Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on February 06, 2003, 07:00:45 PM
-
Since Straffo has gone quite on this and since most people do not read to the bottom of a 50 reply thread, I will repost something here from another thread that may be of interest to our British friends. The bold text at the end is the most interesting part.
From
Air & Space Power Journal - Fall 2002
DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Argentine Airpower in the Falklands War
An Operational View
Dr. James S. Corum
Snip
The pilots of the 2d Escuadrilla, trained in France in 1980–81, were fully qualified with the aircraft. However, at the time the conflict in the Falklands began, only five of the Super Etendards and five Exocet missiles had been delivered from France. The Common Market nations and NATO immediately initiated an arms embargo on Argentina, therefore halting the French shipments of planes and missiles. Throughout the conflict, the Argentine government tried desperately but unsuccessfully to obtain more Exocets on the world market. Argentina would have to fight the war with only five Etendards and Exocet missiles. Since spare parts for the Etendards were cut off by the NATO arms embargo, the FAA decided to hold one of the five fighters in reserve and use it for parts to support the remaining four aircraft.
The Argentinians had no previous experience with antiship missiles, and the Exocet was a complicated and cranky weapon. The Argentinians experienced a lot of trouble fitting the Exocet launch system and rails to the Super Etendards. In November 1981, Dassault Aviation, owned by the French government and builder of the Super Etendard, sent a team of nine of its own technicians (and some additional French Aerospatiale specialists) to work with the Argentine navy to supervise the introduction of the Etendards and Exocets. Although France complied with the NATO/ Common Market weapons embargo, the French technical team remained in Argentina and apparently continued to work on the aircraft and Exocets, successfully repairing the malfunctioning launch systems. Without the technical help and collusion from the government of France—Britain’s NATO “ally”—it is improbable that Argentina would have been able to employ its most devastating weapon.18
18 Christopher Chant, Super Etendard: Super Profile (Somerset, England: Winchmore Publishing, 1983)., 48–49.
-
holy jebus..how many were lost on the Sheffield?
-
Originally posted by hawk220
holy jebus..how many were lost on the Sheffield?
The British lost 20 men on the Sheffield which was almost 10% of all their casulties (236) for the war.
-
How can you possibly expect the French to behave like anything other than...
..the french.
"someday, all this will be yours...."
"what? the curtains??"
-
Sorry to go off topic but 2 of my favorite stories from the Falklands:
1. The British EOD guy who had a 500 lb. (?) bomb go off basically in his face in the bow of a British warship. He woke up alive on the stern of the warship...somehow. That guy must worship the proper God(s).
2. The Royal Marine who told the story of hitting the beach via IB, just as an Argentine aircraft attacked the frigate/destroyer/etc. that they had deployed from. Said aircraft flew over the warship after it's attack and then (unknowingly) right over the Royal Marines. AA guns on warship kept tracking and firing on aircraft. Royal Marines watch in horror as huge geysers from AA shells come screaming in a line right for them on the beach. His comment later was something like "I always knew it would be the Golly-geen Royal Navy somehow. Imagine that - sail halfway around the world to join up in a dangerous invasion and I end up getting killed by my own damn Navy."
Mike/wulfie
-
I'm from the city the ship was named after.
I don't hold any grudge against French people for that incident.
-
Habu, if you had more knowledge on the subject, you would know that we were also selling a jaming system of the Exocet to the British.:p
-
Yeah, that sure improves the image of the French...selling equipment to both sides of the conflict. Anything for a quick buck huh?
Well, I guess playing both sides guarantee you a seat at the victor's table afterwards...
-
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 ...
Although France complied with the NATO/ Common Market weapons embargo, the French technical team remained in Argentina and apparently continued to work on the aircraft and Exocets, successfully repairing the malfunctioning launch systems.
it's neither a proof nor a fact.
-
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.
This is getting rediculous. Cant you at least try to express it in english? Like "your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries".
Since I dont understand one word of French, the alleged insult is pretty lame, and you just appear yet even more childish.
"Now I will insult him in a language he doesnt understand hahahaha"
But "boule" is that sport where you're supposed to throw big balls as close to a small ball as possible right?
-
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 ;))
-
Yes Bounder, and didn't the US (Reagan) also vote with Argentina on the issue of sovereignty of the Falklands? It was at the time of the 1984 US election campaign, and Reagan wanted to woo the Hispanic vote.
-
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.
-
Yup Hortlund. Without the sidewinders, we would have had a very difficult time.
-
the Brit were having AIM9L (given in emergency by the USA) when the Argentinian got the old and porked AIM9B.
-
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.
-
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.
-
yeah yeah whatever, run along now...
-
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 :rolleyes: 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."
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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?;)
-
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?
-
I thought the silkworm was/is an anti-ship missile?
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/index.html)
-
Originally posted by batdog
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.
[/b]
Sure, didn't say otherwise. British request for AWACS was politely declined however. It's no biggie. I was hopefully trying to illustrate that allies are not necessarily going to drop everything just because a situation escalates somewhere else. Britains allies all had their own nation self interest to consider too. The US and France being no exception
Election time ploy..wtf? The economy was booming..people where fat and happy... he was a shoe in as where his cronies.
No. I didn't even mention the election. But Gen Galtieri enjoyed good relations with USA, and (in my mind, maybe not yours, but perhaps we can agree to differ) this was due in no small part to Galtieri's oppostion to Communism chimed well with the US antipathy towards marxist militias in South America.
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 didn't suggest that the US should have given AWACS capability to UK. Why should they? US plane, US secrets, US not at war with Argentina etc. The British shipboard EW systems were actually pretty antiquated, which is why the request for an AWACS umbrella was made. Sheffield could defend herself given enough warning so that the valves in the Anti-missile defence system could warm up.
I fail to see how this incident could be even be remotely tied to the US.
[/b]It's not. Just pulled USA as example to Habu, that because allies don't assist in every way possible, even counter to their own national interest, doesn't mean they are dishonorable or any of the other silly thing she is suggesting. USA were very helpful to UK during falklands war, the provision of the very latest all aspect sidewinder proved to be a decisive factor in British air superiority.
Sounds like more anti US rethoric to me.
xBAT
nah xBAT, It's not anti US rhetoric. Anti-US rhetoric sounds like this.(if I'm not mistaken)
The USA is disseminating its cancerous culture of greed, death and stupidity throughout the globe, its economic and military tentacles choking anything that does not conform to the blinkered provincial outlook of its unkowing citizens.
But I would never express an opinion like that because I am not anti-US (whatever that is, it's a bit like being anti-mountain range or something).
-
I was in the US Navy at the time. We provided material assistance for the British during the Falklands War, including spares and fuel. We also provided shipyard repairs in Norfolk for one of the damaged ships (God, why can't I remember which ship?). I know this because my ship escorted the damaged ship to port.
By the way, the British submarine that sank the Cruiser "General DelGado (I think that was the name), it fired a US manufactured Mk48 Torpedo.
Sour
-
Yo Bounder...its all cool. Thanks for the explanations.
xBAT
Yea... the election portion was from Beetle's post... all ran togather in my head.
-
I think it was the Belgrano or something
-
Originally posted by straffo
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.
So now you want us to believe that the French technicians were all under arrest and prevented from travelling during the war?
So where was the diplomatic outcry from the French government? I am sure if a number of French civilians were being held against their will the French government would have had much to say about the matter.:rolleyes:
You argument (like you mind) is weak.
:D
-
Habu, are you, as you seem to be, in full possession of the facts?
Please could you illuminate us as to the exact circumstances surrounding the issue of the Dassault engineers.
If you need to go to sources, can you provide another one, besides the document you quoted at the top of this thread.
It won't change my opinion on the french but I am genuinely interested in the story, even now 20 years later.
-
Originally posted by sourkraut
I was in the US Navy at the time. We provided material assistance for the British during the Falklands War, including spares and fuel. We also provided shipyard repairs in Norfolk for one of the damaged ships (God, why can't I remember which ship?). I know this because my ship escorted the damaged ship to port.
By the way, the British submarine that sank the Cruiser "General DelGado (I think that was the name), it fired a US manufactured Mk48 Torpedo.
Sour
And the Belgrano was a recommissioned US navy ship I believe. In fact the only thing missing from the Falklands war was materiel of Argentine origin.
-
Originally posted by bounder
Habu, are you, as you seem to be, in full possession of the facts?
Please could you illuminate us as to the exact circumstances surrounding the issue of the Dassault engineers.
If you need to go to sources, can you provide another one, besides the document you quoted at the top of this thread.
It won't change my opinion on the french but I am genuinely interested in the story, even now 20 years later.
That source that you seem not to put much faith in is the US Department of Defense Air and Space Power Journal. Probably one of the most credible sources for information on air power in the world.
The author is James S. Corum. Below is a bit of his Curriculum Vitae
JAMES STERLING CORUM
Present Position
Professor of Comparative Military Studies
School of Advanced Air and Space Studies
Previous Academic Positions
Instructor, Department of History, Queen's University
Teaching Assistant, Department of History, Queen’s University
Instructor, Liberal Arts Department, Mater Dei College
Instructor, Military Studies Department, St. Lawrence University
Tutor of German, History Faculty, Oxford University
Academic Education
Ph.D. (History) Queen's University, 1990
M.Litt. (History) Oxford University, 1984
M.A. (History) Brown University, 1976
Immatriculated at Heidelberg University, Germany
Sprachzertifikat, 1974 - 1975
Military Background
Lt. Colonel, US Army Reserve
Military Intelligence Corps
Reserve Assignment- Currently on the Faculty of the Army War College, Carlisle PA
Professional Military Education
Air War College
US Army Command and General Staff Course.
Air Command and Staff College
Army Ordnance Officer Advanced Course
S-2 Combat Operations Course
Professional, Academic and Honorary Organizations
United States Commission for Military History
Society for Military History
Phi Alpha Theta History Honor Society
German Studies Association
Akademische-Theologische Verbindung Wartburg, Germany
Oxford and Cambridge Universities Club, Pall Mall, London
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Army Reserve Association
PUBLISHING, LECTURING, and CONSULTING
Books
The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War 1918-1940, University Press of Kansas, 1997.
The Roots of Blitzkrieg: Hans von Seeckt and German Military Reform, University Press of Kansas, 1992.
The Luftwaffe's War of War: Luftwaffe Doctrine 1910-1945, Nautical and Aviation Press, (With Richard Muller), 1998.
Airpower in Small Wars: Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists, University Press of Kansas, (with Wray Johnson), 2003.
Journal Articles
“Argentine Airpower in the Falklands War: An Operational View”, Air and Space Power Journal, Fall 2002. Also Published in the Spanish and Portuguese editions of Air and space Power Journal.
“Latin Americans and Airpower’s Role in the War on Terrorism”, WHINSEC Occasional Papers Series #1, Nov 2001
“Evolution of US Army Doctrine and Current Trends: A Return to Doctrinal Roots”, New Zealand Army Journal, No. 23, July 2000
“The Myth of Air Control: Reassessing the History”, Aerospace Power Journal, Winter 2000—reprinted in the Royal Air Force RAF Air Power Review, June 2001
“The Air War in El Salvador”, Airpower Journal, Summer 1998—also published in the Spanish and Portuguese editions of Airpower Journal
"Airpower in Peace Enforcement Operations,” Airpower Journal February/March 1997. Reprinted in CALL Journal (Center for Army Lessons Learned, Ft. Leavenworth KS, Fall 2000
etc etc etc
If this source is not credible enough for you then please explain why? If you just want more information on the subject I have the titles of some books you can go to the library and read but I have to look them up as I don't have them at work here.