Malvinas Secret Files in 2072
What could be in the 2072 Secret Falklands File we hear so often about? If Britain did hide military secrets for 90 years, what do you think they could be?
Nogging Grogg, former Retd British Army Major & Business
Systems Analyst (1973-2009)
Quora-Answered Jan 25
There is one thought that has run
through my mind off and on right from the time it was decided to send 5
Infantry Brigade to support 3 Commando Brigade.
It is well known that original orbat of
5 Bde consisted of 2 Para, 3 Para & 1/7 GR. By the time the decision was
taken to send 5 Bde down south it had already lost two of it's three battalions
to 3 Cdo 2 Para & 3 Para.
Therefore two additional Battalions
were needed to bring the Brigade up to strength. That of course turned out to
be the Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. Both of whom had been operating in their
public ceremonial duties role in London. Much has been made about the fact that
they were not really fit for the task that was assigned to them at such short
notice.
It is my contention that while it may
have been necessary to use one of the Guards Battalions to bring 5 Bde up to
strength, that it was not necessary to use two of them. There was another
Infantry Battalion stationed in UK at the time which I believe would have been
a much better choice. That was The Prince of Wales Own Regiment of Yorkshire 1
PWO. Now I have no personal connection or interest in 1 PWO but I suggest they
would have been an infinitely better choice to send to the Falklands than one
of the Guards Battalions. The reason is simple 1 PWO were assigned to the ACE
mobile force. This was a multinational NATO force designed to be used on the
NATO flanks in either Northern Norway or Turkey. It's prime purpose was
political it was to be the multinational "blood sacrifice" to
demonstrate commitment by all NATO nations. Therefore when the Falklands
situation "blew up" 1 PWO had just finished several weeks of
exercises in Norway north of the arctic circle in winter. They were almost as
well trained at winter warfare as the Royal Marines and probably better
prepared than 2 or 3 Para. If they had been assigned to 5 Bde then the brigade
would at least have hade 2 of it's three battalions fully operational.
Now I have heard excuses from various
MoD types saying that 1 PWO could not be touched as it was committed to NATO.
To that I call Bullshit. All during the troubles in Northern Ireland the
British Army robbed units from it's divisions supposedly assigned to NATO in
Germany, and yet found a way to keep the Politicians happy. British Army
battalions were always getting Rerolled and Redeployed.
A Brit Infantry Bn might spend a few
years in UK in the Light role during which time it might be Sent to do a UN
peacekeeping Tour in Cyprus, then it would be rerolled as a mechanised
battalion and sent to Germany for several years during which time it might be
pulled out to do a couple counter insurgency Northern Ireland tours.
1 PWO could easily have been reassigned
to 5 Bde it would be a simple stroke of the administrative pen. They would not
need to be issued with any winter warfare equipment as they already had it. The
northern European Winter was coming to an end so if one of the Guards battalions
were given 1 PWOs ACE mobile role their lack of Arctic training would not be a
problem. The next ACE mobile exercise would be in Turkey in autumn plenty of
time for a battalion to get battle ready.
I have long suspected that the Household Division used
it's political muscle to pull a few strings and get itself involved in the
Falklands operation. When suddenly it looked like the British forces were going
to get into their first proper war (instead of all this internal security
nonsense) in a generation and the Guards did not want to miss out on a chance
of a few battle honours. The trouble is there may not be anything on file about
this as the whole discussion may have been over the phone or possibly over a
Gin & Ton.
BSc Mathematics, University of Southampton
I was looking at this some years ago, having read some papers on
the campaign by US military personnel, and concluded the Guards Btns were
almost the worse possible candidates.
1.
Like the
majority of units not in key roles, they were under strength - it was (and
prob. still is) usual for units to be at c. 90% strength, relying on the
call-up of reservists to fill the gaps.
2.
As both
Btns had been in the public duties role for at least 3 years (2 Scots did have
a recent tour of NI under their belt), what recent experience did they have of
combined arms or Bde level ops?
3.
Fitness
- when part of the Welsh Guards started their march, they had to abort as the
loads were too heavy. To be fair, even the paras struggled (in part due to the
inadequacies of the boots, something they had pointed out earlier in the year).
Yes well I have to be
careful here. I have some personal issues with the Welsh Guards in 1982. I was
involved with getting the QE2 ready to embark 5 Bde as well as the actual
embarkation itself. Suffice to say if it had not been due the brilliant
performance and discipline of 1/7 GR we would not have made up for time lost
earlier in the day.
Thomas Daley Former
Marine Engineer
Talk in the Merchant navy in 1982, is that the paras and marines
were pounding the decks running nearly all hours of the day on the way down.
They knew shit could happen andit did.
The choppers got wiped out on the Atlantic Conveyor so walking, tabbing, yomping were needed.
The guards moaned about food and weather, sea state prevented
physical exercise were their excuse. 30 minutes into an attempt at a night
march, it were called off.
Unfit or their bergens were overloaded, the paras, marines and
gurkhas all had the same. Unfit, unprepared and unsuitable …..
Long held suspicions? I would say correctly…The Guards and their
officers both senior and retired are in a unique position to influence the MOD
as well as politicians…significantly less now as the Conservatives are not off
the national service era…and have much less army in them…! So yes…not fit enough..not
hard enough…but wangled it!
Guy BlackwellRegistered Nurse ex soldier
I was serving in a regional infantry battalion at the time and it
was widely thought that the desision to send the Guards was entirely made at
the personal whim of the Guards hierarchy. The are, and were, a fine body of
men and performed admirably, but not a logical choice.
And what a painful costly moment that was,even i with no military
experience whatsoever would realise that two ships anchored in a bay full of
soldiers opposing a capable determined enemy airforce was a disaster waiting to
happen getting everyone of and the ships back out to sea no more than basic
common sense.
Gwyn Kemp-Philp Former
civil servant
Referring to the O/P - I have often thought that the rank of Major
is the most senior officer still capable of being a soldier. Above that, it is
swamped in politics and mired in customs, seniority and ear whispering,
anything except considered operational planning to make best use of resources
available.
The Falklands campaign is living testament to that but nevertheless, it proves that the rank and file can still prevail despite their senior officer’s pre-WWI attitudes.
The Falklands campaign is living testament to that but nevertheless, it proves that the rank and file can still prevail despite their senior officer’s pre-WWI attitudes.
Bill Crean, lived
in Saudi Arabia (1990-2015)
I would
not be surprised if there were such Falklands files , after all there are still
some secret files from WW2, namely what did Rudolf Hess say during questioning,
in his imprisonment in England? That secret has been maintained for 77 years so
far.
As with
the Hess story, the Royal family could be affected and my guess is the secret
Falklands files, if they exist, contain something about Prince Andrew, who
served as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands’ conflict. I am sure the news
will be all good, but I am not sure why they would want to make it a secret for
so long.
After a
standard period of 30 years some Falklands war secrets were released in 2012.
This was essentially the refueling system they employed to bomb the Argentines
on the Falklands from Ascension Island, 3000 miles away. The Argentines were so
alarmed at the bombing that they evacuated their fighters to mainland
Argentina, which reduced their impact in fighting the British because the
fighters had to fly from the mainland to engage the British, a distance of 400
miles.
Martin Porter, B.Sc
from University of Leicester (1991)
I would
expect the main military secrets that remain to be revealed relate to intelligence
gathering, especially the extent to which the UK received intelligence from the
USA.
A
curiosity of the campaign is that no overall theatre commander was ever
appointed. Admiral Woodward looked after the fleet, whilst Thompson, and then
Moore looked after the land war. There was no overall air strategy, and the air
wings of the two carriers used different tactics throughout the campaign. All
the coordination was done by Northwood Headquarters, 8000 miles away in
Hertfordshire. Why?
The best
guess is that they were able to use classified intelligence sources that could
not be shared with the commanders in theatre. Some of this intel was no doubt
from GCHQ intercepts. Some may very well have been from SAS teams and MI6
officers on the ground in Argentina. However, some almost certainly came from
the USA. What this was, we do not know. Most likely this was satellites and
electronic intelligence, the exact capabilities of which they would not want
revealed at the height of the Cold War, but there is also the possibility of
human sources that would be very sensitive indeed.
It’s not
just the USA that might have supplied intelligence too. Chile was certainly
helping the UK, although what intel they had is unknown. Then there was the
French connection. It’s possible, although less likely, that France’s technical
personal shared some intelligence with the UK, and even possible they didn’t do
this voluntarily.
That
this is what is in those files is just a guess on my behalf, but this is the
question about the war that I would most like answering.
Max Jones,
Aspiring filmmaker, knows a lot about Naval/Military History
I don’t
know very much about the specifics, but imagine they would be relatively
standard classified documentation. I don’t imagine there will be a great deal
of massive controversies or terrible war crimes on the British end being
uncovered, a lot of it is probably just reports and specific details of various
notable events. Others might regard political deals or communications that
weren’t so public at the time.
I don’t
know very much about these files or anything concerning them, so these are only
my assumptions based on my pre-existing understanding of everything that
happened but I expect a lot of it is information simply classified the same way
that militaries today won’t release everything they know about weapons tests,
sales and equipment based deals and other details of operations to the public.
Perhaps some is simply a matter of evaluating the performance of systems
without giving away information that offers them a natural advantage through
combat testing, like the capabilities of radar systems, missiles, etc.
Otherwise,
the UK Government will finally admit the HMS Invincible was sunk 5 times in the
war and Hermes never even existed to begin with, and there is actually a hangar
somewhere with piles of inflatable naval vessels in case any are lost.
Dave Hopkin , former
Troop Commander at Brtish Army (1977-1984)
There
are several potential themes of why information should be held secret
1.
Documents
relating actual warning that the Government had recieved and ignored
(potentially to do with Caringtons resignation) or information of what was
really happening in the cabinet and number 10 - I suspect the cabinet were not
all in favour of sending the Task Force
2.
Details
of the enquires into the loss of the Sheffield
which may compromise operational activities
3.
Details
of the after action report on Goose Green that may be critical of the actions
leading to the of Lt Col H Jones
4.
Details
of Intelligence shared by allies that may harm their relationships with
Argentina
5.
Details
of operations in Tierra del Fuego.
Mick Bacon, works at Semi-retirement (2014-present)
The
reason that files are closed for 90 years, rather than the usual 30 years, is
that they contain information about individuals. 90 years ensures that no
living person has personal information disclosed.
Therefore
, the secrets disclosed will be information about individuals.
Joseph Wang,
studied at Ph.D Astronomy UT Austin, Physics MIT
In for
military stuff, it would be the details on the sinking of the HMS Sheffield and the General Belgrano, and general “lessons
learned” from the amphibious assault operations. There are so few examples of
post-WWII real military actions that I’m sure that Chinese and Russian military
people would love to learn as much as they can about how missiles and
amphibious assaults work under real world situations.
As far
as political and diplomatic stuff, there’s always something juicy in them. It’s
the nature of politics and diplomacy that people will do and say things that
are highly embarrassing so you have these rules so that people are safely in
the grave when the historians argue about them.
