Falklands Island defence force
 

i saw an article on the telly the other day in which the f.i.d.force who work alongside the british army in the falklands were seen on exercise.what threw me was the fact that they seemed to be using the steyr assault rifle rather than the british sa80.does anyone know how this came to be and is it compatible re the sa80's ammo etc.

well from what i know after the falklands war the UK expaded the F.I.D defence force to roughly the size of a T.A light ifiantary regiment. and gave them money to by the kit they didn't mention that it had to be britsh kit so they bought what was concidor the best bullpup the AUG.

as far as i know the ammo is the same and uses NATO ammo as M16,SA80,AUG,G36 ect

A Regiment? That can't be right, I didn't think that there were enough men in the Falklands, able-bodied or otherwise, to form a Regiment. How many troops does a British Regiment require?

In British and Commonwealth forces the use of the term 'Regiment' is confusing. In the case of cavalry, armour or artillery it describes a unit equivalent to a battalion. However, the term 'Regiment' is also used as a kind of 'motherhood' organisation for infantry, etc. For example, The Royal Tasmania Regiment in Australia currently has one infantry battalion at half strength. When I was in the reserve in the 1960s the now disbanded Royal Derwent Regiment which had a strength, IIRC, of just one independent rifle company had just been absorbed into the Royal Tasmania Regiment, along with the Royal Launceston Regiment (also just one company). Initially the RTR retained just the two companies but because of the Vietnam War it expanded to two full battalions before contracting back to its present strength.

Jaffo, the Steyr assault rifle uses standard NATO ammo so it is interchangeable with the SA-80. It seems strange though that the Falklands force would not use standard British equipment.

Cheers

The FIDF is organised as a light role infantry company, capable of deploying using Land Rovers, quad bikes and rigid inflatable boats according to the Wikipedia

was the attack on Falklands island by UK justified?? i mean look at the geographical location of the two countries UK is way up nort and Argentina 10,000 km to the south!
can some body help me understand why would they do such thing??:unknown

Um.... what?

The British occupied some desserted Islands 200 years ago. In 1982, a tottering, militaristic regime tried to divert thier people's anger by starting a war, and they invaded the Falklands.

Not quite deserted: there were whalers & sealers using them, & a few people there supplying the whalers & sealers. Lawless, ever since the US navy forcibly removed the Argentinean representative & his few troops. And it was 174 years ago.

What attack are you talking about? In 1982, the UK re-took a territory which had been British-ruled for 149 years, & had been invaded by Argentina a couple of months earlier. AFAIK the UK never attacked the Falkland islands. Peacefully occupied them in 1833, when there was no government on the islands.

The only countries which have attacked the islands, AFAIK, are the USA (ca 1831) & Argentina in 1982.

thank you swerve for clarifying that to one of our(hopefully)younger posters...i do wonder what they teach them in school nowadays!!!!!

ANd I thank you, Tasman, for making the "Regiment" system a little clearer to me.

Here in the US, the Army has a bad habbit of refering to a regiment as a Brigade... maybe it helps a one-star General feel better about his command.;)

Re:
 

Deleted

Regiment system - further comment:

Traditionally the regiment in the UK is seen as the parent cap-badge, under which sit a number of battalions. Officers and serving soldiers may transfer between battalions but never normally between regiments unless on course or to a specialist unit (UK SF).

The UK is moving once more towards a large regiment system, with 2 plus battalions (regular and reserve) come under a single administrative regimental HQ and cap-badge. The reason for this change is partially due to the dropping of the arms-plot system, where battalions where re-rolled every few years (armoured infantry based in Germany to light infantry based in the UK every few years). Now we are seeing battalions moved to new permanent UK locations in super-garrisons.

Because the UK is sending it’s units unaccompanied (dependents remain at home) overseas on active service more and more, larger regiments, with a common history and traditions can fill gabs in manning (short-term inter-battalion transfers), maintain a degree of stability, provide mutual support to families left behind and run a more efficient organisation under the new ‘large regiment’ system.

The following is an example of how the LI and Green Jackets have been cap-badged under the new expanded Rifles Regiment, which now has seven battalions / sub-units:

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regt...ions/index.htm

History and tradition pays a very important part in UK regimental life, with strong allegiance to the colours, queen and traditions. Hence the desire to be always associated with a regiment for your service life, whether it be the Guards, Para’s or Ghurkhas.

When I re read what I said it is no wonder the system is confusing. The size of British and Commonwealth Infantry Regiments varies tremendously. As another example, all six (expanding to eight) of the Australian Regular Army's infantry and mechanised infantry battalions belong to the Royal Australian Regiment. Compare that to the Army Reserve's Royal Tasmania Regiment which has just one half strength battalion.

Cheers

Fair points.

I did say that there was no government because the USA had removed the Argentinean official presence. The governor wasn't, technically, an Argentinean: IIRC he was French. But he was acting on behalf of the Argentinean government, & nobody thought there was anything odd about such an arrangement at the time.

The Argentinean government had stated its claim, as heir to Spain, as soon as it became independent, but hadn't tried to enforce it for some years. More important things to do, such as fighting to keep its independence & help the Chilean & Peruvian rebels against Spain. First official presence on the islands was early 1820s, IIRC, & it was a semi-private enterprise, but licenced & accredited by Buenos Aires. Granted land & commercial rights in return for going there & establishing government. A practical arrangement for a poor (Argentinas wealth came later) & embattled state.

IMO, Britain de facto gave up its original claim when it withdrew, leaving the Spanish in possession, about 1770 (can't be bothered to look it up). In 1833, the Argentinean claim was good (& if it hadn't been for a blatant act of piracy by the USN their occupation would have been effective) & the British claim was not. But time changes things: continuous occupation & settlement for 149 years meant that by 1982, the Argentinean claim had been extinguished & supplanted by the British claim. But I'm not a lawyer.