What would happen if the Falkland war II broke out? - Page 2

Letum · 08-16-09, 07:48 PM

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 · 08-16-09, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

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

Why bother New Zealand is closer and is less defended.

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 · 08-16-09, 08:32 PM

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 · 08-16-09, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

What if Superman was a Nazi?

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

Quote:

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 08-16-09, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 08-16-09, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Holy crap!

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

. 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 · 08-16-09, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

You mean this:

XabbaRus · 08-17-09, 04:16 AM

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 · 08-17-09, 05:12 AM

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 · 08-17-09, 06:01 AM

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 · 08-17-09, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

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

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

Oberon · 08-17-09, 07:02 AM

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

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

Takeda Shingen · 08-17-09, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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 · 08-17-09, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

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

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

08-17-09, 07:49 AM

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.

08-16-09, 07:48 PM	#16
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

08-16-09, 08:32 PM	#18
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,679 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-17-09, 04:16 AM	#23
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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? __________________

08-17-09, 05:12 AM	#24
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,679 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-17-09 at 05:30 AM.

08-17-09, 06:01 AM	#25
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,679 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-17-09, 07:02 AM	#27
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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 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

08-17-09, 07:49 AM	#30
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.