Falkland Islands

[waiting4something]

Yes! This I was wondering this too. The Falklands was like the U.S.A.'S Grenada. Over in New YORK minute with the Cold War, 1980's mentality, and cool pre rail gun weapons.

[Legbreaker]

The difference being that the Falklands actually were invaded by an unwelcome foreign power and it was up to the UK to expel them.
In Grenada, the US were the invaders and their actions were condemned by the UN.
The similarities were that both were over in a relatively short space of time and the assaulting force (UK and US) were technolgically and militarily far superior to those they faced, but the same could really be said of the Nazi invasion of Poland....

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The similarities were that both were over in a relatively short space of time and the assaulting force (UK and US) were technolgically and militarily far superior to those they faced.

The technology point is arguable. For example in '82 the British only had a few dozen sets of night vision spread out over their 8 battalions in theater while the Argies had hundreds. They weren't outmatched technologically as one might think, the British were just better soldiers.

[Legbreaker]

The British did however have much newer ships and planes. The men on the ground may have had similar equipment, but the same could probably be said of US troops in Grenada - it's not like today when every man is loaded down with electronics.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The British did however have much newer ships and planes. The men on the ground may have had similar equipment, but the same could probably be said of US troops in Grenada - it's not like today when every man is loaded down with electronics.

Ships yes, but even though no Harriers were lost due to air combat, only ground fire and accidents, the Mirage was a credible threat. The Cubans in Grenada on the other hand didn't even have air support. Most of the ships that were lost were not from the modern exocet but free fall iron bombs too.

I will agree that it isn't like today where the soldier has so much reliance on technology. The battles in 82 were about men and rifles.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Ships yes, but even though no Harriers were lost due to air combat, only ground fire and accidents, the Mirage was a credible threat. The Cubans in Grenada on the other hand didn't even have air support. Most of the ships that were lost were not from the modern exocet but free fall iron bombs too.

I will agree that it isn't like today where the soldier has so much reliance on technology. The battles in 82 were about men and rifles.

It still boils down to men and rifles. There's just more gizmoes thrown in.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The British did however have much newer ships and planes. The men on the ground may have had similar equipment, but the same could probably be said of US troops in Grenada - it's not like today when every man is loaded down with electronics.

Fusilier has already mentioned how big a threat the Mirage was (particularly with the extra Exocet missiles the French reputedly sold the Argentinians after the war had started ) but I have read somewhere that the British ground troops preferred the FN FALs that the Argentinians were armed with to the SLRs they were armed with and that some of them "swapped".

I've also read somewhere that the British troops were armed with a lot more AT weapons which they used against fixed positions. The basic difference in the ground war was really the training and (therefore) quality of the troops.

[Sanjuro]

I have read somewhere that the British ground troops preferred the FN FALs that the Argentinians were armed with to the SLRs

I haven't heard that, but I have heard some SF units (most notably the MAW cadre during the attack on Top Malo) who were armed with M16s regretted the loss of stopping power.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

I haven't heard that, but I have heard some SF units (most notably the MAW cadre during the attack on Top Malo) who were armed with M16s regretted the loss of stopping power.

That's true - at least more than just a rumor. There's a youtube video of one of the MAWC guys talking about Top Malo and specifically mentioned shooting up one of his targets with a number of rounds but not killing him. He was quite disappointed in the weapon like you mentioned.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

I haven't heard that, but I have heard some SF units (most notably the MAW cadre during the attack on Top Malo) who were armed with M16s regretted the loss of stopping power.

I was an Army cadet in the mid 80's and on an annual camp I also remember meeting a soldier who had served in the Falklands (I have a feeling that it was "served" rather than "saw action" but this was a long time ago) but I also remember him talking about this subject as it started with him explaining how you could "convert" an SLR into a full auto weapon by using a matchstick. I don't remember how and it sounded incredibly dangerous to the firer but that was what he claimed.

He also said that most of the soldiers preferred the Argentine FN FALs.