Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falklands scenario

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

  • #61
    Type 209 submarine
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_209_submarine

    These could have been armed with Harpoons.

    Comment


    • #62
      Ha ha found a scanned copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1981-82 online!



      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
        YThe more I read, just some decent Argentinean leadership and planning could have gone a long way to give the Brits a very had time.
        Yep. A lot of the AH scenarios people like to play with involve monkeying with things to the point where it is wildly unlikely to have happened or where the other side would have been able to spot the change & act.

        In Argentina's case what was needed was just the most basic forward planning that any competent military would be expected to put into this sort of thing.

        Argentina could have purchased better weapons systems. It could have put more effort into maintaining & improving its existing weapons systems. No one would have thought it strange given the Chile` situation. It could and should have planned for a potential British response, but it didn't.

        It could have exacted such a heavy toll on the expeditionary force that It was forced to withdraw, putting Thatcher in a very difficult position politically. Her instinct would have been to push on, but there is no way to know what the public mood would have been if the Canberra was sunk with hundreds of lives lost and the initial landings repulsed.

        Lucky for Britain, but criminally incompetent by Argentina's leaders.
        Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

        Comment


        • #64
          Yes! Well summed up BF69

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
            Yes! Well summed up BF69
            Thanks.

            When I was at Uni back in the late 80s I did some defence studies with an English bloke who was a NATO expert. Being young & foolish I just assumed the British, being the powerful NATO nation, were inevitably going to win that war. It all seemed a bit inevitable on TV.

            He set me straight in no uncertain terms. He pointed out that while the skill & professionalism of the UK military was crucial to the outcome, Argentina should and probably would have won if they had shown any degree of competence in planning & execution.

            On a side note, the courage of those Argentinean pilots matches anything comparable in warfare. They must have known how impossible their task was & how crucial its success was to the outcome of the war. They didn't shirk the issue in the face of increasingly difficult odds. Brave bastards.
            Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BF69 View Post

              On a side note, the courage of those Argentinean pilots matches anything comparable in warfare. They must have known how impossible their task was & how crucial its success was to the outcome of the war. They didn't shirk the issue in the face of increasingly difficult odds. Brave bastards.
              Key words in bold...I've seen footage of the Argie's flying during this conflict, and some of the maneuvers they pulled whilst under fire from UK forces on land and at sea, is indeed breathtaking.

              However, I cannot help but notice an irony in your statement. French WW2 ace Pierre Clostermann made almost the exact same remark and was severely raked over the coals for it. He took no position on the war itself, nor any sides...only remarking on the piloting skills of the Argie pilots. Before, his reputation as a pilot and ace was untouchable and stellar. After the remark, his record became the subject of much derision and since then people have consistently tried to diminish it. Clostermann's reputation never fully recovered, all because of an objective observation.
              You'll live, only the best get killed.

              -General Charles de Gaulle

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by nastle View Post
                were the Argentine subs capable of launching Harpoons ?
                They were incapable at the time of firing their torpedoes accurately. They hadn't been fully equipped and fitted out at the time and the crews were brand new.

                Comment


                • #68
                  AH*, what if that sub had been fully maintained as it should have been. It could have done a lot of damage.

                  AH*, that type could have carried Harpoons if so fitted out.

                  *Alternate History or Alternate Timeline
                  Last edited by OttoHarkaman; 22 Jan 18, 15:40.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I think they'd have been better off buying say 1,000 sea mines from somebody and loading those on a modified container ship that lays them in anchorages and along likely landing points around the islands.

                    Another thing they should have done was plan right from the start to enlarge Stanley airport to take bigger transport planes and at the same time have more of these available to fly in supplies and other materials to the islands. Having a ship loaded with construction machinery and materials for this could have been arranged, along with civilian workers, to land immediately following the invasion. That puts everything needed ashore before the British can arrive.

                    If they could have operated Mirage fighters from there, the British would have been in a world of hurt. With even basic early warning available the Vulcan raids would have been impossible to do. It puts the few Harriers at a big disadvantage even having the much better AIM 9L's they got. Trying to take on a jet fighter capable of using afterburner and going sonic is a serious handicap. As it was the AAF couldn't do that due to fuel limitations.

                    This isn't to say that Britain could have eventually overcome these issues, they could have, but it would have drug out the war and made it far more costly to prosecute. It might have gotten difficult enough that Britain would have ceded the islands in a negotiated peace rather than continue.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      ^ And they could have easily concentrated the efforts of their airforce and land based missiles against the handful of RN MCM vessels ? with these MCM vessels disabled even the most primitive mines would have been a huge hinderance to the invasion force

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by nastle View Post
                        ^ And they could have easily concentrated the efforts of their airforce and land based missiles against the handful of RN MCM vessels ? with these MCM vessels disabled even the most primitive mines would have been a huge hinderance to the invasion force
                        Britain originally didn't bring those initially. Britain's available ones in the "Hunt" and "Ton" classes are relatively short ranged (about 2500 miles) and designed for coastal work.
                        The one Hunt available (HMS Brecon) is really the only up-to-date one in service. The Ton class (14 in service) date to the Korean war. Their mine hunting equipment is obsolescent at best.
                        All of these are armed with a 40mm Bofors, and couple of 20mm AA guns so they're pretty much defenseless against modern aircraft.

                        Just getting these small ships there would be a challenge. You'd have to make sure they went with a tanker to refuel them. They make maybe 10 knots sustained so they'd be a while getting there. They weigh in at about 350 tons and are going to have to avoid bad weather on the way.

                        Ton class:



                        Hunt class: (one available at the time)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Britain originally didn't bring those initially. Britain's available ones in the "Hunt" and "Ton" classes are relatively short ranged (about 2500 miles) and designed for coastal work.
                          The one Hunt available (HMS Brecon) is really the only up-to-date one in service. The Ton class (14 in service) date to the Korean war. Their mine hunting equipment is obsolescent at best.
                          All of these are armed with a 40mm Bofors, and couple of 20mm AA guns so they're pretty much defenseless against modern aircraft.

                          Just getting these small ships there would be a challenge. You'd have to make sure they went with a tanker to refuel them. They make maybe 10 knots sustained so they'd be a while getting there. They weigh in at about 350 tons and are going to have to avoid bad weather on the way.

                          Ton class:



                          Hunt class: (one available at the time)

                          See my earlier post. 11MCM were given converted artic trawlers and sailed with the task force.

                          Minesweeping hasn't changed much since world war one. It's done the same way with much the same equipment. Mine Hunting only really applies to ground mines, acoustic and pressure mines. Which the only people who made at the time were the Russians and the US If the Argentinians buy some pre war the UK will know if they buy them once the war starts then the US will presumably embargo the sale and the USSR probably isn't ready to declare war on NATO.
                          As far as I am aware the Argentinian Navy never had anything other than a handful of world war two surface mines the trawlers would have been as adequate as they were in the original war.
                          "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
                            See my earlier post. 11MCM were given converted artic trawlers and sailed with the task force.

                            Minesweeping hasn't changed much since world war one. It's done the same way with much the same equipment. Mine Hunting only really applies to ground mines, acoustic and pressure mines. Which the only people who made at the time were the Russians and the US If the Argentinians buy some pre war the UK will know if they buy them once the war starts then the US will presumably embargo the sale and the USSR probably isn't ready to declare war on NATO.
                            As far as I am aware the Argentinian Navy never had anything other than a handful of world war two surface mines the trawlers would have been as adequate as they were in the original war.

                            The easiest way the Argentines could have gotten mines, both anchored and bottom influence, would have been to make a deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He had both types in his inventory from several sources.
                            Another means would have been to trade with N. Korea for them.

                            Had the Argentines actually had reasonably modern influence mines and a good number of anchored ones available, it would have greatly complicated the British problem of invading. All the Argentines needed to do was put some artillery or other coast defenses in place to cover the fields.
                            Sweeping using trawlers then becomes a very dangerous exercise on two levels. First, makeshift sweepers are going to be inadequate for the ground mines. Second, the potential they come under fire trying to sweep at low speed could result in their loss to enemy fire.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by BF69 View Post
                              Thanks.

                              When I was at Uni back in the late 80s I did some defence studies with an English bloke who was a NATO expert. Being young & foolish I just assumed the British, being the powerful NATO nation, were inevitably going to win that war. It all seemed a bit inevitable on TV.

                              He set me straight in no uncertain terms. He pointed out that while the skill & professionalism of the UK military was crucial to the outcome, Argentina should and probably would have won if they had shown any degree of competence in planning & execution.

                              On a side note, the courage of those Argentinean pilots matches anything comparable in warfare. They must have known how impossible their task was & how crucial its success was to the outcome of the war. They didn't shirk the issue in the face of increasingly difficult odds. Brave bastards.
                              Brave indeed. While usually avoiding national stereotypes, perhaps it's the Fangio syndrome. While not really adept at slogging through the mud, give them something fast to play with and you see what flash bastards they are.
                              (Not at original thought, I read something like it somewhere)
                              "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                              Samuel Johnson.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                                Brave indeed. While usually avoiding national stereotypes, perhaps it's the Fangio syndrome. While not really adept at slogging through the mud, give them something fast to play with and you see what flash bastards they are.
                                (Not at original thought, I read something like it somewhere)
                                Argentina had plenty of brave blokes prepared to slog through mud...and mountains. Unfortunately for Argentina the vast majority of them were sitting on the Chilean border. To give a sense of how removed from reality the Junta was, apparently serious consideration to invading Chile after the Falklands. It doesn't appear to have gone as far as the near invasion in 1978 (worth reading about that as an example of the serial stupidity if the Junta).

                                As an aside, the fact that ongoing tensions on that border were largely initiated by Argentina gives lie to Thatcher's oft repeated defence of Pinochet. Those Chilean forces would have been there in those numebrs no matter what happened in the Falklands. It was mostly incidental assistance, certainly the important stuff.
                                Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X