More Argie Bargie

[hidetheelephants]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

As would Suez. The armchair admiralty and general staff on display here is awe inspiring; since when in war has anything been a surety? The 'rubbish' Argentine Airforce and naval air arm managed to sink several warships and a merchant ship stuffed with supplies; had they managed to master the art of arming their bombs to match the bombing techniques being used the loss figure could have been 10 ships rather than 5.

[Lurking Lawyer]

im said:

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.

Interesting. I knew the US had provided more up-to-date versions of Sidewinder than we would otherwise have had, and general other military support, but I didn't realise Ronnie had gone as far as to OK the "loan" of an LPH if the need had arisen.

Not altogether surprising though, I suppose, given how close he and Mrs T were.

[Ayahuasca]

V8 Fettler said:

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?

Take your pick, anything from attacking the Argentine mainland air bases and ports, to lobbing Polaris missiles at their cities.

[V8 Fettler]

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

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?

Take your pick, anything from attacking the Argentine mainland air bases and ports, to lobbing Polaris missiles at their cities.

I can't begin to answer that, I need to work out first if it's in jest.

[Rovinghawk]

One of our more impressive cock-ups was sending a squadron leader to the FI with software updates/improvements for the harriers' missile systems.

Despite having his entire tripped planned & executed for him, he managed to arrive in the FI minus the software he was supposed to take with him.

An interesting comment made by one of our commanders at the time: "If you removed all the errors that both sides made, Argentina would have probably won". IOW, we were lucky.

[Ayahuasca]

V8 Fettler said:

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

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?

Take your pick, anything from attacking the Argentine mainland air bases and ports, to lobbing Polaris missiles at their cities.

I can't begin to answer that, I need to work out first if it's in jest.

Not saying we would have, but we could have.

[DMN]

im said:

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?

You mean where you muddled the facts about the Mirage and I corrected it for you in another post?

Given as your seemingly older age has not helped you get a better understanding of things, my age during the war is irrelevent. As are your contributions to this thread given your relience on things you've made up.

[DMN]

Lurking Lawyer said:

Interesting. I knew the US had provided more up-to-date versions of Sidewinder than we would otherwise have had, and general other military support, but I didn't realise Ronnie had gone as far as to OK the "loan" of an LPH if the need had arisen.

Not altogether surprising though, I suppose, given how close he and Mrs T were.

It was offered, but never offically and was knocked back straight away, mainly for the reasons already stated. Lack of man-power, unfamiliarity with the controls etc.

[hidetheelephants]

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

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?

Take your pick, anything from attacking the Argentine mainland air bases and ports, to lobbing Polaris missiles at their cities.

I can't begin to answer that, I need to work out first if it's in jest.

Not saying we would have, but we could have.

That was the (intended)psychological effect of the Black Buck raids; not so much 'we can drop bombs on Stanley' as 'we can drop bombs on Buenos Aires'. The utility of doing so would have been nil but the psychological effect would have been huge.

[Halb]

In the very good FW documentary, one of the commanders talks about the intel secretly given to the UK by the US. Without that it would have gone differently.

Ayahuasca said:

Not saying we would have, but we could have.

I think a hollow threat. The UK to become only the second country to use nuclear weapons? In a situation much less dire than when the US used them.

[FourWheelDrift]

And the Vulcan raid on Stanley Airfield as well as an operation to prevent air operations from the airfield was also an "if we can hit this, we can hit you on the mainland" threat. Buenos Aires is closer to Ascension Island than Stanley.

[PRTVR]

hidetheelephants said:

As would Suez. The armchair admiralty and general staff on display here is awe inspiring; since when in war has anything been a surety? The 'rubbish' Argentine Airforce and naval air arm managed to sink several warships and a merchant ship stuffed with supplies; had they managed to master the art of arming their bombs to match the bombing techniques being used the loss figure could have been 10 ships rather than 5.

Only after our wonderful press informed them where they were going wrong.

[DMN]

Halb said:

In the very good FW documentary, one of the commanders talks about the intel secretly given to the UK by the US. Without that it would have gone differently.

The book "Secret War for the Falklands" goes into some detail about this, its not a great book overall IMO though:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-War-For-Falklan...

[im]

DMN said:

You mean where you muddled the facts about the Mirage and I corrected it for you in another post?

Given as your seemingly older age has not helped you get a better understanding of things, my age during the war is irrelevent. As are your contributions to this thread given your relience on things you've made up.

So in a nutshell, you know nothing of the actual war itself but rather have read a few Daily Mail articles growing up...and have decided to make the rest up....excellent!

[V8 Fettler]

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

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?

Take your pick, anything from attacking the Argentine mainland air bases and ports, to lobbing Polaris missiles at their cities.

I can't begin to answer that, I need to work out first if it's in jest.

Not saying we would have, but we could have.

Ask yourself this: would the US have permitted either to occur? Could the RAF have reached the Argentine mainland with any tonnage? Would the Mirage 111 have intercepted an unescorted Vulcan? An attack on the Argentine mainland would have united most of South America against the UK.

[Halb]

V8 Fettler said:

Ask yourself this: would the US have permitted either to occur? Could the RAF have reached the Argentine mainland with any tonnage? Would the Mirage 111 have intercepted an unescorted Vulcan? An attack on the Argentine mainland would have united the World against the UK.

EFA.

[Grumfutock]

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. 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.

Sorry bad that is a bad comparison. On D-Day the landing was in front of and against well built concrete bunkers/trench lines/sited guns/mortars/mined beaches and a dug in enemy. None of the landings in the Falklands faced any of this so whilst we may not of had any of the overwhelming advantages we also didn't have any of the crippling disadvantages.

[Grumfutock]

V8 Fettler said:

Ask yourself this: would the US have permitted either to occur? Could the RAF have reached the Argentine mainland with any tonnage? Would the Mirage 111 have intercepted an unescorted Vulcan? An attack on the Argentine mainland would have united most of South America against the UK.

No need for RAF to reach mainland. Op Mikado.

[Rovinghawk]

Grumfutock said:

None of the landings in the Falklands faced any of this so whilst we may not of had any of the overwhelming advantages we also didn't have any of the crippling disadvantages.

Thanks to the press & irresponsible comments from MPs, Argentina had very good intelligence as to strength & timings.
We also had the disadvantage of being rushed- eg all the helicopters on one ship instead of being dispersed.

[Grumfutock]

Rovinghawk said:

Thanks to the press & irresponsible comments from MPs, Argentina had very good intelligence as to strength & timings.
We also had the disadvantage of being rushed- eg all the helicopters on one ship instead of being dispersed.

Agreed but the enemy didn't take advantage of it so the landings were unopposed with no dug in enemy, bunkers, gun emplacements, mines etc. My point remains extant.