Falklands/malvinas And Argentine Bombs

[LucaJJ]

I am not a big fan of 'what if' history, simply because its proponents usually get hung up one pet theory to the detriment of all the other factors. However, in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas war, having just browsed through a rther good site, it really struck me that one specific detail made, in retrospect a significant difference. I am referring to all the 'dud' Argentinian bombs that did not go 'bang'.

 

If they had gone 'bang' would the losses have been high enough to cause the British public/government to reconsider? The RN had defintely mroe DDGs and sailors to send, if necessary, but would they? Could the fortunes of that war gone differently?

 

And, please, based on the 'moody brook' thread, can we keep the flame wars to a minimum?

[Manic Moran]

Probably not. I think national pride at that point would have kept the British in it. However, most of the ships hit by 'dud' bombs were not really critical ships, such as the landing ships. Ulitmately, the same amount of troops would have landed on the ground, with a similar result.

 

NTM

[Tony Williams]

The British were braced for losses, and determination to carry on was not affected by the ones which did occur. I can't see a British withdrawal happening unless the losses were catastrophic.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion

forum

[swerve]

The British were braced for losses, and determination to carry on was not affected by the ones which did occur. I can't see a British withdrawal happening unless the losses were catastrophic.

 

Second that. Navy planning for the operation assumed higher losses than actual, & I'm sure the army expected significantly higher losses than they suffered.

[LucaJJ]

The issue of British resolve is fairly crucial here. I was fairly young at the time (17) and residing in the US (coverage was mixed and little sense of how the British public/government were reacting beyond some headlines).

 

Clearly Thatcher was no quitter and the public was behind the troops. However:

 

- Some (rather revisionist / leftist?) sources have suggested that many within the government / Tory party were very worried that the whole thing would be a disaster (I think it is broadly accepted that UK preparedness, as opposed to sheer numbers, was at a relative historical low then and many of the ships in the invasion fleet were close to being sold off before it all happened). Is there a danger that we are overestimating the resolve ex-post? Just wondering

- I have the following ACTUAL losses (from http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm). I am only including what the source counts as substantial damage or total losses, not just minor strafing damage.

 

1. HMS SHEFFIELD (by Exocet), HMS ARDENT (by A4s), HMS ANTELOPE (by A4s), ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (by Exocet), RFA SIR GLEAMED (by Dagger/Kfirs), RFA Sir Tristram (later repaired), LCU F4 (By A4s), HMS Glamorgan (by Exocet). Note that initial hits on Ardent and Antelope were UXBs but the former was then hit again and the latter had one bomb go off while being defused.

 

That makes it 7 ships plus one LCU.

 

Hit by UXBs:

2. HMS Glasgow, HMS Antrim, HMS Argonaut, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Bedivere, RFA Sir Lancelot, HMS Broadsword, HMS Plymouth. Several of these were pulled back but I would presume that if the bombs Had gone off a lot more people would have died and the ships would have sank/burned rapidly.

 

That would make it another 8 ships, more than double. I don’t know if any substantial troops were on any of he landing ships hit by UXBs but I seem to remember Galahad did?

 

As some posters stated, greater losses had been expected. Whether they would have been borne without consequence is another matter. Might Thatcher have been pushed out? (as happened after the poll tax thing). One source in the US Staff College publication argues that the Army was very ambivalent and wary of participating until it looked like things might go well (he does not offer copious support for this, though). Maybe if the armada had sustained more damage they might have sought a diplomatic solutions? I guess we’ll never know.

 

I think this is interesting for a number of reasons but especially, geopolitically, because after the 70s period when many in Europe still thought the Soviets were 10ft tall, that the US had taken a beating in Vietnam I know, I know…I’m just talking about perceptions) and when many thought that conventional armed forces were more or less pointless, in 1982 Thatcher ‘led’ a combined arms, power-projecting invasion and soon after Reagan ‘had Grenada (much, much weaker opposition but still a full-scale, balls-to-the-wall, we-breaka-you-face invasion). It was an incredible turnaround and I would submit that without it things like Desert Storm, Kosovo and IF would not have taken place.

[cheese possessed]

If you watch the film interviews with the senior British admirals, they state quite brutally that they were fully prepared for attrition, and that it was a fact of war (1st Sea Lord in 1982 was a WW2 veteran). All of the Fleet escorts and minor ships were considered expendable in the defence of the carriers and troopships. Losses would have had to be catastrophically bad (e.g. loss of the carriers, QE2, Canberra, etc) for anyone to have contemplated withdrawel - I think that attitude prevailed amongst nearly all of the military, politicians, media and population of UK.

 

The land war was unexpectedly light in casualties; the units involved were braced for heavy casualties, and follow-on units were already en route to reinforce if necessary. One the main ground force was ashore, the attrition on the Fleet had little impact on the ultimate result of the war - the British army was going to prevail, no matter what level of supply was maintained from the sea.

 

It is a sad fact of history that rich, peaceful, democratic societies do lose sight of the realities & consequences of war, and that they are occasionally jolted into a different course when war occurs. The step-change in UK was emphatic post-Falklands: a long period of economic decline was abruptly turned around, and social attitudes completely altered. A good example was the collapse in "union power" and the protection of uneconomic industries - the Falkland War caused the British public to look sharply at their country and led to a surge in support for PM Thatcher's domestic policies.

[Ox]

The step-change in UK was emphatic post-Falklands: a long period of economic decline was abruptly turned around, and social attitudes completely altered. A good example was the collapse in "union power" and the protection of uneconomic industries - the Falkland War caused the British public to look sharply at their country and led to a surge in support for PM Thatcher's domestic policies.

132596[/snapback]

 

There was change in the UK after the Falklands war but I am not sure that change was soley or directly as a result of the war. Thatcher was popular in 79, look at her majority. The winter of discont also made people look at the state of the country, the IMF loan and inflation also priri to the war. After it of course was the miners stike and Labours 83 manifesto. I would suggest there were many other factors to be taken into account.

[thomas.tmcc]

Hello been following this thread with some interest ,I had a friend who was in the paras killed in the falklands ,I was young but knew him well enough , I was in the british TA forces myself for 15 years though still working etc in civvie street !, the fact is if the mission critical elements the carriers , amphibious ships and troopships were hit then it would have been a loss ,one thing the british goverment at the time had thought of a nuclear option but I think more sensible heads prevailed at that thankfully ,remember the USA even offered to have a US carrier and maybe amphibious units detached to the Royal navy ! ,basically transfered to the British forces ,weird idea ,but we said no and asked the USA for supplies (shopping list ) of all the latest weapons the USA could give ,and got them all ,thanks uncle sam ,to add I just got the corgi avaition 1/72nd scale callsign "Bravo november" chinook for the falklands war today ,nice kits ,and got one of thee RAF in the gulf war desert pink in 1991 with also couple of corgi harriers to wargame the falklands and gulf wr etc.

 

Thomas

 

 

If you watch the film interviews with the senior British admirals, they state quite brutally that they were fully prepared for attrition, and that it was a fact of war (1st Sea Lord in 1982 was a WW2 veteran).  All of the Fleet escorts and minor ships were considered expendable in the defence of the carriers and troopships. Losses would have had to be catastrophically bad (e.g. loss of the carriers, QE2, Canberra, etc) for anyone to have contemplated withdrawel - I think that attitude prevailed amongst nearly all of the military, politicians, media and population of UK.

 

The land war was unexpectedly light in casualties; the units involved were braced for heavy casualties, and follow-on units were already en route to reinforce if necessary. One the main ground force was ashore, the attrition on the Fleet had little impact on the ultimate result of the war - the British army was going to prevail, no matter what level of supply was maintained from the sea.

 

It is a sad fact of history that rich, peaceful, democratic societies do lose sight of the realities & consequences of war, and that they are occasionally jolted into a different course when war occurs. The step-change in UK was emphatic post-Falklands: a long period of economic decline was abruptly turned around, and social attitudes completely altered. A good example was the collapse in "union power" and the protection of uneconomic industries - the Falkland War caused the British public to look sharply at their country and led to a surge in support for PM Thatcher's domestic policies.

132596[/snapback]

[Ox]

Thomas, I have heard the various rumours about dropping a big white one on BA and the US offering the UK a carrier. do you have any sources confirming these I would love to be able to pin the rumours down. I always thought that the US cinsidered lending a carrier and the UK considered asking but it never went any further than that. Which amphib assests were the US prepared to lend us?

[thomas.tmcc]

Hi I cant give any basic sources ref the bomb as it was one heard through press for one and other it was never confirmed by the goverment ,but i did hear it through my time in the forces ,but again I cant confirm a solid source ,I guess it will have to go down to a lifes mystery eh ? ,same really for the carriers etc ,but if you watch some of the old documentarys of the falklands war in them the US and british senior military and politcians say the same the offer was made ,the exact ships etc was never confirmed ,I guess it would have been anything that was available at the time ,sounds good for a naval battle etc to wargame eh ? .

 

Thomas

 

Thomas, I have heard the various rumours about dropping a big white one on BA and the US offering the UK a carrier. do you have any sources confirming these I would love to be able to pin the rumours down. I always thought that the US cinsidered lending a carrier and the UK considered asking but it never went any further than that. Which amphib assests were the US prepared to lend us?

132608[/snapback]

[Ox]

Like you I have heard a the rumours but never pinned them down. I often wonder how useful a US carrier would have been to the UK unless the US was manning it and then they would not have been lending it to us they would have joined the war.

[thomas.tmcc]

Hi from what I remember it was including the crews etc ,it would be no use to us if we had accepted the offer ,we could not have been able to man the ships .

 

 

Like you I have heard a the rumours but never pinned them down. I often wonder how useful a US carrier would have been to the UK unless the US was manning it and then they would not have been lending it to us they would have joined the war.

132613[/snapback]

[Rickshaw]

The land war was unexpectedly light in casualties

 

Depends if we're talking battle as against non-battle casualties. Actual battle casualties were comparatively light. Non-battle casualties were however such that by the end of the campaign about 2/3rds of the troops on the ground were unfit to continue. If the Argentines had been able to hold out longer, they might have been able to cause sufficient attrition to have caused the British to be willing to negotiate.

 

Personally, I always felt the Argentines should have carried out a seaborne raid on Ascension Island. It was the significant choke point in the UK's LOS. Destroy the runways and mine the harbour and it would have significantly delayed the operation.

[mattblack]

Best of all, it made them look tough on defence, despite their laxness (and Naval cutbacks)that allowed the war to happen in the first place.

132690[/snapback]

 

If I remember correctly , wasn't Invincible supposed to have gone to Australia and Hermes to India within a year ?

Edited January 12, 2005 by mattblack

[King Jester]

LucaJJ posted:

 

I have the following ACTUAL losses (from http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm).

 

Luca, I also think naval-history is one of the best researched sites around. And their lists seem to be very complete.

 

 

1. HMS SHEFFIELD (by Exocet), HMS ARDENT (by A4s), HMS ANTELOPE (by A4s), ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (by Exocet), RFA SIR GLEAMED (by Dagger/Kfirs), RFA Sir Tristram (later repaired), LCU F4 (By A4s), HMS Glamorgan (by Exocet). Note that initial hits on Ardent and Antelope were UXBs but the former was then hit again and the latter had one bomb go off while being defused.

That makes it 7 ships plus one LCU.

I suspect you did some tiping mistake, there is no RFA Sir Gleamed that I know off. RFA Sir Galahad is probably the one, damaged beyond repair, later sunk as a wargrave. In any case it she was hit by A4s.

 

And you're missing HMS Coventry, sunk by A4s.

 

HMS Glamorgan was damaged, and prolly non-operable, but not even close to sink.

 

 

Hit by UXBs:

2. HMS Glasgow, HMS Antrim, HMS Argonaut, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Bedivere, RFA Sir Lancelot, HMS Broadsword, HMS Plymouth. Several of these were pulled back but I would presume that if the bombs Had gone off a lot more people would have died and the ships would have sank/burned rapidly.

Glasgow and Argonaut had to be withdrawn from the area, and repaired on TRALA for their journey back to Ascension and the UK. At least two of the Sirs were non-operable for a couple of days, and were makeshift repaired in San Carlos waters before the Bluff Cove landings.

 

 

Stuart Galbraith wrote:

 

That (a US carrier) and the airborne radar systems (leaving out warwinners such as Tomcat) would have made a major difference. It would also have probably made sure the Argentinians would have folded without a fight.

One of the reasons the Junta went in so decidedly is that they assumed they had Washingtons wink to do so. A mayor military commitment by the USA would have made them back down, I guess.

 

 

Baron Samedi wrote:

 

Non-battle casualties were however such that by the end of the campaign about 2/3rds of the troops on the ground were unfit to continue.

Its the water! Drinking water on the islands is terrible. To much sulphate in it, acts like a laxative. Our troops were well supplied with potable water in the begining, but after the fight started, suplly lines and prolly the potabilizer machine collapsed and a terrible dhyeria (sp?) pandemia rampaged. Add a very low quality food supply, and sub-zero temperatures. It must have been awfull.

 

Accounts I have read from brit veterans describe this very same problem. Dhyeria so bad, you could not get on your feet.

 

Personally, I always felt the Argentines should have carried out a seaborne raid on Ascension Island. It was the significant choke point in the UK's LOS. Destroy the runways and mine the harbour and it would have significantly delayed the operation.

Yes, but it also would have meant an open war declaration against the United States (I know they only own the base, and not the island, but anyway). Besides, I would have needed to happen "in preparation" for the war.

 

King Jester

[LucaJJ]

....there is no RFA Sir Gleamed that I know off. RFA Sir Galahad is probably the one.....

 

Yes, of course. The typo correction on my 'word' was on automatic.

 

I think the consensus then is that even if teh argentine bombs had gone off, the Brits would ahve stuck to it, ;labeit with even more sense of dread and worry at the mounting losses, sicne, basically, the carriers/troopships were never hit.

 

Speaking of momentous consequences, i think that hte Flaklands conflcit was one (among several, perhaps msome ven more important) factors that led coutnriesd like France, Italy and Germany gradually away from draftee armies. The perception at the tiem was that the technological diffeence between teh Uk and argentine forces was substantial but not curshing and that the difference ahd been teh professionalism of the Brits.

 

 

 

 

P.S.

On another post thee was some comment on 'even the tories' no longer crediting thatcher with much. That is obviously o/t, but if people are interested I am happy to fight St. Margaret's corner tooth and nail in the FFZ. May teh handbag be with you.

[swerve]

Personally, I always felt the Argentines should have carried out a seaborne raid on Ascension Island.  It was the significant choke point in the UK's LOS.  Destroy the runways and mine the harbour and it would have significantly delayed the operation.

 

No, because they were deliberately trying to limit the war, & keep it geographically confined to the disputed territories. The plan was to stage a coup de main then negotiate to keep what they had. Attacking Ascension (a territory they had no claim to, far from Les Malouines), would have meant "gloves off", which neither side wanted. Limiting the scope of the war was tacitly agreed.

[thomas.tmcc]

Ive heard that rumour too, though im a bit dubious. It would have had to have come after the American foreign secretary (Alexander?) suddenly went pro Brit, as opposed to the even handedness that so infutriated Thatcher. That being the case, the taskforce would already have sailed, and would have been a fair way to the south atlantic before the US carrier would have been attached. IMHO that may have meant a delay down south for the carrier to have arrived, which would have been politically unacceptable. if true it may even have been regarded at the MOD at the time as a US delaying tactic, or attempts to dictate how the battle was going to be fought. Both things that would have been rejected off the bat by Mrs T.

 

That said, it would have been an exeptionally impressive asset. They would have had to have commited support assets such as air defence warships to back it up. That and the airborne radar systems (leaving out warwinners such as Tomcat) would have made a major difference. It would also have probably made sure the Argentinians would have folded without a fight.

 

There has been a lot of things written about Margaret Thatcher and what she did in Britain in the early 80s. I wont rehash that again,(as I know it both bores and infuriates) except to point out that you dont even hear the Tories singing her praises any more, so harmful  were many of her policies. I would totally agree though, that more than anything, it was the victory at the Falklands that won her the election the following year. I can still recall the news reporting at the time, and the amount of gingoistic excess was frankly something I now cringe at. Its often forgotten the tories were a bit shaky in the polls before the war, something they didnt have to worry about again till the handbag started to go senile towards the end of the 1980s. Best of all, it made them look tough on defence, despite their laxness (and Naval cutbacks)that allowed the war to happen in the first place.

132690[/snapback]

 

 

Hello it isnt a rumour look at any of the documentarys made on the falklands war it is SAID by the the american goverment ,I cant remember who but it was said .

 

Thomas

[thomas.tmcc]

If I remember correctly , wasn't Invincible supposed to have gone to Australia and Hermes to India within a year ?

132921[/snapback]

 

 

Hi invincible and hermes were indeed supposed to go to them but the government cancelled the sales etc .

 

Thomas

[thomas.tmcc]

Personally, I always felt the Argentines should have carried out a seaborne raid on Ascension Island. It was the significant choke point in the UK's LOS. Destroy the runways and mine the harbour and it would have significantly delayed the operation.

132860[/snapback]

 

 

Hello ascension island is actually british ,but the usa wanted to build a base and we granted permission ,the same can be said for the diego garcia island .

 

Thomas

[cheese possessed]

The "US aircraft carrier" was mentioned by Caspar Weinberger in an interview in one or more of the main TV histories of the war (BBC? ITV?). He stated something to the effect that "an aircraft carrier was ordered to the southern Carribean, just in case", and linked the statement to others by Haig to the Argentinians along the lines of "if war starts the British will prevail", and, "if war starts, the US will come down on the side of its ally (UK)" - the clear implication being that US would intervene militarily if UK looked like being defeated. Caspar Weinberger then stated something like "in the event, the British were quite capable of winning the war unaided". This was the same interview where CW confirmed that Reagan had ordered "open the arsenal, give the British anything they ask for" - although it later appeared that Sidewinders were the only weapon system requested & delivered. When pressed on the question of how the carrier or other US assets would have been used, CW just smiled and did not answer.

 

QUOTE

"Non-battle casualties were however such that by the end of the campaign about 2/3rds of the troops on the ground were unfit to continue."

 

Not true: conditions were hard, and everyone was somewhat debilitated by exposure, but there was very little reduction in fighting ability. Morale was high, and there was a ferocious aggressive spirit. In fact, the units which had already had one battle (e.g. 2 Para) had become vastly more combat-effective, despite casualty losses- they were "blooded". If the Argentinians had not surrendered when they did, they would have suffered a terrible slaughter in the next round of battles for Stanley - as it was, certain British units had to be explicitly ordered not to fall upon the retreating enemy troops streaming back towards Stanley.

 

QUOTE

"Its the water! Drinking water on the islands is terrible. To much sulphate in it, acts like a laxative. Our troops were well supplied with potable water in the begining, but after the fight started, suplly lines and prolly the potabilizer machine collapsed and a terrible dhyeria (sp?) pandemia rampaged. Add a very low quality food supply, and sub-zero temperatures. It must have been awfull. Accounts I have read from brit veterans describe this very same problem. Dhyeria so bad, you could not get on your feet."

 

Not really true: The water in the rocky streams was exceptionally pure and potable. However, the majority of the terrain is peat bog, and much of the water in pools is black/brown with peat residue and somewhat mildly acidic. The "laxative" effect was caused by the water purifying tablets included in the rations. Because of the sheep everywhere and the perceived danger of parasitic "liver flukes", official instruction was to put 2x tablets in each water bottle, instead of 1/2 or one. This made the water more chlorinated than swimming pool water. Later, we all stopped using the tablets - as far as I know, no-one picked up any liver flukes! Some people had the squits, but the overwhelming majority had the opposite problem - "compo" blockage (the rations at the time had anti-laxative ingredients as they were designed to assist troops operating under NBC conditions in a European war).

 

Accounts about conditions can be confused, because British soldiers have grumbling down to a fine art. Despite the debilitating conditions, the Falklands is ironically almost identical in terrain, vegetation and climate to the main training areas in UK - Otterburn, Sennybridge, Black Mountains, etc. Most veterans found the war, outside of battle, no different to a prolonged FTX in UK.

[thomas.tmcc]

The "US aircraft carrier" was mentioned by Caspar Weinberger in an interview in one or more of the main TV histories of the war (BBC? ITV?). He stated something to the effect that "an aircraft carrier was ordered to the southern Carribean, just in case", and linked the statement to others by Haig to the Argentinians along the lines of "if war starts the British will prevail", and, "if war starts, the US will come down on the side of its ally (UK)" - the clear implication being that US would intervene militarily if UK looked like being defeated. Caspar Weinberger then stated something like "in the event, the British were quite capable of winning the war unaided". This was the same interview where CW confirmed that Reagan had ordered "open the arsenal, give the British anything they ask for" - although it later appeared that Sidewinders were the only weapon system requested & delivered. When pressed on the question of how the carrier or other US assets would have been used, CW just smiled and did not answer.

 

QUOTE

"Non-battle casualties were however such that by the end of the campaign about 2/3rds of the troops on the ground were unfit to continue."

 

Not true: conditions were hard, and everyone was somewhat debilitated by exposure, but there was very little reduction in fighting ability. Morale was high, and there was a ferocious aggressive spirit. In fact, the units which had already had one battle (e.g. 2 Para) had become vastly more combat-effective, despite casualty losses- they were "blooded". If the Argentinians had not surrendered when they did, they would have suffered a terrible slaughter in the next round of battles for Stanley - as it was, certain British units had to be explicitly ordered not to fall upon the retreating enemy troops streaming back towards Stanley.

 

QUOTE

"Its the water! Drinking water on the islands is terrible. To much sulphate in it, acts like a laxative. Our troops were well supplied with potable water in the begining, but after the fight started, suplly lines and prolly the potabilizer machine collapsed and a terrible dhyeria (sp?) pandemia rampaged. Add a very low quality food supply, and sub-zero temperatures. It must have been awfull. Accounts I have read from brit veterans describe this very same problem. Dhyeria so bad, you could not get on your feet."

 

Not really true: The water in the rocky streams was exceptionally pure and potable. However, the majority of the terrain is peat bog, and much of the water in pools is black/brown with peat residue and somewhat mildly acidic. The "laxative" effect was caused by the water purifying tablets included in the rations. Because of the sheep everywhere and the perceived danger of parasitic "liver flukes", official instruction was to put 2x tablets in each water bottle, instead of 1/2 or one. This made the water more chlorinated than swimming pool water. Later, we all stopped using the tablets - as far as I know, no-one picked up any liver flukes! Some people had the squits, but the overwhelming majority had the opposite problem - "compo" blockage (the rations at the time had anti-laxative ingredients as they were designed to assist troops operating under NBC conditions in a European war).

 

Accounts about conditions can be confused, because British soldiers have grumbling down to a fine art. Despite the debilitating conditions, the Falklands is ironically almost identical in terrain, vegetation and climate to the main training areas in UK - Otterburn, Sennybridge, Black Mountains, etc. Most veterans found the war, outside of battle, no different to a prolonged FTX in UK.

133043[/snapback]

 

Hi it was not only sidwinders on the shopping list it was also ,missile defence or jammers on aircraft etc plus others .

 

Thomas

[Ox]

The "US aircraft carrier" was mentioned by Caspar Weinberger in an interview in one or more of the main TV histories of the war (BBC? ITV?). He stated something to the effect that "an aircraft carrier was ordered to the southern Carribean, just in case", and linked the statement to others by Haig to the Argentinians along the lines of "if war starts the British will prevail", and, "if war starts, the US will come down on the side of its ally (UK)" - the clear implication being that US would intervene militarily if UK looked like being defeated. Caspar Weinberger then stated something like "in the event, the British were quite capable of winning the war unaided". This was the same interview where CW confirmed that Reagan had ordered "open the arsenal, give the British anything they ask for" - although it later appeared that Sidewinders were the only weapon system requested & delivered. When pressed on the question of how the carrier or other US assets would have been used, CW just smiled and did not answer.

.

133043[/snapback]

 

I vaguely remebr an interview with Weinburger but the timing s here are confusing me. Did he make these statements before the intial invasion by Argentina or during the Hague shuttle diplomacy when the US was officially being even handed and before the sinking of the Belgrano? Likewise the Hague statements?

 

I still find it hard to believe that the US would have intervened miltarily, not saying Weinburger and Hague didn't say this but I wander how much of it was bluff to force the argentine hand. It is big step from supplying the UK with weapons to having US personnel killed in the fighting.

[thomas.tmcc]

I vaguely remebr an interview with Weinburger but the timing s here are confusing me. Did he make these statements before the intial invasion by Argentina or during the Hague shuttle diplomacy when the US was officially being even handed and before the sinking of the Belgrano?  Likewise the Hague statements?

 

I still find it hard to believe that the US would have intervened miltarily, not saying Weinburger and Hague didn't say this but I wander how much of it was bluff to force the argentine hand.  It is big step from supplying the UK with weapons to having US personnel killed in the fighting.

133093[/snapback]

 

Hi ox yeah you may be right that it was a bluff or the US meant it at the time but then we wouldnt know the answer unless weinburger or the president of the time answered the question eh ?,also if the us had said yeah ok heres a carrier battle group to the uk and we had said thanks and took it ,there might not have been the war in the first place ,the argentines may have backed down ,or may not but would they have been willing to do that ? who knows ,who wants to really take on a US and british carrier groups at the same time in war ? ,they would be mad or stupid to try .

 

Thomas

[Icicle]

I remember a Wienburger interview, but it was long after the war (I think it was after he retired). He said that once the British decided for a military option the Americans were willing to supply whatever they need (conventional weapons I assume).

 

I am not sure if it was the same interview that you are remembering, but the interviewer seemed rather suprised, and asked how far would the supplies go. And Wienburger said that if the British had asked for an aircraft carrier they would have supplied it. I got the impression this wasn't public knowledge at the time of the war.