sealordlawrenceYou may not have said it in those words, Lawrence, but it was the clear implication. Must you pick at *everything* that’s posted?
I will pick at posts that deliberately misrepresent what I say with the obvious intention of flaming.
sealordlawrenceDude this is a forum on the internet. Of course its pretty meaningless!
However on a slightly more serious note. No it isn’t. The UK may have won convincingly but it was not won with relative ease. I and others have pointed out where ‘there but for the grace of God‘ it could all have been very different. And the margins were slim. Regardless; this has degenerated into the kind of ‘yes it is‘ ‘no it isn’t‘ argument I purported to despise earlier so I shan’t post again on it until and unless there is a material change in what has been posted by others.
Also and this does pain me rather I am going to filter out your posts as reading them is neither enlightening me or bringing me joy. You may either despise me as weak for this, as is your right, or think more deeply on this.
Why do I mention this at all? Simply put; you may make a post which would seem to demand my response (unlikely I know!) and I shan’t make one. That will not be due to bad manners but coz I ain’t not seen it.
Laters
Al
The Falklands was an easy win, the figures prove it, the duration of the conflict proves it and the strategic and tactical defeat of all three arms of the argentine armed forces proves it.
sealordlawrenceI am sure similar arguments were made in the UK circa 1935……..:eek:
With all do respect!:D
Yes they were, and as a result the UK started re-armament because there was an actual threat. If you are going to try and use an example to make a point at least know your history sufficiently to not use one that undermines you.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceYeah…Of course you are…:rolleyes:
But still, seems that you don’t want to believe Sir Sandy Woodwards & General Julian Thompsons words, I wonder why? Because they are the ones that were/are right?…:rolleyes:
Already answered them two posts ago. Lots of coulds, and ifs sensationalised for the discovery channel. No actual demonstration of extreme difficulty.That show is just a series of fantasies. What if Argentina had Clingon support?
sealordlawrenceYeah ok, put it like that if you want. But you can’t just compare conflicts with a few words, and even if you can and have the time to write something at length, its very, VERY complicated because theres so many scenarios, it’d be like comparing the Falklands War with the Vietnam War. But I see your point though.
That is correct, I am right.
No need to keep posting on who lost how many & who had many more of this and that of this. Its just numbers, letters, words & digits, it doesn’t say how hard or easy it was, its all about how it was fought. Yes the Argentines suffered more than the British, but that doesn’t mean it was easy for us…
There is when you ignore them, but again, I am right.
sealordlawrenceYep, we all know that, but still for the last time, IT WAS a close run thing, read up on it ffs!
No, by historical conflict standards it was relatively easy.
So really, what you’re saying is, the spoken words from Sir Sandy Woodward, General Julian Thompson are third rate! You need to familiarize yourself a bit more, get a bit more than a single thought into your head. What a laugh!
No I am saying that video is third rate and conflict by its very nature is difficult (in case you had forgotten it involves killing people and destroying things) however the Falklands Victory was relatively easily achieved.
The Argentinians lost nearly 3 x the number of personnel that the UK did
The Argentinians lost 3 x the number of aircraft that the UK did
The Argentine Navy suffered a strategic defeat and was confined to port at the very beggining of the conflict after losing its sole cruiser and a submarine
They are not figures associated with a truly hard conflict.
Furthermore this all largely irrelevent given the huge Gulf that continues to open between tUK and Argetine military capabilities.
sealordlawrenceNot it isn’t. It really isn’t
No Lima Sidewinder
= much less effective CAP
= likelihood of SHAR losses
and/or likelihood of more inbounds getting through = likelihood of more ship lossesMore Exocet
= likelihood more ships sunk.
= likely loss of more big ships
Possibly = saturation attacks (which Argentinian’s could never have done
with their bare handful of missiles)No rounds for SLR = much less effective infantry (trenching tools in h-t-h combat and sheer agression can only achieve so much)
No Intel on Argentinian movements = much harder to plan effectively = likely more losses
No Invincible and/or Hermes
= less or no organic airpower
= likelihood of loss of more ships
= likely loss of more troop ships
= likely loss of NGS
= loss of much CASMines
= restricted ability to maneuvere on land and/or seaReduced dockyard capacity
= no heroic refit and repair of taskforce before setting south
= more likelihood of systems failures/breakdowns
(I assume – but do not know – that extra capabilities were embarked prior to Corporate so they would not have been added either)There is another issue which I didn’t mention.
Our planned for big bad enemy co-operated by not being extra active during the conflict. Had it done so we could never have justified sending the mighty Conqueror down south. Without her the Argentinian Navy could actually have been a threat. Again there is absolutely no guarantee that A N Other strategic threat would behave so conveniently in any future scenario.
Al
Yes it is, the UK won by a country mile. If this.If that is all meaningless.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=EELightning;1377101]
Was just saying.
Quite right, but you miss the point. It WAS A CLOSE RUN THING!!!! We pretty much done all the right things, but it just needed a right hit in the right place from the Argentines to send us packing. The same can be said for a boxing match, the better boxer can dominate the fight but it can be ended if he’s hit with a hard enough punch. Yeah?
Just watch this, its a 5 part documentary…
lol, I can assure you that I am more than familiar enough with the Falklands conflict not to need some third rate documentary linked on Youtube.:rolleyes::D
It was not a close run thing. The Argetine Navy ran to its ports and stayed there after the loss of a single surface combattant and submarine and the Argetinians took 3 x the casualties of the UK despite the UK being the assaulting force.
sealordlawrenceNo.
There is nothing to say that an AIM9L successor/analogue will be made available by a supplier who has cordial links with both UK and opponent
There is nothing to say that such a third party would be prepared to say ‘give UK whatever they want but do it quietly‘
There is nothing to say that UK’s opponent will be embargoed by another third party who actually has vested export links in continuing to supply them with their main effective AShM
There is nothing to say that our sneaky-beaky-secret-squirrel types will be just as effective in buying up all of the grey market / international market AShMs
There is nothing to say that our opponent’s neighbour(s) will allow intel to be shared in the future
There is nothing to say that our opponent would use small arms whose clips (and hence ammunition) would fit ours but not vice versa and hence disguise just how dire the logistical situation really was
There is nothing to say that opponent would so woefully mismanage their bayonets that enlisted men and officers got different ration packs (enlisted – barely enough calories per day for an active man, officer – includes cigars and cognac)
There is nothing to say that said opponent would have neglected to purchase mines before embarking on their madcap scheme
Or chosen to act just before we sold off half of our organic air capability rather than just after. Or just before we closed our dockyard capacity rather than just after.
There were operational mistakes (‘strategic level’ as you mention) made by Argentinians but that does not mean that a successor aggressor would make the same ones
The 3 Arms of the Argentinian military were soundly defeated. But not with ease. Not even close.
Al
Yes they were, they were roundly defeated with substantial losses and in the case of the Argentine navy utter humiliation. Everything else you mention is relatively insignificant at the strategic level.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=EELightning;1377078]
Not true, it wasn’t won with relative ease. Read/watch about what happened when Argentine fighter/bomber pilots when they came into contact with the British fleet at sea, they showed INCREDIBLY BRAVERY!!! PERIOD!!! Even the British soldiers, RAF/RN pilots, sailors etc said they had balls just as big as ours, they showed them an hell of A LOT of respect for them & said they were just as brave as anyone else! And who has the right to say they didn’t! Who would want to go into a British fleet armed to the teeth with Sea/RAF Harriers, deadly SAM’s used by with a lot of men & woman that want whats theirs back?…I’d think 11 times before I would, thats for sure, and even then I wouldn’t.
Thats what I said, only the Argentine Air Forces showed real strategic and tactical bravery, please try and read before posting.:rolleyes:
They only needed to sink or severely damage one of our Aircraft Carriers then the Islands would be pretty much theirs for the taken, even still, British soldiers and Marines on the ground were running out of ammo and ordance just when the Argentines surrendered. Even had to fight hand to hand on plenty of occasions after they had to “Yomp” for miles & miles because the Argentines took out one of our ships along with 20+ helicopters that was onboard. Luckily the Brits on the ground had/HAVE British pride cut into their hearts. That was just one of few things nobody had over them!
So? They did not come close to sinking a carrier.
It WAS a close run thing! The Brits took their heads off for messing with them, but they gave us an hell of a black eye, knocked out a couple of teeth and a bloody nose before they gave up.
No it was not, the UK strategically and tactically defeated every element of the Argetine armed forces including an incredibly rapid achievement of local naval supremacy, the decimation of the Argentine Air Force and the surrender of Argetine land forces in Port Stanley. Argentina lost 3 x the number of personnel that the UK did and the UK was the assaulting force!
With the excetion of GW1/2 and the Six day war it is difficult to find such good ratios.
sealordlawrenceOh I do apologise Sealord. You seemed to be suggesting that ‘the was no conventional threat’ to the UK.
The point was that there doesnt need to be.
Absolutely, UK defence policy rests on two major pillars at the highest level of grand strategy
1) A self supporting structure consisting of national pride and keeping the US tied into UK/European security. The UK still desires a place at the top table, this has to be justified and one tenement of that is military power. Furthermore such capability allows the UK to contribute to US military adventures and thus keeps the US interested in the UK. Hence amphibious ships, Tridents and Tomahawks.
2) Overseas posessions: Essentially the Falklands. The consequence of that conflict is that no UK government can afford to be pushed out of an overseas posession, it would collapse withing days, thus sufficient force needs to be maintained to insure that that does not happen.
Currently both of those bases are covered adequately and do not require a spending increase.
sealordlawrenceThat is simply not true. The Falkalnds conflict was a much closer run thing than some would have you believe
The threat posed by the Argentinian Navy and Air Arms was largely (although not entirely) neutralised by actions outside of the ‘this is what kit we should have had‘ argument.
It is entirely true, each individual Argentine armed service was throughly defeated at both the strategic and tactical level. Only the Argetine Air Force showed a consistant level of psychlogical conditioning to put up a proper effort and it lost over 100 aircraft for its troubles.
To assume that these circumstances would be repeated in a future conflict is optimistic.
No it is based on rational analysis of likely opponents………..of which there are none.
(Although I will at this point agree that I cannot see where a future threat to soverignty which would need to be opposed unilaterally might arise. However I am not privy to all of the facts here. Pre-911 I could not envision the UK being drawn into a conflict in Afghanistan or Iraq either. Pre-Balkans my GCSE in History did equip me to consider that ‘something’ might happen in central Europe. Hooray for me)
Both the Balkans and the Afghanistan/Iraq operations both initially (some shift later) fitted almost perfectly with the power projection/intervention doctrine being developed through the 1998 SDR.
Afghanistan and Iraq hace forced a refocus towards COIN and sustainability but they are factors for which are being worked on. I concede that the slowness of the UK Armed Forces to react to this shift has been shameful compared to the US.
The SDR is quite logical. And it is entirely understandable (perhaps even desirable) to want to spend the defence dividend on projects which will do more good to society in general.
Especially when it is feasible
It is unlikely that any of the discussions on this board are going to inform defence procurement spending or nautical tactics.
Thank God: If some people here had their way the UK would look like Stalin’s Russia in the 1950s
However, neither of those (in my monkey overlord’s opinion) preclude a discussion on what would be the best kit to equip the RN (or indeed any other Navy) with. Some of our discussions may be better grounded in economics than others. Clearly we need 4x Flat tops, 4x USS AMerica style LPHs, 24x T45s, combined force 100x C1, C2, C3, 20x Astutes, 30x SSKs (with AIP), 100x Nimrod replacement (Concorde airframe for preference to give it dash speed). Manning and expenditure arguments are just excuses.
Pecisely, without consideration of economics or man power such discussions are pointless, but it also key to understand the forces behind those factors.
We go back (IMMOO) to the issue that had UK government shown (partially through equipment levels and deployment) that it would defend the Falklands then I do not see the Malvina’s invasion being a tempting solution in internal Argentinian politics. Just because I cannot think of a similar contemporary scenario off of the top of head does not mean that one does not exist.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a similar affair, an attempt to prop up a bankrupt regime by stealing someone elses economy.
I should hope that there is a self-evident difference between being the voice of reason and mayhap even being the devil’s advocate on the one hand and on the gripping hand squashing any potential debate which does not align with one’s own feelings, leanings or conclusions on a topic.
Nobody here is quashing debate, simply trying to keep discussion grounded in reality and avoinde vague commentary about ‘major conflicts’.
sealordlawrenceSL you are not this naieve so your need to have a clear ‘enemy’ underscored and bolded can only be an attempt at a joke surely?.
The purpose of strong multirole capability is not just to warfight. It is principally to declare national intent to undertake warfighting if anyone chooses to act against us. The key lesson from 1982 was precisely that the law of unintended consequence is operative at national level as much as anywhere else.
Nott, in his ignorance, came up with a beautifully logical and, probably, carefully thought out plan to orient HM forces against their most significant threat. In your terms he chose to spend the resources where they would do the most good against the highest likely action we would have to engage in. Intellectually, after the wastage of the mid-late 70’s, you may try and say he was right to do what he did. He is also the man who, personally, I feel is most directly responsible for the Falklands War. Nott has blood on his hands from his idiocy and myopia.
Only if you are ignorant, or a politician trying to finesse a way out of defence expenditure, can you fail to be aware of the multitude of small scale conflicts that are coming as various nations compete for resources in contested maritime environments. They will in some cases be reruns of the ‘Cod War’ but in other cases we will be facing off against combattant forces of other naval services. Either way, to some extent, we will be engaged in supporting our national policies in far flung areas and we need to display the resolve to others that we are quite capable of defending any legitimate claim or policy that we are tasked to.
You can live happily quoting ‘Nott’s Logic’ as much as you wish. Myself I’m quite happy to see the carriers ordered and look forward to going to watch the launch!.
Pointless post: Nobody said anything about cancelling carriers or supporting Nott. The RN in its current form is entirely adequate for any role for which it might relalistically be called upon to undertake whilst fulfilling the far more important purpose of keeping the US tied into UK and thus European security.
My point was and remains that all the efforts here to locate some king of mythical uber enemy that will require the UK to increase defence spending to 4% of GDP or more have and will continue to fail miserably as one does not exist and this was correctly identified in the 1998 SDR.
sealordlawrenceThe U.K is likely to be part of any major War/Conflict involving Amerca and its allies. So its safe to say if there is a war with China over taiwan (which is unlikely an all out war ie.) she will be involved. If its a naval skirmish I think the USN and its allies in the region would do the bussiness on their own.
Except such a conflict is unlikely in the extreme and even if it was likely the need to UK involvement would be minimal. Again, the 1998 SDR: There is no conventional threat to the UK.
sealordlawrenceThe Falklands wasn’t, and who knows what will happen to the HMs overseas dependencies should the run down of the RN continue, and as for not needing to escort the Royal fleet Aux, are you mental, even if it’s just to protect them from terrorists and Pirates, let alone if we had to go against a proper navy, sure most of them are fitted for CIWS of some sort, but that’s not going to stop a barrage of even semi modern anti shipping missiles, and with the RFA supply train gone your navy is screwed.
2x CVF
2x LPH
2x LPD
12x Type 45
12x FSC 1
18x FSC2
18x FSC3
12x SSN
4x SSBN
4x SSGNPlus Various patrol boats and an RFA sized to requirements, that’s what we need, and that’s what they should be building.
And the UK won the Falklands with relative ease.
And who is going to be lobbing a barrage of AShM’s at the RN? When the 1998 SDR says that the UK faces no conventional military threat it is entirely correct as is shown by the perpetual inability of people on this forum to find one no matter how hard they try.
Sign In
