RE: The Falklands Conflict (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Ike99 -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 10:55:29 AM)

quote:

Ok, just watched that video. Pretty decent. Maybe you could loan it to the RCAF for recruiting purposes? ( for any who may wonder, I haven't seen a REAL recruiting ad in a long time. But hey, it IS Canada we talking about)
Still, gotta wonder, pretty old jets there...Whatever happened to your Mirage 2000s?


Ahh...see there you go assuming and under estimating again.[8D]

Those jets are not old at all. They are brand new. Designed and manufactured in Argentina. In the video they are training new pilots for the expanding airforce.

The planes in that video are the 2 seater training version of the ¨Pampa¨ The modern replacement for the ¨Pucara¨ A small, close air support ground attack plane designed to operate high speed at ground level.

In the fighting in 1982 the British could not shoot down the Pucara because it flew extremely close to the ground and got cluttered with the ground on the radar return. (cheap stealth) Flying in between the hills and valleys, trees, whatever. I think during 82´ they only managed to shoot down 2 ¨pucaras¨ This why the SAS were placed ashore to destroy them on the ground because they couldn`t shoot them down.

The ¨Pampa¨ is a modern replacement for the ¨Pucara¨



[image]local://upfiles/19240/CB919E5C69634CAB8E0496F6265551C0.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 1:02:51 PM)

Yeah, "brand new", right... The Pucara flew during the war, and the Pampa entered service in 1988.

BTW, the Argentinians never had Mirage 2000's. They had Mirage 3/5's, which are roughly similar in planform.



Ike99 -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 1:54:00 PM)

quote:

Terminus-Yeah, "brand new", right... The Pucara flew during the war, and the Pampa entered service in 1988.BTW, the Argentinians never had Mirage 2000's. They had Mirage 3/5's, which are roughly similar in planform.


I know the Pucara flew during the war. Yeah those Pampas are brand new. They still make them you know. No the Pampa did not enter service in 1988. A 2 seat training version has been used from 88´

The combat version of the Pampa entered service in 2000´ As far as combat aircraft are concerned best described as...¨New¨

I didn´t mention Mirages.

quote:

I note that you have also not bothered to answer any questions about thehistory of the Falkland Islands BEFORE the Spanish involvement. I wonder why?


Putting aside all the British propaganda this very short history video very clearly and undeniably shows the Malvinas belong to Argentina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHNeUCL1cfw









ezzler -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 4:19:09 PM)

Great.
But hadn't you better get on with it and nvade before the 2 x new fleet carriers turn up for the RN , and the Eurofighter , and all our troops come back from Iraq and Afganstan.

I mean if there has ever been a better time to fight the UK than when its heavily engaged in fighting an insurgency and cutting military spending , while awaiting newer and better equipment.. why that must have been ....

1982 !!
[;)]



String -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 10:59:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Terminus-Yeah, "brand new", right... The Pucara flew during the war, and the Pampa entered service in 1988.BTW, the Argentinians never had Mirage 2000's. They had Mirage 3/5's, which are roughly similar in planform.


I know the Pucara flew during the war. Yeah those Pampas are brand new. They still make them you know. No the Pampa did not enter service in 1988. A 2 seat training version has been used from 88´

The combat version of the Pampa entered service in 2000´ As far as combat aircraft are concerned best described as...¨New¨

I didn´t mention Mirages.

quote:

I note that you have also not bothered to answer any questions about thehistory of the Falkland Islands BEFORE the Spanish involvement. I wonder why?


Putting aside all the British propaganda this very short history video very clearly and undeniably shows the Malvinas belong to Argentina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHNeUCL1cfw









I don't speak spanish, but I did notice that the first flag on the islands in that video was French...




Terminus -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 11:19:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Putting aside all the British propaganda this very short history video very clearly and undeniably shows the Malvinas belong to Argentina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHNeUCL1cfw


Oh yeah, irrefutable "proof" right there. Get over yourself; nobody here agrees with you in any way, and they never will. Just quit.



Dixie -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/11/2007 11:31:12 PM)

That video is Argentian in origin right?  An Argentian video is hardly clear and undeniable proof of anything.  Ever.  The actions and words of a tinpot dictatorship and it's successive governments means SFA. 

If that video is clear and undeniable proof of ownership of the Falklands, then this is clear and undeniable proof that someone tagged Airforce One.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwU2t3BJtiM 

And U-571 is proof that the US Navy captured the Enigma machine
And The 300 is proof that the Persians had monsters in ancient times
And Pearl HArbor is proof that Ben Affleck can't act*


* This one is true [:D]



bobogoboom -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 12:02:29 AM)

Hey he was good in chasing amy and good will hunting



Banquet -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 3:24:58 AM)

No, not old at all. Their striking resemblance to the Alpha jet is just coincidence!

The Pucara is widely acknowledged as being a complete failure during the conflict. Destroyed on the ground, in the air by SAMs, small arms fire and by other aircraft. On the other hand it was a Pucara that was acknowledged with the only confirmed air-air kill made by Argentinian forces - a scout helicopter. Apparently the Pucara pilot then crashed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Those jets are not old at all. They are brand new. Designed and manufactured in Argentina. In the video they are training new pilots for the expanding airforce.

The planes in that video are the 2 seater training version of the ¨Pampa¨ The modern replacement for the ¨Pucara¨ A small, close air support ground attack plane designed to operate high speed at ground level.

In the fighting in 1982 the British could not shoot down the Pucara because it flew extremely close to the ground and got cluttered with the ground on the radar return. (cheap stealth) Flying in between the hills and valleys, trees, whatever. I think during 82´ they only managed to shoot down 2 ¨pucaras¨ This why the SAS were placed ashore to destroy them on the ground because they couldn`t shoot them down.

The ¨Pampa¨ is a modern replacement for the ¨Pucara¨




JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 10:01:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer
Ok, just watched that video. Pretty decent. Maybe you could loan it to the RCAF for recruiting purposes? ( for any who may wonder, I haven't seen a REAL recruiting ad in a long time. But hey, it IS Canada we talking about)
Still, gotta wonder, pretty old jets there...Whatever happened to your Mirage 2000s?

The last decent one I saw was Top Gun!!!



JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 10:27:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Ok, just watched that video. Pretty decent. Maybe you could loan it to the RCAF for recruiting purposes? ( for any who may wonder, I haven't seen a REAL recruiting ad in a long time. But hey, it IS Canada we talking about)
Still, gotta wonder, pretty old jets there...Whatever happened to your Mirage 2000s?


Ahh...see there you go assuming and under estimating again.[8D]

Those jets are not old at all. They are brand new. Designed and manufactured in Argentina. In the video they are training new pilots for the expanding airforce.

The planes in that video are the 2 seater training version of the ¨Pampa¨ The modern replacement for the ¨Pucara¨ A small, close air support ground attack plane designed to operate high speed at ground level.

In the fighting in 1982 the British could not shoot down the Pucara because it flew extremely close to the ground and got cluttered with the ground on the radar return. (cheap stealth) Flying in between the hills and valleys, trees, whatever. I think during 82´ they only managed to shoot down 2 ¨pucaras¨ This why the SAS were placed ashore to destroy them on the ground because they couldn`t shoot them down.

The ¨Pampa¨ is a modern replacement for the ¨Pucara¨



[image]local://upfiles/19240/CB919E5C69634CAB8E0496F6265551C0.jpg[/image]

quote:


Flying in between the hills and valleys, trees, whatever

You've never been to the Falklands, have you? lmao...trees!!

And new aircraft!!! lol That isn't a new aircraft...this puppy is a new aircraft!


[image]local://upfiles/10786/8B41DA05214D47838928A11B335BE908.jpg[/image]



JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 10:41:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

No, not old at all. Their striking resemblance to the Alpha jet is just coincidence!

The Pucara is widely acknowledged as being a complete failure during the conflict. Destroyed on the ground, in the air by SAMs, small arms fire and by other aircraft. On the other hand it was a Pucara that was acknowledged with the only confirmed air-air kill made by Argentinian forces - a scout helicopter. Apparently the Pucara pilot then crashed.

lol. There were very few air losses on the British side.....and of the ones I know of, they were NOT from enemy fire

And this is what I remember of the Pucara...maybe you have a different image!


[image]local://upfiles/10786/A881B15E4D8B4917B14F6BF36AC5D9B1.jpg[/image]



JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 10:46:11 AM)








Does anyone remember the tactic employed by Harrier pilots? Called VIFFing...Vertical In Forward Flight. I don't know if it was propaganda at the time, but it is a recognised manouver in the Harrier, whereby the nozzles are shifted forward whilst in forward flight, acting as a brake.

From what I can remember, in order for it to be effective, the pilot had to be quite brave...letting the enemy get with shooting range and then viffing, causing the pilot of the enemy aircraft to over shoot the harrier, which then came down on the tail.

I remember vaguely this tactic was touted as being used with reasonable results during the conflict.



JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 11:10:47 AM)





Ike99

You buggers hit the Falklands at a time when Britain pretty much had their trousers down. There was discontent everywhere, the military was being downsized to a great degree. The navy was probably at it's leanest and the airforce appeared to be in some disarray, not seeming to have enough of the type of aicraft they needed for "general" hostilities, focusing more on the Cold War requirements.

We still sailed almost 10,000 miles, with a force that was in decline,  stretched to the absolute limit of supply, with extremely limited resources, with a force far inferior in numbers to the aggressors and ejected you from those islands whilst minimising our losses.

Unless a political settlement is reached, or you manage to break Britains historical bond with the US and form one of your own, I doubt The Falklands will be returned to Argentina anytime soon.

The conflict may be ongoing, as you suggest, but most people would agree the result will be the same should your government try it's hard handed tactics again.

Also, they may find that they don't even get their feet wet this time, being as there is more than a handful of Marines protecting the islands now!!
Britain is again suffering some of these same problems. As someone said earlier, your government better get the





Neilster -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 11:16:23 AM)

This is a quote from Lieutenant Commander David Morgan DSC who flew Sea Harriers in the Falklands Conflict.

"No-one used viffing in combat - it's very much a last-ditch manoeuvre. It can be useful if the guy behind hasn't seen it before and doesn't know what you're going to do. You can decelerate from 450 knots down to 150 in about three or four seconds, and that is enough to fly people out in front - however, if he sees it coming, all he has to do is go vertical and just sit around on top of you. You end up with no energy at all and he's got all the time in the world to take you out."

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2007/437harrier/harrier.htm

Cheers, Neilster



7th Somersets -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 11:32:39 AM)

quote:

Also, they may find that they don't even get their feet wet this time


If they come by sea they probably will. There are reputedly frequent hunter-killer submarine patrols in those waters since the conflict.

I think that the best chance of success (without wetting their feet) would be to fly the 450km in their aeroplanes and then jump!


On second thoughts...

[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/10786/8B41DA05214D47838928A11B335BE908.jpg[/image]

They probably would end up getting their feet wet that way too!

The political fallout for Argentina would be incalculable, with no military Junta to blame for their illegal behaviour.






JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 11:46:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

This is a quote from Lieutenant Commander David Morgan DSC who flew Sea Harriers in the Falklands Conflict.

"No-one used viffing in combat - it's very much a last-ditch manoeuvre. It can be useful if the guy behind hasn't seen it before and doesn't know what you're going to do. You can decelerate from 450 knots down to 150 in about three or four seconds, and that is enough to fly people out in front - however, if he sees it coming, all he has to do is go vertical and just sit around on top of you. You end up with no energy at all and he's got all the time in the world to take you out."

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2007/437harrier/harrier.htm

Cheers, Neilster


Clearly I was influenced by the propaganda at the time, then.



7th Somersets -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 12:21:32 PM)

quote:

Clearly I was influenced by the propaganda at the time, then.


Judge,

I also remember hearing these capabilities being discussed. From memory, I remember an account in a newspaper of a dog fight between Skyhawks and Harriers where this was supposed to have been used.

I suspect that Lt Commander Morgan would have a better idea though as I suspect that there would have been quite a bit of discussion between the pilots re tactics used.



Banquet -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 12:39:58 PM)

I remember hearing that too.

On the subject of the Argentinian claim to have hit the Invincible.. does anyone else remember news reports that they also claimed to have sunk the Canberra? From my recollection one of the reasons Canberra was picked to drop off the POW's at Puerto Madryn was to show she was very much not sunk.


quote:

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

quote:

Clearly I was influenced by the propaganda at the time, then.


Judge,

I also remember hearing these capabilities being discussed. From memory, I remember an account in a newspaper of a dog fight between Skyhawks and Harriers where this was supposed to have been used.

I suspect that Lt Commander Morgan would have a better idea though as I suspect that there would have been quite a bit of discussion between the pilots re tactics used.




a white rabbit -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 12:59:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd





Ike99

You buggers hit the Falklands at a time when Britain pretty much had their trousers down.


..total rubbish..



a white rabbit -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 1:13:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

This is a quote from Lieutenant Commander David Morgan DSC who flew Sea Harriers in the Falklands Conflict.

"No-one used viffing in combat - it's very much a last-ditch manoeuvre. It can be useful if the guy behind hasn't seen it before and doesn't know what you're going to do. You can decelerate from 450 knots down to 150 in about three or four seconds, and that is enough to fly people out in front - however, if he sees it coming, all he has to do is go vertical and just sit around on top of you. You end up with no energy at all and he's got all the time in the world to take you out."

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2007/437harrier/harrier.htm

Cheers, Neilster


Clearly I was influenced by the propaganda at the time, then.


..probably..

..i suspect you may even have voted (or wished to vote) Tory..

..but that's ok, electing total loonies isn't just an English disease..

..how i adored that Spitting Image puppet, never quite as mad as the real thing, gosh what could they do now..



a white rabbit -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 1:15:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Putting aside all the British propaganda this very short history video very clearly and undeniably shows the Malvinas belong to Argentina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHNeUCL1cfw


Oh yeah, irrefutable "proof" right there. Get over yourself; nobody here agrees with you in any way, and they never will. Just quit.



..errrrrrrrr.......

..i mean are they realllllly worth fighting over, wellll except the oil and stuff that comes with sea and the antartic bit attached..



Dixie -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 2:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

I remember hearing that too.

On the subject of the Argentinian claim to have hit the Invincible.. does anyone else remember news reports that they also claimed to have sunk the Canberra? From my recollection one of the reasons Canberra was picked to drop off the POW's at Puerto Madryn was to show she was very much not sunk.



Canberra attacked by llamas? [X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]

[image]local://upfiles/20142/989858BA61BD4973905429E2D701A437.jpg[/image]



Dixie -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 2:51:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..errrrrrrrr.......

..i mean are they realllllly worth fighting over, wellll except the oil and stuff that comes with sea and the antartic bit attached..


It's not about the islands per se, but the wishes of the inhabitants who live there.



GreyFox -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 2:53:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd





Ike99

You buggers hit the Falklands at a time when Britain pretty much had their trousers down.


..total rubbish..



Actually it's not rubbish. Invincible was up for sale and so was the Hermes I believe. Only the Argentinians invading the Falklands prevented the sales. Likewise there were major cutbacks being made in the military budget. The outcome of the war was very much in doubt and right up until the end it was a tossup over who would win. Your hypothesis that Thatcher wanted the war to boslter her government just doesn't hold any water.

Read some balanced accounts of the war to get a genuine picture of what happened. Hell, even Wikipedia might help you.



Dixie -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 2:58:49 PM)

A few months later and the RN would have not had Hermes, and the RAF Vulcans would have been retired and things could have been very different....



GreyFox -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 3:00:38 PM)

They wouldn't have had Invicible neither. From Wiki's article on the Invincible:

quote:


On 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced that it had agreed to purchase Invincible for £175 million after several months of negotiations. The sale was confirmed by the Ministry of Defence. The ship would have replaced the Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Melbourne.



Dixie -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 3:01:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyFox

They wouldn't have had Invicible neither:

quote:


On 25 February 1982 the Australian government announced that it had agreed to purchase Invincible for £175 million after several months of negotiations. The sale was confirmed by the Ministry of Defence.[2] The ship would have replaced the Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Melbourne.



I forgot her somehow [8|]



JudgeDredd -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 3:11:24 PM)





Correct. IIRC Hermes was being scrapped. Someone mentioned sold...maybe. I do know this...she wasn't goin to be part of the RN for much longer. So Britain would've been down to 1 carrier and half her air power...not a good start.

Also, there was very much discontent across the UK. It was a black period in Britain with rising unemployment, riots, a fight between the Trade Unions and Thatchers regime.

As for wanting the war, I'm not sure. But it didn't half do her political career a shed load of good. There's no such thing as a bad war which is won for a politician on their way out.

Financially, politically, and militarily, Britain was not very strong. To be fair, she had taken over from a government which had already put the country in a bad way...but I don't remember much about that...except the look of destitude on my fathers face as he came back from collecting his "dole" money and the fights between my mum and dad about how we were going to feed for the next two weeks, or manage to keep our council rented accomodation over our heads! Yes....these things did actually take place in modern Britain and probably still do in the cities.





Dixie -> RE: The Falklands Conflict (8/12/2007 3:14:56 PM)

quote:

As for wanting the war, I'm not sure. But it didn't half do her political career a shed load of good. There's no such thing as a bad war which is won for a politician on their way out.


Indeed, Mrs Thatcher is highly regarded my most of the veterans as well.  I was on the Falklands 25 parade and right at the end, outside Buckingham Palace after the TV coverage finished (I think, I didn't see the TV) there were shouts of 'Three Cheers for Maggie' from every one of the veterans contingents.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.358887