ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd April 2017, 01:37 PM   #1
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
Musings about Falklands past and present

Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Really? The desire of the inhabitants to remain british has no bearing? Don't suppose there is any evidence? (As opposed to the other view, which is backed up by the Falkland isles argy bargy )
Edited by Darat:  Musings on Gilbrator left snipped to produce this thread




As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes. Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side. But no. Great Britain had to swing it's military might to prove it still had an empire and still ruled the waves.

Were it to happen today (and Argentina is making noises in that direction) the formerly Great Britain could do nothing about it. Decades of governmental evisceration of the armed services has rendered Britain impotent. The only thing which saved Britain's butt in the Falklands were aircraft carriers, now you have none. By choice.

If I were Argentina, I would grab Los Malvinos right now, because there is nothing the UK could do about it. The new QE class carrier is not going to be in service before 2020 at best. And there are only two of them. And they have no aircraft.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by Darat; 2nd April 2017 at 11:33 PM.
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 02:09 PM   #2
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes. Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side. But no. Great Britain had to swing it's military might to prove it still had an empire and still ruled the waves.
I seem to recall something at the time about not wanting the Islanders to fall under the control of an Argentinian regime well-known for human rights abuses and "disappearing" it's own citizens.

Quote:
Were it to happen today (and Argentina is making noises in that direction) the formerly Great Britain could do nothing about it. Decades of governmental evisceration of the armed services has rendered Britain impotent. The only thing which saved Britain's butt in the Falklands were aircraft carriers, now you have none. By choice.

If I were Argentina, I would grab Los Malvinos right now, because there is nothing the UK could do about it. The new QE class carrier is not going to be in service before 2020 at best. And there are only two of them. And they have no aircraft.
I think you'll find that it is Argentina that can do absolutely nothing about it. Their navy is far less capable than it was in 1982, and their air force not much better. They simply do not have the naval assets to assemble even a pale imitation of the 1982 invasion force, while the Eurofighters stationed on the Falkland Islands would obliterate any Argentine aircraft foolish enough to come within their range.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 2nd April 2017 at 03:23 PM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 02:15 PM   #3
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
I seem to recall something at the time about not wanting the Islanders to fall under the control of Argentinian regime well-known for human rights abuses and "disappearing" it's own citizens.



I think you'll find that it is Argentina that can do absolutely nothing about it. Their navy is far less capable than it was in 1982, and their air force not much better. They simply do not have the naval assets to assemble even a pale imitation of the 1982 invasion force, while the Eurofighters stationed on the Falkland Islands would obliterate any Argentine aircraft foolish enough to come within their range.
The Argies don't need a navy. The UK doesn't have one either.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 03:26 PM   #4
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The Argies don't need a navy. The UK doesn't have one either.
There seems to be a huge gulf between what you seem to want to believe and reality. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you think Argentina can take possession of the Falklands in the face of the superior British military assets already stationed on the Islands?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 04:17 PM   #5
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
There seems to be a huge gulf between what you seem to want to believe and reality. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you think Argentina can take possession of the Falklands in the face of the superior British military assets already stationed on the Islands?
1200 troops and three ships. Big deal. Oh and four fighter/attack aircraft which are mostly grounded. The argies could wipe that out without much effort if they had the will to do so.

And be under no illusion. I consider what has been done to the RN/RAF/British Army to be borderline criminal. The British Armed Forces achieved what they did in the eighties in the face of extreme adversity. They could not do so today. Successive governments have ensured that. They are simply easy targets for cutbacks.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 05:53 PM   #6
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes.
Perhaps. And when a person is murdered or raped, it would probably be cheaper to just shrug it off and let them get on with their life, too.

But thankfully there are situations where money really isn't the point, and that was one.

Quote:
Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side.
Nobody did die in pointless battles.

Quote:
Were it to happen today (and Argentina is making noises in that direction)
Fortunately for everyone, making noises is really all Argentina is capable of when it comes to military action towards the Falklands. They're not capable of invading the islands.

Quote:
the formerly Great Britain could do nothing about it. Decades of governmental evisceration of the armed services has rendered Britain impotent. The only thing which saved Britain's butt in the Falklands were aircraft carriers, now you have none. By choice.
For now, true. Won't be true in another few years, though.

Quote:
If I were Argentina, I would grab Los Malvinos right now, because there is nothing the UK could do about it.
If you were Argentina you wouldn't be able to grab "Los Malvinos" right now. It's not 1982, and the Islands are far, far better defended and far, far easier to rapidly reinforce. Any Argentine attempt to seize the islands would fail. Badly.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 06:14 PM   #7
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Perhaps. And when a person is murdered or raped, it would probably be cheaper to just shrug it off and let them get on with their life, too.
Thanks for the hysterical hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
But thankfully there are situations where money really isn't the point, and that was one.
It really wasn't

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Nobody did die in pointless battles.
Really?



I suppose the long march to death at Goose Green didn't happen either. The Royal Marines didn't get shafted by their own government's ineptitude. Sure.

When the logistics failed to turn up because the UKgov didn't bother to provide it, those hard bastards in green yomped it on foot, made it, and achieved their objectives at cost. For some reason, UKians want to trivialise that and I don't know why.


Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Fortunately for everyone, making noises is really all Argentina is capable of when it comes to military action towards the Falklands. They're not capable of invading the islands.
Oh yes they are, and the UK mil. presence there is trivial.


Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
For now, true. Won't be true in another few years, though.
Too little, too late.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
If you were Argentina you wouldn't be able to grab "Los Malvinos" right now. It's not 1982, and the Islands are far, far better defended and far, far easier to rapidly reinforce. Any Argentine attempt to seize the islands would fail. Badly.
And you will be resurrecting the EIC when now?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by Darat; 2nd April 2017 at 11:38 PM. Reason: IMG tag changed to IMGW=640
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 07:03 PM   #8
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,012
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes.
You could probably throw in money for the resurrection of the Great Auk as well so they'd feel better at home.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side. But no. Great Britain had to swing it's military might to prove it still had an empire and still ruled the waves.
As I remember it, Maggie ignored intelligence that Argentina was making moves on the Falklands, and then used the war to secure another election victory.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2017, 11:43 PM   #9
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,698
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
...snip...
As I remember it, Maggie ignored intelligence that Argentina was making moves on the Falklands, and then used the war to secure another election victory.
Not really, yes there was intelligence but the top tiers of the UK Government and government did not think they would actually invade. And whilst it did turn Thatcher from being a very unpopular PM likely to be ousted at the next general election it was not a calculated decision to secure a victory in the next general election. That's pretty much an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 01:03 AM   #10
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not really, yes there was intelligence but the top tiers of the UK Government and government did not think they would actually invade. And whilst it did turn Thatcher from being a very unpopular PM likely to be ousted at the next general election it was not a calculated decision to secure a victory in the next general election. That's pretty much an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
As far as I know, all correct. Sure, Maggie made hay while that sun shone, that's what politicians do. But some overarching politico-military conspiracy is quite the stretch. Some while ago, I saw various generals interviewed. They made it quite clear how close they were flirting with disaster.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 04:39 AM   #11
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,012
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not really, yes there was intelligence but the top tiers of the UK Government and government did not think they would actually invade. And whilst it did turn Thatcher from being a very unpopular PM likely to be ousted at the next general election it was not a calculated decision to secure a victory in the next general election. That's pretty much an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Sorry if my wording was a bit suggestive, but it was not my intention to present it as a LIHOP-style CT.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 05:22 AM   #12
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
1200 troops and three ships. Big deal. Oh and four fighter/attack aircraft which are mostly grounded. The argies could wipe that out without much effort if they had the will to do so.
With what?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 02:16 PM   #13
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
With what?
That's what I've been trying to figure out. The Argentine navy is in pitiful condition. Their two submarines are laid up. They have maybe one real amphibious assault ship. Their four "destroyers" would be classed as light frigates by most other modern navies.

Their air force is similarly sad. Whatever attack planes they sent would be operating near the limits of their range, giving them little time on target and little fuel to spare for maneuvers.

And they'd have to maneuver. The Falklands garrison now includes a Type 45 destroyer. This is a potent, modern air defense platform. Even if the RAF remained entirely out of the fight, the Type 45 by itself guarantees that the outdated Argentine planes would never be able to achieve air superiority.

The weak Argentine naval surface force, consisting of a handful of clapped-out frigates and corvettes, and escorting their troop transport, would have to face off against the Type 45, an RN frigate, and probably one or more RN submarines. Assuming any Argentine ground troops made it ashore, they'd be confronted by a well-equipped, well-prepared, and well-entrenched enemy force.

The Argentine troops would be stranded ashore, with no air support, no naval fire support, and no hope of resupply or reinforcement. With every passing day, their situation would worsen, and RN and RAF reinforcements would draw closer.

Unless abaddon has a vastly different and better-documented assessment of current Argentine military strength, I don't see how they could today take the 1982-strength Falklands, let alone the 2017-strength Falklands.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 02:27 PM   #14
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,463
Ah yes the Argentinians attacking the Falklands, it would be 1982 all over again, mainly as that is the age of most of the ships and aircraft in Argentina's military. The ship that led the force met a ridiculous fate:

Argentina: Destroyer sinks at port
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 03:08 PM   #15
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Ah yes the Argentinians attacking the Falklands, it would be 1982 all over again, mainly as that is the age of most of the ships and aircraft in Argentina's military. The ship that led the force met a ridiculous fate:

Argentina: Destroyer sinks at port
The good news is, Argentina commissioned four new "destroyers" after the Falklands war. The bad news is, all of these are laid up due to lack of maintenance and training. On top of that, apparently their armaments are expired, so they don't even have anything to shoot.

I am more curious than ever to find out the source of abaddon's extreme confidence in Argentina's armed forces.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 03:49 PM   #16
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,463
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The good news is, Argentina commissioned four new "destroyers" after the Falklands war. The bad news is, all of these are laid up due to lack of maintenance and training. On top of that, apparently their armaments are expired, so they don't even have anything to shoot.

I am more curious than ever to find out the source of abaddon's extreme confidence in Argentina's armed forces.
Yeah it seems the 'weakness' of the Royal Navy renders the Falklands indefensible in the face of a practically non-existent Argentine navy, somehow.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 04:21 PM   #17
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Yeah it seems the 'weakness' of the Royal Navy renders the Falklands indefensible in the face of a practically non-existent Argentine navy, somehow.
Hell, I bet that Type 45 could probably secure the Falklands all by itself.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 04:56 PM   #18
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Thanks for the hysterical hyperbole.
Hysterical hyperbole deserves to be met with the same.

Quote:
Really?
Yes, really.

Quote:
I suppose the long march to death at Goose Green didn't happen either. The Royal Marines didn't get shafted by their own government's ineptitude. Sure.

When the logistics failed to turn up because the UKgov didn't bother to provide it, those hard bastards in green yomped it on foot, made it, and achieved their objectives at cost. For some reason, UKians want to trivialise that and I don't know why.
I'm missing the relevance of any of that.

Quote:
Oh yes they are, and the UK mil. presence there is trivial.
Oh no they're not, and oh no it isn't.

Argentina would struggle to restage an invasion against the 1982 defences today. They have no effective airforce and no effective navy. Those are kind of important for that kind of operation.

Quote:
Too little, too late.
Another thing you don't understand, it seems.

Quote:
And you will be resurrecting the EIC when now?
When you bother to learn a few facts. I.e. never.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 06:16 PM   #19
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Hell, I bet that Type 45 could probably secure the Falklands all by itself.
One T45 could probably take down the entire Argentine air force - assuming they have any pilots who are able to fly these days. Hell, in the south Atlantic they probably wouldn't even have to deal with the occasional engine issues they've experienced in hot climates.

An Astute would blitz their navy too - assuming they could get any ships out of port.

Meanwhile there's a full size airport on the island, which would allow reinforcements to be flown in within 24 hours. And that's to reinforce the units already there. In 1982 the total Falklands defence force was about 80 men with rifles. Today there are 1,200 Army troops already there, with surface to air missile batteries. And Typhoon fighters.

There's simply no way the Argentine military as it currently stands could defeat the forces in place. And having hundreds of reinforcements arrive handily would make things even worse for them.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2017, 11:57 PM   #20
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,982
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
One T45 could probably take down the entire Argentine air force - assuming they have any pilots who are able to fly these days. Hell, in the south Atlantic they probably wouldn't even have to deal with the occasional engine issues they've experienced in hot climates.

An Astute would blitz their navy too - assuming they could get any ships out of port.

Meanwhile there's a full size airport on the island, which would allow reinforcements to be flown in within 24 hours. And that's to reinforce the units already there. In 1982 the total Falklands defence force was about 80 men with rifles. Today there are 1,200 Army troops already there, with surface to air missile batteries. And Typhoon fighters.

There's simply no way the Argentine military as it currently stands could defeat the forces in place. And having hundreds of reinforcements arrive handily would make things even worse for them.
I also suspect that detection facilities have been upgraded significantly since the early 80's and so it'd be impossible for an Argentinian invasion force (if one could actually be assembled) to get to the Falklands.

I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.

Unless the Argentine Navy somehow manage to control Falklands territorial waters then anything floaty will end up at the bottom of the South Atlantic and as you pointed out that control hat would also have to include underwater too.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2017, 09:12 AM   #21
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I also suspect that detection facilities have been upgraded significantly since the early 80's and so it'd be impossible for an Argentinian invasion force (if one could actually be assembled) to get to the Falklands.

I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.

Unless the Argentine Navy somehow manage to control Falklands territorial waters then anything floaty will end up at the bottom of the South Atlantic and as you pointed out that control hat would also have to include underwater too.
Since the four largest warships in the Argentine Navy are smallish warships in the first place, and in the second place are ill-crewed, ill-maintained, and likely unarmed, controlling Falklands territorial waters is not really in the cards.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2017, 07:02 PM   #22
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I also suspect that detection facilities have been upgraded significantly since the early 80's and so it'd be impossible for an Argentinian invasion force (if one could actually be assembled) to get to the Falklands.
Giraffe radars, and the old Rapier missiles being replaced by vastly better CAMM. Nice bits of kit both.

Quote:
I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.
I couldn't say, but I would have imagined any aircraft approaching the islands would be challenged and, if unresponsive, would be intercepted. Typhoons would murder unprotected transports, and I doubt the Argentines have the ability to protect them.

Quote:
Unless the Argentine Navy somehow manage to control Falklands territorial waters then anything floaty will end up at the bottom of the South Atlantic and as you pointed out that control hat would also have to include underwater too.
They have two diesel electric subs. No idea if they're operational or not, but in a navy whose ships sink whilst alongside in port now and again...
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2017, 09:51 AM   #23
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I suppose the long march to death at Goose Green didn't happen either. The Royal Marines didn't get shafted by their own government's ineptitude. Sure.

When the logistics failed to turn up because the UKgov didn't bother to provide it, those hard bastards in green yomped it on foot, made it, and achieved their objectives at cost. For some reason, UKians want to trivialise that and I don't know why.

First, it was 2 PARA that marched and assaulted Goose Green; the only RM casualties were the crew of a helicopter shot down while attempting to evacuate the paras' mortally wounded commander (Lt Col H. JonesWP, VC, OBE).

Second, whether the fact that the ship carrying the heavy transport helicopters was sunk was due to the "government's ineptitude" is at best highly debatable, but to claim that they "didn't bother to provide" logistical support to the paras is simply false.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2017, 11:42 AM   #24
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's what I've been trying to figure out. The Argentine navy is in pitiful condition. Their two submarines are laid up. They have maybe one real amphibious assault ship. Their four "destroyers" would be classed as light frigates by most other modern navies.

They have one amphibious cargo ship, which can carry four LCVPs and several rubber boats, and one destroyer-transport which can carry about 300 troops, two helicopters, and several rubber boats. So *at best* they could maybe lift one marine battalion, but they wouldn't be able to unload much of their heavy equipment unless they could somehow capture Port Stanley.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Their air force is similarly sad. Whatever attack planes they sent would be operating near the limits of their range, giving them little time on target and little fuel to spare for maneuvers.

All of the Mirages and Super Etandards, and most, if not all, of the Skyhawks, have been officially retired. The only combat aircraft they have that can fly are a couple of dozen light counter-insurgency Pucarás, which lack the range to reach the Falklands, unless they intend to fly one-way missions, land at remote airstrips in the islands, and hope they can recover the planes and crews later.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And they'd have to maneuver. The Falklands garrison now includes a Type 45 destroyer. This is a potent, modern air defense platform. Even if the RAF remained entirely out of the fight, the Type 45 by itself guarantees that the outdated Argentine planes would never be able to achieve air superiority.

Due to the decision to cut Type 45 acquisitions from 12 to six, sometimes a Type 23 frigate is assigned. However, recent upgrades, including the CAMM which Seismosaurus mentioned, have vastly increased the anti-air capabilities of the Type 23.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The weak Argentine naval surface force, consisting of a handful of clapped-out frigates and corvettes, and escorting their troop transport, would have to face off against the Type 45, an RN frigate, and probably one or more RN submarines. Assuming any Argentine ground troops made it ashore, they'd be confronted by a well-equipped, well-prepared, and well-entrenched enemy force.

Actually, it would be either a frigate or a destroyer, but the odds would still be very heavily in the RN's favor.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The Argentine troops would be stranded ashore, with no air support, no naval fire support, and no hope of resupply or reinforcement. With every passing day, their situation would worsen, and RN and RAF reinforcements would draw closer.

Assuming any even made it ashore.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Unless abaddon has a vastly different and better-documented assessment of current Argentine military strength, I don't see how they could today take the 1982-strength Falklands, let alone the 2017-strength Falklands.

They *might* be able to take the 1982-strength Falklands by sheer weight of numbers, but I wouldn't put money on it.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2017, 12:09 PM   #25
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.

They supposedly have 7 assorted C-130s. Even if they could somehow get all of them in the air at once () and avoid having any of them shot down (), they could drop somewhat less than 500 paratroops, with no heavy equipment or supplies to speak of.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2017, 01:46 PM   #26
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
Also not to mention the political backlash would be very damaging to Argentina;they would get support from almost nobody and condemnation from most,if not all, of the major powers.
It is just not worth it for Argentina.
From A military point of view,the UK might be in bad shape, but compared to Argentina.......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2017, 01:48 PM   #27
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
And any new Second Lt in the US Marine Corps would take one look at Argentina's amphibious capability and die laughing.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2017, 12:05 PM   #28
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.

Now the UK does not have that influence anymore by choice. Article 50, remember? Some in the UK are threatening war on Spain, for pete's sake. This is not likely to create feelings of endearment. Nor prevent deals over which the UK has no further control.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2017, 12:11 PM   #29
Aber
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 938
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.
Evidence?
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2017, 12:24 PM   #30
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,708
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Evidence?
In 2016, the UK blocked Argentinian attempts to acquire Spanish Mirage's.

The UK blocked the Argentine attempt to acquire Saab Gripens.

The UK blocked the Argentine attempt to acquire ex-Israeli Kfir's.

Would you like to move on to naval power? Or shall I bombard you with references?

In any event, I am sure that Argentina relishes Brexit.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2017, 01:45 PM   #31
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
Someone is getting desperate......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 04:25 AM   #32
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,968
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.
That doesn't explain why the kit the Argentinians already have is rotting away at the pier. That explains why they don't have new kit.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 04:31 AM   #33
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,448
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Second, whether the fact that the ship carrying the heavy transport helicopters was sunk was due to the "government's ineptitude" is at best highly debatable, but to claim that they "didn't bother to provide" logistical support to the paras is simply false.
I'm glad someone picked up on that.
I really can't see how the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor is "government ineptitude".
Tolls is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 01:18 PM   #34
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's at least agree that, contrary to your original claims, the Argentinian Navy is in no state to take the Falklands. Then we can get into why that might be.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 01:57 PM   #35
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
If one battalion is the maximum the Argentinains can land, the invading force will be outnumbered by the British Garrison. Not a good recipe for a successful amphibious assault.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 01:59 PM   #36
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
If one battalion is the maximum the Argentinains can land, the invading force will be outnumbered by the British Garrison. Not a good recipe for a successful amphibious assault.
Actually they could do pretty well, properly supported by naval and air power...
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 03:10 PM   #37
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Actually they could do pretty well, properly supported by naval and air power...
And if pigs had wings, etc.......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 05:13 PM   #38
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,727
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And if pigs had wings, etc.......
If pigs had wings, the Argentines could mount soldiers on them and have a credible air assault force.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2017, 05:35 PM   #39
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,737
And the Argentine Amphibious Assault Craft appear to be World War Two level:LCVP's and a few rubber boats. The won't cut it against a modern defense. Might have been fine for Normandy or Tarawa;not so good nowdays.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2017, 07:53 PM   #40
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.

Now the UK does not have that influence anymore by choice. Article 50, remember? Some in the UK are threatening war on Spain, for pete's sake. This is not likely to create feelings of endearment. Nor prevent deals over which the UK has no further control.
You're really of the opinion that all UK influence over other countries will cease with Brexit? How curious.

Meanwhile, that's only a rather small fraction of the story. Argentina's recent governments haven't really trusted their own military much, and so haven't spent a whole lot of money on them. And they also haven't really had the money to spend, frankly.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.