Falklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept November 20, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / South America Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force South American military history task force

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03
• /Archive04
• /Archive05
• /Archive06
• /Archive07
• /Archive08

Talk page was a little long so I archived it. Justin talk 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits reverted, when Britain obvisly sent 28,000 men to the islands? (http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=falklands+war%2B28%2C000+&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=) /Snillet 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it in an edit summary. See WP:RS, the source you quoted would not satisfy that criteria. You're welcome to put in an edit supported by the appropriate citation. Justin talk 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry! /Snillet 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, its a good idea to generally assume good faith for other editor's actions. There is usually a good reason for their edits. Vandalism is usually the obvious exception. Justin talk 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please remove the words "British victory" from the result section. As per the War of 1812 it is clear that it was a status quo ante bellum and that Argentina had emphasised to Britain how much it claimed the Malvinas (hence giving them victory in a sense). Agian, I also direct you to the Vietnam War where the US wern't "defeated", they simply withdrew to a situation where they neither gained or lost territory themselves. Please learn that only the US can win wars (and they havn't lost any, ever). Please change please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.2.104 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to make a WP:POINT. This war is not similar to the war of 1812 as a whole in any but the most simplistic reading of the war. Narson 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Argentina invaded the islands - the British recaptured them. Argentinian forces did not withdraw to the island - they put up their hands and surrendered to the British. The Islands remain British to this day, over two decades later. In what sense could this possibly be considered to be anything other than a complete victory for the British? BobThePirate 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing agains't the result being a British victory but decisive is wrong, plain word. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a long standing consensus text, strong opinions do not over-ride consensus. I have reverted your changes for now. Justin talk 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result as it is stated in the previous version is not a standing fact. Claiming such is absurd. Also, interestingly enough, this "decisive victory" is mentioned in Spanish version of the article, which happens to be featured - unlike this one. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have politely pointed out to you, the text is a long standing consensus agreement, agreed after much debate. It isn't actually my version. I will revert once more to the consensus text, please do not revert again. I am asking you not to edit war over this, as I noted earlier strongly held opinions do not trump consensus. Thank you. Justin talk 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was decisive, the Argentine forces surrendered, Britain got to keep its penguins, the military Junta toppled not long after, it swept the government of the day to an election victory, the armed forces got the reprieve they wanted from the cuts....yes, there were losses, but in essence the entire Argentine force was 'lost'. As for what the spanish wikipedia has in their so-called FA, I tend to ignore it. Having read it over, it looks like it wouldn't pass GA tests here, let alone FA ones. Narson (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I should say that I have no real preference either way as to the inclusion of decisive, while I think it was a pretty solid victory in the end, I am certainly willing to entertain the notion of not having decisive in the infobox, however, I'd need some better reasoning to change my opinion than someone yelling 'absurd' over and over again. Narson (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The war did not occur to make a point, if it had been, then the defeat would not have lead to the end of the argentine military junta. It was an absoultely decisive victory for the British in every sense, and I challenge anyone to come up with a sound arguement otherwise. The argentines invaded the islands, the british recaptured them after a realatively one sided campaign and 2 and a half decades later, the islands are still british, and the argentines are not in a position to recapture them given the added military strength there. In addition to that there is the signal it sent globally, especially to Russia that large poorly-equipt conscript armies are unlikely to hold their ground against well trained, well equipt, professional soldiers. As above, this is just trying to make a Point WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everybody believe that the Argentine troops were poorly equipped and the British troops well-equipped? The British boots were falling apart so the soldiers hoped that the dead Argentines had the same boot size as themselves. The British paratroopers brought Sterling submachine guns to the war zone and quickly exchanged them to conquered Argentine 7.62 mm SLR's. The Argentines had more artillery pieces and more powerful guns (155 mm). Argentine sharpshooters had just as many night vision scopes as their British counterparts, British soldiers had to charge with bayonets one or two times, etc. UK was better equipped at Sea and in the Air, but not on the Ground. Necessary Evil (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point, the Argentines used the FN-FAL, I believe, not the British derivative SLR :) Narson (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I slovenly used SLR (Self-Loading Rifle) as a synonym for semi-automatic rifles, not for the British version. Perhaps they were renamed SLR on the spot? - No, I can't save it ;-(. Well Narson, the Argentine version was called FM FAL (Fabricaciones Militares - Fusil Automatico Liviano) not the Belgian FN FAL (Fabrique Nationale - Fusil Automatique Léger), (Gotcha!) (1-1). 8-) Necessary Evil (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? They made a licensed one too? Interesting :) Learn something new every day. Narson (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm being pedantic, but does anyone know why the British para's actually brought submachine guns to the fray? (it's something that's been bugging me) One thing I will say though is, use of a bayonet does not imply lack of resources or technological edge. The British are still using the bayonet in Afghanistan, and I don't think anyone can say the Taliban are better equipped or technologically superior. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterlings were given to rear echelon units because the British Army has a long standing dislike of issuing pistols to soldiers (they're only for officers). Don't assume there is logic to it. And it wasn't just the Army that was poorly equipped, the navy had wanted to fit CIWS to the Type 42 in the '70s but had been thwarted by the treasury. The design of the Type 42 was compromised by treasury restrictions, such that the Batch 1 boats were not brilliant in heavy seas, the last thing you'd want in the South Atlantic. (One of the reasons why the subsequent Batch 2 boats and the later Type 22 were stretched.) Then there was the genius in defence procurement who thought polyester flash hoods were a good idea - till the burns injuries on RN ships. And the use of cheap wiring, which lost us several ships. I could go on... Justin talk 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on the para had SLR's and Sterlings? I assumed they just had Sterlings as their "primary" weapons. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prime weapon was the SLR with the GMPG in the fire support role. Sterlings were carried by troops who were in the front line but not necessarily in an infantry role. For instance, Forward Artillery Observers were issued with Sterlings but soon acquired something better. Does that clear it up? Justin talk 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the British army has always been a bit odd in its equiptment choices. It took it until the 1980s to get any kind of burst or fully automatic weapon issued to the standard guy, apparantly because of a belief that the average infantry man would waste ammo or somesuch, so increased ammo useage, no increase in kill ratio, and they would have to provide obscene amounts of ammo to get the same effect. Spot the flaw ;) Narson (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Justin I understand now, the L22A2 Carbine would perhaps be the modern day equivalent? I can see the logic in the British Army's choice though, considering the spray and pray debacle in Vietnam, not to mention the unreliability of automatic heavy barrels. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not called the sterling by the British Army - it is the SMG. As for odd choices of weapon, the SLR was an excellent weapon which served for nearly 30 years with minor modification. Even today, the SA80 is usually used in the automatic single-shot mode; just like the SLR of old. The British Army insists on high standards of marksmanship. I have spent time in Fort Lewis and elsewhere with the US Army and their small-arms philsophy is different. Platoons were not short of firepower as each section had a GPMG although the Paras may have grouped these into fire sp sub-units. Did the paras also have the .50 browning MG? As for the use of the bayonet, it is intended more an expression of martial spirit than an alternative weapon system. Cold steel continues to have a metaphorical and actual visceral effect.--MJB (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC) R IRISH 1986 - 1994[reply]

Absolutely right, the SMG was still on general issue to drivers and so on up to the first Gulf war, but they had some severe safety issues(I have a friend who shot himself in the foot with one, although that was not really the fault of the weapon to be fair!). It was actually an excellent close quarters weapon, far superior to any pistol and more accurate, although when you are dealing with targets at sub 30 metres accuracy is less of an issue! The paras did not have the .50 in the Falklands and in fact they where lucky to have as many GPMGs, it was certainly not considered the norm then to have one per section (although the Army adopted that philosophy pretty quickly for a while after 82). The cold steel was used as an alternative weapon system on numerous occasions during the war, you can fit a bayonet to an SMG as well, THEN it's a scary looking weapon. The SLR was probably one of the best assualt rifles ever deployed by the British, a true man killer which after all is the point!BennyTec (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct about the .50 calibres. A number were captured at Goose Green and were used by both the Para and Royal Marines. There was a picture in Globe and Laurel shortly after the conflict where a Marine was returning some ammunition to its former owners. Justin talk 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the photo you mean, it was taken on Mt Harriet. As for the Paras having .50s captured at Goose Green, I don't know of any being brought forward to Longdon or Wireless Ridge for their assaults. It is true to say they used weapons from Longdon, Two Sister etc to support the attacks on Wireless Ridge, Tumbledown etc but I doubt the helicopter space was available to carry much in the way of extra heavy weapons up from Goose Green. BennyTec (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) The Argentinian objective was to liberate - and subsequently to defend - the Malvinas, and the British objective was to recapture the Falklands. I don't see how, according to our neutrality policy, one could use any other phrase than "British victory" to describe the actual result.

The word "decisive" might be seen as editorialising in that it applies a subjective quality to the victory. I would personally prefer the word "complete" for objectivity, but will defer to prior consensus. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a British 'Roll of Honour' was added in the external links and we also have a spanish memorial in there.....now, while I greatly respect those that died on both sides, fighting for your country is an honourable thing, but....I fear that they have little to no place on a wikipedia page, especially one so controversial, as not only can it be divisive, it also humanises the war (Which I don't think we should do) and begins to poke at being somewhat of a 'remembrance' thing. However, I'm kind of on the fence, so I brought it here for opinions. Narson (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm you've got a point, it's a sore subject. I guess it would be best not to link to any memorial sites, except a lot of the sources for neutral factual information also come from memorial sites. So we can't claim to be neutral whilst letting one link stay and another not. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually two links to a British Roll of Honour, surely one would suffice. Personally I see no objection to links to memorial sites, so long as its balanced with both sides represented and the sites linked to use neutral language. If they sought to push POV or to denigrate the opposition, I'd say they were provocative and should not be included. As a side note, some of the external links are now broken, I'd suggest they need reviewing/fixing and possibly culling. Justin talk 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newly added http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Databases/Falklands/ claims that 260 people serving with British Forces or Islanders died in the Falklands War, but there is no list - one can only search for the names. Its sources and references are among others: http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/FAQ.htm#23 with 255 casualties (omitting laundrymen Lai Chi Keung from HMS Sheffield, Kye Ben Kwo from HMS Coventry and Gurkha Budhaparsad Limbu - 24. June 1982), http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/roh.html with 255 casualties (123 + 88 + 10 + 9 + 25 + 1 + 3 = 259 ??, 253 did not return from South and 3 women civilian casualties = 256?), http://www.sama82.org/garden/home.htm (258 named casualties) and Martin Middlebrook's book Operation Corporate (main source) which was later published as a revised version called Task Force by Martin Middlebrook himself, with corrections for events and names since "he was misinformed when carrying out his original research". The http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/home.aspx?geotype=London is BTW not available for non-subscribers. I believe that http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Databases/Falklands/ is unsuited as a reference for the death toll - why not use http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/rollofhonour.html, a official MoD web site? Necessary Evil (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree, the official site of the MoD would probably stand as a better source for WP:RS, whilst the roll-of-honour site has good intentions there is an amateurish feel about it. Justin talk 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is listed as 'commander', but technically all UK armed forces belong to, and are directed by, the sovereign (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II). I realise this would look odd. Mark Burgess (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bit like listing King George VI in WW2 over Winston Churchill, the Monarch may legally be in charge of the armed forces, but for all practical purposes parliament retains a strong hold on the army. I figure it has something to do with a little spat in the 1600s. Narson (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "spat" Ryan4314 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attack on Santa Fe Part is full with so much detail that it hurts the brevity of the article. 144.122.13.161 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added info regarding the involvment of Norwegian inteligence to the article.Mortyman 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For information, I'm a Aeronautical Engineer with 20 years experience working in guided weapons. Secret missile destruct codes don't exist outside of Hollywood. They don't exist! I actually supplied a source rebutting the claims in the Times article stating they don't exist. If they were provided with destruct codes, they were pretty useless as the Exocet hit rather a lot of ships.

The story about the missile destruct codes, originated from Mitterand's psychoanalyst, who Mitterand allegedly blabbed sensitive secrets of state to. Funnily the story only emerged after Mitterand was dead and it was a disgrace that any serious paper printed this utter drivel. This source easily fails the test of verifiability, because there are technical references that would rebut it. Recognise it for what it is, sensationalist claims to help the sales of his book.

Britain didn't need French technical help on the Exocet, they were somewhat expert having been involved in the missiles development through BAe Dynamics at Hatfield and were experienced operators of the system. The main help we had from the French was the refusal to ship additional Exocets and the removal of French experts who were commissioning the system. The Argentine Navy managed to activate the system without French help, which of its own right was a major technical achievement. The French also refused to export AM-39 to Peru, since they figured they would obviously be transferred to Argentina.

Now having removed what I believed was a good faith edit, explaining why it was wrong I suggest you really should have discussed here before reverting to put it back in. I would be happy to go through why it isn't technically feasible even now. Your references do not back up the story because they are all based on the story reported in the Times. I have removed the passages related to this story, please discuss here before putting any of this back. Justin talk 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an old old bugger, Justin ;) Narson 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantankerous old bugger these days. Justin talk 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that the movies are far more secure than real life. I mean, weren't our nukes secured by simple barrel locks for decades? I think I lost faith in military security after my grandpa told me how when he was a refridgeration engineer, he used to get called in the middle of the night that a nuke was getting too warm and could he come check the refridgeration unit. Narson 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, even before you removed the para altogether, I had toned the passage down to something more inline with what the newspaper reports actually said - they don't mention self-destruct codes at all. The reports only mention aditional data on the exocet's radar characteristics, and posibly some assistance in "interfering" with missiles that were for sale - nothing about the rubbish about codes for making them self-destruct after launch. That co-operation from the French was received seems to have been confirmed by Sandys, even if the psychoanalyst's story is somewhat elaborated. David Underdown 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]