New Falklands War Brewing
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
The way you are thinking is fine, just a couple of points.
300 Vietnamese is vastly different from 300 Americans,
even in the 60's and 70's and I would imagine Argies
are of a similar western size.
So overloading is one thing - 60 - 90 Combat troops - but factor
in the size of the people.
"If you could put say 500 specialist armed troops"
In 5 Hercs ? or are you planning to use other planes ?
Secondly, the plan has bugger all reserve built in. Lets say you lose
1 or 2 of the 5 Hercs, is the plan still viable ? And since you say the
planes are not going back, no chance of them doing another load.
So is 3 over loaded planes full enough ?
"pre infiltrated SF units" would be the best way to get more
on the ground but again, what if compromised ?
Support / Resupply ?
If they get into a prolonged fight, who / what is going to resupply
them ammo, food etc.
And the above is not taking into account 3 to 1 ration needed to take
whatever.
And what about people in the rest of the Falklands ? Once it starts,
they will take up arms and join the fight so the Argies will be fighting
even more people.
The way you are thinking is fine, just a couple of points.
300 Vietnamese is vastly different from 300 Americans,
even in the 60's and 70's and I would imagine Argies
are of a similar western size.
So overloading is one thing - 60 - 90 Combat troops - but factor
in the size of the people.
"If you could put say 500 specialist armed troops"
In 5 Hercs ? or are you planning to use other planes ?
Secondly, the plan has bugger all reserve built in. Lets say you lose
1 or 2 of the 5 Hercs, is the plan still viable ? And since you say the
planes are not going back, no chance of them doing another load.
So is 3 over loaded planes full enough ?
"pre infiltrated SF units" would be the best way to get more
on the ground but again, what if compromised ?
Support / Resupply ?
If they get into a prolonged fight, who / what is going to resupply
them ammo, food etc.
And the above is not taking into account 3 to 1 ration needed to take
whatever.
And what about people in the rest of the Falklands ? Once it starts,
they will take up arms and join the fight so the Argies will be fighting
even more people.
a wry glance at the shotgun above the mantlepeice is one thing while hypothetically discussing what would happen if 'the Argies' had another go - counting on its appearence against a 2 or 3 Coy sized formation armed with GPMG's is quite something else.
Personally i found the attitude at MPA more casual that i would have thought being on a lump of turf that another country claimed, had invaded within my lifetime, and being 8,000 miles from help warrented, and that the attitude went through pretty much every unit i came into contact with. many of the units could doubtless swing into 'warfighting' mode pretty much instantainously - the RIC, the radar and Rapier units etc.. but what i'll descibe as the 'rump', the people who work at MPA day in and day out, were not in the kind of condition/training/frame of mind to run outside on hearing the klaxon, pick up a rifle/GPMG and tear down to the runway or airfeild perimitor to surround the arriving Argentines with overwhelming firepower.
it, to me, seemed pretty obvious that if the RIC was elsewhere, then the famed 'they'd land, and be surrounded by 200 rifles and half a dozen GPMG's' scenario would be rather more hyperbole than fact.
Personally i found the attitude at MPA more casual that i would have thought being on a lump of turf that another country claimed, had invaded within my lifetime, and being 8,000 miles from help warrented, and that the attitude went through pretty much every unit i came into contact with. many of the units could doubtless swing into 'warfighting' mode pretty much instantainously - the RIC, the radar and Rapier units etc.. but what i'll descibe as the 'rump', the people who work at MPA day in and day out, were not in the kind of condition/training/frame of mind to run outside on hearing the klaxon, pick up a rifle/GPMG and tear down to the runway or airfeild perimitor to surround the arriving Argentines with overwhelming firepower.
it, to me, seemed pretty obvious that if the RIC was elsewhere, then the famed 'they'd land, and be surrounded by 200 rifles and half a dozen GPMG's' scenario would be rather more hyperbole than fact.
500N
A couple of points in reply to your "couple of points":
I (fairly obviously in my opinion) wasn't advocating putting 300 Argentinians in each Hercules. I was simply pointing out that a nominal peacetime figure of say 60 wasn't set in stone, and could be increased considerably for a one off (maybe one way) operation.
Yes the plan has bugger all reserve built in - IT'S A GAMBLE!!
Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised, that is a risk you take - IT'S A GAMBLE!!
Support/resupply - what support/resupply did the troops who landed at Pegasus Bridge get, or have planned. "Hold until relieved". What did the troops at Arnhem effectively get? The plan might only require these troops to hold on for 48hrs, so they go in with food/ammo for that timescale. Might there be options for helo resupply from vessels at sea once the 4 x Typhoon and rapier are not a threat, a couple of UH-1Hs every few hours with ammo?
Taking MPA by airborne assault would not be the way I would envisage ultimately taking the Falkland Islands. It's more about denying the use of MPA to the Brits for say 48hrs as part of an overall plan. That would give the Argentinians TOTAL air superiority, and deny the UK any resupply option to the Islands. The Falkland Islands are ultimately taken by helo/amphibious assault while the air assault on MPA ties up UK ground forces and denies the UK any FJ assets to disrupt Argentine operations.
Yes, you can debate the paucity of Argentine amphibious assets, but it doesn't have to be done by hi-tech specialist naval units, rather by make do and mend platforms, perhaps civil assets converted with make do helo platforms.
It's about thinking outside the box, putting together a package/plan that COULD work, and a country/political elite WILLING TO TAKE A GAMBLE on the basis they have everything to gain, and maybe not that much to lose! Whereas we have everything to lose, and nothing much to gain.
It's also about us taking the threat seriously...
A couple of points in reply to your "couple of points":
I (fairly obviously in my opinion) wasn't advocating putting 300 Argentinians in each Hercules. I was simply pointing out that a nominal peacetime figure of say 60 wasn't set in stone, and could be increased considerably for a one off (maybe one way) operation.
Yes the plan has bugger all reserve built in - IT'S A GAMBLE!!
Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised, that is a risk you take - IT'S A GAMBLE!!
Support/resupply - what support/resupply did the troops who landed at Pegasus Bridge get, or have planned. "Hold until relieved". What did the troops at Arnhem effectively get? The plan might only require these troops to hold on for 48hrs, so they go in with food/ammo for that timescale. Might there be options for helo resupply from vessels at sea once the 4 x Typhoon and rapier are not a threat, a couple of UH-1Hs every few hours with ammo?
Taking MPA by airborne assault would not be the way I would envisage ultimately taking the Falkland Islands. It's more about denying the use of MPA to the Brits for say 48hrs as part of an overall plan. That would give the Argentinians TOTAL air superiority, and deny the UK any resupply option to the Islands. The Falkland Islands are ultimately taken by helo/amphibious assault while the air assault on MPA ties up UK ground forces and denies the UK any FJ assets to disrupt Argentine operations.
Yes, you can debate the paucity of Argentine amphibious assets, but it doesn't have to be done by hi-tech specialist naval units, rather by make do and mend platforms, perhaps civil assets converted with make do helo platforms.
It's about thinking outside the box, putting together a package/plan that COULD work, and a country/political elite WILLING TO TAKE A GAMBLE on the basis they have everything to gain, and maybe not that much to lose! Whereas we have everything to lose, and nothing much to gain.
It's also about us taking the threat seriously...
Last edited by Biggus; 11th Dec 2012 at 08:35.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
No problems with your thoughts.
Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised but with the way
the Falklands are, they shouldn't have any problem landing
and staying hidden until needed.
It was never said before but I understand now, the MISSION
is to capture the Falkland Islands.
Phase 1 is to take the MPA by some means and / or tie up all the people
and assets we have there.
Phase 2 is to land an Amphib force by any means to help the initial
force and capture the islands.
As to assets, why not do what Australia did and
use a civilian Catamaran when they went to Timor ?
No problems with your thoughts.
Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised but with the way
the Falklands are, they shouldn't have any problem landing
and staying hidden until needed.
It was never said before but I understand now, the MISSION
is to capture the Falkland Islands.
Phase 1 is to take the MPA by some means and / or tie up all the people
and assets we have there.
Phase 2 is to land an Amphib force by any means to help the initial
force and capture the islands.
As to assets, why not do what Australia did and
use a civilian Catamaran when they went to Timor ?
Last edited by 500N; 11th Dec 2012 at 08:52.
500N
The air assault wasn't originally my idea, so don't give me the credit, Jabba first mentioned it in post 850 I think.
I just happen to believe it is potentially viable, especially as the first part of an overall plan.
I also happen to believe that the best way for the UK to re-take the Falkland Islands is not to lose them in the first place, and given the potential wealth that might be found in that region over the next 20-50 years, a greater investment in the security of the Islands now can only be money well spent!
By the way - would that be a "Trojan catamaran" the Aussies used?
The air assault wasn't originally my idea, so don't give me the credit, Jabba first mentioned it in post 850 I think.
I just happen to believe it is potentially viable, especially as the first part of an overall plan.
I also happen to believe that the best way for the UK to re-take the Falkland Islands is not to lose them in the first place, and given the potential wealth that might be found in that region over the next 20-50 years, a greater investment in the security of the Islands now can only be money well spent!
By the way - would that be a "Trojan catamaran" the Aussies used?
Last edited by Biggus; 11th Dec 2012 at 09:11.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Air Assault onto the runway by landing the C130,
I am pretty sure Australia did that at the start of the Timor
op, landed and deplaned on the runway and then spread out.
Of course they were not under fire and were covered by
some troops on the ground beforehand but the scenario
is the same, just a faster pace !!!
Yes, it is viable, if all goes to plan.
Someone needs to do some serious joint ops planning
because these joint ops can easily turn to **** without
any help from the MPA forces !!!
I am pretty sure Australia did that at the start of the Timor
op, landed and deplaned on the runway and then spread out.
Of course they were not under fire and were covered by
some troops on the ground beforehand but the scenario
is the same, just a faster pace !!!
Yes, it is viable, if all goes to plan.
Someone needs to do some serious joint ops planning
because these joint ops can easily turn to **** without
any help from the MPA forces !!!
"Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, am a bit slow tonight.
When I saw that, I thought, hold on, they (the manufacturers) are called Incat, not Trojan !!!
I do know my history and what the Trojan horse is.
When I saw that, I thought, hold on, they (the manufacturers) are called Incat, not Trojan !!!
I do know my history and what the Trojan horse is.
Last edited by 500N; 11th Dec 2012 at 09:46.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I realise that, it's called or was called the Jervis Bay.
She used to run from near my home to Tasmania
across Bass Strait.
She used to run from near my home to Tasmania
across Bass Strait.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Aussie landings at Dilli are real red herring - they weren't opposed and the government & rebels are hardly up to any standard what-so-ever
I have a feeling Air North & Merpati were able to get in & out even before the RAAF arrived
I'm just surprised we never invested in some medium/long range ground-air missiles TBH
I have a feeling Air North & Merpati were able to get in & out even before the RAAF arrived
I'm just surprised we never invested in some medium/long range ground-air missiles TBH
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 11th Dec 2012 at 10:53.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised but with the way
the Falklands are, they shouldn't have any problem landing
and staying hidden until needed.2
there's not on square metre of cover in the whole place for heavens sake - you can see for miles - if they are anywhere near MPA someone will see them in about 2 hours - anywhere else they might as well be on the moon as far as military effectiveness goes
Without transport you have to WALK everywhere across some horrendous territory (as we proved in the war) - and the Argies were losing men to exposure in static positions long before the Task Force turned up - why do you think they'd be seriously better now?
the Falklands are, they shouldn't have any problem landing
and staying hidden until needed.2
there's not on square metre of cover in the whole place for heavens sake - you can see for miles - if they are anywhere near MPA someone will see them in about 2 hours - anywhere else they might as well be on the moon as far as military effectiveness goes
Without transport you have to WALK everywhere across some horrendous territory (as we proved in the war) - and the Argies were losing men to exposure in static positions long before the Task Force turned up - why do you think they'd be seriously better now?
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 11th Dec 2012 at 10:59.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH
I was just thinking laterally. Hell, we managed to hide people
inside the Argie positions during the war, what is to stop them ?
Why not land them a bit away and have them rest up in
and LUP until needed ? Move in as a raiding force when ...........
Walking ? Er yes, the Army does walk,
Re Exposure, I think equipment and such in use would be a bit better now
- and recruits that didn't want to be there versus SF soldiers with good gear ?
Anyway, just trying to have a discussion.
I was just thinking laterally. Hell, we managed to hide people
inside the Argie positions during the war, what is to stop them ?
Why not land them a bit away and have them rest up in
and LUP until needed ? Move in as a raiding force when ...........
Walking ? Er yes, the Army does walk,
Re Exposure, I think equipment and such in use would be a bit better now
- and recruits that didn't want to be there versus SF soldiers with good gear ?
Anyway, just trying to have a discussion.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I also happen to believe that the best way for the UK to re-take the Falkland Islands is not to lose them in the first place, and given the potential wealth that might be found in that region over the next 20-50 years, a greater investment in the security of the Islands now can only be money well spent!"
Nail
Head
BANG
Wasnt originally my idea actually, something I caught wind of in the press when Sandy Woodward and Julian Thompson were getting a tad worked up about defence matters during the latter days of the Brown administration. This was the scenario they figured we were vulnerable to and if they figured that it would work and they were two of the most senior commanders where CORPORATE was concerned, thats good enough for me. But I'm in complete agreement that the best way is to make sure you dont lose them in the first place which means taking the requirement to defend the joint seriously, not just paying lipservice to it as we appear to be doing at the moment.
Nail
Head
BANG
Wasnt originally my idea actually, something I caught wind of in the press when Sandy Woodward and Julian Thompson were getting a tad worked up about defence matters during the latter days of the Brown administration. This was the scenario they figured we were vulnerable to and if they figured that it would work and they were two of the most senior commanders where CORPORATE was concerned, thats good enough for me. But I'm in complete agreement that the best way is to make sure you dont lose them in the first place which means taking the requirement to defend the joint seriously, not just paying lipservice to it as we appear to be doing at the moment.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"use a civilian Catamaran "
I had the **** taken out of me when I suggested that a year or so ago
I'm not sure if there are any Argentinian registered large high-speed ferries, but theres joint Argentine / Uruguayan company with a Uruguayan registered fleet on the River Plate which includes one of the larger Incat cats, plus a sister to the Superseacat high speed monohulls.
They'll each take 500 people plus 50 cars, and there are a number of smaller passenger-only cats capable of carrying ~300 people.
If the Argentines were to use those (they'd need reasonable weather) and launch from Rio Gallegos (the nearest military port) they'd only need a few hours transit.
Think about it. Airborne commando force to knock out the aircraft at MPA, then a landing by marines from the high speed ferries, followed up a few hours later by troops and tanks on conventional RORO ships
And if you're wondering about loading ramps - they could use something like a mexeflote, or even tow in a floating linkspan
I had the **** taken out of me when I suggested that a year or so ago
I'm not sure if there are any Argentinian registered large high-speed ferries, but theres joint Argentine / Uruguayan company with a Uruguayan registered fleet on the River Plate which includes one of the larger Incat cats, plus a sister to the Superseacat high speed monohulls.
They'll each take 500 people plus 50 cars, and there are a number of smaller passenger-only cats capable of carrying ~300 people.
If the Argentines were to use those (they'd need reasonable weather) and launch from Rio Gallegos (the nearest military port) they'd only need a few hours transit.
Think about it. Airborne commando force to knock out the aircraft at MPA, then a landing by marines from the high speed ferries, followed up a few hours later by troops and tanks on conventional RORO ships
And if you're wondering about loading ramps - they could use something like a mexeflote, or even tow in a floating linkspan
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo
The Incat Cat Australia used transited Melbourne - Tasmania
via the Bass Strait - not the calmest waters by any means !!!
Why not drop the Soldiers by parachute, then the C130's
can go back and get another load and come back, possibly
landing on the airfield the 2nd time ?
I still think they would need a heap of Soldiers to achieve it.
.
The Incat Cat Australia used transited Melbourne - Tasmania
via the Bass Strait - not the calmest waters by any means !!!
Why not drop the Soldiers by parachute, then the C130's
can go back and get another load and come back, possibly
landing on the airfield the 2nd time ?
I still think they would need a heap of Soldiers to achieve it.
.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't we all getting carried away with our Tom Clancy or Andy McNab theories? No doubt in theory there are numerous ways of successfully incapacitating the airfield and the few aircraft that are located on the island but once captured it has to be held.
If we are talking successful operations then my thoughts are the Israelis holders of the Gold medal with their excellent, well executed raid on Entebbe. That operation has never been equalled, it has set the bar for what is possible. I would also put forward our Sierra Leone operation that was another well planned, well executed raid but and it is a huge
BUT.....
We never occupied and KEPT possession of those locations and to highlight how difficult that can be I would put forward any US led conflict in recent times. How many of these conflicts where we have removed a so called enemy and our forces have taken up residence have been successful? Would Argentina ever win the hearts and minds of the islanders? Could they afford to keep a large military presence on those islands?
Would Great Britain impose a blockade and sink without warning ANY ships that entered a defined 'No Go' area? Taking the islands would be relatively easy, keeping them would probably be a HUGE drain on the military resources which Argentina might not have and can you imagine the ramifications of another failed attempt at taking those islands.
Just me thinking aloud
If we are talking successful operations then my thoughts are the Israelis holders of the Gold medal with their excellent, well executed raid on Entebbe. That operation has never been equalled, it has set the bar for what is possible. I would also put forward our Sierra Leone operation that was another well planned, well executed raid but and it is a huge
BUT.....
We never occupied and KEPT possession of those locations and to highlight how difficult that can be I would put forward any US led conflict in recent times. How many of these conflicts where we have removed a so called enemy and our forces have taken up residence have been successful? Would Argentina ever win the hearts and minds of the islanders? Could they afford to keep a large military presence on those islands?
Would Great Britain impose a blockade and sink without warning ANY ships that entered a defined 'No Go' area? Taking the islands would be relatively easy, keeping them would probably be a HUGE drain on the military resources which Argentina might not have and can you imagine the ramifications of another failed attempt at taking those islands.
Just me thinking aloud
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo
Agree.
I just didn't want to complicate the discussion with the "aftermath" scenario.
To be honest, let's just say the Argies won the war, it would be like Iraq
where they would lose the peace.
Entebbe was a special case, albeit a good one because it was not a well defended airport and not a high number of people around.
Agree.
I just didn't want to complicate the discussion with the "aftermath" scenario.
To be honest, let's just say the Argies won the war, it would be like Iraq
where they would lose the peace.
Entebbe was a special case, albeit a good one because it was not a well defended airport and not a high number of people around.