Mount Longdon: The Real British Casualties Commented by the Bad Guys

Malvinas: The Actions of BIM 5 Obra Company

Account of a Naval Infantry Petty Officer – OBRA Company – BIM 5 Ec (Part 2)

Change of Mission

On 5 June, the company received orders from the Commander of BIM 5 Ec to occupy a Forward Combat Post in the Pony's Pass area. Commander Robacio had long requested that the High Command cover the approach to Port Stanley via the only road connecting Fitz Roy to the town. Without a response from his superiors, he ultimately decided to assign OBRA Company to this mission. This decision impacted the battalion during the Tumbledown engagement, as it lacked a reserve force for a swift counterattack.

We were to position ourselves in the Pony's Pass area. Initially, a reconnaissance was conducted, and the findings were reported to Commander Robacio. He realised that Pony's Pass was not ideal for a Forward Combat Post due to its small hillock surrounded by lagoons and semi-permanent watercourses, all easily fordable by foot troops. Consequently, Lieutenant Miño (of the Amphibious Engineers) was ordered to install a minefield ahead of the future positions, and Sub-Lieutenant Quiroga was instructed to move after reconnaissance and to bring the troops as late as possible, as we were certain the enemy was observing us, and the position needed to remain concealed.

During the night of 11 to 12 June, from OBRA Company's positions, we observed the battles for Mount Harriet. The marines watching the combat could do little, as the British attacks occurred beyond the range of their weapons, 2000 to 3000 metres away, except for an enemy unit attempting a rear assault on Harriet, which came within 800 to 1000 metres of OBRA's weapons.

Petty Officer Tejerina recounts: "On the night of 11 June, after intense naval and land artillery fire, between approximately 2200 and 2300 hours, the enemy launched an assault on the positions at Harriet with machine guns, rocket launchers, and artillery. British artillery fell immediately in front of the first assault line. We saw this clearly from our position, as the tracer rounds from the machine guns indicated the attackers' positions, and occasional flares lit up the area. It was a cold, clear night with a full moon that rose before the attack (21:25). The Company Commander continuously reported the situation to BIM 5 Ec Command. We were ordered to prepare for a potential counterattack. At 0100, combat intensified at the top of Harriet. By 0145, the fighting subsided, with only sporadic machine-gun fire heard. At that time, we recovered two conscripts from the RI 4 Service Section (Conscripts Ibañez and Vallejos), provided them with dry clothing, weapons, ammunition, and Charlie rations; they joined the Company and remained with us until the end of the fighting. Our artillery targeted the attackers; the fire was directed by TCIM Quiroga and GUIM Bianchi of the 1st Section of BIM 5 Ec stationed at William, even firing upon RI 4's own positions east of the mountain. Our commander continuously reported enemy troop movements in the Port Harriet area and their manoeuvre northward towards Mount Harriet. He was particularly concerned about an enemy unit moving northwest."

Petty Officer Tejerina continues: "At dawn on 12 June, enemy troops were seen assembling prisoners on the southern slope of Harriet, then marching them westward. Helicopters were also observed evacuating the wounded. For the rest of the day, we had to remain in our positions to avoid detection. At 1400, enemy artillery shelled our positions with timed ammunition for 30 minutes. (Note: Timed ammunition explodes before hitting the ground, causing a shower of shrapnel.) In this bombardment, a fragment slightly wounded Dragoneante Orlando Garcia, the Rifle Platoon Leader, in the back; he was treated by Second Corporal Medic Angelossi. Dragoneante Garcia refused to leave his position and be evacuated. At 1830, enemy artillery again shelled our area for 30 minutes. I was caught inspecting positions and had to make several dashes to reach the rocket launcher position. Accompanying me was Dragoneante Ariel Bustamante (rocket launcher loader); during one of the bursts, I was hit by the blast wave of a grenade and fell stunned into a water-filled hole, from which Dragoneante Bustamante rescued me instead of seeking cover; he had a habit of accompanying me on my rounds, even under fire."

On 13 June, we detected movements ahead of us, approximately a company of Welsh troops approaching. Artillery fire was requested but fell short; Lieutenant Quiroga made corrections, and then it hit the Welsh troops. We heard screams as they tried to retreat, but the artillery continued to inflict casualties. After a while, they were subjected to heavy fire until Lieutenant Quiroga suspended the fire due to the lack of standing enemy soldiers. I was impressed by the efficiency of the British medical personnel. They wore a type of short white poncho with a red cross on the back, tied at the waist. Some wounded had inflatable splints applied to their limbs, possibly to stop bleeding or fractures. The medics marked the location of the wounded, and then helicopters evacuated them.

Lieutenant Quiroga's Injury

Between 1815 and 1900 hours, while moving between positions, the Company Commander stepped into a hole approximately 20 centimetres in diameter and 50 centimetres deep while taking cover from a nearby grenade explosion, dislocating his ankle. The intense pain immobilised Lieutenant Quiroga, who was quickly attended to by SSIM Orosco and CSEN Angelossi. The latter bandaged Lieutenant Quiroga but suspected a fracture due to rapid swelling and advised him to seek further medical attention at the BIM 5 Ec Aid Post for proper treatment.

After evacuating Lieutenant Quiroga, command was assumed by Lieutenant Calmels. Fog began to form gradually. During twilight, via radio, Petty Officer Tejerina repeatedly instructed his men on the retreat procedure, which theoretically consisted of:

1. Movement: Withdrawal of Corporal Agüero's group (the most forward) through the bunker, then past the Company CP to a rear assembly point. There, the two groups would occupy positions to cover the retreat of the rest.

2. Movement: Withdrawal of the 1st Group.

3. Movement: Withdrawal of the 2nd Group.

Final Movement: Machine guns and 60 mm mortars.

Lieutenant Calmels assumed command around 2200 hours, about fifteen minutes before the attack began. The attack caught him by surprise; he was unaware of the exact situation of his Company. The night, the fog that had begun to lift, enemy fire, and conflicting reports from Group Leaders painted a grave picture; he knew the British were numerous, everywhere, and advancing almost openly, shouting. In reality, the enemy unexpectedly encountered OBRA positions, not anticipating resistance there due to the marines' effective concealment. However, for the Argentinians, the British appeared suddenly, as the fog and artillery noise prevented detection. Combat began when the enemy engaged Corporal Agüero's group, which, as mentioned, was slightly forward, practically on the road, 150 metres from the CP. It's evident that the enemy vanguard was moving along the road, as the group was attacked from the front and right flank (north), threatening its rear. From that moment, combat became generalised. The machine gun left by Corporal Alvarez to Corporal Agüero, previously moved to the northern flank, opened fire. Even from the Company CP, Lieutenant Calmels, Petty Officer Tejerina, Corporal Carrasco, and the Company Platoon Conscripts fired their rifles at the enemy to the north of the position. Grenade explosions were heard. The other two Rifle Groups (1 and 2) prepared for combat, but the British attack did not press on them, receiving only sporadic fire. At that time, it was snowing. The British advanced, supported by a high rate of machine-gun fire—about six or seven—clearly located by their tracer rounds. The enemy gained ground, nearly two companies against a reinforced section.

The Retreat

The retreat could not be executed as planned. In reality, Groups 1 and 2, along with Petty Officer Tejerina, moved towards the Quarry. When the retreat was ordered, the Group Leaders began the movement, but Agüero, who was to initiate it, reported he couldn't move. At that point, the Company Commander ordered his 60 mm mortars to fire on the White Points ahead of the 3rd Group. Some conscripts from this group were seen retreating, but Agüero no longer responded on the radio. By 2300 hours, with the movement underway, Groups 1 and 2 fought their way past the immediate depression behind them and then marched towards the Quarry. Subsequently, the Company Commander withdrew with the Company Platoon and mortar personnel. Petty Officer Orosco remained at the rear, covering the retreat with a machine gun. Briefly illuminated by three flares (two and one), they were forced to "hit the deck." In reality, the illumination was over William. The rest of the Company's retreat occurred in darkness. At 0100 hours, they reached the Quarry, where the Company regrouped. The Company Commander had a mission to fulfil as the Battalion Reserve and immediately marched north towards the Subunit's previous position near the BIM 5 Ec CP. Due to poor terrain information, Lieutenant Calmels expected to find Company RI 3 immediately east of the Quarry, but Captain EA Varela's Company was actually further northeast of William, leaving a gap between Sapper Hill and William.

We returned to our old positions south of the BIM 5 Ec CP. Around 0900 hours, Lieutenant Calmels received orders to retreat to Sapper Hill, where the Battalion was to concentrate for continued combat from that area. Once the Battalion regrouped at Sapper Hill, at 1115 hours, it received orders to retreat to the town. From that moment, the Company joined the rest of the Unit, packed their equipment, and entered Port Stanley. By 1430 hours, the Battalion was already assembled near the Naval Station, and at 1900 hours, OBRA Company, with the bulk of the Battalion, settled in the Naval Station's Carpentry, remaining there until the morning of 16 June when they received orders to move to the Concentration Camp being set up on the airport peninsula. Before entering the area, they had to pass through British control posts, where their weapons were finally confiscated.

Malvinas: A Tribute to the Heroes of BIM 5

Commander Carlos Robacio leads the 5th Marine Batallion 5 in Tumbledown

The 5th Marine Infantry Battalion from Río Grande stood alone against the onslaught of the Scots Guards at Mount Tumbledown, writing a glorious page in history.


 


During the 74 days of the Malvinas War, British forces were taken aback by the professionalism and fighting spirit of the Argentine troops. There is extensive British literature on the conflict, and all of it acknowledges the courage and resilience of our forces. One particular unit earned, from the British themselves, the nickname “Battalion from Hell” due to its valour and combat effectiveness. These men were the Marines of the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion (BIM 5).

On 7 April 1982, the personnel of BIM 5, based in Río Grande, arrived in the Malvinas under the command of Commander Carlos Robacio. The troops were deployed in the defensive system around Puerto Argentino, together with the Infantry Regiments RI 25 and RI 8. To reinforce the naval forces, Company C of RI 3 and Company B of RI 6 were also added. This integration of Army and Navy units was unprecedented and proved highly effective thanks to the professionalism and commitment of their officers.

From 1 May, the enemy began an aerial and naval bombardment campaign that severely affected the daily life of the Argentine soldiers. During the day, Harrier jets attacked the nearby airstrip and trench lines; at night, the Royal Navy carried out shelling. Despite this, the Marines maintained strong morale and continued to improve their defensive positions, preparing for the ground battle they knew was drawing near.

They endured 44 days of relentless siege. When fighting around Puerto Argentino began on 12 June, the marines of BIM 5 were ready to enter history. The British attack started at dusk and continued through the night. The first unpleasant surprise for the attackers was the presence of heavy machine gun nests equipped with infrared sights, which stalled their advance. Artillery exchanges followed, with the British enjoying an advantage thanks to their longer-range guns and greater mobility. Nevertheless, Argentine artillerymen fought with bravery and professionalism, firing until their last rounds, with barrels glowing red-hot.



On 13 June, the British launched their final offensive. They concentrated all their forces—paratroopers and Royal Marines—achieving a 3-to-1 numerical superiority over our Marines at the main breach. The artillery fire was intense, and naval artillery joined the barrage. Our own artillery, undeterred, responded at a rate of 1,000 rounds per hour, choosing to die on their feet rather than abandon their comrades.

In the late afternoon, the British attempted a flanking manoeuvre via Mount Harriet to distract the Argentine command. Robacio did not take the bait and instead set a deadly trap: he ambushed the enemy, pinning them between a minefield and artillery fire, while positioning Marines at their rear to block retreat. The outcome was heroic. The British were crushed by our artillery and infantry fire. Two hours later, the British company commander requested a ceasefire, citing the harrowing cries of the wounded as demoralising his troops. This ceasefire allowed the arrival of helicopters to evacuate the injured. No shots were fired at the helicopters, which were unarmed and clearly only conducting medical evacuation.

In the early hours of 14 June, the Scots Guards moved to the centre of the assault on Puerto Argentino. The firefight was intense. So many tracer rounds filled the sky that it seemed like daylight. In the final moments of the assault, the fighting became hand-to-hand. Argentine forces repelled the attack with fixed bayonets and requested artillery and mortar fire directly on their own positions, as the enemy had reached them. Second Lieutenant Silva and NCO Castillo called for a counterattack after being overrun. They left their positions and launched a bayonet charge until they were killed.

Commander Robacio personally led the counterattack, retaking lost positions and pushing the Scots Guards back to their original lines. By 3 a.m., amid a heavy snowfall, the Marines prepared another counteroffensive against the British paratroopers and requested authorisation as their forward units engaged the enemy. The order from Puerto Argentino was to withdraw, as it had become impossible to resupply 105 mm howitzers and mortars. Despite this setback, morale remained high, and it was difficult to convince the Marines to abandon their positions. With iron discipline, they withdrew from Mount Tumbledown and fell back.

A well-executed withdrawal under enemy pressure is one of the most difficult manoeuvres in military doctrine. History offers many examples of such withdrawals turning into deadly routs. But with pride, the Marines of BIM 5 took up new positions on the outskirts of Puerto Argentino, still determined to fight. Gurkha troops were dispatched to pursue the Argentines to make up for the Scots' poor performance, but they were halted and counterattacked—even though our men had run out of ammunition.

At dawn on Monday, 14 June 1982, BIM 5 had no ammunition left. In 36 hours, they had fired 17,000 artillery shells and all their mortar rounds. At 10 a.m., the ceasefire order came from Puerto Argentino. The battalion was still in combat formation. Commander Robacio requested confirmation of the order. His unit entered the capital of the islands in full marching formation, carrying all their personal weapons. Tragically, a section of the Navy Company that had been separated did not receive the order and at 12:30 engaged a landing of six British helicopters, shooting down two and suffering the loss of the last three Argentine soldiers in combat.

In military history, few units have endured 44 hours of bombardment without relief and then faced the enemy with such courage and determination. The Argentine forces at Tumbledown included 700 Marines and 200 soldiers, who confronted 3,000 of the best-trained troops of the British Armed Forces. Seventy-five per cent of our heroes were conscripts. BIM 5 suffered 30 killed and 105 wounded, inflicting an estimated 360 casualties on the enemy (a figure never officially recognised, though many British officers have acknowledged it privately).

How did they endure such hardship and fight with such determination? BIM 5 and RI 25 were the only units acclimatised to the Malvinas. They were well equipped, and their officers were professional and competent. They also shared a remarkable esprit de corps. As an example: on 14 June at 10:30, during the retreat to Sapper Hill, Commander Daniel Ponce collapsed from exhaustion. Amid gunfire, two conscripts rushed to carry him. Ponce ordered them to leave him and flee. Their reply: “Captain, if we die, we die together.” They lifted him and withdrew. That was the spirit of the marines of BIM 5, who gave everything for their country.

Argentine Navy: ARA Hércules (D-28 / D-1 / B-52)

ARA Hércules (D-28 / D-1 / B-52)

ARA Hércules (D-28) was the only air-defence vessel operating in the South Atlantic Theatre of Operations (TOA). Equipped with four Exocet missiles and twenty-two Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles — which also had a secondary anti-ship capability — under ideal conditions, it alone could potentially have neutralised the entire Chilean Squadron.

The fast transport ship ARA Hércules (B-52) (TRHE) was a multipurpose rapid transport vessel of the Argentine Navy. It was built in the 1970s as a Type 42 destroyer and, following a refit in the 1990s, was reclassified as a fast transport. It was officially decommissioned and the national ensign was finally lowered on 20 June 2024, after 48 years of service.

Armed with Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles, its mission — along with its sister ship, the destroyer ARA Santísima Trinidad (D-2) — was to provide area air-defence for the light aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2), operating via data link.

Flag
History
Shipyard	Vickers Shipbuilding, Barrow-in-Furness, UK
Class	Type 42
Type	Guided-Missile Destroyer
Operator	Argentine Navy
Authorized	May 18th, 1970
Keel Laying	June, 7th 1973
Launched	May 10th, 1976, Barrow
Commissioned	June 1976 (Affirmation of the Argentine Ensign) July 1977 (incorporated to the Sea Fleet)
Decommissioned	March 22, 2024 (decommissioned)​ June 20, 2024 (Final lowering of the ensign)
Faith	Decommissioned, she is moored at Puerto Belgrano
General Specifications
Displacement	4100 tonnes at full load
Length	125,6 m
Beam	14,3 m
Draught	5,8 m
Armament	1 twin launcher for 22 GWS-30 Sea Dart Mk30 surface-to-air missiles 1 Vickers 115 mm (4.5")/55 Mk 8 automatic naval gun 2 Oerlikon 20 mm Mk 7 machine guns 4 MM-38 Exocet (SSM) missile launchers 2 triple 324 mm ILAS 3 torpedo tube launchers (firing Whitehead AS-244 torpedoes: 6 km range at 30 knots)
Propulsion	COGOG (Combined Gas or Gas) 2 Rolls-Royce Olympus TM38 gas turbines 2 Rolls-Royce Tyne RM1A gas turbines 2 propeller shafts
Powerplant	• Olympus TM38: 50 000 HP • Tyne RM1A: 9900 HP
Velocidad	• 30 knots  (Olympus) • 18 knots (Tyne)
Endurance	4500 nautical miles at 18 knots
Crew	166
Troops	238 full-geared marines
Aircraft	2 Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King helicopters
Aircraft facilites	Hangar

History

The vessel was originally built as a Type 42 destroyer, similar to the units of the same class commissioned by the British Royal Navy. It was constructed at the Vickers Shipbuilding yard in Barrow-in-Furness, United Kingdom, concurrently with the HMS Sheffield, the lead ship of the British series, which was sunk during the Malvinas War.

Following an irreparable fire that destroyed the stern of HMS Sheffield, a complete stern section from ARA Hércules was used in the British vessel. As a result, the Vickers 4.5" (115 mm)/55 Mk 8 automatic naval gun mounted on the British ship originally belonged to the Argentine destroyer.



F

The vessel was built as a Type 42 destroyer, similar to those commissioned by the British Royal Navy. It was constructed at the Vickers Shipbuilding yards in Barrow-in-Furness, United Kingdom, concurrently with HMS Sheffield, the lead ship of the British class, which was later sunk during the Falklands War. After an irreparable fire destroyed the stern of HMS Sheffield, a full stern section from ARA Hércules was used to repair her. As a result, the Vickers 4.5" (115 mm)/55 Mk 8 automatic gun mounted on the British ship originally belonged to the Argentine vessel.

She was delivered to the Argentine Navy and entered service on 19 September 1977. Upon commissioning, she was assigned to the 1st Destroyer Division as the guided missile destroyer ARA Hércules (D-28), DEHE, with Puerto Belgrano Naval Base as her home port. When her sister ship ARA Santísima Trinidad (D-2) joined the fleet, Hércules was redesignated as D-1, under which she operated until her conversion into a fast transport.

Several Argentine Navy ships have carried the name “Hércules”, but the most iconic remains the flagship of Admiral Guillermo Brown during the wars of independence — the famous “Black Frigate”, so named for her dark sails. The legacy of the name Hércules lives on today through this troop transport vessel.

Beagle Conflict

In December 1978, as part of Operation Soberanía, ARA Hércules formed part of Task Group 2 alongside the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2), with the mission to militarily occupy Lennox, Nueva and Picton Islands and Cape Horn, then in dispute with Chile. The operation was ultimately not carried out, and the Argentine Fleet began its withdrawal to Puerto Belgrano.


Malvinas War

In 1982, together with her sister ship ARA Santísima Trinidad (D-2), ARA Hércules took part in escorting ARA Veinticinco de Mayo during the Malvinas War. She participated in the initial landings to recover the islands, and her embarked helicopter operated for several hours at Puerto Argentino Airport.

In early May, the Argentine Task Force anticipated a naval air engagement with the British Royal Navy’s Task Force. At one point, Hércules’ early warning radar detected a Sea Harrier from HMS Invincible being vectored to intercept a Grumman S-2 Tracker launched from Veinticinco de Mayo, which was attempting to locate the British fleet for a coordinated strike. However, favourable conditions for such an attack never materialised, and the Argentine ships withdrew to shallower waters, beyond the threat range of British nuclear submarines. Hércules continued operating in coastal patrol zones near the Argentine mainland.

Post-war

Following her service in the 1st Destroyer Division and later her reassignment to the Amphibious Naval Command, ARA Hércules regularly participated in naval exercises — known as “Etapas de Mar” — alongside other vessels of the Sea Fleet, the Maritime Patrol Division, the Submarine Force, as well as aircraft and helicopters of Naval Aviation, and in amphibious exercises with the Marine Corps. She also took part in joint naval operations with foreign forces.

In 1988, she visited the port of Buenos Aires along with most ships of the Sea Fleet, including her sister ship D-2.

In 1993, she carried out her final live-fire exercise with a GWS-30 Sea Dart missile. From that point, she began operating with spare parts salvaged from ARA Santísima Trinidad (D-2), which had been inactive since 1989 and was progressively cannibalised.

In 1994, she was transferred to the Amphibious and Logistics Naval Command (COAL), and by 1999, she underwent a major conversion into a fast transport vessel, with substantial modifications to her flight deck and helicopter hangar to accommodate two Sea King medium helicopters. These works were carried out at the Chilean Navy’s ASMAR shipyard in Talcahuano, with final completion between 2004 and 2006 at the Puerto Belgrano Naval Arsenal in Argentina.

In 2009, her Sea Dart missile launcher was removed, and the space was converted to house four MKV assault boats for the Argentine Marine Corps.

Among her deployments, she took part in the 1998 edition of the combined exercise “UNITAS”, and the amphibious phase of Exercise “Fraterno” in 2006. As a troop transport unit, she continues to participate in amphibious operations and all phases of fleet manoeuvres. In 2009, she underwent a major overhaul at CINAR (Argentine Naval Industrial Complex), rejoining the fleet in April of that year after maintenance of her hull, valves, and systems. That same year, she participated in a maritime control patrol and the search for survivors of the fishing vessel Atlantic, lost during a storm.

Between 2004 and 2012, she took part in all amphibious training exercises of the Sea Fleet, including the “Inalaf” exercises with embarked Marine Corps personnel from the Chilean Navy. During the same period, she also hosted training voyages for cadets of the Argentine Naval Academy (ESNM) along the national coastline, visiting ports such as Ushuaia and Puerto Madryn.

2010s

The vessel continued its annual live-fire training, amphibious exercises, and fleet manoeuvres, as well as port visits along the Argentine coast (such as Necochea) and training cruises with cadets from the Naval Academy and midshipmen from the Petty Officers’ School of the Navy.

Conversion

The ship underwent an initial conversion process in Chile (at ASMAR, the Chilean Navy’s shipyard) and later in Argentina (at the Puerto Belgrano Naval Base, ARPB) during the late 1990s. Modifications included an expanded flight deck and hangar to accommodate and operate two Sea King helicopters armed with Exocet AM39 missiles, and an upgrade of its electronic systems, with INVAP, Argentina’s state technology company, contributing to additional systems reengineering.

Subsequently assigned to the Amphibious Naval Command, the ship began operating as a multipurpose fast transport under its new permanent designation: B-52. Its redesign allowed it to function as a fast troop landing ship. Interior spaces were converted into troop berths for embarked Marine Corps (IM) personnel.

The two radar domes (Type 909) and the Sea Dart missile launcher on the foredeck were removed. The vessel is equipped with a fully Argentine-developed Automated Command and Control System (SITACC), implemented through the SIAG-2006 platform. These upgrades also allowed the integration of a Combat Information Centre (CIC) for the KFD General Staff when embarked, and the installation of eight external mountings for safely securing MK V assault boats used by the Marine Corps.

The hangar doors were once again overhauled and modified by INVAP, and currently operate without major issues. For surface-to-air defence, RBS-70 missiles are deployed on an elevated aft platform with internal communications, where they are mounted during training voyages that include live-fire exercises.

Decommissioning

The vessel had been held in reserve status since 2013. It was officially decommissioned on 22 March 2024, and the final lowering of the ensign took place at Puerto Belgrano on 20 June 2024. The ship now awaits its final disposition.

Specifications

Original

Engines

• 2 Olympus TM38 gas turbines, 50,000 HP

• 2 Tyne RM1A gas turbines, 9,900 HP

• 2 propellers

Colours

• Hull and superstructure, including launchers, domes, lower mast sections, flight deck, and other surfaces painted in matte Admiralty grey

• Underwater hull (anti-fouling) in red anti-rust coating

• Waterline, mast tops, and funnel in matte black

• Flight deck marked with a white circle and white identification number with black shadow

General Characteristics

• Sister ship of the HMS Sheffield, which was destroyed and sunk at 53°04′S 56°56′W

• Standard displacement: 3,150 tonnes

• Full load displacement: 4,100 tonnes

• Length between perpendiculars: 119.50 metres

• Beam: 14.63 metres

• Maximum draught: 6.8 metres
  
  

Propulsion system

• COGOG configuration:

  • 2 Rolls-Royce Olympus MM3B gas turbines delivering 54,900 HP for maximum speed

  • 2 Rolls-Royce Tyne gas turbines providing 8,200 HP for cruising speed

Crew

• Between 300 and 312 personnel

Additions from the Conversion

The cantilevered flight deck and stern openings allow for the rapid deployment or recovery of inflatable boats ("Zodiacs") used by special forces. The ship is capable of carrying 238 fully equipped marines without any reduction in her maximum speed of 30 knots.

INVAP redesigned the hangar door system as well as made certain modifications to the stern section of the vessel. The door is operated both electromechanically and manually, with a minimum opening width on each side of 6.2 metres and a height clearance of 5.4 metres. It is weatherproof and blocks exterior light radiation. The minimum opening/closing speed is 10 cm/s, and the maximum manual opening time is 5 minutes, under conditions of rolling, pitching, permanent list, and extreme wind pressure (with lateral inclination up to 30° and frontal inclination up to 10°, simultaneously).

The ship also features expanded accommodation capacity to transport a reinforced Marine Infantry Company, a dedicated operations room for the embarked Marine General Staff, and two fully equipped classrooms.

Its two 909 radomes and the Sea Dart missile launcher were removed. The deck has since been fitted with metal racks and electric winches for transporting MK-V landing craft, as well as a cargo hold for storing equipment.

Electronics

Navigation

• 2 GPS systems, integrated with the digital chart system and providing cartographic display both on the bridge and in the Combat Information Centre (CIC) via LCD screens

• 1 digital log

• 1 echo sounder

• 3 VHF radio units for maritime safety

Command and Advisory System

• Command and Advisory System – SITAC 2006

• Integrated consoles with visual interface

• Designed and installed domestically by SIAG – Puerto Belgrano (2006)

Communications

• HF - UHF y VHF (Low Band) Equipment
• Datalink- LINK ARA.

Radars

• Long-range Air Search - Marconi 965 (IFF).
• Surface Search - Marconi 992.
• Kelvin Hughes 1006 Helicopter Control.
• DECCA 1229 Navigation.

 

 

Malvinas: The use of cluster bomb by the British forces

The Myth of British Illegality in the Use of Hunting Engineering BL755 Cluster Bombs

During the 1982 Malvinas War, the British invading forces made use of the Hunting Engineering BL755 cluster bomb—a weapon not equipped with anti-personnel charges, but with shaped charges intended to destroy material targets. As such, its use was permitted under international law. Any cluster bomb designed to destroy enemy hardware—be it aircraft, tanks or ships—can be lawfully employed, and continues to be used by many militaries without violating any existing international conventions.

In contrast, cluster munitions such as the French-made Belouga BLG-66 from MATRA, designed to disperse shrapnel specifically to injure or kill human beings, are clearly prohibited. Such bombs were not used by the British in the Malvinas theatre.

That a blast-fragmentation anti-materiel bomb may wound or kill personnel as collateral damage does not make it an anti-personnel weapon per se. This distinction is crucial. Dum-dum bullets or Claymore-type mines—favoured tools of extremist Castro-Guevarist factions that waged genocidal campaigns against Argentina between 1959 and 1990—are examples of explicitly anti-personnel munitions.

The BL755, produced in the United Kingdom, was originally conceived as an anti-tank cluster bomb to counter the overwhelming numerical advantage of Warsaw Pact armoured units over NATO. It contains 147 high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) submunitions, each housed in a pre-fragmented casing that releases approximately 1,400 shards upon detonation. Naturally, these can cause harm to any individual within their effective radius—but that does not qualify them as illegal anti-personnel weapons. For comparison, a single Belouga can release over 200,000 lethal fragments.

To be clear: the use of a BL755 bomb, dispersing 147 submunitions that may each produce around 1,400 fragments, aimed at disabling enemy material across a broad zone of impact, cannot reasonably be equated with a weapon designed solely to maim or kill personnel. The intent and design of the weapon matter under international law.

Yet, ironically, Argentina did possess such anti-personnel cluster bombs in its arsenal—specifically the Belouga BLG-66, supplied by France and seen post-war mounted on aircraft such as the A-4C and Alpha Jet. These were acquired alongside Mirage IIIEA/DA fighters, originally for air superiority roles. The Belougas were tested and operational across several Argentine aircraft, including the A-4B/C and the Super Étendard. There is no confirmed information on whether they were adapted for use in the IA-58A Pucará or the Navy’s A-4Q. Still, Argentine commanders chose not to employ these weapons during the conflict.

In fact, even though Argentine forces had access to incendiary Napalm bombs—deployed on the Malvinas themselves—these too were not used against enemy troops, despite their obvious anti-personnel effects.

For Argentine soldiers subjected to these British weapons, the legality or ethics of their use were of little concern in the moment. A single fragment could wound, mutilate, or kill—but those same soldiers would have employed such weapons without hesitation had it meant surviving or gaining an upper hand. And still, despite possessing bombs with greater destructive power than those used by the British, Argentina chose restraint—out of adherence to the laws of war and a deeply human sense of morality, even in the inhuman context of battle.

Some claim Britain crossed into illegality—not due to the raw power of its bombs, but in the tactical method of their use. The sheer lethality of 147 submunitions and over 200,000 potential fragments raining down on an Argentine infantry company is known only to those who lived it. But the difference between that and a Belouga’s 198,600 extra fragments—a 1,430% increase in destructive capability—puts the argument of proportionality into sharp perspective.

It’s also true that no formal declaration of war was ever issued by either side. The conflict unfolded in fact, not in law, with both nations operating in murky legal waters. Nonetheless, both Argentina and the UK largely respected the humanitarian norms of armed engagement, barring isolated abuses triggered by the brutal chaos of close combat.

Had this been a total war—like the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, or Yugoslavia—different thresholds of legitimacy and restraint would likely have applied to both sides.

The Hunting Engineering BL755, developed in the early 1970s with a standard weight of 264 kg, a length of 2.45 m, and a diameter of 419 mm, was manufactured in several variants (BL755, IBL755, RBL755). Beyond the Malvinas, it was also used in the Gulf War and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia by Britain and Germany (now withdrawn from service), and reportedly by Iran, Serbia (possibly reverse-engineered), and India—still in service today on aircraft such as the MiG-27, Jaguar, Sea Harrier, and possibly the MiG-29, HAL Tejas, and Su-30.

To Argentine Malvinas War Veterans, the BL755 remains a haunting symbol of destruction. Though no longer in production, its legacy is etched into the memories of those who faced it. And it remains a testament to the resilience, sacrifice, and moral clarity of Argentine forces, who fought with dignity—even as shadows fell over the South Atlantic skies.

Malvinas: Aerolíneas Argentinas' Secret Cargo Operations

Did You Know This Story?

43 years ago, Aerolíneas Argentinas flew covert missions to bring weapons home for the Malvinas War.

Their pilots and cabin crews accumulated acts of courage and solidarity that continue to make Argentines proud across generations. In 1982, seven of them undertook a daring secret operation to Israel, Libya, and South Africa to retrieve weapons that would later be used in the defence of our sovereignty during the Malvinas conflict.

As the war unfolded, they flew to the islands, to Río Gallegos, and to Comodoro Rivadavia—transporting soldiers, supplies, and equipment, without fanfare, but with a fierce commitment to their country.

For years, this story circulated in whispers and half-truths. But in 2012, the veil was lifted. The seven pilots—Gezio Bresciani, Ramón Arce, Leopoldo Arias, Juan Carlos Ardalla, Jorge Prelooker, Mario Bernard, and Luis Cuniberti—broke their silence and recounted the clandestine flights to the Middle East in what came to be known as Operación Aerolíneas.

The Boeing 707s flew a total of six missions: two to Israel and four to Libya. Every single one of them was carried out in radio silence, with all navigational lights switched off. "The aircraft couldn’t be a trail in the sky—it had to be a ghost," one of the pilots recalled.

When entering radar zones was unavoidable, they gave false positions. At the time, NATO satellites and the Western intelligence networks swept across the Atlantic with a ruthless gaze. For the British, the entire ocean was a theatre of war—any unidentified or suspicious aircraft was at risk of being intercepted or shot down.

After 2 April, an order came down from the top brass at the Edificio Cóndor: civilian aircraft and their crews were to serve the Armed Forces’ High Command. Pilots were summoned one by one, told only that their country needed them—and they answered without hesitation.



“When someone tells you your country is at war, and that you can help—well, you don’t think twice,”
said Bresciani in 2012, then 71, recalling the string of secret missions to distant lands in search of arms.

This chapter in our history—bold, silent, and patriotic—is a reminder that Argentines have always stood ready to defend their homeland, not just with weapons, but with resolve, unity, and honour in the skies.

Malvinas: A Struggle for Sovereignty and Dignity

The Malvinas War: Forty Years On—A Struggle for Sovereignty and Dignity

By Manuel Remira Oyón| Reflections | 14 May 2025

Preface

As a Chilean, writing about the Malvinas War is no small undertaking, especially given the historical tensions between Chile and Argentina. In April 1982, when Argentina reclaimed the Malvinas Islands—territory unquestionably part of its continental shelf and its sovereign rights—Chile’s military regime under Pinochet chose the wrong side of history, aligning itself with Britain and providing covert support to the colonial power. This shameful episode underscored the deep divisions sowed by dictatorship and the betrayal of Latin American unity in the face of imperialism.

It must be clear: the complicity of Pinochet’s regime in undermining Argentina’s rightful claim does not reflect the will of the Chilean people, who have long harboured a sense of solidarity with their Argentine brothers and sisters in their quest to end the last vestiges of colonial rule in our region.

A Fight Rooted in Principle

The Malvinas War was not a random clash, nor was it a folly of the moment. It was the culmination of nearly 150 years of Argentina’s steadfast insistence on the return of territory that had been seized by force. The Malvinas were recognised as part of Spanish South America, and after Argentina’s independence, as part of its national territory. Britain's occupation in 1833 was a flagrant act of imperial aggression, displacing Argentine settlers and establishing an outpost that has remained, to this day, a colonial relic.

This was not a marginal grievance. The Malvinas became a symbol of Argentina’s ongoing struggle for sovereignty and self-determination—a cause enshrined in international law and recognised by numerous United Nations resolutions calling for dialogue and resolution between the two parties. The islands’ strategic location in the South Atlantic and their proximity to Antarctica have always been of immense geopolitical significance, a fact long obscured by those who dismiss the conflict as over “barren rocks.”

The injustice of colonial occupation weighed heavily on the Argentine people, who, regardless of the shifting sands of political leadership, never relinquished their claim. The 1982 conflict, therefore, was not merely a military manoeuvre but the physical manifestation of a centuries-old demand for justice.

The Dictatorship’s Double Crime

It is undeniable that Argentina’s military dictatorship was a brutal regime, responsible for grave human rights violations. But the Malvinas cause stands apart from the crimes of the junta. The junta’s opportunistic timing—seizing on a noble cause to shore up its crumbling legitimacy—should never be confused with the righteousness of Argentina’s claim. If anything, the dictatorship’s mishandling of the conflict and its betrayal of the soldiers it sent to war only deepened Argentina’s national trauma.

Thousands of young conscripts, many from impoverished provinces in northern Argentina, were sent ill-prepared and under-equipped into battle. These were not seasoned soldiers; they were boys thrust into the freezing winds of the South Atlantic, bearing the weight of their nation’s hopes and the burden of their leaders’ incompetence. Their courage, in the face of overwhelming odds, was nothing short of heroic.

The British forces, equipped with superior technology and backed by one of the world’s most powerful navies, faced fierce resistance. The Argentine Air Force, despite limited resources, mounted daring attacks that resulted in significant British losses—ships sunk, aircraft destroyed, and lives lost. These victories on the battlefield were a testament to the valour and resilience of Argentine forces, who fought not for conquest but for liberation.

A War That Echoed Far Beyond the Battlefield

The consequences of the Malvinas War extended well beyond its 74 days of combat. For Argentina, the war precipitated the fall of the dictatorship and the return to democracy—a profound transformation that reshaped the nation’s trajectory. For Britain, it reinvigorated a government facing domestic unpopularity, entrenching policies of neoliberal austerity that would have lasting repercussions.

Yet the most enduring legacy is the wound that remains open: the unresolved sovereignty dispute. Decades on, the British government continues to maintain its colonial hold over the Malvinas, defying international calls for negotiation and dialogue. The islanders' right to self-determination, often cited by London, must be understood within the context of a population settled by the colonial power itself, a factor that complicates but does not nullify Argentina’s legitimate claim.

Honouring the Fallen and the Forgotten

The soldiers who returned from the Malvinas—victims of both war and neglect—were met not with the honour they deserved, but with silence and marginalisation. Many have since succumbed to the invisible wounds of war, their struggles largely ignored by successive governments. It is estimated that hundreds of veterans have taken their own lives, a silent testament to the deep scars left by the conflict.

The sacrifice of these men demands remembrance, not only as a chapter in Argentina’s history but as a reminder of the broader fight against colonialism. Their courage stands as a rebuke to the complacency of the international community, which has too often turned a blind eye to the persistence of imperial claims in our hemisphere.

The Path Forward

The Malvinas question is far from resolved. While military conflict must never again be the means, Argentina’s claim remains as valid today as it was in 1833. The road to justice lies in persistent diplomacy, international advocacy, and the unwavering resolve of the Argentine people to see their sovereign rights respected.

To dismiss the Malvinas as a relic of the past is to ignore the living legacy of colonialism—a legacy that continues to shape geopolitics in the South Atlantic and beyond. The cause of the Malvinas is not merely Argentina’s cause; it is the cause of all who stand for sovereignty, self-determination, and the end of imperial dominion.

Forty years on, the memory of the Malvinas War endures as a solemn reminder of what was lost and what remains to be reclaimed. It is a testament to a nation's dignity—a dignity that no war, no defeat, and no occupation can extinguish.

The Argentine Air Force in Malvinas Before 1982

The Argentine Air Force in the Malvinas from 1971 to 1982 In 1971, the “Communications Agreement” was signed with the United Kingdom. Under this framework, the Argentine Air Force assumed responsibility for establishing a weekly airline service. Personnel from the Air Force were deployed to the islands, representing Líneas Aéreas del Estado (LADE). The appointed officer became the usual point of contact between Argentine authorities and the local island communities, as well as with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship. Daily family coexistence, respectful personal relationships, and a diligent attitude in service provision were all meant to demonstrate to the Malvinas residents Argentina’s intention to look after their well-being and to consider their interests — if not always their feelings — as aligned with those of the Argentine nation. This was not just air service; it was a diplomatic effort to reinforce Argentine presence and care on the islands — a soft, persistent reminder that Argentina was present and committed to the Malvinas, long before the escalation of 1982. The Situation in the Early 1980s By the early 1980s, it seemed that the British government was seriously beginning to seek a solution to the sovereignty dispute with Argentina. Talks were underway over a possible leaseback or long-term lease of the islands. While this proposal did not fully satisfy Argentina’s aspirations, it marked a significant breakthrough and a radical shift in the British government’s negotiating stance, appearing to move away from its old stalling tactics. On the other hand, Argentina’s efforts to improve the well-being of the Malvinas population were at their peak. Nearly a decade had passed since LADE’s first flight, and the islanders were openly enjoying the services provided by Argentina. The most important included: ✅ Two weekly LADE flights using Fokker F-27 and F-28 aircraft, which enabled the arrival of tourists, benefiting local commerce and hospitality. ✅ Postal and cargo services on all flights, ensuring the regular delivery of mail, newspapers, magazines, videos, films for projection at the local cinema, and supplies like vegetables and medicines. ✅ Regular provision by YPF of gasoline and kerosene. Diesel, fuel oil, and lubricants were marketed by FIC. ✅ Supply of liquefied gas in cylinders and canisters by Gas del Estado, which even had to expand its storage plant to meet growing demand. ✅ Maritime transport by the Argentine Navy’s Transportes Navales, on a four-month rotation, ensuring the delivery of gas, fuel, and other goods purchased in Argentina: flour, corn, animal feed, etc. ✅ Spanish-language instruction in the schools of Puerto Argentino (Port Stanley), provided by Argentine bilingual teachers. ✅ Scholarships for young Malvinas islanders who wished to complete their secondary studies at Argentina’s top British-style schools. ✅ A notable increase in Argentine and international tourism. Simultaneously, with the change of Argentina’s representative in 1980, the British governor, the government secretary, and the Anglican cathedral pastor were also renewed. Except for the manager of the Falkland Island Company, the most influential figures were new — creating a favorable climate for management without prejudice or entrenched wear. The first gesture of goodwill from the new authorities was to grant the Argentine representative distinguished, preferential, and open treatment, evident in every social or work meeting they held. Problems regarding the application or interpretation of the 1971 Communications Agreement were analyzed without speculation and with broad-mindedness. Solutions were found without delay, and new ideas were launched to expand and deepen cooperation. It can confidently be said that, in the months leading up to the war, the attitude and disposition of Governor Rex Hunt and his government secretary, Dick Baker, were clearly favorable to strengthening relations with Argentina. Argentine Air Force

Malvinas: Robacio Masterfully Commands the Artillery of the 4th Airborne Artillery Group

Account of Second Lieutenant Juan Gabino Suárez, Chief of the “last gun” of the 4th Airborne Artillery Group (GAAerot 4)

  

I share this account once again because Rear Admiral Carlos Hugo Robacio deserves to be remembered as he truly was — by living and reliving a part of his life.

I will never tire of saying it. Never.

Our place in the war: Sapper Hill (Puerto Argentino, Malvinas Islands, Republic of Argentina) — with a forward detachment in San Carlos alongside Battery "A".

A field artilleryman loves to see where his rounds land. He thrives on observing, calculating, correcting. But when you’re the Chief of the Gun Section, that privilege is gone. From the rear —where all you hear are the fire commands and the thunder of the guns— you must imagine the battlefield, reconstruct in your mind what’s unfolding ahead, guided only by instinct, by training... and by doctrine.

That’s when fire adjustment comes alive —the craft of bracketing a target with precision. It's a method as old as it is effective: the first shot, far from being decisive, is merely a starting point. In artillery, a direct hit on the first round proves nothing. Only through disciplined bracketing—first in azimuth, then in range—can effective fire be achieved.

But in the urgency of combat, the temptation to cut corners is always there. One tends to stray from the textbook, from regulation, from what was drilled into you in the classroom. You want to solve everything at once. And that’s where those who forget the fundamentals make their first mistake. Because when the situation is real, and the enemy is advancing, all you have left is what you learned —and held onto.

And then, he appeared: Captain Carlos Hugo Robacio, Commander of Marine Battalion 5. The moment his fire requests began coming in, I knew instantly he was applying doctrine with surgical precision. His Initial Fire Request (IFR) was flawless: the target was clearly described —width, depth, distance, bearing from magnetic north. Everyone in the fire chain knew exactly what had to be done. Tactical clarity radiated through the net. And that kind of clarity inspires. From gun crews to the Fire Direction Center (FDC) and the Fire Support Coordinator (FSC), everyone locked in.

  
CN Carlos Robacio in Malvinas
 

I could read his thinking through the rounds.
The first shot landed off to one side.
The second, at the opposite end.
What was he doing?
He was bracketing the target, establishing the axis of correction. Pure doctrine. Pure art.
The third corrected direction.
The fourth refined range.
The fifth: ten rounds, fire for effect.

Not a moment of hesitation. Robacio didn’t ask —he ordered. And every order was exact.

Then came confirmation from the Forward Observer: successful impact. But who exactly were we firing on? These weren’t theoretical targets. We were firing on British troops who had already closed within 150 meters of our lines —some even closer. Robacio had cut the enemy advance in two, separating the forward elements from the main assault force still pushing up from the rear. He bought time —and lives.

And then, the critical moment.

The new coordinates overlapped the exact position of Marine Battalion 5. The FDC hesitated. “We can’t fire there —our own men are on that grid!” But Robacio didn’t flinch:

“They’re among us! Get in your foxholes and open fire. Fire! Fire! Fire!”

The order came out furious, direct, visceral. And it was necessary.

Even with our guns buried, we kept fighting back.

I don’t remember how many volleys we fired on that line —but it was a lot. Hundreds of rounds. Robacio kept pushing them back, forcing the enemy to scatter. And when he sensed it was time, he ordered a fire barrier. Precision calculations. All guns firing on a perfect line. A wall of steel. And he drove them even farther. Until the guns fell silent.

To me, it was a masterclass in fire control. No hesitation. No second-guessing. Robacio owned the battlefield like a conductor with an orchestra —with precision, instinct, and total battlefield awareness. He was a professional. A tactician. A clear-headed combat leader.

But what were the British really trying to do by attacking BIM5? Was it a diversion? A beachhead for a future assault on Port Stanley? A test of our responsiveness?
Even today, this engagement is barely remembered, hardly studied, nearly absent from the official accounts. And yet, it was one of the most technically sound and fiercely fought defenses of the entire war.

I hope this testimony serves to highlight the professional excellence of Captain Robacio, his tactical brilliance, and his nerve under fire. We never had the chance to work together before the war —but in those days, I could read his mind through every shot fired.

And in artillery, that’s worth more than a thousand words.

One of our artillery guns —in those first days, our assigned combat position— might well be the emblematic one. Maybe because of where it stood. The fence posts were still upright, and the comrades of BIM 5 were up ahead, still building their own defenses.

Forgive me for bringing back these memories —memories of those howitzers that once held back the British advance, firing until there was nothing left to shoot.

(Sapper Hil, Puerto Argentino, Republic of Argentina)