M
MAJOR_Baker
Guest
Interesting......
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Where is this from?
A
Apocalypse
Guest
British Falklands War Ships Had Nuclear Weapons
Fri December 5, 2003 08:25 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - British warships during the Falklands War in 1982 carried nuclear depth charges, but the weapons never entered the territorial waters of any Latin American nation, the ministry of Defense said on Friday.
"The weapons were type WE177 nuclear depth charges. They were on the task force when it sailed south but never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands or any South American country," a spokesman told Reuters.
"The decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," he added, stressing that there had never been any intention of using the weapons.
He said it was the first time the British government had admitted that the task force assembled to retake the Falkland Islands after Argentina invaded and reclaimed the islands it knows as the Malvinas was equipped with nuclear weapons.
He stressed that it was routine for British naval surface ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s. The practice was finally ended in 1993.
The Argentine government issued an angry statement in response, seeking assurances from Britain that no nuclear weapons had been left in the Southern Atlantic, in sunken vessels or on the seabed.
"This incident could have had huge consequences for the inhabitants, natural resources and environment of the region," the statement read. "It is unacceptable to try and justify it ... during an operation aimed at preserving a colony in the Southern Atlantic."
The information came to light after a reporter asked for information about nuclear incidents.
Included in that information were details of several incidents involving damage to containers carrying the depth charges as they were transferred from the task force to the returning ships.
None of the damage to the containers was serious and none of the weapons was damaged, the spokesman stressed.
Fri December 5, 2003 08:25 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - British warships during the Falklands War in 1982 carried nuclear depth charges, but the weapons never entered the territorial waters of any Latin American nation, the ministry of Defense said on Friday.
"The weapons were type WE177 nuclear depth charges. They were on the task force when it sailed south but never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands or any South American country," a spokesman told Reuters.
"The decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," he added, stressing that there had never been any intention of using the weapons.
He said it was the first time the British government had admitted that the task force assembled to retake the Falkland Islands after Argentina invaded and reclaimed the islands it knows as the Malvinas was equipped with nuclear weapons.
He stressed that it was routine for British naval surface ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s. The practice was finally ended in 1993.
The Argentine government issued an angry statement in response, seeking assurances from Britain that no nuclear weapons had been left in the Southern Atlantic, in sunken vessels or on the seabed.
"This incident could have had huge consequences for the inhabitants, natural resources and environment of the region," the statement read. "It is unacceptable to try and justify it ... during an operation aimed at preserving a colony in the Southern Atlantic."
The information came to light after a reporter asked for information about nuclear incidents.
Included in that information were details of several incidents involving damage to containers carrying the depth charges as they were transferred from the task force to the returning ships.
None of the damage to the containers was serious and none of the weapons was damaged, the spokesman stressed.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,703
- Points
- 1,160
Nuclear depth charge? I‘ve never heard of that before.
I have heard that two british soldiers took out a surfaced sub or ship that was in a narrow channel with a carl gustave 84mm rocket launcher. Probably just a rumor but does anyone know if theres any truth to it?
By took out i mean took it out of the war
I have heard that two british soldiers took out a surfaced sub or ship that was in a narrow channel with a carl gustave 84mm rocket launcher. Probably just a rumor but does anyone know if theres any truth to it?
By took out i mean took it out of the war
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Well it make sense that the Brits or the USN would have nuclear weapons onboard, it was after all the height of the Cold War. That would be like saying the USN never had any nukes on board any of their ships during the Grenada invasion. I doubt either planned to use them, there would be no need but I have no doubts they were there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The Carl G incident is true but they didn‘t sink it.
Just prior to the original Argentine invasion of the islands the Brits despatched a patrol vessel to nearby South Georgia Island with a small contingent of Royal Marines on it from the Port Stanley Garrison about 20-30 troops.
They were there to wave the flag and help evict some Argentine scrap merchants who were tearing apart the old whaling station.
When the Argentine forces invaded the Falklands they also sent a smalll fleet and contingent of troops to take South Georgia. The Marines were stuck there on a small island in the middle of the South Atlantic as the patrol boat had been driven off by the Argentine Navy.
Being Royal Marines they dug in and prepared to defend the island‘s one harbour with their FN rifles a GPMG and an 84mm. One of them managed to get a hit with the 84mm on a Argentine Corvette which was providing close in direct naval gunfire support for the invaders. They didn‘t sink it but forced it to withdraw.
The Marines eventually surrendered and like their counterparts on the Falklands were repatriated back to England. All of them volunteered to be part of the force that retook the islands.
Just prior to the original Argentine invasion of the islands the Brits despatched a patrol vessel to nearby South Georgia Island with a small contingent of Royal Marines on it from the Port Stanley Garrison about 20-30 troops.
They were there to wave the flag and help evict some Argentine scrap merchants who were tearing apart the old whaling station.
When the Argentine forces invaded the Falklands they also sent a smalll fleet and contingent of troops to take South Georgia. The Marines were stuck there on a small island in the middle of the South Atlantic as the patrol boat had been driven off by the Argentine Navy.
Being Royal Marines they dug in and prepared to defend the island‘s one harbour with their FN rifles a GPMG and an 84mm. One of them managed to get a hit with the 84mm on a Argentine Corvette which was providing close in direct naval gunfire support for the invaders. They didn‘t sink it but forced it to withdraw.
The Marines eventually surrendered and like their counterparts on the Falklands were repatriated back to England. All of them volunteered to be part of the force that retook the islands.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The neatest thing about hitting the corvette was the fact that the 84 round actually skipped off the water and blasted a hole through the hull. The gunner was allegedly trying to hit the ship just below the waterline in order to sink it.
When the Marines surrendered, the Argies demanded to know where the rest of them were, the didn‘t believe that such a small formation, a platoon(-) IIRC, could have put up such a fight.
When the Marines surrendered, the Argies demanded to know where the rest of them were, the didn‘t believe that such a small formation, a platoon(-) IIRC, could have put up such a fight.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The neatest thing about hitting the corvette was the fact that the 84 round actually skipped off the water and blasted a hole through the hull. The gunner was allegedly trying to hit the ship just below the waterline in order to sink it.
When the Marines surrendered, the Argies demanded to know where the rest of them were, the didn‘t believe that such a small formation, a platoon(-) IIRC, could have put up such a fight.
When the Marines surrendered, the Argies demanded to know where the rest of them were, the didn‘t believe that such a small formation, a platoon(-) IIRC, could have put up such a fight.
A
Apocalypse
Guest
Anybody interested in some history on the Falklands war take a look at the link below.
http://www.naval-history.net
http://www.naval-history.net
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,703
- Points
- 1,160
Here‘s another question if the Major doesn‘t mind me going off topic a bit. I read somewhere that british officers had their troops go down only to one knee as opposed to the prone during halts, in a few fire fights, stuff like that. I‘ve heard that A. it was because they were wearing too much kit and it was hard for them to keep their momentum and B. Because the enemy fire was so effective and heavy often when they would go down to the prone they wouldnt want to get up again.
Mind you i‘m not insinuating they acted cowardly or anything, simply that they were 18 and 19 year old privates being shot at.
Can anyone shed some light on that?
Mind you i‘m not insinuating they acted cowardly or anything, simply that they were 18 and 19 year old privates being shot at.
Can anyone shed some light on that?
Similar threads
