Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Falklands War The Second?

13567…14

Comments

  • #62
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    gbee wrote: »
    Only if they are actually armed, and they turn on the equipment. In '82 the British had considerable capabilities, for various reasons their equipment malfunctioned or they did not have sufficient ordinance to respond.

    In 1982 it seems that the search radar was turned off for a short period of time because it interfered with the then rather unsophisticated satellite communication system.

    Now that I can use my cell-phone to make a call via a satellite, I rather doubt that any RN vessel sailing onto what might become a war-zone is going to have ANYTHING switched off, and that includes the crew.

    Lessons learned and all that...

    BTW, look up the meaning of the word 'ordinance' - I think you'll find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns and ammunition.;)

    tac


  • #63
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    tac foley wrote: »
    BTW, look up the meaning of the word 'ordinance' - I think you'll find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns and ammunition.;) tac

    Aye aye, off with the i . :)


  • #64
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    gbee wrote: »
    It came down to a handful of grunts on the ground, I liken it to 1879 campaign, having had their superior force destroyed by Zulus in Isandlwana they had a spectacular defence at Rourke's drift against superior forces.

    Fair kudos to the Brit infantry (Paras, Marines and Guards). They endured pretty tough conditions, a long way from home, and their professional soldiering meant that the Argentinian conscripts hadn't a hope of successful defence.


  • #65
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,342 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I would say that Britain has enough to defend the Falklands.

    In my opinion, issues would arise if the islands were lost and had to be re-taken.


  • #66
    neilled
    Registered Users Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭neilled


    tac foley wrote: »
    In 1982 it seems that the search radar was turned off for a short period of time because it interfered with the then rather unsophisticated satellite communication system.

    Now that I can use my cell-phone to make a call via a satellite, I rather doubt that any RN vessel sailing onto what might become a war-zone is going to have ANYTHING switched off, and that includes the crew.

    Lessons learned and all that...

    BTW, look up the meaning of the word 'ordinance' - I think you'll find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns and ammunition.;)

    tac

    One thing to remember is that they are running "Windows for Warships" - a modified version of windows 2000. Imagine getting the BSOD seconds after systems tell you there's an Exocet on the way....... :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    neilled wrote: »
    One thing to remember is that they are running "Windows for Warships" - a modified version of windows 2000. Imagine getting the BSOD seconds after systems tell you there's an Exocet on the way....... :eek:

    I've heard stories of engineers on nuclear submarines having to reboot windows servers due to crashes.

    Sleep tight now folks :pac:


  • #68
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    neilled wrote: »
    One thing to remember is that they are running "Windows for Warships" - a modified version of windows 2000. Imagine getting the BSOD seconds after systems tell you there's an Exocet on the way....... :eek:

    'Windows for Warships' arrived in the US Navy via the time-honoured Microsoft business tradition of merit via open competition... not, of course.

    "Bill Gate buys stake in Virginia shipyard"

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=20000221&id=Ig8iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o34EAAAAIBAJ&pg=5219,81911


  • #69
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    awec wrote: »
    I would say that Britain has enough to defend the Falklands.

    In my opinion, issues would arise if the islands were lost and had to be re-taken.
    With only four airworthy P-3s, which may or may not be all deployable at once, how does Argentina defend its landed forces or its mainland bases from one or more of the six Trafalgar class which are well run in and have seen active service? Where's your analysis?

    Two other things have changed since 82 - the UK probably has access to much better satellite imagining in the intervening 30 years and the French are back in NATO (plus there are the ties via the EU military structures).


  • #70
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    Fair kudos to the Brit infantry (Paras, Marines and Guards). They endured pretty tough conditions, a long way from home, and their professional soldiering meant that the Argentinian conscripts hadn't a hope of successful defence.

    Even conscripts get trained, especially when they are considered "Special", such as the 25th Infantry at Goose Green. Being dug in, well armed and fully prepared makes any enemy difficult to defeat.

    Unless from your experience you can tell us otherwise.


  • #71
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    There was talk in the last war of attacking the mainland airfields. I've seen that mentioned in a few books about the FW. I can't remember the details. But I think there was a number of options discussed at lease. Then theres this...

    http://www.naval-history.net/F40opsweek8.htm


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Even conscripts get trained, especially when they are considered "Special", such as the 25th Infantry at Goose Green. Being dug in, well armed and fully prepared makes any enemy difficult to defeat.

    Unless from your experience you can tell us otherwise.

    Not really sure what point you're making here. While they did put up a stiff resistance in places, and the UK forces took something like 150 losses in the land battles, the UK forces were never really held up for any serious amount of time by the Argentinian land forces were they?


  • #73
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    gbee wrote: »
    Only if they are actually armed, and they turn on the equipment. In '82 the British had considerable capabilities, for various reasons their equipment malfunctioned or they did not have sufficient ordinance to respond.

    And as a result they lost almost all their supply and backups, technically they lost to an inferior force.

    It came down to a handful of grunts on the ground, I liken it to 1879 campaign, having had their superior force destroyed by Zulus in Isandlwana they had a spectacular defence at Rourke's drift against superior forces.


    "Technically the lost to an inferior force"

    ....Thats not true, Argentina vastly out numbered the British in air power.

    ....Technically Argentina lost, it should have destroyed the task force but got its tactics wrong. Argentina had the advantage.

    Infantry were always going to have to retake the Falklands, thats a moot point.


  • #74
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    gbee wrote: »
    Aye aye, off with the i . :)

    Carry on, Mr gbee.

    tac


  • #75
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    Fair kudos to the Brit infantry (Paras, Marines and Guards). They endured pretty tough conditions, a long way from home, and their professional soldiering meant that the Argentinian conscripts hadn't a hope of successful defence.


    With proper leadership the Argentinians would have won, they were let down by their officers.

    Nor were they all conscripts they also had professional Marine and special forces units fighting in some of the battles.


  • #76
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The war was going to won or lost at sea with the carriers. I'm not sure the Argentinians ever really had a hope of sinking both of them. Did they ever come under serious attack.


  • #77
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    cruasder777 wrote: »
    ....Technically Argentina lost.

    Technically?

    I'd opine that gettin an almighty ass-whuppin' with three times the number of dead - could have been five times had it not been for the Sir Galahad incident - plus an unconditional surrender, constitutes more than a 'technical' victory.

    And a funny oul' thing, but last time I was there, there was a Union flag on the pole outside Government house.

    The only Argies I saw were the ones we left there in 1982. If Argentina wants them, they can have them back - but that's ALL that Argentina has of the Falklands - by British permission.

    tac


  • #78
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonB wrote: »
    Not really sure what point you're making here. While they did put up a stiff resistance in places, and the UK forces took something like 150 losses in the land battles, the UK forces were never really held up for any serious amount of time by the Argentinian land forces were they?

    In the post I was replying to, the poster was implying that the Argentines were all conscripts and barely out of nappies.


  • #79
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I think his point was there was a gulf of professionalism between the majority both sides on the ground. Which is largely true. Of course stiff resistance was encountered at times, but in the grand scheme it was largely outmatched for a variety of reasons. I think the general consensus here is that gulf remains and has increased. That said though, if Argentina could seize the runway (unlikely), could the UK seize the islands back without carriers? Would they risk their ships without a CAP?


  • #80
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonB wrote: »
    I think his point was there was a gulf of professionalism between the majority both sides on the ground. Which is largely true. Of course stiff resistance was encountered at times, but in the grand scheme it was largely outmatched for a variety of reasons. I think the general consensus here is that gulf remains and has increased. That said though, if Argentina could seize the runway (unlikely), could the UK seize the islands back without carriers? Would they risk their ships without a CAP?

    That is a good and valid point, however, imho, the poster was simply trying to discredit the British forces and their achievement.

    With the type 45, the RN claims to have a step change in its air defence capabilities and they may consider the aged Argentine air force to be a low threat against that. There is also the option of hitting the Argentine air force on the ground with submarine launched missiles.

    If the Argentines were foolish enough to use force again, I'm pretty confident the end result would be the same as it was 30 years ago.


  • #81
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Think you're over egging the yoke a bit. Anyway, what anti ship weapons/options to the Argentinians have now?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonB wrote: »
    Think you're over egging the yoke a bit. Anyway, what anti ship weapons/options to the Argentinians have now?

    About the same as they had 30 years ago I believe.


  • #83
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I dunno if they got any more Exocets or the status of the Super Étendard. If they were upgraded they might have twice the radar range that they did in 82. But I don't think they have been. Without the Exocets they don't have much of a chance, as the close in systems on the RN ship is improved over what is was, so low level bombing attacks would be less likely to succeed, especially if the ship, could move away from the islands. Which the attacking aircraft used as cover in '82. I don't think they are getting Rafale's anytime soon either.

    But they'd have to remove the typhoons first. Special forces raid via sub? Without thats, nothing else would be feasible. All speculative of course.


  • #84
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    BostonB wrote: »
    There was talk in the last war of attacking the mainland airfields. I've seen that mentioned in a few books about the FW. I can't remember the details. But I think there was a number of options discussed at lease. Then theres this...
    There was a plan tabled to fly some SAS into an enemy air base by Herc, blow stuff up Paddy Mayne style and fly out again. Didn't get beyond a plan.
    BostonB wrote: »
    The war was going to won or lost at sea with the carriers. I'm not sure the Argentinians ever really had a hope of sinking both of them. Did they ever come under serious attack.

    The events leading up to the sinking of the Belgrano were a close call. It to the south and the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo to the north were executing a pincer movement to attack the task force. The Veinticinco de Mayo was positioning to get into aircraft launch mode when the wind died so that the Argentines lost the range needed for fully laden planes. So both ships turned west away from the fleet. A day or two earlier the sub ARA San Luis had taken a pot shot at part the task force.

    Also remember the Atlantic Conveyor hit which was a major setback. Another one like that could have ended the British hopes.


  • #85
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Andy Mcnabb talks about the "Plan" in one of his books. It was basically land, blow up enough stuff as possible and break for the border.

    None of the SAS fancied it apparently. Suicide missions aren't all that popular for some reason.


  • #86
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonB wrote: »
    I dunno if they got any more Exocets or the status of the Super Étendard. If they were upgraded they might have twice the radar range that they did in 82. But I don't think they have been. Without the Exocets they don't have much of a chance, as the close in systems on the RN ship is improved over what is was, so low level bombing attacks would be less likely to succeed, especially if the ship, could move away from the islands. Which the attacking aircraft used as cover in '82. I don't think they are getting Rafale's anytime soon either.

    But they'd have to remove the typhoons first. Special forces raid via sub? Without thats, nothing else would be feasible. All speculative of course.

    And with a decent airfield there, an additional six typhoons could be there this time tomorrow.


  • #87
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    BostonB wrote: »
    I think his point was there was a gulf of professionalism between the majority both sides on the ground. Which is largely true. Of course stiff resistance was encountered at times, but in the grand scheme it was largely outmatched for a variety of reasons. I think the general consensus here is that gulf remains and has increased. That said though, if Argentina could seize the runway (unlikely), could the UK seize the islands back without carriers? Would they risk their ships without a CAP?

    Which runway?


  • #88
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,213 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Was the British chopper which ended up landing in Chile to be a raid on an airfield or an early warning/observation mission? I can't quite recall offhand.

    NTM


  • #89
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    Economic embargo seems to be working just fine at the moment without having to start a war.


  • #90
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Was the British chopper which ended up landing in Chile to be a raid on an airfield or an early warning/observation mission? I can't quite recall offhand.

    NTM

    SAS recon hit by bad weather and aborted.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    And with a decent airfield there, an additional six typhoons could be there this time tomorrow.

    Be no use if the runways were denied them for some reason. Unlikely I agree, I'm just being an armchair general. I don't expect anything will happen.


Advertisement