[Bacardi4206]

Argentina be crazy, seems to be a lot of that going around lately with political leaders.

[Canadian_Mind]

bootlegga bootlegga:

uwish uwish:

Not sure is 500 army personel and 4 fighters with 1 destroyer constitutes a respectable force or not.

Definately not enough to fend off the Argentinians if they decided to do a quick strike

That being said, the UK military is being cut by 25% and likley could not defend the falklands while being deployed in Iraq and Af. Their own military leaders had publicly stated they would have a very hard time doing anything in the Falklands if something were to happen.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

500 men and 4 Eurofighters? Doesn't sound like much to me. They do have the rapid responce team but the actual current deployment isn't overly large. Mind you it may be big enough to discourage Argentina from trying anything.

Well, I'll admit I'm not up-to-date on the military capabilities of Argentina, but if Wikipedia is accurate, those 4 Typhoons are more than a match for the entire Argentinian air force (which only has two dozen fighters - all decades old and close to obsolete). The Argentinian Navy is a bit better off, but against Astute class SSNs, most of it wouldn't last long. Likewise, the Army is using equipment from the 80s (or older), like M113s (which Canada retired years ago) and tanks from the mid-1980s.

While I'm sure that Argentina could take the islands back, but with the force that the UK has stationed there, it would cost them dearly, probably a couple of ships, a dozen or more planes and a couple hundred troops.

I don't see Argentina willing to go toe-to-toe with the Brits state-of-the-art equipment when most of their equipment is obsolete and out of date.

We're still using M113s. We have over 1000 in service right now, more than any other vehicle platform... Also, all of our tanks were either built in the 60s, or the 80s. The only "modern" equipment we really have is IFVs from the 1990s, 20 tank turrets from the 1990s, and a bunch of piece of shit stirling procured by the conservatives.

Just because their shit is old doesn't mean they can't use it effectively.

Further, the whole point of this article is that Argentina is looking to procure a modern naval asset. I'm not faulting you for it, but you hardly even know what our kit and capabilities are, and it's all publicly available.. Who knows what the Argies have that they've managed to keep under the radar.

[Exocet82]

New to this forum. t is unbelievable that there is so much ignorance n the subject.
Before you make threats, better inform yourselves!

[PluggyRug]

Exocet82 Exocet82:

New to this forum. t is unbelievable that there is so much ignorance n the subject.
Before you make threats, better inform yourselves!

And?

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well, I'll admit I'm not up-to-date on the military capabilities of Argentina, but if Wikipedia is accurate, those 4 Typhoons are more than a match for the entire Argentinian air force (which only has two dozen fighters - all decades old and close to obsolete). The Argentinian Navy is a bit better off, but against Astute class SSNs, most of it wouldn't last long. Likewise, the Army is using equipment from the 80s (or older), like M113s (which Canada retired years ago) and tanks from the mid-1980s.

While I'm sure that Argentina could take the islands back, but with the force that the UK has stationed there, it would cost them dearly, probably a couple of ships, a dozen or more planes and a couple hundred troops.

I don't see Argentina willing to go toe-to-toe with the Brits state-of-the-art equipment when most of their equipment is obsolete and out of date.

We're still using M113s. We have over 1000 in service right now, more than any other vehicle platform... Also, all of our tanks were either built in the 60s, or the 80s. The only "modern" equipment we really have is IFVs from the 1990s, 20 tank turrets from the 1990s, and a bunch of piece of shit stirling procured by the conservatives.

Just because their shit is old doesn't mean they can't use it effectively.

Further, the whole point of this article is that Argentina is looking to procure a modern naval asset. I'm not faulting you for it, but you hardly even know what our kit and capabilities are, and it's all publicly available.. Who knows what the Argies have that they've managed to keep under the radar.

First off, we're not talking about what Canada is using, we're talking about a hypothetical conflict between Argentina and the UK. To my knowledge, they aren't using M113s or TAMS, they are using Challenger 2s and upgraded FV430s, so the gap in equipment is HUGE.

Secondly, to my knowledge we're aren't using M113s as frontline APC/IFVs, they serve as command vehicles, ambulances and other support roles (I think we might use some as mortar platforms like the US still does) - but we are planning on phasing out the few hundred we still have left in service (out of over a thousand originally purchased) by the end of the decade. My point about the M113 is that most modern armies (IIRC the UK never bought them) have relegated to a secondary role and let more modern APCs/IFVs take their place in combat situations (such as Canada has done). Argentina however, still appears to use them as frontline APCs.

Thirdly, I never discounted the Argentinian equipment solely on its age. I also discounted it because of the combat experience the Brits have gained in the past decade as well as their much more modern equipment. Their navy is far more capable of dealing with a cruise missile attack then the fleet in 1982 was. Their pilots also undoubtedly have experience in CAS, as well as tons of training in AA, so they have a big edge there too. There are other intangibles I never mentioned but should be obvious to you too (more and better training, better communications/electronic warfare, etc).

I doubt the Argentinians have managed to keep anything under cover. After all, they've just announced they're building a nuclear sub. And even if they did manage to keep some sort of superweapon under wraps, I'd still give the edge to the Brits.

Finally, given your obvious military expertise and knowledge, I'm sure you'd agree that control of the air in a battle is kind of important these days, no? And who do you think will have air superiority? The guys with modern Typhoons or the guys flying Mirages from 60s/70s? Even outnumbered 5 to 1, I'll give the edge to the modern planes with better radar, better electronics, better missiles flown by pilots with more hours and more training everyday.

No, as I said, Argentina could definitely seize the Falklands if they chose to, but they'd suffer far more casualties this time around (then they did on the initial seizure in 1982) given the British force currently in place. The current force is a strong deterrent against Argentinian adventurism, but it's not supposed to stop an Argentinian invasion, just bloody its nose (which it most definitely would).

[Canadian_Mind]

I think technology is played up way more than it should be. But like you said, at the end of the day, it's the training that matters and it's in the training that the British will have the edge.

As for the M113s, I wish they'd bring the Lynx (the M113/2) back into service. All the LAV 25s were ever procured for were for training/peacekeeping. They don't make the most effective frontline vehicles, at least not in the recce role. Nor did we purchase enough of them to account for attrition should they be used outside anything but training/peacekeeping.

And yes, they announced a nuke sub. But what about all the little things on the battlefield that actually matter they might not have talked about? I'm not talking super weapons, but better radios, night vision Equipment, medical and armour advances, etc. I already said tech isn't really a big deal, but don't discount that the Argies might have something simple that helps even the playing field.

And despite radar and weapons advances, shit happens in the air. That's as far as I'll go with that, cause the airforce really isn't my cup of tea. But on the ground, Even with a troop (ie 4) Leo 2A6M Can, I wouldn't dare go toe to toe with 20 T-72s, despite them being 30 years older. conversely, even with a troop of LAV 25 Coyotes (8), I wouldn't go up against 40 BTR-60s. The gun, armour, mobility, and technology in our vehicles is all vastly superior to that of the Russian kit, but we'd still be overrun and destroyed.

As for your last paragraph, I agree. The Argies will take the island. But the Brits would eventually steamroll them in return, even if they were on their own.

I think we draw the same conclusions, just have differing opinions on technicalities, and got off on the wrong foot. Sorry Boots.

[CommanderSock]

Wait, what's with the Obama bashing here? It took 1 post to bring up that name.

Didn't Reagan just "stay out of the way" during the Falklands war? He didn't seem to side with any particular government. He ideologically supported Britain, but if the Argies downed the British I doubt USA would jump in.

Why should Obama? If UK and Argentina want to strangle each other over a tiny island, then let them I think America has more pressing issues to attend to.

[martin14]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Wait, what's with the Obama bashing here? It took 1 post to bring up that name.

Didn't Reagan just "stay out of the way" during the Falklands war? He didn't seem to side with any particular government. He ideologically supported Britain, but if the Argies downed the British I doubt USA would jump in.

Why should Obama? If UK and Argentina want to strangle each other over a tiny island, then let them I think America has more pressing issues to attend to.

The US didnt stay out of the way, they provided intelligence and equipment for the Brits.

And political support, something Barry may not do, given the snubs he loves
to give to Western countries.


Remember the political support we got from the US regarding our membership
on the Security Council ?

[CommanderSock]

martin14 martin14:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Wait, what's with the Obama bashing here? It took 1 post to bring up that name.

Didn't Reagan just "stay out of the way" during the Falklands war? He didn't seem to side with any particular government. He ideologically supported Britain, but if the Argies downed the British I doubt USA would jump in.

Why should Obama? If UK and Argentina want to strangle each other over a tiny island, then let them I think America has more pressing issues to attend to.

The US didnt stay out of the way, they provided intelligence and equipment for the Brits.

And political support, something Barry may not do, given the snubs he loves
to give to Western countries.


Remember the political support we got from the US regarding our membership
on the Security Council ?

That makes total sense. Barry is not a WASP. When the US has a WASP president, he can support the Brits all he wants. The truth is, the US is moving demographically away from Britain/Western Europe, and culturally too. They Euro-America 300 year old honeymoon is coming to an abrupt end.

The same for Canada, we're now far more Asian-centric, and Asian issues will probably be just as, if not more important than European ones. Harper can give us a free trade deal with the EU, but he can't change our demographics and national interests at the grassroots level.

The US is certainly already there, their voting patterns (extreme left, extreme right) confirm this.

[saturn_656]

$1:

Why should Obama? If UK and Argentina want to strangle each other over a tiny island, then let them I think America has more pressing issues to attend to.

Good thing the UK (and others) didn't have that attitude when the US was looking for allies to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

If an ally won't come to your side when you're being invaded, then you seriosuly need to reconsider that relationship.

[saturn_656]

$1:

The same for Canada, we're now far more Asian-centric, and Asian issues will probably be just as, if not more important than European ones.

I don't think we're living in the same Canada.

[Batsy]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

If GB wants the Falkland Islands to remain the Falkland Islands then they had better get some military assets down there fairly soon especially seeing that Obama (unlike Reagan) would be inclined to side with Argentina and screw our ally GB.

I shouldn't worry about the Argie navy. It only has about 40 ships.

[CommanderSock]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

The same for Canada, we're now far more Asian-centric, and Asian issues will probably be just as, if not more important than European ones.

I don't think we're living in the same Canada.

If you're living in a smaller town, then we probably do live in different countries.

I've been to Vancouver and know all about which way it swings. Calgary is not far behind, it's changing rapidly. And I live in the heart of Toronto and can tell you it's no European transplant city anymore.

Of course when I travel to the 905/519 areas, I'm always shocked at how different they are. Anyways, a digression.

[Batsy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm sure the RN isn't the least bit worried about a submarine made by Argentina. What's more worrying is that first Brazil and now Argentina are building nuke subs - it sounds like an arms race is brewing down there.

Brazil and Argentina are big allies, not only in football but also politically.

I'd be more worried about Brazil's military than Argentina's. Brazil has a population of 191 million and has an army numbering around 236,000 personnel, compared with Britain's 143,310 personnel - plus 122,000 regular reserves - and Canada's 35,500 personnel. Its total armed forces number 371,199 personnel, making them the second largest in the whole of the Americas.

Although I think Brazil are an ally of Britain anyway, despite its support for Argentina over the Falklands.

[Batsy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A little bird once told me that when the Argies saber rattled last year over the Falklands that someone informed them via unofficial channels of UK plans for dealing with the next Argie attack on the Falklands. In short, the UK has altered its policies since 1982 and the next war won't have a cute little 'hostility zone' where British civilians can be killed but Argie civilians are off the table. Next time around will be a real war with Argentine cities and infrastructure targeted for reduction.

Not including the Hong Kong laundrymen onboard some of the six British ships that were hit by the Argies in the Falklands War - some of which, like HMS Sheffield, were sunk - there were only two civilian fatalities in the Falklands War. Both were female Falkland Islanders who were killed by British "friendly fire."