Visiting The Falklands/Malvinas

ghost said:
Very interesting, but why would the Navy bother to study Arg Airforce tactics. They barely have what anyone would consider an Air....FORCE. Just curious.
Cool! What did you fly, dirt boy?
 
ghost said:
Very interesting, but why would the Navy bother to study Arg Airforce tactics. They barely have what anyone would consider an Air....FORCE. Just curious.

Not anymore ... but they did. We studied them because even though they were very out-gunned and out-trained they were able to inflict serious injury to the Brits through very innovative tactics and outright ballsy flying by their pilots. I met some of these guys when I lived in Mendoza. We shared beers, tactics, stories, and lies. :D
 
perpetualholiday said:
Cool! What did you fly, dirt boy?

I flew the A-4 Skyhawk and the F/A-18 C/D Hornet. I miss the flying. Don't miss the job.
 
ghost said:
Very interesting, but why would the Navy bother to study Arg Airforce tactics. They barely have what anyone would consider an Air....FORCE. Just curious.


Actually the Argentinian Navy pilots (not airforce) were the first to use airborne launched anti-ship missiles in a modern conflict. The combination of the Super-Etendard planes and the Exorcet missiles used by the Argentinians were devastating to the Royal Navy. Even with no proper training and with only a limited supply of missiles (due to the French embargo), the Argentinians were able to sink several British ships, including their most modern warship at the time, the Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield. If they had a proper stock of the Exorcet missiles (they only had about 6 units), they would have probably won the war, since at the time, the Royal Navy lacked adequate counter-measures against the Super-Etendard + Exorcet combination.
 
camberiu said:
Actually the Argentinian Navy pilots (not airforce) were the first to use airborne launched anti-ship missiles in a modern conflict. The combination of the Super-Etendard planes and the Exorcet missiles used by the Argentinians were devastating to the Royal Navy. Even with no proper training and with only a limited supply of missiles (due to the French embargo), the Argentinians were able to sink several British ships, including their most modern warship at the time, the Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield. If they had a proper stock of the Exorcet missiles (they only had about 6 units), they would have probably won the war, since at the time, the Royal Navy lacked adequate counter-measures against the Super-Etendard + Exorcet combination.

Agreed.
This is fact and admitted by Admiral Woodward.
 
I think that the islanders are not stupid and they rejected the offer of a link to the continent via the Argentine state-owned company AA becausse they suspect (and with good reason) that they do not want became dependant on HER whims for air travel. She could theaten to cut the service at any time to pressure them, as she is get used to blackmail anybody she hates or wishes to plunder.
 
Good point Henry, but I think an opportunity of conciliation at the very least has been missed.
 
Wishful thinking.These people took a confrontative policy against the islanders since 1997, HE cancelled an oil exploration agreement with the Brits.
SHE never adopted a conciliatory tone with anybody at any time. As a QUEEN, she is supposed to be right all the time and everybody should submit to HER whims.
She thinks that SHE can subjugate these people with a few cheap tricks, like a TV spot.
She is ignorant that in WWII the British endured 4 years of unrelented bomings by the Luftwaffe (using airplanes as well as the first use of cruise missiles and ICBM´s) that caused 50,000 deaths in the UK, and they did not yield to Hitler, (much less they are going to be intimidataed by HER).
 
Gringoboy said:
Good point Henry, but I think an opportunity of conciliation at the very least has been missed.

Do the islands really need 3 weekly flights though? That would result in a crazy number of people coming in via air all the time or lots of empty planes.

Allowing charter flights would have been a better first step.
 
My point being that ANY sort of conciliation in this hopeless stalemate would surely be welcome.
But then, yes I see the points that HER gesture may be seen as a cynical ploy at the least.
I don't think she is ignorant of the facts of WW2 at all; but she does consistently underestimate the British and that is what irks her.
It always gets worse when it gets personal, which it surely has by now.
 
Back
Top