Replies

The Brits got lucky last time around. The only reason they didn’t go home earlier (with their tails between their legs) was because the Argentine pilots didn’t arm their bombs properly when they dropped them on British ships. Many bombs landed on British ships & carriers and a number of them didn’t explode because the fuse timing was off, due to the low altitude drops. Whoops! A few lucky duds saved their butts, as far as the Brits were concerned. American assistance in a number of areas also helped them limp to a marginal victory. They could never do that again, especially these days.

The low altitude drops were forced errors caused by the extraordinary (for the day) power of Seawolf missiles.

Plus all those bomb UXBs were on destroyers - unsurprisingly, as those were the perimeter ships. Britain could have lost many more DDs than it did, and still have won - the Carriers (and harriers) were the only critical assets, and they were never in serious danger.

In a repeat, Britain could still rely on the help of Chilean radar. It would also have the unsinkable aircraft carrier known as “The Falklands”.

If If If If.

Lost wars are always down to “bad luck”. OK modern warfare is an occasion where there are fewer, more powerful weapons so the vagaries of fortune are more acute, but in the end it all evens out. The Brits were unlucky too - for example losing most of their helicopters by one unlucky hit on a transport. That meant they had to walk all the way - the argentines wouldnt be able to “count” on that again.

No bombs landed on British carriers. As for the bombs not going off because of low altitude drops, why do you think the Argentines were at such low altitudes anyway? Because they had been forced down by British air defences, is why. So how much of that is down to luck?

The Argies were dropping bombs from cargo planes.They were lucky that the duds actually hit the ships. The A-4 fighter-bombers they scrambled were more effective but had very limited time over the targets. The few Harriers available to the Brits slaughtered them, too.

The Brits have more than enough naval assets to isolate any Argentine expedition. The Argentine Air Force simply cannot operate effectively that far from the mainland, it's a 1,000 mile round trip.

On the ground, the Argentine Army was somewhat effective in static defensive positions, but was unable to act offensively or even maneuver, and had absolutely no logistics capability. They were handily outmaneuvered and essentially ran out of supplies.

Now, with a beefed up garrison and helicopter gun ships facing them, they wouldn't stand a chance. It wouldn't be a surprise attack this time, either.

1—The British land commanders (Major Jeremy Moore and Brigadier Julian Thompson)had already agreed that even if all British supply ships had been sunk, the forces already disembarked would ‘yomp’ to Port Stanley and fight.

Remember, by the time of the heaviest (and desperate) Argentine attacks, almost all the British troops and supplies were already ashore. In fact, the later raids were a desperate Argentine attack because the British had landed unopposed at San Carlos and could and were unloading quickly.

2—America have us 12.5m gallons of fuel at Ascension Island. And also the well known intelligence info from US satellites.

BUT the American contribution has frankly been exaggerated from some help to such help that would have lost Britain the war if not given.

12.5m gallons was helpful but merely a fraction of the overall amount used. Ascension Island may have been and be a US base, but its British and leased to you. Some of the satellites used were US-UK and therefore partly ours.

And whilst America helped, so did Chile, South Africa and France.

We thank America for its help in 1982, but American aid didnt win us the war.