The Falklands thread

Orcish-Horde said:
If they had them on the Islands in 1982 in large numbers, there would have likely been a different out come. They may be old if not comical, but they are still dangerous and would have needed dealing with.
Click to expand...

I think milan would have easily and quickly dealt with them and they wouldn't have had much utility, probably just be parked in Stanley waiting to get destroyed.
 
MrMoonX said:
cos shooting nuclear missiles in defence of a crappy island obliterating south America making it uninhabitable for 100s of years really is the best answer you have? :rolleyes:


****ing muppets in this thread want another falklands war it seems, cos afghan went oh so well
Click to expand...

haha
 
elmarko1234 said:
While I do agree entirely, let's not forget that "The Scum" likes to pretend to be the voice of the people.
Click to expand...

Yes but I doubt your average Argentine would know that. From their perspective it's just some newspaper from England they've never heard of. That's not the same as British readers seeing a letter straight from the Argentine head of state.
 
I_M_Weasel said:
I think milan would have easily and quickly dealt with them and they wouldn't have had much utility, probably just be parked in Stanley waiting to get destroyed.
Click to expand...

The Battle of Goose Green could have been totally different had they 50 Sherman tanks hid on the far side of the hill. They could have destroyed a large part of the taskforce before the milan platoons, if the had enough rockets. Got round to destroying them. If there was spitfires, heli-copter support along with milan could also have been lost. I think the Sherman tanks anti infantry utility could have been a deal braker. :p
 
estebanrey said:
Yes but I doubt your average Argentine would know that. From their perspective it's just some newspaper from England they've never heard of. That's not the same as British readers seeing a letter straight from the Argentine head of state.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that a lot of people are thick and would associate (or seek to associate) the letter with the UK as a whole.
 
Orcish-Horde said:
The Battle of Goose Green could have been totally different had they 50 Sherman tanks hid on the far side of the hill. They could have destroyed a large part of the taskforce before the milan platoons, if the had enough rockets. Got round to destroying them. If there was spitfires, heli-copter support along with milan could also have been lost. I think the Sherman tanks anti infantry utility could have been a deal braker. :p
Click to expand...

Also, if my aunty had ******** she'd be my uncle.

;)
 
Orcish-Horde said:
The Battle of Goose Green could have been totally different had they 50 Sherman tanks hid on the far side of the hill. They could have destroyed a large part of the taskforce before the milan platoons, if the had enough rockets. Got round to destroying them. If there was spitfires, heli-copter support along with milan could also have been lost. I think the Sherman tanks anti infantry utility could have been a deal braker. :p
Click to expand...

Except the Argentines didn't have any way of delivering these tanks, maintaining them, fueling them etc.. Battle of goose green would have been different if we'd have had 50 chieftens mostly because both armies would have spent all the time trying to un stick them from the peat bogs.
 
estebanrey said:
Yes but I doubt your average Argentine would know that. From their perspective it's just some newspaper from England they've never heard of. That's not the same as British readers seeing a letter straight from the Argentine head of state.
Click to expand...

From their perspective the average Argentinian (South American) is just as stupid as your average British sun reader. They will see what they want to see... and that will be outrage.

It was entirely unnecessary, it adds nothing new to the debate, it was only published to antagonise and it reflects badly on this country. They shouldn't have done it.
 
Orcish-Horde said:
The Battle of Goose Green could have been totally different had they 50 Sherman tanks hid on the far side of the hill. They could have destroyed a large part of the taskforce before the milan platoons, if the had enough rockets. Got round to destroying them. If there was spitfires, heli-copter support along with milan could also have been lost. I think the Sherman tanks anti infantry utility could have been a deal braker. :p
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are just trolling but the Scimitar/CVR(T) was the only tracked AFV capable of operating in the Falklands due to its extremely low ground pressure (apparently close to that of an infantryman), the Sherman would have no chance.

As discussed above the Argentines had turboprop aircraft, better than the Spitfire, deployed to the Falklands, even operating out of Goose Green, and it didn't make a difference. The Harriers had Air superiority their only applicable use would be as ground attack/COIN and the Pucara was specifically designed for that unlike the Spitfire.
 
I_M_Weasel said:
Except the Argentines didn't have any way of delivering these tanks, maintaining them, fueling them etc.. Battle of goose green would have been different if we'd have had 50 chieftens mostly because both armies would have spent all the time trying to un stick them from the peat bogs.
Click to expand...

It was nothing more than a what if but what if they had adjusted the tracks for the softer ground?

daver said:
Not sure if you are just trolling but the Scimitar/CVR(T) was the only tracked AFV capable of operating in the Falklands due to its extremely low ground pressure (apparently close to that of an infantryman), the Sherman would have no chance.

As discussed above the Argentines had turboprop aircraft, better than the Spitfire, deployed to the Falklands, even operating out of Goose Green, and it didn't make a difference. The Harriers had Air superiority their only applicable use would be as ground attack/COIN and the Pucara was specifically designed for that unlike the Spitfire.
Click to expand...

Given that they planned to fight a number of set battles they could have easy layed down tracking to support the weight of a Sherman. That old, out date and as I said before comical tank would have been a hellish suprise for any attacking infantry. As for the spitfire it would have caused real problems if used for ground attack if they had them. Necessity is the mother of invention.
 
Orcish-Horde said:
It was nothing more than a what if but what if they had adjusted the tracks for the softer ground?
Click to expand...

Yeah I know it was only a "what if?" scenario. The only adjustment you could do would be wider tracks, which would need a replacement of all the running gear, you'd be better off starting over.

Argentina did have some armour (AAV-7) but it was kept in stanley a little while before being withdrawn, falklands doesn't offer the right terrain for armour certainly not in the maneuverist employment that tanks are best employed at.

From my own point of view I wouldn't be too worried to be told the enemy were using a ww2 era tank, I wasn't worried about the more modern stuff I faced in the gulf either.
 
ianh said:
Good old Sun engaging in a Flame war :rolleyes: just ignore her and she'll go away.

The Sun writes an Open Letter in Buenos Aires paper telling the Argentine president "Hands Off"
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the voice of reason from the paper that rejoiced so much in the deaths of hundreds of Argentine navy personnel. That'll surely encourage Argentina's government to calm down and behave reasonably.

liRlD.jpg
 
I_M_Weasel said:
Yeah I know it was only a "what if?" scenario. The only adjustment you could do would be wider tracks, which would need a replacement of all the running gear, you'd be better off starting over.

Argentina did have some armour (AAV-7) but it was kept in stanley a little while before being withdrawn, falklands doesn't offer the right terrain for armour certainly not in the maneuverist employment that tanks are best employed at.

From my own point of view I wouldn't be too worried to be told the enemy were using a ww2 era tank, I wasn't worried about the more modern stuff I faced in the gulf either.
Click to expand...

The thing about the gulf was that it was a shooting range with half the world looking to have a go. If you seen the proper application of the old and not so old stuff you would know to be worried. A lot of the modern tech is one weapon system or other away from being useless.
 
estebanrey said:
Am I the only one who's noticed the mistake in The Sun article?



That should be 'Argentine'. No wonder Sun readers are illiterate.
Click to expand...

Really your that supprised, they ran yesterday that you could buy the same gun in the Uk, which was used in the school shooting... Only problem was you needed a firearm certificate grade 1, which is pretty near impossible to get unless your tackling large game and own an estate/ shooting range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom