4 ms·
> The Falklands can be defended against Argentina. Barely. The Falklands was touch and go, Britain was only one or two Exocets away from losing. To bomb the ru
by willyt 6y ago
> The Falklands can be defended against Argentina.
Barely. The Falklands was touch and go, Britain was only one or two Exocets away from losing. To bomb the runway at Port Stanley, the Vulcan bombers required in flight refuelling 4 times. And the tankers that refuelled them had to be in flight refuelled themselves. The whole thing was cobbled together with string and duct tape and it only just worked.
- phenkdo 6y agoI somehow doubt this,..even if the UK aircraft carrier were sunk, the British armed forces had _plenty_ of capabilities to bring to bear. While It wasn't quite a US Vs Iraq situation, it was very lopsided in terms of training, equipment, morale and finances.
- smackay 6y agoYears of downsizing of the British Navy and the reduction of the merchant fleet to cheaper flags of convenience left the UK with a very poor capability for a maritime invasion. The Task Force that sailed to the Falklands was a rag-tag group of various ships including supply vessels used in the North Sea. Had the Argentinians pilots that attacked the fleet had been a little more successful I seriously doubt the British would have had the capability to launch another one.
- phenkdo 6y agoAll of that is very likely true, but I was arguing that the Argentine military was no match, not even close to a match to the UK Armed forces. The outcome was never in doubt, just casualty counts on both sides.