20 Years Since the Falklands Victory

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Chris Wilkinson


The UK pays for quite a bit of that so don't tell us what to do

Well apparently we have. And the US does more trading with Spain than the UK has ever had.

[*End Is Forever*]

Of course you were also backed up by US intelligence assets

Actually David, that's not true. The USA provided no help to Britain whatsoever during the Falklands conflict, indeed Reagan (despite his close relationship with Thatcher) did not want to see the conflict at all. In fact, from his inaction you'd have thought that the Argentines were his ally. Not that he had a track record of supporting South American dictators or anything...

[David Floyd]

Actually I'm 90% certain we DID supply intel...I'd have to check though.

[Felch]

We did supply inteligence to the Brits. Nothing very flashy, but a few fancy airplanes with cool electronic toys inside did help out the Brits.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The USA provided intelligence and logistic support (but not foward into the combats area) to the Brits. This is well know. What is not well know was that in case the The Argia airforce had manage to get a fair proportion of its expensive toys into the air, beyoded a rew Super Entards and Mirages, and some Pucaras on the Islands, The USN had two crrier groups in the South Atlantic ready to move in and clease the skys and airfeilds.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Weather? You can get nice beach weather down in Grenada, and nice ski weather up in the mountains. The women? Well that is for you to decide. Parties? I dunno about those... Spain does have quite a night life though.



Not to mention Britain fought in Afghanistan and didn't win. The US did.

ooooo....good point!


EiF

IIRC, the USA provided Tanker support for RAF Bombers that flew out of the "forward" base at Ascension Island.

[Lefty Scaevola]

There was a lot of other stuff going on at that time. When the brits went south and the USN atlantic fleet vanish into the Atlantic. The Soviet Union had a sudden unanounced increase in navla and army traning activity, including moving 12 division from central Asia to Europe. This is going on shortly before one of my high school reunions. The president of my class calls and tells me he can not ome and ask me handle some communications to the other calss officers. I ask he what ups and he just says "I can't come" and hang up. He was a B52 driver. Eeeerp! all SAC leave cancelled.

[David Floyd]

The USN had two crrier groups in the South Atlantic ready to move in and clease the skys and airfeilds.

It's also worth noting that the transfer of these carriers (and the Royal Navy) significantly depleted LantFlt, to the point that if the Sovs had attacked it would have been big trouble in the North Atlantic for a while.

[Frankychan]

You know what I don't like?

I don't like it when other countries complain about the U.S. military and put Americans down, but when there's trouble in the world people look to us to solve their problems and start yelling at us 'Why aren't you doing anything?'

Well, that's just my two-cents. I'm not saying America is the best country to live in, but rather one of the best.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by David Floyd


It's also worth noting that the transfer of these carriers (and the Royal Navy) significantly depleted LantFlt, to the point that if the Sovs had attacked it would have been big trouble in the North Atlantic for a while.

There would have been some depletion of strenth for a short period, but the carrier groups are very fast and mobile, and we were keeeping an eye on the soviets as noted above. The surface and anti-submarine groups of the Atlantic Fllet were on increaed readiness at the time, and the anti subgroups woulb be the first into action with any soviet conflict. The Brit fleet, however, would have been much more hard pressed to take up duties in the North atlantic and Norwegian Sea.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Actually David, that's not true. The USA provided no help to Britain whatsoever during the Falklands conflict, indeed Reagan (despite his close relationship with Thatcher) did not want to see the conflict at all. In fact, from his inaction you'd have thought that the Argentines were his ally. Not that he had a track record of supporting South American dictators or anything...

Sorry Iain, but your very wrong.

The US provided intell satellite info, rushed special nightfighting goggles for Brit ground forces (taken from US stocks) and took over Nato warship commitments to free up Brit shipping, as well as sending numerous military stores Britain's way, while refusing to resupply Argentina (which used many US weapon types).

US Sec A Haig flew back and forth between London and Buenos Aires continually in an attempt to mediate the conflict, and he faild misirably (he was a moron, BTW).

Paul, this had nothing to do with getting Thatcher re-elected, I loathe revionist history is why I mention it.
The Argentine dictator had a poor grasp on power, and attempted to force the issue, since Britain was considering giving Argentina the place (which is absolutly worthless) in an effort to gain popularity.
The Falklanders almost unanimously voted to remain with Britain, wanting nothing to do with a comic opera dictatorship.
The invasion was launched with the assumption it would be accepted as fait acompli, but it greatly angered Britons at the time (ask your parents what they thought about it).

Operation Corporate was carried out under extremly adverse conditions, and was a fine feat of arms.

Laz, the Arrgie AF was operating at the end of it's range, so it's combat ability was severely limited, it was forced to come in at predictable angles and so it was easy for the Harriers to intercept.
The damage it managed was quite impressive despite this.
For it's rep, the Exocet actually only had two successes, Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor, and many misses, it wasn't an effective weapons system.

[David Floyd]

There would have been some depletion of strenth for a short period, but the carrier groups are very fast and mobile, and we were keeeping an eye on the soviets as noted above. The surface and anti-submarine groups of the Atlantic Fllet were on increaed readiness at the time, and the anti subgroups woulb be the first into action with any soviet conflict. The Brit fleet, however, would have been much more hard pressed to take up duties in the North atlantic and Norwegian Sea.

Yes, but considering that NATO doctrine required 4 carrier battlegroups for operation in the North Atlantic, there would have been little naval support for Norway, and the Soviet battlefleet could have sortied, covered by heavy bombers. Further, US convoys would either have been decimated, or waited a few days before sailing, with bad results - not only would the supplies be late, but the Sovs would have more time to throw submarines through the GIUK gap.

[KrazyHorse]

It takes more then a bunch of oily Mustachios to beat HM forces

Now, how could you jerks turn a 5.0 troll like this into a serious thread?

[Simon Darkshade]

Maggie could have saved a lot of money and simply nuked Buenos Aires as a warning.
The Argie invasion was an evil act, and was soundly thrashed by Her Majesty's forces, even though they were not ideally suited to the role of long range power projection.
It would have been interesting if the fleet carriers had not been decommissioned a few years previous, as well as the Tiger class cruisers, and maybe even HMS Vanguard (This equipment was old, but it is interesting to consider the hypotheticals. Indeed, if all of these, or even the first, had still been in effective service, the invasion would not have taken place.)
But it was a triumph for the British military. Heck, they even bombed Port Stanley airfield with the relics of V-Force!

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by Giancarlo

but I am not that stupid!

Nope your worse then that. I`ve seen corpses show more wit.



And as for the Spanish army they make the Palestinians look organised.