Falklands War

[Fly Navy]

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]

There is a bit of irony to that, isn't there...

Hey, I'm still laughin'

 

[Steve Wilkins]

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.

 

[jamnww]

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.

So thats what the T-34C is really for...hmmm...I am guessing that we won't be doing that at flight school... :icon_mi_1

 

[Fly Navy]

If you're in VT-6, there is (was?) an IP there that flew AT-34s for Argentina.

 

[A4sForever]

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 .....

 

[vegita1220]

Prob getting higher for China as they build it up.

For North Korea...what blue water navy?
Seriously though they have a lot of ancient minisubs and patrol boats.

 

[eddie]

Seriously though they have a lot of ancient minisubs and patrol boats.

What would a littoral fight against Korea look like from the Navyation perpective? Romeos and Sierras going after all those torpedo and missile boats?

 

[Flash]

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 .....

From all of the books I have read about the Falklands, their Air Force and Navy pilots were the only ones who put up a good fight, a really good one. Several of the British guys wrote about how they marveled that the Argetinians attack them day after day after day with iron bombs, even after suffering grevious losses. They would come screaming in at real low altitude and dop bombs right on top of the British ships, no standoff strikes for the A-4 and Mirage/Dagger pilots. If the Sea Harriers did not get them they would have to deal with the SAM's (some of the best in the world) and everyone in the British fleet shooting at you. They lost somewhere around 100 planes, a lot for an Air Force their size. They took around a dozen British ships down with them.

After the war the Argentinians found out that the fusing on a lot of their iron bombs was not quite right and that a lot of them were duds. If they had figured that out earlier, it would have been a lot worse for the Brits.

 

[phrogdriver]

"The Battle for the Falklands," by Hastings and Jennings. The definitive account.

 

[East]

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.

 

[nittany03]

Well, when two Western countries decide to go at it, what are we supposed to do? Granted I was a little young to know the ins and outs of the politics of the time, being 1 and all, but it's not like the Brits were fighting Communists of any ilk . . .

 

[ChuckMK23]

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.

And I think the Brits also pioneered helo based AEW as a result of lessons learned.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

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.

The North Atlantic Treaty was specifically written to protect only member interests within Europe, the Med, and the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer-- not overseas colonial interests (the specific exception being French Algeria). In 1949, tying into a 'permanent alliance' in Europe was a big enough step... obligating ourselves to protect Hong Kong, Portuguese Macao, the Belgian Congo, and every other two-bit colony would have been out of line...

Now, in the end, we did help out the Brits... still undisclosed rumors of providing them with all sorts of SigInt and Satellite intel as well as hooking them up with AIM-9s... as did the Froggies after their Exocets turned the Sheffield into paper clips. I seem to recall reading a Newsweek (Time?) article dated around 1996 talking about the French giving the Brits all the specs they had on the weaponry they'd sold to the Argentines. And yes, the EEC did put sanctions on Argentina (oooooh!).

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.

 

[eddie]

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.

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?