Falklands 1982 vs 2012 - Page 3

Jimbuna · 03-05-12, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

That was all bluff, of course it came to light after the war.

Both sides have acted like big baby's throwing there toys at each other. I can not comment on the Argentinian politicians but I can on ours, bunch of jerks the lot of them. Just watch Prime Ministers question time, just like kindergarten for spoiled little brats.

I never take too much notice of PMQT or politicians for that matter....I've been to so many at Westminster and been on the periphery of so many security details I long ago decided the 'Big Yin' was right...."Don't vote, it only encourages the basums"

STEED · 03-05-12, 04:46 PM

Problem is jim, we got a load of bigger dimwits who vote for them!

Apart from my mate Dave who once said on his doorstep to a canvasser who ask him is he going to vote which he answered no, I'm staying in to shag the wife.

TLAM Strike · 03-05-12, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Hate to dissapoint but I doubt there will be any battle over the Falklands.

Britain is better prepared this time and having at least one sub on staion at all times means the Argentinians would have the same problem Hitler faced...getting across the pond.

They might not come by sea this time.

500 Royal Army regulars + about 225 local reservists vs about 560 Argentine Paratroopers in the first drop (they have a Brigade but lack the planes to drop them all at once).

It would be a hell of a fight.

Jimbuna · 03-06-12, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

They might not come by sea this time.

500 Royal Army regulars + about 225 local reservists vs about 560 Argentine Paratroopers in the first drop (they have a Brigade but lack the planes to drop them all at once).

It would be a hell of a fight.

Then my assessment would be....'The Typhoon Turkey Shoot'

Aided by the Rapier and Type 45 PAAMS

Rapier (if they try to come in under the radar envelope)

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/art...ence/1513.aspx

Type45 PAAMS

Quote:

The missiles being developed for PAAMS are the Aster 15 and the Aster 30. The Type 45 will be able to carry up to 48 Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. The Aster missile carries an inertial computer with datalink, an active J-band Doppler radar seeker and 15kg warhead.
The speed of Aster 30 is Mach 4 and the range is more than 80km. The missile has manoeuvrability of up to 62g, achieved through the use of the EADS Aerospatiale PIF/PAF guidance system. Aster 15 has a speed of Mach 3, range of more than 30km and manoeuvrability of up to 50g.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/

TLAM Strike · 03-06-12, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Then my assessment would be....'The Typhoon Turkey Shoot'

Aided by the Rapier and Type 45 PAAMS

Rapier (if they try to come in under the radar envelope)

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.

Oberon · 03-06-12, 09:33 AM

If the enemy is smart, they won't attack at all.

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...

03-05-12, 04:46 PM	#32
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	Problem is jim, we got a load of bigger dimwits who vote for them! Apart from my mate Dave who once said on his doorstep to a canvasser who ask him is he going to vote which he answered no, I'm staying in to shag the wife. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

03-06-12, 10:28 AM	#38
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,737 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	#45
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.

03-06-12, 09:33 AM	#36
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	If the enemy is smart, they won't attack at all.