View Single Post
Old 18th Jun 2012, 00:32
  #1115 (permalink)  
orca
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,121
Interesting view.

I would argue that in 1982 one power considered Stanley so vulnerable that it didn't base any high value assets there. They also, despite having a significant anti-shipping capability failed to so much as scratch the British carriers. So one could argue that Stanley was soft killed fairly easily and the carriers were unscathed. Others would argue that the carriers were partially soft killed as they were pushed east.

As for Iraq in 1991 perhaps we could have a quick look at the Iraqi airfields significantly damaged by air attack (a reasonable amount), the ability of Scud to take on fixed targets including airfields to the south (some/ a little) and the USN flat tops sunk by the Iraqis (nil).

As for Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe were doing a pretty good job of counter air, including airfield attack, until the (fairly well publicised) switch to the bombing of cities.

I suppose there are lies, damn lies, statistics and opinions on aircraft carriers!
orca is offline