Would we win?

[Chris]

A soldiers JOb is to protect Britain and the Brittish people goto the Falklands and listen to how the locals speak

[Sully]

Albu, I don't think the British government took their action simply over a bunch of rocks. Control of the Islands or more importantly, I think, South Georgia gives the UK a good claim to any oil deposits that may be found in Antarctica.

Chris, I wish it was that simple. The people of Diego Garcia were British (although not of the pale skinned variety) and were evicted when the British government leased the islands to the US. Thatcher's government didn't do this by the way and it certainly isn't an argument in favour of abandoning the people of the FI. It just seems to suggest to me that protecting British people historically isn't a very good reason, it's certainly not conclusive.

I think the fact that Thatcher was hugely unpopular prior to the war and the bizarre behaviour of her government in the months leading up to it - stopping just short of laying a red carpet from Rio to Port Stanley - need to be addressed and perhaps will be one day.

Albu has a good point, all this politicking and meddling comes at a very high price to some families - would Blair be so keen to send our finest into battle if his lads were among them. I don't think the quest for oil, world domination or a personal grudge (if we believe O'Neil) on the part of Bush the Dim Reaper is worth a single British life.

I'm not a pacifist but I'm not under any illusions about what it's all about and unlike some posters here I wouldn't make a virtue out of what, sadly, is sometimes a necessity.

[Dangerous Dave]

You should read Chris Ryan's Land of Fire, it tells you what would happen.

[Sully]

Thanks for your input. No doubt Chris will sort it out. I don't think I'll bother with the book, might be a bit predictable.

[Dangerous Dave]

Well, its a good job that I read it, so I can live at ease knowing that the Falklands will always be ours forever.

On a different note, how can you say that Chris Ryan is predictable. I mean, who thought that Whinger would die. I couldn't believe Chris did that.

[Ex-URNU-Student]

The Falklands War was won mainly due to luck. If the Argies had concentrated all their Exocets on our carriers it'd have been game over.

With all the cutbacks in the navy coming our way, would we have to charter the QM2 as troop transport this time round?

[Aldo]

It wasn't down to luck if you ask me. Our Harriers managed to supress the Argies pretty well. Out of a few hundred sorties flown by the Argies only about 20 ever got near to destroying a ship, that was because the Argies aircraft couldn't get into the proper arming altitudes and distances to be able to attack properly. Plus alot of there aircraft were destroyed on the ground. These days however we have a much more capable anti aircraft defence system comprising of Harriers, SeaDarts, Seawolfs, Phalanx and Goalkeeper. Overall our fleet has around 500 missiles loaded and ready to fire at any one time.

[strongbow]

I think the media would be tightly contolled. The BBC World Service told the globe of the offensive on Goose Green before it began, allowing Argentine troops to be moved into position. The media also told the world about the majority fo Argentine bombs failing to detonate when hitting the ships. The pictures of ships still sailing with great holes in the side gives you an idea of who many bombs failed to explode. The Falklands War was a landmark on how to control the media, and many lessons have been learnt. Whether any lessons from the recent Gulf War would be implemented if we went to war over the Falklands again, hopefully, will never be known.

[Smilie-man'81]

The BBC World Service told the globe of the offensive on Goose Green before it began, allowing Argentine troops to be moved into position

The Argies didnt actually do much about that, they thought it was a hoax because nobody would be that stupid to announce and offensive just before it was going to happen.

Did anyone watch the Falklands play? I think thats what it was called, it was banned for 15 years or something.

[df2inaus]

UK forces would ultimately prevail but it would be costly, good point about the Tomohawks. The garrison on the Islands is also larger now, am I correct?

Is there such a thing as a geosynchronous orbit spy satellite that could be tasked to keep an eye on the South Atlantic?

One wonders if the Argentine servicemen would bother doing it though, they probably wouldn't even be paid and would likely mutiny.

Is Argentina still ruined financially or was the currency stabilized? It was all over the news months ago and I've read nothing since then.

[strongbow]

Smilie-man'81
The Falklands Play-An excellent piece of television. If you liked this, have you seen 'An Ungentlemanly Act'? It portrays the Argentine invasion, and the British and Falklanders response. During the 20th Anniversary, BBC 4 showed the play for the first time, and had a discussion following the play. Very interesting.

[goffer]

Interesting debate, but going back to the original question (and the general consensus that the Royal Navy couldn't muster a similar fleet) i thought i'd compare the warships available in todays Royal Navy with those that were actually in the conflict.

We had 2 carriers Hermes and Invicible, now we can assume we'd have at least 2 of Invincible, Illustrious or Ark Royal. We might even be able to muster the third depending on how long it would take to refit. So i'd say we'd have a similar carrier force able to operate.

There were 5 type 42's, one type 82 and 2 county class destroyers. Currently we have 11 type 42's, so getting 8 of them into the conflict zone would be hard pushed but not impossible.

Within the fleet there were 7 type 21, 2 type 22, 2 type 12 and 4 Leander Class frigates, 15 in total. Today we have 20 figates in total comprising mainly of type 23's and 4 type 22's. Once again we would need the majority of warships to be fit for sailing but saying it that it would still be possible to send the same number.

There were 4 submarines in theatre during the conflict, the RN today has 15 submarines so this would be achievable.

We had 2 assault ships, Fearless and Intrepid. Today we only currently have one assault ship, HMS Albion (with one more being built). However the RN does posses Ocean, which although being a helicopter assault ship would still be able to fulfill a similar role.

There were also 2 Castle class patrol ships in theatre, we still have the same 2 in service now as well as another 2 in the Island and River Classes.

Finally we had Endurance, which is still in service today.

So all in all i think that the RN could muster a simialr sized fleet as that which took part in the Falklands conflict. Obviously i'm not talking about capabilities here just like for like numbers against roles.

Do these figures surprise anyone?

[Smilie-man'81]

have you seen 'An Ungentlemanly Act'?

No, where can i find it, in a library? Ive watched a lot of documentries on sky and read a few books like Goose Green. Im really interested in the Falklands, any suggestions on whats good?

[Sully]

Smilie, you can get it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 35-1982002

It was discussed a good while back and the producer, Staurt Urban, even chipped in:

viewtopic.php?p=1553&highlight=#1553

Worth seeing mate.

[Jason The Argonaut]

If the Argies had concentrated all their Exocets on our carriers it'd have been game over.

Well the Argies were aiming to take out the carriers, they never succeed due to the good protective force surrounding carriers. And maybe the fact that Argies couldn't find the carriers helped as well.