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?

24567…14

Comments

  • #32
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    MANUTD99 wrote: »
    You'd be a fantastic politician in America so you would. Lets claim our land which is 8000 miles from England and against the evil Argentina which is 300 miles away

    I take it you would have no problem with me claiming the Irish Republic for Great Britain then? Its far closer to Great Britain than the Falklands are to Argentina.

    Sure I'll just get onto the Chief of the General Staff, shall I? No doubt the 1st Armoured Division will be in Dublin by Tuesday.


  • #33
    MANUTD99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭MANUTD99


    bwatson wrote: »
    I take it you would have no problem with me claiming the Irish Republic for Great Britain then? Its far closer to Great Britain than the Falklands are to Argentina.

    Sure I'll just get onto the Chief of the General Staff, shall I? No doubt the 1st Armoured Division will be in Dublin by Tuesday.

    I call tool, gets jacket and leaves thread, goodnight


  • #34
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    MANUTD99 wrote: »
    I call tool, gets jacket and leaves thread, goodnight

    I don't see the difference. Would you care to explain?

    The majority of people in the Irish Republic do not want to be British, regardless of how close Britain is. The Majority of Falklanders do not want to be Argentine, regardless of how close Argentina is.

    Don't forget to pick up your Man Utd scarf either.


  • #35
    Donny5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    MANUTD99 wrote: »
    You'd be a fantastic politician in America so you would. Lets claim our land which is 8000 miles from England and against the evil Argentina which is 300 miles away

    That's silly. It's not as though the Brits kicked the Argentinians out. The Brits arrived 130 years before the Argentinians, and when the Brits found them, they were uninhabited.


  • #36
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    bwatson wrote: »
    You are one deluded fool. What have the tories done except maintain that the wishes of the islanders will always be the most important thing?

    And you, kind sir, appear to be off your meds.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    OS119 wrote: »
    your logic is flawed - if Argentina is not ramping up because its made the same claim for years, how is the UK ramping up when it has been deploying same forces to the Islands since 1983?

    four fighters - firstly F-4 Phantoms, then Tornado F3's, now Typhoon.

    1 major surface combatant as South Atlantic Patrol Ship (covering an area from Assension Island to the Caribean, to the FI and out to Southern Africa) - either a Type 42 Destroyer, a Type 22 or T23 Frigate, and now a Type 45 Destroyer.

    1 infantry Company - it used to be an Infantry Battalion, but it was decided it wasn't neccesary.

    1 tanker aircraft.

    1 transport aircraft.

    1 submarine - a submarine covers the same patrol area as the SAPS, but is only deployed for about 6 months of the year.

    that it - exactly the same forces have been on/around the Islands since the 1982 war. i imagine if you googled it you could even get the ships names and patrol dates.

    The Type 45 is really a cruiser at 8,000 tonnes (the 'destroyer' designation is just for the benefit of the Treasury/politicians, as was calling the Type 22's 'frigates' and the Invincibles 'through deck cruisers'). So yes, I'm afraid I have to be the one to tell you that dispatching it does represent an increase in UK forces.

    And do you really mean to tell me that you believe the tour of young officer Windsor is a coincidence...?


  • #38
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    Donny5 wrote: »
    That's silly. It's not as though the Brits kicked the Argentinians out. The Brits arrived 130 years before the Argentinians, and when the Brits found them, they were uninhabited.

    That's not quite the end of it, though. The Argentinians inherited the Spanish "right" to them, irrespective of whether they put someone on the islands or not. And as we discovered with Hong Kong, Diego Garcia etc. the Brits are selective in who can and can't exercise the supposed right to self-determination.

    The curious non-British status of the Falklands kelpers was covered at length in that "Falklands War" magazine series from the Eighties, by the way.


  • #39
    Donny5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    That's not quite the end of it, though. The Argentinians inherited the Spanish "right" to them, irrespective of whether they put someone on the islands or not. And as we discovered with Hong Kong, Diego Garcia etc. the Brits are selective in who can and can't exercise the supposed right to self-determination.

    The curious non-British status of the Falklands kelpers was covered at length in that "Falklands War" magazine series from the Eighties, by the way.

    The historical Spanish claim is no different to the British, and the current British claim has 180+ years of almost continuous occupation and local support. The Argentinians have neither.


  • #40
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    Delancey wrote: »
    No , there is a lot of ' Sabre Rattling ' all right coming from Argentina but IMO thats all it is - the British built a substantial airport on the islands after the war and they can , if required , quickly re-inforce their air presence there not to mention the rumoured presence of their attack submarines in the South Atlantic.
    Ironically if the Argentines had never attacked in 1982 now would be the time to do it - Royal Navy has no working aircraft carriers now so there would not be much they could do about an invasion.
    Royal Navy also now has only a limited amphibious attack capability.

    Argentina is waging a successful diplomatic campaign against the islands and seems to be winning support from neighbouring countries - in the long run this may prove decisive .



    They have also got the worlds most advanced destroyer patroling which is capable of shooting down the entire Argentinian air force from 80 miles away. Also a sub, a battalion, and fighters.

    Argentina could not land troops, it does not have the capability.


    "In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.[10]"

    220px-HMSDaring.jpg magnify-clip.png
    Daring embarking on sea trials in 2007

    Anti-air
    Sea Viper missile system.


  • #41
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    First of all, regardless of rights or wrongs or comparisons to Ireland etc, the UK holds the island and the international community by and large accepts that. Having spent blood and treasure to get them back in 1982, it's unlikely a future UK government will see it any differently.

    Turning to the military angle, the UK's HMS Conqueror (laid down in the late 60s) sank Belgrano with two out of three launched Mark 8** torpedoes, a WW2 era weapon. There was also some patrolling to try and give early warning of Skyhawk raids but nothing could be done bar radio in.

    HMS Astute or a Trafalgar class sub loaded with Spearfish and Tomahawk could have laid out Belgrano AND at least some of its escorts AND launched a strike on Falklands airfields (to higher precision than Black Buck) AND a strike on the nearest Skyhawk airfield in a single patrol while remaining hundreds of miles off the Argentine coast. As noted above the RN has fired Tomahawk before and has purchased the newest Block IV type.

    As long as the Yanks didn't try and exercise any veto over the last above (since they supply the TLAMs) I reckon that would be game set and match for the UK since a successful strike on the Argentine mainland must surely call a halt without the need to hit the Falklands or any naval surface assets. The RN might have been stripped to the bone but the bone still has enough marrow in it to keep the Falklands.

    The Argentines must know this, so logic suggests it must be sabre rattling. The alternative is too mad to contemplate. There's only one way the Argentines get the Falklands and that's if they buy them - enough to buy out the UK's interest in the oil and the cost of generously resettling the islanders, with the UK recognizing that this would save them massive sums on an ongoing basis and thus asking for a realistic price.

    South Georgia could be kept out of it so that UK could retain an legitimate interest in the Antarctic mainland and the same treaty could and should contain provisions to end any disputes between Argentina and the UK over the boundaries of their Antarctic Territories, or better yet yield up both claims in favour of the United Nations with both countries bases having the status of embassies/consulates.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,200 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    The Type 45 is really a cruiser at 8,000 tonnes (the 'destroyer' designation is just for the benefit of the Treasury/politicians, as was calling the Type 22's 'frigates' and the Invincibles 'through deck cruisers'). So yes, I'm afraid I have to be the one to tell you that dispatching it does represent an increase in UK forces.

    British warship nomenclature tends to make sense when you look at it. As a general rule, if it's an ocean-going warship with only one primary role, it's a frigate. If it's got two roles, eg ASuW and AAW, it's a destroyer. If it can do all three, it's a cruiser. The -45s are AAW and ASuW primarily with only limited ASW capability.

    Other nations tend to go by displacement or endurance. The US Navy, for example, the only notable combat difference between a hangar-equipped Burke destroyer and a Tico cruiser is the latter has a larger missile magazine capacity, and is a bit bigger.
    And do you really mean to tell me that you believe the tour of young officer Windsor is a coincidence...?

    So what was the signal being sent when HRH went on a counter-drug tour aboard HMS Iron Duke in the Caribbean?

    NTM


  • #43
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    Whether we are commissioned into the UK's Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force, the wording on the commission is the same - 'You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge yout DUTY as such in the Rank of xxxxxxxxxxx......We do hereby Command them [inferior ranks] to Obey you and to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any your superior Officer, according to the Rules and Disciplines of War'.

    In that respect, Princes William and Harry got the exact same wording on THEIR commission as I did on mine - the only difference was that theirs were signed by their mom.

    They might be royal princes, but they are the same as me in every other respect - officers in the Armed Forces who go where they are sent, the same way as I was.

    tac


  • #44
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    dowlingm wrote: »
    HMS Astute or a Trafalgar class sub loaded with Spearfish and Tomahawk could have laid out Belgrano AND at least some of its escorts AND launched a strike on Falklands airfields (to higher precision than Black Buck) AND a strike on the nearest Skyhawk airfield in a single patrol while remaining hundreds of miles off the Argentine coast. As noted above the RN has fired Tomahawk before and has purchased the newest Block IV type.

    +1.

    Precisely the point I have been trying, so far with no success, to make.

    tac


  • #45
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    tac foley wrote: »
    They might be royal princes, but they are the same as me in every other respect - officers in the Armed Forces who go where they are sent, the same way as I was.

    I don't believe this for a second (the Windsor family are vital to British national interests, and all that) and I'm surprised that someone would bother to claim it.

    Their 'service' is what it has been for at least a century now: an extended rolling PR exercise to rehabilitate the fairly loathsome Windsors using new, untainted generations.


  • #46
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    Adml Woodward said with the Armed Forces already "over-committed" in Afghanistan and Libya and the Navy drastically weakened following last year's defence review "the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing"

    Admiral Sandy Woodward.


  • #47
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Admiral Sandy Woodward.

    Why do you continually post the same tired quote? Do you have nothing else to add to these conversations? No opinion or viewpoint of your own?

    I assume the answer to both questions would be no.

    Seeing as you are a well noted outspoken critic of Britain on this board, I'm sure you would have done so by this point.

    Why are you, as an Irish republican, so interested in the British Armed Forces anyway?


  • #48
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    bwatson wrote: »
    Why are you, as an Irish republican, so interested in the British Armed Forces anyway?

    Why are *you* posting on a .ie military forum?


  • #49
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    Why are *you* posting on a .ie military forum?

    What do you mean by the asterisks?


  • #50
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    bwatson wrote: »
    What do you mean by the asterisks?

    It's called emphasis.


  • #51
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Maoltuile wrote: »
    It's called emphasis.

    Not necessarily, which is why I asked.

    The bluntness of your response was very out of place considering this.

    Seeing as bold fonts, colours etc were available to you - which are far more often used to symbolize the importance of a certain word or phrase in media such as message boards and other forms of textual communications - I was not at all sure of your intention.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    He doesn't think *Brits* should be allowed to post on an Irish forum or *people* living in *Britain* or the *occupied six counties*. Or *people* like me and virtually everyone else who has moved from the Brits = bad and anyone who is their enemy no matter how bad they are. He's the kind of guys that if the alien spaceships attacked London, you know which side he's on.

    He's a 'little Irelander' and as such adds a comedy element to the discussion.

    But as ever he's protected by the 'rules' and he'll accuse me of ad homien, YAWN!


  • #53
    Turbine
    Site Banned Posts: 317 ✭✭Turbine


    xflyer to be fair some of the posts in this topic have been nothing short of shameful, and I'm surprised the mods haven't stepped in. People like bwatson openly calling on Argentina to be bombed to oblivion, just to send a message. Why should these kind of posts be tolerated? Especially on an Irish forum. The Falklands/Malvinas War wasn't our war, we had nothing to do with it, so why should certain members be allowed to hijack this thread and openly support the mass bombing and killing of Argentinians?

    That's who you're defending right now, so if you want to talk about taking sides, I'd be careful which boat you get into...


  • #54
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Turbine wrote: »
    xflyer to be fair some of the posts in this topic have been nothing short of shameful, and I'm surprised the mods haven't stepped in. People like bwatson openly calling on Argentina to be bombed to oblivion, just to send a message. Why should these kind of posts be tolerated? Especially on an Irish forum. The Falklands/Malvinas War wasn't our war, we had nothing to do with it, so why should certain members be allowed to hijack this thread and openly support the mass bombing and killing of Argentinians?

    That's who you're defending right now, so if you want to talk about taking sides, I'd be careful which boat you get into...

    Indeed, that little ominous threat swings the other way when one considers the constant, tired, same old, political mud-slinging that some members of Boards like to peddle at the drop of the word "Britain" whilst contributing nothing to what is a forum on matters martial. One could almost say that fits the description of the term "Troll". Funny that ...


  • #55
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Turbine wrote: »
    xflyer to be fair some of the posts in this topic have been nothing short of shameful, and I'm surprised the mods haven't stepped in. People like bwatson openly calling on Argentina to be bombed to oblivion, just to send a message. Why should these kind of posts be tolerated? Especially on an Irish forum. The Falklands/Malvinas War wasn't our war, we had nothing to do with it, so why should certain members be allowed to hijack this thread and openly support the mass bombing and killing of Argentinians?

    That's who you're defending right now, so if you want to talk about taking sides, I'd be careful which boat you get into...

    You are very, very wrong. You have either completely failed to understand my post or you have decided to manipulate it intentionally in order to make a point. You are a disgrace and I am very hopeful the mods step in and punish you.

    Have another read of my post, which you have so kindly hyperlinked, and then quote to me where I have:

    1. Called for Argentina to be bombed to oblivion, just to send a message.

    2. openly supported the mass bombing and killing of Argentinians

    You seriously disgust me.


  • #56
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Turbine wrote: »
    Especially on an Irish forum. The Falklands/Malvinas War wasn't our war, we had nothing to do with it, so why should certain members be allowed to hijack this thread and openly support the mass bombing and killing of Argentinians?

    This part made me laugh. You are on a military forum. Ireland has had almost nothing to do with most of the conflicts discussed here. Should the WW1, WW2, Cold War forums all be closed? Should 3/4 of threads on the politics board be closed? Should the soccer forums be disbanded?

    How the **** did I hijack a thread? If I'm not mistaken the thread is about a second falklands war, and I commented on what I believe would be a necessary, even vital, reaction should Argentina decide to invade a British overseas territory for the second time.


  • #57
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    xflyer wrote: »
    He doesn't think *Brits* should be allowed to post on an Irish forum or *people* living in *Britain* or the *occupied six counties*. Or *people* like me and virtually everyone else who has moved from the Brits = bad and anyone who is their enemy no matter how bad they are. He's the kind of guys that if the alien spaceships attacked London, you know which side he's on.

    He's a 'little Irelander' and as such adds a comedy element to the discussion.

    But as ever he's protected by the 'rules' and he'll accuse me of ad homien, YAWN!

    I'm going to assume here (because you've not really identified who "he" might be here) that you're referring to me.

    In which case, wind your neck in please, mate. I was merely responding to our nordie friend's claim that BorderRat shouldn't be commenting on the BA - to which the obvious response is, that this is a Military forum on an Irish website, and if the same rule were to be applied in reverse...

    But yes, play the British victim card all you want.


  • #58
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    bwatson wrote: »
    Not necessarily, which is why I asked.

    The bluntness of your response was very out of place considering this.

    Seeing as bold fonts, colours etc were available to you - which are far more often used to symbolize the importance of a certain word or phrase in media such as message boards and other forms of textual communications - I was not at all sure of your intention.

    Ahh, I see. Well, on a Mac running Safari at least, there's no option to put in bold (and I'm not really familiar with how to put such in manually on this system).


  • #59
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,200 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mod hasn't stepped in yet because so far things have been on the correct side of the line, but it's getting worse. I doubt Mr. Watson was actually advocating a first strike against Argentina. Even if he were, it should be quite simple to point out the liabilities of such a course of action without worrying about personal motivations.


  • #60
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Mod hasn't stepped in yet because so far things have been on the correct side of the line, but it's getting worse. I doubt Mr. Watson was actually advocating a first strike against Argentina. Even if he were, it should be quite simple to point out the liabilities of such a course of action without worrying about personal motivations.

    If the poster had bothered to read my post properly, he would have seen I was responding to another post about how Britain would/should respond in the event of a second Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands.

    I think he should also have noted that I suggested the use of guided missiles to destroy Argentine government and military targets - an accepted strategy used widely before by Britain in operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya ( a tactic devised and perfected by the US air force no less) - and not blocks of flats and housing estates rammed with innocent Argentine children.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    cruasder777 wrote: »
    "In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.

    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 ordnance 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.


Advertisement