World War 2, how close did we really come to loosing?

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

On the point about the aircraft, they were operating at their extreme limits. They had, at most, 10 minutes "time-on-target" so they couldn't afford to f*ck around getting into dogfights. If, and its a very big "if", they had a carrier group halfwat between the mainland and the Falklands, they would have undoubtedly kicked our collective arses. Its not about who had the best kit or even the best know-how, but about the amount of time one could spend pootling about looking for trouble.

The Argentinians did a pretty good job of it...HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, MV Atlantic Conveyor, LS Sir Galahad, LS Sir Tristram, a hit on HMS Glamorgan, and a possible hit on HMS Hermes (debatable..some say she took one aft and was patched up before comming home, others say no way, not a scratch. Hard to say, she was due to be decommissioned before the fight started and the Indian Navy bought her when it was over.)

All this with a second-rate airforce flying mostly hand-me-down and home made ground attack aircraft. The most modern equipment in their inventory were the Dessault Mirage III and Super Etendard. Imagine what they could have accomplished with a few Grumman E2C's in the mix to patrol the area and bird-dog targets. The bulk of their losses were in aircraft on ground and anti-ship attack missions.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by clm2112

The Argentinians did a pretty good job of it...HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, MV Atlantic Conveyor, LS Sir Galahad, LS Sir Tristram, a hit on HMS Glamorgan, and a possible hit on HMS Hermes (debatable..some say she took one aft and was patched up before comming home, others say no way, not a scratch. Hard to say, she was due to be decommissioned before the fight started and the Indian Navy bought her when it was over.)

All this with a second-rate airforce flying mostly hand-me-down and home made ground attack aircraft. The most modern equipment in their inventory were the Dessault Mirage III and Super Etendard. Imagine what they could have accomplished with a few Grumman E2C's in the mix to patrol the area and bird-dog targets. The bulk of their losses were in aircraft on ground and anti-ship attack missions.

Cast iron bombs with poor fusing as well, an uncle of mine was on HMS Glamorgan and mentioned kicking duds over the side in case they went off

I reckon the real advantage of the harriers was just surprise- till then they were pretty untested in a real combat environment, and the argentinian air force wouldn't have known what to expect from them. They, on the other hand, were very much a known quantity, and flying around with heavy loads too. The uncertainty of dealing with the Harriers seems to be what caused the low-level bombing which was so costly and relatively ineffectual, anyway.

The Argentine Air force and Navy was well equipped by the standards of the day.

Skyhawks, Daggers, Mirages III, Etendards and Pucaras were capable of doing a job.

And they did a good job. For a third world power, they did a fine job and with a bit more luck could have done much better. They were up against a better, more sophisticated, more professional force.

The training and tactics were not good and they did not try and shoot down the Harriers.

If they had more exocets....who knows.

in wwII the hurricane scored more hits against the germans than the spitfire!

in the faulklands the harrier (the slowest aircraft) won over the faster ones!

speed is not king!

you need all elements to make the advantage out of it!

speed alone is not king!

Anorak anybody?

Why are we in the UK obsessed with warfare and WWII in particular?

[Biker Biggles]

Why are we obsessed with this stuff?Because it's our history and what our parents,grandparents,great grandparents did.It's perfectly natural and normal to be interested in our history,and whether you approve of what happened or not,it's who we are and where we came from.
The true sign of a society in decline is when it denies or suppresses it's own history,or keeps apologizing for it a la Blair.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Why are we obsessed with this stuff?Because it's our history and what our parents,grandparents,great grandparents did.It's perfectly natural and normal to be interested in our history,and whether you approve of what happened or not,it's who we are and where we came from.
The true sign of a society in decline is when it denies or suppresses it's own history,or keeps apologizing for it a la Blair.

Best post of the thread that one, well said.....

.

[tinpants]

Originally Posted by Jelster

Best post of the thread that one, well said.....

.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

seconded

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

The true sign of a society in decline is when it denies or suppresses it's own history,or keeps apologizing for it a la Blair.

I don't know about the last part, but I can certainly agree with the rest.

There are a few societies that have completely white-washed their own histories to the point where their own citizens have no clue about what really took place and why. Take a look at the current crop of crazy dictators... Heck, the North Koreans have been lied to for so long that they really think they won the Korean war and that the South started it in the first place. Being able to discuss the past and acknowledge both the successes and mistakes is the basis to know where you've been and where you are going.