It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if the Falklands conflict happened now?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So right now, as of today, the forces of Argentina square off against the British forces of today. Would the outcome be the same ??

The UK has fewer combat ships but they have better weapon systems, it still has a shortage of carriers (just what is in the inventory ?) but they have improved Harrier FRS.2s with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM.

The more I think about it, not much has changed. The RAF couldn't project force into the area with Tornados or Typhoons (which they don't have yet anyway). Perhaps the only big difference is that the troops now have an inferior rifle.

(edited hysterical and misleading title -nc)

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Netchicken]




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Brits still win of course. training and sophisticated weaponry. even with few troops. how many troops were deployed to the Falklands? i know it wasnt dat many. still got those subs with the Perisher trained submariners.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Ok Yankee here, don't kill me for not knowing my British military history. I have to ask why did the Brits have trouble with the Argentineans in the first place?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
exoset anti-ship missles



the falkens pushed the phallax anti-missile system into being!



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Hmm I doubt we would even bother with attacking any forces that would have landed on the Falklands.

more likely a united front, Subs firing off Tomahawks into the Argentines military bases, guarded by other Subs, backed by Our little carriers+ ocean and Argus, and the all the destroyers and frigates in turn backed by a huge supply line back to acesion island.

Of cos we could just risk it all and do real fast re taking of the Falklands islands then use that new mount peasant airbase to stage Tornado strikes on Maradonnas house, until the argentines completely surrender, we should occupy the dam place too

Hmm maybe we could do both, split the whole lot into 2 task forces, 1 attacks Argentina, the other grabs back the Falklands, the argentines would be that busy trying to defend attack the other group, the Falklands force would have it easy, soon as its secure start pouring the Tornados and maybe a few typhoons in (48~96 mixed bag would devastate Argentina within days). Wonder what Buenos Aires looks like from the air?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
If the argentinians learnt anything from 1982 then they will win hands down..
The only problem for them would be nuclear powered subs for which they will require advanced ASW..

But right now..they're pretty screwed with their economy in shambles..
So yes.. Britain still has the upper hand on hindsight..



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Ya know, I don't think they would win.

WestPoint23, during the 80's, 1982 I guess it was, they declared there invasion of the Falklands islands, which belong to us but are of the coast of argentina located here:




Those small 2 islands.

-

The reason I believe they wouldn't win is because if they attacked as of now, they would get alot more negativity from the world and I believe the United States millitary would also help out this time, attacking us now after being attacked by terrorists would raise alot of questions and crap. It could escalate WAY past the falklands if they attacked us now.

Vorta

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Vorta]

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Vorta]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
brits as in english marines? i dont know hehehe cause I heard that english marines are no joke their almost if not at a equal level to our marines



please explain this to someone such as me plz brit birt? or english brit...



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lamagraa
brits as in english marines? i dont know hehehe cause I heard that english marines are no joke their almost if not at a equal level to our marines




lol, not to sound like im singing praises for the English millitary. I guess I am though.

but England although a small country in land mass, does have one of the most highly trained and resilliant millitaries on the planet, if not the best. I was quite shocked a few weeks ago reading a thread by a german man in the bts jokes forum about the british army being 2nd rate not sure where this is coming from but britain doesn't lose wars, it wins them, same goes for america. America and Britain both have highly trained and equipped millitaries making them unstoppable in conventional and non-conventional warfare. I also here Israel has a very well trained army.

Vorta



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
One major difference is that there is now an airbase (RAF Mount Pleasant) with Tornado fighter and land based radar. IN addition the army has a sizeable prescence too.

In 1982 when Argentina invaded with 8000 troops with armour and air support they faced Naval Party 8901 (NP 8901) that consisted of a Royal Marine garrison of about troop strength. It just so happened that NP 8901 was in the process of its annual rotation, with one troop arriving and one troop returning to the UK (a fact that the Argentine intelligence did not know). Major Norman's troop of Marines were being relieved by a troop commanded by Major Noott. This gave Rex Hunt a total of 67 Royal Marines to defend the Falklands. Major Norman, being the senior of the two Majors, was placed in over all command and Noott was made military adviser to the Governor.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I don't know very much about this conflict myself but I got the impression that the Argentinians didn't really try to defend the place once you attacked? With the exeption of a few firefights and the unfortunate excocet incident they surrendered quite fast? Am I right? I'm not trying to diminish the brits fighting there, just want to learn more..



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Interesting,

I would have to say that at present, the Argies wouldn't know what hit them, as already mentioned, I would have some of our subs off the coast of Argentina playing havoc. While we have fewer destroyers ready for use and the decomissioning of one of our Carriers, we would have some issues, but the thing is that our airpower has improved tenfold, not to mention the fact that we now have a combat airfield on the fields, that would provide and prevent any more of the argies grandieos ideas.

They wouldn't have a chance.

- Phil



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vorta
lol, not to sound like im singing praises for the English millitary. I guess I am though.

but England although a small country in land mass, does have one of the most highly trained and resilliant millitaries on the planet, if not the best. I was quite shocked a few weeks ago reading a thread by a german man in the bts jokes forum about the british army being 2nd rate not sure where this is coming from but britain doesn't lose wars, it wins them, same goes for america. America and Britain both have highly trained and equipped millitaries making them unstoppable in conventional and non-conventional warfare. I also here Israel has a very well trained army.

Vorta


::shrugs::
There has been another german on this forum making the same comments, I can only assume its a pity revenge tactic for us beating them in the war, some still find it difficult to understand.

- Phil



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
assuming the falklands crisis was replayed in 2005 , IMHO it would not esscalate to war

given the current political situation - the " warning signs " provoke a more hostile reaction , the naval party could be reinfoced , subs used to sink an argentine vessel etc .

davidoff would have been ejected more immediatly with what ever force was required

hms spartan and splendid would " come out shooting "

an argentina that replayed thier preamble to invasion in 2005 would be branded " rogue state" and US sympathy would fall heavily on the brittish side

there would be no haigs " 2 bald men fighting over a comb " comment

assuming armed conflict does occur

there are too many " what iffs " :

would modern PGMs and retarded bombs / delay fuses give the argentine AF an advantage in the air war

or would goal keeper / phalanx and RN advances in countermeasures and elecronics win out

i assume that phalanx could shoot town a PGM dropped from altitued and make the argentine daggers attacks at < 100 feet suicidal

on land - having CS95 kit would make life more bearable for troops on the ground , and IMHO the " defects " of the l8XXX series weapons would not affect brittish combat efficiency

of course you can argue endlessly over various points such as :

would a less hostile chile allow the argentines to send thier seasoned troops from formations thart were " mountain trained and equiped " ?


of course hubris compells me to vote " brittish win "

YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clownface
I don't know very much about this conflict myself but I got the impression that the Argentinians didn't really try to defend the place once you attacked? With the exeption of a few firefights and the unfortunate excocet incident they surrendered quite fast? Am I right? I'm not trying to diminish the brits fighting there, just want to learn more..


The para`s and the marines had to fight almost every step of the way


look for `goose green` and ` mt tumbledown` , also `san carlos bay`

There are many stories about hand to hand fighting - how 7.62mm didn`t stop a charging Argentinian Para as an example.

The Sea Harrier was shown to be useful against the Mirage , something which it wasn`t hoped to do.

The war in the south Atlantic , Britain fought alone - the USA couldn`t get involved.


M6D

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Naturally like hte other guys here said, the subs would do a lot of work, using cruise missles to impunity, dont forget, back then seawolf a missle that could be used for anti air was not fully working, nowerdays our navy has both seawolf that can shoot down even shells, and proper CIWS systems, our fleet would be a LOT less vunerable to these exocets then the first time round.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The problems for argentina would be much the same as last time. How to get men and equipment to the islands. RN subs would decimate any transport fleet (there is usally at least one hunter killer sub in the area at all times, even today not even the US Navy goes playing around the falklands without permission!). Argintinia would have to bring in troops by air this is now extreamly hard with the tornados and long range radar based there.

Assuming they managed it though and somehow took control of the islands, The war would be very different from last time. With the uprated airfield near stanley they could base larger more modern jets on the isalnds. This would mean our fleet would not be able to approach the islands as easily. You are right to say that the fleet is better protected than last time, with vertical launch seawolf and CIWS systems on all vessels. The reason they were dropping so low in 1982 was to go any higher with seadart in the area was suicide, this has not changed! so precision bombing from 10,000 feet is not an option. In the end it would depend on who was the most prepared and who got the lucky breaks, either way it would be much bloodier and not reccomended.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Aren't the Sea Harriers being removed from service?

I still don't think the Argentines are in any position to fight the RN, especially the RN's sub force.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
A few interesting stories from the original conflict:

1. The original party of Royal Marines (described in excellent detail in an earlier post) engaged an Argentine warship with a Carl Gustav anti tank launcher as it entered a narrow anchorage. The crew were disappointed to see the round impact the water just short of the ship, what they only found out later was that the round travelled underwater and impacted against the ships hull causing considereable damage.

2. Casper Weinberger (former US Defence Secretary) is on record as saying that if the UK had asked for a carrier and an air wing they would haven been given one !!!

3. Many Argentines were killed at the end of bayonets during the land battles.

4. The SAS and other British special forces units continue to use captured Argentine equipment to this day including captured Hueys and the much sought after folding stock "Para" version of the FN FAL assault rifle.

5. At the time of the surrender, the British 105mm field artillery units had an average of 4 rounds left per gun.

6. The radar on the Sea Wolf missile systems mounted on the 2 Type 22 frigates were so sensitive that they engaged a flock of birds on at least one occasion.

7. The Seacat missile system was almost completely useless in spite of being mounted on almost every British warship. It was primarily used to make attacking pilots swerve away as it was easily spotted by its smoke trail and tail mounted tracking flare.

8. As the Task Force was en route from Ascension they were shadowed by an Argie recon aircraft. When the TF commander was given permission to engage the hostile (much to his surprise) and the Sea Dart missile system was already in acquisition mode, the combat crew realised that the aircraft was a civilian 707 en route to Africa. Had they shot the aircraft down, the conflict would have ended right there - in disgrace.

9. Torpedo tracks were seen in the water by several crewmen aboard frigates involved in the rescue attempt of the crippled Destroyer HMS Sheffield. ASW attacks were launched but to no visible effect.

10. The 16 SBS operatives killed in a Sea King crash were en route to attack the Super Etendard bases on the Argie mainland. The attack plan was never reinstated.

11. HMS Conqueror used WWII vintage Mark 8 straight shot (non-homing) torpedos to sink the Belgrano because there was so little confidence in the Tigerfish torpedo.


M6D

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
still, less bloody for the british side i expect....what with CIWS i believe a lot less exocets would cause casualities



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join