Mike_Larsen
Tourist
Reged: 08/02/05
Posts: 4
|
|
This hill was the location of one of the battles during the Falkland Island War (Islas Malvinas) between Argentina and England. On this hill still remains cannons that were used against the British fleet as seen in the following personal pictures that I took. I lived in Ushuaia for about four months and was amazed by the natural beauty and also it's history.
I resized these photos for easier viewing. If you want the original high-res pics or the other Ushuaia pictures that I have, just let me know.
This was taken after a snowstorm at the base of the hill. I'm kneeling down for effect 
This is me on top of one of the cannons.
This was taken from atop the hill looking out towards the bay with the Chilean mountains in the background
Edited by Chief_Sparky (10/19/05 10:28 PM)
|
Rogerbas
Tourist
Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 15
|
|
The placemark seems to be worng, it points to the City of Ushauia not to the Islands where the battles took place, there is also in this forum the placemark where the Crucer Belgrano was sunk.
|
Mike_Larsen
Tourist
Reged: 08/02/05
Posts: 4
|
|
You might be correct. I'm trying to remember from what I had heard when I was down there, but I believe that the cannons on the hill were used against some of the British ships near there. It may have just been preparation for a possible attach that was never used during the war. I'm trying to find more information, but I'm not having much luck Hey, maybe it's just Ushuaia folklore!
|
cptpies
Tourist
Reged: 08/03/05
Posts: 201
Loc: Crawley ,UK
|
|
As far as I'm aware no British ship went anywhere near the Argentinian mainland during the conflict so it sounds like a bit of local exaggeration.
|
Gabriel_Argentina
Tourist
Reged: 07/01/05
Posts: 52
Loc: argentina
|
|
i donīt know if you consider the falklands as argentinian mainland, wich I do, but still, a british submarine sunk the Belgrano out of the engagement area breaking international treaties.
Also, one british ship was damaged from one of the coastal cannons and another, (the sheffield i think) was sunk after an air assault.
now, for the following i donīt have confirmation but iīve heard that the uk had nuclear missiles targeting buenos aires in case somethig went wrong, fortunately, since the british won, there was no need for that.
again, i colud be wrong so if anyone has some relyable information feel free to correct me
gabriel
|
AdrianM
Tourist
Reged: 07/22/05
Posts: 98
|
|
It seems odd to me that the UK claims to "own" an island that is SO far away from the UK. That would be like North America claiming to own Australia. I don't buy it.
|
Mike_Larsen
Tourist
Reged: 08/02/05
Posts: 4
|
|
Both of them still claim it. It's still a pretty hot topic down there, the Argentines still believe that the islands are still rightfully theirs. I went to a Falkland Island museum in Rio Gallegos and the lady gave us a big speech on why they are technically still theirs (one of which is a land mass which extends from the mainland to the islands underwater). I'm not real sure on the whole thing, but from what I know, Argentina lost the war, so I would imagine that England has claim, but oh well.
|
AdrianM
Tourist
Reged: 07/22/05
Posts: 98
|
|
They should just split it in half.
|
cptpies
Tourist
Reged: 08/03/05
Posts: 201
Loc: Crawley ,UK
|
|
I would agree that Argentinas claim over the islands is as valid as the UK's. However the inhabitants regard themselves as British which is why we went to war over them, not oil or fishing as we have plenty of both in the North Sea. I would like to klnow if there are any Argentinians living there in numbers? From the politcal angle it was also a convenient distraction from the economic troubles Britain and Maggie Thatcher were going through at the time.
Gabriel you need to qualify your statements and do some homework. Six British ships were sunk in brave and audacious attacks by The Argentinian airforce, the only arm of the Argentinian forces to distinguish themselves in the conflict. Others were damaged by fire from the shore of the islands and air attacks which you might be referring to. As far as I know none went anywhere near the Argentine mainland as they probably would have been bombed out of the water if they did. If you have documented evidence to say they did and were damaged then please point me too it.
Edited by cptpies (08/19/05 02:06 AM)
|
Chief_Sparky
Reged: 07/11/05
Posts: 4781
|
|
Quote:
...From the politcal angle it was also a convenient distraction from the economic troubles Britain and Maggie Thatcher were going through at the time.
Interesting viewpoint. Here's another, courtesy of Wikipedia:
-------------
"Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the military junta that was governing Argentina in the period leading up to the war. The government, headed by President General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-dated nationalistic sentiment by launching what it thought would be a quick and easy war to reclaim the Falkland Islands. The ongoing tension between the two countries over the islands increased on 19 March when 50 Argentines landed on the British dependency of South Georgia and raised their flag, an act that is seen as the first offensive action in the war. On 2 April, Galtieri ordered the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, triggering the Falklands War."
More here...
-------------
I know that "the victors write the history", but lets strive for a bit more accuracy and objectivity. Argentina upset the status quo, and England responded. They didn't initiate anything, other than to occupy the islands in 1833 (see this reference for the timeline of the history of occupation of the Falklands).
Now, on to ships sunk.
Argentina - ARA General Belgrano, sunk by HMS Conqueror
Britain - HMS Sheffield, sunk by Exocet missile
Britain - HMS Ardent, sunk by Argentine aircraft
Britain - HMS Antelope, sunk by Argentine aircraft
Britain - MV Atlantic Conveyor, sunk by Exocet missile
Britain - HMS Coventry, sunk by Argentine aircraft
Britain - RFA Sir Galahad (Landing ship, no armament), sunk by Argentine aircraft
Britain - RFA Sir Tristram (Landing ship, no armament), sunk by Argentine aircraft
None were sunk by "shore fire" of any kind. All were either from aircraft launched Exocet missiles or from aircraft dropped bombs.
A unique byproduct of this war was to change several things within the US Navy. Ship design began to steer away from all aluminum ships and uniforms materials were changed to avoid use of nylon in manufacture (due to the flammable nature of nylon, many sailors were severely burned by their uniforms igniting. These lessons were passed on to and adopted by the US Navy). It was an interesting spot of naval history - it marked the first time a nuclear powered submarine had fired a shot in anger (HMS Conqueror).
Much more on the Falklands can be found at your local library, and from reputable online sources such as GlobalSecurity.org, Janes.org, US Naval War College, and Wikipedia.
--------------------
Click here to learn how to improve the GEC
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
View in Google Earth
View in Google Maps
Edit
Reply
Quote
