3 ms·

Early on in the Falkland Islands war the British destroyer HMS Sheffield was sank by anti-ship missiles launched from Argentine aircraft. The British Navy was c

by rabite 4y ago

Early on in the Falkland Islands war the British destroyer HMS Sheffield was sank by anti-ship missiles launched from Argentine aircraft. The British Navy was considered at that point the most well trained and equipped in the world. It was widely celebrated across South America as evidence that cunning Argentines were well on their way to an unprecedented victory against the foolish British invaders who underestimated the grit and determination of the Argies. The British, of course, went on to trounce the Argentines. Specific facts which are true themselves but have their significance wildly misrepresented (either through the ignorance of journalists or manipulativeness of military media personnel) to partisan media are very common forms of wartime propaganda. Ships are generally considered thought to be easy to sink with the right ordnance when parked along a coast, and it is not uncommon for a military we consider relatively incompetent to be able to sink some of those owned by a G7 power.

foldr 4y ago
The thing is that the British did come very close to losing, and their carrier groups were enormously vulnerable. The whole operation was a huge gamble. So I’m not sure if it should give much comfort to the Russians. Also, the Russians have had plenty of time to read the board of enquiry report on the sinking of HMS Sheffield. The same mistakes shouldn’t be repeated again.
- rabite 4y ago
  The British considered destroyers an acceptable risk (and likely losses). You know when you park ships in a sea theater going hot that you're going to lose some. This is just how war works, and nobody can universally prevent losses of materiel by reading British naval reports. To say that the British came very close to losing marks you as a victim of that wartime propaganda. Sinking that single ship, the Sheffield, caused Argentina to lose 30% of their jets. At that rate, at most, they could have sunk two more ships if they were lucky. When you look at the basic realities of materiel exchange it becomes comical to ever suggest that the British were ever at a disadvantage, but here we are decades later and the idea that the British were ever so close to losing a water war against Argentina is still in people's heads. Quod erat demonstrandum! If the British were prepared to lose some ships over something as economically and tactically insignificant as the Falkland Islands, what will Russia be willing to lose to not have a NATO supply line run straight up to a massive land border marching distance from Belgorod?
  - Const-me 4y ago
    > to not have a NATO supply line run straight up to a massive land border marching distance from Belgorod? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members. Russia already has that massive land border on the west, marching distance from Saint Petersburg. I don't believe what Russian officials are saying about their justifications and goals is true. Russians are simply trying to expand their empire, like they were doing for centuries.
    - rabite 4y ago
      That's obviously not tactically equivalent to the Ukrainian border. The Lithuanian-Polish border between the gap of Russia and Belarus is a mere 100 kilometers wide, with two viable routes for rapid transit of large armor. It is a chokepoint that Russia has always been confident that it can successfully hold if it came to blows. The Ukrainian border is over 2200 with dozens. Maybe Russia is simply doing as you say, I have no comment on that and cannot peer into the inscrutable psyche of Russian elites to know for a fact that they would have still invaded had there been no NATO expansion, but the assertion that the Baltics are strategically equivalent to Ukraine in a NATO-Russia conflict is laughable nonsense. I love Ukraine and its people and am heavily personally invested in the future of the country. My children are Ukrainian citizens. When people say things that are basely untrue it does not help promote quick conflict resolution or prevent further bloodshed. Circulating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.
      - Const-me 4y ago
        They are comparable. The most efficient shipping method is by sea, the fastest one is by air. The importance of that chokepoint is debatable. Flying distance to Moscow is different but not substantially so, 450 versus 600 km. There's nothing too important in Belgorod or Rostov, while Saint Petersburg is 2-nd most populated city, and has industries related to the military. Historically, Russian governments also viewed these places as strategically important. They annexed these lands by force, twice: after the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, then once again after WW2.
  - signatoremo 4y ago
- wrp 4y ago
  > ...the Russians have had plenty of time to read the board of enquiry report on the sinking of HMS Sheffield. At the start of the war, Russia knew that Ukraine had an anti-ship missile in development but not ready for deployment, so they didn't take precautions. Clearly, the Ukrainian missile developers put in some overtime. After the Moskva strike, Russia bombed the missile factory and moved their ships farther out.
indymike 4y ago
> Specific facts which are true themselves but have their significance wildly misrepresented (either through the ignorance of journalists or manipulativeness of military media personnel) to partisan media are very common forms of wartime propaganda Argentina was the aggressor, and thought (as did most of the world) that the British would not be able to do anything about the invasion. No one was surprised that Argentina sunk the Sheffield - what surprised the world was how badly Argentina ran the war. Argentina had more and better air power (I recall it was on the order of 50 or so Harriers vs. 122 Argentine aircraft), but failed to use it to achieve anything that resembled air superiority. > Ships are generally considered thought to be easy to sink with the right ordnance when parked along a coast, and it is not uncommon for a military we consider relatively incompetent to be able to sink some of those owned by a G7 power. I think it is pretty uncommon to read about a warship being sunk. Modern navies tend to fight at stand-off distances and use layered defenses, where a large ship isn't unescorted, especially when in range of shore based defenses.

by rabite 4y ago

foldr 4y ago

The thing is that the British did come very close to losing, and their carrier groups were enormously vulnerable. The whole operation was a huge gamble. So I’m not sure if it should give much comfort to the Russians. Also, the Russians have had plenty of time to read the board of enquiry report on the sinking of HMS Sheffield. The same mistakes shouldn’t be repeated again.

rabite 4y ago
The British considered destroyers an acceptable risk (and likely losses). You know when you park ships in a sea theater going hot that you're going to lose some. This is just how war works, and nobody can universally prevent losses of materiel by reading British naval reports. To say that the British came very close to losing marks you as a victim of that wartime propaganda. Sinking that single ship, the Sheffield, caused Argentina to lose 30% of their jets. At that rate, at most, they could have sunk two more ships if they were lucky. When you look at the basic realities of materiel exchange it becomes comical to ever suggest that the British were ever at a disadvantage, but here we are decades later and the idea that the British were ever so close to losing a water war against Argentina is still in people's heads. Quod erat demonstrandum! If the British were prepared to lose some ships over something as economically and tactically insignificant as the Falkland Islands, what will Russia be willing to lose to not have a NATO supply line run straight up to a massive land border marching distance from Belgorod?
- Const-me 4y ago
  > to not have a NATO supply line run straight up to a massive land border marching distance from Belgorod? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members. Russia already has that massive land border on the west, marching distance from Saint Petersburg. I don't believe what Russian officials are saying about their justifications and goals is true. Russians are simply trying to expand their empire, like they were doing for centuries.
  - rabite 4y ago
    That's obviously not tactically equivalent to the Ukrainian border. The Lithuanian-Polish border between the gap of Russia and Belarus is a mere 100 kilometers wide, with two viable routes for rapid transit of large armor. It is a chokepoint that Russia has always been confident that it can successfully hold if it came to blows. The Ukrainian border is over 2200 with dozens. Maybe Russia is simply doing as you say, I have no comment on that and cannot peer into the inscrutable psyche of Russian elites to know for a fact that they would have still invaded had there been no NATO expansion, but the assertion that the Baltics are strategically equivalent to Ukraine in a NATO-Russia conflict is laughable nonsense. I love Ukraine and its people and am heavily personally invested in the future of the country. My children are Ukrainian citizens. When people say things that are basely untrue it does not help promote quick conflict resolution or prevent further bloodshed. Circulating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.
    - Const-me 4y ago
      They are comparable. The most efficient shipping method is by sea, the fastest one is by air. The importance of that chokepoint is debatable. Flying distance to Moscow is different but not substantially so, 450 versus 600 km. There's nothing too important in Belgorod or Rostov, while Saint Petersburg is 2-nd most populated city, and has industries related to the military. Historically, Russian governments also viewed these places as strategically important. They annexed these lands by force, twice: after the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, then once again after WW2.
- signatoremo 4y ago
wrp 4y ago
> ...the Russians have had plenty of time to read the board of enquiry report on the sinking of HMS Sheffield. At the start of the war, Russia knew that Ukraine had an anti-ship missile in development but not ready for deployment, so they didn't take precautions. Clearly, the Ukrainian missile developers put in some overtime. After the Moskva strike, Russia bombed the missile factory and moved their ships farther out.

indymike 4y ago

> Specific facts which are true themselves but have their significance wildly misrepresented (either through the ignorance of journalists or manipulativeness of military media personnel) to partisan media are very common forms of wartime propaganda Argentina was the aggressor, and thought (as did most of the world) that the British would not be able to do anything about the invasion. No one was surprised that Argentina sunk the Sheffield - what surprised the world was how badly Argentina ran the war. Argentina had more and better air power (I recall it was on the order of 50 or so Harriers vs. 122 Argentine aircraft), but failed to use it to achieve anything that resembled air superiority. > Ships are generally considered thought to be easy to sink with the right ordnance when parked along a coast, and it is not uncommon for a military we consider relatively incompetent to be able to sink some of those owned by a G7 power. I think it is pretty uncommon to read about a warship being sunk. Modern navies tend to fight at stand-off distances and use layered defenses, where a large ship isn't unescorted, especially when in range of shore based defenses.