Stanley Runway
Chater
Tourist, Chater was an eyewitness, and one who had obviously observed the Argentinean forces before and after the bombing. Is it so unreasonable to believe that he could judge a change in mood/attitude/behaviour? It seems to me like you're willing to dismiss any argument that doesn't support your own position rather than evaluate each on its merits.
As for 'tacticians', wars have tended to prove that about half of them are wrong. They're usually on the losing side. In the case of an operation of this nature, you should surely also be considering Chater's qualifications as a strategist as strategic effect was surely intended by the raid.
As for 'tacticians', wars have tended to prove that about half of them are wrong. They're usually on the losing side. In the case of an operation of this nature, you should surely also be considering Chater's qualifications as a strategist as strategic effect was surely intended by the raid.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel I should point out, that I do happen to know Tony Chater.
My parents house boasts beautiful pictures of a leapard Seal, penguins and the like courtesy of him.
For about 6 months I lived just down the hill from his Pink Shop, and then for 5 1/2 years I lived just behind him. He is a nice guy. Lovely pictures. He never said as much to me about the bombing.
The point is however that it was completely unimportant what a local artist thought of the effect of the bombing. The islanders moral was high throughout, and the argentinians moral was conversely catastrophically low throughout.
I would hazard the opinion that the testimony of the man who built the airfield that it was easily repairable is rather more pertinent.
And Rheinstorff, I too believe that the raid was strategic. It's just that I believe it was part of the RAFs strategy to justify its existence in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
My parents house boasts beautiful pictures of a leapard Seal, penguins and the like courtesy of him.
For about 6 months I lived just down the hill from his Pink Shop, and then for 5 1/2 years I lived just behind him. He is a nice guy. Lovely pictures. He never said as much to me about the bombing.
The point is however that it was completely unimportant what a local artist thought of the effect of the bombing. The islanders moral was high throughout, and the argentinians moral was conversely catastrophically low throughout.
I would hazard the opinion that the testimony of the man who built the airfield that it was easily repairable is rather more pertinent.
And Rheinstorff, I too believe that the raid was strategic. It's just that I believe it was part of the RAFs strategy to justify its existence in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
I'm starting to smell vinegar, but whether that's from a chip on Tourist's shoulder or from the freshly battered fish he's just fried for supper from the array he's hooked so far on this thread, I'm not sure...
The point, serious or not, is interesting. In all the defence reviews from 1957 onwards, the one service that has had the most difficulty in justifying its existence to the beancounters has (remarkably) been the RN. Only the RN has found itself confronted with a defence review paper stating that despite much scrutiny, the role of the service was 'unclear'.
Granted, I would argue that this was obviously (to borrow from Ian Botham) because the lemon at the bottom of the G&T was obscuring the view of the various persons conducting the study, but...
The reason Nott set about the RN in 1981 with such fiscal violence was because both the roles of the Army and RAF were utterly clear cut, and reductions in any size for both services simply could not be justified. It was put to Nott at a seminar that cuts to the RN couldn't be justified either; he seemed to concur (albeit in that policitican's manner that means you can't quite tell) inferring that savaging the fleet was the least unpalatable option if money had to be shorn from the defence budget.
The notion that the RAF in 1982 had to justify its exsitence to a government which had made re-equipping the RAF with more modern aircraft a plank of its manifesto commitment (another reason why Nott passed the RAF by in 81) doesn't quite seem to fit either.
The point, serious or not, is interesting. In all the defence reviews from 1957 onwards, the one service that has had the most difficulty in justifying its existence to the beancounters has (remarkably) been the RN. Only the RN has found itself confronted with a defence review paper stating that despite much scrutiny, the role of the service was 'unclear'.
Granted, I would argue that this was obviously (to borrow from Ian Botham) because the lemon at the bottom of the G&T was obscuring the view of the various persons conducting the study, but...
The reason Nott set about the RN in 1981 with such fiscal violence was because both the roles of the Army and RAF were utterly clear cut, and reductions in any size for both services simply could not be justified. It was put to Nott at a seminar that cuts to the RN couldn't be justified either; he seemed to concur (albeit in that policitican's manner that means you can't quite tell) inferring that savaging the fleet was the least unpalatable option if money had to be shorn from the defence budget.
The notion that the RAF in 1982 had to justify its exsitence to a government which had made re-equipping the RAF with more modern aircraft a plank of its manifesto commitment (another reason why Nott passed the RAF by in 81) doesn't quite seem to fit either.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Tourist - You really are the most bitter and twisted little blue job I've ever encountered. Do you ever tire of it or do you just keep your efforts in the workplace to a minimum in order to have enough energy left at the end of the day to bleat so much on here?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archy.
Not justify prior to 1982, rather in the light of the lack of visible big moustache "few" type derring do in the Falklands.
Stacker.
Not bitter, nor twisted, quite happy actually, as well I should be. I fact I seem to be about the only regular poster on here who loves his job and never whinges about it and encourages everybody to join.
I do tend to limit my effort at work though, I must admit.........
Not justify prior to 1982, rather in the light of the lack of visible big moustache "few" type derring do in the Falklands.
Stacker.
Not bitter, nor twisted, quite happy actually, as well I should be. I fact I seem to be about the only regular poster on here who loves his job and never whinges about it and encourages everybody to join.
I do tend to limit my effort at work though, I must admit.........
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sqn Ldr Iveson did a great job escaping from the Argies!
Mind you, I seem to remember that when he later served at MOD, he was late for an appointment at the RAF Dental Centre in Harley Street. His excuse was, 'I got lost'!
Mind you, I seem to remember that when he later served at MOD, he was late for an appointment at the RAF Dental Centre in Harley Street. His excuse was, 'I got lost'!
Moustache Visibility
Tourist, surely it's about effect not visibility? It's not the numbers that count, but the effect that they have.
Eg, Chinook BN had a disproportionate effect on the campaign, despite being a single airframe. The Harrier attack at Goose Green to allow 2 Para to continue its attack and win that battle probably also had a disproportionate effect. Perhaps its something about the 'few'...
Eg, Chinook BN had a disproportionate effect on the campaign, despite being a single airframe. The Harrier attack at Goose Green to allow 2 Para to continue its attack and win that battle probably also had a disproportionate effect. Perhaps its something about the 'few'...
