![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The best summing up of how implausible the events were is this excellent article written somewhat tongue in cheek: http://www.changingthetimes.net/samp...te_history.htm Next time we complain T2K is implausible just remember this... |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I contend that the Argentinians were taking a gamble, hoping and praying that the British would not be willing to expend the blood and treasure necessary to win back a strategically insignificant imperial afterthought. Clearly, they miscalculated badly. But, the possibility of a British military response was an obvious possibility. It didn't/doesn't take hindsight to come to that conclusion. I'm arguing that if the Argies had played smarter, they could have won the war. The Argies still had two weeks or so to prepare for a possible British invasion after the Thatcher government decided on a military response. I can't recall the name of the liner the Brits used to transport some of their troops to the Falklands, but its sendoff was a big public spectacle. It's not like the invasion was marshalled and launched in secret. We could start the wargame from the point the British TF left England and I think I still could have come up with a way to secure a strategic victory for the Argentinians.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
" Argentina's original intention was to mount a quick, symbolic occupation, followed rapidly by a withdrawal, leaving only a small garrison to support the new military governor. This strategy was based on the Argentinian assumption that the British would never respond militarily. Argentine assault units were indeed withdrawn to the mainland in the days following the invasion, but strong popular support and the rapid British reaction forced the Junta to change their objectives and reinforce the islands, since they could not politically afford to lose the islands once the British came out to fight. The junta misjudged the political climate in Britain, believing that democracies were weak, indecisive and averse to risk, and did not anticipate that the British would move their fleet halfway across the globe." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
[quote] I contend that the Argentinians were taking a gamble, hoping and praying that the British would not be willing to expend the blood and treasure necessary to win back a strategically insignificant imperial afterthought. Clearly, they miscalculated badly. But, the possibility of a British military response was an obvious possibility. It didn't/doesn't take hindsight to come to that conclusion. [\quote] Agreed. Quote:
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The Melbourne had been retired a short time before because of the intended purchase and if it had been known it would fall through, the Melbourne may have been retained for a few more years.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
And so it was that ever since Australia's naval aviation has been restricted to helicopters. And the Melbourne ended up assisting China's carrier-based pilot training. How stupid.
__________________
|
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|