Talk:British naval forces in the Falklands War

Untitled

Couple of thoughts:

Is that all the Argentinian ships that were involved?

To keep a neutral POV should we be calling it the Malvinas War as well?

I'm not convinced on either of these but thought they might need raising.

Secretlondon 20/9/03

Well, another source I've looked at states that Argentina used a submarine (damaged), cruiser (sunk), trawler (sunk), and supply ship (sunk), which is actually less than in the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugen64 (talk • contribs) .

Article not accurate

There are several omissions in this articles and also a big mistake such pointing Mirage III in air strikes when in fact were IAI Daggers. The MB339 strikes are also missing. Jor70 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The IAI Dagger and the Mirage III are two versions of the same plane - the dagger being a mirage produced under licence in isreal. As such they are easily misidentified and it will require more evidence than a single website to warrent a change - especially as the Argentinian airforce have repeatedly reffered to them as Mirage III's 94.168.48.161 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• According this US NAVY website [1]:

UK: Falklands Conflict. The casualty statistics for the Falklands data are based upon thirty-six Royal Navy surface warships and twenty-three RFA ships that participated in the conflict. Because the focus of this paper is on surface ships, submarines have been excluded from these analyses, as have the thirty-six merchant "ships taken up from trade" (STUFT) for use in Operation CORPORATE. (Note that while there were several attacks on the merchant ships, casualties were sustained aboard only one.)

Seventeen Royal Navy warships were successfully attacked, as were six of the RFA units. The rate of WIA was 0.32 per thousand strength per day, while the KIA rate was 0.22. During the period of 30 April through 16 June, a total of 1,723 ship-days and twenty-three attacks yielded a ship hit rate of 1.34 per hundred ship-days.

Of these twenty-three attacks on British warships and auxiliary vessels, sixteen were bomb attacks, five were cannon fire, and two were air-launched Exocet missiles.

• According this British site [2] there were also more ships hits

Jor70 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What a lot of meaningless statistics!. The title of the article is "British naval forces in the Falklands War", it does not claim to be a complete history. Mirages and Daggers look much alike when they are bombing you!! Dmgerrard 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

mirages and daggers look identical when bombing you - they are the same plane built by different manufacturers..... 94.168.48.161 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Daggers (IAI Neshers) were Israeli Mirage 5, derived from the Mirage III. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make any changes you see fit. The list is not complete, and not fully annotated, your additions are welcome. Megapixie 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I am not one to edit pages myself - but have been impressed by the FW stuff - I believe the RO RO ferry St Edmunds in the article was in fact St Edmund (no S) it used to ferry people from Harwich to the Hook cheers, from Orpheus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.66.144 (talk • contribs)

According to "Sir Lawrence Freedman:The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, 2005" it was St. Edmunds with an S, what is your source? Necessary Evil 09:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Evil,

see the Sealink site:

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/BR8_Harwich.html#anchor1481876

This site states the St Edmund involvement and has pics with name painted on side

and an entry (16 Jun 82) and cool pic on the HMS Yarmouth site:

http://www.twogreens.com/navy/FALKLANDS/falklands.html

Regards

Orphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.208 (talk • contribs)

The Sealink site is reference enough, the twogreens link is an interesting link, but not a proper reference for St. Edmund without an 'S'. When you change St. Edmunds to St. Edmund in the article, please put <ref>http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/BR8_Harwich.html#anchor1481876</ref> right after St. Edmund. Be bold! Necessary Evil 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article states "Civilian trawlers converted to Extra-Deep Armed Team Sweep (EDATS) with acoustic and electro-magnetic tow. Manned by RNR personnel" Correct up to the reference to RNR personnel - these were manned by regular Royal Navy personnel taken from MCMV's in Rosyth - Mick (ex-HMS Pict) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.141.134 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg

The image of HMS Conqueror returning from the Falklands War, flying the Jolly Roger, is an iconic and well known image. Its inclusion in the article helps the reader understand the nature of the forces deployed in the war. HMS Conqueror is the only nuclear submarine to have sank a warship during the course of a war, the sinking and the controversy surrounding it is still debated today. As for WP:NFCC

1. There is no free equivalent and permission has been granted for Wikipedia to use the image.
2. Use of the photo does not affect the business of Navyphotos.co.uk as it is a small low resolution version used to convey the subject and is not a high resolution version.
3. Its use in the article is minimal and purely used to illustrate the nuclear submarines role in the conflict.
4. It is a photo that has been widely published outside of Wikipedia.
5. It meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
6. It conforms to Wikipedia:Image use policy.
7. Its only used in this article.
8. It is a significant iconic image that enhances readers appreciation of the topic.
9. The image article page contains the appropriate fair use rationale. Justin talk 10:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And thats me done for the day before, no intention to do any further reverts. Justin talk 10:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but:

• I see no evidence that the image is "iconic". There are a handful of other places on the web where it's been used, mostly Wikipedia mirrors or minor secondary re-users. When a user first uploaded it here, they said they weren't even sure on what occasion it was taken. It's just a random photograph of this particular submarine. "Iconic" is this. The submarine may be historically important, the image isn't.
• The image as such (i.e. the specific photograph, not the scene it shows) is discussed nowhere. Even the scene is not really notable, except for that little piece of insider trivia about what flags they were flying (which is pretty irrelevant to outside readers interested in what happened in that war.)
• The image doesn't show the role of the submarine in the war. It's just a generic image of a submarine in the water. I know what a submarine looks like; this image does not help me understand that. It doesn't show what the submarine did in the war; it does not help me understand that. I know what a "jolly roger" looks like and can imagine what it looks like when a submarine flies one; even if I didn't, this image wouldn't help me understand that, because the flag is hardly discernible.
• I'm sure there are a lot of interesting things that can be said about this submarine and what role it played, but these things still have to be said, not shown. Nothing in the concrete visual information provided through this image is in any way necessary for understanding the rest of the article, and nothing that is important for the rest of the article couldn't just as well be conveyed by a free replacement image or through free text.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to interject; This image is most definitely iconic in both Britain & Argentina! (Argentina uses it as evidence for an insult they call us, "Pirates"). It's the first time a modern submarine has ever flown a jolly roger, and by extension that makes it encyclopaedic. I also think your comparison to the Iwo Jima flag in point 1, kind of kills the rest of your argument, after all in regards to point 3, we all know what an American flag, a hill and a couple of soldiers look like, the same goes for point 4. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that there has been significant, notable media coverage regarding Argentinian reactions to this particular image (not just to the fact it illustrates, but to this particular photograph as such), then by all means, (a) quote it; (b) cover it in the article. I cannot find any mention of "pirates" in any of the articles in question, so the issue doesn't really look as if it was all so terribly notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You can clearly see the Jolly Roger being flown on the conning tower. The original user may have been unsure as to the details but I can tell you that that image was taken on HMS Conquerors return and can provide sources. The flying of a Jolly Roger is a submarine tradition on return from a successful patrol that dates from the First World War (when all submariners were branded as pirates). The US Navy has a similar tradition with a broom. It is a well known and iconic image of the Conqueror's return, a simple Google image search [3] immediately brings up that very image. I realise this is not indicative of iconic status but it is certainly suitably illustrative.

The image is discussed in the article, it is noted that HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano, that is repeated in the image caption. The scene is especially noteable, as this is an image of the only nuclear submarine to have ever sank a warship in combat, returning from its patrol and flying a Jolly Roger in the tradition of the Royal Navy submarine service. It is very relevant to an outside reader seeking to understand the Royal Navy contribution to the war.

I would be really impressed if you could provide an image of a submarine in action but as they're usually several hundred feet below the surface that would be a tall order. I'm sorry if that comes across in any way saracastic but the suggestion that a photograph of a submarine in action was required struck me as amusing and I presume you hadn't really thought that through. And it is far from a generic photograph of a submarine in the water, its a specific submarine, that completed a specific mission and its return from that mission. A generic photograph of a submarine would not convey the same information.

Sorry but I disagree with your rationale, there is no free replacement image or free text that could replace this image.

I would also ask you to explain this edit summary "rv, image *will* be deleted.", I presume it is your intention to now nominate it for speedy deletion now that it is no longer used. I would hope that you have no intention to do so before consensus has been reached. Justin talk 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I bookmarked it for speedy deletion for failing NFCC#1 (replaceability) and #8 (no significant contribution), as well as for being orphaned. And you have not answered the crucial question: Precisely what visual detail of the image is (a) so important for the context of this particular article (an article about the course of the war) that it must be present to understand the whole, (b) so visually complex that it cannot be instead described in words, (c) efficiently conveyed by the image so as to make it understandable? Please name that piece of information, precisely. The sinking of the cruiser isn't it; the flying of the flag isn't it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just realised something, you can't use the Iwo Jima flag as the "yardstick" by which we measure iconicity, it's the most iconic image out there! Alos it's probably the Falklands War version of the Iwo Jima image, for the British at least. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hope given that several users have no questioned your removal of that image that you would have the courtesy to remove that nomination whilst its removal is discussed.

The image clearly does not fail NFCC#1. It is of significant historical importance, it documents the return of HMS Conqueror, the only nuclear submarine to have sunk a warship in action, the sinking of ARA Belgrano was a pivotal event in the war a) it forced the withdrawal of the Argentine navy b) it committed both sides to all out war and c) it is the only image of a RN nuclear submarine flying a Jolly Roger. That is of itself so visually complex that it cannot be described in words and the image itself conveys that quite succinctly. The argument that one of the pivotal moments in the Falklands War is not an iconic moment or worthy of inclusion is simply unbelievable. A rational has been repeatedly provided, the only response I have seen is WP:IDONTLIKE, that is not acceptable. Justin talk 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg be removed from this article, and the HMS Conqueror (S48) article?

Note: I mentioned this RFC at Talk:HMS Conqueror (S48). Pfainuk talk 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The image replacing Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg at HMS Conqueror (S48) is larger, but the view of the submarine is significantly obscured by the HMS Warspite and was taken long after the Conqueror was decommissioned. It does not adequately illustrate the Conqueror. Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg is clear, and shows the submarine on its return from the war in which its most well-known action took place, while the sub was in commission - as it was intended to look. The implied suggestion that the image has to be as iconic as raising the flag at Iwo Jima is a ridiculous standard since in that case we would have very few iconic images of any war ever. The Falklands War may not have been so significant internationally as World War II, but we should still cover it as well as we can.

On this page, further, an image of one of the protagonists of probably the most well-known incident of the war (the sinking of the Belgrano) is surely a very significant representation of the British naval forces of the war. Clearly there's not going to be an image of the ship in battle - and you wouldn't want one. Submarine actions generally take place underwater and generally there aren't divers around with underwater cameras to take photographs for posterity. After all, they would give away the position of the sub. Pfainuk talk 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, an impossible standard is being set and a reasonable justification for its retention is simply being ignored. Justin talk 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the objections here, the appropriate forum for continuing the discussion will be WP:IFD. I'll nominate it later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it regrettable that I'm the one doing this, and not Future Perfect, but the IFD is now open here, and you are invited to comment. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sea Harrier Squadrons aboard Hermes and Invincible

That Yankee reference Morison (in United States Naval Institute Proceedings) indicates Hermes sailed with 6 Sea Harriers of 800 Squadron and 6 from 899 Squadron. Ethell & Price (in the Garden City Press Ltd. Air War South Atlantic) indicates 899 Squadron pilots and aircraft were assigned to 800 Squadron for the Falklands operation and lists Hermes with 12 Sea Harriers of 800 Squadron. Morison indicates Invincible sailed with 5 Sea Harriers of 801 Squadron and 3 from 899 Squadron. Ethell & Price indicate 8 Sea Harriers of 801 Squadron aboard Invincible with a note that includes some aircraft from 899 Squadron. Ethell & Price further indicate the 8 Sea Harriers of 809 Squadron arriving aboard Atlantic Conveyor on 18 May were divided equally between 800 Squadron and 801 Squadron. I concur with identifying 800 Squadron as the operational Harrier squadron aboard Hermes and 801 Squadron as the operational Harrier squadron aboard Invincible. 899 and 809 Squadron assets appear to have been used as replacements for operational losses of 800 and 801 Squadrons while squadron administration remained ashore. Thewellman (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the number of Sea Harriers which fought in the Falklands War is more important than the initial number of Sea Harriers which sailed with the Task Force April 5th. According to Fleet Air Arm Squadrons

"Including those transferred from No.899 HQ Training Squadron, 12 were scraped together for "Hermes'" No.800 and 8 for "Invincible's" No.801 NAS. Thus 20 aircraft, some piloted by the RAF, had to defend the Fleet against 100 plus Argentine attackers. Only in mid-May were they reinforced by eight more Sea Harriers of No.809 NAS (plus six RAF GR.3's)." BTW NAS 809 had a CO (Lt Cdr Tim George) and was transferred to HMS Illustrious after the end of the hostilities.

Regarding the RAF Harrier GR.3 Royal Air Force RAF

"six sailed with "Atlantic Conveyor" and later flew off to "Hermes".".."four flew direct to "Hermes",".."Thus a total of ten GR.3's flew with the Navy" --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

File:HMS Bristol storing at Ascension Island 1982.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HMS Bristol storing at Ascension Island 1982.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HMS Bristol storing at Ascension Island 1982.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RFA crews were Hong Kong Chinese

In The Naval Review (Vol 72, No 1, January 1984), Captain P.J.Roberts, the captain of Sir Galahad, tells us "two of my Chinese crew were killed" at Port Pleasant and that on the way to the Falklands Commander Nick Tobin, CO of Antelope, referred to us as his Chinese Navy (all the ships he escorted were manned by Hong Kong Chinese crews - approximately three hundred in all)".[4] The captain of Sir Tristram, Captain Robin Green, received a DSC for his part on 8 June 1982. "The citation commended his courage, leadership and energy which enabled him to carry his ship and her Hong Kong Chinese crew through a period of danger far beyond that which could normally be expected."[5] 79.73.240.19 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Its well known that the RN had HK Chinese as laundrymen, tailors, cobblers and a number of different roles throughout the fleet. Thanks for providing a citation which actually confirms matters concerning the RFA. WCM_email 07:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's great when users co-operate so well. Thank you for the citation. Chelisuk (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the sources are telling us. In the case of the RFA, HK Chinese were the crew, not merely the domestics. That's what the sources above are telling us about the RFA on the way to the Falklands and at the Falklands. That's what Puddefoot is telling us about those "Round Table" RFA ships, including Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram, not only at the Falklands but from 1963 to 1989.[6] Perhaps this was not well known outside the RN. 79.73.240.19 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It really isn't well known, I've read extensively on the Falklands War and I've not come across it before. Though admittedly I never read much about the RFA. WCM_email 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Title=From Dreadnought to Daring: 100 Years of Comment, Controversy and Debate in the Naval Review by Captain Peter Hore |publisher=Seaforth Publishing| ISBN=978-1-848-32148-9

Page 73 says:-

Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief Fleet commended the RFA:

“From the very beginning of the operation, with the ships detached from Exercise SPRINGTRAIN, to Ascension Island, South Georgia and the heat of the battle for the Falkland Islands, the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries have been in the thick of things. They have supported the Task Force with supreme efficiency and flexibility, have never flinched in the face of danger and have fought with great courage. We have grieved at their losses, which were not in vain, and have rejoiced at their triumphs. The land, sea and air elements of the Task Force could not have been operated without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and we salute them.”Chelisuk (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

From online sources, it seems that the crew of Sir Galahad, Sir Tristram and other "Round Table" RFA ships at the Falklands was only Chinese for some meanings of "crew", and that my dramatic title of this section was too sweeping. Firstly, the captain and officers were not Chinese and it's not clear to me where the line between officer and seaman was drawn. Secondly, Roberts writes that when Sir Galahad went to war, her complement changed; at Plymouth, "Royal Corps of Transport soldiers were embarked as part of the ship's company to act as stevedores" and RN sailors as signalmen, as well as the troops she carried. At Ascension, "We did get a Bofors, 6 GMPGs and a Blowpipe Missile launcher fitted here, together with crews to fire them." He also writes of deck and engineering officers who remained when the Chinese crew were taken off pending bomb disposal.[7] A South China Morning Post article features two HK Chinese crew, an able seaman and a cook.[8] The article also has Roberts recalling that the Chinese crew did not wish to go to war and tried to avoid it. That would have been politically sensitive then and such issues may still be political in Hong Kong now, which might affect our sources and even their existence or non-existence. In the end, I'm drawn back to the memorial at Fitzroy, which lists four Chinese names as electrical fitter, butcher, sailor and bosun.[9] 79.73.240.19 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As this page is a list of the vessels involved, is a discussion of the crew make-up really relevant? Surely it would better to address it in the appropriate article Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The article's titled "British naval forces ..." so it seems worth mentioning that some were actually civilians and not British, but I'm not happy with leaving such a long-winded explanation. 79.73.240.19 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks to the IP editor, your changes were a much needed improvement. I've again removed a redundant cite, with the hope that the editor who seems hell bent on edit warring to keep it will have the courtesy to consider whether it's an improvement. WCM_email 18:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to tighten it up a little and make it flow better. 79.73.240.19 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)