Argentine army junior and middle ranking officers may not have been the best in the world but many of them seem to have performed as well as they could, they accompanied their men in to the field and seem to have had a great deal of concern for their soldiers, what you claim may be true of senior officers on the islands but i don't see a huge amount of evidence of that either frankly, although perhaps some.
(this is Not true, lets start with the fact Argentine officers ate different rations, than their men.
the Uniforms of the Officer and the Conscripts were different, made of different warmer materials, and during their time on the island, argentine middle ranking officers quartered in better housing seemingly without concern for the well being of their men.
Ie. The men slept out in the cold, while the Argentine Officers were warm and toasty at night.
There was a great deal of effort went into a class dictinction between those who serve and their "betters"
HOW, the Argentines wern't aware of where the landings were taking place until a few hours before the British came ashore, they wern't given time to react even if they could have.
This is because the argentines chose static posistions and were sluggish, there were no attempts by the argentines on the Island to determine just where the british would land once they knew there was a Task force, there was poor coordination between the airforce which had daily sightings of "operation coporate" task force and the defenders of the island.
The argentine defenders could have simply set up a handfull of observation points on the islands and something as simple as some speaker wire and a headset could have had near 24-7 survailience over the few beaches fit for a mass landing.
Intercepting the British forces on their way toward Stanley or attacking the beach head would have meant moving a large number of troops, on foot, over a long distance and carrying all their equipment. The Argentine forces were just not equipped to do that.
This is not true, as there were perhaps 12-24 French wheeled 90mm armored cars , as well as a limited number of tractors and jeeps.
Why bother, the fact is that the British would have been hard pressed to move toward Stanley without neutralizing the Argentine position at Goose Green (although arguably the garrison didn't have to be attacked, it could have just been pinned in place) because it was a possible danger to the British lines of supply. Offensive actions are much harder to carry out than defensive actions so the Argentine forces were in a much better position tactically to win at Goose Green (for that matter all the battles).
All of the other battles took place around Stanley and why would any army want to move out of prepared defensive positions in to un-prepared defensive positions that are unfamiliar to them when they know the enemy has to come to them to fight the battles and come to them to win the war.
The fact is that from a tactical point the Argentines were at an advantage in every major battle, to give up that advantage by moving toward an enemy that was moving toward you anyway would have been insanity.
"the Uniforms of the Officer and the Conscripts were different, made of different warmer materials, and during their time on the island, argentine middle ranking officers quartered in better housing seemingly without concern for the well being of their men."
My understanding was and is that the Israeli made parka's were general issue to all Argentine personel in the Falklands and any photographs you see of Argentine troops during the campaign will show them being worn by all ranks from privates to Lt Colonels.
If that were the case for something as important as a cold weather parka i see no reason to think it's different for any other part of the general issue uniform.
If your saying that the officers could afford to buy privately better quality clothing then i'd agree, i'm sure they could but that's a distinction that exists amongst officers and other ranks in every army, everywhere.
That dosn't change the fact that the general issue clothing was the same if it was being issued to a private or an officer.
"This is because the argentines chose static posistions and were sluggish, there were no attempts by the argentines on the Island to determine just where the british would land once they knew there was a Task force, there was poor coordination between the airforce which had daily sightings of "operation coporate" task force and the defenders of the island."
The Argentine airforce were as unaware as the army that elements of the task force had entered San Carlos, how could they have informed the army as to the position of the landings when they were having trouble finding British shipping in the open ocean never mind tucked away in a natural harbour.
The first Argentines to see the british ships entering San Carlos water were an army OP, who eventually in turn reported the sighting back to their superiors and that information was past on to the airforce who then commenced attacks on the ships, if anything the airforce were getting information from the army about RN shipping close in to shore not the other way around.
"The argentine defenders could have simply set up a handfull of observation points on the islands and something as simple as some speaker wire and a headset could have had near 24-7 survailience over the few beaches fit for a mass landing."
As i said the army did have OP's out at potential landing points, it was one of these that eventually detected the ships but relaying that information was obviously a bit more difficult than simply speaking in to a microphone that was physically connected by wire to their CO's position miles away, totally impractical.
"This is not true, as there were perhaps 12-24 French wheeled 90mm armored cars , as well as a limited number of tractors and jeeps."
Well disregarding the tractors and jeeps you seem to think were readily available, and you would need a lot of them to transport even a company sized unit anywhere, at all times very vulnerable to any kind of attack, lets look at the Panhard armoured cars available to the Argentines.
The Panhard is in the same class as the Fox armoured cars used by the British for a time although it operates a larger gun, both have wheels rather than tracks.
ARGENTINE PANHARD AML 90.
BRITISH FOX ARMOURD RECCE VEHICLE.
The British army replaced the Fox as their armoured recce vehicle with the tracked Scorpion and Scimitar and these were the vehicles the British deployed to the Falklands.
Despite the advantage of tracks the Scorpions and Scimitars had a very difficult time moving across the terrain on the island, and only managed it so well in the end because of the tracks.
BRITISH SCORPION ARMOURED RECCE VEHICLE.
The Panhard would have had major problems moving over the terrain encoutered in the Falklands and was to a large extent restricted too roads and dirt tracks etc, expecting them to move to intercept the British forces at the beach head or during their journey across the island would almost certainly have involved the vehicles having to leave those roads and dirt tracks and trying to cross much more difficult terrain. If that were the case, considering the difficulty the tracked vehicles available to the British had, then i don't think they would have made it, and certainly not quick enough to intercept any British force.
ARTISTS IMPRESSION OF SCIMITARS AND SCORPIONS ATTACKING
WIRELESS RIDGE IN SUPPORT OF BRITISH PARA'S
This message has been edited by britopinion on Dec 6, 2005 2:23 AM
As Napoleone said an Army moves on it's stomach and when normal Argentine soldiers do not have food they will not fight as effective..Even there crack units on the island they will not fight as good as they would if they had a hardy meal such as there officers.
san carlos wasnt an unnopposed landing by chance.
And although beachheads were smoothly established,
further landings were attacked.
A great deal of effort went into diversions. When
troops were spotted by san carlos entrance the SBS were sent to deal
with them and direct naval gunfire.
The SAS were sent south of the real landings, their job to
engage the argentinians at the garrison and 'cause as much confusion
as possible'. The argentinians reported the attack as 'full battalion
strength'
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
"As Napoleone said an Army moves on it's stomach and when normal Argentine soldiers do not have food they will not fight as effective..Even there crack units on the island they will not fight as good as they would if they had a hardy meal such as there officers."
I don't think Napoleon would have had a problem feeding 8000 odd soldiers on an island where something like 500,000 sheep live.
I don't recall any reports of any Argentine soldiers starving to death during the war, i'm sure they were hungry but then again i'm sure the British troops travelling on foot over long distances while carrying most of their equipment were hungry.
One day you lot might stop trying to make excuses and accept that the British won the war because of a fantastic effort by the British army, Royal navy, Royal marines and RAF.
firstly the argentinians did fight, i hate crap about
them being cowardly etc that ive read elsewhere. Goose green,
tumbledown etc were bitter.
And had they held out another fortnight then it would have been
dire for britain. Logistics were an awful problem.
However Goose Green was heavily stacked in the argentine
favour ..that was a position the paras had no right to
take. When they lost that battle, it would have highlighted
to all the difference in capabilities between the forces.
The Argentinians had some 'regular troops' but a number of conscripts
The UK sent the best forces it had available, and they bore the brunt
of the fighting, the difference between Royal Marine commandos,
the parachute regiment, and ghurka regiment etc and the argentinian
forces was the overwhelmng factor imho.
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
Well when you have US sattelite imagery you can spot the enemies weak point,Some thing Argentina did not poses.
Face it the British cannot take on another country by them selves,The Malvinas war proved this theory,Britain is a faded colonial power.
Britain's 'special relationship' with the US Government ensured The British a quick and early supply of the latest all-aspect variant (AIM-9L) of the Sidewinder Air-to-Air missile which gave the Brits a great advantage over the Argentine air forces in aerial combat.What happend to the Argentine's...Well the whole world would not sell them as much as a 20mm round except for her allies in South America.
As soon as all chances of a diplomatic solution had faded, the then US Secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger offered Britain the use of virtually any military hardware she requested, "'up to an including an aircraft carrier the USS Eisenhower.
Extensive satellite recon intelligence was provided by the Americans.
Britain even had to get help from the Chileans. Chile had a significant role in the war. They kept up a threat of invasion into disputed border territory (3 large islands in the Beagle Channel) with Argentina, thus ensuring that some of Argentina's best mountain troops and aircraft were unable to enter the conflict.
Do not act as if this was a stunning military operation as the US did in Iraq,Argentina need only have sunk one of the carriers and the British would have turned there arses right back around and headed half way across the world back to there Island.
So do not sit here typing with your cockey attitude as if you beat the Argentines to a pulp.And I will not hold my breath until you realize Britain cannot and will not invade nor be in conflict with another country by her self.Those Glory Days are over.
Good day sir!
-------------------------------------------- "If Nature is opposed, we will fight her and make her obbey us."
Well when you have US sattelite imagery you can spot the enemies weak point,Some thing Argentina did not poses.
______
Imagery is usefull, but limited in a fluid battle such as those mentioned.
Face it the British cannot take on another country by them selves,The Malvinas war proved this theory,Britain is a faded colonial power.
Who claimed we are a power like in the 19th century?. I was discussing
the falklands conflict, please stay ontopic.
Britain's 'special relationship' with the US Government ensured The British a quick and early supply of the latest all-aspect variant (AIM-9L) of the Sidewinder Air-to-Air missile which gave the Brits a great advantage over the Argentine air forces in aerial combat.What happend to the Argentine's...Well the whole world would not sell them as much as a 20mm round except for her allies in South America.
____
True the sidewinder worked well, a big help however we had already
ordered sidewinder, essentially the US delivered early (stripping
their own aircraft to do so) ..a good ally at the time.
As soon as all chances of a diplomatic solution had faded, the then US Secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger offered Britain the use of virtually any military hardware she requested, "'up to an including an aircraft carrier the USS Eisenhower.
_____
Yep, it was refused
Extensive satellite recon intelligence was provided by the Americans.
Britain even had to get help from the Chileans. Chile had a significant role in the war. They kept up a threat of invasion into disputed border territory (3 large islands in the Beagle Channel) with Argentina, thus ensuring that some of Argentina's best mountain troops and aircraft were unable to enter the conflict.
___
Yet the numbers of troops in position were sufficient to cause problems
Do not act as if this was a stunning military operation as the US did in Iraq,Argentina need only have sunk one of the carriers and the British would have turned there arses right back around and headed half way across the world back to there Island.
_____
We have discussed how 'close' it all was and agree on that
However the facts are simple, british forces retook the
islands, and the primary reason they were able to do
this despite distance from home, lack of troops / helicopters /
and all the associated problems is better trained / more agressive
troops in the area of operation.
So do not sit here typing with your cockey attitude as if you beat the Argentines to a pulp.And I will not hold my breath until you realize Britain cannot and will not invade nor be in conflict with another country by her self.Those Glory Days are over.
I thought we were talking in a civilized manner about a conflict?.
Quite what that rant is about i am not sure
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
Horrible little war, many veterans of the conflict
commited suicide in the years that followed ;(
Large numbers of those who served are now homeless ..
a quarter of 'Britains homeless' have served in the armed
forces..a shaming statistic imho.
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
"Britain's 'special relationship' with the US Government ensured The British a quick and early supply of the latest all-aspect variant (AIM-9L) of the Sidewinder Air-to-Air missile which gave the Brits a great advantage over the Argentine air forces in aerial combat.What happend to the Argentine's...Well the whole world would not sell them as much as a 20mm round except for her allies in South America."
Truth is the AIM-9L didn't make a huge difference to the air combat over the Falklands, what made the difference was better training. The AIM-9L main advantage over earlier versions was that it had a all aspect capability, but if you study the air to air kills over the Falklands you can see very clearly that all the kills were made from the rear hemisphere anyway and so the earlier versions of the missile would in all probability have done the job just as well.
"As soon as all chances of a diplomatic solution had faded, the then US Secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger offered Britain the use of virtually any military hardware she requested, "'up to an including an aircraft carrier the USS Eisenhower."
New Zealand also offered to deploy one of her Frigates with the task force, we turned down that kind offer too.
"Britain even had to get help from the Chileans. Chile had a significant role in the war. They kept up a threat of invasion into disputed border territory (3 large islands in the Beagle Channel) with Argentina, thus ensuring that some of Argentina's best mountain troops and aircraft were unable to enter the conflict."
Thats called using diplomatic means to distract your enemy from being able to deploy all her assets in to the field at the same time thus allowing you to win, its called war. Earlier you were using the fact that Chile was a possible threat to Argentina as an excuse why the Argentines didn't deploy any of their elite units to the Falklands (not true anyway), now your saying that was happening because of the British asking Chile to turn up the pressure on the border while the conflict was on going, i mean if it was down to us wouldn't that be a good tactic.
"Do not act as if this was a stunning military operation as the US did in Iraq,Argentina need only have sunk one of the carriers and the British would have turned there arses right back around and headed half way across the world back to there Island."
As you mentioned earlier we had plenty of friends willing to lend us stuff to help, IF the Argentines had managed to sink a carrier then perhaps we would have taken them up on their offer rather than turn our arses right back around. The fact is they didn't sink a carrier and although i'm sure you will put that down to some sort of British under-handedness, or we were lucky, or the Exocets were sabotaged or something, in fact it was because of an experienced navy was able to do its job properly.
For a country with armed forces the size of Britains at the time and for armed forces that had gone through a very difficult time in the previous 10 years as far as cuts to funding are concerned and was now attempting to go to war 8000 miles from home in a largely naval operation it was A STUNNING MILITARY VICTORY.
"So do not sit here typing with your cockey attitude as if you beat the Argentines to a pulp.And I will not hold my breath until you realize Britain cannot and will not invade nor be in conflict with another country by her self.Those Glory Days are over."
I didn't realise it was possible to type with a cocky attitude.
I don't recall saying that we beat the Argentine military to a pulp.
In the Falklands we were reacting to an aggressive "invasion" by Argentina and were only in "conflict" with them because of that, so where do you get off saying the British don't realize they can't invade or be in conflict with another country alone, get a grip on reality man.
As for the "those glory days are over" statement, just another case of "i can't win this arguement so i'll harp back to the empire and criticise that" tendency some have on this forum.
Were I'am I making excuses of secret French documents to disable the exocets?
The Argentine's lost the war and I would be a fool to think other wise,But they did not loose the war in a cowardly way,The truth is they fought like tigers and were narrowly defeated by the British.
All it would of taken were just more exocets,In the beginning stages of the war as your ships were being pounced on by the brave Argentine pilots many in your government believed the war would be lost,If the Argentine's had more than 5 exocets this war would of been different,The Royal Navy was well trained but they did not perform at peak performance.
The truth is you brush aside any account of a social difference between the Officers and there men.Pertinent to the lack of cohesion among the Argentines is the great social distance between officers, NCOs, and conscripts. The latter serve one year or less in the army. When the war began, "the majority of the class of 1962 (year of birth) had already been sent home, while the class of 1963 had not . . . even basic instruction." Further, most of the untrained conscripts came from the tropical northern provinces and were simply not prepared to confront "dreadful conditions and a well-trained and well-equipped enemy."
Quote from an Argentine soldier "If I had had real officers who were real men, maybe I would have stayed. No way! I'm Argentine and we aren't made for killing people. We like to eat, go to the movies, drink, and dance. We aren't like the English. They are professional soldiers--war is their business."
This was not a lop-sided victory in a stunning display of power by well trained crews.When considering 75% of all British ships had sustained damage.In my honest opinion the British were saved by luck from the bombs not exploding on there ships.
Both sides were evenly matched.The other side just had more luck.
-------------------------------------------- "If Nature is opposed, we will fight her and make her obbey us."
This was not a lop-sided victory in a stunning display of power by well trained crews.When considering 75% of all British ships had sustained damage.In my honest opinion the British were saved by luck from the bombs not exploding on there ships.
Both sides were evenly matched.The other side just had more luck.
With respect, that doesnt take into account the big difference
in 'difficulty' of the roles each side had.
Defending an island where you have had time to dig in is far
easier a proposition than fighting a war with a 6000+ mile logistics
chain and only the equipment you can take with you.
So yes, given the huge problems Britain faced and the rapid speed
with which the task force was mobilized it was an achievment.
One which very few countries could have carried out.
Regards
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
I agree,The Royal Navy is still one of the best Navies in the world,No longer the Queen of the Sea's but still very potent.Just hope UK government does not cancell T-45 or any other goodies the Royal navy is suppose to receive
-------------------------------------------- "If Nature is opposed, we will fight her and make her obbey us."
I'm not trying to prove anything, i'm just disagreeing with some of the conclusions that you seem to have come to about the war, in my opinion there wrong.
"Were I'am I making excuses of secret French documents to disable the exocets?"
There is no evidence at all that French specialist did anything to disable or sabotage the exocets in Argentine service. What they did do was withdraw their assistance to the Argentine navy in it's efforts to combine the exocets to the Super Etandards in navy service. As we know this dosn't seem to had much of an effect on the navies ability to do it themselves as all 5 exocets were launched successfully from the Super Etandards during attacks on British shipping. All due respect to the Argentine navy technicians for their inginuity and professionalism in being able to do that.
All due respect as well to the pilots of no.2 Escuadrilla de Caza Y Ataque for carrying out some of the most difficult operation of the war in extremely difficult circumstances and terrible weather conditions.
"The Argentine's lost the war and I would be a fool to think other wise,But they did not loose the war in a cowardly way,The truth is they fought like tigers and were narrowly defeated by the British."
I've never said anything to indicate that i think the Argentines behaved in anything but a brave, honourable and determined way.
"All it would of taken were just more exocets,In the beginning stages of the war as your ships were being pounced on by the brave Argentine pilots many in your government believed the war would be lost,If the Argentine's had more than 5 exocets this war would of been different,The Royal Navy was well trained but they did not perform at peak performance."
The exocets/super etandard combination had a moderately successful record, no more, with 2 hitting and destroying HMS Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyer but 3 missing their targets because of counter measures deployed by RN warships in the shape of chaff or because the missile failed to hold the lock on its target for technical reasons.
The Royal Navy was very well trained your right, your also right about it not performing at peak performance, but the reason that it didn't was because of drastic under funding over the previous 10 years. If that funding had been available then RN warships would almost certainly been equipped with a close in weapon system (CIWS) like phalanx perhaps that would have made the exocet/super etandard combination less successful than the only moderate level of success that it had anyway
"The truth is you brush aside any account of a social difference between the Officers and there men.Pertinent to the lack of cohesion among the Argentines is the great social distance between officers, NCOs, and conscripts. The latter serve one year or less in the army. When the war began, "the majority of the class of 1962 (year of birth) had already been sent home, while the class of 1963 had not . . . even basic instruction." Further, most of the untrained conscripts came from the tropical northern provinces and were simply not prepared to confront "dreadful conditions and a well-trained and well-equipped enemy.""
I'm not brushing anything aside, i just don't believe that the relationship between Argentine army officers and other ranks made as huge a difference to their performance as you do. I think their differences have been exaggerated and if there was such a huge difference then it would have come to light as much in peace time as in war time and would have had to have been dealt with to enable the army to continue operating, even at the most basic level.
The Argentine marine Corps dosn't seem to have had these problems between officers and other ranks. If the difference in social status of officers and their men was so important then surely it would have had an effect on the performance of the marines, and yet the marine infantry, artillery and engineers seem to have conducted themselves well throughout the campaign.
Their was one induction of army conscripts in Argentina at the beginning of every year, at the start of January and the soldiers enlistment period lasted until the end of the same year just before christmas (a terrible system that effectively meant that the army had no trained conscripts for about a 3 month period, between January and the end of march every year).
The conflict started with the invasion of the falklands on the 2nd April 1982, so those conscripts would have recieved their basic training by that period, add to that the time it took the task force to reach the Falkland islands and it's clear to me that although they may not have been highly trained soldiers they certainly were far fron untrained as you claim.
In addition to this after 7th April, when an official recall of the 1981 period conscripts was made, all Argentine army units in the falkland managed to replace between 20%-25% of their new conscripts with fully trained soldier from the previous year. When X brigade deployed to the islands a short time after the recall order was given it had manage to almost completely replace new conscripts with fully trained soldiers from the 1981 period
The Argentine Marines had a different system of conscription all together, with 2 inductions a year, in early January and early July, meaning their was always a large number of marine conscripts who had completed all their training available for operations, expalining their exemplary performance throughout the whole campaign.
In short the Argentine troops deployed to the Falklands were not the untrained mass that they are ofter portrayed to be, all had recieved their basic level of training at least and many were fully trained.
"This was not a lop-sided victory in a stunning display of power by well trained crews.When considering 75% of all British ships had sustained damage.In my honest opinion the British were saved by luck from the bombs not exploding on there ships."
You fail to mention the extent of the damage to the 75% of the task force hit, most of which was superficial damage that had no effect on the vessels ability to conduct operations.
As i'm sure you know the standard "dumb" bomb used by both sides aircraft in the war has a small propellar at the back of it that has to turn a certain number of times during its descent before the bomb is armed (to avoid destroying the aircraft that dropped it). Standard naval combat tactics used by the RN during the war when dealing with air attack was to put up a lot of anti-aircraft fire up at a certain altitude which, along with SAM defences would force the attacking aircraft down to very low level (often lower than the height of the ship) and was not neccessarily intended to shoot the aircraft down directly (although i'm sure that would have been a bonus).
This was designed to have a 3 fold effect, 1)it would shoot the aircraft down because the pilot failed to fly low enough, 2)it would force the pilot to fly at such a low level that he would have to spend as much time and concerntration on not flying in to the sea as carrying out his bomb run, drastically increasing the chances of the bomb run being innaccurate and 3)If the bomb run was accurate after all this then the "dumb" bomb would not have enough free fall to turn the propellar sufficiently to arm the bomb before impact.
It wasn't just luck , it was basic naval combat tactics, with perhaps a little luck.
"Both sides were evenly matched.The other side just had more luck."
Both sides were evenly matched in many ways and both sides had their fair share of luck and made their fair share of mistakes but it was the professionalism and skill of the British that won the war, in my opinion
Imo once it became a land war the result was inevitable..good argetinian leadership or not.The difference between the troops was enonomous.Even the argentinian special forces suffered horribly.
Enormous i think is a bit of exagerration argentina isn't some 3rd world puppet nation! The british had excellent quality troops but the argentines with their bad leadership and the conditions they put their soldiers through really did the trick.It angers me because in a way it was a war lost by argentina and not won by Britain.I'm not trying to take away anything from the british what they did was pretty extraordinary but the fact remains it was a war that the argentines had the capability and should have won.
"Brazil has rediscovered itself, and this rediscovery is being expressed in its people's enthusiasm and their desire to mobilize to face the huge problems that lie ahead of us."
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
I agree Jason British tactics and leadership combined with superb training won at the end of the day,Not too mention an 6,000 mile supply chain.Only few countries can do this and Britain is one of them.
But the Argentine's did not go out with out a fight I think we can all agree on this.
-------------------------------------------- "If Nature is opposed, we will fight her and make her obbey us."
"I agree Jason British tactics and leadership combined with superb training won at the end of the day,Not too mention an 6,000 mile supply chain.Only few countries can do this and Britain is one of them."
"But the Argentine's did not go out with out a fight I think we can all agree on this."
Absolutely agree. (apologies if my earlier posts showed any dis-respect for your opinion, certainly wasn't intentional, no offense intended).
Yes they now have direct commericial flights from London to Buenos Aires one which i'm taken in one week for the vacation.
"Brazil has rediscovered itself, and this rediscovery is being expressed in its people's enthusiasm and their desire to mobilize to face the huge problems that lie ahead of us."
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
I have seen a documentary (British made) about the war and it said that there were 6 Argentine bombs that did not detonate when they landed on British ships. Had they blown up the damage to the British would have been greater. Would they have lost the war? Im not so sure.
But definitely the training was not the same. The British troops were far better man for man.
I have seen a documentary (British made) about the war and it said that there were 6 Argentine bombs that did not detonate when they landed on British ships. Had they blown up the damage to the British would have been greater. Would they have lost the war? Im not so sure.
But definitely the training was not the same. The British troops were far better man for man.
The fuses were set incorrectly.
As for losing it if we took more losses, well the operation really
was at the limits of our capabilities, so who knows
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
As far as the bombs not exploding, I thought that was becauase the argentine pilots had to drop them from dangerously low altitudes to avoid the RN's SAM cover. I believe a bomb has to fall for a certain distance before the fuse will arm, preventing planes from dropping them too low and blowing themselves up. As far as the Invincible being hit, it's an interesting story, but there is no way you could make 600 odd sailors keep a secret that big, for this long. Someone would have spilled the beans by now.
At the bottom of that page there is a link called EXOCET!, which contains the accounts of the Argentine Super-Etendard pilots. A very interesting read.
why did the british attacked so soon ? Why not wait another year and then attack ? I know that it gives the defenders more time to set up the defence but imo the preparation on the British side was unsifficient. If Britain didn't had won the war everyone would be saying how unthought it was to send troops into harms way without the needed preparations. IMO, the British command (rightfully) trusted on the capabilities of its army to have the job done.
Anyone care to elaborate on this ?
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
@Eric - I don't think the Brits wanted to give the world a year to get used to the Argentinians occupying the islands. They needed to do something immediately to show the world they would defend their territory. Plus in a year the Argentines could have built more/longer runways on the islands and would have serious defenses rather than the rock bunkers and trenches that they had prepared in the weeks after the invasion.
Why attack so soon?. Because the pressure on Britain to negotiate
was huge from everyone, especially the US.
The longer the islands were held the more pressure there would be.
Plus as nero mentioned there was an election coming.
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
That was a hopeless war for Argentinean. According to the memoir of the personal doctor of Mitterrand£¬ that iron woman hinted to use atom bomb to against Argentine if Mitterrand refused to give her the code of Exocet missile.
Thanks to Chairman Mao, he determined to develope nuclear technology with whatever price we got to pay, in such a hardship of 50s.
With the prestige brought by the victory of Falkland war, Madam Thatcher visited Beijing to talk with China about HongKong. During the secret meeting, Deng Xiao Ping explicitly warned her if Britain still refuse to return HK to China peacefully in 1997, he will consider to use alternative way to take HK back. Everybody knows what means the alternative way. Thatcher stumbled in the sidestep when she stepped out the People's Hall. I guess she must be extremely upset cause she knew she can not blackmail china with nuclear submarine.
"That was a hopeless war for Argentinean. According to the memoir of the personal doctor of Mitterrand£¬ that iron woman hinted to use atom bomb to against Argentine if Mitterrand refused to give her the code of Exocet missile."
There is NO way that Britain would have used nuclear weapons against Argentina in those circumstances - but if the bluff worked on the French then all power to Maggie's elbow!
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing wihich is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
the british victory was only possible because of argentine defeats before the war began.
argentine class distinctions.
argentine training.
argentine leadership failed its men.
a simple argentine sneeze from port stanley towards the british landing, would have totally shattered the british effort.
any form of argentine resistance against the famous "yomp" would have forced men carrying heavy packs across country to have to fight, to choose between leaving their wounded, or carrying munition would have had devastating results for the british.
Take for instance Bluff Cove, that was a disaster for the British. Anyway, with the incompetent generals we had at the time, how can anyone expect not to lose.
With proper planning and competent leadership, it was winnable.
Truth is the AIM-9L didn't make a huge difference to the air combat over the Falklands, what made the difference was better training. The AIM-9L main advantage over earlier versions was that it had a all aspect capability, but if you study the air to air kills over the Falklands you can see very clearly that all the kills were made from the rear hemisphere anyway and so the earlier versions of the missile would in all probability have done the job just as well.
Allow me to disagree on this one. All aspect IR missiles such as the Lima make all the difference when the opponet is carrying any lesser missile (AIM-9P).
The tactics used against all-aspect IR armed opponents are something like this:
All duels nowadays begin with a head-on cross of the opponents because radars guide each other towards the enemy (noone will jump at you from the clouds unnoticed).
You fly towards the bandit at max thrust/speed, if possible at alt advantage.
Just before you enter his range you switch engine to idle so as to reduce your heat signal. The heatseeker of his AIM-9L scanning your nose as you fly towards him will not see you. He does the same. Noone gets a lock during the initial pass and both increase thrust and start turning to get a Fox2 on the other.
Now someone who;s not aware of all this will lose the battle even before it begins as he will be locked by the opponent before they cross even.
I don't know where you read that kills were from the 6, I have read the opposite, that most kills were attributed to the Lima's all-aspect capability.
Even so, however, it is obvious that the Argentines were at a great disadvantage without Limas. After a while, when they'd realized their opponents were dropping them from 12 o'clock, they'd try anything to avoid this slaughter. Harriers OTOH wouldn't have to worry about a 12 o'clock lock on the enemy so they could very well position themselves for a Fox2 while Argentine pilots were desperately trying to avoid this uneven contest.
I am not saying the RN pilots didn't have the better training. Ofcourse they did. But what about the planes? The MirageIII would have the Harrier for breakfast any time / any place if all other things were equal. Training isn't enough to cover for this and not only equalize the contest but turn it to a field day for the RN.
It WAS the Limas more than anything else.
Cheers,
Miltos
AIEN ARISTEYEIN!
This message has been edited by miltos75 on Feb 13, 2006 12:36 PM
"I am not saying the RN pilots didn't have the better training. Ofcourse they did. But what about the planes? The MirageIII would have the Harrier for breakfast any time / any place if all other things were equal. Training isn't enough to cover for this and not only equalize the contest but turn it to a field day for the RN."
Allow me to disagree.
If the Sea Harrier was a match for the F-15 (Reference Sharkey Ward's account), then surely it was a match for the Mirage III?
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing wihich is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
"All duels nowadays begin with a head-on cross of the opponents because radars guide each other towards the enemy (noone will jump at you from the clouds unnoticed).
You fly towards the bandit at max thrust/speed, if possible at alt advantage.
Just before you enter his range you switch engine to idle so as to reduce your heat signal. The heatseeker of his AIM-9L scanning your nose as you fly towards him will not see you. He does the same. Noone gets a lock during the initial pass and both increase thrust and start turning to get a Fox2 on the other."
Don't agree with you on the 'no one will jump you from the clouds unnoticed' for starters, perhaps this is true if attacker and victim are fighters with powerful radar or the engagement takes place in an area with good ground radar coverage but not all kills are against other fighters and not all kills are in area's with good ground radar coverage.
What your describing above is "perhaps" what might happen in a fighter on fighter engagement, however, the vast majority of air to air kills over the Falklands were not fighter on fighter they were RN Sea Harrier interceptions of Argentine bombers (A-4's, Camberra's and Daggers etc). As a consequence Argentine radar would have had no reason to direct these aircraft in to head on engagements, in fact the opposite was true and they would have been making every effort to direct them away from danger.
Even on those occassions when Argentine radar was unable to detect the Sea Harriers, to warn their aircraft, and the Sea Harriers approached from the forward hemisphere they always manouvered to a position in the rear hemisphere before engaging (as happened on May 1st in the interception of 3 Argentine Camberras with the result of one being destroyed, one damaged and one escaping undamaged), hence the kills in almost every case being from the rear hemisphere.
Another example of this was the air combat between 2 Sea Harriers (flown by Flt Lt Barton and Lt Thomas) and 2 Mirage III's (flown by Capitan Garcia Cuerva and Primer Teniente Perona) on May 1st 1982, and resulted in the first air to air victory of the war. This engagement certainly began with a head on pass but neither side fired any missile until the Sea Harriers had manouvered to a position behind their opponents, as a result both Mirage were hit, one being destroyed and the other damaged.
Yet another example was the interception of 3 Argentine air force Daggers (flown by Capitan Donadille, Mayor Justo Piuma and Primer Teniente Senn) by 2 Sea Harriers (flown by Lt Thomas and Cdr Ward) on May 21st 1982, in this engagement although the Daggers were initially intercepted from the forward hemisphere again the Sea Harriers waited until they had manouvered to the rear hemisphere before engaging and destroying all 3 aircraft.
In all these cases althought the RN aircraft approached the Argentine aircraft from the front they always positioned themselves in the 6 o'clock position before actually firing. In fact i can't think of one example where Argentine aircraft were engaged and destroyed from the forward hemisphere, i could be wrong and there may be one but they are very much in the minority.
These 3 incidents aside the vast majority of kills were against Argentine bombers either approaching or departing their targets and they were almost exclusively carried out from the rear, no head to head just interception from the rear or an angle off of the rear, a manouver in to an optimum position as close to the victims 6 o'clock as possible and then an engagement with missiles or guns.
"Now someone who;s not aware of all this will lose the battle even before it begins as he will be locked by the opponent before they cross even."
As i said above in every engagement that started from the forward hemisphere the RN aircraft always waited until they were in the enemies rear hemisphere before engaging their targets
"I don't know where you read that kills were from the 6, I have read the opposite, that most kills were attributed to the Lima's all-aspect capability."
Every book i've read on the subject that goes in to any detail about the air combat in the Falklands indicates the same thing, by far the majority of RN air to air kills against Argentine air force and navy aircraft were from the rear hemisphere, frankly i can't think where you have read different but wherever it was, with respect, it's wrong.
Two good books on the subject.-
FALKLANDS, The AIR WAR. by Rodney Burden, Michael I draper, Douglas A Rough, Colin R Smith and David L Wilton. Arms and Armour press.
SEA HARRIER OVER THE FALKLANDS A Maverick At War. by Commander 'Sharkey' Ward DFC,AFC. Lee Cooper Publishing.
Both these books give clear and accurate examples of air combats during the Falklands campaign.
"Even so, however, it is obvious that the Argentines were at a great disadvantage without Limas. After a while, when they'd realized their opponents were dropping them from 12 o'clock, they'd try anything to avoid this slaughter. Harriers OTOH wouldn't have to worry about a 12 o'clock lock on the enemy so they could very well position themselves for a Fox2 while Argentine pilots were desperately trying to avoid this uneven contest."
How could they come to this realisation when none were lost from the '12 o'clock position', not one to my knowledge and certainly not enough to change Argentine tactics 'after a while' since there was only one fighter on fighter engagement in the entire war, after this the Argentine Mirage III's were very reluctant to mix it and consequently never did again.
"I am not saying the RN pilots didn't have the better training. Ofcourse they did. But what about the planes? The MirageIII would have the Harrier for breakfast any time / any place if all other things were equal. Training isn't enough to cover for this and not only equalize the contest but turn it to a field day for the RN."
The Mirage III is a capable aircraft but as for having the Sea Harrier for breakfast, i don't think so, and so it proved. In this sort of air combat where short range air to air missiles are the only weapons available (except for the guns on board which the RN aircraft used on a number of occassions to 'gun' down their opponents) it's air combat manouvering (ACM) training and tactics that make the difference, both of which the RN were far superior in.
It's the pilots not the aircraft that make all the difference.
All the RN kills over the Falklands could and in all probability would have been made just as effectively with the earlier version of the AIM-9 and so IMO the Lima example played no part (certainly not a substancial part) in the RN dominance of the Argentine air force and navy in air to air engagements of the war.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Feb 13, 2006 11:57 PM This message has been edited by britopinion on Feb 13, 2006 11:47 PM
Margaret Thatcher would have lost the Falklands war in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missiles to bolster British air defences, according to an adviser to the former prime minister.
Quote:Armament was the FAA’s most serious deficiency. Its primary air intercept missile (AIM) was an early version of the French-made Matra 530 infrared air-to-air missile. It suffered from a six-mile range, a very narrow field of vision (30–40 degrees), and an infrared sensor that could lock onto an enemy fighter only from directly behind.6 The British Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force (RAF) Harriers could each carry four US-made AIM-9L Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles. The AIM-9Ls were a generation ahead of the Matras, had a very wide field of vision (90–120 degrees), and had a much more sensitive infrared seeker that could lock onto the heat created by the airflow over an enemy aircraft. In short, the AIM-9Ls gave Harrier pilots a great deal more flexibility and allowed them to engage targets head-on.7
"If the Sea Harrier was a match for the F-15 (Reference Sharkey Ward's account), then surely it was a match for the Mirage III?"
Your right, according to Ward's account in dissimilar air combat manouvering (DACM) exercises the Sea Harrier achieved scores of 27 kills to 10 losses in one on one air combat with F-5's of a US air force agressor squadron (with both sides simulating being armed with guns and short range AAM's).
In addition the Sea Harrier achieved a 7 kills to 1 loss score in a two on two DACM exercise against US air force F-15's (in his case the F-15's were simulating guns and medium range and short range AAM's against just guns and short range AAM's for the Sea Harrier).
This being the case i don't think the Mirage III was beyond the capabilities of the Sea Harrier.
Spider
None of the people commenting in that article are air combat experts, if they were it may have a bit more validity. As it stands the evidence is self evident IMO.
Read the books i mentioned, they are very clear, by far the majority of air to air kills were from the rear hemisphere. Unless your telling me that the earlier versions of the AIM-9 were completely useless (which they wern't) then they would have in all likelyhood been able to operate successfully when fired from these positions.
"Armament was the FAA’s most serious deficiency. Its primary air intercept missile (AIM) was an early version of the French-made Matra 530 infrared air-to-air missile."
I'm not suggesting the AIM-9L wasn't superior to the Matra 530, of course it was but so was the earlier version of the AIM-9, this is about whether or not the AIM-9L's supposed all aspect capability made a difference to the outcome of the air to air war, IMO it didn't.
"The British Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force (RAF) Harriers could each carry four US-made AIM-9L Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles."
I don't believe the twin carrier for the sidewinder was in service with RN Sea Harriers or the RAF Harriers at the time of the war, it was introduced soon after, this being the case there were only 2 single hardpoints for the sidewinder on the Sea Harrier (because of the need to carry fuel tanks on the other available hardpoints) meaning only 2 could be carried at a time.
"The AIM-9Ls were a generation ahead of the Matras, had a very wide field of vision (90–120 degrees), and had a much more sensitive infrared seeker that could lock onto the heat created by the airflow over an enemy aircraft. In short, the AIM-9Ls gave Harrier pilots a great deal more flexibility and allowed them to engage targets head-on.7"
This isn't a comparison between the AIM-9L and the Matra 530.
So basically you were given a state of the art all aspect missile and decide to use it as an old rear aspect one. Right.
Quote:In aerial engagements, the British took
advantage of their air combat skills and the all-aspect kill capability of the
US-supplied AIM-9L Sidewinder to claim 20 Argentine aircraft with no
British losses in air combat.
"So basically you were given a state of the art all aspect missile and decide to use it as an old rear aspect one. Right."
Exactly.
Considering we only recieved the AIM-9L on the way to the Falklands what did you think the RN did, completely change all of their training to fit in with it's all aspect capability, no of course they didn't, they kept with the tried and tested approach to air to air combat which they had practised at for years and concerntrated on manouvering on to the rear of the enemy aircraft before attempting a missile shot, just as they would have if they hadn't recieved the newer sidewinder.
Like i said read the books, study how most of the air to air kills were achieved.
This isn't about whether the AIM-9L was the best around at the time, it was, that's not in question. The Question is was the earlier version of the sidewinder in service with the RN capable of performing well enough to shoot down those Argentine aircraft destroyed by the AIM-9L, considering the majority of the attacks were carried from within the operational parameters of the earlier version.
In my opinion they absolutely were capable of performing well enough considering the type of attacks carried out by RN Sea Harriers on Argentine aircraft, predominantly from the rear hemisphere.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Feb 14, 2006 3:38 AM
you have some good points and your three examples prove the better quality of RN pilots. I don't claim to have read specific incidents of the Falklands Air war, I take yours as given and move from there on.
However, a kill from the "rear hemisphere" is not the same for all instances. The missile's IR seeker (the only real diference between the Lima and older Sidewinder versions) can make the diference between a lock from 7, 8 or 9 oclock even. There is a forward cone in which the missile's seeker can effectively scan and lock a heat source. The size of the cone is directly proportional to the seekers angle of scan. IOW a missile with a superior seeker (AIM-9L) will deliver the lock at greater angles, which can be a huge advantage in battle.
Also, the MirageIII should theoretically outperform the Harrier in ACM. It is a very agile delta wing fighter without any of the aerodynamic limitations found on VSTOL designs. Delta wings always outperform conventional wings in IR range and the HAF knows this very well from flying her F-16s and Mirage2000s against each other on a daily basis. However, the pilot of the delta wing has to be experienced. A Delta wing is no plane for a rookie. The increased drag will stall him during the first turn.
After your analysis I tend to believe that Argentine pilots had no idea of how to take advantage of their Mirages. Which makes the Lima story a common misconception among aviators.
To the guy who offered the F-15 example, this is really self-evident and irrelevant. The F-15 is not a dogfighter. It's a massive fighter with huge thrust and payload and an incredible radar. It will kill anything at BVR. But at VR it cannot turn as steeply as a lighter single seater with smaller RCS and heat signal. The F-4E was always the better fighter overall but if it got cought up in VR it stood no chance against an F-5E.
One of my good friends lives there with his family, he and his family don't want to be part of Argentina and they are neutral over becoming fully independent. I'm going there in a few months, I also plan to maybe get a Falklands citizenship, its a great country, the size of Qatar but with only 3 thousand people.
Quote:After your analysis I tend to believe that Argentine pilots had no idea of how to take advantage of their Mirages.
The argentine pilots were at a great disadvantage, the most important being the fact that they had to fly low in order to avoid being detected, which increased fuel consumption leaving them with only a few minutes to accomplish their mission which wasn't engaging the CAPs but sinking the carriers and their escorts.
Quote:
One of my good friends lives there with his family, he and his family don't want to be part of Argentina and they are neutral over becoming fully independent. I'm going there in a few months, I also plan to maybe get a Falklands citizenship, its a great country, the size of Qatar but with only 3 thousand people.
It's not a country, its a rebel province and those kelpers are s***.
Anyway, have a good time.
I agree with you on your points about the superiority of the AIM-9L compared to earlier versions of the sidewinder, and certainly it was superior to the Matra 530 in Argentine service at the time of the war (i seem to remember reading somewhere that the Israeli Shafrir was also used by the Argentine air force at this time but i'm not certain, either way the AIM-9L was superior to that also). It's ability to lock on to a target at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions (and possibly from the 3 and 9 o'clock positions in the right circumstances) would have definately been a considerable advantage if it had been neccessary.
The point i've been trying to make to some of the other guys since your last post is that in the vast majority of cases the ability of the AIM-9L to engage targets from such accute angles dosn't seem to have been neccessary as the RN pilots seem to have made every effort to position themselves in the optimum position for a missile kill using the earlier version of the sidewinder. Perhaps this was a result of ingrained training as they had limited amount of time to train with the newer version and as a result almost certainly didn't change any of their overall approach to dog fighting to take the AIM-9L's capabilities in to account.
Hence my opinion that the earlier version sidewinders in RN service would in all probability, in most cases, have done the job sufficiently well to not change the fact that the RN dominated in the air to air kills field.
Basically i'm saying the AIM-9L didn't win it for us, the results would have been the same whatever.
Just my opinion.
Nice talking to you.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Feb 14, 2006 11:58 PM
They certainly wont make any deals other than they become fully independent, they aren't going to come under argentinian rule, why would they, its not like Argentina can provide them with anything that Britain couldn't and they're mostly racially British themselves, Argentina obviously isn't going to take Falklands by force and if it does(which is highly unlikely) the British still could fend off any invasions.
"Ok, maybe that was over the top. But there're not innocent sheep farmers either, eventually they'll have to make a deal with us."
Oh come on Spider if their not innocent sheep farmers then what are they.
I realise that the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas is a sore point for Brits and Argies alike but the population (their not all sheep farmers, in fact i think their in the minority now) on the islands themselves seem to be decent hard working people. The fact that they all want to remain connected to the UK and not take on something new, foreign to them and in their opinion un-predictable dosn't make them bad people.
Talk like "eventually they'll have to make a deal with us" is perhaps a part of what makes them un-enthusiastic about closer links with Argentina and enthusiastic about continuing their strong links with Great Britain.
My point is democratically they don't have to do anything they don't want to, and at the moment they have decided they don't want to become part of Argentina and they do want to maintain their present position, and the UK will respect and protect their right to make that decision.
If the Argentine government eventually wants to convince the population of the Falklands to increase their relationship with Argentina then perhaps they should respect and protect their right to make that decision as well.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Feb 15, 2006 12:45 PM
your just pissed because you realise that if Galtieri had not jumped the gun the Falklands would probably be yours right now, the Foreign Office would have liked nothing more to get rid of them.
Once the idiot’s you had in power took the step to invade you lost any chance of a negotiated return, its a scared cow in British politics the only way for you to get them in for the Islanders to vote for it and that’s only going to realistically happen when the temperature in hell goes below zero.
Seriously not trying to be offensive but that’s the way things are and how they will remain, the Islanders don’t have to talk to you and the certainly don’t have any need too with the Crown guaranteeing there defence.
Federal Commonwealth Society
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life?Cecil Rhodes
Well if Argentina had any money to spare, it could propose giving the 3 thousand falklanders 50 thousand dollars a year if they voted to be part of Argentina, could cover it up as some sort of subsidiary incentive. who's going to turn down free money, specially people who live in the Falklands, they aren't exactly millionaires. Hell even a really wealthy person could do that, make himself king of Falklands. lol
The Falkland islanders have a very successful, thriving and growing business in the form of fishing and exporting fish oils, this is addition to the wool industry on the islands.
All these things contribute to making Falkland islanders one of the most affluent groups of British citizens anywhere and one of the more affluent groups in the Americas.
In addition to this the infastructure on the islands has vastly improved since the war in 1982, it really isn't like it used to be before the war by all accounts.
Relatively large numbers of people have re-settled in the Falklands from the UK in the last 20+ years and the islands people, infastructure and economy seems to be very much on the up.
Yeah but unless each family makes around 350 thousand dollars a year they won't pass on free 50 thousand dollars a year. No one would unless you're wealthy. It'll only work in Falklands cause it has such a tiny population.
so you wanna spend 150 million dollars a year on 3000ppl just so they would join Argentina ?
That's just stupid and senseless. The 3000 people receiving the money will become laisy and the day the subsidies stop they'll be in big trouble.
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Moreover, once the news spread that you're giving away 50k per household you'll see a huge wave of emmigration to the islands the likes of which the world hasn't seen probably since the Oklahoma race. So you'll end up paying 50k X 3 million and not 3 thousand.
Unless its that much of a importance to Argentina then I don't see any reason for doing such a thing either, but thats the closest thing they'll ever come to ever being able to take back the Falklands. However if your country was tiny, like Singapore, then imagine how much of importance would a island like falklands be to a nation the size of singapore, which is only around 665 sq km, if Falklands was its neighbour and it had only a 3 thousand population it would be well worth paying 150 million dollars a year to expand your landmass by like 40 times. They could also put a limit on thier proposal, like only 3 thousand already citizens are to get money.
Or if Bill Gates dreams about becoming a king of a nation. lol
Theres good oil reserves there, initially too expensive
to get, but...
so britain will want to guarantee its cut
______
The Ministry of Defence is to consider giving British soldiers basic equipment such as clothes that fit and boots that don't melt in the summer, it announced today. The MoD was responding to a report by MPs that suggested that such equipment would have been "actually quite useful" during the war in Iraq and other recent military escapades.
"If Nature is opposed, we will fight her and make her obbey us."
