Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Fleet Carrier present at the Falklands.

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

  • If the Moroccans guaranteed American merchant safety in the Med how come the US Marines had to invade Tripoli?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AThousandYoung View Post
      If the Moroccans guaranteed American merchant safety in the Med how come the US Marines had to invade Tripoli?
      Not a hundred percent sure. Firstly Tripoli is in Libya not Morocco and was effectively owned by the Pirates, Secondly there was a degree of unrest in Morocco the central authority is weakend, this is about thirty years after the original declaration. When the declaration was originally made it could be enforced, thirty years afterwards it couldnt be enforced to the same extent.
      "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

      Comment


      • US offered to supply aircraft carrier

        Originally posted by strathnaver View Post

        As to USN loaning a C.V . Can't see that working without the USN
        wanting to take over. As it was the giving to the RN of the AIM 9L
        Sidewinder was manna gave the FAA an bit of an edge.
        References have been made concerning US offers of support to the UK during the Falklands crisis. The following book, "Special" no more, John Dickie http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0297814869 , details the full extent of assistance provided. The following references are all from chapter 1 of the above book. The US Defence Secretary Weinberger offered, not a fleet carrier, but USS Guam(LPH-9), Iwo Jima class light carrier(but using a British crew). Sidewinder missiles(200) including training, Stinger Manpads, not previously released outside the US; Shrike anti radar missiles, Phalanx CIWS, torpedo exhaust valves, Harpoon missiles, a large variety of ammunition, spare Chinook engines, 4700 tonnes of prefab metal runway matting, "concertina city" prefab troop accommodation inc elaborate field kitchen, and the release of war emergency stocks of aviation fuel(to be resupplied as required by US tanker fleet) on Ascenscion Is. The total value supplied, excluding the Sidewinders and aviation fuel(6 million gallons) was $60M. Furthermore, according to the author it was all done immediately on receipt of the British requests, no paperwork, just "handshakes". SR-71 Blackbird flights were made as required to supply real time intel.
        Last edited by At ease; 11 Jul 09, 09:45.
        "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
        "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

        "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
        Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
          ....didn't Ronny Reagan offer us the use of an American carrier to fly stuff off. ..... We turned it down obviously.
          The source I referred to above does not say that the offer was turned down. Instead, it suggests that it was not necessary to take up the "secret" offer. ...."This boundless enthusiasm(of Weinberger's) to the point of total commitment was never put to the ultimate test - fortunately, since it would have caused such a row in Congress that it might have seriously jeopardized support for Britain." (Special no more pp 8.) British decision makers did not turn the offer down, it was just never made public at the time it was made and in the event did not need to be acted upon.
          Last edited by At ease; 11 Jul 09, 09:40.
          "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
          "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

          "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
          Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

          Comment


          • Fleet carrier

            As a serving airman at the time I heard a story that the LHP was offered but would have been rejected. The reason being that all the FRS 1 Harriers apart from the Training Sqn were committed to Invincible and Hermes. Altough the second through deck carrier Illustrious was working up at the time.
            So any Harrier carrier would have lacked a full compliment of Air Defence aircraft. Therefore the story I heard was that a Kitty Hawk class carrier would be bought if we lost a carrier before we were on the Islands and that we would then go back in 83. During which time the SSN's would interdict the Islands.
            I do Know that the F4's and the Buccaneers flew practice landing on the deck that was maked at I think Boscombe down or Yeovilton. The AEW Gannets were being chased to get enough frames back and the radars would have been put back in from the AEW Shackletons.
            So an Airwing of 24 F4's 24 Buccaneers (AAR Buddy tankers) 4/6 AEW Gannets and Sea King ASW would have made a very powerful force. But the FRS1 and GR3's would have still gone south on another carrier. I personally know of RAF airmen who went on RN ships to help out with shortages of trained people. So the Kitty Hawk carrier could have been part RAF manned.
            Last edited by Trap One; 06 Apr 10, 15:27.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trap One View Post
              As a serving airman at the time I heard a story that the LHP was offered but would have been rejected. The reason being that all the FRS 1 Harriers apart from the Training Sqn were committed to Invincible and Hermes. Altough the second through deck carrier Illustrious was working up at the time.
              So any Harrier carrier would have lacked a full compliment of Air Defence aircraft. Therefore the story I heard was that a Kitty Hawk class carrier would be bought if we lost a carrier before we were on the Islands and that we would then go back in 83. During which time the SSN's would interdict the Islands.
              I do Know that the F4's and the Buccaneers flew practice landing on the deck that was maked at I think Boscombe down or Yeovilton. The AEW Gannets were being chased to get enough frames back and the radars would have been put back in from the AEW Shackletons.
              So an Airwing of 24 F4's 24 Buccaneers (AAR Buddy tankers) 4/6 AEW Gannets and Sea King ASW would have made a very powerful force. But the FRS1 and GR3's would have still gone south on another carrier. I personally know of RAF airmen who went on RN ships to help out with shortages of trained people. So the Kitty Hawk carrier could have been part RAF manned.
              There simply is no way the RN could have transitioned a crew and gotten an ex-US carrier into action in the Falklands in anything less than maybe a year. Simply training the crew to operate the plant is going to take 6 months to a year. Then there are the deck systems like the catapults and arrester grear. Training crew on systems like radar, air traffic control, and what have you will also take time.
              Replacing the US systems with British ones would have increased the difficulty and lenght of transfer. You simply cannot march off the US crew and march on a British one and expect something as complex as a large carrier to work anywhere near efficently. You also couldn't reasonably expect the US Navy or government to have the ship remain crewed by US sailors either. This would defacto put the US at war with Argentina too.

              Comment


              • Dear Mr Gardener
                If you had read my post you will see that the rumor was the Fleet would go back the following year, if they had lost the carrier.
                Also the post covered all your replies about crew etc. I would have not expected the systems etc to be replaced nor the weapons as for the qualifications it doesn't take a year to work up an already qualified operator. It takes a year to work up a crew on the USN Carrier's
                Suffice to say it was but a rumor at the time. Also things happen rather quicker in wartime than in peace.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trap One View Post
                  Dear Mr Gardener
                  If you had read my post you will see that the rumor was the Fleet would go back the following year, if they had lost the carrier.
                  Also the post covered all your replies about crew etc. I would have not expected the systems etc to be replaced nor the weapons as for the qualifications it doesn't take a year to work up an already qualified operator. It takes a year to work up a crew on the USN Carrier's
                  Suffice to say it was but a rumor at the time. Also things happen rather quicker in wartime than in peace.

                  I served 27 years in the USN and qualified various watch stations on carriers among other ships. The watch supervisor positions such as Watch Officer and Watch Supervisor in a propulsion plant take about 18 months to a year to be proficient on as you must first qualify for several lower positions. The same goes for EOOW and EWS in DC central. DCPO, Oil and Water King and, Load Dispatcher take about a year to get proficient on minimally and that all this is with people that have already had some training on US ship systems.
                  I suppose you could go to sea with a minimally proficient crew but I wouldn't want to be on the boat in combat in that condition.
                  It would also have taken time to convert stuff on the carrier to things the British did differently than the US did or, for stuff to come out that the US felt were security items or classified.
                  Just interrupting the normal ship's cycle, making the changes and, then delivering the ship would take several months on its own. An oddity for example would have been that all the British routine stuff you plug into an outlet would have required either that you substitute it with US manufactured stuff or you would have to replace many ship's electric and electronic systems with British ones simply due to the difference in operating voltages and frequencies. The US runs an ungrounded 120 / 240 / 450 volt 60 Hz system on their ships. The British use 220 /440 50 Hz. It is little things like these that add up to huge problems.

                  Comment


                  • I think what one could say is that in expdiency may well have been a factor if the above scenario had been played out.

                    Though the basics and various skills are transferable between nations, no one would suggest that any US platform operated by a RN crew (even with some ex-USN civilians possibly onboard), would operate anywhere near the capacity or efficency of a USN crew. However one has to look at what was required by the RN, and pure and simple it was a air platform. In this area on the whole a decl landing is a deck landing, as is a take-off. Now of course there are going to be little quibbles and nuances, but if needs must then the fact that the engines are different, the bakery is strange, the laundrette is weird, deck/lift protocols different or the radar suite newer, isn't going to stop you if the need is strong enough.

                    The RN would have made a calculated assessment of what the pro's & con's, along with a feasibilty quota, as to the risk of having such a carrier or not in operations off the Falklands

                    Regards
                    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X