Falkland islands protest outside Brit embassy in BA

[The UK in Exile]

no more difficult than 1982. when they faced far stronger opposition. Royal naval strength may have declined in absolute terms, but relative to argentina... nope.

Hardly. British forces suffered severe supply shortages all the way through the Falklands War, and probably would have taken a lot more losses had the Argines manage to get a few more transports.

yes.

too bad the argentinan navy makes the french navy look heroic and the swiss sailing team look fearsome.

[Machtergreifung]

Hardly. British forces suffered severe supply shortages all the way through the Falklands War, and probably would have taken a lot more losses had the Argines manage to get a few more transports.

yes.

too bad the argentinan navy makes the french navy look heroic and the swiss sailing team look fearsome.

A old WW2 crusier and a submarine seems a fair trade for four modern warships.

[Kouralia]

Hardly. British forces suffered severe supply shortages all the way through the Falklands War, and probably would have taken a lot more losses had the Argines manage to get a few more transports.

yes.

too bad the argentinan navy makes the french navy look heroic and the swiss sailing team look fearsome.

They are heroic! Remember that time they heroically got shelled by the British before they could become Heroic Collaborators!

[The UK in Exile]

yes.

too bad the argentinan navy makes the french navy look heroic and the swiss sailing team look fearsome.

A old WW2 crusier and a submarine seems a fair trade for four modern warships.

Losing isn't a good trade for winning.

getting blown up by the british and running back to the harbour leaving the air force to fight your battles is not trading.

[Machtergreifung]

A old WW2 crusier and a submarine seems a fair trade for four modern warships.

Losing isn't a good trade for winning.

getting blown up by the british and running back to the harbour leaving the air force to fight your battles is not trading.

Yes, because the what your "best navy in the world" loses four warships and a pair of transports to aircraft just isnt cricket! Because they cheated!

[Cromarty]

4. Any ships from the Falklands are subjected to a 3,800 mile sail to Ascension to resupply/rearm the battlegroup.

Psst, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary still exist broski.

[The UK in Exile]

Losing isn't a good trade for winning.

getting blown up by the british and running back to the harbour leaving the air force to fight your battles is not trading.

Yes, because the what your "best navy in the world" loses four warships and a pair of transports to aircraft just isnt cricket! Because they cheated!

didn't say they cheated. just that since the navy didn't come and play, they don't get any credit for taking part. the RN sunk a cruiser and a submarine for no loss.
losses aren't important, winning is.

[Malgrave]

Losing isn't a good trade for winning.

getting blown up by the british and running back to the harbour leaving the air force to fight your battles is not trading.

Yes, because the what your "best navy in the world" loses four warships and a pair of transports to aircraft just isnt cricket! Because they cheated!

I don't think anyone made the statement that the Royal Navy was the best in the world during the 1980's.

You should look into the details why these vessels actually sunk. The frigates that sunk had outdated anti-aircraft radar that did not get sufficient warning of any missile or air attack that was not assisted by the terrain and were armed with obsolete anti-aircraft missiles that could only intercept aircraft at a head interception level and the transports did not have any weapons that could defend against missile attacks, hell people even resorted to attaching LMG's to the deck.

The Royal Navy in destroying these "old destroyers and frigates" managed to stop the Argentine Navy from getting involved in the war when the Argentine Navy could of done some serious damage considering the early period of the conflict the entire liberation would have been scrapped even if one of the aircraft carriers was put out of action considering how important air superiority was in the conflict.

I would call that a victory.

[Malgrave]

4. Any ships from the Falklands are subjected to a 3,800 mile sail to Ascension to resupply/rearm the battlegroup.

Psst, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary still exist broski.

According to him ships can't refuel whilst travelling and it's not like the Type 45 destroyer can travel over 5,000 miles without needing refuelling.

[Caragonia]

...yet you haven't actually addressed how this means that the logistical tasks involved in an operation by the British military to retake or defend the Falklands now would be impossible, when shipping now has much further range (as one of many examples of how things are different.)

1. No deep water port under British influence in the region. Cape Town, at best, Gib at worst.
2. Ascension has no major port facilites.
3. UK lacks sufficent air transport capability to move everything thats needed by air.
4. Any ships from the Falklands are subjected to a 3,800 mile sail to Ascension to resupply/rearm the battlegroup.
5. Any ships damaged in the fighting have to sail to Ascension also.
6. Ascension has little in the way of fuel stocks (During the Falklands War, the Americans handed over thier fuel stocks on the island, which was the main reason the British got their at all!)

British logistical problems would not be impossible, but very difficult. Any severe losses to transport capability, and the ball is firmly in the Argentine quarter.

no more difficult than 1982. when they faced far stronger opposition. Royal naval strength may have declined in absolute terms, but relative to argentina... nope.

Hardly. British forces suffered severe supply shortages all the way through the Falklands War, and probably would have taken a lot more losses had the Argines manage to get a few more transports.

Would you like to know the top result on Google search for 'Supply shortages in the Falklands War'?

This thread. In point of fact, your very comment.

Now, to demolish your illusions in regards to the inadequacy of British logistics during that campaign.

Quote from Captain L. E. Middleton RN, HMS Hermes1
"The logistics chain was one of the wonders of the modern world. We destroyed an airforce, captured an army, and caused the downfall of a dictator while we were eating fillet steak and fresh fruit which had travelled 8,000 miles."

Any inadequacy's in some respects were sorted by TUFT (Taken Up From Trade), a special committee set up by the Board of Trade. British-flagged ships were requistioned 'in defence of the Realm and Sovereign Territories'.

I intended to write the list of ships that were requistioned for logistical and personnel reasons that I personally know about, and found out that Wikipedia has a much more comprehensive list including tankers and repair ships, which can be found here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_na ... from_trade

Two ships, the Stena Seaspread and the Stena Inspector in particular, were of much use to the RN as due to their significant ability in repairing RN ships in conditions else thought impossible. In fact, the Stena Seaspread achieved some 'firsts', fitting a new propeller to HMS Avenger and changing one of HMS Southampton's Tyne gas turbines at anchor in a blizzard. Her sum record was eleven warships with battledamage, twenty-four warships, merchant ships and RFA's with routine maintenance, and four captured enemy vessels. HMS Plymouth in particular was restored to 85% capability after the bombings of the 8th of June.2

Her sister ship, the Stena Inspector arrived after the end of hostilities and changed the Type 1099 radar aerial for HMS Birmingham in a 35-knot wind, 'a job which the dockyard said could only be done in a flat calm.'3

There was never any shortage of supplies from the UK to the Falklands. Any faults there may have been lay in ship-to-shore supply chains following the Army and Royal Marine Commando's successful landings on the Islands.

1. Simon Foster, pg195 ch15 'Get STUFT!', 'Hit The Beach! The Drama Of Amphibous Warfare', Casell Military Classics, 1998.
2. Pg201, ch15
3. Pg201, ch15

EDIT; Included sources.

[Socialist States Owen]

Is that bit I highlighted in bold referring to the RN or the Argentine Navy? If its the former, I strongly doubt that you have a clue what you are talking about.

It's actually neither. It is about the RNZAF, who would struggle against a high-tewh rock.

Oh I see. Knowing that, the bolded part makes more sense.

[Machtergreifung]

1. No deep water port under British influence in the region. Cape Town, at best, Gib at worst.
2. Ascension has no major port facilites.
3. UK lacks sufficent air transport capability to move everything thats needed by air.
4. Any ships from the Falklands are subjected to a 3,800 mile sail to Ascension to resupply/rearm the battlegroup.
5. Any ships damaged in the fighting have to sail to Ascension also.
6. Ascension has little in the way of fuel stocks (During the Falklands War, the Americans handed over thier fuel stocks on the island, which was the main reason the British got their at all!)

British logistical problems would not be impossible, but very difficult. Any severe losses to transport capability, and the ball is firmly in the Argentine quarter.

Hardly. British forces suffered severe supply shortages all the way through the Falklands War, and probably would have taken a lot more losses had the Argines manage to get a few more transports.

Would you like to know the top result on Google search for 'Supply shortages in the Falklands War'?

This thread. In point of fact, your very comment.

Now, to demolish your illusions in regards to the inadequacy of British logistics during that campaign.

Quote from Captain L. E. Middleton RN, HMS Hermes1
"The logistics chain was one of the wonders of the modern world. We destroyed an airforce, captured an army, and caused the downfall of a dictator while we were eating fillet steak and fresh fruit which had travelled 8,000 miles."

Any inadequacy's in some respects were sorted by TUFT (Taken Up From Trade), a special committee set up by the Board of Trade. British-flagged ships were requistioned 'in defence of the Realm and Sovereign Territories'.

I intended to write the list of ships that were requistioned for logistical and personnel reasons that I personally know about, and found out that Wikipedia has a much more comprehensive list including tankers and repair ships, which can be found here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_na ... from_trade

Two ships, the Stena Seaspread and the Stena Inspector in particular, were of much use to the RN as due to their significant ability in repairing RN ships in conditions else thought impossible. In fact, the Stena Seaspread achieved some 'firsts', fitting a new propeller to HMS Avenger and changing one of HMS Southampton's Tyne gas turbines at anchor in a blizzard. Her sum record was eleven warships with battledamage, twenty-four warships, merchant ships and RFA's with routine maintenance, and four captured enemy vessels. HMS Plymouth in particular was restored to 85% capability after the bombings of the 8th of June.2

Her sister ship, the Stena Inspector arrived after the end of hostilities and changed the Type 1099 radar aerial for HMS Birmingham in a 35-knot wind, 'a job which the dockyard said could only be done in a flat calm.'3

There was never any shortage of supplies from the UK to the Falklands. Any faults there may have been lay in ship-to-shore supply chains following the Army and Royal Marine Commando's successful landings on the Islands.

1. Simon Foster, pg195 ch15 'Get STUFT!', 'Hit The Beach! The Drama Of Amphibous Warfare', Casell Military Classics, 1998.
2. Pg201, ch15
3. Pg201, ch15

EDIT; Included sources.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA249896

Page 7 - 105mm guns running out of ammo. Seems to me a pretty problem in itself.
Page 11 - Full month for replacements to arrive.
Page 12/13 - Troops still attempting to offload stuff as the battle ended

The general summary is that the British messed up with the ship loading plans. The report also mentions the great ease that America gave by loaning them the aircraft and fuel at Ascension. The part on the Argentines is also interesting, especialy the runway at Stanley.

[Vellosia]

Ah. Why would you be?

Because I'm a British Patriot who wishes to see a new empire rise out of the grave of the old one. Why else?

Another one joins the cause.

[Super Bwitain]

Because I'm a British Patriot who wishes to see a new empire rise out of the grave of the old one. Why else?

Another one joins the cause.

Indeed.

[The UK in Exile]

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA249896

Page 7 - 105mm guns running out of ammo. Seems to me a pretty problem in itself.
Page 11 - Full month for replacements to arrive.
Page 12/13 - Troops still attempting to offload stuff as the battle ended

The general summary is that the British messed up with the ship loading plans. The report also mentions the great ease that America gave by loaning them the aircraft and fuel at Ascension. The part on the Argentines is also interesting, especialy the runway at Stanley.

1. not really, its pretty common for artillery guns to run out for periods. they fire it. thats what its for.
2. well yes, it takes time for stuff to sail there. but it still gets there.
3. they were still unloading stuff long after the battle ended. the war did not nessecarily end with the surrender. they had to prepare for further fighting.

from the same report on the first page.

"their initiative, hard-work and purposeful resolution of significant logistical problems kept the operational plan on track throughout the campaign."

[Machtergreifung]

Another one joins the cause.

Indeed.

Why would you want to see a empire built on inequality, oppression and exploitation and for the purpose of gathering wealth for a few rise again?

[Vellosia]

Indeed.

Why would you want to see a empire built on inequality, oppression and exploitation and for the purpose of gathering wealth for a few rise again?

Because it did a lot of good, and many places are, if anything, worse off without it.

[Machtergreifung]

Why would you want to see a empire built on inequality, oppression and exploitation and for the purpose of gathering wealth for a few rise again?

Because it did a lot of good, and many places are, if anything, worse off without it.

Going to argue the 'white mans burden' route?

In all fairness, I think India, South Africa, New Zealand and Austrailia (Well, not for the natives) have been much better off. Though I won't deny that nations like Kenya don't have any problems, you cannot justify taking away the right of people to say who governs them just because they can't do it as well as, say, Cameron from Whitehall.

[Super Bwitain]

Indeed.

Why would you want to see a empire built on inequality, oppression and exploitation and for the purpose of gathering wealth for a few rise again?

When did I say I wanted the SAME empire? I want a British empire, but not like the one we had before.

[Machtergreifung]

Why would you want to see a empire built on inequality, oppression and exploitation and for the purpose of gathering wealth for a few rise again?

When did I say I wanted the SAME empire? I want a British empire, but not like the one we had before.

What makes British Empire, superior to say, a Swiss Empire? What about a Andorrian Empire?

[Super Bwitain]

Because it did a lot of good, and many places are, if anything, worse off without it.

Going to argue the 'white mans burden' route?

In all fairness, I think India, South Africa, New Zealand and Austrailia (Well, not for the natives) have been much better off. Though I won't deny that nations like Kenya don't have any problems, you cannot justify taking away the right of people to say who governs them just because they can't do it as well as, say, Cameron from Whitehall.

That may be so, but I'd rather revoke a peoples right to vote in order to govern them better than they could.

[Super Bwitain]

When did I say I wanted the SAME empire? I want a British empire, but not like the one we had before.

What makes British Empire, superior to say, a Swiss Empire? What about a Andorrian Empire?

Did I ever say anything about superiority?

Anyway, size, wealth, healthcare etc. etc. Would make an empire superior to another.

[Machtergreifung]

Going to argue the 'white mans burden' route?

In all fairness, I think India, South Africa, New Zealand and Austrailia (Well, not for the natives) have been much better off. Though I won't deny that nations like Kenya don't have any problems, you cannot justify taking away the right of people to say who governs them just because they can't do it as well as, say, Cameron from Whitehall.

That may be so, but I'd rather revoke a peoples right to vote in order to govern them better than they could.

And what if they want the right to self determination? Pretty sure thats in the UN Charter somewhere. That is the same as me coming into your house and dictating how to live your life better, and I bring a regiment of redcoats to do it.

The problem with ex-colonial countries is there was a lack of people who knew how to govern when Britain left. If a proper process of establishing a good civil service had been set up prior to withdrawal, then Zimbabwe might still have a currency of its own.

[Celephais]

When did I say I wanted the SAME empire? I want a British empire, but not like the one we had before.

Lol because a nice and lovely empire is really possible

[Vellosia]

Because it did a lot of good, and many places are, if anything, worse off without it.

Going to argue the 'white mans burden' route?

In all fairness, I think India, South Africa, New Zealand and Austrailia (Well, not for the natives) have been much better off. Though I won't deny that nations like Kenya don't have any problems, you cannot justify taking away the right of people to say who governs them just because they can't do it as well as, say, Cameron from Whitehall.

If people can't govern themselves, then I think there is a very strong case to be made.