|
|
Post by Goonie on Jul 31, 2020 22:44:16 GMT
Sgt Major Pulis likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 22:53:39 GMT
I was careful in my wording, I didn't say I don't support any and realistically the Falklands is one of those grey areas. I find it especially hard to take off my unbiased hat when considering it too because I'm aware our victory there got Thatcher her second term from what I gather. I want to be absolutely clear when I say I in no way blame soldiers, I'm incredibly sympathetic towards them and thing help for heroes etc are wonderful charities. Tickets for veterans, any sort of benefits and support for veterans I wholeheartedly encourage. My issues are twofold: -I hate it when war is glorified, I'm not mad about the club photo op with soldiers in uniform perched on a big metal killing machine, there needs to be a big message saying war is fucking awful. -The second is while soldiers are completely without blame, and the politicians deserve most of it, the military system needs to take a lot too. They recruit the young, the aimless, the desperate and this is in a job where you probably won't come back from your tour the same person and you might not come back at all. The notion of the army being a deterrent is all well and good but it's used aggressively, look at Iraq and Afghanistan and the horror we have endured and worse, created. The Army is used, repeatedly, for 'bad wars'. That doesn't diminish the fact that men and women are putting their lives in the line,that has to be respected.I did stress that in literally every single comment on this thread, I have nothing but time and respect for veterans. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 1, 2020 7:13:15 GMT
A little late - however we did employ one Petty Officer (Telegraphist) Tony Waddington! And Chris Kamara was ex RN. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 1, 2020 7:25:10 GMT
I'm all for supporting veterans, they go through incomprehensible things. I do feel a little uneasy about the club being linked too closely with the military though because it means people (often young, impressionable people) go through those incomprehensible things. Beyond the Second World War it's hard to find many conflicts I really support our involvement in. The armed forces never start any wars, it's the politicians who do that. It's the armed forces role to be there to deter others attacking us, and to fight the battles the politicians have led us into. Do you think we should have told the Falklands "tough" when Argentina invaded them? It's a difficult decision. But again it was the politicians who created the problem by withdrawing forces from the area, which was an invitation for the Argentinian junta who were an unpopular government to invade South Georgia. There was a weak response by the UK which then led them to invade the Falklands. Regarding the award, I'm often critical of the way the club is run, so it is nice to say, "well done everyone involved". (Please note big John, I spelt led correctly,  ) Sorry to have to correct you Cokey. The invasion of the Falklands came 24 hours before the invasion of South Georgia on 3rd April. Think you might be mistaking the landing of contracted Argentinian scrap metal merchants who cheekily raised their flag a week or so earlier but hardly an invasion. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 1, 2020 8:04:22 GMT
The armed forces never start any wars, it's the politicians who do that. It's the armed forces role to be there to deter others attacking us, and to fight the battles the politicians have led us into. Do you think we should have told the Falklands "tough" when Argentina invaded them? It's a difficult decision. But again it was the politicians who created the problem by withdrawing forces from the area, which was an invitation for the Argentinian junta who were an unpopular government to invade South Georgia. There was a weak response by the UK which then led them to invade the Falklands. Regarding the award, I'm often critical of the way the club is run, so it is nice to say, "well done everyone involved". (Please note big John, I spelt led correctly, ) Sorry to have to correct you Cokey. The invasion of the Falklands came 24 hours before the invasion of South Georgia on 3rd April. Think you might be mistaking the landing of contracted Argentinian scrap metal merchants who cheekily raised their flag a week or so earlier but hardly an invasion. No need to be sorry. Thank you, I stand corrected. (If I may use a military expression!) I did not check my history, but I did vaguely remember that something happened in South Georgia, which went without any government reaction, and the invasion of the Falklands followed. The point remains, that if the government had reacted immediately and sent a warship to South Georgia, then it is doubtful the Argentinians would have pressed ahead with their invasion of the Falklands. I admit it is very difficult to know what to do in these situations. If the government had done what I suggest then the world would have been protesting about a British over reaction and an act of aggression. Whereas it could well have prevented a war and lots of deaths for both the British and Argentine nations. The problem politicians like Chamberlain and Blair faced when despots like Hitler and Sadam Hussain are on the loose is when is it time to take action to stop them. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2020 8:43:20 GMT
Sorry to have to correct you Cokey. The invasion of the Falklands came 24 hours before the invasion of South Georgia on 3rd April. Think you might be mistaking the landing of contracted Argentinian scrap metal merchants who cheekily raised their flag a week or so earlier but hardly an invasion. No need to be sorry. Thank you, I stand corrected. (If I may use a military expression!) I did not check my history, but I did vaguely remember that something happened in South Georgia, which went without any government reaction, and the invasion of the Falklands followed. The point remains, that if the government had reacted immediately and sent a warship to South Georgia, then it is doubtful the Argentinians would have pressed ahead with their invasion of the Falklands. I admit it is very difficult to know what to do in these situations. If the government had done what I suggest then the world would have been protesting about a British over reaction and an act of aggression. Whereas it could well have prevented a war and lots of deaths for both the British and Argentine nations. The problem politicians like Chamberlain and Blair faced when despots like Hitler and Sadam Hussain are on the loose is when is it time to take action to stop them. I worked as a Customs Officer in Plymouth at the time of the Falklands war. By coincidence I happened to board HMS Endurance in Plymouth several months before the war broke out. Endurance was the Navy "guard ship" which patrolled the area of the Falklands and South Georgia and had done for many years - flying the flag for Britain and reminding potential aggressors that the UK regarded the Falklands and South Georgia as places of strategic value. After we had done our job (of checking NAAFI stores and accounts etc. etc.) we had a chat with several of the officers and other ranks who to a man were critical of government plans to scrap Endurance and not replace her. As we left the ship I wished the Master at Arms good luck for the future and he replied that he fully expected that we would either be at war with Argentina or would have surrendered the Falklands and South Georgia within months because the government were sending out all the wrong signals. If every man on that ship was expecting an invasion (and they clearly were) then quite why it seemed to catch the government by surprise is a disgrace. There is no doubt that the Navy had warned the government what to expect. It is a stain on our government at the time that the advice was ignored, resulting in huge cost and loss of ships accompanied by great loss of life of civilians and forces personnel, several of whom were friends of mine. Very few people in Plymouth and other naval ports didn't know someone who died in the Falklands.  |
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Aug 1, 2020 9:19:48 GMT
Sgt Major Pulis likes this Wonderful. What I will say, is that I would LOVE it - I say I'd LOVE it - to see Ernie Bilko managing SCFC. |
|
|
|
Post by melonhead on Aug 1, 2020 10:34:20 GMT
I'm all for supporting veterans, they go through incomprehensible things. I do feel a little uneasy about the club being linked too closely with the military though because it means people (often young, impressionable people) go through those incomprehensible things. Beyond the Second World War it's hard to find many conflicts I really support our involvement in. The armed forces never start any wars, it's the politicians who do that. It's the armed forces role to be there to deter others attacking us, and to fight the battles the politicians have led us into. Do you think we should have told the Falklands "tough" when Argentina invaded them? It's a difficult decision. But again it was the politicians who created the problem by withdrawing forces from the area, which was an invitation for the Argentinian junta who were an unpopular government to invade South Georgia. There was a weak response by the UK which then led them to invade the Falklands. Regarding the award, I'm often critical of the way the club is run, so it is nice to say, "well done everyone involved". (Please note big John, I spelt led correctly, ) I fully support the armed forces and quite right it is the politicians that lead them to war. Unfortunately, it wasn’t just the politicians withdrawing troops which invited the Argentinians to invade. It was the likes of Maggie’s husband and his oil/ mineral rights around the island which led to war. Do you think Britain would have reacted the same without oil and mineral interests in and around the Falkands. I don’t and it was the young soldiers who paid the ultimate price to preserve the interests of the privileged. As for the award, this is good for the club. . |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 1, 2020 10:53:30 GMT
No need to be sorry. Thank you, I stand corrected. (If I may use a military expression!) I did not check my history, but I did vaguely remember that something happened in South Georgia, which went without any government reaction, and the invasion of the Falklands followed. The point remains, that if the government had reacted immediately and sent a warship to South Georgia, then it is doubtful the Argentinians would have pressed ahead with their invasion of the Falklands. I admit it is very difficult to know what to do in these situations. If the government had done what I suggest then the world would have been protesting about a British over reaction and an act of aggression. Whereas it could well have prevented a war and lots of deaths for both the British and Argentine nations. The problem politicians like Chamberlain and Blair faced when despots like Hitler and Sadam Hussain are on the loose is when is it time to take action to stop them. I worked as a Customs Officer in Plymouth at the time of the Falklands war. By coincidence I happened to board HMS Endurance in Plymouth several months before the war broke out. Endurance was the Navy "guard ship" which patrolled the area of the Falklands and South Georgia and had done for many years - flying the flag for Britain and reminding potential aggressors that the UK regarded the Falklands and South Georgia as places of strategic value. After we had done our job (of checking NAAFI stores and accounts etc. etc.) we had a chat with several of the officers and other ranks who to a man were critical of government plans to scrap Endurance and not replace her. As we left the ship I wished the Master at Arms good luck for the future and he replied that he fully expected that we would either be at war with Argentina or would have surrendered the Falklands and South Georgia within months because the government were sending out all the wrong signals. If every man on that ship was expecting an invasion (and they clearly were) then quite why it seemed to catch the government by surprise is a disgrace. There is no doubt that the Navy had warned the government what to expect. It is a stain on our government at the time that the advice was ignored, resulting in huge cost and loss of ships accompanied by great loss of life of civilians and forces personnel, several of whom were friends of mine. Very few people in Plymouth and other naval ports didn't know someone who died in the Falklands. Great post Lakeland. I had first hand experience of the Falklands War and in addition to the Endurance being withdrawn John Nott, the then Defence Secretary, had announced in the 1981 Strategic Defence Review that the government of the time were to concentrate its resources on NATO and the Russian submarine threat in the North Atlantic and was therefore selling off the carriers Hermes and Invincible and scrapping the Commando Carriers Fearless and Intrepid destroying our amphibious capability. This was effectively giving free reign to argies to invade. I believe if they had delayed the invasion until the South Atlantic spring then the navy would have been toothless to respond. My own involvement was as an engineer onboard the ill fated Antelope. We were undergoing sea training at Portland and when invasion seemed inevitable by late March we were recalled to Devonport to store for war and off we went 4 days later. We had a fairly quiet first few weeks escorting commando carriers here and there and anti submarine duties around Ascension Island bridgehead until the amphibious landings at San Carlos where we were tasked to protect the bridgehead from air attack. We weren’t well equipped for this because of the hilly terrain around the bridgehead and our sister ship Ardent had been destroyed the day before. We managed to defend most of the day but succumbed to a twin air attack which hit us with a 500lb bomb that didn’t explode until bomb disposal were trying to disarm it. As an aside, the myth that Maggie deliberately used the Falklands War to enhance her political position can be dispelled. She did not want to go to war and was being persuaded by her cabinet not to do so. Step forward Admiral Sir Terence Lewin the then Chief of Defence Staff who rushed over to Downing Street, allegedly in full military regalia and sword, to intervene and told Maggie that if she did not respond then our place as a global power and influencer would disappear overnight. He promised her that he could have a task group ready to sail in 72 hours which he did. No doubt Maggies popularity was enhanced by the victory but, imo, the belief that she saw an opportunity are not correct. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 1, 2020 11:21:38 GMT
No need to be sorry. Thank you, I stand corrected. (If I may use a military expression!) I did not check my history, but I did vaguely remember that something happened in South Georgia, which went without any government reaction, and the invasion of the Falklands followed. The point remains, that if the government had reacted immediately and sent a warship to South Georgia, then it is doubtful the Argentinians would have pressed ahead with their invasion of the Falklands. I admit it is very difficult to know what to do in these situations. If the government had done what I suggest then the world would have been protesting about a British over reaction and an act of aggression. Whereas it could well have prevented a war and lots of deaths for both the British and Argentine nations. The problem politicians like Chamberlain and Blair faced when despots like Hitler and Sadam Hussain are on the loose is when is it time to take action to stop them. I worked as a Customs Officer in Plymouth at the time of the Falklands war. By coincidence I happened to board HMS Endurance in Plymouth several months before the war broke out. Endurance was the Navy "guard ship" which patrolled the area of the Falklands and South Georgia and had done for many years - flying the flag for Britain and reminding potential aggressors that the UK regarded the Falklands and South Georgia as places of strategic value. After we had done our job (of checking NAAFI stores and accounts etc. etc.) we had a chat with several of the officers and other ranks who to a man were critical of government plans to scrap Endurance and not replace her. As we left the ship I wished the Master at Arms good luck for the future and he replied that he fully expected that we would either be at war with Argentina or would have surrendered the Falklands and South Georgia within months because the government were sending out all the wrong signals. If every man on that ship was expecting an invasion (and they clearly were) then quite why it seemed to catch the government by surprise is a disgrace. There is no doubt that the Navy had warned the government what to expect. It is a stain on our government at the time that the advice was ignored, resulting in huge cost and loss of ships accompanied by great loss of life of civilians and forces personnel, several of whom were friends of mine. Very few people in Plymouth and other naval ports didn't know someone who died in the Falklands. An excellent and illuminating report, which I will remember. A good example of, if the armed forces had had their way, they would have actually prevented a conflict and loss of life. Another example of the politicians ignoring the experts, because it didn't suit their agenda. At the time Thatcher's government were implementing austerity "with spades". Unemployment was at a huge level, and she was one of the most unpopular serving PMs on record, but the war stopped that and made her a heroine in the voters eyes ironically. The government made the wrong strategic decision and Lord Carrington had to "fall on his sword"; can't see many politicians doing that nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 1, 2020 11:27:50 GMT
The armed forces never start any wars, it's the politicians who do that. It's the armed forces role to be there to deter others attacking us, and to fight the battles the politicians have led us into. Do you think we should have told the Falklands "tough" when Argentina invaded them? It's a difficult decision. But again it was the politicians who created the problem by withdrawing forces from the area, which was an invitation for the Argentinian junta who were an unpopular government to invade South Georgia. There was a weak response by the UK which then led them to invade the Falklands. Regarding the award, I'm often critical of the way the club is run, so it is nice to say, "well done everyone involved". (Please note big John, I spelt led correctly, ) I fully support the armed forces and quite right it is the politicians that lead them to war. Unfortunately, it wasn’t just the politicians withdrawing troops which invited the Argentinians to invade. It was the likes of Maggie’s husband and his oil/ mineral rights around the island which led to war. Do you think Britain would have reacted the same without oil and mineral interests in and around the Falkands. I don’t and it was the young soldiers who paid the ultimate price to preserve the interests of the privileged. As for the award, this is good for the club. . |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 1, 2020 11:34:14 GMT
I can't fit my answer in the post above, which is:
lawrieleslie has answered your post very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoofmagic on Aug 1, 2020 11:40:04 GMT
Pity the VETS arnt looked after a little better, some still out there sleeping rough >
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2020 11:45:55 GMT
I worked as a Customs Officer in Plymouth at the time of the Falklands war. By coincidence I happened to board HMS Endurance in Plymouth several months before the war broke out. Endurance was the Navy "guard ship" which patrolled the area of the Falklands and South Georgia and had done for many years - flying the flag for Britain and reminding potential aggressors that the UK regarded the Falklands and South Georgia as places of strategic value. After we had done our job (of checking NAAFI stores and accounts etc. etc.) we had a chat with several of the officers and other ranks who to a man were critical of government plans to scrap Endurance and not replace her. As we left the ship I wished the Master at Arms good luck for the future and he replied that he fully expected that we would either be at war with Argentina or would have surrendered the Falklands and South Georgia within months because the government were sending out all the wrong signals. If every man on that ship was expecting an invasion (and they clearly were) then quite why it seemed to catch the government by surprise is a disgrace. There is no doubt that the Navy had warned the government what to expect. It is a stain on our government at the time that the advice was ignored, resulting in huge cost and loss of ships accompanied by great loss of life of civilians and forces personnel, several of whom were friends of mine. Very few people in Plymouth and other naval ports didn't know someone who died in the Falklands. Great post Lakeland. I had first hand experience of the Falklands War and in addition to the Endurance being withdrawn John Nott, the then Defence Secretary, had announced in the 1981 Strategic Defence Review that the government of the time were to concentrate its resources on NATO and the Russian submarine threat in the North Atlantic and was therefore selling off the carriers Hermes and Invincible and scrapping the Commando Carriers Fearless and Intrepid destroying our amphibious capability. This was effectively giving free reign to argies to invade. I believe if they had delayed the invasion until the South Atlantic spring then the navy would have been toothless to respond. My own involvement was as an engineer onboard the ill fated Antelope. We were undergoing sea training at Portland and when invasion seemed inevitable by late March we were recalled to Devonport to store for war and off we went 4 days later. We had a fairly quiet first few weeks escorting commando carriers here and there and anti submarine duties around Ascension Island bridgehead until the amphibious landings at San Carlos where we were tasked to protect the bridgehead from air attack. We weren’t well equipped for this because of the hilly terrain around the bridgehead and our sister ship Ardent had been destroyed the day before. We managed to defend most of the day but succumbed to a twin air attack which hit us with a 500lb bomb that didn’t explode until bomb disposal were trying to disarm it. As an aside, the myth that Maggie deliberately used the Falklands War to enhance her political position can be dispelled. She did not want to go to war and was being persuaded by her cabinet not to do so. Step forward Admiral Sir Terence Lewin the then Chief of Defence Staff who rushed over to Downing Street, allegedly in full military regalia and sword, to intervene and told Maggie that if she did not respond then our place as a global power and influencer would disappear overnight. He promised her that he could have a task group ready to sail in 72 hours which he did. No doubt Maggies popularity was enhanced by the victory but, imo, the belief that she saw an opportunity are not correct. My respect to you if you were on the Antelope. Even half a lifetime after the event, the footage of the Antelope when she was hit, that we saw on TV, remains in my memory as one of the most dramatic bits of TV footage I have ever seen. When the war was over we Customs were told to board all the returning ships - not to take any money from the crew - but in case any journalist decided to report that we were not clearing the crew on return - some of whom were on ships which had sailed direct to to the South Atlantic from ports all over the world and could be expected to have bought Rolex watches etc, as Navy personnel were famous for doing. To save time we usually helicoptered out to the vessels in the Western Approaches. We landed on one frigate returning from the war and as we entered the ship via the helicopter hanger, I noticed a metal patch on one wall of the hanger. I asked the Master at Arms what the story was. It was where an Exocet had penetrated the hanger, flown through it and exited on the other side of the hanger without exploding!!!! Sure enough there was another metal patch on the other side! Scary times and, whilst not everyone behaves with honour, anyone who has a bad word for the military in general will get a mouthful of bad language from me. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 1, 2020 12:06:45 GMT
Great post Lakeland. I had first hand experience of the Falklands War and in addition to the Endurance being withdrawn John Nott, the then Defence Secretary, had announced in the 1981 Strategic Defence Review that the government of the time were to concentrate its resources on NATO and the Russian submarine threat in the North Atlantic and was therefore selling off the carriers Hermes and Invincible and scrapping the Commando Carriers Fearless and Intrepid destroying our amphibious capability. This was effectively giving free reign to argies to invade. I believe if they had delayed the invasion until the South Atlantic spring then the navy would have been toothless to respond. My own involvement was as an engineer onboard the ill fated Antelope. We were undergoing sea training at Portland and when invasion seemed inevitable by late March we were recalled to Devonport to store for war and off we went 4 days later. We had a fairly quiet first few weeks escorting commando carriers here and there and anti submarine duties around Ascension Island bridgehead until the amphibious landings at San Carlos where we were tasked to protect the bridgehead from air attack. We weren’t well equipped for this because of the hilly terrain around the bridgehead and our sister ship Ardent had been destroyed the day before. We managed to defend most of the day but succumbed to a twin air attack which hit us with a 500lb bomb that didn’t explode until bomb disposal were trying to disarm it. As an aside, the myth that Maggie deliberately used the Falklands War to enhance her political position can be dispelled. She did not want to go to war and was being persuaded by her cabinet not to do so. Step forward Admiral Sir Terence Lewin the then Chief of Defence Staff who rushed over to Downing Street, allegedly in full military regalia and sword, to intervene and told Maggie that if she did not respond then our place as a global power and influencer would disappear overnight. He promised her that he could have a task group ready to sail in 72 hours which he did. No doubt Maggies popularity was enhanced by the victory but, imo, the belief that she saw an opportunity are not correct. My respect to you if you were on the Antelope. Even half a lifetime after the event, the footage of the Antelope when she was hit, that we saw on TV, remains in my memory as one of the most dramatic bits of TV footage I have ever seen. When the war was over we Customs were told to board all the returning ships - not to take any money from the crew - but in case any journalist decided to report that we were not clearing the crew on return - some of whom were on ships which had sailed direct to to the South Atlantic from ports all over the world and could be expected to have bought Rolex watches etc, as Navy personnel were famous for doing. To save time we usually helicoptered out to the vessels in the Western Approaches. We landed on one frigate returning from the war and as we entered the ship via the helicopter hanger, I noticed a metal patch on one wall of the hanger. I asked the Master at Arms what the story was. It was where an Exocet had penetrated the hanger, flown through it and exited on the other side of the hanger without exploding!!!! Sure enough there was another metal patch on the other side! Scary times and, whilst not everyone behaves with honour, anyone who has a bad word for the military in general will get a mouthful of bad language from me. Both Glasgow and Broadsword suffered damage that you describe. In the Broadsword case the missile had also taken the nose off a ranged Lynx helicopter ironically it was the one that had escaped the Antelope sinking. |
|
)
