Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Attrition Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ignominious Loss
SYSOP    2/5/2013 5:20:25 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
TonoFonseca    We Win   2/5/2013 2:03:34 PM
Los Malvinas No Son Argentinas
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       2/5/2013 9:49:34 PM
This is another case, as with the Philippines, where a power makes a claim over a speck in the ocean, so far off shore that it can't even be seen, let alone disputed over.  Just because it's in 'the neighborhood' does not, by extension, automatically make it theirs.  Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Spain or France; both of which had a presence on the islands at one time or another, historically speaking, and Argentina was by no means the first people to land there.  The British have held the Falklands non-stop for 180 years... I think that pretty much establishes who owns it, and Argentine Belly-aching won't change that.  The naked truth is possession is not simply 9/10ths of the law... it IS the law.  If Argentina wants to make a grab for the Falklands as a way of rescuing their failed government, that's just fine, but they have no legal or moral ground to stand on, as far as justification is concerned.  They will also, most likely, learn the same lesson they learned back in 1982 and pull back another bloody stump.
 
Quote    Reply

RtWingCon    duds won the war   2/6/2013 12:14:11 AM
The Brits could have easily lost 3-4 more ships if it weren't for the duds the Argentines were dropping from their A-4's.  They scored direct hits with 1000lb dumb bombs that didn't go off. Had the Brits lost 3 ore ships, would they still have been in the fight?  Argentina should take that as a sign it wasn't meant to be.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/6/2013 5:01:48 AM

The Brits could have easily lost 3-4 more ships if it weren't for the duds the Argentines were dropping from their A-4's.  They scored direct hits with 1000lb dumb bombs that didn't go off. Had the Brits lost 3 ore ships, would they still have been in the fight?  Argentina should take that as a sign it wasn't meant to be.
 


  They werent duds, they were just dropped to low to arm before they hit, the reason they were dropped too low was the Air defense forced the argies to fly low.
 
So its cause and effect, had the argies flown high enough to ensure the bombs were armed they would have lost a lot more, had they enabled the arming of the bombs at the height they were flying then they would have been caught in their own explosions
.
Bear in mind that the Darling class has a better air defense capability than the whole fleet had in 1982.
 
(and the argies only have the jets that survived the war and most of them havent flow in years)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/6/2013 5:06:16 AM
Los Argentinas No Son Grand Brtiania
 
 
we have a better claim than you do for the Falklands
 
Dont you find it amusing that Argentina is complaining about colonisation when they were colony of spain,
 
and is populated with mainly Spainish, Welsh and Germans having killed off the majority of native peoples
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       2/6/2013 7:15:00 AM
They might not be able to do much militarily (thankfully) but that is good fortune and not as a result of good strategic planning from the MOD - the cuts that are being made to the RN are shocking when you consider it reckons it will soon be operating one or two carrier groups!!
 
Either way  - military action isn't the only option open to Argentina - another is to do the sort of "civilian convoy" approach that guarantees boarding, media-coverage and potentially casualties - but that sort of thing will start to become possible once kirchner realises the referendum has left her with very little room to maneuver diplomatically - with inflation at 30% anything that provides distraction will be welcomed - expect more drama. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       2/6/2013 6:10:41 PM
Even if every ship hit by a bomb (dud or not) actually sank the ship, Britain would not have pulled out of the Falklands or sued for peace with the dictatorship then in power in Argentina.  Whatever problems the British were having was nothing in comparison to what Argentina was experiencing, and the British knew it.  Their ill-equipped ground forces were completely cut off and starved for supplies, their air force was losing planes, men, spare parts and ordinance rapidly and their navy was confined to their own naval base... the only body of water they were capable of controlling.  Argentina had few, if any, friends willing to stick their necks out for a dying regime (Chile, for example, was openly allied to Great Britain) and even the UN believed Argentina was in the wrong.  (No small achievement BTW)  It was only a matter of time before the Argentinian ground forces surrendered, and once that happened, the war was over, regardless of whether the Argentinian government accepted that fact or not.  No matter what variable you might enter into the equation, including an intervention by the Soviets or the loss of both carriers, Argentina would have lost... bad.  As neglected as the British military was at that time, they would not have capitulated to a third-rate banana-republic, employing a strategy that was born of political desperation, not reality.  In short, Argentina picked the wrong kid in the playground to pick on, back in 1982, and they got their asses handed to them as a result.  And if you think they got whipped bad last time, it would be nothing in comparison the a ass-whipping they will get if they try that nonsense again, because this time, the Brits will see them coming...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Fuses can be reset...   2/6/2013 6:50:06 PM
to compensate.  Something else must be involved. Defective fuses seems likely?
 
B.



The Brits could have easily lost 3-4 more ships if it weren't for the duds the Argentines were dropping from their A-4's.  They scored direct hits with 1000lb dumb bombs that didn't go off. Had the Brits lost 3 ore ships, would they still have been in the fight?  Argentina should take that as a sign it wasn't meant to be.

 





 
They werent duds, they were just dropped to low to arm before they hit, the reason they were dropped too low was the Air defense forced the argies to fly low.

 

So its cause and effect, had the argies flown high enough to ensure the bombs were armed they would have lost a lot more, had they enabled the arming of the bombs at the height they were flying then they would have been caught in their own explosions

.

Bear in mind that the Darling class has a better air defense capability than the whole fleet had in 1982.

 

(and the argies only have the jets that survived the war and most of them havent flow in years)

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       2/6/2013 9:57:33 PM
The person who said  "It was a lot closer run than many would care to believe. We were on our last legs. If they had been able to hold on another week it might have been a different story." might disagree with your analysis, Skylark, given that he was commander of the task force.
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       2/7/2013 5:09:41 AM
The commander defending Malta in WWII, or the cruiser commander supporting the Anzio landings or the commander defending Britain during the Blitz probably said the same thing, and (frankly) they had it a lot worse. I'm not saying that the British didn't suffer mightily, but they had advantages the Argentines did not have, and they were suffering just as much, if not more than the Brits did.  The fact of the matter was that the Argentinians had nothing going for them,  Tactically, strategically or even Geo-politically.  Britain had all sorts of support, while Argentina was isolated.  And while this was obviously no consolation to the commander who watched his squadron getting smaller and the casualties getting larger every day, the decision to fight or withdraw was not his to make.  The problem for Britain was that time was not on their side, so they were forced to bring the squadron into Port Stanley much earlier than the commander wanted, but that decision was made because strategic reality trumped tactical wisdom.  If the war were prosecuted more methodically, the results would have been much more one-sided in favor of Great Britain.  But the fact remains that the Argentinian forces occupying the Falklands had to be beaten on the ground, and they were, while the ships supporting them were forced to take the heat.  If you think about it, the Argentinians totally missed the point of the war and focused on sinking ships when they should have been supporting their ground troops from the air.  The loss of ships, while traumatic, would not have forced Britain off the island, while the loss of the occupation forces placed there by Argentina ended up losing them the war.  In the overall scheme of things, placing a few ships within reach of Argentinian warplanes was a good strategy (Whether they meant to do it or not) as it distracted the Argentines while the British ground troops pushed the invaders back and defeated them.  If you ask me, Great Britain made a good trade.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics