CNN Brings Comfort and Aid to the Enemy

[mkloby]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but aside from south georgia, the argentines took the Falklands on 4 Apr. The British didn't actually land on the Falklands until 21 May. From other things I have read, it seems there was substantial fuding issues with sending the task force, with some believing that Britian was trying to avoid sending the task force due to unwillingness to spend the funds to send off a task force, not out of a willingness to resolve the issue diplomatically. Ndicki seems to be touching upon supply and gearing issues with his post.

Regardless of the reason - that's about what 45 days until british forces made the landing on the falklands. In the meantime - you can be sure that british higher hqs were using the time of the political mechanisms to prepare. Granted the response time was longer due to political workings - but hardly what I would call a triumph of quick deployment.

That was over 20 years ago - and no doubt rapid deployment capabilities have improved greatly, no doubt the British capabilities as well. However, the falkland conflict is just not comparable to the capabilities that the Marines have. We deploy in a completely different manner than that which the british used for that operation - which I am not going to go into, except to say that we lcan be in any littoral region on the world with the forces I stated before, in days, and all of our equipment. Highly successful operation, however, I will say.

[Gnomey]

It took around 6 weeks (or so) for the taskforce to reach the Falklands which is why they only landed on the 21st of May.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The British are very-very arrogant, Chris. We don't deny it, or at least I don't. I have to make one last point on the ability of deploying anywhere with a force in a short time - the British military had the RAF, Royal Navy and Army ready and on it's way to the Falklands in three days, and it had Carriers on the way.

The 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne have aircraft on the tarmac loaded with equipment and on standby 24 hours a day 7 days and the units themselves have BNs on Standby (they rotate every month) to get on those planes and be anywhere in the world litterally in hours.

That is why we call them a Quick Reaction Force.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

It took around 6 weeks (or so) for the taskforce to reach the Falklands which is why they only landed on the 21st of May.

surely you are not saying it took 6 weeks to steam, what is it about 8,000mi?

[Gnomey]

They arrived in the Falklands terrotorial waters on the 22nd of April but didn't invade until the 21st. In the intervening time peace talks were going on at the UN which failed on the 20th (the day before the invasion).

BBC News | Fight for the Falklands
Argentina Britain Falklands Malvinas War 1982

[ndicki]

Originally Posted by plan_D

My dad had his SLR...maybe it was just you they stripped everything off. Standing nude in Southampton were yah?

Practically! No, it was our NEW SLRs they took - well, they didn't get mine - New ABS furniture, medium length stock, and just zeroed in, no way they were having it. But most of them went up the road to the RMs.

A great deal of the time in-between was taken up by the Americans trying to negociate; in particular, the US Ambassodor to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, spent much of her time trying to stop the US supporting Britain, and trying to turn the US against us. I am glad to say she failed.

Finally, it's all very well to talk about a rapid reaction force, but has anybody looked at a map? The nearest friendly land to stage out of is one hell of a long way from the Falklands, and the ONLY feasible way to establish local air (relative) superiority was with the Naval Task Force which was used. Even the US, with its practically unlimited resources, would be unable, I believe, to conduct an "air-only" campaign.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and remember today's Royal Navy has a much greater amphibious ability, 3 of our newest and biggest ships are designed solely for the role, HMS Ocean provides home at sea to hundreds of marines, their heavy equiptment, their landing ships and a large flight deck to allow for an entire hilcopter assalt force, combined with HMS Albian and HMS Balwark who also allow for flight operations and an even greater seaborn ability, 3 ships at the cutting edge of their role.............

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

and remember today's Royal Navy has a much greater amphibious ability, 3 of our newest and biggest ships are designed solely for the role, HMS Ocean provides home at sea to hundreds of marines, their heavy equiptment, their landing ships and a large flight deck to allow for an entire hilcopter assalt force, combined with HMS Albian and HMS Balwark who also allow for flight operations and an even greater seaborn ability, 3 ships at the cutting edge of their role.............

And the USMC has had those kind of ships for the last 20+ years.

Have you ever heard of the Wasp Class amphibious assault ship? They are like small Aircraft Carriers, similiar to the British Aircraft Carriers but without the ramp deck. They also can sink partially in the water to allow the Hover Crafts and landing boats to depart directly out the back.

Here is what each ship can carry and we have 8 of them:

Aircraft: number carried varies depending on mission. Possible air wings include:
Assault: 42 CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
Sea Control: 20 AV-8B Harrier attack planes; 6 ASW helicopters

Crew:
Ships Company: 104 officers, 1,004 enlisted
Marine Detachment: 1,894

In addition to the 8 Wasp Class we also have 4 of the Tarrawa Class for 12 total of these Amphib Ships.

Who else has this capability?

Below is pictures of the USS Wasp. The bottom one shows the Hover Craft Landing vehical coming out the back.

[ndicki]

And if we had 300 million people to pay for the things, then we might have them too. Equipment capability is a function of budget alone.

Anybody remember HMS Fearless? Not bad for her time, either.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

and remember today's Royal Navy has a much greater amphibious ability, 3 of our newest and biggest ships are designed solely for the role, HMS Ocean provides home at sea to hundreds of marines, their heavy equiptment, their landing ships and a large flight deck to allow for an entire hilcopter assalt force, combined with HMS Albian and HMS Balwark who also allow for flight operations and an even greater seaborn ability, 3 ships at the cutting edge of their role.............

I thought we already covered that RM are so adept at combat they don't need heavy equipment... in fact that they go to war naked w/ full body camo paint and a pistol?

I'm just kidding obviously. In my post above that is why I said that the UK has no doubt increased it's deployment capabilities since then... I mean it has been over 20 years. I eagerly look forward to exercises with royal marines in the future!

[mkloby]

Adler - the only concession that brits will offer is that america has more equipment and a fat budget!

[ndicki]

There, you see, you're starting to get the idea! Backs to the wall, Dunkirk spirit, etc; just 'cos you Yanks are more numerous on this forum...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To bad we cant all get together in a pub and discuss this over some beer. I think it would get real interesting!

[lesofprimus]

Ill bring the boxing gloves..... Alot of the time I spent on deployments were on Amphibs, and in action, the amount of firepower and personnel that can be on the beach in 3 hours is staggering.... Until u actually see it and are a part of it, u cant understand.... A MARG is a very potent and deadly unit...

One of the things about hovercrafts is that the noise is very hard to pinpoint direction on... We've used them on some work ups to insert on nighttime interdictions.... The noise is really quite confusing to the "enemy"...

[ndicki]

So when are the USMC going to buy ekranoplans? Useful looking sort of thing, but what are they like on a real sea?