Project Reality Forums

Sturnn wrote:and anyways...i know abit about the falklands war, there was an SAS raid on the airfield, and loads of other battles, my dads got loads of military books and i have too!.....and anyway, i thought of somthing, how come the british in PR have the same heavy machine gun as the americans do?, we have a different heavy machine gun now!.

Lol. Bit more than an SAS raid happened.

What heavy machine gun are you on about anyway? The kits are correct.

The only team thats realistically balanced in bf2 is China against either US or UK, Insurgents aren't balanced towards British or American forces as they suffer many more casualties. In the Falklands it was one nation against another with an entire navy, air force and army.. it was unbalanced as the British forces were more well equipped but no where near as unbalanced as Iraq or Afghanistan.

Argies had airbases and a whole navy they COULD have used, it wasn't what you'd call majorly unbalanced.

Actually it was some what of a balanced war.
Argentina was closer but wasn't as well armed or trained, but Britain was so far away that it couldn't bring as much power as was needed to do the job 'properly'
But all and all it was a pretty pointless little war and from what I've read wasn't very well executed by either side IMO.
As for a current battle for the islands. If Argentina actually executed a well developed plan they could probably give Britain a run for it's money, but would lose in the end.
/shrug

If they hadn't invaded the Islands would be in Argentinian hands now through political channels as it was in the process in the mid 80's.

Why was it a pointless war?

They invaded British land, you don't just sit back and let them have it.

DirtyHarry88 wrote:Why was it a pointless war?

They invaded British land, you don't just sit back and let them have it.

I was obviously referring to Argentine's side.
I mean hell Britain is a member of NATO, and while my international diplomacy skills might not be up to snub, I'm reasonably sure that an attack on their territory would have been more than enough for them to ask for over half the world's military power to come down and kick *** if you couldn't have handled it themselves.

Reyals wrote:I was obviously referring to Argentine's side.
I mean hell Britain is a member of NATO, and while my international diplomacy skills might not be up to snub, I'm reasonably sure that an attack on their territory would have been more than enough for them to ask for over half the world's military power to come down and kick *** if you couldn't have handled it themselves.

NATO stayed well clear of that one. Both America and France had provided weapons to both countries in the past.

Doubtfull it would have ever got to that stage.

strima wrote:NATO stayed well clear of that one. Both America and France had provided weapons to both countries in the past.

Doubtfull it would have ever got to that stage.

I'm not sure why that would matter... I don't know about France, but pretty much every country on earth has received American weapons at one point or another in their history and that hasn't stop us from attacking them later on yet.

Edit:
Ahhh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_lea ... klands_War
"At first glance, it appeared that the U.S. had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK as a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact"). However, the North Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs in Europe or North America north of Tropic of Cancer, and the Rio Pact only obliges the U.S. to intervene if one of the adherents to the treaty is attacked—the UK never attacked Argentina, only Argentine forces on British territory. In March, Secretary of State Alexander Haig directed the United States Ambassador to Argentina to warn the Argentine government away from any invasion. President Reagan requested assurances from Galtieri against an invasion and offered the services of his Vice President, George H.W. Bush, as mediator, but was refused."


Edit2:
Actually reading further it does look like both France and America were behind Britain just not directly.

Reyals wrote:Actually it was some what of a balanced war.
Argentina was closer but wasn't as well armed or trained, but Britain was so far away that it couldn't bring as much power as was needed to do the job 'properly'
But all and all it was a pretty pointless little war and from what I've read wasn't very well executed by either side IMO.
As for a current battle for the islands. If Argentina actually executed a well developed plan they could probably give Britain a run for it's money, but would lose in the end.
/shrug

actually the argentinian forces had way better equipment in terms of clothing and acomodiation.

after a few days in the field many of the british troops boots would begin to fall apart because of the swampi landscape and the cold and rainy weather.

also the british forces were outgunned 2:1 if not higher but they had the advantage of having the harriers covering their backs from the carriers (which argentina had none of, therefore they had to take of from the mainland (that is most of their planes)and due to the bad weather and fog at this time of year it was very hard to operate effeciently (and afterall the argentinians used french equipment))

also britain could easily have lost the war if it hadn't been for the weather, first: the only reason that the paras survived the battle of boca house, was that the earth was chilled by the weather and therefore the huge argentinian minefield they ran over didn't blow up.

secondly: BBC warned the argentinians of the arrivals of the paras in the nearby hills before the british had won at goose green and therefore they got reinforcements send in by choppers, actually the british forces were outgunned by 4:1 at this point, the british forces could easily had been killed since they were low on ammo and their morale was low, the only thing that saved them was that the argentinian commander thought that the british paras group outside of goose green was bigger than it actually were and therefore surrendered.

if it hadn't been for good luck and fortune the british could easily have lost the fight against this mandatory army.

and just found this on wiki.

Sir John has revealed that France provided Mirage and Etendard aircraft, identical to the ones that it supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against. It is also disclosed in Sir John's memoirs that France provided intelligence to help fight the Exocet missiles that it had sold to Argentina, including details of special electronic countermeasures that at the time were only known to the French armed forces. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands Crisis". As France had recently sold Super Etendard aircraft and Exocet missiles to the Argentine Navy, there was still a French team in Argentina helping to fit out the Exocets and aircraft for Argentine use at the beginning of the war.

the british was indeed lucky.

i was at a Model UN meet, Representative on the International Court of Justice from France...and this topic was discussed for hours on end...was very interesting.

Not luck just well thought out military decisions and taking calculated risks.. I would be able to argue more on this but my Dads away atm.

motherdear wrote: the british was indeed lucky.

And the Argentines were incompetent.
Thus a fair fight


Edit:

Sir. VaSs wrote:Not luck just well thought out military decisions and taking calculated risks.. I would be able to argue more on this but my Dads away atm.

No... they did get pretty lucky.


"Thirteen unexploded bombs[22] hit British ships without detonating. Lord Craig, the former Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked: “Six better fuses and we would have lost”[23] although Ardent and Antelope were both lost despite the failure of bombs to explode. The fuses were functioning correctly, and the bombs were simply released from too low an altitude.[24][25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Reyals wrote: "Thirteen unexploded bombs[22] hit British ships without detonating.

Their own fault for investing in French weaponry .

Sir. VaSs wrote:Their own fault for investing in French weaponry .

While the attacks were undoubtedly brave, the low release of the unretarded bombs (some of which, ironically, were sold to the Argentine FAA by the British years earlier) meant that many never exploded as there was insufficient time in the air for them to arm themselves. Simple free-fall bombs will, at low altitude, impact almost directly below the dropping aircraft, therefore there is a minimum safe altitude for release. The pilots would doubtless have been aware of this, but in the heat of bomb alley, many failed to climb to the necessary release point. The problem was solved by the improvised fitting of retarding devices, allowing low-level bombing attacks as employed on June 8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

the bombs dosnt explot because they had a delay (like 2 seg) before they detonate , to avoid that the plane was damage by his own bomb (to avoid the radar , the A4 fly very near to the water , only 10 m over the sea) but the shield of the british ships was to weak , so the bomb only pass like a knife in butter .

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:the bombs dosnt explot because they had a delay (like 2 seg) before they detonate , to avoid that the plane was damage by his own bomb (to avoid the radar , the A4 fly very near to the water , only 10 m over the sea) but the shield of the british ships was to weak , so the bomb only pass like a knife in butter .

Yah? That was mentioned in my post directly above yours...
What's your point.

we kicked their arse

Sir. VaSs wrote:Not luck just well thought out military decisions and taking calculated risks.. I would be able to argue more on this but my Dads away atm.

Balls, sweat and audasity as it's known in miltary terms.