Wheel Nut:
Andrew S made a good point about where to stow 300 survivors.
Having been on two Submarines there isn’t room to swing a cat and the need for hot bunks is the only way the crew can rest when the watch is over.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story
I didn’t say anything about ‘stowing’ 300 survivors in a sub.Suggest you read how Hartenstein dealt with the situation and also the problem of the possibility being attacked.Firstly by trying to communicate his attentions to the Allied forces who said they missed the message.
i suggest you read how hartenstein did it again -they were in proper wooden lifeboats,the key word here is life BOAT not inflatable flimsy rafts, and they were also in much warmer and calmer waters,do you really think such an act would be possible in a heavy sea in the north atlantic? aint never going to happen.
do you honestly think hartenstien would have bothered if in mid atlantic in winter? dream on.
switchlogic:
So the sub is being attacked while rescuing people and in your scenario they just calmly get on the blower and have a chat with two governments. ‘Putting you on hold…’. You live in such a funny fairy land Carryfast its really quite comical.
No you inform the ‘great leader’ or her command to get on the ‘hotline’ to the Argie leadership/command to tell them your intentions ‘before’ you get attacked.While it wasn’t a case of actually ‘rescuing’ anyone from the water.It was more a case of stopping life rafts drifting away to sea in this case.
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
In this case assuming that I’d have signed on for the Falklands War it would have been a case of serving Thatcher’s 1983 election campaign not my country so I’m happy that I didn’t have to shoot anyone for that.
Wheel Nut:
Andrew S made a good point about where to stow 300 survivors.
Having been on two Submarines there isn’t room to swing a cat and the need for hot bunks is the only way the crew can rest when the watch is over.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story
I didn’t say anything about ‘stowing’ 300 survivors in a sub.Suggest you read how Hartenstein dealt with the situation and also the problem of the possibility being attacked.Firstly by trying to communicate his attentions to the Allied forces who said they missed the message.
i suggest you read how hartenstein did it again -they were in proper wooden lifeboats,the key word here is life BOAT not inflatable flimsy rafts, and they were also in much warmer and calmer waters,do you really think such an act would be possible in a heavy sea in the north atlantic? aint never going to happen.
do you honestly think hartenstien would have bothered if in mid atlantic in winter? dream on.
A sub is built to be seaworthy in rough conditions when surfaced although admittedly not the ideal rescue craft.However luckily for many of those who were saved from that attack the Chilean Navy didn’t take the same attitude in going out to search for and then recovering those inflatable ‘flimsy’ raft and their occupants.
As usual this thread is being side-tracked.
Anyway.
It is a fact, and everyone can rest assured that whatever Thatcher did during her premiership, it definitely wasn’t for the benefit of all the people of Britain. She did what she did at the behest of her “Paymasters” to whom she was subservient. The rest is history, as they say, and the ordinary peoples of Britain are still suffering for it and will continue to do so if they don’t do something about, and quickly.
As for her “State funeral”, IMO and constitutionally, she doesn’t qualify for one and never will under the strict terms of the protocol.
I do find one thing entertaining. Predictably over the last few days I’ve seen lots of people gloating over her death as if it was some sort of victory. She died at the age of 87 in bed in the Ritz, I think she had the last laugh there!
Solly:
As usual this thread is being side-tracked.
Anyway.
It is a fact, and everyone can rest assured that whatever Thatcher did during her premiership, it definitely wasn’t for the benefit of all the people of Britain. She did what she did at the behest of her “Paymasters” to whom she was subservient. The rest is history, as they say, and the ordinary peoples of Britain are still suffering for it and will continue to do so if they don’t do something about, and quickly.
As for her “State funeral”, IMO and constitutionally, she doesn’t qualify for one and never will under the strict terms of the protocol.
I don’t think that it’s side tracking to point out every type of example to show that she was an uncaring individual in the case of others wether that be ordering co ordinated attacks by the police ( some of who might have been army personnel dressed as coppers ) on the so called ‘enemy within’ as she saw it or leaving survivors of a submarine attack, which was ordered to benefit her and her government’s election prospects,to be lost at sea without at least trying to help them.
Which then leaves the question of respect.Respect is something that needs to be earned and it’s something that she didn’t earn.Just like Brown and Blair etc and it’s no surprise that all the usual suspects in the Tory infiltrated so called ‘Labour’ Party are now crawling out of the woodwork to defend her and are asking for everyone to give her that respect.No surprise either that MP’s like Dennis Skinner ( rightly ) don’t seem to be supporting that situation.
If there’s one good thing that could possibly come out of her life and her end is that the Labour Party membership and trade Unions will see that it’s smoked out all those infiltrators within the Party and it can now throw them out to join the Tory ranks where they belong and start to re build the Party.Hopefully by finding someone to lead it like Shore.
switchlogic:
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
That thought crossed my mind but I was too cosy in my own armchair to bother mentioning it…
switchlogic:
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
That thought crossed my mind but I was too cosy in my own armchair to bother mentioning it…
I didn’t serve either. I used to build Airfix kits though. I suspect CF did too. That should be near enough, I would have thought, for CF to spout off about all things military.
I’m a member of the Royal British Legion FWIW, therefore I’m probably more entitled than CF to pretend to be knowledgeable about military matters.
switchlogic:
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
That thought crossed my mind but I was too cosy in my own armchair to bother mentioning it…
I didn’t serve either. I used to build Airfix kits though. I suspect CF did too. That should be near enough, I would have thought, for CF to spout off about all things military.
I’m a member of the Royal British Legion FWIW, therefore I’m probably more entitled than CF to pretend to be knowledgeable about military matters.
So was the scrapping of our catapult equipped Phantom capable aircraft carriers a factor in the loss of ships during the Falklands conflict or not in your view ?.Speaking from a totally engineering viewpoint and being that even your airfix kits would probably have given you some idea of the difference between the capabilities of the Phantom v the Harrier.
Which just leaves the question as to that loss of capability being a factor in the Argentine military dictatorship deciding to try to take the Islands back and Thatcher’s government knowing that as part of it’s provocation of the Argentine government to do so for obvious electoral popularity reasons of it’s own.
switchlogic:
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
That thought crossed my mind but I was too cosy in my own armchair to bother mentioning it…
I didn’t serve either. I used to build Airfix kits though. I suspect CF did too. That should be near enough, I would have thought, for CF to spout off about all things military.
I’m a member of the Royal British Legion FWIW, therefore I’m probably more entitled than CF to pretend to be knowledgeable about military matters.
So was the scrapping of our catapult equipped Phantom capable aircraft carriers a factor in the loss of ships during the Falklands conflict or not in your view ?.Speaking from a totally engineering viewpoint and being that even your airfix kits would probably have given you some idea of the difference between the capabilities of the Phantom v the Harrier.
Which just leaves the question as to that loss of capability being a factor in the Argentine military dictatorship deciding to try to take the Islands back and Thatcher’s government knowing that as part of it’s provocation of the Argentine government to do so for obvious electoral popularity reasons of it’s own.
I think you give governments and polititians of all persuations far too much credit. You are a typical paranoid conspiracy nut. Sometimes the unexpected happens, rather than gets orchestrated.
In my non expert opinion, military planning tends to look to previous conflicts and especially to the last conflict the generals etc were involved in and the militaries equipment reflects those views. I suspect most of the admirals were not expecting to need full size carriers again when the perceived “enemy” at that time was the Soviet block. Carriers cost mega money and are easily detected and then sunk by subs (see the Belgrano for example) and missles so need a fleet of smaller ships to defend them. We (the UK government) decided to spend our limited defence budget instead on our nuclear deterent, that is the balistic missle subs. Sensible if your only foe is the Soviets. Looking back, maybe we should have had wider capabilities.
As for Maggie taking on the Argies merely to win an election, that was a hell of a gamble! What if we lost? If we had lost a few more ships we probably would have been defeated. Where would that have left the electoral chances for Mrs Thatcher’s party? Your conspiracy theory is full of holes. (but we are out to get you)
switchlogic:
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
That thought crossed my mind but I was too cosy in my own armchair to bother mentioning it…
I didn’t serve either. I used to build Airfix kits though. I suspect CF did too. That should be near enough, I would have thought, for CF to spout off about all things military.
I’m a member of the Royal British Legion FWIW, therefore I’m probably more entitled than CF to pretend to be knowledgeable about military matters.
So was the scrapping of our catapult equipped Phantom capable aircraft carriers a factor in the loss of ships during the Falklands conflict or not in your view ?.Speaking from a totally engineering viewpoint and being that even your airfix kits would probably have given you some idea of the difference between the capabilities of the Phantom v the Harrier.
Which just leaves the question as to that loss of capability being a factor in the Argentine military dictatorship deciding to try to take the Islands back and Thatcher’s government knowing that as part of it’s provocation of the Argentine government to do so for obvious electoral popularity reasons of it’s own.
I think you give governments and polititians of all persuations far too much credit. You are a typical paranoid conspiracy nut. Sometimes the unexpected happens, rather than gets orchestrated.
In my non expert opinion, military planning tends to look to previous conflicts and especially to the last conflict the generals etc were involved in and the militaries equipment reflects those views. I suspect most of the admirals were not expecting to need full size carriers again when the perceived “enemy” at that time was the Soviet block. Carriers cost mega money and are easily detected and then sunk by subs (see the Belgrano for example) and missles so need a fleet of smaller ships to defend them. We (the UK government) decided to spend our limited defence budget instead on our nuclear deterent, that is the balistic missle subs. Sensible if your only foe is the Soviets. Looking back, maybe we should have had wider capabilities.
As for Maggie taking on the Argies merely to win an election, that was a hell of a gamble! What if we lost? If we had lost a few more ships we probably would have been defeated. Where would that have left the electoral chances for Mrs Thatcher’s party? Your conspiracy theory is full of holes. (but we are out to get you)
Firstly assuming that you’re right about catapult equipped aircraft carriers being a liability rather than an asset then the same obviously would have applied in the case of bothering with Harrier carriers.The fact is all those issues concerning the vulnerability of aircraft carriers apply in all cases,regardless of type and in fact all naval surface ship power.What actually happened was that Thatcher and her staff knew that they had just the right balance of vulnerability owing to the weak air power to make the Argies think it was worth a try but enough power provided by the advantage of sidewinder armed Harriers to make it worth the risk of losing as opposed to the benefits of winning.
As Thatcher’s popularity stood in 1981/2 she had nothing to lose in a Falklands defeat and everything to win in a victory.Which seems to add to the case of a motive.Which explains her defence cuts prior to the invasion which her advisors warned would ‘send the wrong mesage’ to the Argentine government regarding the government’s committment to the Falklands’ defence and then all her refusals of the efforts made by the Americans to stop the war,including the offer of the use of a fully eqipped American Carrier,in order to deter the Argentine government from continuing it’s actions.In all those cases no surprise she refused.Then she made sure that there’d be no way back by the submarine attack on the Belgrano.
Carryfast:
Firstly assuming that you’re right about catapult equipped aircraft carriers being a liability rather than an asset then the same obviously would have applied in the case of bothering with Harrier carriers.The fact is all those issues concerning the vulnerability of aircraft carriers apply in all cases,regardless of type and in fact all naval surface ship power.What actually happened was that Thatcher and her staff knew that they had just the right balance of vulnerability owing to the weak air power to make the Argies think it was worth a try but enough power provided by the advantage of sidewinder armed Harriers to make it worth the risk of losing as opposed to the benefits of winning.
As Thatcher’s popularity stood in 1981/2 she had nothing to lose in a Falklands defeat and everything to win in a victory.Which seems to add to the case of a motive.Which explains her defence cuts prior to the invasion which her advisors warned would ‘send the wrong mesage’ to the Argentine government regarding the government’s committment to the Falklands’ defence and then all her refusals of the efforts made by the Americans to stop the war,including the offer of the use of a fully eqipped American Carrier,in order to deter the Argentine government from continuing it’s actions.In all those cases no surprise she refused.Then she made sure that there’d be no way back by the submarine attack on the Belgrano.
When are we running for parliment? With our expertise in military matters we could take over the world, if you make it all the way to become the Defence Minister. (I’d be Minister of War).
You may like to compare the cost of a full size carrier with the mini versions we had. I’m not a betting man, but I understand the difference between buying a £1 lottery ticket and dropping my whole weeks pay packet on a horse race. A full size carrier is a much more dangerous threat, to say the Soviets, due to its capabilities than a mini carrier would be and would therefore be a much juicer target. Our ships were the Swiss Army knife variety, having the tools to do lots of different tasks in a small package, but clearly not as well as a set of individual dedicated tools would be.
As for your source, you picked a South American news agency. How unpatriotic of you Wow, any length to dish your enemy eh?
Defence cuts happen regularly, especially under left leaning governments. Whenever there are budget negotiations the defence chiefs will wring their hands and wail about the various dooms that will befall us if they don’t get their slice of the budget protected. Happens every time, nothing to get excited about and certainly not evidence of a plot.
Carryfast:
Firstly assuming that you’re right about catapult equipped aircraft carriers being a liability rather than an asset then the same obviously would have applied in the case of bothering with Harrier carriers.The fact is all those issues concerning the vulnerability of aircraft carriers apply in all cases,regardless of type and in fact all naval surface ship power.What actually happened was that Thatcher and her staff knew that they had just the right balance of vulnerability owing to the weak air power to make the Argies think it was worth a try but enough power provided by the advantage of sidewinder armed Harriers to make it worth the risk of losing as opposed to the benefits of winning.
As Thatcher’s popularity stood in 1981/2 she had nothing to lose in a Falklands defeat and everything to win in a victory.Which seems to add to the case of a motive.Which explains her defence cuts prior to the invasion which her advisors warned would ‘send the wrong mesage’ to the Argentine government regarding the government’s committment to the Falklands’ defence and then all her refusals of the efforts made by the Americans to stop the war,including the offer of the use of a fully eqipped American Carrier,in order to deter the Argentine government from continuing it’s actions.In all those cases no surprise she refused.Then she made sure that there’d be no way back by the submarine attack on the Belgrano.
When are we running for parliment? With our expertise in military matters we could take over the world, if you make it all the way to become the Defence Minister. (I’d be Minister of War).
You may like to compare the cost of a full size carrier with the mini versions we had. I’m not a betting man, but I understand the difference between buying a £1 lottery ticket and dropping my whole weeks pay packet on a horse race. A full size carrier is a much more dangerous threat, to say the Soviets, due to its capabilities than a mini carrier would be and would therefore be a much juicer target. Our ships were the Swiss Army knife variety, having the tools to do lots of different tasks in a small package,
Having a credible dangerous threat as opposed to a cheap useless one is the object of the excercise.In this case it would have meant the difference between there being no Falkalnds War and therefore no casualties on eiter side as opposed to the Agies deciding to go for it resulting in lots of people on both sides not coming home ever again.The sad thing is that Thatcher knew that and took advantage of it rather that accept the US offer of provision of the missing carrier force which would have stopped the Argies in their tracks.Hence no war no loss of life and the Tories losing the election in 1983.
As an ex miner (through the early 80’s, strike an all) I can honestly say that I don’t care one way or the other that she’s dead. I didn’t know her so it doesn’t affect me in the slightest, although the media coverage is way OTT imo.
Oh, & the lack of a full sized carrier wasn’t the issue. The lack of AEW aircraft was
During Harold Wilsons Administration we tried to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina.At that time they did not want them.They were of no real use to us after the era of wooden merchant ships,they used to be careened there and reprovisioned for the final leg of the passage back home.
Melchett:
As an ex miner (through the early 80’s, strike an all) I can honestly say that I don’t care one way or the other that she’s dead. I didn’t know her so it doesn’t affect me in the slightest, although the media coverage is way OTT imo.
Oh, & the lack of a full sized carrier wasn’t the issue. The lack of AEW aircraft was
No offence but, were you a member of the UDM by any chance, as that would explain your indifference.
Solly:
No offence but, were you a member of the UDM by any chance, as that would explain your indifference.
Nope, NUM & on strike for the full 12 months. I hated the woman with a passion at the time but it was 30 years ago & I like to think I’ve moved on… life is too short to carry grudges.
it would have been a case of serving Thatcher’s 1983 election campaign not my country so I’m happy that I didn’t have to shoot anyone for that.
State?..Ceremonial?
Wow, any length to dish your enemy eh?
