More Argie Bargie

Author
Discussion

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
DMN said:
Thats a good point, given at the time the Argentinians had better fighter planes, the Super-Sonic Mirage was more than a match for the sub-sonic Harrier.
I'm sorry but were you even alive back then? hehe

I'll return to your point about the Mirages being a match for the Harrier in a minute but...

The Argentine forces on the Islands were underfed/undernourished with the bare minimum armaments. By the time the Brits took Port Stanley (without a fight) they looked a dishevelled rag-tag bunch and that was without a shot being fired.

We had a Nuclear submarine patrolling and had already destroyed their flagship which itself was so old it saw service at Waterloo. Their whole Navy couldn't put to sea for fear of being being sunk by our solitary submarine...and we had others in reserve. We had emergency landing for our long range Vulcan bombers if needed and the following 3rd party help (from wiki)



"When Argentina refused the US peace overtures, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the US Congress passed resolutions supporting the US action siding with the United Kingdom.

The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima's systems.

France provided dissimilar aircraft training so Harrier pilots could train against the French aircraft used by Argentina. French and British intelligence also worked to prevent Argentina from obtaining more Exocet missiles on the international market, while at the same time Peru attempted to purchase 12 missiles for Argentina, in a failed secret operation.

Chile gave support to Britain in the form of intelligence about Argentine military and early warning radar. Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution."




The Sea Harriers were winning the war in the sky against the Mirages very-very easily with the only mirage successes being when they were able to sneak across from the mainland undetected let off a few missiles and escape back.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-t...

20 kills to none in the Harrier v Mirage fight.

Yes, IF a carrier had been sunk the whole sorry affair might have got complicated but ultimately Thatcher had the will to see this through and more importantly the Yanks would have supplied replacement ships (see above).

Again, there was only going to be one winner - with some Brit blood, granted. But anybody who thinks there was a chance of us losing with all of that going on wasn't alive at the time.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
im said:
DMN said:
Thats a good point, given at the time the Argentinians had better fighter planes, the Super-Sonic Mirage was more than a match for the sub-sonic Harrier.
I'm sorry but were you even alive back then? hehe

I'll return to your point about the Mirages being a match for the Harrier in a minute but...

The Argentine forces on the Islands were underfed/undernourished with the bare minimum armaments. By the time the Brits took Port Stanley (without a fight) they looked a dishevelled rag-tag bunch and that was without a shot being fired.

We had a Nuclear submarine patrolling and had already destroyed their flagship which itself was so old it saw service at Waterloo. Their whole Navy couldn't put to sea for fear of being being sunk by our solitary submarine...and we had others in reserve. We had emergency landing for our long range Vulcan bombers if needed and the following 3rd party help (from wiki)



"When Argentina refused the US peace overtures, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the US Congress passed resolutions supporting the US action siding with the United Kingdom.

The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima's systems.

France provided dissimilar aircraft training so Harrier pilots could train against the French aircraft used by Argentina. French and British intelligence also worked to prevent Argentina from obtaining more Exocet missiles on the international market, while at the same time Peru attempted to purchase 12 missiles for Argentina, in a failed secret operation.

Chile gave support to Britain in the form of intelligence about Argentine military and early warning radar. Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution."




The Sea Harriers were winning the war in the sky against the Mirages very-very easily with the only mirage successes being when they were able to sneak across from the mainland undetected let off a few missiles and escape back.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-t...

20 kills to none in the Harrier v Mirage fight.

Yes, IF a carrier had been sunk the whole sorry affair might have got complicated but ultimately Thatcher had the will to see this through and more importantly the Yanks would have supplied replacement ships (see above).

Again, there was only going to be one winner - with some Brit blood, granted. But anybody who thinks there was a chance of us losing with all of that going on wasn't alive at the time.
You're missing the key issue, which is that even with overwhelming superiority an amphibious attack against a prepared enemy is always a risk. The usual comparison is with D-Day: the Allies had overwhelming air superiority, overwhelming superiority at sea, permanent air reconnaissance, short distance to the invasion site, years to prepare. The list of factors in favour of the Allies was endless. And yet it was still touch and go on day 1, particularly at Omaha. The British in 1982 had none of the overwhelming advantages enjoyed by the Allies in 1944.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
im said:
The Sea Harriers were winning the war in the sky against the Mirages very-very easily with the only mirage successes being when they were able to sneak across from the mainland undetected let off a few missiles and escape back.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-t...

20 kills to none in the Harrier v Mirage fight.

Yes, IF a carrier had been sunk the whole sorry affair might have got complicated but ultimately Thatcher had the will to see this through and more importantly the Yanks would have supplied replacement ships (see above).

Again, there was only going to be one winner - with some Brit blood, granted. But anybody who thinks there was a chance of us losing with all of that going on wasn't alive at the time.
Do you genuinely not remember how little chance most people gave the task force when they set sail?

The Argentinians made the mistake of trying to avoid the Harriers rather than taking them on, if they had initially concentrated on attacking the Harriers they could have afforded to lose several Mirages to each Harrier. Once they had air superiority they would have won the war.

The suggested US carrier would have been no use whatsoever since the RN had neither the crew to man it nor (if a carrier had been lost) aircraft to put on it.

If one of those exocets had hit a carrier, or HMS Conqueror had not found the Belgrano when it did there would almost certainly have been an Argentine victory.

The US would never have considered such an operation without at least 2 carrier battle groups.

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
You're missing the key issue, which is that even with overwhelming superiority an amphibious attack against a prepared enemy is always a risk.
Yeah, remind me how many Argentine troops our forces encountered at San Carlos or Ajax bay when coming ashore? Indeed remind me of the resistance that was encountered in setting up the beachhead.

To compare the dangers of that landing in the Falklands with what went on on D Day in WW2 is frankly laughable.

The Argies had no troops available to counter any landing and were reduced to bombing runs. The garrison they did have was at Goose Green and was defeated in the course of 1 evening and the following morning. We lost only 17 lives in that engagement.

Again, there was British blood but the outcome had been carefully calculated and the 'assault' as you call it was a relatively straightforward operation.

goldblum

10,272 posts

166 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Do you genuinely not remember how little chance most people gave the task force when they set sail?
I don't. I remember bunting, troop ships leaving (or somesuch) and an air of hopeful expectancy as the country united behind a PM as she took us to war. If there was any serious doubt we'd win or not get support from various allies we wouldn't have gone, believe me. Thatcher wasn't that stupid. Most people didn't even know the islands existed, let alone care. I wonder why we bothered (rhetorical). smile



DMN

2,983 posts

138 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
im said:
Stuff: some real, some made up
The Sea Harrier pilots used their better training to try and get the Mirage pilots out of their comfort zone, and into the kill zone of the Harrier. Yes the latest Sidewinder helped a lot. Its probably the one area where we had a qenuine technological advantage. The dissimilar training provided by the French did not go well for the Harriers at all. They showed that with a trained pilot the Mirage would eat the slower Harrier for breakfast.


V8 Fettler and Dr Jekyll both make very good points. No one gave us a hope in hells chance, it was a very close run thing.

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
DMN said:
Stuff, all of it basically wrong
Serious question...how old were you at the time? Are you merely reading this as I would about WW2 or did you live through the wall-to-wall 24/7 media coverage of what was happening at the time and be old enough to understand it?

Because the 3rd largest military on the planet at the time was sending the biggest Armada of warships since the 2nd World War to retake Islands held by no more than a few thousand Argentine soldiers.

It was just a question of how many casualties we'd suffer in the process.

Nobody, and I mean nobody (bar a few US military strategists) was expecting ultimate defeat.

Anyway...this has gone circular now...I'll rejoin when another topic arises on this thread.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
DMN said:
im said:
Er, how exactly could it have ended in failure given the strengths of the 2 militaries at the time?
Thats a good point, given at the time the Argentinians had better fighter planes, the Super-Sonic Mirage was more than a match for the sub-sonic Harrier. Their army had better rifles. Although both basically the same the Argentinian FN FAL had the option for full auto, the British version (the SLR) did not. They also had better second generation night vision kit, compared to the very basic 1st generation stuff we had. They even had decent personal locating radar, ideally suited to the vast open areas of the Falklands. Their ships where also evenly matched against ours, after all they had two Type 42 destroers equired with the same missles as ours.

The difference was all down to training that allowed our forces to over come the technology gap.
The Argentine FAL was not superior to the SLR. Full auto was a weakness, not an advantage. The 7.62 NATO round is too heavy and powerful to be accurate in full auto, unless fired from a heavy and bipod stabilised gun like the GPMG, and when soldiers carried four magazines of 20 rounds each you want to make each bullet count, not blast them away in wildly inaccurate bursts.


Edited by Ayahuasca on Thursday 17th April 12:37

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
First Briton? Owen the Red, of Welsh stock, 1623. Please send a car round with prize.
Nope. It was a long time before that.

goldblum

10,272 posts

166 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
DMN said:
it was a very close run thing.
Not sure your potted version of history matches the facts. The Argentines had Exocets that were mounted on aircraft that after the first few days were nearly always prevented from getting airborne. We had missiles and intelligence given us by the Americans. In every other sphere - political, military, financial we had the upper hand.

Also you do a disservice to Wellesley's (mis)quote by using it to describe the one-sided 'campaign' the Falklands ultimately was.





Asterix

24,438 posts

227 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
DMN said:
im said:
Er, how exactly could it have ended in failure given the strengths of the 2 militaries at the time?
Thats a good point, given at the time the Argentinians had better fighter planes, the Super-Sonic Mirage was more than a match for the sub-sonic Harrier. Their army had better rifles. Although both basically the same the Argentinian FN FAL had the option for full auto, the British version (the SLR) did not. They also had better second generation night vision kit, compared to the very basic 1st generation stuff we had. They even had decent personal locating radar, ideally suited to the vast open areas of the Falklands. Their ships where also evenly matched against ours, after all they had two Type 42 destroers equired with the same missles as ours.

The difference was all down to training that allowed our forces to over come the technology gap.
The Argentine FAL was not superior to the SLR. Full auto was a weakness, not an advantage. The 7.62 NATO round is too heavy and powerful to be accurate in full auto, unless fired from a heavy and bipod stabilised gun like the GPMG, and when soldiers carried four magazines of 20 rounds each you want to make each bullet count, not blast them away in wildly inaccurate bursts.


Edited by Ayahuasca on Thursday 17th April 12:37
You could convert the SLR to fully automatic using the old 'bit of a matchstick behind the firing pin' trick. Only problem was it would empty the full mag in one go and you couldn't stop it until it was finished.

I loved the SLR. It was great at the time and sorely missed when that peace of st, the L85A1 (SA80), was issued.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
goldblum said:
Not sure your potted version of history matches the facts. The Argentines had Exocets that were mounted on aircraft that after the first few days were nearly always prevented from getting airborne. We had missiles and intelligence given us by the Americans. In every other sphere - political, military, financial we had the upper hand.

Also you do a disservice to Wellesley's (mis)quote by using it to describe the one-sided 'campaign' the Falklands ultimately was.
Argentine aircraft were not prevented from getting airborne, the task force had no ability to achieve that. Also remember one British ship (Glamorgan?) was badly damaged by an Exocet fired from a lorry.

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Argentine aircraft were not prevented from getting airborne, the task force had no ability to achieve that.
They didn't have to. After the first few skirmishes where they were losing aircraft hand-over-fist they simply didn't come out to play any more.

So they were prevented from getting airborne by the realisation that they were losing large chunks of their air force every time they took off.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
It was a close run thing given the resources that we had deployed, but we always had the option of ramping up our offensive capacity by several orders of magnitude if we wished to; the Argentines did not.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
im said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're missing the key issue, which is that even with overwhelming superiority an amphibious attack against a prepared enemy is always a risk.
Yeah, remind me how many Argentine troops our forces encountered at San Carlos or Ajax bay when coming ashore? Indeed remind me of the resistance that was encountered in setting up the beachhead.

To compare the dangers of that landing in the Falklands with what went on on D Day in WW2 is frankly laughable.

The Argies had no troops available to counter any landing and were reduced to bombing runs. The garrison they did have was at Goose Green and was defeated in the course of 1 evening and the following morning. We lost only 17 lives in that engagement.

Again, there was British blood but the outcome had been carefully calculated and the 'assault' as you call it was a relatively straightforward operation.
The point is being missed: D-Day or the British invasion of the Falklands? Where did the invader have total air superiority, total sea superiority, permanent airborne observation platforms, short supply lines, months/years in preparation, several recent successful amphibious operations? The list is endless.

Someone mentioned largest armada since WW2, Inchon would have been larger.

Mirage pilots should never have attempted to dogfight Harriers, should have used superior speed and height advantages to decline dogfight.

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
It was a close run thing given the resources that we had deployed, but we always had the option of ramping up our offensive capacity by several orders of magnitude if we wished to; the Argentines did not.
Which made the whole affair pretty much a forgone conclusion bar the numbers that would have to die to achieve it.

DMN

2,983 posts

138 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
im said:
More ropey facts.
Honest question, are you just making stuff up to support your view?

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
It was a close run thing given the resources that we had deployed, but we always had the option of ramping up our offensive capacity by several orders of magnitude if we wished to; the Argentines did not.
With what?

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
DMN said:
im said:
More ropey facts.
Honest question, are you just making stuff up to support your view?
What you mean like...

im said:
DMN said:
Thats a good point, given at the time the Argentinians had better fighter planes, the Super-Sonic Mirage was more than a match for the sub-sonic Harrier.
The Sea Harriers were winning the war in the sky against the Mirages very-very easily with the only mirage successes being when they were able to sneak across from the mainland undetected let off a few missiles and escape back.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-t...

20 kills to none in the Harrier v Mirage fight.
Plus various other inaccuracies.

And you've failed to answer my 2 questions t'boot. I'll try again. How old were you in 1982?

goldblum

10,272 posts

166 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Argentine aircraft were not prevented from getting airborne, the task force had no ability to achieve that. Also remember one British ship (Glamorgan?) was badly damaged by an Exocet fired from a lorry.
Yes you're right. The Super Etendards came from a base on the Rio Grande. It was a long time ago - I think I was still into punk at that stage. Happy days. Did you know that in total the Argentines only had 5 Exocets and one of our attacked ships sank because of fire - the missile didn't explode.