| 11 SEP 2011 at 3:32am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | That book is in my top ten list of books. It's a bloody good book and totally tells you exactly how that particular battle went.
Kind of controversially, it shows Col H Jones as a bit of a control freak in so much as he didn't listen to his commanders. On the other hand, it also shows him as leader.
Regardless - great book and anyone remotely interested in the conflict would do themselves a favour by reading it.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 4:39am |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By gabeeg
After reading that book, how do you feel about the representation of squad battles in SB Falklands?
Yeah, after reading that book, the harshness of the task in front of you does seem about right. However, I still stand by my initial thoughts that you shouldn't attempt to introduce the game with something so tough to get a grip on.
What surprised me was the complete lack of support for the fellas at Goose Green. Naval support was withdrawn, the HMS Arrow's gun was out. Harrier support was pulled, weather too bad. Ground artillery was very low in numbers. I think the intel they had led the brass to believe they weren't going to need much to take the isthmus.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 5:23am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By spelk
Originally Posted By gabeeg
After reading that book, how do you feel about the representation of squad battles in SB Falklands?
Yeah, after reading that book, the harshness of the task in front of you does seem about right. However, I still stand by my initial thoughts that you shouldn't attempt to introduce the game with something so tough to get a grip on.
What surprised me was the complete lack of support for the fellas at Goose Green. Naval support was withdrawn, the HMS Arrow's gun was out. Harrier support was pulled, weather too bad. Ground artillery was very low in numbers. I think the intel they had led the brass to believe they weren't going to need much to take the isthmus.
I came away with those thoughts also. In fact - it lets you know in the book the surprise felt by everyone when they saw how many Argentinian troops were actually there!
The arty they did have was all but useless - getting bogged in itself and when shells did land, the explosion was absorbed by the peat.
Thank god for Milan
I may have to dig the book out for another read....refresh my memory
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 6:10am |
SiTheSlyCenturion
Posts : 194
Joined: 9 JUL 2007
Location: UK, London
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By spelk
What surprised me was the complete lack of support for the fellas at Goose Green. Naval support was withdrawn, the HMS Arrow's gun was out. Harrier support was pulled, weather too bad. Ground artillery was very low in numbers. I think the intel they had led the brass to believe they weren't going to need much to take the isthmus.
There has been some debate about how good Col Jones was.
The best books on the subject from a scholarly perspective are the two volume Official History by Lawrence Freedman.
Goose Green was not of any import except they wanted the area screened to stop any Argentine advance on the landings while the ground force moved east towards Port Stanley.
They knew there was an Argentinian force there but was not sure of its size.
The negative argument is that Jones attacked when there was no need and without sufficient support. He also led from the front and failed to coordinate all his forces.
The actual result was impressive considering the odds and so the decision to award the VC was given as much for the whole unit plus the need to boast morale after a shaky landing which almost went badly wrong.
I tend to take the positive that the troops fought superbly and perhaps Jones was somewhat overzealous in the assault but it was a para battalion and I find it hard to criticise a man after he lost his life leading his men.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 8:27am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Absolutely. No doubt, leading from the front is inspiring - but of course if you lead from the front and die, it can have the entirely opposite effect.
However by not listening to/trusting his subordinate officers (which is what I gathered from the book), perhaps he lost a few more lives than they may have had he listened. I'm not sure I remember the specifics very well, but from what I recall, (spelk, as you've read it more recently, perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong) there was "very brief" discussion about moving down the coast to flank - and it was dismissed - and according to the book, dismissed quite categorically and without discussion of the merits. On top of that, I'm sure I remember the author saying Jones suggested his subordinate officers were trying to steal his command.
Still - that is a book on events and after the events. Hindsight is a great thing. I do not doubt Jones was a brave man and what he did was through the use of that bravery.
Anyway - it was a tremendous fight against a dug in, stubborn defender, with progress being made across very open land. It was a massively tough ask - and being Paras they pulled it off.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 9:41am |
SiTheSlyCenturion
Posts : 194
Joined: 9 JUL 2007
Location: UK, London
Status : Offline | Not sure how well the game shows this but most of the fighting was done at night.
This of course helps with the openness of the terrain but also needs a high level of training since it is all too easy to lose your way plus that nightmare of friendly fire.
On paper the Argentines should not have lost since they had the high ground plus the ability of weeks to prepare defences, not to mention the higher number of troops.
They did not think it was possible to cross the open land between San Carlos channel and Port Stanley.
I have always thought it would make an excellent wargame since it has all the elements:- Diplomacy at the time of the Cold War, subs, aircraft carriers, air to air dogfights. A landing on forgein held land.
Special forces operations.
The might have possibilities are many - loss of a carrier, opposed landing, attack mission in Argentina. Snipers taking out officers.
It could have easily gone wrong.
I still hope we find an ocean of oil done there and we can have a decent economy.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 12:44pm |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Here is a summary of what Geddes was saying (much better than I could paraphrase)
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/memories_goose_green.htm
Essentially, I think H got too involved, things were going from bad to worse for him, he wanted to exert his control as close to the front as possible - even holding a unit and assault back, missing the opportune window of attack, till he arrived at the front line. I think he was attempting to push forward regardless, using his force of will more than any clear tactics. When his friend and colleague Wood was hit, he lost his composure and charged an area without sufficient cover. Geddes describes it as H micro-managing his troops personally and then losing focus, being too close to the front, and only seeing the immediate problem at the ground level on the front line.
Geddes had maximum respect for H, but I think he saw it all first hand, and with his comrades assessed what was going on when Sunray went down.
I think Geddes mentions that during the Falklands that was the last time men fought a battle with minimum tech, face to face, bayonet to bayonet. War after the Falklands was different. Fought further away. With lots of technical support.
It does hit home that we were unprepared, for the conflict, for the weather, for the logistical problems. Winning was in no way a certainty. Guts and determination and a healthy chunk of luck won us the conflict. Geddes sums it all up at the end, saying that it wasn't the few people on the islands that they saved when his mates died, it was the many people on the Argentinian mainland who were being saved from a corrupt and despotic military junta. The ALF, the Argentinian Liberation Front.
Very interesting conflict, especially since I experienced it from mainland Britain during the period, and can compare the propaganda that was sown, compared to the reality coming to light with books like Johns.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 4:04pm |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Yeah - as did I (watch it from home).
I was 15. I remember watching the news night after night...my twin brother and I had wanted to join the army since we were little kids. The Falklands Conflict actually made up our minds that we were joining up when we could.
I also remember seeing those ships go down and thinking it how bad it was going. I also remember the cuts being made to the armed forces by (none other than) the Tory government of the time (much like now??).
Also, afterwards, there was a programme called The Paras ran on the BBC. It showed the training the Paras went through...and my brother and I watched it weekly and decided it was what we wanted to do. Unfortunately, I discovered in the run up to going to the Recruitement Centre that I was scared of heights!
My brother did join the Paras - I was pushed towards where the army needed recruits...the Royal Corps of Transport...and he's never let me live it down!
Got the book out now and will be reading it these coming weeks. It was a great book - thanks for the reminder.
|
| 11 SEP 2011 at 4:29pm |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | I've never had the compunction to sign up, but it doesn't stop me admiring the feats performed by real life heroes under duress. My family have been in the two world wars, and I've been brought up from an early age to respect the sacrifice made - lost my Great Grandfather on HMS Hogue in 1914, my Grandfather served in 8th British Army during WW2, and my dad was one of the last generation to be taken in to National Service. So there is a history there, but I'm afraid I've broken the chain. But it didn't stop me gazing with amazement at the Falklands conflict every evening on the news, admiring the Harriers and the Naval presence, and the boots on the ground, marching along barren grasslands with the Union Jack flapping about on their comms ariel.
My enthusiasm for Military History has increased many fold, hence my presence here really, and I've been dipping in and out of major conflicts over the past few years... it was time to re-visit the Falklands, and I'm really glad I did. Because its probably the closest I've been to a conflict in my formative years. Waves of nostalgia rolling into shore.
I'm amazed at the current cuts, and really think the current Tory government (although there was no majority voting them in!) is cutting our Navy down to the bare minimum - scrapping our Carrier capability screams of wrong doing - its going to be a good few years before the new ones are operational. Seeing the last of the Harriers really hits home too. If they think carriers are superfluous nowadays, surely they just need to look back around 1982 when Invincible and Hermes were being readied for canning/selling on.
Anyway, I'm rambling.. got a new book on the story of a Harrier pilot on the HMS Invincible during the Falklands War next, expect lots of Harrier love soon - I remember rushing down to the library as a kid and spending all my saved money on photocopying pages out of Janes Fighting Aircraft so I could read about the Harrier and the Mirages.. ahh the good old days ...
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 12:55am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | lol Spelk - you're on a roll. That too is a great book, if a little bitter...Sharky that is.
But then if you are at the crappy end of the stick and people around you aren't listening, then it makes the smell worse.
It gives a detailed account of what the Harriers were up against - both from the Argentinians and the top brass.
Another one you want to watch out for is the Vulcan bombings - the Black Buck raids. I only remember ever having heard of one being reported on the news, but apparently there were a few. The fete was amazing, but as you will find out from Sharky...his opinion differs somewhat. The book was called Vulcan 607
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 1:18am |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By JudgeDredd
lol Spelk - you're on a roll. That too is a great book, if a little bitter...Sharky that is.
But then if you are at the crappy end of the stick and people around you aren't listening, then it makes the smell worse.
It gives a detailed account of what the Harriers were up against - both from the Argentinians and the top brass.
He makes it sound like we still need Harriers now! Why are we scrapping them when we need them for Air to Air coverage of our Navy! I think my love for the Harrier might cloud my judgement and I might find some sympathy with this Sharkey bloke and his bitterness []
Originally Posted By JudgeDredd
Another one you want to watch out for is the Vulcan bombings - the Black Buck raids. I only remember ever having heard of one being reported on the news, but apparently there were a few. The fete was amazing, but as you will find out from Sharky...his opinion differs somewhat. The book was called Vulcan 607
I'll keep my eye out for that one. I got about half way through the rather dry but informative Max Hastings The Falklands War book, but then the bright lights of Sink the Belgrano, Spearhead Assault and now Sea Harriers over the Falklands has waylaid my reading. I've still got to go back to the Hastings one. Then the Vulcan bomber!
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 1:23am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | I too trugded through the Max Hastings one. Not the best imo and not what I was lookign for about the conflict.
Sharkey makes a point in the book which stands to this day...I don't want to give anything away - suffice to say he has strong feelings about the RAF - and they aren't all good
And on a final note and I'll let you go and enjoy a great book - it's BEYOND ridiculous that we have carriers with no aircraft. The MOD has seriously lost the plot. I'll leave it there for fear of going political.
Enjoy
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 1:35am |
SiTheSlyCenturion
Posts : 194
Joined: 9 JUL 2007
Location: UK, London
Status : Offline | Really enjoying the reminiscing.
Remember the lads trying to stow away on the QE2 to join the fight.
Sounds silly now but at the time it made sense.
The Vulcan bombing was another controvertial subject.
The RAF was in the arkward situation of having been spared the huge axe cut of spending that the Army and especially the Naval were about to take under John Notts Defence Review. Yet they could offer no support to the effort.
The argument is that they wildly over played the effectiveness of the Vulcan bombers (which were designed to drop nuclear bombs) to stop the Argentines using Port Stanley airfield. They did not stop it being used at all. The cost was massive since they had to refuel mid air twice I think.
The counter argument is that it allowed the country to do something while the task force was enroute and therefore was valuable for morale purposes rather than any military advantage.
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 2:49am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | deleted
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 3:21am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By SiTheSly
Really enjoying the reminiscing.
Remember the lads trying to stow away on the QE2 to join the fight.
Sounds silly now but at the time it made sense.
The Vulcan bombing was another controvertial subject.
The RAF was in the arkward situation of having been spared the huge axe cut of spending that the Army and especially the Naval were about to take under John Notts Defence Review. Yet they could offer no support to the effort.
The argument is that they wildly over played the effectiveness of the Vulcan bombers (which were designed to drop nuclear bombs) to stop the Argentines using Port Stanley airfield. They did not stop it being used at all. The cost was massive since they had to refuel mid air twice I think.
The counter argument is that it allowed the country to do something while the task force was enroute and therefore was valuable for morale purposes rather than any military advantage.
I thought, and still do, that the RAF attempt was an acceptable mission in so much as it sent a message to the Argentinians - we can reach you and we will get there. It also showed we were not dropping this. So from a political and morale perspective I think it was a worthwhile attempt...though Sharkey was correct in that it's entirely possible the RAF took vital resources away from more immediate efforts in theater.
As for refuelling, I think it was two or three refuels there and the same back...and the Victor which was going to have to be on the final leg was actually refuelled also! This page says there were 11 tankers to refuel 2 Vulcans...my memory of details from the book are vague...
As a tactical strike, they were pretty useless...but I do think (at least the first mission) it was a good message to send.
And regardless of the RAFs reasons - which have often been called into question (and I generally agree that they were totally selfish - they just didn't want to be left out the loop) - it was an amazing operational effort.
edited for spelling - my spelling seems to be getting worse!
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 3:59am |
SiTheSlyCenturion
Posts : 194
Joined: 9 JUL 2007
Location: UK, London
Status : Offline | I agree totally that it was a magnificent effort and we both know that if they did not make that effort we would be now talking about the missed opportunity of using the Vulcans to shut down the Port Stanley runway which was the Argentine main supply route.
They did of course have merchants supplying the theatre but that link was being cut back due to the fear of submarine attack. Although the thought of a submarine attacking a cargo vessel is ridiculous.
I love varied possibilities in wargames but am wary of criticizing the actions of others with the gift of hindsight and in a different time context.
I agree with you that it was worthwhile for the political affect and that the military one was to be a bonus, albeit one that never materialized.
I studied the diplomatic side of the war and once the fleet set sail then conflict was near impossible to stop. The British would not turn the fleet around on route while the Argentines were still on the lslands and the Argentines would never retreat unless the British conceded sovereignity which they would not do.
Would not have wanted Alexendar Haig's shuttle diplomacy job.
On the whole it seems it was the Argentines which made the mistakes, it seems that Galterairi was pickled the entire time.
The Argentine military came off badly with the exception of the Air Force which was fighting right at the end of their range and took heavy losses as a percentage of flights launched.
I really wish there was a game which had all the elements in it, especially that gaming rarity of a close call naval sub system. It would be a nail bitter down to the taking of Port Stanley.
Remember that old Rod Stewart song which became popular at the time?
I am sailing.
Time to dig out that old chestnut - Battle for the Falklands - Max Hastings.
EDIT: I have just realized that one of the main reasons for attacking Port Stanley runway was to stop the Argentines extending the runway to allow for their attack jets to be stationed there which of course would have been a big blow to the task force. So it was the proof that it could be attacked was enough to stop the Argentines from trying to extend it.
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 4:33am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | A game representing all aspects would be a a great game to have.
And I totally agree that the mistakes were there for the Argentinians to make - and they did. It was a very close run thing for the Brits and all the talk from the Iron Lady would not have changed that had the Argentinians done some things differently.
At one point, ships were going down quicker than submarines. I remember my dad getting the paper in the morning and seeing another picture of another ship sinking!
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 4:52am |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By JudgeDredd
At one point, ships were going down quicker than submarines. I remember my dad getting the paper in the morning and seeing another picture of another ship sinking!
As an addition to Sharkey's book updated to 2005, he mentions the fact (in his opinion) that if the Sea Harriers on Hermes (800 Squadron?) had stuck to their low level CAP (rather that adopting High level CAP's) many Royal Navy ships wouldn't have been hit. He reckons that the Argentine rules of engagement were to dump ordnance into the sea and return if Sea Harriers were patrolling the area! Thats a very sobering claim, especially for those poor seamen on Sheffield, Coventry, Galahad etc..
Perhaps he's being controversial after the fact, but it still makes you wonder if the many hits the Royal Navy took were avoidable to some extent.
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 4:53am |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By JudgeDredd
A game representing all aspects would be a a great game to have.
I was hoping some flavour of Harpoon could provide the thrill we seek. []
I fervently hope the new game Naval Command (aka Red Pill) sticks a Falklands scenario in its content list.
|
| 12 SEP 2011 at 5:11am |
JudgeDreddCommander
Posts : 1873
Joined: 5 MAR 2006
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By SiTheSly
EDIT: I have just realized that one of the main reasons for attacking Port Stanley runway was to stop the Argentines extending the runway to allow for their attack jets to be stationed there which of course would have been a big blow to the task force. So it was the proof that it could be attacked was enough to stop the Argentines from trying to extend it.
According to the Wiki link I posted above the Argentinians said the raid was one reason why they moved their Jets to the mainland (although it could've also been the fact that the UK had said they would not strike mainland Argentina).
It also states that the runway, though repaired within 24 hours, was not repaired well enough to support jets.
Can you imagine the problems we'd have faced if Argentinian jets were operating from Stanley? The Carrier force was already having to operate quite some distance away from the islands...and the Harriers already had very little operating time over The Falklands - if the carriers had to operate even further out not only would the Harriers not have been able to provide what little support they could (crap ground radar for the area I think was mentioned), but they would've had to have been reserved for CAP.
|
| 15 SEP 2011 at 11:17am |
DimitrisCenturion
Posts : 42
Joined: 30 APR 2010
Status : Offline | I fervently hope the new game Naval Command (aka Red Pill) sticks a Falklands scenario in its content list. You'll be pleased to know that already during beta we have two of them: a historical 1977 one (they very nearly clashed 5 years "early"), and a hypothetical "modern" one with the modern stuff (Typhoons!). Here's a screen from the latter one: [img]http://www.warfaresims.com/WarSimsWP/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/8.PNG[/img] The guys are also keen to add more, both modern/future and historical ones. As you may know, in the past we had created/hosted two full Falkland battlesets for Harpoon 2/3 (a historical and a future hypothetical), available here: [link]http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=19[/link] We are probably going to migrate the historical one to Command at some point, and we'll see what we can do on the hypothetical.
|
| 15 SEP 2011 at 11:25am |
DimitrisCenturion
Posts : 42
Joined: 30 APR 2010
Status : Offline | Something is wrong with the message editor.... it completely messes up my post's format.
|
| 15 SEP 2011 at 11:45am |
SiTheSlyCenturion
Posts : 194
Joined: 9 JUL 2007
Location: UK, London
Status : Offline | looks great Dimitris - and the messed up posting happens to a lot of folks.
I have actually gotten used to it now.
|
| 15 SEP 2011 at 1:59pm |
spelkCommander
Posts : 1666
Joined: 19 FEB 2009
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Thanks for the info Dimitirs, I'll be all over that like a rash.
|
