Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARA battles RN in Port Stanley Harbour

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Is there any scenario by which Vulcan bombers, or even even conventionally tipped Harpoons or Polaris (can a Polaris even be fitted with a non-nuclear warhead?) missiles, would have been used against the Argentinian mainland?




    If by some way the bulk of the RN's surface ships had been lost in the S.Atlantic, or if all the 6000 British land invasion force soldiers had been cut- off, killed or captured, is it conceivable that a small nuclear strike (eg a Harrier with a 15kT warhead on a one-way mission) would have been launched against Comodoro Rivadavia or even Buenos Aires itself?!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Selous View Post
      The moment assets like that start being lost, the bigger the escalation. After that point Thatcher's got little choice but to keep going to make good on the loss.
      Even the seppos helped the RN and Operation Black Buck - they'll help even more if BAOR and North Atlantic duties have to be weakened to make good on the investment . With the exocets the Argentinians had they couldn't take out BOTH RN carriers and SEVERAL destroyers - 10 Israeli missiles does not guarantee a disproprotionate loss of surface assets. Meanwhile the Argentine Armada will be home to crabs as more SSNs get sent south.



      In that case, don't risk 'em. The landing was done under certain conditions, with those conditions unlikely/impossible = no landing.

      I'd sink the Argie fleet with better use of submarines - if they're already sinking more ships then revisit the Belgrano until there isn't much of an Argentine fleet left, meanwhile keeping the RN task fleet out of the most dangerous range.

      Before long the peasant conscripts are eating each other and committing atrocities on the local populace - that'll look good for Argentina. In exchange, Russel up a few more sidewinders from Ronnie and Caspar and maybe even take up that lovely offer: http://planetar65.blogspot.co.uk/201...-to-great.html as just a couple of options

      Long and the short of it; War is a reciprocal and non-linear enterprise and every advantage offered to the Argentinian menace can go the other way, and indeed, vice versa.

      The big change would be, as MT pointed out, the establishment fo a proper runway - better airpower on the isles makes the whole enterprise a lot harder.
      Sheep and Penguins before the Kelpies- hopefully..
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
        Menachem Begin, once considered a hangable terrorist by the British, was tempted to sell the Argies, who were out of Exocets, Gabriel missiles at $3 million a pop, but Maggie warned him off.



        WI the Israeli arms dealers had rush-delivered 10 Gabriels, which promptly sink/disable both RN aircraft carriers and several destroyers?

        Can the British continue to prosecute the war, & what revenge, short & long-term, can Maggie do against Israel?
        First of all, Israel is a strong ally of the USA, and Reagan was a solid supporter of the UK and Thatcher in particular, so politically that was impossible. No doubt Begin was amused to stir the pot, but as a serious move, not at all.

        Secondly, unless Israeli arms dealers had teleporters, getting those missiles half-way around the world and into a combat zone (assuming that the argie pilots and ground crew had the training to employ them) is again zip.

        The Falklands were a 'come as you are' war for the Argies. The Soviets were bogged in Afghan, and Reagan was openly on the UK's side.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
          Is there any scenario by which Vulcan bombers, or even even conventionally tipped Harpoons or Polaris (can a Polaris even be fitted with a non-nuclear warhead?) missiles, would have been used against the Argentinian mainland?
          Don't see why not, Maggie wanted to nuke it at times. Given the unlikely destruction of the task force, there'd be demands for a lot more than just a couple of missiles fired at a vacant argentine beach that's for certain.


          If by some way the bulk of the RN's surface ships had been lost in the S.Atlantic, or if all the 6000 British land invasion force soldiers had been cut- off, killed or captured, is it conceivable that a small nuclear strike (eg a Harrier with a 15kT warhead on a one-way mission) would have been launched against Comodoro Rivadavia or even Buenos Aires itself?!
          That's unlikely but yes. - though probably not a harrier - it'd be a vulcan, dropping it off the coast as part of the dialogue, still there's a nuclear taboo to consider.
          ------
          'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

          If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            First of all, Israel is a strong ally of the USA, and Reagan was a solid supporter of the UK and Thatcher in particular, so politically that was impossible. No doubt Begin was amused to stir the pot, but as a serious move, not at all.

            Secondly, unless Israeli arms dealers had teleporters, getting those missiles half-way around the world and into a combat zone (assuming that the argie pilots and ground crew had the training to employ them) is again zip.

            The Falklands were a 'come as you are' war for the Argies. The Soviets were bogged in Afghan, and Reagan was openly on the UK's side.
            I don't think the Soviets would've supplied either country - Britain for obvious reasons, and Argentina because that was a British/French/US client. This was a purely imperialist war

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
              Also, 'Revelation made by former U.S. Secretary of the Navy John Lehman
              Reagan would have loaned Britain use of amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima should harm have come to either HMS Invincible or HMS Hermes
              U.S. was officially neutral during the two-month conflict.

              Mr Lehman said that he formulated the plans to stand behind Mrs Thatcher with Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger following a British request.

              Mr Reagan is said to have approved their proposal without hesitation, telling Mr Lehman: 'Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it.'
              What's Reagan trying to do help or hinder them? The LPH 2 class were some of the biggest floating junkyards in the US Navy. The Okinawa was more commonly called the "Brokenawa" because it was nearly welded to a pier being repaired.
              I got stuck with more than one of those POS's at SIMA San Diego as the junior guy in the amphib section of the Ship Superintendent's office Shop 10A. I can tell you all sorts of horror stories about those ship wrecks....

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Selous View Post
                Don't see why not, Maggie wanted to nuke it at times.
                Do you have a source for that claim. I didn't like Maggie, but that sounds extreme even for her.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
                  Just to bring context to the pictorial posting.



                  Paul
                  ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                  All human ills he can subdue,
                  Or with a bauble or medal
                  Can win mans heart for you;
                  And many a blessing know to stew
                  To make a megloamaniac bright;
                  Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                  The Pixie is a little shite.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                    When you hate the British as much as he does, anything's possible.
                    You are boring, man up and get over your obsession with me, I mean I am flattered you find me attractive like this () to cyber stalk me.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                      You are boring, man up and get over your obsession with me, I mean I am flattered you find me attractive like this () to cyber stalk me.
                      Say stupid things and you get called on them.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                        Do you have a source for that claim. I didn't like Maggie, but that sounds extreme even for her.
                        Not to mention that the USA, despite being very supportive of the UK in this endeavor, would not tolerate a nuclear detonation in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine was often invoked by Reagan, and ally or not, nukes were never on the table.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
                          Is there any scenario by which Vulcan bombers, or even even conventionally tipped Harpoons or Polaris (can a Polaris even be fitted with a non-nuclear warhead?) missiles, would have been used against the Argentinian mainland?

                          No.

                          The point of contention was the Falklands. British resources were too thin to risk strikes against the mainland, and the damage to world opinion would have massively offset the tiny gains any such strike could hope for.

                          The UK walked a fine line between 'colonial power' and 'nation facing unlawful aggression' in the world's eyes. It had to keep the focus solely upon the islands.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            It would have been far worse for the British if the Argentines had bought up say 15 to 20 Exocet for land launching and set them up covering the bays the British had to anchor out in to conduct amphibious operations.
                            Sinking their LST's before they could unload, along with sinking or crippling a number of ships with these would have pretty much ended a quick campaign and landing.

                            Throw in some AT missiles and such and the British are looking at a very long slog to land and take the islands back.
                            The French gave the British all the information they could about Exocets - with look down radar and seawolf they could be easily dealt with, there are also electronic defences/counter measures.


                            From the wiki:

                            Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. During the preparation for the war, Britain benefited from the help of France, which gave the Exocet's code and homing radar.[16] A major intelligence operation was also initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international market.[17] The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew that payment would be made with a Credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[18][19]

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                              Do you have a source for that claim. I didn't like Maggie, but that sounds extreme even for her.
                              I believe that the source is a book about Francois Mitterand ('Rendez-Vous') by Ali Magoudi, quoted in an article of 22 November 2005 in the 'Guardian.'

                              I leave you to form your own judgement as to the reliability of the claim!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                                Do you have a source for that claim. I didn't like Maggie, but that sounds extreme even for her.
                                http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1050,3704377

                                It was a New Statesman article originally it seems - in all honesty it's probably a bit apocryphal but if an entire task fleet gets destroyed there's no doubt things would escalate a little. World opinion be damned the only opinion necessary was that of the POTUS. Ronnie'd probably, As Rimmer points out, be less happy about nuclear detonation in the New World but given the history of the Monroe Doctrine I don't think that was the reason why.

                                On the Soviets; there was a rumour that Britain recieved very, very tacit support from the USSR during the crisis. I can't remember where I first got that info, I suspect Hugh Bicheno's book on the conflict as it's the one I have read most.
                                ------
                                'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                                If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X