The Falkland War

[Angus]

Was going to respond to habu's thread, but since those have a habit of catching fire and getting locked, I could not.
Sure hope this one does not, but no guarantee.
The typical French conspiracy etc theory was quite evident in the other thread, overshadowing many vital factors.
The Argentinian airforce was initally constructed in the time of Peron, who's main expert in the field was from the old Luftwaffe, Adolf Galland himself, namely. Equipped with Aircraft from many nations, the Argentinian Air Force went to war outnumbering the planes sent by the British by 10 to 1. Most of their stuff was, I belive, AMERICAN.
The British showed some dasching courage, confidence, or , maybe silliness/optimism by sending their Task Group to the Falklands, - the Argentinians were ready to fight, armed, and politically focused on the incident, no doubt in order to hide with the headlines of war, what was actually going on in their own back yard.
The HMS SHEFFIELD and the retalliation attack on BELGRANO (old American Battleship) somewhat overshadows the fact that both nations lost 5 warships. If my memory serves me, the most devastating attacks on the British ships were made by American built Skyhawks. Although somewhat aged, that aircraft  was still a good attacker.
I remember the headlines of the US papers at the time stating that the US would never have lost a ship due to their superiour technology. I always sensed a jealous tone in the US statements at the time, - it had been a while since the US themselves took their gear to the actual test, - WAR.
Anyway, the British fought against American and French stuff, initally trained/constructed by Germans, - blead some, but won the scruffle. They gained invaluable experience in naval/air tactics by severe costs. I am pretty sure that the US never had to face such an opponent, both in numbers and technology.
Would love to learn more about the Falkland war (It's all from memory really). Does anyone have some nice weblinks ????

[Vladd]

The Belgrano was formerly the Brooklyn-class US Cruiser Pheonix. She was built in the 30s and fought throughout WW2 before being sold to Argentina, and was then torpedoed by HMS Conqueror.

The British also fought against their own technology as well: The Argentinian aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo was formerly HMS Venerable, a Colossus-class CV built in 1944. The Argentines also fielded two modern British-built Type 42 destroyers, which despite a few close calls did not engage RN forces.

The US press was probably correct when it said they would have lost no ships. AEW should have prevented any succes via Exocet, and CAP could have destroyed Argentine bombers before they flew over the landing grounds.

Without AEW, and with very limited numbers of fighters available, the first the British knew about many attacks was when missiles were in the air or bombers were already over their targets.

If you want to learn more, I'd recommend the memiors of the British TG Commander - a really good read.

The book is called: 100 Days - by Admiral Sandy Woodward. There's some very good reviews on Amazon.com


Vladd

[Dinger]

It's an amazing little war.  The Argentine junta cooks it up to build up popular support; nobody in argentina really buys it.  The argentine rank-and-file are poorly trained.  And the British almost lose the war.
and at stake are a couple of governments and a worthless piece of rock.

[qts]

It was vastly more than that, Dinger. It heralded the renaissance of the West and the start of the fall of the Soviet Union. From the British side, it was about Freedom.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by qts
It was vastly more than that, Dinger. It heralded the renaissance of the West and the start of the fall of the Soviet Union. From the British side, it was about Freedom.

And sheep.

[qts]

Baaa

[Swoop]

No, from the British side it was Maggie Thatcher voicing the opinion of every Brit ever born:  "We may no longer be the biggest empire the world has ever seen, but diddly with us and you're gonna get hurt."

[Harppa]

This is a good one

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Harppa
This is a good one

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/

Excellent site

 Tronsky

[Seeker]

I've been thinking of running a Falklands TOD.

Given that the Mirages were high speed BnZ'ers, the Harriers strong TnB'ers, as were the Skyhawks:

Any ideas for substitutions?

And don't forget the Puccara's.

Ta-152's as Mirage, Tempest as Harrier, Tiff as Skyhawk?

One single torp to kill ships?

[Angus]

The Mirage being twice as fast as a Harrier would have to be 262/163.
Harrier being Carrier operable could be the F4U4?
Skyhawk being an attacker, slightly slower than Harrier, hmm, tough one. Tiffy? A20?
Anyway, quite an interesting idea.

[Toad]

And the Aim-9L's?

[Seeker]

Hispano's of course!  

No, of course while the whole concept is horibly inaccurate and unhistoric; nonetheless I still think enough could be made of the concept for at least two frames for four hundred people in aircraft/vehicle combinations their not used to.

That's 800 man hours of fun!

There should enough for:

Planning freaks

Strat weenies

Hot sticks

Gunnery (GV/SB/ship)

GV fans.

Think about it Toad, it wouldn't be "right"; but it could be a laugh.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/argentine-aircraftlosses.html

Both those are worth a look through.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Toad
And the Aim-9L's?

Toad has it, the AIM-9L saved the Fleet Air Arm, the latest Sidewinder from their NATO stock.  

Worth having a look at this website, it includes all forces that took part, quite remarkable.  Of course any war is difficult when you're 8000 miles from home!  http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/fihome.html

There were only 20 Sea Harrier FRS.1 which carried the Sidewinder.  These 20 Sea Harriers operated from the carriers Hermes and Invincible and therefore would have been split up the majority of the time.  If I remember correctly they only had about 4 airbourne at any one time.  Quite remarkable seeing that the Harrier isn't a very reliable aircraft in mechanical terms, so out of the 20 there must have been about 2 - 4 unserviceable at any one time.

In addition to the Sea Harrier, the Task Force was joined by 8 RAF's Harrier GR.3 which is basically ground attack & recon.  

Another issue was the failiure of the Rapier SAM system, which was meant to proctect landing parties and Port Stanley.  It was a very new system, and yep, didn't work.

The Skyhawks did manage to sink some lightly armed RFA and HMS ships, almost all due to very poor command by the Royal Navy but then that's history isn't it?

I had previously posted this:-

The Argentines had Mirage fighters, Dagger attack aircraft, Canberra bombers, Puccara attack aircraft, Super Entand anti-ship aircraft, A4 Skyhawk Fighter/Attack aircraft operating either from their carrier or from mainland Argentina. Various helicopters and other recon aircraft.
Total Combat Aircraft = 134

Britain had 3 Fleet Air Arm squadrons of Sea Harrier FRS.1 (800, 801, 809 Sqns) plus one RAF squadron (1(F) Sqn) based on HMS Hermes & HMS Invincible.
Total Combat Aircraft = 28

The Harrier force had to operate as Fleet Defence & Reconnaisance (FRS.1s), and also as Fighter/Attack (FRS.1 & GR.3). In some instances a 2 aircraft patrol would encounter up to 6 enemy aircraft.

In addition the RAF had Vulcan bombers attack Port Stanley airfield from the Ascension Islands. Also both carriers and other Navy vessels had either Sea King, Wessex, Lynx & Wasp helicopters (Lynx & Wasps were used on smaller ships). One Chinook was used on FIs by RAF/Army forces.

It was Seapower that provided the balance in air power - i.e. picket lines around the Falkland Islands which restricted the operation of Argentine air forces.

References: US Air Command & Staff College Air University (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/99-237.pdf

Royal Air Force website http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/fihome.html

[Kisters]

check

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm