Replies

The Brits tend to have a habit of overstating and over analyzing their military achievements. Too many "scholars" in wool suits with too much time, rewriting history. I much prefer American or German authors of military history. The worst are the Russians, unreadable propaganda.

I very much respect the Tommy's as well trained and professional soldiers. The British foot soldier has little to apologize for.

History however has granted the Brits a lot of plain old good luck.

Take for example,

- The US effected emergency supplies of the latest AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles to the Brit's. The latest US AIM-9 had a true "fire and forget" head on capability. It was the US AIM-9 and -not- the British Sea Harrier which provided local but not strategic air superiority for the British.

- The Argentine Mirage would have dominated the Harriers were it not for the latest AIM-9 and the lack of range of the Mirage as deployed by Argentina. By the same token the British Harriers never could make a real threat against Argentine bases.

- The Argentine pilots were brave almost to a fault. Brimming with prestige and machismo they forced their low level attacks using American A-4 Skyhawks and French Super Entendards against British warships with telling effect. Only the lack of proper bomb fusing saved the British from serious naval disasters. The Argy bombs were fuzed "too long" and penetrated many British ships without exploding. If the Argys had targeted the QE or other troops ships, with proper fuses, the loss of life would have made the Brits reconsider the whole operation.

Given all that I very much would like to see another Margret Thatcher around to challenge tyranny and aggression. Despite the Brits faults during the Falklands, good training and a firm goal found them victory.

The Falklands War was the first real demonstration of "high tech" weaponry since WWII. Alot of time has passed since the Falklands and the capabilities of modern East/West weapon systems has not been demonstrated in a full scale war.

Maybe Iran and the Gulf will be the next demonstration?

Every conflict, battle or war has it's mistakes and luck. I think you will find all those topics written by British writers soon after the War.

To say that history "has granted the Brits a lot of plain old good luck" sounds out of place in your excellent and informative post.

As well as silly, it seems to be quite emotive and grudging. Every victor in sport, business or war gets lucky. This is why the SAS say "Who Dares Wins"!

"... Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way. I learned a deep respect for one of Goethe's couplets:

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it! "

-W.H. Murray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Murray

All the Sea Harrier Mirage/Dagger encounters that resulted in kills were from the rear-aspect. The Mirage/Daggers were less manoeverable and couldn't turn inside the Sea Harriers.

The Sea Harriers manoeverability was proved time and time against French Mirage in exercises. The work up exercises with the French also proved this. The Sea Harriers had also exercised against F-15s and F-5s in the UK.

The only thing that the Mirage/Dagger had advantage on was their superior speed. They had early Sidewinders and Israeli Shafrirs and Matra 530s. The AIM-9Gs that were already in UK service would have been suffice in those encounters. The AIM-9Ls were already in UK service, but assigned to NATO stocks.