Australia to spend $270b building larger military

Yes.

They got their star kicked at sea.
British Ships sunk and damaged - Falklands War 1982

If the Argentinians had low-level retarded bombs, Britain would have lost the Falklands.

Their Naval SAMs were not that good at tracking & locking on to low level targets. The Harriers were hampered by a lack of range - being able to stay on CAP station for about 10 minutes. The only thing that saved the Harriers was the AIM-9L, which had an all-aspect IR seeker head.

 

The Argentinian Air Force was by no means "big". Nor were they a mostly modern AF.

The AAF was also not "unmotivated", but "highly motivated". Although they did lack training.

IIRC, the AAF sank 10% of the RN ships sent against it.

How many USN ships were sunk by Iraq in PGI & II?

 

..I thought the Brit ground force was not that ''big'' compared to the Argies?

 

but they won.......?

 

Combat did not take place only on land...Did it.

Unfortunately, much of my reading has only focused on the air & naval part of the war, where the British found much less success. It was here that the Argentinians came much closer to winning the war.

 

And the Royal Navy paid a steeper price than it should have.

 

About the same. An Argentine army regiment, Argentine Marine or British army battalion, or a Royal Marine Commando were about the same size unit - 3-4 rifle companies, weapons company, HQ and support.

Argentines 8 regiments, 1 Marine battalion. At least one regiment was on East Falkland, out of the main ground action.
British 5 battalions, 3 Commandos.

Small amounts of light armor and special units like SAS, SBS on both sides. Argentines a bit more artillery IIRC.

 

...close but no cigar
...like people say Guadalcanal was a ''close battle''--but I've posted on WW2F of how it wasn't
close?

 

The big problem was fusing, several British ships were hit by bombs which failed to explode. 500- or 1000-pound duds still did considerable damage, but the ships would have been at least mission-killed if they had exploded. Some, from memory:

Both Type 22 frigates, the ones with the Sea Wolf point-defense missiles.
Glasgow, one of three Type 42 air defense destroyers in the original task force. Other two were Sheffield and Coventry....
Frigate Argonaut, 1000pdrs in engine room and magazine, fore and aft of the bridge area where many crew including command were stationed. If these had exploded, she would have been a total loss with heavy casualties.
Frigate Plymouth, four bombs. Likely loss with heavy casualties.

 

Who's said Guadalcanal was a close battle? The only time Guadalcanal was ever "close" was after the first night battleship bombardment with cruiser bombardment the following night, that virtually wiped out US aircraft. But that window only lasted 24 hours or less before the US recovered.

 

It was not the "bad" fusing...The bombs were dropped too low to arm. The Argentinian pilots were supposed to pitch up to proper altitude before releasing their bombs. However, most had not practiced in low-level bombing, so never pitched up. The Argies came up with some ad-hoc retarded bombs late in the "war", but not enough to make a difference in the end-game.

 

..a lot of the books do

 

thanks for the info
...so, you are supposed to have a 3-1 advantage in the attack--so the Brits did very well, IMO
...and for a specific battle there, I thought I read where the Brits might have had fewer than the Argies--but I could be mistaken..I read it in Military History magazine[ I think ] or History /etc magazine..something about a ridge or something..maybe not

 

..o yes, the Falklands War is another example where the participant had nukes, but it did not stop the conflict from starting

 

wow --that is a very optimistic/bold/''unprovable'' quote

 

Sigh...

Google "Lord Craig" & "Six better fuses and we would have lost".

 

Here is one...
Fighting Brits
It also proves that it was not the fuses that were the problem.

Happy now that I've proved you wrong.

 

....remember -a mediocre weapon in trained, motivated hands is better than a great weapon in untrained, ''unmotivated'' hands
.....I remember an Israeli pilot was asked if they would've been successful in their air wars/war if they didn't have the F15/etc...he said it's the pilot, not the plane
..ok from my book Air War South Atlantic by Ethell and Price page 214/etc:
''the Argentine pilots made no serious attempt to engage in air to air combat after the initial engagements on 1 May'''

''the Sea Harriers success is the more remarkable ...after 1 May their interception tactics can be described as pre-Battle of Britain'''' = lacking radar, interceptions were usually made visually

the Argies ''found the small light colored Sea Harriers very difficult to see''''

here it is---the critical key ----regarding what the Israeli pilot said and what I said about training/etc = page 215:
''''''The Sea Harriers success depended largely on the skills of the pilots who flew them, skills entirely dependent on the training they had previously received'''''
bold mine

...and again--this is where the word realism/realistic also comes into play...there is more to it than just going out and training--ground and air ..here it is again--Takao--from my experience I know there is so much more to it...how realistic is the training? different branches of the same country train differently....how realistic is it? how is it graded? a critical aspect is how do the noncoms/instructors/graders run the training
etc etc ..much to it--and here is more proof:
page 215:
Lt John Leeming who fought in the war says:
'''''we train as hard as any Air Force I know. We try to make things as realistic as possible'''''

 

sure--fuses win the WAR!!!

 

come on --that's another quote for headlines only