Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?  (Read 12247 times)

justboatonic

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,516
  • Location: Thornton Cleveleys
sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« on: July 22, 2010, 10:34:56 pm »

Have to say from the outset, what I've heard of woodward's command of the task force that re took the falklands is not the generally public accepted view that he was a good command.

I'd go so far as to say he was almost reckless and derelict in his duties to the men and ships. The fact we lost 4 capital RN ships, excluding RFAs, is very telling especially since Coventry's loss was down to woodward's sheer bloody mindedness and reckless abandonment to sacrifice the ship and some of her men.

However, I dont think many people are aware of the circumstances of the sinking of HMS Antelope. Im intending building the Fleetscale 1\72 Type 21 as Antelope so started doing some research. She was the only T21 not fitted with Exocets at the time of the Falklands although that fact wouldnt have helped her in San Carlos Water.

Many people are aware of her brave stand when attacked by 4 skyhawks. She is credited with 1 probably 2 kills in this attack. As part of my research, I found the Board of Inquiry report into the loss of Antelope. heavily censored in places, it makes a fantastic if disturbing reading and show yet again, how woodward's reckless command virtually condemned Antelope to a position of almost guaranteed loss.

The report states Antelope was ill prepared and ill briefed. Unless I've read the report wrong, it appears Antelope had just 12 hours notice 'of tasks which would take her into San Carlos and her first action. In other words, the BoI concludes antelope was not prepared. You'd expect a commander of woodward's supposed experience to be aware of such factors and select a ship that was better prepared and suited?


http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-KbrY3b4rEYJ:www.rna-10-area.net/files/boi_hms_antelope.pdf+hms+antelope+board+of+inquiry&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShn8KtoJWzDzFhS-WQVXwAke16WK3fY5JXYBoBSVljS4kFyAP5oS8gfndkBFMZQNLhWOS_BzwR7wZJ6jOMtqjGP_ea8tqAExAfYOR3ECWvO1TjtIa47EsnrRXPqv7JiHXtr2FGH&sig=AHIEtbSSWMPeWXxNXXTbrmeC4N41RFlWDw
Logged

Jonty

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
  • Location: Hoselaw - facing The Cheviot (Scottish Borders)
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2010, 10:50:39 am »

  Not the first criticism.

  On another point, I've never commented on other members' spelling and grammar, and nor would I, but I do find writing a person's name without a capital letter demeaning and insulting.
Logged
I eat my peas with honey,
I've done it all my life;
It makes the peas taste funny,
But it keeps 'em on the knife.

Jonty

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
  • Location: Hoselaw - facing The Cheviot (Scottish Borders)
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2010, 12:30:20 pm »

  On second thoughts, a bit ill-considered, that. Apologies, justboatonic, or should it be Justboatonic?
Logged
I eat my peas with honey,
I've done it all my life;
It makes the peas taste funny,
But it keeps 'em on the knife.

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,449
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: Sandy Woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2010, 12:48:29 pm »

And what a marvellous teacher Hindsight really is.

  Regards  Ian.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

PMK

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2010, 01:02:22 pm »

"Apologies, justboatonic, or should it be..."

I'm with you all the way on that. Which is why I shan't dare mention that maybe a period should be used where your second comma is placed, and "or" should begin with an upper-case "O".  %)
Logged

malcolmfrary

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,027
  • Location: Blackpool, Lancs, UK
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2010, 10:21:09 pm »

I suppose he did what he had been ordered to do, to achieve what he had been ordered to achieve, with the resources that were available.  With what was available, and in the timescales imposed, I really don't think anybody could have done better.  If Argentina had waited until they were really ready, we would now be talking about the Malvinas, since there wouldn't have been enough RN to go there on anything other than a courtesy visit.  Our government at the time was ready to convert the RN into a UK coastal patrol force.
Like Circlip said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Its just a pity for all the lives that were lost on both sides that none of the politicians from either side had foresight.  Thankfully, he was nothing like as pugnacious as Beatty (who would have lost many more ships), nor as cautious as Jellicoe (who would have avoided contact, probably), and there is very little chance of another Nelson (who would probably have left us with Argentina as a Crown Colony).
Logged
"With the right tool, you can break anything" - Garfield

allnightin

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2010, 02:14:15 pm »

I haven't read the BoI report to see what issues of readiness were raised about ANTELOPE but I do disagree with the original statement about Admiral Woodward.  I was in AMBUSCADE at the time and we had been acting as Ascension guardship for the early part of May but were then ordered south to the main TG in company with ANTELOPE.  She had escorted the RFA that had the prisoners from South Georgia aboard up to Ascension and as far as we were concerned was an old hand on the Falklands area and some of her team came aboard to train us up in the latest procedures including anti Exocet drills.  Further south we both due to be refuelled from a tanker and she topped up first sucesfully but the weather deteriorated and AMBUSCADE was delayed by about 24 hours while ANTELOPE went on ahead.  In the end we arrived in the TG area on the 21st May on the day of the landings and it was always my understanding that because of our delay, ANTELOPE was the only candidate available in time to make up the necessary numbers to protect the troop ships and landing craft.  I would be interested to know which ship should have gone instead - naval operations are never risk free and I'm sure the priority at the time was to get the land force safely ashore.  Delaying the landings until more ships arrive (several of which like the Seacat Leanders were probably less capable anyway) was unacceptable to the whole operation because time was already critical in terms of keeping ships operating and the onset of the full South Atlantic weather.  As it was the Argentinians surrendered just in time.
Logged

allnightin

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2010, 10:46:42 pm »

She was the only T21 not fitted with Exocets at the time of the Falklands although that fact wouldnt have helped her in San Carlos Water.

P.S.  AMBUCADE didn't have Exocets either.
Logged

snowwolflair

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2010, 01:55:08 am »

I’m sorry, but the views of armchair warriors worry me.

The loss of radar picket ships was almost inevitable to save the main force ships.  This was a lesson learnt in the Pacific fighting the Kamikaze.  Attacking aircraft will inevitably go for the first ships they encounter, or the ship putting up the best fight, even if ordered not to.

As for AA capability of a Type 21, I would not bet my life on Seacat and a few guns.  Look to criticise the ship designers not the Admiral who fought a good campaign with what he had.

Why do you think that the entire fleet post Falklands had its AA gun capability seriously increased and Seacat was quickly phased out.
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2010, 02:23:21 am »


From one arm chair warrior, (what other kind is there)  %) to another I would not criticise the designers. 
After all they designed to the brief supplied and cost constraints.  <:( The pollies are at fault even if the Admiral is incompetent because they can override appointmets.  O0 <*<
An example here in Oz was, we had some ships built that were fitted for but not fitted with a particular armament.
In other words a missile system is allowed for, ie space provide, wiring etc, but not installed and when needed  {:-{ it is installed.
We then had the ridiculous situation that The Navy embarked Army air defence detachments for AA protection for  Gulf deployment whilst ship/s were fitted out.
A government cost saving exercise supposedly giving maximum bang for our buck.
Logged

pugwash

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2010, 07:49:04 am »

iI would only say in defence of Seacat - for a 20 yr old system it was not totally ineffective.
The "official" kill figures that I have seen were Seacat 8 + 2 probable Seadart 8, Seawolf 5,
guns 7 + 1 probable Rapier 14 +2 probable, Harriers 20 + 3 probable so it didnt completely
let the side down.
I would also say in the case of the earlier variants one of the most important parts of the
system was the operator/aimer.

Geoff
Logged

snowwolflair

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2010, 09:19:33 am »

With over twenty Secat systems in the battle zone and hundreds of over flight opportunities, let’s say 3000+ possible shots, a kill of ten is pathetic.  Not that seadart did any better and was quickly upgraded. 

As for Seawolf, all 6 launchers were with the carriers and were out of the main attack zone so 5 is much better and resulted in it becoming the future missile of choice.

I think the quote from the Captain of HMS Antelope was "I was about to engage the Skyhawks with Seacat when there was a loud explosion and I saw the Seacat launcher flying over the bridge".

Let’s face it Fearless had to set up a captured Argentinean AA gun at the end of its flight deck.

Personally, I think Woodward did a remarkable job with the resources he had, and that apart from Lord Carrington, who correctly resigned over the withdrawal of Endurance, the culpable parties were the politicians, starting with Nott and Thatcher, and the MOD.  They even snubbed Capt Nick Barker (HMS Endurance) for having had the gall to tell them for two years before the war, that war was coming.  I would recommend his book “Beyond Endurance” and another book Operation Paraquat.
Logged

snowwolflair

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2010, 09:25:21 am »

One further thought, we had sold the Argentine Seadart and they knew how to jam it, just as we had ship launched Exocet and once the SAS grabbed a shipment of Air Launch Exocet on their way to re-arm Argentina from France, we quickly figured out how to jam them.
Logged

Nordsee

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2010, 04:13:22 pm »

I have read your Post, could you attempt to use Capital Letters for people or place names? The Shift Key is there for a purpose. It is a known fact that the British cannot write their own language, indeed, my 11 year old grandaughter reads Magazines and Papers, and asks why there are so many Grammatical mistakes in them. She is German and has been learning English for 2 years now. I have been given to understand that Grammar is no longer taught in Schools today. It shows!!
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2010, 05:09:04 pm »

While I agree with you on the need for grammar, would you like to check your punctuation again?  %)

Barry M
Logged

The long Build

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2010, 06:55:45 pm »

I have read your Post, could you attempt to use Capital Letters for people or place names? The Shift Key is there for a purpose. It is a known fact that the British cannot write their own language, indeed, my 11 year old grandaughter reads Magazines and Papers, and asks why there are so many Grammatical mistakes in them. She is German and has been learning English for 2 years now. I have been given to understand that Grammar is no longer taught in Schools today. It shows!!

So how is this related to this thread !!!!. and as Barry M says , check your punctuation before you criticise others... I count at least 10 capital letters which should not be there..  O0
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2010, 10:32:30 pm »


Sydney is a capital so is Brisbane  O0  {-)

It used to be Capt, Lt, Mjr it is now CAPT, LT, MAJ,  <:(

Suppose it alll depends where you are  :-)) so who is righting it write me is.

ya jus gotta givus in Oz, time ta figa it out. Oi, Oi, Oi,
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 10:45:15 pm »

Now, now, calm down and play nicely. You colonials are so excitable.  :kiss:

Barry M
Logged

Nordsee

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2010, 02:21:25 pm »

So how is this related to this thread !!!!. and as Barry M says , check your punctuation before you criticise others... I count at least 10 capital letters which should not be there..  O0
Capital Letters should be used when writing Proper Nouns, i.e. names of people, places or Titles. Such as Prime Minister, The Queen, Royal Family, Sandy Woodward. You get the idea? I was taught that many years ago, it is quite easy when you think about it! But Spellcheck doesn't know of Big Writing so produces the rubbish we get today.
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2010, 04:29:49 pm »

Your Grandaughter gets a lower case 'g' but "magazines", "papers", "grammatical", "schools" etc., are all upper case?

Barry M
Logged

meechingman

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 615
  • Tugs Rule, OK!
  • Location: Newhaven, UK
    • Andrew Gilbert
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2010, 05:14:38 pm »

Capital Letters should be used when writing Proper Nouns, i.e. names of people, places or Titles. Such as Prime Minister, The Queen, Royal Family, Sandy Woodward. You get the idea? I was taught that many years ago, it is quite easy when you think about it! But Spellcheck doesn't know of Big Writing so produces the rubbish we get today.
To be pedantic, the following words in your post should not have captital letters at the start: Letters, Proper, Nouns, Titles, Big and Writing. The 'The' before 'Queen' might not need one either and I'm not sure that the term 'big writing' is entirely correct. It makes me wonder what it means. In addition, I was always taught that you should not start a sentence with 'such', at least not in the way in which it's used here, or 'but'. And my old English teacher would have winced at 'You get the idea?'

Shall we now stop this now, before it get silly or nasty, as it has no bearing on the original post?
Logged
Admiral of the Haven Towage Fleet.

brianc

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2010, 06:00:21 pm »

Hear,hear  :-))
Logged

mattycoops43

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2010, 07:25:15 pm »

I think starting a post which just kicks straight off with how bad a certain naval commander was, with no context or reason for the conversation to start, is a bit nasty. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but when I read the first post, I thought I had missed a page of the conversation as a personal attack is not normally launched out of midair!

but then, thats just "imho".
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2010, 10:36:29 pm »


Me thinks people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, no one is perfectly correct all of the time.  O0
Here in Oz and I would suspect elswhere, literacy and numeracy skills have gone to pot.  <:( Subject for another thread.  :-))
So what the heck does it matter if the spelin is ota wkack, gramma is poof and sintix is shot so longas ya get da message acruss ;) :-))
I could be dislexix as well as from oz and may be impaired so give me a break, cause I suppose all the "correctors"  :police: spellers subscribe to the need for the 3 "R's" which is a mespelling reference namely, reading, righting (writing),rithmatic (arithmetic).
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,463
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: sandy woodward not a good commander in the Falklands?
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2010, 10:44:38 pm »

Good morning RaaArtyGunner .....nice to see you awake so early on a Saturday morning {-) {-) {-) & trying to straighten out the proverbial dogs leg in this thread........... <*< >>:-( ....Derek
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.126 seconds with 21 queries.