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.
Originally posted by JamesinOz
The US Navy hasn't been in a serious naval battle since WW2 and anti-ship weapons systems have made such enormous advances since then that it's impossible to say whether it would win any major naval battle with another modern navy. The only naval skirmish which has occured since WW2 has been the Falklands War, in which just a couple of Exocet missiles were used with devastating effect.
Theoretically the use of nuclear weapons against a carrier group could wipe the whole group out in an instant. In addition, airborne assault, anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes from modern silent diesel submarines could swarm any naval taskforce and probably win with conventional weapons alone, imo. Hopefully such a thing never happens.
[edit on 17-3-2006 by JamesinOz]
Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm methinks you should do a bit more research.
The RN lost 6 ships and 10 more were damaged, plus 34 aircraft. Im not sure what the Argentinian losses were
Originally posted by FredT
The RN lost 6 ships and 10 more were damaged, plus 34 aircraft
Originally posted by Foxe
Once DDX hits waters in 2012, I would say so...
Originally posted by justin_barton3
Thats still a lot for any task force to lose. If a 2 CVBG's lost 6 ships and had 10 damaged and lost 34 aircraft between them in a single operation then it would be very big news and would make news world wide.
Justin
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
jebus wept
stratrf , are you tottaly devoid of ANY research skills - or do you just like to preted you are
see here : www.naval-history.net...
chapters 52 , 53 and 54 ARE THE RELEVANT ONES
Originally posted by devilwasp
Well mate considering how many ships in total where sent by the briths forces (110 ships ) thats not exsactly fair to say it was massive losses, mind you even one british servicemen dead is bad enough never mind 255.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
jebus wept
stratrf , are you tottaly devoid of ANY research skills - or do you just like to preted you are
see here : www.naval-history.net...
chapters 52 , 53 and 54 ARE THE RELEVANT ONES
Those chapters prove everything I said.
I stated previously that I don't remember the exact numbers; that they are somewhere around "blah blah blah".
Then someone pointed the exact figures; and that was fine; because my point that the Falklands was a significant enough battle to be used to judge military strategy at Sea with contemporary weapons was proven.
And this continues to prove my point.
So...what are you? An instigator?
Why does everyone say that the Falklands was too small of a conflict to accurately judge?
The British lost dozens of ships and the Argentinians lost dozens more.
Over 90 argentinian planes were shot down and something like 50 British planes.
I can't remember the exact figures but it was more than a "few exocets" and the exocets were used well on scout ships hence their effectiveness
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by justin_barton3
Thats still a lot for any task force to lose. If a 2 CVBG's lost 6 ships and had 10 damaged and lost 34 aircraft between them in a single operation then it would be very big news and would make news world wide.
Justin
Look how many ships where sent:
en.wikipedia.org...
Aircraft in the fight.
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by Harlequin
Did they even take 34 aircraft with them in the first place?
what the Falklands showed was the vulnrability to anchored ships to iron bombs - yes they bombed ships , AND that the media needs to be controlled
As a direct result of the news reporting that the argentinian bombs wern`t arming properly because of the low level - i think one went through the HMS Broadsword - the argentinians armed there bombs on the runway , and IIRC the HMS Antelope was lost as a result.
The ships weren't anchored...if you are implying that they were just sitting ducks.