Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: SAS over Tierra del Fuego.

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    -
    Posts
    7

    Default

    You may not realise it but the carriers in the Falklands were so valuable
    I fully realise how valuable the carriers were! Why do you think I was appalled at your idea of putting them "in danger"?
    I happened to be a Fleet Air Arm pilot flying throughout the conflict and, with respect, know the facts from personal observation and not books or films.

    Have you seen any combat?
    Yes - close up and personal
    Seen a little on TV.
    That is probably the safest place to see it
    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?
    Yes and sadly I can prove it

    HWB
    Last edited by Halfwayback; 10-10-2007 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Not worth the bother of explaining to deaf ears!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halfwayback View Post
    1KYS

    Glad to see your a naval strategist as well! Great idea to put your capital ships "in harms way".

    Now let me see, that would mean the endangering of another 15 SHAR (which we didn't have) plus all the escorts and goalkeepers.

    And this would be just to stop tankers.....

    HWB
    PS Not sure about 'talk the talk'
    Er before you go gaga on 1000Yd's sig I should point out that it will be irrelevant to anyone who was not on the Forum when the infamous IronMan was resident here.

    It was meant for him and should not be taken as anything more. However, maybe 1000 Yd should maybe think about changing it in light of the fact that no one else knows the context to take it in.

    Just something to think about guys.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    Before you throw a strop HWB, I would point out I was a mere nipper during that conflict, so yes my knowledge of the Falklands does come from 2nd hand sources rather than experience.

    Like Firefly says, the signature is old and possibly out of date. Strange how people seem to take umbridge at such matters. Perhaps it is because the interent doesn't allow such personnel contact as a bar or similar would. I remember another guy on here getting stroppy about something similar.

    I must admit, as I have already, not to be a naval strategist, but I am puzzled at your responses.

    To my mind a soldier, sailor or airman, or for that matter their respective vehicles, nearly always has to expose themselves to danger in order to complete there task. To that end I find your views that a carrier should not be put in dager strange.

    You do realise that my comment on putting in harms way didn't involve the carrier sailing in to a traditional gun fight don't you? As in, I meant that the third carrier could be exposed to more danger, and better place her weapons (ie the Harriers) to interfere with Argentine Operations.

    This is what I see servicemen and women doing. Pte Beharry PWRR VC didn't think the best place for his warrior was in the garages did he? Nor did Pte "Chuck" Norris RAMC MC think the best place for her medical satchel was inside the Warrior she was in.

    For the purposes of balance, what would you have done with a 3rd carrier?
    Last edited by 1000ydstare; 10-10-2007 at 03:09 PM.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    -
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Firefly

    Many thanks for the background info. It seemed a bit incongruous in a military forum!

    1KYS
    No strop here - no reason to <;-)

    The basic concept of putting capital ships in a place where they can be easily attacked is totally unsound. That is precisely the rest why the carriers spent their time at the Eastern end of the TALA. It gives you the benefits of pickets radar, AEW, defence in depth and numerous other advantages. To suggest that you stick a carrier, who's sole purpose is to provide aircraft to fight in a place of increased danger, is frankly ludicrous. By all means put the individual aircraft in combat which is what we did but to risk the very nucleus of your fighting force is foolhardy.

    And for what? In your post you state that the Argentice IFR was limited to two C130 and buddy packs. Carriers don't go around alone but of necessity need a support group so why risk all this just to down a couple of tankers? The risk is not just from air attack but the Argentines had two excellent SSK which were unlucky not to score during the conflict; similarly they had ship based Exocet that they deployed. (They even took it ashore in the FI and used it from trailers).

    The whole strategy was to gain air superiority so that the troops could be landed to recapture the islands. After the first week of being on station that superiority was acheived. Thereafter it was essential to keep surface ships with the troops safe until they could be landed and then resupplied and supported.

    Yes there were raids flown by incredibly brave pilots who knew that if we got them to blow their drop tanks or use afterburner they would not make it back to Argentina. That was the whole benefit of the AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Had the ARA Vintecento de Mayo not had major vibration in her propulsion after supporting the invasion of the the Falklands it may have been a different matter.


    HWB
    Last edited by Halfwayback; 10-11-2007 at 04:17 AM. Reason: typo

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    -
    Posts
    7

    Default

    To answer your question about a third carrier I would have kept her with the main body of the Task Force - no doubt about it.

    Remember all the merchant ships that brought the stores, ammunition etc were all kept in South Georgia until the equipment was needed. The troops ships QE2 and Canberra did their 'cross-decking' of troops in S. Georgia for exactly the same reason - to keep your prime assetts as far from the enemy's grasp as possible.

    As to the individuals that you cite, both of them were very courageously responding to a situation of helping their colleagues and saving lives under fire. That is totally different to any other type of bravery, it comes from quick decisions made in the heat of battle with disregard for personal safety. It does not mean that you put hundreds of men and your major offensive weapons (SHAR) in 'harms way'

    HWB
    Last edited by Halfwayback; 10-11-2007 at 04:16 AM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: SAS over Tierra del Fuego.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halfwayback View Post
    The aircrew were not RAF - they were Royal Navy aircrew.

    There was never any intention to recover the Sea King. It was completely stripped of all but essential equipment before it set off to Argentina.
    What a shame the UK didn't marshall enough air power to destroy the entire Argentinian Air Force on the ground. It would have served them right.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: SAS over Tierra del Fuego.

    Bumping a 5 year old thread to make a snarky comment without justifying it? Not impressed. Thread locked.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •