It seems he was in Buenos Aires - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-mother-jones-story-on-his-war-reporting.html
HMS EAGLE in the Falklands
- Thread starter flasheart
- Start date
It seems he was in Buenos Aires - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-mother-jones-story-on-his-war-reporting.html
@flasheart could we get an view of the Argentina military brass talking to each other after these losses as didn't the different departments not like each other and it was the navy who pushed for the conflict.
A lot of cursing at and blaming the other guy, with a lot "how do we get out of this" in the mix...
Another point, from the Argentine side: to what extent does the "man on the street" knows of the current situation? The people will get angry fast, if this disaster becomes public...
This is a question for everyone how much is the Argentina junta willing to throw away to get some points? After Belgrano they tried attacking the fleet with some success. Even though the brits are much stronger here to keep the population under control they might have to attack anyway.
Sorry if it doesn't make sense what im asking would the junta commit to high risk guaranteed heavy casualty battles like doing the what the Soviets do and use numbers and broad strength. Will they order alot of the airforce to just attack a and hope some get through the british defence mass air battles just sending entire groups waves of planes to take on the British planes. Straight up order the navy to attak even if they most likely would are at a disadvantage, to try and get some victories.
If someone understands what im asking can you word better what im asking or ask the question better as i cant think of the correct words.
RodentRevolution
Banned
OTL the limit on the size of air attacks was the fact the Argentine Air Force only had two tanker aircraft. Here the Argentines look to have been making more serious preparations to increase the capacity of the Stanley strip to better support fast jets but conversely the RN has greater striking power to suppress that potential.
Riain
Banned
Apparently Stanley airfild wss built on a solid bedrock base, so bombs dropped from high altitude would only scab a bit off the top rather than penetrate and cause 'heave' and lower level bombs landed at oblique angles and tended to skip before exploding. It was a difficult runway to knock out.
SsgtC
Banned
While that may very well be true, if your repair equipment and materials were also hit, that's still gonna hurt. Hell, or if your men just aren't that competent.
On the contrary, the 1,000 lbers dropped from height cratered nicely - indeed, the crater from Black Buck I was found to be back filled with rubble and a good many oil drums when 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers began repairs. The other four craters, resulting from low level retarded attack, were less deep, although craters nonetheless, & additionally, there were over a thousand 'scabs' of the type to which you refer, caused mainly by submunitions & naval gunfire.
But, as Schlock & SsgtC say, all of this matters not one jot if your ability to store fuel, weapons and any number of other services and facilities essential for fast jet operations no longer exists.
And I don't fancy the chances of OTL's resupply flights by C-130 & F28 much in this TL, either.
*EDIT*
This is work beginning on an area of 'scabbing'. It might not be a crater in the true sense, but I wouldn't much fancy rolling over it in my Mirage III or Dagger at 150 knots..
Crater-Repair-RAF-Stanley-1 (1) by Frank Judge, on Flickr
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Ok, maybe it was the toss bombing that skipped and the problem with high altitude was accuracy.
IIUC the aim of the durndal and other anti runway weapons is to punch through the concrete and explode, not only making a deep hole but to make a big upwards heaved cracking area that has to be underpinned or removed and replaced. IIUC the Stanley airfield wasn't cratered like this, and the nature of its construction meant it couldn't be, which is why it wasn't closed despite constant attacks.
IIUC the aim of the durndal and other anti runway weapons is to punch through the concrete and explode, not only making a deep hole but to make a big upwards heaved cracking area that has to be underpinned or removed and replaced. IIUC the Stanley airfield wasn't cratered like this, and the nature of its construction meant it couldn't be, which is why it wasn't closed despite constant attacks.
@flasheart
Please please keep up the good work on this, I cant wait to the next installment, to see the Argentine response.
I have been trying to game out the thread as its unfolded on Command Naval Air Ops.
Its been a long time since I enjoyed a thread as much as this.
Regards
Butch
Please please keep up the good work on this, I cant wait to the next installment, to see the Argentine response.
I have been trying to game out the thread as its unfolded on Command Naval Air Ops.
Its been a long time since I enjoyed a thread as much as this.
Regards
Butch
Jack1971
Banned
If the Argies still go ahead with the invasion knowing Eagle and Phantoms are at all a possibility, I'd say they include Stanley airfield defence and upgrades in their immediate plans. Stanley needs SAMs, radar and Mirage CAP. The problem is, so does the mainland.
Argentina had Roland SAMs, Orelikon 35mm radar-guided AAA and other 20mm and 30mm AAA guns around the airfields. Fixed defences are well and good, but against a modern enemy, (in this case, 1982 version firing anti-radar missiles) only as backup for proper air cover...
With a hostile Chile to the west and a not-very-friendly Brasil to the North, both right-wing military ditatorships... not a happy country...
No, they'd have a bunch of monkey model export quality gear, and everyone would be laughing at how horrible Soviet weapons are 10 years early. Plus you'd have the Americans all but openly declared co-belligerents, frothing at the mouth in eagerness to get a communist puppet out of South America.
"Hello there Mrs. Thatcher, I'm calling today to ask if you Brits need anything, and I mean anything, in your war against Argentina? Satellite recon? Funding? Eyes on the ground? A surface action group or a Forrestal that fell off the back of a truck?"
Last edited: