What if, before the war, the Argentinians decide to let the Israelis tinker with the Belgrano?
Like let them chip all the paint away that stopped the watertight doors from closing?
What if, before the war, the Argentinians decide to let the Israelis tinker with the Belgrano?
Like let them chip all the paint away that stopped the watertight doors from closing?
You have no imagination.
Rail guns! Drones with hellfire missiles! Laser anti-torpedo zapping system!
The USA DID back the British!
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.
You have no imagination.
Rail guns! Drones with hellfire missiles! Laser anti-torpedo zapping system!
Well, apart from the accelerated supply of the most modern versions of the Sidewinders, satellite images, continuing information supply through the Mission, and so on.
There's a long answer to my point but the short answer is that it wasn't their war. There were many documented political issues and geo-political reasons too. But there is that too: it wasn't America's war to fight. The Falklands weren't covered by NATO and no formal request was made by the UK to have the Americans fight for Britain.
Britain got those super-duper Sidewinders and the US was kind enough to let Britain use their airbase at Ascension when it was British territory.
America didn't have to fight with Britain and it would have been easier if they had, but they didn't because it wasn't their war.
To both Hipper and Rianin. 100 nautical miles is about 10 hours combined closing speeds. By the way, the only chance a stalking nuke boat has against a listening SAG is by creeping speed closure. Besides we have WW II examples of how slow diesel electrics killed carriers. More than a dozen examples from Ark Royal to Wasp to Taiho.. , so a 100 nautical mile stalk is nothing when a carrier is pinned to an operational area by the range limit of its aircraft.
Just saying.
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.
I would be surprised if there was that much concern that an enemy warship that had the potential to inflict damage on British troop carrying vessels was attacked and sunk.
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.
Really? Nine Lima Sidewinders; Stinger missiles; M16A2 for the SAS; use of Ascension Island and Lajes; transfers of fuel, ammunition and Harrier spares; and the biggie: US National Technical Means (satellite surveillance of Argentina/Malvinas)
Ask calbear.
I posted some pictures earlier of USAF C-5s at Ascencion Island. I don’t think they were carrying diapers and baby formula.
I lived in the north of England in 1982, near ports that supplied STUFT ships to the Task Force - I was ten years old. I could not find one adult (not even relatives who were WW2 veterans, RN veterans) who could explain, much less justify, why we drowned 320 sailors.
Maybe it was different in Westminster, Romford, Birmingham or Swindon.
Really? Nine Lima Sidewinders; Stinger missiles; M16A2 for the SAS; use of Ascension Island and Lajes; transfers of fuel, ammunition and Harrier spares; and the biggie: US National Technical Means (satellite surveillance of Argentina/Malvinas)
Ask calbear.
I’ve never seen any of the Falkland admirals claim they saw anything from satellite surveillance.
I find it difficult to believe that not one adult could come up with the view that: it was a war; the Belgrano was an enemy warship
Hmmmmm, why might that be?
Any ideas?[/QUOTE ]
Because the weather was so crap that many of the handful of passes per day over that part of the world yielded little information of value?