Posted on 03/27/2007 5:46:57 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I remember when the Faulkland war was fought. A British "Vulcan" bomber had been in a local aircraft museum for a long time (I remember seeing it for as long as I can remember). Some British technicians flew in and spent a couple of weeks getting it ready to fly. Then it flew out of here to augment the warplanes being used in the Faulkland war.
I understand that they used something like 8 bombers for each mission of one or two that actually dropped bombs. They would use the others as tankers, carrying no bombs, but carrying as much fuel as possible. They would leave from England and some would refuel the others then turn around and head for home. Only the last one or two would make it all the way.
What a way to fight a war.
They have 2 active light carriers,with one mothballed.The problem is that these have little real airdefence capability after having retired their SeaHarrier fleet.
I recently saw a show about the war on the military channel. I was just as impressed with the logistical aspect of it as I was with the actual combat.
Argentinians were extremly brave pilots, one even tried to attack carrier with Pucara.
A-4s could do much serious damege if they hade Maverick missiles or even older Bullpup missiles.
With 20-30 Exocets Etendars could sink carriers. and if based on Falklands Brits wouldnt even get near falklands.
I don't remember any but I expect Spanish language TV had one or two in BA.
The reason the Brits won in the Falklands was because when push comes to shove, Tommy can fight.
The British soldier can be one of the most stubborn stalwarts when the chips are down.
The UK politicos and civie heathen may be weak and feckless, but Tommy can fight.
You almost get the impression that the Argentinians had no military plans beyond taking the islands.
I ask because I was just wondering how the MSM dealt with the Argentinian propaganda.
No they didnt.
Something liek NATO and Kosovo war.
Presidetn Reagan gave the Brits full access to our satellite reconaissance and NSA intercept capabilities.
You are a complete idiot.
I got to know some Argintinian girls when I was in Grad School. They thoroughly believed that the Falklands are theirs and that the British took them by force from Argentina over a century ago. The invasion was simply reclaiming their historic territory. This propaganda is still the standard inn that country.
Roumur is that Soviets backed Argentinians and Brits with Satellite imagery. That position of Belgrano was given to Brits and Position of fleet to Argentinians.
The Brits probably showed restraint by not actually sinking all Argentinian ships and blockading Argentinian ports via use of their nuclear submarines. They could have militarily - leftist and un pressure would have been enormous against it - kept this up for years.
If not, I'll part with mine for a price :-)
Nope,
I give one to the Brits,
Will to go across the globe and fight for land of their own.
And Nope,
I dont lik ebrits or French.
If anyone's interested in a computer simulation game of the Falklands War, try this: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/falklands_82/1.htm
I have a copy and have played several of the scenarios. It's more simulation than game, and fairly complex. It's an excellent study in infantry tactics, given the absence of vehicles and air power from most scenarios. The system is similar to the JANUS software, which the US Army uses to train its leaders.
If anyone wants an opponent for this sim, email me. I'll play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.