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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Falklands War The Second?

245678

Comments

  • #52
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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: 16,456 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, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #62
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭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: 54,087 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭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: 16,456 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.


  • #92
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


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

    Oh, come on. Must you British posters really have such thin skins and be so defensive over every little thing?

    I gave a genuinely-felt compliment to the British soldiers who fought in the war, no hidden barb, but apparently it wasn't fulsome enough for your liking.


  • #93
    Maoltuile
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Maoltuile


    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.

    They have a couple of squadrons of a completely refurbished A4 model called the "Fightinghawk", as well as a number of MEKO destroyers and frigates. And their military is now volunteer, rather than the conscripts that made it up before.

    I don't think this is coming to war, whatever the Tory government and press may be saying. But I think if it ever were to go that way again, it'd be Mercosur backing up the Argentinians that would be the nightmare situation for the British - and the Americans not likely to give up the keys to the NATO armament stocks if it meant ruining their influence in South and Central America.


  • #94
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    They had most of the MEKOs in 1982 as well, and the A4 still needs somewhere to land.
    Most importantly, the armed forces are not running the country, so they may not be as keen to go to war as in the past.


  • #95
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    goldie fish wrote: »
    ...Most importantly, the armed forces are not running the country, so they may not be as keen to go to war as in the past.

    i view it the other way around - because the armed forces have so little respect within the political sphere, they don't have the political capital to say 'no, its too difficult - we don't have the capability', even if its private.

    its the Argentine mil that will have done the in-depth studies and have come to the conclusion that its somewhere between impossible and difficult to make an effective attack on the islands or create a blockade, not the politicos. the politicos, in the way of politicos everywhere, will say 'they've got four fighters and a universally derided SAM system, are 8,000 miles from re-enforcement and the re-inforcements are fighting in Afghanistan - we've got 40-or so fighters, four Destroyers and three submarines, and are only 450km away, whats the problem?'.

    its not the Argentine military that are going to push this, in fact i think they think it'll be like last time, only worse - but look who got the blame last time, look who'se going to be the fall-guy if it happens again, and look who - because of the history of the military in the dictatorship and in the war of 1982 - just doesn't have the legitimatcy to say 'we can't do this - we'll lose'.


  • #96
    getz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    as we know[and as it should always be] the only way argentina will ever get the falklands is if the people on it wish it, but argentina is so corrupt no sane person would want to be ruled from buenos aires,for instance ,even before she was elected president of argentina cristino fernandez de kirchners then husband was discovered carrying a briefcase stuffed with $880,000 in cash,destined to support the presidential bid,the charge of curruption is against her but it will take the avarage of 14 years to work through the system,and only 15 in the 750 cases has led to a conviction,even worse it is now been found out that argentinas human rights group is also corrupt, money has been spent on, ferraris yachts, and villas to the tune of $200 million .


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    cruasder777
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭cruasder777


    tricky D wrote: »
    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.



    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.

    tricky D wrote: »
    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.



    ........http://www.eliteukforces.info/articles/sas-versus-exocets.php

    . "The SAS prepared to put in a plan B. Another SAS team planned to insert onto Tierra Del Fuego on gemini inflatables launched from the deck of Royal Navy submarine HMS Onyx, surfaced off the coast. The SAS men planned to sneak onto the air base, placing explosives on the parked planes, Exocets and pilot's mess. They would then escape on foot to Chile.

    Before the plan could be carried out, the Argentineans surrendered at Port Stanley and the war was over."


  • #98
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    This summarised comparison may be relevant to the discussion.....

    TheBalanceofPowerFaulklands2012Infographic_4f43cd3001d35_w587.jpg


  • #99
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    apparently neomam(who?) produce a load of ill-informed ****e.

    if you have a thousand Euro's, and put them on a plane to Tashkent, do you still have a thousand Euro's?

    those observers with more than two braincells to rub together and who don't struggle with fasteners other than velcro, will note that while the UK controls a very significant military capability, and when compared to Argentina it is overpowering - the part of that military capability that isn't 8000 or even more miles from Argentina isn't that significant, and is/may be eclipsed by Argentinas military capability.

    military force that you can't bring to bear is irrelevent, and when its in the UK or Afghanistan it may as well not exist.


  • #100
    tim9002
    Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭tim9002


    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.

    No, neither Hermes or Invicible were attacked directly. The Argentines though they attacked and damaged Invicible but it was another ship.


  • #101
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tim9002 wrote: »
    No, neither Hermes or Invicible were attacked directly. The Argentines though they attacked and damaged Invicible but it was another ship.

    The Atlantic Conveyor.

    Apparently, on a radar it would have looked like a carrier.

    Inadvertently, it was a considerable loss.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement