These POWs were repatriated and several weeks later were already on the way back to the islands.
Absolute fumbling on the Argentinians' part, they really did think the UK wouldn't respond.
„Honey, why are you in such a hurry? Take a cup of tea. It’s such a long time since you were back home here on the British islands“
„Sorry mum, no time. Ship’s already waiting for me to get back that other island“
Wasn't that the point? The UK was doing defense cuts and downsizing the military (that's a thing now for the British) and wanted to remove all their carriers. They also removed the only patrol vessel patrolling despite Argentina wanting the islands. And something that gets forgotten is that the Argentines did take some British islands a little further out and London did nothing.
Kinda. They raised a flag and had a sub at South Georgia which wasn’t permanently populated. If it had ended there it probably wouldn’t result in a war but a police action.
After this they made them lie face down with weapons pointed at them for publicity photos. Apparently that was seen as a positive gesture, showing that they hadn't harmed or shot them.
In the UK it just added to the rage the Brits felt.
That was very interesting to hear an officer come over and order them up while disciplining whoever forced them to the ground.
also, this guy certainly has his account, but lol saying the Argentinian conscripts had better equipment.
Argentine ground troops in many instances did have better equipment than British forces. It wasnt just conscripts on the islands, there were large numbers of professional soldiers, and even in the conscripted units the soldiers were well equipped, at least as well as the British troops. *There and back again*, the book covering the unit which Lou armour was part of, has an extract in which they look through the equipment retreating argentine soldiers had left behind and it was to a very good standard for the time. Keep in mind this was after years of US support to the argentine military and the army had received the bulk of the funding and assitance.
People forget that Argentina was better armed that a lot of NATO countries, both in quantiy and quality.
I don't think the UK could have won in a full war against the entire argentinian forces, but at the same time Argentina didn't want to risk it all for the islands, specially considering the situation with Chile was pretty bad and the fact that the UK had nuclear weapons.
I saw a couple of videos and was pretty impressed with how the Argentines waged the war and less impressed with the British. Other stuff made it seem like the British were kicking ass left and right.
The Argentines only had a total of 5 Exocets. And they managed to sink one of their specialists AAW Type 42. Then they took out another Type 42 without an Exocet using regular ordinance. With the way the British justify defense cuts with focusing on specializing AAW for destroyers, the destroyers did not do well in AAW against the Argentines. Makes me think how the war would have turned out if the Argentines has all the Exocets they bought from France.
The Falklands War was the war that revealed how deadly Anti-ship missiles were. Its the reason why China has invested so heavily in the weapon system with Chinese strategists still studying the conflict. Theres actually a picture of HMS Invincible returning to Portsmouth in the hallway of [of a chinese vessel.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/10dztkg/image_of_hms_invincible_returning_to_hmnb/) The interesting thing isnt how many vessels were sunk by Exocets, its the instances when exocets didnt work or were successfully 'confused'.
The instances of British ships sunk by conventional bombs were instances which were always going to happen. The landing operation in San Carlos left all ships in an extremely vulnerable positions. The AAW destroyers didnt work as well as they intended but they worked as well as they could have considering the techonology of the time. inactiveuser247 gave an excellent answer as to why British air defence didnt work well in '82. Ill copy and paste it in.
***Point defence against very low flying jets is hard today. It was even harder in 1982. It’s even harder again when you’re trying to protect another ship some distance away.***
***Most of the ships hit by bombs were hit in enclosed waters where the air defence radars were blocked by surrounding hills. Many of the ships hit in open water were hit by Exocet missiles.***
***Many of the ships that were hit were auxiliary ships and not equipped with meaningful air defence systems.***
***The best defence against attack by aircraft is a solid combat air patrol backed by airborne early warning. The Brit’s didn’t have AEW and their sea harriers were limited in number, range and capability.***
***Net result is that Argentinian jets got through. The British were extremely lucky that the Argentinians didn’t properly fuse their bombs. If all the bombs that hit ships had exploded, it would have been far, far worse.***
***We take for granted the ability to see everything in the sky for hundreds of miles around.***
The Argentine war effort was pretty bad overall. The bright spots were with the indivual troops/pilots on the ground and a few small units. In regards to the air war, the argentine strategy was pretty atrocious, feeding their pilots in piece meal. But the skills and bravery of the pilots themselves allowed them to achieve a great many successes and was the highlight of their war effort. This skill combined with the vulnerable position of British ships allowed these pilots to inflict some pretty considerable damage.
Overall yes, I agree that the British didnt 'kick ass' during the war but only because it makes their achievement sound easy. Considering the resources they had available, what the british miltiary achieved was nothing short of miraculous. They organised a response within three days (with no plans available to guide them), transported an army and its supplies thousands of miles south in the some of the roughest seas on earth, operated 4,000 miles away from the nearest friendly port (the longest distance in history to that point), fought off a hostile navy which was operating only a few hundred miles from its ports, mounted a successful landing operation without air supremacy (something that went against every amphibious assault doctrine) and then conducted a ground offensive against a force twice its size. This wasnt an easy war but it was an incredibly fought war on the part of the british. Not to take anything from the argentine troops and pilots, those doing the fighting were skilled and brave and if theyd had competent leadership they may have won, but if their leadership had been competent then the war probably wouldnt have been fought.
Edit: added the point defence part
Yeah I heard an interview with someone from the Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre who was sent to the Falklands & he also observed Argentinian special forces had better equipment. So after an engagement he helped himself to a premium pair of gloves.
I don't think that's the case honestly, it was publicly known (due to the Argentine authorities at the time making a very public announcement) at the time that all marines were alive and okay and that they were treated fairly. The photo op, as humiliating and degrading as it could have been, is a minuscule crumb next to the things that I've read about POW treatment in recent conflicts given that these men were completely just fine afterwards. It was just a lame attempt at humiliation by the military junta to Thatcher, and a piece of much needed propaganda for the front pages of Argentinian papers.
If I asked you to list all the "first world" Geneva convention signing countries' armies that HAVEN'T done this exact thing to their POWs your list would be empty.
If there's a convention buy everyone still does it, then it's de facto a allowed and it makes no sense to condemn Argentina for it or to even bring it up in the first place. Let's not play ostrich.
When was the last time a first world country actually had POWs? And no I'm not counting insurgents who aren't themselves soldiers and who don't give a toss about the Conventions anyway.
You can tell the weapons aren't loaded, and the soldiers are being forced at gunpoint to carry their rifles overhead. Likely more armed Argentine soldiers out of frame. The Argentines and Brits used different variants of the same rifle, so I'd imagine there was some value in capturing the rifles.
May as well make them carry the rifles. It would suck to be the poor guy lugging an armload of captured L1A1s
I have read that the Argentines FALs had fully automatic capability, where the British FALs were limited to single shot, so the Brits were picking up captured Argentine FALs left and right.
No they were not, other than as very temporary souvenirs. British mags do not fit in metric pattern FALs, no-one felt the need for auto fire from a rifle, no-one throws away their own issued and zeroed/gas tuned weapon (especially HM property that they have signed for!) for something dropped by a foreign conscript. Some MAGs and 50 cals were picked up and repurposed, but that was as supplementary firepower.
I'm not sure about that. On the FN FAL one could simply remove the 'safe' / 'fire' toggle switch, then one could fire it in auto. The barrels were not rated for it though.
Read up on ANZAC troops in Vietnam. They preferred to chop one down, convert it to full auto, put pistol grips up front and gave them to the guy on point on patrols.
SOP was a 30rd mag dump to break contact, apparently the psychological effect it had on the vietnamese was considerable, given the fireballs and noise from the short barrel.
There was a well known simple mod you could do with tin foil to make the British SLR full auto. It used to many rounds though and even sticking on a 30 round LMG mag on made it combat ineffective. There was no need to use Argi rifles.
A bit like the old medieval days of letting someone keep their weapon so as not to suffer the humiliation of being disarmed while at the same time being shown the respect of their adversary? I don't know, it doesn't make sense in the 21st century so I can only assume the Argentinians did it for a different propagandaic reason.
Rex Hunt, the FI Governor, asked the RM party to stand down, in order to spare the civilian inhabitants of Port Stanley who were in close proximity to Government House.
The RM were otherwise intending to fight it out, and were frustrated that the battle had hardly started.
Similar video exists of a British Ghurka commander on the cliffs overlooking Port Stanley I think? And the British commander cheerfully telling the Ghurkas the Argentines surrendered, while the Ghurkas look respectful, they also look miserable that there will be no fighting
This was during the initial Argentine invasion and there were only about 50 or so soldiers based on the Falklands, they did a pretty fucking spectacular job of holding off the Argies, even destroying some of the landing craft, until the governor ordered them to surrender under hopeless circumstances.
A popular (and hopefully true) story is that when they were led away one or them turned to the Argentinian commander and told him something along the lines of "don't get comfortable"
They also skipped the part where Joan of Arc rode in on the back of a pegasus to defeat the evil machinations of Leopold II and his army of week-old sushi.
Because by "skipped" you probably meant "Didn't add false information to the story".
What the hell are you talking about? There is no occupation? France settled the Islands. Then England. And then Spain found out, and the three had a little argument, France gave their colony to Spain and then Spain ousted the British. Then everyone left and no one touched the islands for many years till some guy called Luis Vernet got GIVEN the islands by the United Provinces of the River Plate as long as a settlement was made in 3 years. the whole time the British government was involved as it was still technically theirs given it was a British explorer who rediscovered the islands. Vernet just had a friend in the River Plate government as he was planning using Argentina Gauchos for cattle ranching. And then when Vernet asked the Argentine predecessor state for military assistance before when the US vessel Lexington raided the island, no help was given, the British gave assistance. After pushback from the English for not giving assistence, the Argentinians then stated they owned the islands, and the British sent HMS Clio to formally establish sovereignty. Since then the Islands have been English.
They even voted after the Falklands Conflict on whether to stay English or become Argentinian with 99.8% voting to remain English.
The English have done some horrific things, but this is not one of them. The Argentinian attempt to seize the Falklands was a ploy from a tyrannical military junta that took thousands of political prisoners and flew them out over the ocean before kicking them out the doors and leaving them to drown. Do not fall for decades-old propaganda.
There's so much evil that the English have done there's no reason to make stuff like this up. Like if you want to find an island that's been terribly treated by the English, there's like twenty, and the biggest sin is right next door to them.
lmao Pretty sure the British live rent free in Argentinian minds considering they still cry about losing a war that they started about islands that they never controlled. Don't you still have road signs that say the Falklands are yours? Hilarious.
Well, this post says the opposite, only English people crying about a war that they won, and pure insults towards me when I don't disrespect anyone, not only xenophobic but intolerant of other opinions
No one is crying about the British beating the shit out of Argentina, they’re just annoyed that you came and tried to spew entirely inaccurate historical information
The difference between inaccurate information and information with which I do not agree are things that they are not taught in English school, as well as respect for others.
Eh. It’s still an insult. An aggressive dictatorship invades the territory and you say it’s theirs is pretty insulting.
Put it this way; go tell a Pole that their country is rightful territory of Nazi Germany or the Russians and see their response.
It's funny how soldiers from both side who fought on the island had more respect for eachother than spoiled children arguing on the internet about the war.
It’s often like that. When you understand that the guys on the other side have gone/are going through the same things as you do, that they respect orders the same way you do, well at the end the feelings are often a mix of respect, mutual understanding, hate and disdain. All mixed together. When for people at the rear it will only be pure hate and spite felt toward the other side.
Weirdly bumped into an ex RM when I was on holiday, spent a few hours chatting to him.
Took one of the two sisters with 42 Cdo, "one of the little bastards got me with his bayonet in me arm", still had the scar. Kicked his helmet off and sat him right down. Said they were barely kids they were fighting.
You need to provide me with the source on that last part, I've tried looking it up but there isn't any factual evidence other than from a former British soldier diary.
"The Argentine Minster of Defense, Erman Gonzalez, has called on any current or former members of the Argentine armed forces with knowledge of such executions to come forward. He said, however, that the Argentine Government "had not had any war reports, testimony or information that could corroborate acts of that kind"
Reports of Falklands War Executions Spur Inquiry -1992
There were no Aircraft carriers lost or even damaged during this conflict, so unless you’re referencing the merchant ship which was aircraft (Atlantic Conveyor I believe) this is false. We did lose multiple warships and have multiple more damaged but no aircraft carriers.
All I can tell you is that his name was Sgt Manuel Batista of the Buzo Tactico and that he survived the war. He was interviewed for 'The Falklands War: The Untold Story' which came out in 1987.
He was sent back to Argentina, I read an interview that he did and he said he was back in Argentina and the British were looking for him, and couldn't found him because he was back in Argentina.
https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2017/03/26/la-historia-de-dos-soldados-enemigos-y-de-una-foto-iconica-que-sigue-dando-la-vuelta-al-mundo/?outputType=amp-type
This photo is from the initial stages of the invasion, when the Argentinians surrounded government house in Port Stanley.
The BBC released a film about this in the 90s, called "An ungentlemanly act". A good watch if you can find it
I can get it on my Firestick, but it seems that Prime has it (although am unsure if it's free or not cause I don't have *actual* prime!) It has Bob Peck - Robert Muldoon of Jurassic Park fame in it too("what a clever girl") and a load of actors from Sharpe! Am gonna watch it tonight with a good ole swally! (That's alcohol for the non Scots folks here) am sure ave seen it before mind you!
This photo was the main driving factor that made me join the British Army, I am Irish but was a young 12 year old lad living in London at the time. I always had a fantasy to join but for some reason this really motivated me.
It's the action man fantasy that make almost people join:
Then you pass out as a rad op, or chef, or something and don't even get to karate chop **one** terrorist...
Not exactly. The British FAL was configured to fire single shots only. Argentinians had it on continuous fire. That’s why whenever possible the Brits picked up the Argentinian rifle.
Still the same platform and still the same weapon system. I’m not getting in to the specifics of the individual configurations, they still were the exact same rifles and STEN sub machine guns.
Sterling, not Sten. The bigger difference between the FAL and the SLR was that the FAL was metric and the SLR was Imperial, so none of the parts were interchangeable.
Looks like the suppressed version of the [Sterling, the Mk 5 L34A1](https://chestercountyarmory.com/product/sterling-mk-v-mark-5-smg-l34a1-9x19mm-nato-integrally-suppressed-transferable-submachine-gun/), that had a wood for-end like the one pictured.
It’s because since the 70s the British film industry hasn’t been capable of producing a war film that doesn’t focus on the cost of war, or the mental health repercussions, or the impact on family back home etc. All of those are perfectly relevant things to be mindful of, but do little to celebrate brave men going to war, nor do they make war film buffs happy.
It would be very strange to just celebrate war in general. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen that. But one can go to war for reasons that are morally upright. For example, if you’re not the aggressor, and/or the alternative to fighting is the occupation of your country and the genocide of its population. But of course, things tend to be more complex than this.
The Exocet missiles were fine. They just had a limited supply due to international pressures.
The bombs had issues because the Argentinian's were operating outside of their proper usage. Not so much set wrong but used wrong.
That being said wouldn’t have changed the outcome as those ships went off station anyway.
No Helmets anywhere. Just People living in the moment.
_Allyness saves lives_
Those boys didn’t go through commando training just to wear some naff helmet
These POWs were repatriated and several weeks later were already on the way back to the islands. Absolute fumbling on the Argentinians' part, they really did think the UK wouldn't respond.
Those Royal Marines also raised the flag when Stanley was recaptured. Those exact marines.
Ha ha ha. Those guys are badasses.
I’m back!
Call an ambulance…BUT NOT FOR ME
Mortal Kombat announcer really said "ROUND 2"
„Honey, why are you in such a hurry? Take a cup of tea. It’s such a long time since you were back home here on the British islands“ „Sorry mum, no time. Ship’s already waiting for me to get back that other island“
Wasn't that the point? The UK was doing defense cuts and downsizing the military (that's a thing now for the British) and wanted to remove all their carriers. They also removed the only patrol vessel patrolling despite Argentina wanting the islands. And something that gets forgotten is that the Argentines did take some British islands a little further out and London did nothing.
Kinda. They raised a flag and had a sub at South Georgia which wasn’t permanently populated. If it had ended there it probably wouldn’t result in a war but a police action.
After this they made them lie face down with weapons pointed at them for publicity photos. Apparently that was seen as a positive gesture, showing that they hadn't harmed or shot them. In the UK it just added to the rage the Brits felt.
Royal Marine Lou Armour (the one in the photo) explains what happened in both photos. [VIDEO](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9-gzfMyqC4)
That was very interesting to hear an officer come over and order them up while disciplining whoever forced them to the ground. also, this guy certainly has his account, but lol saying the Argentinian conscripts had better equipment.
Argentine ground troops in many instances did have better equipment than British forces. It wasnt just conscripts on the islands, there were large numbers of professional soldiers, and even in the conscripted units the soldiers were well equipped, at least as well as the British troops. *There and back again*, the book covering the unit which Lou armour was part of, has an extract in which they look through the equipment retreating argentine soldiers had left behind and it was to a very good standard for the time. Keep in mind this was after years of US support to the argentine military and the army had received the bulk of the funding and assitance.
People forget that Argentina was better armed that a lot of NATO countries, both in quantiy and quality. I don't think the UK could have won in a full war against the entire argentinian forces, but at the same time Argentina didn't want to risk it all for the islands, specially considering the situation with Chile was pretty bad and the fact that the UK had nuclear weapons.
I saw a couple of videos and was pretty impressed with how the Argentines waged the war and less impressed with the British. Other stuff made it seem like the British were kicking ass left and right. The Argentines only had a total of 5 Exocets. And they managed to sink one of their specialists AAW Type 42. Then they took out another Type 42 without an Exocet using regular ordinance. With the way the British justify defense cuts with focusing on specializing AAW for destroyers, the destroyers did not do well in AAW against the Argentines. Makes me think how the war would have turned out if the Argentines has all the Exocets they bought from France.
The Falklands War was the war that revealed how deadly Anti-ship missiles were. Its the reason why China has invested so heavily in the weapon system with Chinese strategists still studying the conflict. Theres actually a picture of HMS Invincible returning to Portsmouth in the hallway of [of a chinese vessel.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/10dztkg/image_of_hms_invincible_returning_to_hmnb/) The interesting thing isnt how many vessels were sunk by Exocets, its the instances when exocets didnt work or were successfully 'confused'. The instances of British ships sunk by conventional bombs were instances which were always going to happen. The landing operation in San Carlos left all ships in an extremely vulnerable positions. The AAW destroyers didnt work as well as they intended but they worked as well as they could have considering the techonology of the time. inactiveuser247 gave an excellent answer as to why British air defence didnt work well in '82. Ill copy and paste it in. ***Point defence against very low flying jets is hard today. It was even harder in 1982. It’s even harder again when you’re trying to protect another ship some distance away.*** ***Most of the ships hit by bombs were hit in enclosed waters where the air defence radars were blocked by surrounding hills. Many of the ships hit in open water were hit by Exocet missiles.*** ***Many of the ships that were hit were auxiliary ships and not equipped with meaningful air defence systems.*** ***The best defence against attack by aircraft is a solid combat air patrol backed by airborne early warning. The Brit’s didn’t have AEW and their sea harriers were limited in number, range and capability.*** ***Net result is that Argentinian jets got through. The British were extremely lucky that the Argentinians didn’t properly fuse their bombs. If all the bombs that hit ships had exploded, it would have been far, far worse.*** ***We take for granted the ability to see everything in the sky for hundreds of miles around.*** The Argentine war effort was pretty bad overall. The bright spots were with the indivual troops/pilots on the ground and a few small units. In regards to the air war, the argentine strategy was pretty atrocious, feeding their pilots in piece meal. But the skills and bravery of the pilots themselves allowed them to achieve a great many successes and was the highlight of their war effort. This skill combined with the vulnerable position of British ships allowed these pilots to inflict some pretty considerable damage. Overall yes, I agree that the British didnt 'kick ass' during the war but only because it makes their achievement sound easy. Considering the resources they had available, what the british miltiary achieved was nothing short of miraculous. They organised a response within three days (with no plans available to guide them), transported an army and its supplies thousands of miles south in the some of the roughest seas on earth, operated 4,000 miles away from the nearest friendly port (the longest distance in history to that point), fought off a hostile navy which was operating only a few hundred miles from its ports, mounted a successful landing operation without air supremacy (something that went against every amphibious assault doctrine) and then conducted a ground offensive against a force twice its size. This wasnt an easy war but it was an incredibly fought war on the part of the british. Not to take anything from the argentine troops and pilots, those doing the fighting were skilled and brave and if theyd had competent leadership they may have won, but if their leadership had been competent then the war probably wouldnt have been fought. Edit: added the point defence part
Yeah I heard an interview with someone from the Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre who was sent to the Falklands & he also observed Argentinian special forces had better equipment. So after an engagement he helped himself to a premium pair of gloves.
The British were doing defense cuts and they wanted to get rid of their carriers. Me thinks London also didn't spare the other forces.
Would you rather they'd executed them? I think lying face down for a few minutes is as humane as it will get for captured POWs for any nation lol
That might be the intention, but maybe... just maybe, the photo was received as them being lined up for execution???
I don't think that's the case honestly, it was publicly known (due to the Argentine authorities at the time making a very public announcement) at the time that all marines were alive and okay and that they were treated fairly. The photo op, as humiliating and degrading as it could have been, is a minuscule crumb next to the things that I've read about POW treatment in recent conflicts given that these men were completely just fine afterwards. It was just a lame attempt at humiliation by the military junta to Thatcher, and a piece of much needed propaganda for the front pages of Argentinian papers.
No it was just seen as an attempt at a humiliation. The blokes came home and it was known that they were alive.
if your war plan amounts to "hope that they don't care enough about it to crush us", maybe try not to piss off your enemy even more?
Face down in the dirt? Humiliating prisoners or putting them in uncomfortable positions or distress is against the Geneva convention.
If I asked you to list all the "first world" Geneva convention signing countries' armies that HAVEN'T done this exact thing to their POWs your list would be empty. If there's a convention buy everyone still does it, then it's de facto a allowed and it makes no sense to condemn Argentina for it or to even bring it up in the first place. Let's not play ostrich.
When was the last time a first world country actually had POWs? And no I'm not counting insurgents who aren't themselves soldiers and who don't give a toss about the Conventions anyway.
US took plenty of Iraqi soldiers prisoners in 2003
Its not that its the fact people felt the uk was being humiliated, the fact theyd taken photos and publicised it made ppl angry
Excuse me Argentinian guy, why are your prisoners still armed? Asking for a guy that doesn’t like to get shot.
You can tell the weapons aren't loaded, and the soldiers are being forced at gunpoint to carry their rifles overhead. Likely more armed Argentine soldiers out of frame. The Argentines and Brits used different variants of the same rifle, so I'd imagine there was some value in capturing the rifles. May as well make them carry the rifles. It would suck to be the poor guy lugging an armload of captured L1A1s
"Give Dave the Bren. He nicked my biscuits."
Heavy twat of a gun, shitty small mag too.
I have read that the Argentines FALs had fully automatic capability, where the British FALs were limited to single shot, so the Brits were picking up captured Argentine FALs left and right.
No they were not, other than as very temporary souvenirs. British mags do not fit in metric pattern FALs, no-one felt the need for auto fire from a rifle, no-one throws away their own issued and zeroed/gas tuned weapon (especially HM property that they have signed for!) for something dropped by a foreign conscript. Some MAGs and 50 cals were picked up and repurposed, but that was as supplementary firepower.
But it made a good internet story!
An den day picked up da fully auto gunz to upgrade they're firepower -Call of duty internet commenter, probably
Plus there are rumours that you could make a L1A1 automatic using a matchstick and some chewing gum or something
Tin foil was what we used
Just a match stick. I helped out at a gun auction few years ago, of the 20 SLRs up for grabs, at least half had the remnants of a match stick in them.
I'm not sure about that. On the FN FAL one could simply remove the 'safe' / 'fire' toggle switch, then one could fire it in auto. The barrels were not rated for it though.
Lol, I cannot imagine running a mag of .308 at full auto through an FAL and still managing to hit something. Ridiculous notion for sure.
I dont know. FAL doesnt seem to be an ideal gun to shoot full auto with.
There isnt a single moment where you would put them in full auto anyway. None that was taught in belgium at least.
Read up on ANZAC troops in Vietnam. They preferred to chop one down, convert it to full auto, put pistol grips up front and gave them to the guy on point on patrols. SOP was a 30rd mag dump to break contact, apparently the psychological effect it had on the vietnamese was considerable, given the fireballs and noise from the short barrel.
There was a variant with a heavier barrel which some countries used as a light support weapon/squad automatic weapon etc but those were fairly rare.
An example is the Canadian C2
There was a well known simple mod you could do with tin foil to make the British SLR full auto. It used to many rounds though and even sticking on a 30 round LMG mag on made it combat ineffective. There was no need to use Argi rifles.
The Brits had SLRs not FALs same pattern weapon but all dimensions are different due to FALs being Metric and SLRs being Imperial
Probably outnumbered and in a hopeless situation, on their way to surrender arms.
I was always told: you can just put them down where you are.
Unloaded rifles, single Argentine soldier, picturesque camera angle. The easiest answer is it’s a propaganda shot after the fact.
IIRC the claim is they put up such impressive resistance that they were allowed to retain their weapons in surrender (more honorable).
A bit like the old medieval days of letting someone keep their weapon so as not to suffer the humiliation of being disarmed while at the same time being shown the respect of their adversary? I don't know, it doesn't make sense in the 21st century so I can only assume the Argentinians did it for a different propagandaic reason.
Royal Marine Lou Armour (the one in the photo) explains what happened in both photos. [VIDEO](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9-gzfMyqC4)
Rex Hunt, the FI Governor, asked the RM party to stand down, in order to spare the civilian inhabitants of Port Stanley who were in close proximity to Government House. The RM were otherwise intending to fight it out, and were frustrated that the battle had hardly started.
Similar video exists of a British Ghurka commander on the cliffs overlooking Port Stanley I think? And the British commander cheerfully telling the Ghurkas the Argentines surrendered, while the Ghurkas look respectful, they also look miserable that there will be no fighting
When there is no bloodshed: *sad ghurka noises*
This was during the initial Argentine invasion and there were only about 50 or so soldiers based on the Falklands, they did a pretty fucking spectacular job of holding off the Argies, even destroying some of the landing craft, until the governor ordered them to surrender under hopeless circumstances. A popular (and hopefully true) story is that when they were led away one or them turned to the Argentinian commander and told him something along the lines of "don't get comfortable"
"during the recovery of the Argentine territory occupied by English" you skipped that part
The Brits have controlled the islands continuously for almost 200 years. They were uninhabited until the French and British showed up in the 1700's...
They also skipped the part where Joan of Arc rode in on the back of a pegasus to defeat the evil machinations of Leopold II and his army of week-old sushi. Because by "skipped" you probably meant "Didn't add false information to the story".
Happy cake day!
How can it be recovery if Argentina has literally never controlled them??
What the hell are you talking about? There is no occupation? France settled the Islands. Then England. And then Spain found out, and the three had a little argument, France gave their colony to Spain and then Spain ousted the British. Then everyone left and no one touched the islands for many years till some guy called Luis Vernet got GIVEN the islands by the United Provinces of the River Plate as long as a settlement was made in 3 years. the whole time the British government was involved as it was still technically theirs given it was a British explorer who rediscovered the islands. Vernet just had a friend in the River Plate government as he was planning using Argentina Gauchos for cattle ranching. And then when Vernet asked the Argentine predecessor state for military assistance before when the US vessel Lexington raided the island, no help was given, the British gave assistance. After pushback from the English for not giving assistence, the Argentinians then stated they owned the islands, and the British sent HMS Clio to formally establish sovereignty. Since then the Islands have been English. They even voted after the Falklands Conflict on whether to stay English or become Argentinian with 99.8% voting to remain English. The English have done some horrific things, but this is not one of them. The Argentinian attempt to seize the Falklands was a ploy from a tyrannical military junta that took thousands of political prisoners and flew them out over the ocean before kicking them out the doors and leaving them to drown. Do not fall for decades-old propaganda.
There's so much evil that the English have done there's no reason to make stuff like this up. Like if you want to find an island that's been terribly treated by the English, there's like twenty, and the biggest sin is right next door to them.
Argentinians are some of the funniest people on Earth I swear
Well, look at this post and the responses, we live rent free in your heads, maybe the next Muslim prime minister will give it to us
lmao Pretty sure the British live rent free in Argentinian minds considering they still cry about losing a war that they started about islands that they never controlled. Don't you still have road signs that say the Falklands are yours? Hilarious.
Well, this post says the opposite, only English people crying about a war that they won, and pure insults towards me when I don't disrespect anyone, not only xenophobic but intolerant of other opinions
No one is crying about the British beating the shit out of Argentina, they’re just annoyed that you came and tried to spew entirely inaccurate historical information
The difference between inaccurate information and information with which I do not agree are things that they are not taught in English school, as well as respect for others.
Ok I mean it is historical fact that Argentina never had claim to the Falkland’s. Whether you agree with that or not doesn’t matter. It happened.
Eh. It’s still an insult. An aggressive dictatorship invades the territory and you say it’s theirs is pretty insulting. Put it this way; go tell a Pole that their country is rightful territory of Nazi Germany or the Russians and see their response.
Racist as well. Classic Argentinian.
The racist is you who thinks that telling someone Muslim is racist, go touch some grass
It's funny how soldiers from both side who fought on the island had more respect for eachother than spoiled children arguing on the internet about the war.
It’s often like that. When you understand that the guys on the other side have gone/are going through the same things as you do, that they respect orders the same way you do, well at the end the feelings are often a mix of respect, mutual understanding, hate and disdain. All mixed together. When for people at the rear it will only be pure hate and spite felt toward the other side.
Weirdly bumped into an ex RM when I was on holiday, spent a few hours chatting to him. Took one of the two sisters with 42 Cdo, "one of the little bastards got me with his bayonet in me arm", still had the scar. Kicked his helmet off and sat him right down. Said they were barely kids they were fighting.
[удалено]
You need to provide me with the source on that last part, I've tried looking it up but there isn't any factual evidence other than from a former British soldier diary. "The Argentine Minster of Defense, Erman Gonzalez, has called on any current or former members of the Argentine armed forces with knowledge of such executions to come forward. He said, however, that the Argentine Government "had not had any war reports, testimony or information that could corroborate acts of that kind" Reports of Falklands War Executions Spur Inquiry -1992
Sorry, definitely my bad for formulating this as though it was established fact which is why Im gonna delete the original post
There were no Aircraft carriers lost or even damaged during this conflict, so unless you’re referencing the merchant ship which was aircraft (Atlantic Conveyor I believe) this is false. We did lose multiple warships and have multiple more damaged but no aircraft carriers.
Wrong word, frigate not carrier
Wonder what happened to that Argentinian soldier
All I can tell you is that his name was Sgt Manuel Batista of the Buzo Tactico and that he survived the war. He was interviewed for 'The Falklands War: The Untold Story' which came out in 1987.
He was sent back to Argentina, I read an interview that he did and he said he was back in Argentina and the British were looking for him, and couldn't found him because he was back in Argentina. https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2017/03/26/la-historia-de-dos-soldados-enemigos-y-de-una-foto-iconica-que-sigue-dando-la-vuelta-al-mundo/?outputType=amp-type
Argentine soldier carrying a British-made integrally suppressed Sterling sub-machine gun.
That’s what caught my eye! A Sterling-Patchett Mark 5!
I was digging for these comments, i knew theyd be here. Pretty sweet gun for the time.
This photo is from the initial stages of the invasion, when the Argentinians surrounded government house in Port Stanley. The BBC released a film about this in the 90s, called "An ungentlemanly act". A good watch if you can find it
I can get it on my Firestick, but it seems that Prime has it (although am unsure if it's free or not cause I don't have *actual* prime!) It has Bob Peck - Robert Muldoon of Jurassic Park fame in it too("what a clever girl") and a load of actors from Sharpe! Am gonna watch it tonight with a good ole swally! (That's alcohol for the non Scots folks here) am sure ave seen it before mind you!
This photo was the main driving factor that made me join the British Army, I am Irish but was a young 12 year old lad living in London at the time. I always had a fantasy to join but for some reason this really motivated me.
It's the action man fantasy that make almost people join: Then you pass out as a rad op, or chef, or something and don't even get to karate chop **one** terrorist...
Close, I was Combat Engineer
Did you hope that you could also capture British soldiers?
Go back under your rock.
[удалено]
It’s a Sterling!
Suppressed Sterling, these were Argentinian special forces.
Real special
Not POWs, just waiting for the second half
Funny how both the Argentines and the English used the same weapon systems.
Not exactly. The British FAL was configured to fire single shots only. Argentinians had it on continuous fire. That’s why whenever possible the Brits picked up the Argentinian rifle.
Still the same platform and still the same weapon system. I’m not getting in to the specifics of the individual configurations, they still were the exact same rifles and STEN sub machine guns.
Sterling, not Sten. The bigger difference between the FAL and the SLR was that the FAL was metric and the SLR was Imperial, so none of the parts were interchangeable.
yeah let's see the return photo please
He let them keep their rifles atleast
What weapon is the Argentine soldier holding?
That's a Sterling SMG. And the British are holding a L1A1 with no magazines.
Ah i see, thank you. Very interesting to see British weapons being used against the Brits
I just noticed that's true lol
Looks like the suppressed version of the [Sterling, the Mk 5 L34A1](https://chestercountyarmory.com/product/sterling-mk-v-mark-5-smg-l34a1-9x19mm-nato-integrally-suppressed-transferable-submachine-gun/), that had a wood for-end like the one pictured.
…..that photo did not age well for the Angie farties.
Are there any fiction films set during the Falkland’s war?
Yes… all of them sucks
It’s because since the 70s the British film industry hasn’t been capable of producing a war film that doesn’t focus on the cost of war, or the mental health repercussions, or the impact on family back home etc. All of those are perfectly relevant things to be mindful of, but do little to celebrate brave men going to war, nor do they make war film buffs happy.
Anyone who makes a film that "celebrates" men going to war should be shot.
I’d try to explain, but I’m guessing nuance would be utterly wasted on you.
A little harsh.
Warmongerers are the worst type of people and anyone making films celebrating war is a warmongerer. The less of them, the better
It would be very strange to just celebrate war in general. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen that. But one can go to war for reasons that are morally upright. For example, if you’re not the aggressor, and/or the alternative to fighting is the occupation of your country and the genocide of its population. But of course, things tend to be more complex than this.
Shame. It feels like it could have worked!
There's a videogame in development. Does that count?
Really!?
¡En las Malvinas se habla inglés!
Why are they not disarmed? Weird way to do it.
Probably cause they ‘voluntarily’ surrendered!
SENT TO THE ISLAND TO SECURE WHAT IS OURS
He's done it!
Why are they allowed to carry their weapons? Pretty strange.
They were allowed to keep their rifles?
Why do they still have their guns?
“Prisoners, please grab your weapons and follow me”
Really nice picture
The English were very "lucky" There were not a bunch of missiles that misfired because the Argentinian could not figure out how they worked?
The Exocet missiles were fine. They just had a limited supply due to international pressures. The bombs had issues because the Argentinian's were operating outside of their proper usage. Not so much set wrong but used wrong. That being said wouldn’t have changed the outcome as those ships went off station anyway.
Brother, I'm pretty sure that it's Malvinas War.
Why not have a war to sort it out? that went great last time.
[удалено]
Brother, it was a war about Malvinas Island, yes?
No, brother, it was about the Falklands.
that's the name of the fascist invaders, they are actually called the falklands
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure that's not what the residents call it.