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.

 

Uk 'vs Argentina (Present Day)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
British cowards: You didn't have the guts to go it alone. You needed Ronald reagan with that two faced hypocrit of Alexander Haigh to secrectly help you out relaying all the satelite intelligence information about the argentine troops, air force and the navy movements to the British task force systems so you guys could have an advantage over the Argies. Those guys being at a disadvantage from the economical, technical and military point of view and also without a single allied in the world to back them up at least morally, fought courageously, specially those Argentine Airforce Pilots, descendants of Spanish, Italians, British and German immigrants that had to make fit with what little they had. The argentines were desperatetly seeking the help of the Soviet Union, and Russian submarines were lurking in the depths of the South Altlantic Ocean playing a tune up-game trailing the Brit subs. Of course the Russians were much too smart to get involved in an international crisis of this magnitude, and poor ARGENTINA HAD TO GO IT ALONE! Had Argentina being a Powerful country like Russia with a supreme AIR FORCE and SUBMARINE FLEET, with a Superb Army forces on the ground, would the goverment of M. Thatcher still have sent their expeditionary forces to the South Atlantic? or would it have reconsidered the Argentine proposals and try to extend the talks and at least reach some solution to the conflict?, thus averting a bloody engament for both countries?. England always had the assurance that the USA would betray Argentina as far as the USA BEING THE HONEST BROKER is concerned, that they claimed to be all along ( WITH ALEXANDER HAIGH SHUTTLEING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND LONDON) because if worse came to worse and the British forces were taking a beating in the early stages of the invations , the United States would undoubtely send their MARINES down to the FAUKLANDS/MALVINAS ISLANDS to bail the Brits out. These forces were conveniently stationed on the ASCENCION ISLANDS down in the South Mid Atlantic ocean jockeying up for position ready to invade Argentina, " a la gunboat diplomacy ", if Her Majesty's Expeditionary Forces so needed it. Talking about invations, no country in the world has ever invaded more foreing sovereing nations than the USA. ( just a fact check). Till these days I still can't believe how the United States ever claimed the title of HONEST BROKER in this international conflict. Such arbitration was so one sided between ENGLAND and the UNITED STATES against ARGENTINA that the machinations of JOSEF STALIN and his successor BERIA would have been kids stuff compared to this diplomatic farse.. C'MON MAN WHO'RUKIDDING??? Not me!.
Of course after 176 years ARGENTINA should give up on those miserable islands and let the KELPERS fend for themselves. Argentina does not need them except in the pride department. Why 176 years? Well it was in 1832 that the UNITED STATES and ENGLAND devised a scheme to snatch the islands from ARGENTINA. Read all about it.
No curve balls, please.
MYPOINT




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
British cowards: You didn't have the guts to go it alone. You needed Ronald reagan with that two faced hypocrit of Alexander Haigh to secrectly help you out relaying all the satelite intelligence information about the argentine troops, air force and the navy movements to the British task force systems so you guys could have an advantage over the Argies. Those guys being at a disadvantage from the economical, technical and military point of view and also without a single allied in the world to back them up at least morally, fought courageously, specially those Argentine Airforce Pilots, descendants of Spanish, Italians, British and German immigrants that had to make fit with what little they had. The argentines were desperatetly seeking the help of the Soviet Union, and Russian submarines were lurking in the depths of the South Altlantic Ocean playing a tune up-game trailing the Brit subs. Of course the Russians were much too smart to get involved in an international crisis of this magnitude, and poor ARGENTINA HAD TO GO IT ALONE! Had Argentina being a Powerful country like Russia with a supreme AIR FORCE and SUBMARINE FLEET, with a Superb Army forces on the ground, would the goverment of M. Thatcher still have sent their expeditionary forces to the South Atlantic? or would it have reconsidered the Argentine proposals and try to extend the talks and at least reach some solution to the conflict?, thus averting a bloody engament for both countries?. England always had the assurance that the USA would betray Argentina as far as the USA BEING THE HONEST BROKER is concerned, that they claimed to be all along ( WITH ALEXANDER HAIGH SHUTTLEING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND LONDON) because if worse came to worse and the British forces were taking a beating in the early stages of the invations , the United States would undoubtely send their MARINES down to the FAUKLANDS/MALVINAS ISLANDS to bail the Brits out. These forces were conveniently stationed on the ASCENCION ISLANDS down in the South Mid Atlantic ocean jockeying up for position ready to invade Argentina, " a la gunboat diplomacy ", if Her Majesty's Expeditionary Forces so needed it. Talking about invations, no country in the world has ever invaded more foreing sovereing nations than the USA. ( just a fact check). Till these days I still can't believe how the United States ever claimed the title of HONEST BROKER in this international conflict. Such arbitration was so one sided between ENGLAND and the UNITED STATES against ARGENTINA that the machinations of JOSEF STALIN and his successor BERIA would have been kids stuff compared to this diplomatic farse.. C'MON MAN WHO'RUKIDDING??? Not me!.
Of course after 176 years ARGENTINA should give up on those miserable islands and let the KELPERS fend for themselves. Argentina does not need them except in the pride department. Why 176 years? Well it was in 1832 that the UNITED STATES and ENGLAND devised a scheme to snatch the islands from ARGENTINA. Read all about it.
No curve balls, please.
MYPOINT



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Lets look at what basically happened. Argentina was in need of a morale boost and what better way than to take back the Malvinas. They had probed politically to see what the UK reaction would be and thought that we wouldn't really be that bothered (first mistake) so they invaded with a quite lowly and poorly equipped army as they thought they would only need to hold out for a short time till the politicians handed over the Falkland islands from London to Buenos Aires (second mistake). News of this hit London and the UK prepared an invasion fleet hastily (Third mistake) and in under six weeks was heading south.
The politicians failed to reach negotiations before the fleet arrived and the UK called in a few I,O,U's to impose sanctions on Argentina which started to effect them immediately.
On the islands the Argentinians had entrenched themselves in generally poor positioning showing very little for tactical awareness and leaving whole swathes of land open for a landing and leaving many of their positions without interconnecting arcs of cover so they would have to fight as independent units and not really a collective force(fourth mistake)
The UK navy in the mean time had to impose a landing but was all ready suffering from lost ships due to poor positioning of the fleet and in effective anti aircraft(Fifth mistake) and the consequences of hastily throwing the equipment so to speak in the boot of the car and rushing off. They lost nearly all their transport helicopters in a few blows from the Argentinian air force which severely impacted any chance of an advantage to the ground troops that were about to land. They also had many problems with the sitting of the ground to air missiles due to the nature of the ground and the way the jets come in to attack.(because the fleet was basically in a large gully the jets come in low and then popped up over the hill and commenced their bomb run at ultra low heights) the Rapier system and the detections systems on the ships didn't get to see them till they come over the hill so were quite poor in this phase of the battle and had little impact.
I must say that the Argentinian air force showed great courage and determination during these runs as they must have been terrifying.The biggest problem really for the Jets was they were so low the bombs didn't all have time to arm before impact.( The navy was basically given a major let off here as this would have been a lot more devastating for them and the bombs were not a design flaw it was because they had to fly so low to avoid being blown out the sky)(this wasn't a mistake it was unfortunate or fortunate depends which side you was on)
What was a mistake was to leave your ground attack aircraft lightly defended whilst sitting all nice and shiny by a runway on a little island( yeah big mistake) the Argentinians basically totally lost all their ground attack aircraft in one blow with a few minor exceptions.
The sinking of the Belgrano played a major strategic and psychological victory for the British in keeping the Argentinian navy at port and bringing home the fact that war costs many lives and is an ugly business.
Once the ground battle got under way it pretty much went as well as could be expected even though the majority of British soldiers had to yomp across the scrub land for hours on end in the day and night carrying all their equipment weighing over 150lbs. The British army basically had to advance to every contact and onto defensive positions it was remarkable that they didn't come off second best, but in actual fact won every engagement. Yes we could argue the Argentinians were conscripts or ill equipped or whatever but their is no denying it, they were not all conscripts and they were dug into position and had the weapons and necessary equipment to do severe damage and that is what they tried to do.
At goose green the British army were heavily out numbered and facing heavy concentrated fire yet they still managed to take these positions and found themselves in a dilemma has having so many prisoners they didn't know what to do with them.There were further battles at the major high ground locations like mount longdon and two sisters etc but the final battle on tumbledown was conclusive and the Argentinian army was routed.

I know this does not cover everything but you can see more or less how it went. Both sides made some big mistakes and fate played its hand many times.
For me the biggest problem for the British was the Logistics of assembling a task force quickly and fighting 8000 miles away with no support so to speak. For the Argentinians it was a serious under estimation of the enemy with a poorly led and trained army.

After thinking about it and looking at past and present situations and the mechanics of the battle.

Would it happen again...its possible

What would be the outcome...... A more compound defeat for Argentina




edit on 11-10-2011 by sherlock2k2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Two points to note that i never really mentioned was we mustn't forget it was only a task force sent there and a light army to defend and not the full military might of either country.

And the second point is i was stationed there in the British Army and know what would happen if there was a next time.





edit on 11-10-2011 by sherlock2k2 because: Poor spelling lol



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MickeyDee
 


why would not Argentina wait for the UK to go bankrupt and then just buy the Malvinas.

with so much of the UK's economy based on hedge funds and other questionable financial institutions, patience is all that is needed.

China could loan the money, Argentina gets their territory and a desperate UK gets cash.

South America is a rising economy, the UK's corrupt financial system an anchor to reform, time on the side of patience.

why a military solution when your nemesis is rotten and sinking?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Go ahead and try and reinvade. You'll just wind up discovering what it feels like to see every single one of your major cities and a large majority of your population vapourised. Same goes for any of your greasy south american mates who might decide to support you.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
didn't Argentina just go thru a real mess of an economic collapse? They aint going to do anything militarily, for a long time yet.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I know you mentioned it the other way round but who's to say Britain aint already keeping Argentina in a de stabilised state, it has the both the power and the means to do so.

As for Corruption i have no doubt there is some form of back handers going on to a small degree between some low life's but Britain is generally as corrupt free and stable as your going to get in the world as we know it and that is why many countries are envious of her legal systems and banking methods.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Hum. April 1982. Wet, cold and windy. We no longer have a fixed wing carrier force, no harriers and no nimrods.

What would happen this time? Nothing. It will not happen. If Argentina had the inclination, they must launch an amphibious assault. We have a destroyer on station most of the year, plus support and aux ships there constantly. SSN on station there, or near enough to get into theatre.

Presently, if I am correct, there is a Eurofighter Squadron on detachment and 1500 regular troops. The locals now have an organised malitia of about company strength. There is at least 1 Rapier Sqn from, I think No. 2 Sqn RAFR.

Would we be able to mount a campaign as we did in 82? Yes, but it would take on a different form than it did when I was there. No harriers, but lots of attack helicopters, carrier bourne. The fighting would not take shape in the same manner. Armed UAVs, light armour. Unless the Argies attack with absolute overwhelming number and resolve, I am pretty sure that a beach head could not be achieved.

And finally, to our Argentinian friend here, just becuase I am British and fought against you 30 years ago, does not meant that I have to automatically hate you. Your governemnt sent you, ours threw you back.


edit on 12/10/2011 by TheLoneArcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
The whole of latin America could not do it.. We still have subs parked off the coast with orders to turn the whole lot into an ashtray if they try.. Every city in south America.. By the two subs that are there.

Just because we do not brag about it does not mean that Britain does not have devastating capabilities..



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Is this a serious thread?
Its just UK would destroy Argentina In any form on conflict.
Our training Is proberly the best and complex In the world.

Basicaly, better Soldiers, better Equipment, better Military.

Argentina looses In a matter of weeks.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Zakka
 

As a Brit and ex-service member, I am sorry to say I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. When we switched from the SLR to the SA, I cried like a baby. That piece of **** jammed so often that I thought I was putting the wrong mag on it. Bits kept falling from it and it hated dust a grit. My old SLR never failed, oh tell a lie, I had a gas stoppage once. When I was issued with the new PCLE, I immediately threw it in my locker and customised my own from a RM chest rig and some South African belt rigging. Given the chance, I would have kept my old pattern Webbing. I could add to it and customise it so much easier and it was very hard wearing.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
reply to post by Zakka
 

As a Brit and ex-service member, I am sorry to say I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. When we switched from the SLR to the SA, I cried like a baby. That piece of **** jammed so often that I thought I was putting the wrong mag on it. Bits kept falling from it and it hated dust a grit. My old SLR never failed, oh tell a lie, I had a gas stoppage once. When I was issued with the new PCLE, I immediately threw it in my locker and customised my own from a RM chest rig and some South African belt rigging. Given the chance, I would have kept my old pattern Webbing. I could add to it and customise it so much easier and it was very hard wearing.



Try the new one. You'll find it far, far more reliable, and extremely accurate. Though for such a small weapon, it weighs far too much.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
. reply to post by Walkers
 


I wish. I have been retired for many years now. Solider 95 was just becoming standard issue when I left. I still use Military web gear in the mountains though. I wear a green Viper combat vest. Works great as a day pack as most of the compartments are at the front.

I am afraid that my weapons of choice now are my crossbow and a 9mm automatic, which stays at home for protection.

When I joined, we were still wearing the steel helmets.
edit on 12/10/2011 by TheLoneArcher because: Grammar



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
. reply to post by Walkers
 


I wish. I have been retired for many years now. Solider was just becoming standard issue when I left. I still use Military web gear in the mountains though. I wear a green Viper combat vest. Works great as a day pack as most of the compartments are at the front.

I am afraid that my weapons of choice now are my crossbow and a 9mm automatic, which stays at home for protection.


I use a surplus UK norwegian jumper at night. Saves money on heating bills and is just so warm.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLoneArcher
 


What points did you dissagree with me about?
You just described a gun.

I'm talking all around Military, coventianol warfare, Argentina cannot go toe 2 toe with Britain.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Zakka
 


Sorry mate. I was talking about the equipment. I must has misread your post.
I was trying to highlight some of the failings in current British personal equipment, not that Argentina could go toe to toe with us. They could not then, I was there, and they can not now.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkers
 


So true. Again, not available when I was in. Still the drab cotton shirts.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
reply to post by Zakka
 


Sorry mate. I was talking about the equipment. I must has misread your post.
I was trying to highlight some of the failings in current British personal equipment, not that Argentina could go toe to toe with us. They could not then, I was there, and they can not now.


I have to agree with you there mate, I too was one of the first to use the SA80 on the switch over. I had a lot of grief with the gas stoppages and generally not picking up the round properly. Some of this was down to the mag though to be fair as the springs in them were total crap for feeding rounds. After i played with mine though it wasn't too bad and i kept the same weapon for about 5 years if i remember right. As for the rest of the gear yeah it was crap. 58 Webbing was ok as you could change it around but don't let it get wet and try get your mags out in a rush.The clothing was absolute pony, i wouldn't mind but when out on exercise or active we must have looked like mercenary's with all the different gear we had bought ourselves to wear.

The British Army used to be severely let down by its equipment but i would like to think times have changed and now the boys are slowly getting the gear they deserve. About the only 2 weapons i loved that we used to have was the 9mm browning and 66mm Law, used to love them little throw away bundles of fun and if i was feeling like He-Man then gimme a Gimpy or 50 cal browning



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sherlock2k2
 


Funny you should say that about today's equipment. When my younger son passed out from Catterick and moved to Aldershot, he got issued with his personal webbing. He sent me a frantic email, complaining that his PCLE was worn out and faded and could I buy him some WebTex. Cost me a small fortune, but he has it.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join