Author Topic: Yet another reason to love the French. (Read 903 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2003, 06:27:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Hortlund, yeah like the Swedes have a great track record when it comes to selling weapons.

You haven't responded in the "powell" thread yet. Any particular reason?

Frankly I didnt want to reply since you're only making a fool of yourself with your various theories on international law and various international organizations.

You have your reply now in that thread though...enjoy.

bounder · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2003, 06:31:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Didnt the Americans supply the Brits with the latest Sidewinder missiles before they went to war?

AIM-9L or something like that, the first Sidewinder with working front aspect targetting ability, something that ensured British air superiority in the area despite them only having Harriers.

Guilty Conscience.

Lol. 'Despite them only having Harriers'. No harriers were lost to enemy aircraft, and they chalked up 23 confirmed kills, due in no small part to the Sidewinder.

Hortlund · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2003, 06:41:26 AM »

yeah yeah whatever, run along now...

Habu · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2003, 06:42:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Didnt the Americans supply the Brits with the latest Sidewinder missiles before they went to war?

AIM-9L or something like that, the first Sidewinder with working front aspect targetting ability, something that ensured British air superiority in the area despite them only having Harriers.

Yes. Although Staffo does not think that the Air and Space Journal is a credible source

it also state in the same article:

"Armament was the (Argentine air force)’s most serious deficiency. Its primary air intercept missile (AIM) was an early version of the French-made Matra 530 infrared air-to-air missile. It suffered from a six-mile range, a very narrow field of vision (30–40 degrees), and an infrared sensor that could lock onto an enemy fighter only from directly behind. The British Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force (RAF) Harriers could each carry four US-made AIM-9L Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles. The AIM-9Ls were a generation ahead of the Matras, had a very wide field of vision (90–120 degrees), and had a much more sensitive infrared seeker that could lock onto the heat created by the airflow over an enemy aircraft. In short, the AIM-9Ls gave Harrier pilots a great deal more flexibility and allowed them to engage targets head-on."

Hortlund · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2003, 06:45:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bounder
Guilty Conscience.

Lol. 'Despite them only having Harriers'. No harriers were lost to enemy aircraft, and they chalked up 23 confirmed kills, due in no small part to the Sidewinder.

heh, yeah, I wonder what the kill/loss ratio would have been if both sides had been armed with AIM-9B:s.

Habu · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2003, 06:49:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Sorry for the english readers but due to the my lack of knowledge for English insults I'll use french.

steve :
Va te faire eclater la marguerite connard

J'en ai plus que marre de ton sale comportement de suedois suce boule.

HABU your not improving, you've even have trouble understanding your own language ...

it's neither a proof nor a fact.

So why did the French technicians stay in Argentina then Straffo? For some holiday time? I see because you say so, we are supposed to believe that they stayed there during the war for a holiday and did no work? Right? Please Straffo, people are not as stupid in the west as they are in France it appears. We would not believe such a stupid argument.

Regarding your insults. I guess it makes you mad to hear all these things your proud country has done. I understand. No offense taken.

bounder · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2003, 07:05:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
heh, yeah, I wonder what the kill/loss ratio would have been if both sides had been armed with AIM-9B:s.

Well if you took the AIM9L out, then the score would've been
more like 4-0 instead of 23-0 against all Argentinian Aircraft. Remember they had fewer than 25 Sea Harriers (IIRC) too, against a full Argenitine Air Force only a few hundered miles away.

Habu -
they (stayed there because like most Euro nationals in Argentina, no-one thought that Margaret Thatcher or the British would send a task force 8000 miles, virtually into the Antartic, to rescue what a lot of people thought were a piddly group of penguin guano covered rocks and a few sheep.

They thought wrong.

Your ill founded and regurgitated implicit accusation that 'the French' were in collusion with the Argentine forces to sink British ships is risible.

Why have you got such a chip on your shoulder about 'The French'? Did your momma run off with one?

beet1e · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2003, 07:06:37 AM »

Bounder - I remember one bad day when the newspaper announced that we had lost one Sea Harrier. Was it attacked from the ground?

We had the Sidewinder; I believe the Argies had the Chinese Silkworm missile. Was this equivalent to Sidewinder?

Hortlund · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2003, 07:34:03 AM »

I thought the silkworm was/is an anti-ship missile?

Habu · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2003, 07:45:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bounder

Your ill founded and regurgitated implicit accusation that 'the French' were in collusion with the Argentine forces to sink British ships is risible.

Why have you got such a chip on your shoulder about 'The French'? Did your momma run off with one?

It is not my accusation. It is a well documented fact and if you care to read any credible indepth analysis on the subject you would find that it was the EU and not France that envoked the embargo and France had to go along with it. The technicians stayed there because Argentina could not get the Exocets to work, specifically they could not get their rails attached to the planes.

The French did not want their arms business suffering from the bad reputation that Exocets were very hard to incorporate into a modern air force like Argentina had. Therefore they stayed and helped the Argentines get the Exocets working.

Don't shoot me I am just the messenger.

batdog · « **Reply #25 on:** February 07, 2003, 07:49:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bounder
The British certainly received more support from the French during that conflict than from the USA.

Sad fact is, Sheffield was perfectly well equipped to defend herself from an Exocet attack anyway. She died because the officer charged with protecting her from air attack was crucially absent from his command when the Etendards were spotted popping up onto radar.

If Reagan had seen fit to assist with AWACS it mght well have been a different story. But the Military Junta in Argentina was aggressively anti-communist. Much to the delight of the US Administration.

Grudges are for other people.

(Heh, hortlund, if only you did speak french )

Where the hell did you come up w/this? The US used its overhead surv/Satellites to give quite abit of intel to the Brits. We hardly helped the Argentines. Reagan was a staunch supporter of the Brits. Hell, the USA/nation as a whole where pretty much in favor
of the British.

Election time ploy..wtf? The economy was booming..people where fat and happy... he was a shoe in as where his cronies.

As far as giving AWACS..we weren't in a direct conflict w/the Argentines. The Brits had their own radar system in place... and it gave them ample warning.. as you yourself stated.

I fail to see how this incident could be even be remotely tied to the US.

Sounds like more anti US rethoric to me.

xBAT

Habu · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2003, 07:51:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bounder
Sad fact is, Sheffield was perfectly well equipped to defend herself from an Exocet attack anyway. She died because the officer charged with protecting her from air attack was crucially absent from his command when the Etendards were spotted popping up onto radar.

The British lost a second ship to an Exocet missle when the MV Atlantic Conveyor was hit on May 25 and sank 3 days later, 12 more British were killed.

Habu · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2003, 08:03:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Bounder - I remember one bad day when the newspaper announced that we had lost one Sea Harrier. Was it attacked from the ground?

Beetle the Argentine ground-based air defenses destroyed seven British aircraft, including four Harriers during the war.

No Harriers were shot down in air to air combat.

It should be noted that the Argentine Air Force was conducting anti shipping missions and therefore avoided air to air combat at all costs. The mainland based Mirages had very little extra fuel and thus could not use afterburners to fly at over mach 2 while the subsonic Harriers were close to their aircraft carriers and could refuel and rearm frequently each day.

straffo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2003, 09:06:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
So why did the French technicians stay in Argentina then Straffo? For some holiday time? I see because you say so, we are supposed to believe that they stayed there during the war for a holiday and did no work? Right? Please Straffo, people are not as stupid in the west as they are in France it appears. We would not believe such a stupid argument.

You want me to believe that the Argentinian army was not involved in any way in the fact they stayed here ... and that they were free to come back to France ?

Your case is closed you're definitly a complete idiot.

thrila · « **Reply #29 on:** February 07, 2003, 09:12:45 AM »

Didn't the US offer the UK an aircraft carrier? A very generous offer but the UK didn't have the trained personell to crew a huge carrier. Yeah, those sidewinders came in handy.

I'm sure i read somewhere that the French Airforce let our forces have mock dogfights with their mirage fighters- that must have helped the airwar situation too.

Habu you're not related to Horatio Nelson by any chance?

Lotsa stuff about the falklands war here