Steve Wilkins said:I'm sorry, but all I could do was laugh my ass off at that one.
There is a bit of irony to that, isn't there...
Steve Wilkins said:I'm sorry, but all I could do was laugh my ass off at that one.
Hey, I'm still laughin'Fly Navy said:There is a bit of irony to that, isn't there...
Flash said:He took a few shots at Argentinian T-34C's that were sent out to attack some of the British fleet that was close to the islands (with rocket and gun pods) when they first arrived in the Falklands, he describes the encounter in his book. He was only able to get a short burst off with his cannons but lost them in the clouds. Found out post war that he hit one but the cannon shell failed to explode. Contrary to the persistant rumor in primary, a T-34C did not shoot down a Harrier. No Harriers were lost in aerial combat.
What would a littoral fight against Korea look like from the Navyation perpective? Romeos and Sierras going after all those torpedo and missile boats?vegita1220 said:Seriously though they have a lot of ancient minisubs and patrol boats.
A4sForever said:I had several (i.e., more that three) Argentinian STUDs in the A4 .... they were GOOD and were TIGERS on the bombing run in the Falklands, from the feedback that I got. Too bad that a couple (i.e., less than three) of them were wasted on the corrupt Galtieri regime.
I'd fly with them anyday .....
Steve Wilkins said:Couple things about the Falklands that came about. One, the Brits don't fvck around when it comes to damage control. Two, mention the topic of ASCM and Brits get very, very serious.
nkawtg said:Does anyone know by chance where the rest of the "Allies" were during this conflict. The UK faced this all themselves, without any help of NATO while the Malvinas was/is still part of the United Kingdom...
A little help would saved a lot of British lives on a taskforce so far away. It's sad that political decisions always end up with loss of lives in the military during an armed conflict. The Brits were in the '90s Gulfwar, they are in Aghanistan and Iraq as we speak. If the NATO would have been more assertive towards Argentina, probably there was no military life lost at all on both sides. I'm not speaking for "political lives" for members of the "Junta".
The British did it on their own, although the country almost got bankrupt due to this conflict. A reaction towards NATO, in line with the French, would be understandable, but no, they're still one of the Americans loyal allies.
I wrote a high school paper on it (so nothing indepth by any means), and I'd gotten the impression that it wasn't so much that the Brits weren't prepared, but that no one expected Argentina to actually stand up and fight. Any truth?TurnandBurn55 said:In part, we overestimated Britain's military capability... they'd managed to handle themselves pretty well in Malaysia back in the late 50s-early 60s and there was no reason to believe they couldn't handle it themselves.