Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falklands scenario

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

  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Ah thanks Darkplace you made that clear. I had been watching "20th Century Battlefield" documentary about the Falklands war, the narrator said at the beginning of the landing that the anchorage provided cover. However I noticed they weren't getting early radar warning so I concluded that was a false assumption of protection.

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
    I would have swapped some of the Argentine conscript soldiers and taken some of the veteran soldiers on the border with Chile. Possible to mine Port San Carlos harbor? Some extra Exocet missiles for the improvised launcher that sank the HMS Glamorgan? I think Gen. Mendez should have immediately attacked the British landing at Port San Carlos instead of just waiting for the attack and defending Port Stanley.

    Seems the most vulnerable point was when ships were in the Port San Carlos bay, couldn't use their radar to see beyond the ring of hills around the bay.

    Some sort of better anti-submarine warfare ability? I have a book yet to be read about the HMS Conqueror. The sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was a major blow.

    Whey did Argentina have an aircraft carrier in the first place?
    San Carlos Water also reduced the time the Argentinian planes had to aquire targets. They couldn't easily fly along it they had to come in over West Falkland and drop into the anchorage. They had less then four seconds to aquire a target manoeuvre to drop their bombs then get out. All while having the undivided attention of missiles and 40mm cannon.

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    what it possible for the argentinians to sink the MCM vessels first with airpower ?
    The armament consisted of machine guns, the ships themselves were civilian artic trawlers with RN crews. To sink them the Argentinian airforce has the same problem as they had in the real war.. They're operating a long way from home. Against a well trained and highly motivated modern air defence and their pilots were escor fixated. They did more harm hitting Atlantic Conveyer then any of the frigates they hit. They should have gone for the Canberra and QE2 and the supply ships. They didn't they wasted time and effort and lives going for the frigates and carriers.

    You have to make quite a leap in attitude to overcome that and if you can your looking for five comparatively small ships in a really big sea.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by DARKPLACE View Post
    They had 11 MCMwith them. They took five trawlers converted to minesweepers. Corelli, Pict, Farnella, June llama, Northella.
    what it possible for the argentinians to sink the MCM vessels first with airpower ?

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Interesting article about the air threat to the British Task Force.

    https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/0...sh-task-force/

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    Mines are a great point, how good were the MCM capabilities of the RN task force ?
    They had 11 MCMwith them. They took five trawlers converted to minesweepers. Corelli, Pict, Farnella, June llama, Northella. Bloody auto correct Junella, Cordella.
    Last edited by DARKPLACE; 22 Dec 17, 13:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
    I would have swapped some of the Argentine conscript soldiers and taken some of the veteran soldiers on the border with Chile. Possible to mine Port San Carlos harbor? Some extra Exocet missiles for the improvised launcher that sank the HMS Glamorgan? I think Gen. Mendez should have immediately attacked the British landing at Port San Carlos instead of just waiting for the attack and defending Port Stanley.

    Seems the most vulnerable point was when ships were in the Port San Carlos bay, couldn't use their radar to see beyond the ring of hills around the bay.

    Some sort of better anti-submarine warfare ability? I have a book yet to be read about the HMS Conqueror. The sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was a major blow.

    Whey did Argentina have an aircraft carrier in the first place?
    Mines are a great point, how good were the MCM capabilities of the RN task force ?

    Leave a comment:


  • DARKPLACE
    replied
    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
    I would have swapped some of the Argentine conscript soldiers and taken some of the veteran soldiers on the border with Chile. Possible to mine Port San Carlos harbor? Some extra Exocet missiles for the improvised launcher that sank the HMS Glamorgan? I think Gen. Mendez should have immediately attacked the British landing at Port San Carlos instead of just waiting for the attack and defending Port Stanley.

    Seems the most vulnerable point was when ships were in the Port San Carlos bay, couldn't use their radar to see beyond the ring of hills around the bay.

    Some sort of better anti-submarine warfare ability? I have a book yet to be read about the HMS Conqueror. The sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was a major blow.

    Whey did Argentina have an aircraft carrier in the first place?
    Glamorgan wasn't sunk. She detected the incoming excocet, turned to take the missile on the stern and it exploded in her hanger. Very little damage to the Hull was taken.

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    I would have swapped some of the Argentine conscript soldiers and taken some of the veteran soldiers on the border with Chile. Possible to mine Port San Carlos harbor? Some extra Exocet missiles for the improvised launcher that sank the HMS Glamorgan? I think Gen. Mendez should have immediately attacked the British landing at Port San Carlos instead of just waiting for the attack and defending Port Stanley.

    Seems the most vulnerable point was when ships were in the Port San Carlos bay, couldn't use their radar to see beyond the ring of hills around the bay.

    Some sort of better anti-submarine warfare ability? I have a book yet to be read about the HMS Conqueror. The sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was a major blow.

    Whey did Argentina have an aircraft carrier in the first place?

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    What would that have gotten them? The Tu 28 is armed with a longer range version of the AIM 4 Falcon and was intended for ground controlled intercepts of the sort the F-102 or F-106 were to make using SAGE.

    It might have been marginally useful in intercepting a Vulcan bomber, assuming that they had the long range air search radars to pick it up well out from their coast giving them time to make an intercept.
    maybe that and intercepting the maritime recon, transport planes so vital to reinforcing the islands


    if they had got a regiment of Su-24s that would have been better for them even if they didnt have the capacity to launch the fancy exocet missiles

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    I recently read that there were plans by argentinian airforce to acquire the Tu-28 fiddler interceptor before the Falklands war but were later abandoned
    What would that have gotten them? The Tu 28 is armed with a longer range version of the AIM 4 Falcon and was intended for ground controlled intercepts of the sort the F-102 or F-106 were to make using SAGE.

    It might have been marginally useful in intercepting a Vulcan bomber, assuming that they had the long range air search radars to pick it up well out from their coast giving them time to make an intercept.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    I recently read that there were plans by argentinian airforce to acquire the Tu-28 fiddler interceptor before the Falklands war but were later abandoned

    Leave a comment:


  • Poor Old Spike
    replied
    Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
    To my recollection a carrier group was offered from the USN as support if Maggie Thatcher had felt one was needed..
    True, I saw US Def Sec Caspar Weinberger saying on TV after the war- "We would have sent a carrier if we'd been asked"

    As it was, for some strange unknown reason Thatcher decided to keep it an all-Brit show, was she nuts or what?

    Leave a comment:


  • OttoHarkaman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    The Exocet that hit HMS Glamorgan was launched from land. It was adapted so that it could be used as such, but there were other versions of the Exocet that were capable of being fired from land.
    Hard to find some board-game with a Falklands scenario to game this out. I did find someone had made a scenario for SPI's Task Force (a precursor to the later Victory Games Fleet series, game designer is the same). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5488/taskforce

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    Hi

    For some facts to base some more opinions on, then have a read of these:-

    http://www.nids.go.jp/english/event/...df/2013/08.pdf

    http://www.nids.go.jp/english/event/...df/2013/09.pdf

    http://www.nids.go.jp/english/event/...df/2013/10.pdf

    Regards

    Andy H
    Last edited by Andy H; 05 Mar 16, 18:20.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X