Falklands conflict - forces kit and equipment
Discussion
Watching Simon Weston (a true hero 
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston) on tv this morning it got me thinking about that "conflict" - as it was known - and if then as now they had the same kit problems that our troops are having out in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
I was 12yo at the time so don't really remember much about it and the various documentaries since have not really gone into that much detail about whether or not there were problems with lack of kit and equipment etc.
Was there any stuff about it at the time in the news or afterwards, I know it was a pretty horrendous time and the fighting was very tough and in a very inhospitable environment, but was there the same outrage from families who sons/daughters had been killed because of a lack of basic equipment and the "illegalness" of it?
If there was isn't this why the UK has supposedly the best fighting force in the world because our forces adapt and "make do"?
I had a chat with an old boy years ago who said in WW2 you just got on with your job and did the best you could with the equipment you had and never questioned your orders. He also said, and I quote "These kids nowadays don't have a clue what its like to really fight and the families should be ashamed of themselves for making a fuss and damaging their children's honour"
Not sure I agree with the last bit as I'm not the one fighting or have any children out there. (Thankfully my brother came out the forces before all this started, but he was a Royal Marine and as we all know they are well 'ard!)
Your thoughts are welcome.
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston) on tv this morning it got me thinking about that "conflict" - as it was known - and if then as now they had the same kit problems that our troops are having out in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was 12yo at the time so don't really remember much about it and the various documentaries since have not really gone into that much detail about whether or not there were problems with lack of kit and equipment etc.
Was there any stuff about it at the time in the news or afterwards, I know it was a pretty horrendous time and the fighting was very tough and in a very inhospitable environment, but was there the same outrage from families who sons/daughters had been killed because of a lack of basic equipment and the "illegalness" of it?
If there was isn't this why the UK has supposedly the best fighting force in the world because our forces adapt and "make do"?
I had a chat with an old boy years ago who said in WW2 you just got on with your job and did the best you could with the equipment you had and never questioned your orders. He also said, and I quote "These kids nowadays don't have a clue what its like to really fight and the families should be ashamed of themselves for making a fuss and damaging their children's honour"
Not sure I agree with the last bit as I'm not the one fighting or have any children out there. (Thankfully my brother came out the forces before all this started, but he was a Royal Marine and as we all know they are well 'ard!)
Your thoughts are welcome.
Edited by GTIR on Thursday 19th November 14:18
The media does go on a bit about body armour - as do some of thw widows (naturally). In reality, body armour offers limited protection and, in the opinion of some soldiers, can actually cause more problems than it solves as it limits your freedom of movement and might slow your reactions when you want to fire, run and fire. I'm basing this on comments made by Captain Doug Beattie in his book, "An Ordinary Soldier".
The Falklands was a response to an invasion by the Argentineans on UK soil, Iraq/Afghanistan is an invasion by us on Iraq/Afghan soil.
The leaders in Argentina were/are blamed by the people for sending their troops into battle without adequate equipment, in the same way winky, bliar & co are getting blamed for Afghanistan.
The leaders in Argentina were/are blamed by the people for sending their troops into battle without adequate equipment, in the same way winky, bliar & co are getting blamed for Afghanistan.
We were the first to deploy to Acension Island and we made do, we lived out of tents on a sloping cinder car park on the side of a mountain till we eventually were given the use of a condemned building by the Governor, I think he took pity on us after rain caused a flood which swept a few of us away, we didn't have enough camp beds though and one of my mates kipped in a large cardboard box until some more came in. Corned beef and salad was all we had to eat for the first few months, we used to wait for the VC10s to come in as they always had some inflight grub for us. They eventually issued us with desert boots, the soles of which melted in all the spilled aviation fuel and WW2 issue khaki shorts to work on the line, the legs of which were held open in Monty Python style to aid ventilation. We worked 24 on 24 off and the last thng we did before the afternoon shift change would be to change out the crappers with racasan.......or seawater and octopus depending on how much work the previous shift had left us. After several months we eventually got a SWO, it all went down hill from there on.
The Falklands was an entirely different situation to the one facing our lads in Afghanistan as it was very rapid in comparison and in a climate not dissimilar to ours.
The Falklands was an entirely different situation to the one facing our lads in Afghanistan as it was very rapid in comparison and in a climate not dissimilar to ours.
Edited by B Oeuf on Thursday 19th November 14:43
One of the chaplains at school served in the Falklands (with 2 PARA) and maintained that while certain important bits of kit were dated and obsolete (boots and helmets were top of the list, as I recall), others were excellent - and he felt that their replacements were a retrograde step (e.g. the SLR).
He also made the point that the British Army has never been "properly" equipped with the latest/greatest kit when asked to go to war, and that this is part and parcel of the organisation's culture.
I can see the truth in this - in that the British Army has never been a large force (save when the ranks were swollen by the World Wars, and the brief National Service period) and has always therefore been something of a fringe consideration for those in Whitehall who decide where the money should go. Even in more militaristic times (say, pre-WWI), the Navy took the lion's share of defence spending as that was seen as the country's most effective service. So what we see now in Afghanistan and Iraq, and indeed saw in the Falklands, is just the current symptom of a very old problem.
He also made the point that the British Army has never been "properly" equipped with the latest/greatest kit when asked to go to war, and that this is part and parcel of the organisation's culture.
I can see the truth in this - in that the British Army has never been a large force (save when the ranks were swollen by the World Wars, and the brief National Service period) and has always therefore been something of a fringe consideration for those in Whitehall who decide where the money should go. Even in more militaristic times (say, pre-WWI), the Navy took the lion's share of defence spending as that was seen as the country's most effective service. So what we see now in Afghanistan and Iraq, and indeed saw in the Falklands, is just the current symptom of a very old problem.
My S in L's ex fought in the Falklands with the Paras but never spoke about it.
He only said he will never be the same after it and after leaving my S in L had a big drink problem and went to prison several times for violent assaults.
I know that trench foot was a problem as it was in WWI!
He only said he will never be the same after it and after leaving my S in L had a big drink problem and went to prison several times for violent assaults.
I know that trench foot was a problem as it was in WWI!
Kit issues are a funny problem.
Honestly its wrong that the troops dont have the correct equiptment but every organisation needs to work to a budget. There is not a bottomless pit of money to keep everything up to date.
That being said im not convinced that the money the forces recieve couldnt be better spent.
If the money to supply the forces with better equiptment came from hospitals, firebrigade, police etc....then is it right to give the money to the forces who are often fighing wars that are far away from our shores???
I honestly dont know what the correct answer is but i can see both sides of the argument!
Honestly its wrong that the troops dont have the correct equiptment but every organisation needs to work to a budget. There is not a bottomless pit of money to keep everything up to date.
That being said im not convinced that the money the forces recieve couldnt be better spent.
If the money to supply the forces with better equiptment came from hospitals, firebrigade, police etc....then is it right to give the money to the forces who are often fighing wars that are far away from our shores???
I honestly dont know what the correct answer is but i can see both sides of the argument!
Having read about the Falklands conflict, some of the problems where down to piss poor intel, I believe intel said vehicles where useless outside of the settlements yet the locals used landrovers, also with the sinking of a supply ship there was bound to be kit issues.
I was told by a guy I worked with a few years back that the welders doing the emergency conversions and refits practically lived on the ships working till they where done, the Falklands conflict had popular support amongst the population.
I was told by a guy I worked with a few years back that the welders doing the emergency conversions and refits practically lived on the ships working till they where done, the Falklands conflict had popular support amongst the population.
Dakkon said:
Gargamel said:
Also had to beg the yanks for the Sidewinder missle as we didn't have a working air to air missle for the harriers.
Thatcher was negotiaing with Regan and they were pulled off US warplanes and delivered to the carrier group as it sailed down to the Falklands.Well I wasn't much older than you but I remember footage of an awful lot of machine guns being lashed to ships rails because there was insufficient anti-air and anti-missile capability, helicopters also used to fly as decoys to distract the exocets from the carriers (that was the theory, anyway) whilst the US navy of the time were equipped with radar-controlled gatling guns for that very threat.
I also remember a lot of Cold War kit (specifically .50 cal machine-guns) being hurriedly brought out of storage, and container ships being converted to helicopter carriers (by welding a deck to the top of some containers)so there was lot of classic British "bodging" required which the US military would never have had to put up with.
Plus it's often forgotten that it was Tory defence cuts announced at the time that emboldened the Argentines to invade, and if they had allowed another 18 months for those cuts to be implemented, a large part of the British fleet would by then have been scrap or sold off, and the re-taking of the Falklands would not have been possible.
I also remember a lot of Cold War kit (specifically .50 cal machine-guns) being hurriedly brought out of storage, and container ships being converted to helicopter carriers (by welding a deck to the top of some containers)so there was lot of classic British "bodging" required which the US military would never have had to put up with.
Plus it's often forgotten that it was Tory defence cuts announced at the time that emboldened the Argentines to invade, and if they had allowed another 18 months for those cuts to be implemented, a large part of the British fleet would by then have been scrap or sold off, and the re-taking of the Falklands would not have been possible.
The British Army boot has always been a problem. In the '80s the researchers came up with the obvious solution that a pull on boot was the only solution, providing NBC capability and was waterproof.
"The British Army will never be seen wearing jackboots", was the response.
The gunners were down to their last few rounds of 105mm at the end of the Falklands Campaign.
"The British Army will never be seen wearing jackboots", was the response.
The gunners were down to their last few rounds of 105mm at the end of the Falklands Campaign.
Eric Mc said:
The media does go on a bit about body armour - as do some of thw widows (naturally). In reality, body armour offers limited protection and, in the opinion of some soldiers, can actually cause more problems than it solves as it limits your freedom of movement and might slow your reactions when you want to fire, run and fire. I'm basing this on comments made by Captain Doug Beattie in his book, "An Ordinary Soldier".
Friend of mine said the same actually. He said it was pain in the arse in the heat as well. I'm also a little sceptical about how much protection body armour fairs up against explosives and 7.62 calibre bullets.
I do think the soldiers should have the option though.
I am just reading this book :http://www.amazon.com/Falklands-Conflict-Years-Sa...
It is a fantastic narative written by various people involved.... Its fascinating reading things from multiple perspectives...
Really... buy it!!
It is a fantastic narative written by various people involved.... Its fascinating reading things from multiple perspectives...
Really... buy it!!
Edited by tegwin on Thursday 19th November 15:28
In my own exerience with regard to kitting issue today it has improved massively. The first time I deployed to Afghan I had boots where the sole would literally peal off in the heat, body armour that consisted of just 2 6x6 inch plates of kevlar to protect my heart and webbing that probably saw action in the Falklands. The kit we get now is infinitly better. Every time I go to stores before I deploy I end up with sack-fulls of new clothing and equipment on top of what I already have. I end up leaving most of it behind.
The current situation and the Falkland campaign are very different. Whereas we've had 8 years of fighting in Afghanistan and 6 in Iraq to get it right this time, the guys who went to the South Atlantic did so at short notice and were there for a matter of weeks rather than years. I'd imagine kitting was very poor.
The current situation and the Falkland campaign are very different. Whereas we've had 8 years of fighting in Afghanistan and 6 in Iraq to get it right this time, the guys who went to the South Atlantic did so at short notice and were there for a matter of weeks rather than years. I'd imagine kitting was very poor.
GreatGranny said:
My S in L's ex fought in the Falklands with the Paras but never spoke about it.
He only said he will never be the same after it and after leaving my S in L had a big drink problem and went to prison several times for violent assaults.
I know that trench foot was a problem as it was in WWI!
Your son in law's ex fought with the Para's?He only said he will never be the same after it and after leaving my S in L had a big drink problem and went to prison several times for violent assaults.
I know that trench foot was a problem as it was in WWI!
A ghey fella in the Para's? Just out of interest you understand - just doesn't fit with the usual mental picture of someone in the parachute regiment.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff