DB Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Perhaps the Spanish should try that with Gib? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Would be unwise. Land blockade according to Treaty of Utrecht could be a better solution. Let's see how the Gib upper crust reacts to having their Sotogrande estates some hours of flying away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? Lesson learned from Stark: if you have Phalanx, turn it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. What if the Argentinians had offered to buy the islands?!? Actually, In line of the freebooting supercapitalist theme of the time, I think it would probably have worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 Perhaps the Spanish should try that with Gib? Gladly, but in contrast to the Falklands, it's not for sale... https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/LON:FIH/FIH-Group-Plc/#/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? Lesson learned from Stark: if you have Phalanx, turn it on. Or not, in the presence of friendlies: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/world/japanese-down-navy-plane-in-an-accident-crew-is-safe.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? Lesson learned from Stark: if you have Phalanx, turn it on. Or not, in the presence of friendlies: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/world/japanese-down-navy-plane-in-an-accident-crew-is-safe.htmlPerhaps they shouldve called it the Claymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. In what way was 1982 vintage Sea Dart ineffectual vs RIM-66? The only thing I can think of offhand is low rate of fire due to safety interlocks? It was continually upgraded and later versions had datalink enabling trajectory shaping to enhance range considerably. One shot down a Silkworm heading for a US BB in the Gulf in 1991. If you are going to go with what if's, the biggest for me is simply what if the Argentines had taken a lathe, or even a file, to the arming spindles in their bombs to have them arm a fraction of a second earlier. There are plenty of other things that could have gone better for them. What if they had invested in even a dozen more AM-39s for example? What if their subs and torps had worked out for them? Even what if they had invaded a bit later in the year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kennedy Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 LOL do any of you guy remember that thejoker guy? At the time he was posting his bullshit I kept trying to tell him that I had an Argentine girlfriend (at the time) and all of her parents' friends remembered begging for a British invasion because then they'd finally be able to buy some Rolling Stones albums... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted July 19, 2019 Author Share Posted July 19, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. In what way was 1982 vintage Sea Dart ineffectual vs RIM-66? The only thing I can think of offhand is low rate of fire due to safety interlocks? It was continually upgraded and later versions had datalink enabling trajectory shaping to enhance range considerably. One shot down a Silkworm heading for a US BB in the Gulf in 1991. If you are going to go with what if's, the biggest for me is simply what if the Argentines had taken a lathe, or even a file, to the arming spindles in their bombs to have them arm a fraction of a second earlier. There are plenty of other things that could have gone better for them. What if they had invested in even a dozen more AM-39s for example? What if their subs and torps had worked out for them? Even what if they had invaded a bit later in the year? I'm not sure I would trust an Argentine conscript to disassemble a live fuze to attempt modifications. Not sure what fuzes the Argentines were using at the time, but the old US mechanical M904/M905's could be set down to a 2 second arm time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 I never said a conscript Argentina had a pretty decent technology base back then. Apparently they did come up with shortening the spindles for fewer rotations before arming, but the war ended first. 2 seconds may seem like a long time, but A4s were attacking very low. IIRC one bent the mast of a Type 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. In what way was 1982 vintage Sea Dart ineffectual vs RIM-66? The only thing I can think of offhand is low rate of fire due to safety interlocks? It was continually upgraded and later versions had datalink enabling trajectory shaping to enhance range considerably. One shot down a Silkworm heading for a US BB in the Gulf in 1991. If you are going to go with what if's, the biggest for me is simply what if the Argentines had taken a lathe, or even a file, to the arming spindles in their bombs to have them arm a fraction of a second earlier. There are plenty of other things that could have gone better for them. What if they had invested in even a dozen more AM-39s for example? What if their subs and torps had worked out for them? Even what if they had invaded a bit later in the year? These are not what ifs, the Argentinians had bought more than 5 AM-39s, that was the first batch delivered and it wasn't operational, so they had them work, the European embargo prevented further deliveries (them evil yurropeans, you know...). They mounted ship based Exocets ashore and it worked well enough. The bomb thing wasn't lack of expertise arming bombs (and no conscript would be allowed to do that BTW) but one of lack of experience because the Air Force never planned on attacking ships and never trained doing it until after the invasion. Navy A-4Qs worked well enough but there were few and had to be pulled out of retirement. The sub problem was also one in which they were caught unpreprared because they were retiring the Guppys (Santa Fe was barely operational and Santiago del Estero was already decommissioned) and replacing them with the TR-1700, while the 209s were old enough (delivered in the mid-70s) that they were in their maintenace cycle already, to which it can be added that the torpedoes hadn't been tested. Again lack of experience. An invasion later in 1982 would have happened in the middle of the winter, a bad idea given their unpreparedness. An invasion in 1983 would have been better only if the Junta was able to keep the country from falling apart and invested in the readiness of the armed forces, neither of which is a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. In what way was 1982 vintage Sea Dart ineffectual vs RIM-66? The only thing I can think of offhand is low rate of fire due to safety interlocks? It was continually upgraded and later versions had datalink enabling trajectory shaping to enhance range considerably. One shot down a Silkworm heading for a US BB in the Gulf in 1991. If you are going to go with what if's, the biggest for me is simply what if the Argentines had taken a lathe, or even a file, to the arming spindles in their bombs to have them arm a fraction of a second earlier. There are plenty of other things that could have gone better for them. What if they had invested in even a dozen more AM-39s for example? What if their subs and torps had worked out for them? Even what if they had invaded a bit later in the year? These are not what ifs, the Argentinians had bought more than 5 AM-39s, that was the first batch delivered and it wasn't operational, so they had them work, the European embargo prevented further deliveries (them evil yurropeans, you know...). They mounted ship based Exocets ashore and it worked well enough. The bomb thing wasn't lack of expertise arming bombs (and no conscript would be allowed to do that BTW) but one of lack of experience because the Air Force never planned on attacking ships and never trained doing it until after the invasion. Navy A-4Qs worked well enough but there were few and had to be pulled out of retirement. The sub problem was also one in which they were caught unpreprared because they were retiring the Guppys (Santa Fe was barely operational and Santiago del Estero was already decommissioned) and replacing them with the TR-1700, while the 209s were old enough (delivered in the mid-70s) that they were in their maintenace cycle already, to which it can be added that the torpedoes hadn't been tested. Again lack of experience. An invasion later in 1982 would have happened in the middle of the winter, a bad idea given their unpreparedness. An invasion in 1983 would have been better only if the Junta was able to keep the country from falling apart and invested in the readiness of the armed forces, neither of which is a given. They actually made a convincing case they got with torpedo range of a British frigate and fired at it, but the torpedo's failed. There was a real dust up with the West German manufacturers when the war was over. Nice thing about the Mark8, it was well run in.... If they had invaded a year or two later, we would have sold invincible and had one less carrier (maybe none). We would have had to beg a flattop off the Americans to go south, which would have been interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. In what way was 1982 vintage Sea Dart ineffectual vs RIM-66? The only thing I can think of offhand is low rate of fire due to safety interlocks? It was continually upgraded and later versions had datalink enabling trajectory shaping to enhance range considerably. One shot down a Silkworm heading for a US BB in the Gulf in 1991. If you are going to go with what if's, the biggest for me is simply what if the Argentines had taken a lathe, or even a file, to the arming spindles in their bombs to have them arm a fraction of a second earlier. There are plenty of other things that could have gone better for them. What if they had invested in even a dozen more AM-39s for example? What if their subs and torps had worked out for them? Even what if they had invaded a bit later in the year? These are not what ifs, the Argentinians had bought more than 5 AM-39s, that was the first batch delivered and it wasn't operational, so they had them work, the European embargo prevented further deliveries (them evil yurropeans, you know...). They mounted ship based Exocets ashore and it worked well enough. The bomb thing wasn't lack of expertise arming bombs (and no conscript would be allowed to do that BTW) but one of lack of experience because the Air Force never planned on attacking ships and never trained doing it until after the invasion. Navy A-4Qs worked well enough but there were few and had to be pulled out of retirement. The sub problem was also one in which they were caught unpreprared because they were retiring the Guppys (Santa Fe was barely operational and Santiago del Estero was already decommissioned) and replacing them with the TR-1700, while the 209s were old enough (delivered in the mid-70s) that they were in their maintenace cycle already, to which it can be added that the torpedoes hadn't been tested. Again lack of experience. An invasion later in 1982 would have happened in the middle of the winter, a bad idea given their unpreparedness. An invasion in 1983 would have been better only if the Junta was able to keep the country from falling apart and invested in the readiness of the armed forces, neither of which is a given. They actually made a convincing case they got with torpedo range of a British frigate and fired at it, but the torpedo's failed. There was a real dust up with the West German manufacturers when the war was over. Nice thing about the Mark8, it was well run in.... If they had invaded a year or two later, we would have sold invincible and had one less carrier (maybe none). We would have had to beg a flattop off the Americans to go south, which would have been interesting. But that assumes the Argentinians are somehow better off. The economy was tanking already and they were inducting new equipment with limited investment, so their readiness would also go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape). I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time. In what way was 1982 vintage Sea Dart ineffectual vs RIM-66? The only thing I can think of offhand is low rate of fire due to safety interlocks? It was continually upgraded and later versions had datalink enabling trajectory shaping to enhance range considerably. One shot down a Silkworm heading for a US BB in the Gulf in 1991. If you are going to go with what if's, the biggest for me is simply what if the Argentines had taken a lathe, or even a file, to the arming spindles in their bombs to have them arm a fraction of a second earlier. There are plenty of other things that could have gone better for them. What if they had invested in even a dozen more AM-39s for example? What if their subs and torps had worked out for them? Even what if they had invaded a bit later in the year? These are not what ifs, the Argentinians had bought more than 5 AM-39s, that was the first batch delivered and it wasn't operational, so they had them work, the European embargo prevented further deliveries (them evil yurropeans, you know...). They mounted ship based Exocets ashore and it worked well enough. The bomb thing wasn't lack of expertise arming bombs (and no conscript would be allowed to do that BTW) but one of lack of experience because the Air Force never planned on attacking ships and never trained doing it until after the invasion. Navy A-4Qs worked well enough but there were few and had to be pulled out of retirement. The sub problem was also one in which they were caught unpreprared because they were retiring the Guppys (Santa Fe was barely operational and Santiago del Estero was already decommissioned) and replacing them with the TR-1700, while the 209s were old enough (delivered in the mid-70s) that they were in their maintenace cycle already, to which it can be added that the torpedoes hadn't been tested. Again lack of experience. An invasion later in 1982 would have happened in the middle of the winter, a bad idea given their unpreparedness. An invasion in 1983 would have been better only if the Junta was able to keep the country from falling apart and invested in the readiness of the armed forces, neither of which is a given. They actually made a convincing case they got with torpedo range of a British frigate and fired at it, but the torpedo's failed. There was a real dust up with the West German manufacturers when the war was over. Nice thing about the Mark8, it was well run in.... If they had invaded a year or two later, we would have sold invincible and had one less carrier (maybe none). We would have had to beg a flattop off the Americans to go south, which would have been interesting. But that assumes the Argentinians are somehow better off. The economy was tanking already and they were inducting new equipment with limited investment, so their readiness would also go down. They were THAT bad off in 1982? I knew they did it for a reason, to help distract public discontent, but I didnt know it was tanking that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 From the wiki: When the military dictatorship finance minister Martinez de Hoz assumed power, inflation was equivalent to an annual rate of 5000%, and output had declined sharply.[117] In 1976, the era of import substitution was ended, and the government lowered import barriers, liberalized restrictions on foreign borrowing, and supported the peso against foreign currencies.[9] That exposed the fact that domestic firms could not compete with foreign imports because of the overvalued currency and long-term structural problems.[116] A financial reform was implemented that aimed both to liberalize capital markets and to link Argentina more effectively with the world capital market.[117] After the relatively stable years of 1976 to 1978, fiscal deficits started to climb again, and the external debt tripled in three years.[118] The increased debt burden interrupted industrial development and upward social mobility.[119] From 1978, the rate of exchange depreciation was fixed with a tablita, an active crawling peg that was based on a timetable to announce a gradually-declining rate of depreciation.[117][120] The announcements were repeated on a rolling basis to create an environment in which economic agents could discern a government commitment to deflation.[117] Inflation gradually fell throughout 1980 to below 100%.[117] However, in 1978 and 1979, the real exchange rate appreciated because inflation consistently outpaced the rate of depreciation.[117] The overvaluation ultimately led to capital flight and a financial collapse.[117] The failure of Banco de Intercambio Regional, in March 1980, led to runs on other banks.[121]Growing government spending, large wage raises, and inefficient production created a chronic inflation that rose through the 1980s, when it briefly exceeded an annual rate of 1000%.[9] Successive regimes tried to control inflation by wage and price controls, cuts in public spending, and restriction of the money supply.[9] Efforts to stem the problems came to naught when in 1982 Argentina came into conflict with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands.[118] Timeline of Argentine exports from 1975 to 1989In August 1982, after Mexico had announced its inability to service its debt, Argentina approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for financial assistance, as it too was in serious difficulties.[118] While developments looked positive for a while, an IMF staff team visiting Buenos Aires in August 1983 discovered a variety of problems, particularly a loss of control over wages affecting both the budget and external competitiveness, and the program failed.[118] With the peso quickly losing value to inflation, the new Argentine peso argentino was introduced in 1983, with 10,000 old pesos exchanged for each new peso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Yes, I was aware they had more AM39 on order. I should have said taken delivery of earlier. The bomb arming thing was not about lack of expertise and it affected the Navy more as they were attacking at lower altitde. They figured it out from news reports of dud bombs and were going to shorten the spindles but time ran out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 From the wiki: When the military dictatorship finance minister Martinez de Hoz assumed power, inflation was equivalent to an annual rate of 5000%, and output had declined sharply.[117] In 1976, the era of import substitution was ended, and the government lowered import barriers, liberalized restrictions on foreign borrowing, and supported the peso against foreign currencies.[9] That exposed the fact that domestic firms could not compete with foreign imports because of the overvalued currency and long-term structural problems.[116] A financial reform was implemented that aimed both to liberalize capital markets and to link Argentina more effectively with the world capital market.[117] After the relatively stable years of 1976 to 1978, fiscal deficits started to climb again, and the external debt tripled in three years.[118] The increased debt burden interrupted industrial development and upward social mobility.[119] From 1978, the rate of exchange depreciation was fixed with a tablita, an active crawling peg that was based on a timetable to announce a gradually-declining rate of depreciation.[117][120] The announcements were repeated on a rolling basis to create an environment in which economic agents could discern a government commitment to deflation.[117] Inflation gradually fell throughout 1980 to below 100%.[117] However, in 1978 and 1979, the real exchange rate appreciated because inflation consistently outpaced the rate of depreciation.[117] The overvaluation ultimately led to capital flight and a financial collapse.[117] The failure of Banco de Intercambio Regional, in March 1980, led to runs on other banks.[121]Growing government spending, large wage raises, and inefficient production created a chronic inflation that rose through the 1980s, when it briefly exceeded an annual rate of 1000%.[9] Successive regimes tried to control inflation by wage and price controls, cuts in public spending, and restriction of the money supply.[9] Efforts to stem the problems came to naught when in 1982 Argentina came into conflict with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands.[118] Timeline of Argentine exports from 1975 to 1989In August 1982, after Mexico had announced its inability to service its debt, Argentina approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for financial assistance, as it too was in serious difficulties.[118] While developments looked positive for a while, an IMF staff team visiting Buenos Aires in August 1983 discovered a variety of problems, particularly a loss of control over wages affecting both the budget and external competitiveness, and the program failed.[118] With the peso quickly losing value to inflation, the new Argentine peso argentino was introduced in 1983, with 10,000 old pesos exchanged for each new peso. Dear God. Im amazed they did as well as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Yes, I was aware they had more AM39 on order. I should have said taken delivery of earlier. The bomb arming thing was not about lack of expertise and it affected the Navy more as they were attacking at lower altitde. They figured it out from news reports of dud bombs and were going to shorten the spindles but time ran out. If they did that, they were going to get a lot of aircraft fragged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) News reports of dud bombs...😖 Edited July 19, 2019 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 There was quite a few, more than I recall from the news reports at the time (Glasgow was completely new to me.)http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm The best publicised I think was Antelope, which only blew up and sank when an Army bomb disposal team went on board and tried to defuse a bomb. Had the wrong fuse extractor, because someone in the task force figured the proper one wasnt important enough to carry. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted July 19, 2019 Author Share Posted July 19, 2019 Were the Argentines using Snakeye-type retarders at any point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 The loss of HMS Ardent I see is described as including standard and retarded bombs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ardent_(F184) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now