Falkland Islands

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

• Three Lynxes (only!) are in the islands with one not arriving until sometime in 2000.

All in all, the Falklands appear to have definitely been at the bottom of the priority list for defence, supplies, units, etc. If it hadn't been specifically stated the Lynx had only been in the area for a short time, I'd be inclined to say all aircraft would have been recalled by the UK to help at home and the islands left to fend for themselves.

Originally Posted by Targan

Heck, maybe they would, given that they were willing to send at least 1 helicopter. It still seems more likely to me that an RN Harrier(s) would end up in the Falklands by accident. And in that case it would severely limit it/their operational use, if little or none of the support equipment and personnel came with it/them.

Guys, looking at the information on the Lynx, it's worth remembering that the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands (of which South Georgia is a part) are two separate island chains, which are (I think) about six hundred miles or so apart so when the plate states that the Lynx "has not been stationed to the Islands long" that may refer to how long it has been in the South Sandwich Islands rather than how long it's been in the South Atlantic. It's possible the Lynx may have been based in the Falkland Islands since before the war and has transferred from there to the South Sandwich Islands (for whatever reason) rather than having arrived directly from the UK.

[Legbreaker]

I tend to like the V2 version better - as if a single battalion of reservists would cause the entire Argentine military to back down while the rest of the UKs forces are tied up for the foreseeable future against the Pact!
Seems exceedingly unlikely doesn't it?
At the very least Argentina would have landed a force on at least one island, probably one with something they needed as a stepping stone to take the rest of the islands such as port facilities or airport. The TA force themselves probably wouldn't have been the cause of their withdrawal, but the fear the UK would unleash some of their nukes on them back home on the mainland - timing could work given NATO started using them in July 1997....

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Guys, looking at the information on the Lynx, it's worth remembering that the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands (of which South Georgia is a part) are two separate island chains, which are (I think) about six hundred miles or so apart so when the plate states that the Lynx "has not been stationed to the Islands long" that may refer to how long it has been in the South Sandwich Islands rather than how long it's been in the South Atlantic.

What's the range of a Lynx? What's the range when you add in the capacity of the internal fuel bladders as stated in the plate notes?
Given South Georgia is administered from the Falklands, and as far as I am aware, the Falklands themselves are the focus of military operations, what's to say the helicopters aren't used right across the area (besides fuel of course)?

[Rainbow Six]

When it comes to the V1 version, I'm inclined to think that the August 1997 reinforcement might have taken two forms - you have the open and public deployment of a TA Infantry Battalion and (possibly) a small number of RN Sea Harriers, and then you have the covert action - most likely the deployment of an RN hunter killer submarine to the South Atlantic, with a message relayed to the Argentines through remaining diplomatic channels that if they attempt an amphibious landing their fleet will be sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic (starting with the troopships). And in the event that wasn't enough to deter them, there's the hint of nuclear attack on the Argentine mainland.

To me, these are the things more likely to deter the Argentines. Whether a submarine is available to be sent to the South Atlantic in summer / autumn 1997 is of course highly debatable, but the thing is one doesn't neccessarily have to be...it could be a bluff on the part of the British Government...question is whether the Argentine Government would risk calling that bluff.

With regard to V2, the thought does cross my mind that a campaign set in the Argentine occupied Falklands would be something a little different from the norm...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

With regard to V2, the thought does cross my mind that a campaign set in the Argentine occupied Falklands would be something a little different from the norm...

Yes, that idea tickles my fancy too. And I love it that the Falklands Defence Force uses AUG Steyrs.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

What's the range of a Lynx? What's the range when you add in the capacity of the internal fuel bladders as stated in the plate notes?
Given South Georgia is administered from the Falklands, and as far as I am aware, the Falklands themselves are the focus of military operations, what's to say the helicopters aren't used right across the area (besides fuel of course)?

According to wiki 328 miles with standard tanks. Haven't a clue what the bladders would add.

What you suggest is possible, however the plate notes do specifically refer to the Lynxes being assigned to the British garrison of the South Georgia Islands (Which I take to mean the South Sandwich Islands) and as noted that's a completely different island chain than the Falklands. That suggests to me the Lynx has recently arrived in the South Sandwich Islands from somewhere and it seems to me much more likely that it came from the Falklands than the UK.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

Yes, that idea tickles my fancy too. And I love it that the Falklands Defence Force uses AUG Steyrs.

Yep...I haven't gamed for years but if I was I'd definitely be up for trying to put a campaign together based on the V2 events.

[Rainbow Six]

A minor point, but it just crossed my mind that the Royal Navy operated the Sea Harrier during the 1990's, which was different from the Harrier GR7 (AV8B in US service) described in the aviation handbook so whilst it's shown in RN colours in the colour plate it's likely that Harrier was originally an RAF aircraft that came into RN service one way or another.

[James Langham]

Actually current strength is about 1400 troops - basically an infantry bn plus supporting elements.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I tend to like the V2 version better - as if a single battalion of reservists would cause the entire Argentine military to back down while the rest of the UKs forces are tied up for the foreseeable future against the Pact!
Seems exceedingly unlikely doesn't it?
At the very least Argentina would have landed a force on at least one island, probably one with something they needed as a stepping stone to take the rest of the islands such as port facilities or airport. The TA force themselves probably wouldn't have been the cause of their withdrawal, but the fear the UK would unleash some of their nukes on them back home on the mainland - timing could work given NATO started using them in July 1997....

[Legbreaker]

From Wiki:

GR.7
The GR7 had its maiden flight in May 1990 and made its first operational deployment in August 1995 over the former Yugoslavia. While the GR7 deployed on Invincible class aircraft carriers during testing as early as June 1994, the first operational deployments at sea began in 1997. This arrangement was formalised with the Joint Force Harrier, operating with the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier.

While IRL the RN doesn't appear to have received GR.7s until 2006, they were assigned to and operating from carriers as early as 1994. It's reasonable to assume with the divergent timeline in T2K, the number of Harriers given to the RN directly from the factory was increased and this included GR.7s.
This assumption receives some support from the plate notes as there's no mention of prior RAF involvement with the aircraft in question. That of course could simply be because any RAF insignia has been completely obscured, however a vast number of other plate notes indicate paint has faded and previous markings are beginning to show through. With the harsh sea conditions the Harrier is likely to have seen, it seems likely significant weathering could be expected, likewise revealing prior markings.
Additionally as we can tell from the Lynx entry (amongst others) paint for touch ups isn't exactly common.

Originally Posted by James Langham

Actually current strength is about 1400 troops - basically an infantry bn plus supporting elements.

Still, the TA aren't exactly first line troops are they? Admittedly neither are the Argentine forces (as far as I know), but 700 odd combat troops and their support isn't exactly a huge bump in the road for them, especially as they have their own airforce and navy backing them up.

[JSerena]

Hey guys,

just read an article today in Daily Mail about Fauklands mission and Royal family, specifically prince William being a pilot there. Basically, it suggested that the army in Fauklands is not very pleased about having any members of Royal family there, since the safety requirements has to be 3x as strict as they would be otherwise.
What do u think about it? Do u agree that members of Royal family shouldnt serve in the war in Faukland Islands?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by JSerena

Hey guys,

just read an article today in Daily Mail about Fauklands mission and Royal family, specifically prince William being a pilot there. Basically, it suggested that the army in Fauklands is not very pleased about having any members of Royal family there, since the safety requirements has to be 3x as strict as they would be otherwise.
What do u think about it? Do u agree that members of Royal family shouldnt serve in the war in Faukland Islands?

Well Prince Andrew was a co-pilot of a Sea King on HMS Invincible during the Falklands War flying anti-submarine, anti-ship, casualty evacuation, transport and search and air rescue missions, while Prince Harry has done a combat tour in Afghanistan and is a British Army combat pilot flying Apache's. So I doubt they are all that concerned sending Prince William to the Falkland Islands were the worst that is likely to happen to him is being the target of some mild Argentine propaganda from Cristina de Kirchner who should be more concerned with solving her own country's economic problems than stirring up trouble with Britain over a chain of islands that they have no chance of ever controlling.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well Prince Andrew was a co-pilot of a Sea King on HMS Invincible during the Falklands War flying anti-submarine, anti-ship, casualty evacuation, transport and search and air rescue missions, while Prince Harry has done a combat tour in Afghanistan and is a British Army combat pilot flying Apache's. So I doubt they are all that concerned sending Prince William to the Falkland Islands were the worst that is likely to happen to him is being the target of some mild Argentine propaganda from Cristina de Kirchner who should be more concerned with solving her own country's economic problems than stirring up trouble with Britain over a chain of islands that they have no chance of ever controlling.

As far as Kirchner is concerned, there is a few things worth noting. Kirchner is a member of a political group along with her husband that is pointedly dedicated to the reclamation of the "Malvinas" (Unfortunately, the name of said group eludes me at this point though I read about them recently, I'll try to find it again). Another, Argentina is feeling the effects of the economic downturn and is being forced to trim the budget and social programs, along with the usual political problems that continue to plague the country. The "crisis" that Kirchner is pushing is giving her a serious bump in the polls when beforehand her polls were looking pretty abysmal (long story, but again, lots of problems involving political and budget issues in the country and Kirchner made some bad calls as it appears). And finally....rich fisheries, oil and natural gas treasure troves around the Falklands? The Argentines aren't stupid, they want those islands and the potential resources they could gain from them. Just how well the Argentines would effectively administer the islands, and efficiently harvest said resources were they in control of the islands might be another matter.

The Argentinians figure if they can play the "poor exploited country versus the colonialist power" card against the U.K. at the United Nations, they might be able to garner enough sympathy along with an economic blockade courtesy of Mercosur that'll lead to a successful handover of the Falklands to the Argentinians. However, IMHO, this is more a "Holy Grail" fantasy (with respect to the actual Holy Grail myth, of course). The Argentinians claim on the Falklands is flimsy at best from a pure legal sense, there is no original ethnic group that is claiming ownership of the Falklands, and the 3,000 current Falkland Islanders, who sadly appear to have been largely overlooked by most worldwide media have vocally stated their desire to remain an independent territory of the United Kingdom. Suffice to say, the Falklanders have had some colorful words to describe Christina De Kirchner, Hugo Chavez (who's been offering military support to Kirchner) and Sean Penn (who's been vocally supporting Kirchner's position) as of late, to put it mildly.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

The Argentinians claim on the Falklands is flimsy at best from a pure legal sense, there is no original ethnic group that is claiming ownership of the Falklands, and the 3,000 current Falkland Islanders, who sadly appear to have been largely overlooked by most worldwide media have vocally stated their desire to remain an independent territory of the United Kingdom.

I think the Australian media is far from perfect but I keep hearing points like these, especially from American posters on this forum, referring to the worldwide media (or perhaps by that they really mean American media with a worldwide reach) overlooking important points in stories like these.

The Australian media, in its reporting on the occasional Argentinian chest-beating and flag-waving over the Falklands issue, has consistently pointed out that the Falklanders have no interest whatsoever in being ruled by Argentina. And for me that is the most important point in the whole debate. If the overwhelming majority of Falklanders want to remain a self-governing territory of Britain then that is how they should remain, and Argentina can just back the f*ck up.

And that Sean Penn has taken up Argentina's cause in this issue? It strikes me as really odd. I'm not a big fan of Penn's work in film (some of his roles have been ok) but I have always had the impression that he's a fairly intelligent, well informed kind of guy. Why the hell has he taken this stance over the Falklands issue? Of course he's entirely entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, but why is he going out of his way to back Argentina in this in the media? It confuses me.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think the Australian media is far from perfect but I keep hearing points like these, especially from American posters on this forum, referring to the worldwide media (or perhaps by that they really mean American media with a worldwide reach) overlooking important points in stories like these.

The Australian media, in its reporting on the occasional Argentinian chest-beating and flag-waving over the Falklands issue, has consistently pointed out that the Falklanders have no interest whatsoever in being ruled by Argentina. And for me that is the most important point in the whole debate. If the overwhelming majority of Falklanders want to remain a self-governing territory of Britain then that is how they should remain, and Argentina can just back the f*ck up.

And that Sean Penn has taken up Argentina's cause in this issue? It strikes me as really odd. I'm not a big fan of Penn's work in film (some of his roles have been ok) but I have always had the impression that he's a fairly intelligent, well informed kind of guy. Why the hell has he taken this stance over the Falklands issue? Of course he's entirely entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, but why is he going out of his way to back Argentina in this in the media? It confuses me.

Targan, by "worldwide" media, I meant to include American media as well, hope that clears that up.


As for Sean Penn....sigh, Penn, well, it's pretty well documented that he's pretty chummy with guys such as Castro and Chavez, and tends to take up their political views (he's not the only one in Hollywood either, sadly, more one of many). Castro and Chavez seem to have latched their support on to Kirchner, if to once again try to poke the eye of the "Imperialist Westerners" if nothing else. I think it'd be rather amusing if the Americans sent a Carrier Battle Group along with a Marine Expeditionary Unit down to the Falklands to "settle" the dispute, and all Chavez and Castro could do was whine.

But this isn't Penn's first foray into international politics. Remember when he was calling Saddam's Iraq a paradise where the kids flew kites? Granted that wasn't so far from the truth in some cases as long as you were in the good graces of the Hussein family...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I think it'd be rather amusing if the Americans sent a Carrier Battle Group along with a Marine Expeditionary Unit down to the Falklands to "settle" the dispute, and all Chavez and Castro could do was whine.

Not that the US could get away with even thinking about doing that given it's a dispute strictly between the UK and Argentina. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government looking very fondly over the US throwing their weight about where it's definately not wanted.

The UK, despite the last few decades of cutbacks, still has the strength to deter the Argentine military, otherwise the Argentinians would have already acted.

[Legbreaker]

Westland Lynx, UK; South Georgia Islands, 2000.
This Lynx is one of three assigned to the British Army garrison of the South Georgia Islands and is used both for patrols and liaison purposes. Ordinarily the maritime version would have been used, but shortages forced the British to make use of standard Lynxes in some less important spots. These aircraft have been equipped with internal flexible fuel bladders for extended range operations.
The aircraft has not been stationed to the islands long, as it still sports the olive/tan dry summer camouflage pattern instead of a more suitable colour scheme. The only other markings are the ID numbers in black and the subdued British national roundel.

I've spent a little time looking at the South Georgia Islands and I can't for the life of me work out what even one, let alone three perfectly good helicopters are doing there!?
There's no permanent residents on the islands, and it's not exactly a high priority military target, so what the hell is going on? Industry is virtually non-existent (fishing is about it) so they can't be there to protect them.
Argentina did have a small hidden base on the southernmost island (well away from the semi-permanent settlement), but the UK kicked them out in 1982 after the Falklands War.

My best guess is the writers weren't aware of just how desolate and remote the islands are.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

As far as Kirchner is concerned, there is a few things worth noting. Kirchner is a member of a political group along with her husband that is pointedly dedicated to the reclamation of the "Malvinas" (Unfortunately, the name of said group eludes me at this point though I read about them recently, I'll try to find it again). Another, Argentina is feeling the effects of the economic downturn and is being forced to trim the budget and social programs, along with the usual political problems that continue to plague the country. The "crisis" that Kirchner is pushing is giving her a serious bump in the polls when beforehand her polls were looking pretty abysmal (long story, but again, lots of problems involving political and budget issues in the country and Kirchner made some bad calls as it appears). And finally....rich fisheries, oil and natural gas treasure troves around the Falklands? The Argentines aren't stupid, they want those islands and the potential resources they could gain from them. Just how well the Argentines would effectively administer the islands, and efficiently harvest said resources were they in control of the islands might be another matter.

The Argentinians figure if they can play the "poor exploited country versus the colonialist power" card against the U.K. at the United Nations, they might be able to garner enough sympathy along with an economic blockade courtesy of Mercosur that'll lead to a successful handover of the Falklands to the Argentinians. However, IMHO, this is more a "Holy Grail" fantasy (with respect to the actual Holy Grail myth, of course). The Argentinians claim on the Falklands is flimsy at best from a pure legal sense, there is no original ethnic group that is claiming ownership of the Falklands, and the 3,000 current Falkland Islanders, who sadly appear to have been largely overlooked by most worldwide media have vocally stated their desire to remain an independent territory of the United Kingdom. Suffice to say, the Falklanders have had some colorful words to describe Christina De Kirchner, Hugo Chavez (who's been offering military support to Kirchner) and Sean Penn (who's been vocally supporting Kirchner's position) as of late, to put it mildly.

I totally agree and Kirchner's rhetoric is very transparent. The sad part of it all is that Argentina might once have been a very wealthy country. At the turn of the 20th century it was one of the richest countries in the world and was a major player in the world economy, and was a real alternative to North America and Australia for European immigrants. Despite being Spanish speaking there are more people of Italian origin in Argentina than Spanish, and a lot of peope of German, French and even British descent. At one time Britain was even a major investor in the Argentine economy and there were very friendly links despite some irrelevant issues over the Falklands.

However then came Peron who led Argentina down the path of populist socialism like most of the rest of South America, with its own band of nationalism/fascism and Argentina has been an economic basketcase and political backwater ever since.

Kirchner's recruitment of Castro and Chavez has to be one of the greatest public relations disasters in Argentine history. I mean does Kirchner really think America or even Europe is going to take Argentinas side with these two scumbags supporting Argentina? As for Sean Penn, well he's of Irish decent so he's trying to be cool, but he's also a Hollywood actor which says it all as they are notable in the most parts for their high intelligence, NOT!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

And that Sean Penn has taken up Argentina's cause in this issue? It strikes me as really odd. I'm not a big fan of Penn's work in film (some of his roles have been ok) but I have always had the impression that he's a fairly intelligent, well informed kind of guy. Why the hell has he taken this stance over the Falklands issue? Of course he's entirely entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, but why is he going out of his way to back Argentina in this in the media? It confuses me.

Hey he married Madonna and is a Hollywood actor and has been in fist fights all over the world, so I think he a bit confused too!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not that the US could get away with even thinking about doing that given it's a dispute strictly between the UK and Argentina. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government looking very fondly over the US throwing their weight about where it's definately not wanted.

The UK, despite the last few decades of cutbacks, still has the strength to deter the Argentine military, otherwise the Argentinians would have already acted.

I don't think Argentina's military has progressed in any significant way since the Falklands War. Unfortunately for Argentina the British military has despite defence cutbacks, and certainly its air force and navy is two generations ahead of Argentina's. Despite being without a real carrier for the next five years the RAF and RN would absolutely slaughter them to put it midly, and would do the same to anything Cuba or Venezuela trew at them.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not that the US could get away with even thinking about doing that given it's a dispute strictly between the UK and Argentina. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government looking very fondly over the US throwing their weight about where it's definately not wanted.

The UK, despite the last few decades of cutbacks, still has the strength to deter the Argentine military, otherwise the Argentinians would have already acted.

Agreed. I understand the US did provide the UK with some low key support during the 1982 War - access to US satellite imagery springs to mind as one example - but I don't think UK defence cuts have reached the stage where we would need to go cap in hand to the Americans and ask them to "settle" things for us.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I've spent a little time looking at the South Georgia Islands and I can't for the life of me work out what even one, let alone three perfectly good helicopters are doing there!?
There's no permanent residents on the islands, and it's not exactly a high priority military target, so what the hell is going on? Industry is virtually non-existent (fishing is about it) so they can't be there to protect them.
Argentina did have a small hidden base on the southernmost island (well away from the semi-permanent settlement), but the UK kicked them out in 1982 after the Falklands War.

My best guess is the writers weren't aware of just how desolate and remote the islands are.

Totally agree...there's no logic in basing helicopters on South Georgia. I'd question why there would be a permanent British garrison of any sort.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by JSerena

Hey guys,

just read an article today in Daily Mail about Fauklands mission and Royal family, specifically prince William being a pilot there. Basically, it suggested that the army in Fauklands is not very pleased about having any members of Royal family there, since the safety requirements has to be 3x as strict as they would be otherwise.
What do u think about it? Do u agree that members of Royal family shouldnt serve in the war in Faukland Islands?

I didn't read that article but I do recall similar concerns being raised when it was first mentioned that the Household Cavalry Regiment (which Prince Harry served in at the time) was to be deployed to Afghanistan. It was feared that his presence in theatre would attract insurgents, thus increasing the risk to other soldiers. You may recall that when he did finally deploy there was a complete news blackout (which was finally broken by a blogger iirc, at which point he was quite quickly pulled back to the UK). I believe part of the reason he retrained as an Apache pilot was so he could avoid the same sort of issues in any future deployment as a helicopter pilot is more "anonymous" than a bloke on the ground (that same logic may have applied when Prince Andrew went to the South Atlantic in 1982).

However that was Afghanistan - as RN7 points out, Argentine sabre rattling / UN protests notwithstanding, I'd be surprised if the risks are judged to be particularly high in the Falklands.

[headquarters]

Well - there is oil.Or great prospects of it anyhow.

Of course there will be an argument. Kirchner - btw - has said that military options are of the table as fars as the islands go.

There is of course a solution that is blatantly obvious - cut the Argentines in on the oil like they want and live happily ever after. Just a thought.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Totally agree...there's no logic in basing helicopters on South Georgia. I'd question why there would be a permanent British garrison of any sort.

Unless that was where the British hid some helos and Harriers and associated personnel, supplies, equipment and POL during the Argentinians' attempted occupation of the Falklands. They may have mothballed some of those assets there after the Argentinians left because it became impractical to bring them back to the main islands, at least for a time.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

Unless that was where the British hid some helos and Harriers and associated personnel, supplies, equipment and POL during the Argentinians' attempted occupation of the Falklands. They may have mothballed some of those assets there after the Argentinians left because it became impractical to bring them back to the main islands, at least for a time.

That's certainly possible but the notes on the plate state that the Lynx is fully operational and actively carrying out patrols, which doesn't suggest it's mothballed?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

That's certainly possible but the notes on the plate state that the Lynx is fully operational and actively carrying out patrols, which doesn't suggest it's mothballed?

The photo was taken to celebrate the aviation assets on South Georgia being returned to operational status? Maybe they finally had the fuel and spares to start 'em up and fly 'em back to Stanley.

[Legbreaker]

Fatal flaw to that theory.
The notes specifically state the aircraft hasn't been there long.

[Targan]

Tricky. Trying to match up available canon data when it doesn't really make any sense. I'm just throwing ideas out there, is all. Maybe it'll make more sense to me after another Blanton's on the rocks. Well, that's my excuse anyway

[Rainbow Six]

Here's a theory...

Two Lynxes are mothballed on South Georgia. They're mostly operational, but are missing vital parts (or pilots).

A third Lynx (the one in the plate), fitted with long range fuel bladders, is despatched from the Falklands with the neccessary parts (or crew) to restore the two mothballed helos to a fully operational state. This ties in with the line about it having recently arrived in the islands. The photo was taken during this period?

Perhaps when all three are operational they all move to the Falklands?

Like Targan says it's tricky though...there's a few "what if's" in there.

Personally, I'm inclined to think it makes more sense if we accept it as a typo of sorts and change all reference to the South Georgia islands to the South Atlantic Islands, leaving it to one's own choice whether the helos are on the Falklands or South Georgia. (As far as I know technically there's no such place as the South Georgia Islands anyway - it's either the Island (singular) of South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands...)

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Personally, I'm inclined to think it makes more sense if we accept it as a typo of sorts and change all reference to the South Georgia islands to the South Atlantic Islands, leaving it to one's own choice whether the helos are on the Falklands or South Georgia. (As far as I know technically there's no such place as the South Georgia Islands anyway - it's either the Island (singular) of South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands...)

You aren't alone on that. There are several geographical errors in the different books so I'm assuming that this was just another one.