What would happen if the Falkland war II broke out?

[SUBMAN1]

Watching this on Military Channel and without a real air capability anymore, I'm thinking The UK would't have a candle to hold in reclaiming them this time around. Their Navy is a phantom of what it was in 1982.

-S

[CastleBravo]

What you are really asking is what If Britain stopped subsidising (paying) Argentina for the use of Islas Malvinas?

On their own Britain couldn't hold the islands, but they couldn't hold it last time without allied help. It is half a globe away from Britain.

[FIREWALL]

What if..... ( insert a ridicules scenario ) happened. :haha:

[SUBMAN1]

What if..... ( insert a ridicules scenario ) happened. :haha:

Lets put it this way, I don't think Argentina is forgetting about it. You should watch this video. It is only a matter of time I would think.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Is Argentina rattling sabres?

[Dowly]

Would Argentina risk it being against UK and possibly it's allies? :hmmm:

[CastleBravo]

Britain couldn't hold its home islands in this century. Australia could take them....make England the penal colony...:oops:

[FIREWALL]

I've got alot going on in the good ole USA to not give a horses patoot what's going on there. :yep:

May the best man win. :)

[Platapus]

What if Superman was a Nazi?

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml
:D

[mapuc]

I can tell you all what happen, if...

I lost all the times I played the scenario, on my FC.

Markus

[SUBMAN1]

Turn it into a real thought instead of Superman thoughts. This type of ignorance led to WWII.

-S

[Letum]

The Argentinians underestimated us last time to the extent that they did not
think we would even try to hold on to the islands, let alone deliver a
devastating blow that would quickly lead to the toppling of the Argentinian
military government. Even they are not capable of thinking that they could
acheive it now.

The Argentinian military was very much at it's peak during the Falklands;
mainly due to the extremely pro-military government. Whilst Argentinian
technology has advanced, the military has shrunk in size and they still lack
the highly trained infantry that the British continue to excel with (SAS,
Blackwatch, etc; most of which have trained on the Falklands at
sometime!).

Our Navy has the same number of carriers available as it did during the
Falklands and the amphibious ability of the Royal Navy has improved
dramatically. Our Submarine force is still highly potent. In six years time
will will posses the world's newest carrier class with a second ship to follow
in 2018. Our current conventional ground/sea missile force was almost
non-existent during the Falklands.

The Falklands it's self is now heavily garrisoned by fresh troops and
hardened veterans of the Middle East. Fortifications have been built on
parts of the island. It's a regular venue for training and wargames. All
manner of scenarios are rehearsed.

At any given time one or more infantry battalions and aircraft carriers are
on 24 hour notice to be deployed to the Falklands. Commitments elsewhere
would not significantly impede first reactions.

Argentina's air force consists of ~35 A4 Skyhawks (from 1976) and 11
Mirage 5 jets (1979). This is contrasted by the 80+ jet aircraft fielded in
1982.
Whilst these planes where a threat in 1982, they are not of serious concern
to the Tornados or Typhoons that could be deployed in much greater numbers by just one of our carriers.

According to THIS (http://www.coha.org/2008/12/honor-shame-and-duty-the-reality-of-argentina%E2%80%99s-tattered-armed-forces-today/) report:
In a May 2007 op-ed to the conservative Argentine daily La
Nacion, former Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena declared that the
average age of the country’s military hardware is thirty years. He reported
that the army was operating at 30% of its supposed strength, due to its
limited ability to house and feed its troops, as well as to maintain its
equipment and weaponry. The former official gave other examples, such as
that out of 31 military transport aircraft in inventory, only four were
currently operational. Although the Argentine navy is considered new in
comparison to those found in other countries across the continent, it
remains one of the less potent in terms of its inherent military capacity.

[SUBMAN1]

Our average age of military in the US is 30 years too.

Thanks for the insight though Letum. Though I question some of the Navies ability from some of the threads here. The UK Navy is way underfunded compared to what it was. What do you think about that? They were losing their carriers last I read too. Budget cuts.

-S

[Letum]

This type of ignorance led to WWII.

That is utterly ridiculous.

[SUBMAN1]

That is utterly ridiculous. How so?

[Letum]

We are not losing any carriers any time soon and are in the process of
replacing them with the QE class. we currently have two in action, one in
reserve and two under construction. As well as out helicopter carrier.

The main cut backs have been in the destroyer force.
We currently have 5 aging destroyers (and one in reserve).
It was planned to double this force by building 12 new destroyers. However
cut-backs mean that the five old destroyers will only be replaced by 6 new
destroyers.

Our position as the 2nd largest NATO navy is safe.

[bookworm_020]

Britain couldn't hold its home islands in this century. Australia could take them....make England the penal colony...:oops:


Why bother New Zealand is closer and is less defended.:yeah:

Back to Topic, I believe that there would be an obvious build up if Argentina was going to try again. They could take the islands quiet quickly as it would take time to get any reinforcements there (7100 NM or 13,150km), but the trick is to hold them, and I doubt they could do that as they would agaist some very high tech equipment and very little support.

[Skybird]

The british admirals have admitted that last time they escaped defeat very closely, because an Argentinian submarine fired a full broadside of torpedoes at their carrier and flagship - it's just that in the heat of battle the crew wired the torpedoes in a wrong manner, loosing control of them immediately after launch althoug having reached very ideal firing position. It has been reported in the media repeatedly without the government objecting to that description. I have quoted that repeatedly here over the past years.

On that day Britain simply had more luck then one could imagine, since all torpedoes fired were wired wrong.

Again: L-U-C-K.

The British navy has admitted that if that broadside would have hit, it probably would have crippled and sunk that carrier, and that this loss would have forced the British armada to give up and retreat - with air coverage gone.

On the other hand, long before the British fleet reached the island there were rumours of a British submarine already operating at the islands, which made the Argentinian navy no longer operating in vicinity of the islands, although that rumour was not confirmed any maybe just had been spread by the British to hamper Argentinian operations by bluffing them. Later, obviously, there was a British sub present indeed.

I would not count on the Argentinian sailors to misconnect their torpedoe-wires again. Also, Argentinian air force repeatedly penetrated the British air defences.

In today's hightech age, you better do not wage a hightech war against an enemy with weapons as sophisticated as your own. And such weapons spread worldwide.

Anyhow, the colonial days are over, and waging a major war about some rocks with few people on them that are some ten thosuand miles away to me does not make much sense - no matter that "pride of our nation" thing. The balance of gains and investments is always negative.

And then this: the smaller a navy is in size and the more sophisticated and expensive it'S units are - the more serious and costly is the loss of just one of them.

[Onkel Neal]

What if Superman was a Nazi?

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml
:D


cut to footage of troops marching - newspaper headline reads: "Uberman Takes Stalingrad in 5 Minutes"; second headline reads: "Uberman Rounds Up 2 Million Jews"; third headline reads: "Uberman Kills Every Person in England, U.S. Next" ]


Holy crap! :haha:

Our average age of military in the US is 30 years too.

Thanks for the insight though Letum. Though I question some of the Navies ability from some of the threads here. The UK Navy is way underfunded compared to what it was. What do you think about that? They were losing their carriers last I read too. Budget cuts.

-S

The UK Navy may be underfunded, but it still outclasses a fully funded Argentine Navy. One Royal Navy attack sub could sink the whole thing.

Never bet against England ;)

[FIREWALL]

The british admirals have admitted that last time they escaped defeat very closely, because an Argentinian submarine fired a full broadside of torpedoes at their carrier and flagship - it's just that in the heat of battle the crew wired the torpedoes in a wrong manner, loosing control of them immediately after launch althoug having reached very ideal firing position. It has been reported in the media repeatedly without the government objecting to that description. I have quoted that repeatedly here over the past years.

On that day Britain simply had more luck then one could imagine, since all torpedoes fired were wired wrong.

Again: L-U-C-K.

The British navy has admitted that if that broadside would have hit, it probably would have crippled and sunk that carrier, and that this loss would have forced the British armada to give up and retreat - with air coverage gone.

On the other hand, long before the British fleet reached the island there were rumours of a British submarine already operating at the islands, which made the Argentinian navy no longer operating in vicinity of the islands, although that rumour was not confirmed any maybe just had been spread by the British to hamper Argentinian operations by bluffing them. Later, obviously, there was a British sub present indeed.

I would not count on the Argentinian sailors to misconnect their torpedoe-wires again. Also, Argentinian air force repeatedly penetrated the British air defences.

In today's hightech age, you better do not wage a hightech war against an enemy with weapons as sophisticated as your own. And such weapons spread worldwide.

Anyhow, the colonial days are over, and waging a major war about some rocks with few people on them that are some ten thosuand miles away to me does not make much sense - no matter that "pride of our nation" thing. The balance of gains and investments is always negative.

And then this: the smaller a navy is in size and the more sophisticated and expensive it'S units are - the more serious and costly is the loss of just one of them.


You still sit in the middle with your analyasis. GB won the last time.

And a rerun unless someone steps in will turn out the same.

This is a nobrainer unless you a dreamer.

[nikimcbee]

Holy crap! :haha:



The UK Navy may be underfunded, but it still outclasses a fully funded Argentine Navy. One Royal Navy attack sub could sink the whole thing.

Never bet against England ;)

I think it would depend on how crippled the UK is by PCness:dead:. Assuming that the PCness is overcome by patriotism, I'd think the British subs armed with torps, harpoons, and cruise missles could wreak havoc on any navy.

Then, send in the Royal Buna Brigade; 1 Buna= 50 Argentine soldiers. Game over, time enough to make the evening cricket match.

The US would be a non-factor, as we are too occupied with socialism. Now if Argentina was smart, they'd contribute to obama's and HRC's election fund. Obama, with his glib tongue, would invoke the monroe doctrine again. The British would be overwhelmed by obama's oratory skill and immedetly capitulate to his will.

...or not to be out-foxed, the British allow obama to annex the falklands and let them become states, thus adding 2 more senators and (x) amount of congressmen.

What were we talking about again?

[nikimcbee]

Watching this on Military Channel and without a real air capability anymore, I'm thinking The UK would't have a candle to hold in reclaiming them this time around. Their Navy is a phantom of what it was in 1982.

-S

You mean this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVDeN7iB4NE&feature=related

[XabbaRus]

Skybird please confirm the whole broadside thing. AFAIK that is unconfirmed and still is.

CastleBravo. Yes you gave us access to the AIM-9L and with back channel supplies of stingers but in the most part the Falklands was fought by the UK alone. In fact there were quite a few in US govt. cirlces who were not happy with Maggie socking it to the Argentines.

Also there is a permanent fighter force on Falklands which could take out the Argentine air force way out from the islands.

Oh and please can you confirm about the UK subsidising the Argentines?

[Skybird]

Xabba, find the old threat(s) on the issue from some years ago, there I told names as well as links, plus it was BBC major news, if I remember correctly. I struggle to find it again. But it was confirmed by either the admiral commanding that expeditionary fleet, or the chief of the British navy . It has been revealed just some years ago, like it also was revealed just 5 or 6 years ago that the British had send nuclear weapons to the fleet, that then were transferred from the transporting frigates to the carriers. the argentininians had four submarines, two WWII-era boats, and two German modern Type-209, the latter definitely had the capability to penetrate the ASW screen of the fleet. that 209 also fired repeatedly at the fleet but over too great distances, thus all shots missed. The British failed to detect it for the whole duration of it's operation time - the entire war.

If I were the navy, I would not talk much about my capital ships escaping by sheer luck, too. ;) It raises the question why politicians should pay for new carriers if these are so vulnerable to enemy subs.

One word on the human side of the war. Today, the number of losses on British side is counted to be smaller than the number of veterans of that war who have commited suicide due to posttraumatic stress syndrome since the war ended. Suicides on Argentinian side equal roughly two thirds of their KIA numbers.

[Skybird]

I searched more a bit and found Admiral Woodward, commander of the British, admitting that in his views the Argentinians had a solid chance to win the war if only they would have focussed their air war on the British carriers, instead of scattering them somewhat. I understand that he reveals that in his biography published in 1997.

Reader'S comments made me curious on that book, maybe I read it. I have read "Into the Storm" by Gen. Franks three times, too, an found it very valuable. Woodward'S book seem to describe the Falkland war from the same persective, on the same level of command and with comparable objective attitude.

[clive bradbury]

Britain couldn't hold its home islands in this century. Australia could take them....make England the penal colony...:oops:

You wouldn't be the first person to make that particular misjudgement...

[Oberon]

IIRC there was a lot of concern about Argie subs in the area and the ASW was out in force, including a few Oberons (one of which rammed a rock and broke a torp tube during a SpecFor landing).
Today, as I was saying during one of our Teamspeak gatherings in the Lolwaffles the other night, our fighter force would certainly do well against the Argies however I do worry about our carrier CAPs.
Eurofighters and Tornados are all well and good but we'd have to tanker them there. Our current carrier based Harriers are the GR9s, which are primarily ground attack aircraft, enough perhaps to put up a fight against the Argies, but I'd be a lot happier if they had upgraded the Sea Harriers to cover the gap between their use-by date and the incoming F-35s.

Although, to be fair, our new Type-45s would blat a good number of incoming Argie ASMs, so hopefully no Sheffield repeats, then once the way was clear onto the island, we'd get our lads ashore and then, Argie or no Argie, the Falklands would be ours again in no short order.

Of course, the question also is, would the British public want to go to war over the islands? There was a reasonable sized amount of the population in the last war who didn't even know where they were, some people, I'm told, thought they were off Scotland :haha: And with our current government, I strongly suspect that we'd vacate the islands and then apologise to the Argentinians for being on them in the first place.

But, if it came down to it, I reckon we'd pull through, perhaps a little more bloodied than before, our forces have been dramatically downsized since the end of the Cold War, but, as Neal said, Never bet against England, we often do our best when the odds are against us :03:

[Takeda Shingen]

Never bet against England ;)

x2. When put to it, British resolve is no trivial thing. In that regard, Oberon is correct: If the British decide that they want to keep the Falklands, then they are going to keep the Falklands.

[Biggles]

Would Argentina risk it being against UK and possibly it's allies? :hmmm:

This. I can't really imagine that Argentina would risk a war like that again.

[OneToughHerring]

Aren't there any Argentinian subsimmers who could fill us in on how they feel about this?

When I look at the map I can't help but notice that those islands sure are a lot closer to Argentina then they are to the UK. They are also quite costly to maintain in this time and era.

[SUBMAN1]

x2. When put to it, British resolve is no trivial thing. In that regard, Oberon is correct: If the British decide that they want to keep the Falklands, then they are going to keep the Falklands.

I don't think they have this resolve anymore.

-S

[clive bradbury]

I don't think they have this resolve anymore.

-S

Which was precisely the misjudgement the Argentines made the first time around...

[antikristuseke]

I don't think they have this resolve anymore.

-S

I belive you to be mistaken as were the Argentinians first time round.

[Mush Martin]

The People of the Falklands wont accept argentine governance ever.

The argentines know this now. there is no prestige gain or profit in the
this media age in forcibly subjugating and incarcerating an unwilling people.
they would have to literally occupy by force under the eyes of the world.
not gaining any prestige and although it might distract internal dissent on
invasion day it would only provide more ammunition to the dissenter's in
every subsequent hour.

They were clearly made fun of after the last war in
"An Ungentlemanly act" for not having even the barest
clue what they were going to find, they expected suppressed
spaniards and discovered they were oppressing hostile anglos
and occupying there farms.

there is no real resource gain in Argentinian occupation, and the strategic
location that Britain and the RN hold dear about the islands is a
strategic location that argentina is already located in.

The only real purpose of an occupation ( or just threatening one )
is to divert attention away from massively failed internal policy, staving
off the non confidence of the people for another month.

admittedly there is prestige to be gained in facing down the UK
victoriously but that wont happen Neal is right, and I am in agreement
with Tom Clancy on the weight we should give to a perisher graduate
on the battlefield.

finally the whole thing can be stopped cold by bringing the
falklands into the main of the UK instead of as a colony basically
making it a direct Province, then there is no question of Resolve
as invading the UK is generally a bad Idea, several people better
at it than the argentine's have tried.

jmo

M

[Biggles]

I don't think they have this resolve anymore.

-S

Why not? If their land gets invaded, they should fight back, if they have the means.

[Jimbuna]

If anyone is to learn anything from history, let it be never to underestimate the resolve of the British when faced with adversity.

Whilst fully recognising how downsized our military has become in recent decades, don't forget how Maggie used the Argentinian invasion to turn the tide of negative opinion towards her and her government into a positive one.

I reckon Gordon Brown would see any similar opportunity as a political Godsend should the need arise before the next election.

The standing force on the islands are much better prepared this time round and might just hold out long enough for relief to arrive.

I think the major chink in our armour is the feeble air assets on the island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1435_Flight_RAF

[Letum]

4 Typhoons seam an adequate match to the ~10 A4 Skyhawks former
Argentinian Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena claims Argentinia can field.

Besides, no aircraft at all where present in '82.

[TLAM Strike]

...the argentininians had four submarines, two WWII-era boats, and two German modern Type-209... Actually they had two, one of the old GUPPY boats was decomissioned at that time and the second Type 209 was in dry dock.


Today the TO&Es of the two sides would be quite diffrent. The ARA lacks a CV and CL however most of their DDs (which are equivlent to most navies FFs) are more modern then in '82. While the RN has heliborne AEW capablity that they did not have in '82 also they have E-3 Sentry aircraft that they lacked which could be based at Acention and be refueled by VC10/Tristars or by loaned USAF tankers aircraft. AEW was probaly the RN major failing in '82.

The RN's subs are now armed with highly capable torpedoes, not to mention SLCMs (both Anti-Ship and Land Attack). So this time around the UK could hit Argentina's mainland.

The ARA's three subs would be a problem but in that case I figure that an area denial stratigy would work best. Keep the RN surface ships far out at sea and force them to enter deeper water to attack where they are more detectable when snorkeling while RN SSN isolate the Falklands from supply kinda like the Allies did in the Pacific durring WWII. No point in holding the islands if you can't keep the troops there fed and equipped.

[FIREWALL]

I smell a Hostage Situation comeing.:yep:

[Jimbuna]

4 Typhoons seam an adequate match to the ~10 A4 Skyhawks former
Argentinian Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena claims Argentinia can field.

Besides, no aircraft at all where present in '82.

That's true.....it simply looks dangerously threadbare/minimalistic to me though.

[TigerShark808]

Well South/Central America has been a very dormant place as far as conflict and major rebellion goes. Its only a matter of time before the whole place breakes out . Im surprised in this day and age of " ANTI COLONIALISM" this part of the world has not broken out already/ years ago.

Many look @ the middle east and Asia as the only hot spots to worry about while central and south America is simmering in the back round.

And having many friends and family from this part of the world I know whats on there minds. Its not all rose colored glasses. And not every servant is pleased to receive min wage and lucky enough to pick fruit for America. <---FACT!

[Hakahura]

Argentina take and hold the Falklands?
Not a chance.
Outcome would be the same as last time.
Possibly even worse for Argentina. After all if they couldn't take the hint after round one, wouldn't the UK forces have to inflict higher casualties in round two to ensure the message is read and understood?

Very biased "what if" video on the you tube link, might as well ask what if the UK govt had ordered a Polaris strike on Buenos Aires.

Hopefully this is all just foolish speculation and the current Argentinean govt has more sense than its predecessor.

[jumpy]

I guess we'd have at least one submarine lurking about down there, surely?:lurk:

[Jimbuna]

I guess we'd have at least one submarine lurking about down there, surely?:lurk:

I should imagine that if there weren't already one down there, at the first inkling of trouble at least a couple would be quickly despatched.

[Kapitan]

I think you would be very wrong to assume britian couldnt defend the falklands again, just because i doesnt have the numbers of 1982 doesnt mean its not capible, dont forget in 1982 we only had invincible and hermes as carriers, today we have three carriers all be it one is mothballed.

We have the more capible type 23 frigates 13 in total as well as 4 remaining batch 3 type 22's, with 7 trafalgars 1 swiftsure and 1 astute boat gives us a fair pounce that will keep the argentine navy in port we did it last time as the argentinians openly states "we cannot counter a nuclear submarine" little has changed.

We have 4 type 42 destroyers and there are another 4 lurking around some where, we also now have three large platform docks HMS Ocean Bulwark and albion giving us better capacity in terms of we would be able to transport more units to the front in time of war, we can now launch attack helicopters from HMS Ocean the AH64D longbow apache giving better air support to ground troops, and its good to note ocean can also take chinooks too.

you then have the RFA which has 4 large landing ships bay class which can drop a fair amount of troops and equipment making our landing force to 7 large ships, this is without the other mothballed roundtable class that are still kicking about.

A good thing with the UK is in time of war they can requisition merchant vessels the QE2 and canberra sailed last time could you immagine the QM2 this time?

Whats more the UK would send down tornado's and tankers and awacs to the assencion islands to fly missions into the falklands so it will have a good role in attack and defence and would quickly gain air superiority or supremacy.

Remember in 1982 24 sea harriers took on the 200 strong argie air force not one was lost in air to air warfare.

Since 1982 the UK has stationed 2 troops for every one person on the island so theres around 3000 troops on the falklands that are permanantly there, whats more they also have an active naval presence with the flaklands gaurd ships they never leave the post and also HMS Endurance still looks after the falklands too.

in 1982 the americans offered us an aircraft carrier do believe it was the kitty hawk we turned it down we didnt need it we still probably wouldnt, give it another 10 years we will have type 45's and the new carriers therefore even now i dont think argentina would invade, whats more they havnt got the funding to either.

[Max2147]

To add to what Kapitan said, the Argentine military has been mostly neglected since 1982. Today they've got a few destroyers and three old diesel subs. Most of their equipment is at least 25 years old. Their Air Force is essentially the same one they had in 1982 - Mirages and Skyhawks, only in fewer numbers.

[Cohaagen]

Provocation thread fails miserably as it turns into intelligent discussion shocker :DL

There is no way the Argentines would even attempt another invasion, let alone prevail in a shooting war. They were beaten so soundly in the ground war that I doubt the memory has had chance to fade. Despite occupying every mountaintop around Stanley, in fortified positions with artillery support, mortars, heavy machineguns, air support, etc., in each battle they managed to lose more men than the attackers - a stunning reversal of the traditional battle equation that attacking forces are expected to lose two men for every defender killed.

Moreover, you have hundreds of thousands of British troops, airmen and sailors battle-experienced from eight years fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the Argentine forces have little on their side except macho propaganda about "Islas Malvinas".

Astute and the first Type 45s are just about to come on stream in the next month or so, albeit in less numbers than expected (or needed). These are the premier units in their class, and there is also the Bay Class, HMS Ocean, Albion and Bulwark, the 23s and Batch 3 22s - all world-class vessels light years ahead of anything we fielded in 1982 (the Type 12s still had steam propulsion, for God's sake).

On their own Britain couldn't hold the islands, but they couldn't hold it last time without allied help. It is half a globe away from Britain.

Hmm, you mean the old Sidewinder chestnut, about the missiles which were already paid for and in the UK inventory when the war began (the US only released NATO stocks to replace those used)? Even then, as Sharkey Ward revealed, every Harrier missile kill was rear-aspect, so it had a far less dramatic impact than commonly held...though that never stopped the US manufacturer promoting the story at every turn. And as for the US providing fuel and facilities on Ascension Island - well, it's the least they could do for an ally, given that the British government has let them stay there for decades rent-free!

It's bad enough that American popular history writes their allies out of conflicts (British in WWII, Australians and Kiwis in Vietnam, UN in Korea, coalition in GW1, etc) without writing themselves into wars they had almost nothing to do with.

[August]

It's bad enough that American popular history writes their allies out of conflicts (British in WWII, Australians and Kiwis in Vietnam, UN in Korea, coalition in GW1, etc) without writing themselves into wars they had almost nothing to do with.

I keep hearing this complaint, usually from the English and it is starting to get irritating.

First off you say "American popular history" like it's a government department but you know that it's not. If we were to try to force total historical accuracy on writers and movie makers they would rightly scream free speech infringement.

Nor are British writers immune from doing the same thing. Case in point I saw the classic British movie "Battle of Britain" the other day but not once were any foreign members of the RAF depicted except the Poles. That's 284 men who risked life and limb to help defend England from the nazi scourge and the makers of that movie ignored their contribution. Should we blame British popular history for that oversight?

Educated folks on both sides of the pond know that WW2 was a team effort and to me that is good enough.

[Kapitan]

The thing that irritates people is when americans as in people not government claim "without us you wouldnt have won the war" or "we are the dog's bo**ox bow to us" it is crap so crap indead that the USN is chasing a diesel submarine its having to lease from sweden who is not a major global power and the bloody thing is running rings round them.

That is what gets to most people the fact americans think they are totaly invincible unfortunatly history has proved otherwise, no one is invincible you dont have to be big and strong to take on the strongest and win.

I admire the sence of american patriotism and the fact they stand by what they believe and are fully willing to fight tooth and nail for that, and i do admire the americans for this, but to push the policy over seas and into forigners faces is not really acceptable because it causes conflict, every person some where inside has a sence for thier country of oragin each country has had defeats and victories won and lost battles big and small.

The west cant see past thier noses and that is a fact we demand every country be a democracy and every country conform to a world order and if that country doesnt conform they are politically embarrased by us western nations sanctioned and then singled out for further humiliation.

Yet this goes against what the west is trying to stand for isnt a democracy a freedom of choice, speech, and government? so why is the USA UK NATO UN and the likes trying to take this away from a country ?
it seems non conformists to the world order are publically embarrased and unfortunatly as a citizen we hear day in day out about how these rouge nations are developing weapons to kill us all this is to scare us if they had them surely they would have used them by now?

Russia is a good example of this, recently two submarines were off the US east coast this made headline news even international news, yet like any other country in this world they have the legal right of navigation without hindrence in international waters, yet both submarines were probably being hounded by american naval vessels submarines and aircraft for the entiraty of thier patrols.
The big thing is "they pose a threat to national security they are operating close to american shores they have the potential to strike our nation"
And mr Obama do you not think for one moment why the Russians are doing this? maybe just maybe its because you have parked a few submarines off the russian coast so its only fair they send some to yours just to make it a point as in the like.

Or how about your policies of not entering terratorial waters the last time i checked murmansk was very deep inside Russian waters so far so it could be seen as a declaration or intent and you photographed it well done not only that years later you realse the pictures (it was intresting viewing them MR Obama i thank you much) but you moan and groan when a russian submarine does it to you.

Russia has the capability to ending america right now and america also has the same capability to end russia now these new missile shields, which a treaty was signed i do believe in the 1970's stating a missile shiel could not be constructed as it would give an overall impunity to one side and the effects of MAD would deminish making one side a supreme power rather than just having two super powers this was signed by the americans who now amazingly u turn on this.

poland and check rep are due to have the missile barriers installed who's missiles are they going to target should a launch occour? Iranian missile dont have the range to strike the EU let alone american and north korea can just about hit japan so of course it leads to only one other country capible of nuclear launch Russia.

As you guys know i have experiance in russia and i know what they feel, the reason they send submarines to your coast lines is because your doing it to them america betrayed the russians in the 1990's and continues to betray russia now and when a strong leader comes to power and says to america "shut the f**k up" you dont like it that is why in polls Vladimir putin scores a high 90% no one wanted putin to leave office which in my view a bad thing that he did in that capacity but it is good that he stays on he has done alot for the country something you americans british german have not seen will never see because your not there.

You cant expect democracy to evolve over night and people to adapt to it, especially because Russia has never had a democratic government in its entire history brezhnev tried and failed the only way is putins way and that is build slowly on even blocks.

I say this to the american government get your heads out your backsides start thinking before accusing think about what your going to do and who its going to effect and upset and then you may have more contries who are willing to conform.

I found a good documentary its done by the BBC and a british reporter but he lives in russia and has done since the 1990's take a look its done from russia's perspective and not american or british.

PART 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvnutD4WIYA
PART 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_xCOoApXk
PART 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toi6faBE6UI

Your american government thinks they know all about Russia and its people sadly your sorely mistaken its amusing to see someone who has never lived in russia walked down the streets of moscow or st petersburg or spoken to the people pass a judgement about these people they dont even know theres a big lesson to learn you think you know Russia and its people think again.

If you think britian cant challenge a nation such as argentina for the falklands again then i suggest you go back to school.

[Sailor Steve]

"I saw a film today, oh boy. The English army had just won the war..."

Kapitan, August said that educated people know the truth. Your argument seems to be with those of us who claim to be educated but aren't. Most of us, especially here, like to discuss the truth about World War 2 and other facets of history; that truth being the actual facts of who contributed what, and where. Everybody made a contribution to that conflict, and everybody deserves the credit.

I think you're a little too angry about this. No one here is putting you, or your people, down.

[Dowly]

Amazingly superbly awesomely great post there Kapitan. :salute:

[Tribesman]

Nor are British writers immune from doing the same thing. Case in point I saw the classic British movie "Battle of Britain" the other day but not once were any foreign members of the RAF depicted except the Poles. That's 284 men who risked life and limb to help defend England from the nazi scourge and the makers of that movie ignored their contribution. Should we blame British popular history for that oversight?

thats wierd as not only are many nationalitites depicted in that film but all the pilots and their nationalities are listed at the end of the film as a memorial to their contribution. Perhaps you need to watch the film again.

Hold on I just checked , you are right. Two jamaican pilots as well as an Austrian , Egyptian and Icelander are missing from the film

[August]

thats wierd as not only are many nationalitites depicted in that film but all the pilots and their nationalities are listed at the end of the film as a memorial to their contribution. Perhaps you need to watch the film again.

Really? Can you name an actor in that film that portrayed any of the 127 New Zealanders or 112 Canadians that participated in the battle? How about any of the 10 Irishmen?

Yes they are listed in the end credits (except for the ones you mention) but even that horrible movie U571 made mention of other nationalities in the end credits and that hasn't stopped Europeans from, rightly, complaining about its historical fabrications.

My point however is you can't blame an entire nation because some hollywood movie or dime store novel writer plays loose and fast with the facts. You might as well be advocating against free speech.

[Tribesman]

Really? Can you name an actor in that film that portrayed any of the 127 New Zealanders or 112 Canadians that participated in the battle?

Well there is Christopher Plummer for starters, amazingly he is Canadian and played a Canadian though of course Keith Park was played by Trevor Howard who was not really a New Zealander but was just acting as one and Micahael Redgrave is really from the West country but played as an Australian while Robert Shaw played fictional rendition of a rather famous South African.

[August]

Well there is Christopher Plummer for starters, amazingly he is Canadian and played a Canadian though of course Keith Park was played by Trevor Howard who was not really a New Zealander but was just acting as one and Micahael Redgrave is really from the West country but played as an Australian while Robert Shaw played fictional rendition of a rather famous South African.

Now you're gonna make me watch the movie again aren't ya?

[Hakahura]

Now you're gonna make me watch the movie again aren't ya?

It's a classic, I can think of a lot worse ways to waste a couple of hours.

[Hakahura]

Weird coincidence.....

On the telly right now...

On More4....

The Battle of Britain !

Must go.....

[Dowly]

It's a classic, I can think of a lot worse ways to waste a couple of hours.

I got pretty bored to it very soon. IIRC, I've watched it twice since I got it on DVD and really cant make myself watch it the 3rd time. :hmmm:

[Kapitan]

"I saw a film today, oh boy. The English army had just won the war..."

Kapitan, August said that educated people know the truth. Your argument seems to be with those of us who claim to be educated but aren't. Most of us, especially here, like to discuss the truth about World War 2 and other facets of history; that truth being the actual facts of who contributed what, and where. Everybody made a contribution to that conflict, and everybody deserves the credit.

I think you're a little too angry about this. No one here is putting you, or your people, down.

I think the posting sounds a little agressive i can quite agree with you steve however the main part of the post is more to do with the americans calling our nation drunks, and totaliterians and i wanted ideally to get the point accross that no matter how well people think they know us they dont because they dont live our lives.

I n regards to the the film some do over step the mark but i think its more along the lines of british pride if you get what i mean, the problem with the UK white population and its a fair majority here feel that our country is being invaded by black people (i intend no racial offence here) i personally dont have a problem with other cultures entering the UK provided they contribute to our system, i do have a problem with the ones who come here and just simply live off our welfare state.

But in regards to the film it would seem it was made for a british audiance therefore having a black jamican or asian pilot means the film wouldnt sell, simply because it would envoke a bit of unrest umongst viewers because thats not what they want to see on a screen they ideally want to see a rather educated british male with a moustache who says words like thats absolutly spiffing and chop chop than a jamican trying to say the same.

The film is made for one purpose to put bums on seats to pay and make money history comes second.

I can turn it around look at the K19 film it has so many factual flaws loved in the UK because it showed russians being drunk illequiped foolish stupid ect, while some may be true the facts were highly distorted so much so the survivors and relatives sued successfully the film maker, this was the attempt hollywood made on portraying the russians to the typical western belief that they all are drunk and incompetant.

So there will always be bends in the film world distorting historical facts to make money.

I do understand where your coming from steve and august it would be nice to see a film that is factually correcthowever factually correct doesnt always sell tickets.

[Cohaagen]

Oh August, would you like a clip-on Aimpoint to enhance that shot at your foot?

Not only does BoB go out of its way - to the detriment of the main narrative - to focus on Polish pilots, but every nationality is listed before the end credits - yes, even the tiny but latterly inflated contribution of US airmen. This was not included at the protest of veteran's groups, unlike the disclaimer at the end of the vile U571.

Incidentally, I also saw a film today. It was called One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing, a British propaganda movie filmed by Powell & Pressburger at a time when Britain and the Commonwealth were fighting alone against Nazi Germany. The bulk of the plot concerns the efforts of Dutch civilians and resistance fighters in helping downed Empire airmen. Gol-darn them selfish chauvinistic Brits.

[Oberon]

Actually, I wouldn't say that all US films brag that the US won the war, and increasingly I suspect that even most people in the States wouldn't think that entirely.
Take The Longest Day for example, with some fantastic British performances alongside the US forces.
Likewise in A Bridge Too Far, we have the US engineers in a key part in assisting the Armoured cores thrust to Arnhem ("Ever built a bailey bridge before? Well neither have I.")

I think both sides have fallen into a dangerous trap of nationalistic jingo, I mean, it's perfectly alright to consider your nations glorious history and pay tribute to it, I am somewhat partial to the days of the height of the Empire, however one must also give credit where credit is due, and that includes the parts when we worked together.
America can feel justifiably proud of the part it played in World War Two, and Britain can feel justifiably proud of holding off the Germans long enough for the US to boost our numbers and help us finish the job.
After all, as Churchill said 'Give us the tools and we'll finish the job', there was not a chance in hell that we could have gone into Europe alone, it would have been our undoing.
Together we took on the Third Reich, and together, and this includes our comrades in Russia, Together we took down one of the most sinister governments in history.
Squabbling about who killed who and who saved what will just serve to continue an undertone of bad feelings that will poison friendships, and then we will find ourselves standing alone again, and you know the old adage, strength in numbers. :03:

[August]

Oh August, would you like a clip-on Aimpoint to enhance that shot at your foot?

So it appears to have been a bad example, so sue me. The point I was trying to make however still stands.

[Jimbuna]

Actually, I wouldn't say that all US films brag that the US won the war, and increasingly I suspect that even most people in the States wouldn't think that entirely.
Take The Longest Day for example, with some fantastic British performances alongside the US forces.
Likewise in A Bridge Too Far, we have the US engineers in a key part in assisting the Armoured cores thrust to Arnhem ("Ever built a bailey bridge before? Well neither have I.")

I think both sides have fallen into a dangerous trap of nationalistic jingo, I mean, it's perfectly alright to consider your nations glorious history and pay tribute to it, I am somewhat partial to the days of the height of the Empire, however one must also give credit where credit is due, and that includes the parts when we worked together.
America can feel justifiably proud of the part it played in World War Two, and Britain can feel justifiably proud of holding off the Germans long enough for the US to boost our numbers and help us finish the job.
After all, as Churchill said 'Give us the tools and we'll finish the job', there was not a chance in hell that we could have gone into Europe alone, it would have been our undoing.
Together we took on the Third Reich, and together, and this includes our comrades in Russia, Together we took down one of the most sinister governments in history.
Squabbling about who killed who and who saved what will just serve to continue an undertone of bad feelings that will poison friendships, and then we will find ourselves standing alone again, and you know the old adage, strength in numbers. :03:

Very well said/written. :up: