Falklands 1982 vs 2012

Jimbuna · 03-06-12, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

First the Rapier is rubbish, it not much more capable than a Stinger. Its a great missile for when the enemy is already bombing you.

The PAAMS on the Type 45 has a range of about 60 miles meaning it can cover either the north or south side of one of the Falklands. The enemy can always land on the side its not guarding.

Only four Typhoons really limits how many Argentines they can shoot down. If the enemy is smart they will force the Typhoons to attack several waves of fighters first depleting their missiles.

How many dozens or hundreds of aircraft with enough skilled pilots do you suppose they have?

Not official (view via internet numbers but front line aircraft and wholly committed pilots).

If the balloon went up and a few troop carrying planes were 'downed' I should imagine the initial troop eagerness/morale would quickly dinintegrate.

They weren't too keen on meeting British infantrymen up real close in 82 as I recall.

Another point....those aircraft that survived the first wave would probably find their home airfields inoperable on their return so it is not beyond reasonable imagination to doubt a second wave would be forthcoming.

A further point...I strongly suspect the US would be passing on plenty of satellite intel to us and perhaps even an AWAC or two on 'routine patrol'.

The bottom line being...there are a lot more assetts there than a 20 man marine detachment this time.

Skybird · 03-06-12, 10:28 AM

The original BBC article mentions just one scenario that imho indeed needs to be taken care of: that an Argentinian special command force tries to sneak in on a civilian regular flight that gets "diverted" over a claimed "emergency" that "forces" it to land at the airbase on the Falklands since it would be the only one in reach - and then trying to take it in Trojan Horse manner, in a surprise assault. No British supplies or reinforcements could come in, then. But no Argentinian forces could come in, too - since the British troops would have the means to shoot down any Argentinian transports.

So taking the airbase, would not mean Argentinian victory, but a stalemate. The question then is who could hold out for longer time. A British sub is enough to deny them naval transport as well.

The whole rumbling down there is not about nationalism, but about the suspected resources in the surrounding sea areas.

I currently do not see any serious attempt for a military adventure there anyway. It is rethorics to distract from innerpolitical problems.

03-06-12, 11:23 AM

Quote:

They weren't too keen on meeting British infantrymen up real close in 82 as I recall.

No surprises there, the british infantrymen have terrible table manners.

Oberon · 03-06-12, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No surprises there, the british infantrymen have terrible table manners.

Well they didn't exactly send an message...how were we to know that we were supposed to use the best china and cutlery?

soopaman2 · 03-06-12, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well they didn't exactly send an message...how were we to know that we were supposed to use the best china and cutlery?

Maybe they assumed you would be gentlemen, pistols at dawn.

Or maybe they lack the military tradition, equipment and training the Brits have.

In other words, shivering scared.

Jimbuna · 03-06-12, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No surprises there, the british infantrymen have terrible table manners.

I put it down to the steak knives we brought to the dinner table.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryofthewo...RWKss59oc_CXrw

TLAM Strike · 03-06-12, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I put it down to the steak knives we brought to the dinner table.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryofthewo...RWKss59oc_CXrw

A few units were rather fond of these as I recall...

Jimbuna · 03-06-12, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

A few units were rather fond of these as I recall...

Oh yes indeed!!

soopaman2 · 03-06-12, 04:40 PM

God bless the Queen.

And the wonderful cutlery she bestows on her mightiest.

Brits always knew about dining manners...(since the food sucks, compensation and such).. OOOOHHH.

Kidding, but use more garlic, and salt...

03-06-12, 10:28 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,741 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The original BBC article mentions just one scenario that imho indeed needs to be taken care of: that an Argentinian special command force tries to sneak in on a civilian regular flight that gets "diverted" over a claimed "emergency" that "forces" it to land at the airbase on the Falklands since it would be the only one in reach - and then trying to take it in Trojan Horse manner, in a surprise assault. No British supplies or reinforcements could come in, then. But no Argentinian forces could come in, too - since the British troops would have the means to shoot down any Argentinian transports. So taking the airbase, would not mean Argentinian victory, but a stalemate. The question then is who could hold out for longer time. A British sub is enough to deny them naval transport as well. The whole rumbling down there is not about nationalism, but about the suspected resources in the surrounding sea areas. I currently do not see any serious attempt for a military adventure there anyway. It is rethorics to distract from innerpolitical problems. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-06-12, 04:40 PM	#9
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	God bless the Queen. And the wonderful cutlery she bestows on her mightiest. Brits always knew about dining manners...(since the food sucks, compensation and such).. OOOOHHH. Kidding, but use more garlic, and salt... __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.