. The same, I hasten to add, can be apllied to the British side, who made in some instances different but equally serious errors and miscalculations. The difference was that a first line army has a pool of institutional experience and flexibility that a second or third line army usually does not.

 

Wasn't it you who rubbed in my face just two days ago that I spun "strange ideas like "the Argentine Army only lost because they committed a few more errors than their opponents"" ?? And now you state the same in slightly different terms??

Military History 101 tells us that every single war in history was won by whom made the least mistakes. Of course there are degrees to it as you have correctly pointed out. And there is synergism too, that is, added mistakes at different command levels do square themselves.

But if you read Moore, Thompson, Woodward and Nott, they all agree that the Falklands was a very close race, and could have been lost at any time, not due to the brilliant argie participation (of which there are, nevertheless some renown examples) but mainly due to brits owns mischiefs (plural: mischieves?).

 

and it would be an interesting topic to discuss if the politics were kept to a minimum if not excluded altogether

….

I suspected it was merely a ploy by you to push your fatuous and irrelevant point about Moody Brook as a vehicle for more pro-Argentine propaganda, and you have proved me right.

 

I would like to keep it that way too, but as you can see on the present topic, it's not me who drags politic in.

 

No mate, I have admitted no such thing and I am not behaving "overdefensively", whatever that means.

 

You posted 'Which is why I went in with both feet this time at the outset ' (I'm not sure if the smilie was there at the beginning), but that is acting defensively, and exactly what I meant.

 

Whichever, I would argue that you did indeed start the pissing contest last time by intruding into a thread about the British performance in the Falklands, which you successfully drew off topic. The evidence is clear to se, thanks to your link.

 

False. The LINK TO OLD POST is there for everybody to check. I stuck to the topic proposed by Ox, 'Brit performance' and the two scenarios (Goose Green and the initial brit defense on Stanley and Georgias) he wanted to discuss. It was other posters, who have made their irruption on this topic as well, who dragged the topic into politics, by flaming about the argie Junta and the war on subversive terrorism, bringing up the sovereignty issue and as always portraying their narrow view of 'evil dictatorship vs. good democracy' into a discussion about military performance.

 

If I then responded to the off-topic aggression, it was always within the ROEs.

 

 

This is blatant twisting of the facts (about what was posted about Middlebrook ), and deliberately so as you admit to having looked at the other thread. The British view that the Ca Cdo Anf destroyed Moody Brook barracks at the outset was based on eye-witness reports from the RM Commandos at the time, which were unverifiable as they surrendered without daylight visual confirmation.

 

Read the topic again. You spun the explanation that Middlebrook was unaware about the RAF bombings, in fact you posted: Consider this - Major Norman and NP8901 heard explosions and gunfire from Moody Brook on the night of the invasion. When they revist the islands after liberation, they find the barracks wrecked. As they have no access to FAA/RAF bombing records, and assuming they choose not to break out the ouija board , what other conclusion can they be expected to reach than the damage was inflicted during the invasion?. Hmm?

 

 

The case of artillery is actually a good one. The number of tubes might have been equal, but tell me, how many 155mm pieces did the Task Force deploy? And what is the difference between 105mm and 155mm shells? IIRC this playing the purely numbers game was one of your favoured tactics last time, and it was then and remains a facile and misleading yardstick. As I believe I said last time too.

 

50mm is the difference. As internal volume of the shell, and thus explosive in it, roughly cubes with the increase in caliber, that's a lot of BUM there.

As we are at it, what's the difference between a ROF LG105 17 km range and an OTO 105 10,5 km range? I tell you the answer: 6,5 km short of effective counter-battery fire.

 

 

That said, if the performance of the Ca Cdo Anf at Government House was anything to go by, it is a shame that the Marines were not set up at Moody Brook...

 

You mean when 16 men of Ca Co Anf faced nearly 80 RMs at Governor House?

Sure, as they sustained 3 casualties and 3 POWs at the beginning of the siege, they then preferred to wait for the other 64 men of the company and the 2nd Bat Marines with AMTRAKs to finish the job. What would you have done?

 

If you give me some proper evidence to back up your argument that clearly supersedes my own, I am quite willing to take it on board. Unfortunately you cannot, or at least you could not last time.

…

And even then, it would be little more than a matter of tengental interest, a very minor historical footnote despite your attempts to blow it up into something more.

 

What did I say? When you are cornered, or you fell cornered, you dismiss the subject…

 

Anyhow, in the terms Ox put it when he started the old topic, he was asking for an evaluation of the brit performance at Goose Green (pretty well covered back then) and the military value of the initial brit defense at Stanley and Grytvicken. It is my opinion, that to pass any kind of judgment about the military value and the brit performance at Governors House, Moody Brook or Grytvicken, you have to understand the constraints of the opposing force. Where the issue about Moody Brock being attacked with tear-gas or with WP grenades becomes relevant, of utter importance. Do you seriously believe that argie commandos with orders to kill would have made every effort to allow a bloodless brit surrender at Governors House? How can you or anybody else judge brit performance, and at the same time deny or ignore that 'the attackers' had a constraint of political nature? The RMs had also a political order which constraint their action, 'to act as tripwire' as somebody put it last time. If when judging the brit performance you factor their political orders in, you should factor in the constraint the argie force had as well. Which is precisely what turns Moody Brook into such a crucial issue.

 

To bust the myth, I had some more [Mythbusters theme on]Adam and Jamie[/Mythbustes theme off] script ready, but guess now that the word about the hoax is out, its not 'witty' no more. I will spare you all and get to the hefty part soon.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) The international community has judged the collonial status as it is unacceptable, and urged the parts to negotiate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I doubt very much this is the case with specific regard to the Falklands.

 

Jeez, I spelled colonial wrong. But it does not change the essence. The most recent plenary session and also committee meeting of the UN, held in 2002, again and for who knows how many times since 1965 reckons the Falklands/Malvinas as a colonial problem, and urges both parties to negotiate. You should start reading the papers if you do this for a living, as you claim.

 

Brasidas wrote:

 

Jester, did the populace of the Falklands have a plebicite recently to determine who would maintain control of the Falkland island group?

 

I seem to remember they preferred remaining unrepresented with the comparitively stable Brits than to be subject to the frequently military junta ridden Argentine republic. That's just from memory however.

 

I think you are confused with Gibraltar. Gibbies did indeed hold a plebiscite. Kelpers did not hold a plebiscite 'per se' that I know off. I may be wrong, though. They do though interpret the results of the general elections ( see link )for the Falklands legislative council as their wish to remain british.

 

If they will hold a Gibraltar style plebiscite, I doubt the ballot would be outlined in the terms you put it. The ballot would probably read something like:

 

YES, I prefer to enjoy a 20000 £ per capita yearly rent from the selling of fishing licenses, get my sheep herding subsidized, get all the goodies I was denied before (hospitals, communications, regular airline connection) paid by the MoD and get a 'real' british passport with full citizenship.

 

NO, I don't want to return to the true spirit I 'claim' is mine by nature, that is as a free spirited settler on territory outside the umbrella of british ruling.

 

Hmm, wait a minute, both options add to the same thing…., well just change NO for YES.

 

In the end, it is irrelevant either way. I started the topic to discuss the Moody Brook myth. So, I should not follow on the sovereignty issue. I'll only say, that whatever the plebiscite was to be, it equals to an agreement drafted by the 'defendant party' alone, without taking in the 'plaintiff party' nor the ruling court. I still have to see anything similar happening on the real world taken seriously…

 

Grant Whitley wrote:

I've never been very interested in the various claims to the islands by either side. However, if one looks at Argentina's behavior in the context of their actions several years prior in the flare up they had with Chile over the Beagle Channel, I think it's clear that they were spoiling for a fight.

 

The Beagle Channel issue is water from a different pond. There are limit treaties ranging back to 1880 which in essence state 'Chile in the Pacific, Argentina in the Atlantic'. The 1978 Beagle flare-up was about the interpretation of the treaty, and escalated cause the british !!! arbitral (non-binding) ruling actually ceded to Chile a wider portion of the Beagle Channel Sound than the chileans had even originally claimed for, clearly protruding into the Atlantic, thus violating the essence of the limit treaties. Simple as that. A whole different issue than the Falklands/Malvinas, where the Junta leaders naively expected to avoid a fight and force negotiations (which could in fact have been forced thruw if preparations for war would have been more thorough, is my guess).

 

King Jester

 

[Edited by King Jester (12 Dec 2004).]

[Brasidas]

Originally posted by Ox:

Just soiled my armour laughing, now that is witty.

 

Ditto.

[pi]

Originally posted by BillB:

Fair comment, Matt, and generally speaking I agree. However, you appear to have missed that the 5lb sack of dog crap was not the issue. The issue was one of principle, specifically unprovoked military aggression and invasion of legally held territory belonging to another sovereign state against the wishes of the local populace. Given the amount of blood and treasure you Yanks - assuming you are a Yank - have expended on this principle on behalf of others, I thought you'd have appreciated that.

 

all the best

 

BillB 

 

 

 

When you look at the Arg. government it's not exactly surprising that the Islanders weren't too enthusiastic about being governed by Argentina. Some of the islanders might have joined the ranks of the disappeared if Argentina had have been allowed to hang onto the Falklands.

[BillB]

Originally posted by Grant Whitley:

I was saying that I do not see evidence of an institution wide deficiency in basic skills.  As far as the makeup of the force goes, my recollection(sorry, just moved and my library is still packed up!) is that the Argentine military junta felt compelled to move against the Falklands earlier than had been planned because they were unsure that their government would survive until the next summer.  It was primarily this political consideration which caused the Argentine force to be so inexperienced.

 

Well Grant, even allowing for the fact that the bulk of the British force consisted of the operational cream of the British Armed Services, I have not seen any evidence that does not provide evidence of an Argentine institution wide deficiency in basic skills. These go across the board from basic battle drills - I have seen comments attributed to Argentine veterans being amazed at the British practice of calling out "grenade", "66" or whatever during fight throughs, for example - to very poor leadership, basic man management and logistic skills. As I understand it it was by no means uncommon for officers to live in billets in Port Stanley while their men remained exposed to the elements on the surrounding mountains, I believe there were shortages of basic items like water in the outlying positions, and I have seen several references to Argentine positions being littered with litter and excrement.

 

This is indeed in part due to the presence of untrained, newly drafted conscripts, but only to a point. Reember the sconscript units were stiffened wioth regulars by the time the fighting began, and I should have thought that even conscript units were run by a cadre of experienced officers and, more importantly, NCOs. As I see it, there was a wider undelying problem. Leaving aside the marked differences in the cultural background from which both armies were drawn, quite simply, the Argentine Army had no idea what it was getting into because it had never fought a serious war on this scale and against a first line enemy in its entire history. The British, on the other hand, had fought two world wars within living memory, and had a deep well of institutional operational experience going back for at least two centuries. You cannot make up that kind of deficiency by making your officers do a bit of reading or going on a few foreign training courses.

 

Indeed, you could argue that the mere fact that the Argentines thought it appropriate to employ fresh conscripts as they did in itself shows a lack of understanding, if not a childlike faith that the enemy would react in the way they expected them to, be it by accepting the Argentine fait accompli, or launching an amphibious assault directly on Stanley. These are all hallmarks of an inexperienced military making decisions in an experience vacuum, as was their inability to adapt and diplay some flexibility once it became apparent that their initial assumptions were in error.

 

King Jester, I will get back to you ref Moody Brook later, I don't have time right now to do it justice!

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

Never mind Bill, I'm looking forward to the episode of 'Scrapheap Challenge' where the Argentine Navy team has to put together a viable invasion fleet and get it past a Royal Navy SSN. This would lead to the next series of 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' in which Captain* Alfredo Astiz, General Menendez and Brigadier General Lami Dozo are stuck on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic and bombed and shelled for a month whilst accomplishing a series of bizarre and demeaning tasks. This will be followed by 'Time Team' where Tony Robinson and his colleagues get to unearth a mass burial from AD1978. This could also make a good scenario for 'Silent Witness' or 'Waking the Dead'. 

 

*Since promoted.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/astiz.html <

 

Excellent, Chris! Of course, personally speaking the icing on the cake would be the interment of Tony Robinson and the Time Team in their excavation after the show, live and alive.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[pi]

Originally posted by Grant Whitley:

I was saying that I do not see evidence of an institution wide deficiency in basic skills.  As far as the makeup of the force goes, my recollection(sorry, just moved and my library is still packed up!) is that the Argentine military junta felt compelled to move against the Falklands earlier than had been planned because they were unsure that their government would survive until the next summer.  It was primarily this political consideration which caused the Argentine force to be so inexperienced.

 

As for Argentine operational planning, their decision to concentrate forces in Stanley was equal parts lack of understanding of the British need to minimize casualties, and lack of proper nautical charts which would have shown that such an attack was probably impossible anyway- or at least the British considered it to be so.  I don't know how realistic it would have been that the Argentines would have had good nautical charts of the Stanley area- these simply may not have been available.  As for misreading British intentions/concerns, I don't think one can point to some sort of institutional root for that one.  That kind of thing is a guessing game in any case.

 

 

I've seen a few comments by Brit paras etc. that given the level of training they had they thought the conscripts performed fairly well it was the Argentinian officers who they thought were incompetent.

[celtredleg]

BILLB--- Could you please explain to me what is the "myth of Moody Brook"???

 

My knowledge of the Falklands consists of watching the newscasts at the time and reading hasting book. I tried to follow the former thread, but as is common discusions between 2 aperently well versed opponents, its rather opaque to a nonspecialist.

 

As one of sam, I dont have the emotional loading on the subject that some do, but would like to learn a bit more. You seem to be the nonhysterical side on this one, so could you please explain boh sides if possible????

 

Thank you much

 

Owen

[Ox]

To me the myth is the idea held amongst many British people that the Argentine forces assualted Moody Brook barracks with the intent to kill the marines statined there in a surprise attack hence ensuring large numbers of casualties. Others maintain that the Agentine forces used minimium force to try to capture the marines without killing them. There were a number of photos in books just after the conflict that claim to show the damage caused by the Argentine assault team and thereby furthering the view that it was an attempt at a lethal assualt. However it has been said and is widely believed that these photos show damage caused by British bombs and artillery from later in the conflict.

Of cause the marines had vacated the barracks to take up postions round Government house, the airport etc when the assualt came so no one was in fact killed.

I accept that the damage was caused by later action by the British but do not see it as conclusive proof. I find it hard to believe that in a full scale invasion you start of by not killing the mass of your enemies. If the marines had nicely surreded I am sure the Argentine forces would have acted without causeing bloodshed but how realistic a proposition was that. It may have been a hope of the Argentines but sending armed men to attack a barracks seems to show intent to use lethal force. No doubt KJ will presnt a differing view.

 

 

Edited for complete inability to type with more than my nose picking finger.

 

[Edited by Ox (13 Dec 2004).]

[King Jester]

celtredleg wrote:

 

Could you please explain to me what is the "myth of Moody Brook"???

Ox provided a good explanation of both sides of the myth. Of course, as he has already anticipated, my views differ, and I don´t agree with his rationale.

 

I guess we could discuss the "reasons" without reaching an agreement for a long time, as the answer to this question is rather "political".

 

I´m more interested in discussing the "events" and the "effects", which are in essence a miloitary question.

 

You seem to be the nonhysterical side on this one, so could you please explain boh sides if possible????

 

[hysterical laughter on and little finger on lower lip] 1 million dollars, whuauahahaha [/hysterical laughter off and little finger scratching ars*]

 

King Jester

[Ox]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

Never mind Bill, I'm looking forward to the episode of 'Scrapheap Challenge' where the Argentine Navy team has to put together a viable invasion fleet and get it past a Royal Navy SSN. This would lead to the next series of 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' in which Captain* Alfredo Astiz, General Menendez and Brigadier General Lami Dozo are stuck on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic and bombed and shelled for a month whilst accomplishing a series of bizarre and demeaning tasks. This will be followed by 'Time Team' where Tony Robinson and his colleagues get to unearth a mass burial from AD1978. This could also make a good scenario for 'Silent Witness' or 'Waking the Dead'. 

 

*Since promoted.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/astiz.html

 

<

 

Sorry can't resist this one.

 

Of course the invasion would be the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by Ox:

Sorry can't resist this one.

 

Of course the invasion would be the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

 

 

LOL!!!

 

We mustn't forget the 'Ground Force Argentina' episode where the team get to turn a former mass grave into an Italian sunken garden.

 

 

 

[Edited by Chris Werb (13 Dec 2004).]

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by King Jester:

  The Beagle Channel issue is water from a different pond.

 

I wasn't trying to somehow link the issues politically other than to point out that the Argentine government in this period generally pursued a belligerent, bellicose foreign policy.

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by BillB:

This is indeed in part due to the presence of untrained, newly drafted conscripts, but only to a point. Reember the sconscript units were stiffened wioth regulars by the time the fighting began...

 

Not generally, though. In fact, everything I've read has said that the Argentines had immense difficulties mobilizing their reservists(who were merely ex-conscripts).

 

This is admittedly a problem with their force, and a serious one at that. In fact, you'd think that they would have seen that there were problems with their plan for mobilizing reservists in 1978/79 during the crisis with Chile.

 

Indeed, you could argue that the mere fact that the Argentines thought it appropriate to employ fresh conscripts as they did in itself shows a lack of understanding, if not a childlike faith that the enemy would react in the way they expected them to, be it by accepting the Argentine fait accompli, or launching an amphibious assault directly on Stanley.

 

I don't think that the Argentines felt that it was appropriate to employ fresh conscripts. As I've already noted, their plan did initially call for any invasion to take place at a time of the year when the conscripts would have been more seasoned than they were historically.

 

Re: your point about the "childlike" expectation of the Argentines that the British wouldn't fight- Hastings paints the British diplomatic wrangling in the UN as a very close run thing and a skillful triumph of British diplomacy. Given that, it may not have been so silly of the Argentines to expect a non-response.

 

As for the Argentines hoarding their forces around Stanley:

 

1) It was after all the most important point in the archipelago and the only one through which the Argentines could supply themselves. If they hadn't heavily guarded it the British may well have attempted to capture it directly.

 

2) The campaign took place during winter, so the Argentines may have reasonably assumed that the British would not be able to land at a distant point such as San Carlos and march across the breadth of East Falkland.

 

3) More importantly, the Argentines may have realized that they would have been unable to supply their own forces if they had attempted some sort of counterstroke against the British after the landing at San Carlos.

 

[Edited by Grant Whitley (13 Dec 2004).]

[BillB]

Originally posted by celtredleg:

  BILLB---  Could you please explain to me what is the "myth of Moody Brook"???

 

My knowledge of the Falklands consists of watching the newscasts at the time and reading hasting book.  I tried to follow the former thread, but as is common discusions between 2 aperently well versed opponents, its rather opaque to a nonspecialist.

 

As one of sam, I dont have the emotional loading on the subject that some do, but would like to learn a bit more.  You seem to be the nonhysterical side on this one, so could you please explain boh sides if possible????

 

Thank you much

 

Owen

 

Hi Owen,

 

Thanks for that, although I am far from an expert on the War, but I'll do my best. Feel free to email me off list if you want anything specific clarifying without derailing the thread. Ox did a pretty good job of laying out the Moody Brook thing, IMO. Watch this space as I intend to try and cover the thing as fully as poss to try and sort it out once and for all.

 

King Jester, could you confirm that Ox's post covers your side of the argument, or give me a concise rendering before I try and argue my side? Not much point in starting until we are all on the same page.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Originally posted by King Jester:

celtredleg wrote:

 

[hysterical laughter on and little finger on lower lip] 1 million dollars, whuauahahaha [/hysterical laughter off and little finger scratching ars*]

 

King Jester

 

 

Jester, I'd direct you to the Rabbie Burn's poem that goes something like this:

 

"Oh would some beastie give us

the power to see ourselves as others see us..."

 

BillB