Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

chicom_guy Argentine Military 8/2/2004 1:54:12 AM

Argentina was and still is third world. Their military at the time was far inferior technologically to the British Military. The argentine navy was of WWII vintage. After the brits sunk just one ship, the entire argentine navy wisely withdrew from the theater Their best attack jets were a generation behind in technology to the British, and they only had 27 exocets in their entire military. Additionally their country was in political turmoil with rioting in every city. There was no naval threat whatsoever from the argentines. Now even the brits would be able to "project" their navy 8000 miles when no other ships are shooting at them. Add to all that, the fact that argentine marines on the islands couldn't resupply due to the lack of naval support. The fact that Britain had such trouble subduing such an incredibly weak nation that had to deal with a rioting population shows the "power projection" capabilities of your pathetically impotent military. link My sources about the war is backed by references. Where are your references?

Quote Reply

Nemesis1 RE:Chicom 8/2/2004 2:50:56 AM

?Argentina was and still is third world. Their military at the time was far inferior technologically to the British Military. The argentine navy was of WWII vintage. After the brits sunk just one ship, the entire argentine navy wisely withdrew from the theater Their best attack jets were a generation behind in technology to the British, and they only had 27 exocets in their entire military. Additionally their country was in political turmoil with rioting in every city. There was no naval threat whatsoever from the argentines?. Argentina may be a poorer country but it did have some good military equipment. As I have said before countries such as China and North Korea are classed as third world by many so does that mean they necessarily have very weak military forces. There was a naval threat from the Argentines. There Navy wasn?t the best but it did possess a carrier, a heavy cruiser as well as a number if destroyers and frigates armed with exocet as well as 3 submarines. Argentina could have chose to attack with its fleet but it was unprepared because of the strength of the British fleet. So the Brits were responsible for the Argentine Navy staying in port. ?Now even the brits would be able to "project" their navy 8000 miles when no other ships are shooting at them. Add to all that, the fact that argentine marines on the islands couldn't resupply due to the lack of naval support?. Yes they did project their power successfully and landed on the islands. No ships shot at them due to the fact UK SSN?s were in the area and acted as a deterrent not because the Argentine Navy was useless. Once again you show your lack of knowledge when you talk about the Argentine Marines not being supported. The Argentines had 7 C-130 Hercules transports which continually re-supllied the Argentines. 61 resupply sorties were flown by these aircraft to Stanley with the last arriving one day before the Argentine surrender. ?The fact that Britain had such trouble subduing such an incredibly weak nation that had to deal with a rioting population shows the "power projection" capabilities of your pathetically impotent military? As I have said before you slag off Britain but China would have being unable to take the Falklands or any other islands 8,000 miles away from China THEN or NOW. ?My sources about the war is backed by references. Where are your references? My information comes from my own head (as the Falklands is the part of military history I know best) and from a number of books. I?ll give you the name of one though I doubt you?ve heard of it which is a useful outline to the campaign which is the Falklands military machine by Derek Oakley as well as numerous other books. Once again you have posted a load of nonsense and i have had to waste my time responding to it. Please think next time before you post rather than posting a lot of hate driven nonsense. Nemesis

Quote Reply

chicom_guy WWII Era Navy 8/2/2004 3:06:26 AM

Do I have to repeat myself? The Argentine warships didn't have missiles mounted to them, since all of those ships were from WWII. Can you fight an ironclad with a wooden canoe? You can't, and the argentine navy couldn't fight the british navy period. As for their soldiers, the argentines didn't have the logistics to supply heavy weapons of anykind, so "digging in" wasn't available available to the Argentine marines unless you mean something resembling the trenches and foxholes of WWI. So Britain in effect had complete naval and land dominance during the course of the war and at least air-superiority, and they just barely pulled it off after losing 7 ships. This is not a sign of power project, it's far more a sign of the lack of one.

Quote Reply

PuckaMan FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8/2/2004 3:23:25 AM

This spat between chicom and everyone else is bloody hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!! My 2 cents - the UK has a credible and capable power projection capability, more per capita than the PRC, who, can't even take Taiwan - which is in Tube artillery range (US seventh fleet notwithstanding). The Falklands was a great feat by any stretch of military analysis. Technologically backwards - alright perhaps they were in some areas - still, a bolt action Enfield or Mauser still makes a hole in you, and you SLR in this case may be newer in design, but still has to be used properly. The UK Armed forces performed outstandingly well, and hindsight aside (evrything could have been done better in hindsight) - any aircraft that can fly low enough and lauch Exocets is a threat, even if they air 'old' - Skyhawks can still be a threat. Frankly, this anti UK thing Chicom's got going is either a joke, or he got dumped by a girl from the UK and is still sore...... Pucka

Quote Reply

chicom_guy RE:FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8/2/2004 3:44:02 AM

Well, I was dumped by a british girl once, but that has nothing to do with it!!! :P .

Quote Reply

trib RE:Argentine Military 8/2/2004 7:57:26 AM

just for your information, Argies didn't have 27 exocets but only 5. They were 9 other ordred but the deal was cut by france at the beginning of the conflict.

Quote Reply

fall out FUNNY and stupid!!!!! 8/2/2004 9:11:50 AM

chicom, your arguments are funny as pucka mentioned, but also bloody annoying, pathetic and typical of someone who lives in a country where by all open source information (bar the net) is ruled by a centralist govt wanting their constituents to hear one side of the story; albiet their's! grow up, learn, you ignore questions directed at you when you know your wrong, you still havent answered me on the evil regime called the CCP, plz tell me what you think of them or are you too shi% scared? how many did mao (the rapist of little girls) kill? of your own countrymen and others? the great leap foward? hahaha, the han dynasty is a joke, your economy is joke in the sense at how reliant you are on FDI (foreign direct investment), over half of all your trade (thats exports and imports) is a result of FDI, you need the west FAR more than what we need your toys and t-shirts mate! now care to answer me???

Quote Reply

RM-Nod A few facts 8/2/2004 11:07:49 AM

The Argentine navy had at the time... 1 Carrier 4 SSKs 1 Cruiser (the guns out ranged anything in the British inventory except aircraft) 6 Destroyers 3 Frigates A total of 16 warships. The Argentine air force consisted of... 4 Super Etendards 53 A-4 Skyhawks 10 MB.339's 15 T-34C's 37 Daggers 17 Mirage 3s 10 Canberra bombers 35+ Pucaras Total of 181 war planes compared to 20 Royal Navy Sea Harriers. The Argentine army out numbered and out gunned the British forces, they had superior technology including better small arms and night vision equipment which the British did not have. Added to this the close proximity to the Argentine mainland and the falklands excellent defencive qualities the Argentine forces had far and away a better advantage than the UK forces.

Quote Reply

vincent my opinion about las malvinas 8/2/2004 12:27:29 PM

Ok, Argentine was quite strong but not outclassed the British : their victory was a great achievment but not a miracle caused by holy spirit! Argentine had a conscripts army facing professionals troops among the best trained in the world. Argies had'nt experience of modern war but only in anti guerilla warfare. They had very poor ASW weapons : they lost control of the sea. Their only defensive position means they lost the initiative (like germans in the atlantic wall or french in the maginot line...) Climate of south atlantic was hard for them too (waiting for the attack in foxholes for a month...) Morale was'nt on top : this war was a bet lost by the Argentinian government : they thought UK would not have the will to make war...) Falklands were in the operationnal limit of Argies fighters and attack planes : Argies were poor on tankers. My opinion : the result was'nt a miracle but shown that UK was able to win alone in sever conditions a war on the other side of the world : that's the definition of a good projection hability!

Quote Reply

chicom_guy RE:FUNNY and stupid!!!!! 8/2/2004 3:35:53 PM

Jeeeezz....just when the thread is getting interesting an australian shows up with an attitude. Ok listen, when the Americans lose their hold on that region, we're going to come down, level your cities, massacre all of your people and feast on your entrails. Ok? Happy now? Good, so stfu already!

Quote Reply

Nemesis1 RE:FUNNY and stupid!!!!! 8/2/2004 4:01:03 PM

"Jeeeezz....just when the thread is getting interesting an australian shows up with an attitude. Ok listen, when the Americans lose their hold on that region, we're going to come down, level your cities, massacre all of your people and feast on your entrails. Ok? Happy now? Good, so stfu already" This shows the true nature of Chicom guy. First you wont as you cant move troops by sea however i would find it humorous if you tried to do. Also the minute you tried to the USN and the RN as well as the Australian Navy and land based Aussie fighters would annihilate any attempt if you tried to do so. BTW fallout and Aussies anyone from any country who disagrees with him he says Chna will bomb their countries rape their women and massacre their people despite the fact China is UNABLE to do this. He is a pathetic excuse for a human being. Not only do you seem to be racist, arrogant and ignorant but you seem to have a tinge of evil to you too Nemesis

Quote Reply

Raslin RE:FUNNY and stupid!!!!! 8/2/2004 5:30:27 PM

China does not have 2000 warheads, globalsecurity said that as a large, possible estimate. That was an estimated number in the 70's, then a possible number of additions every year, which wasnt based on actual numbers. link

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Entrails 8/2/2004 10:00:00 PM

considering that it's going to be a fait accompli, could you please gorge yourself on the entrails of my mother-in-law first?

Quote Reply

fall out RE:FUNNY and stupid!!!!! 8/3/2004 12:42:10 AM

haha, nice to see you didnt answer my question, im not responding to anything else until you enlighten us with your views on your govt and china's history. oh well, at least the CCP is doomed, as soon as your economic bubble bursts (and it will, ala japan), the newly 'created' industralists, capitalists, investors, etc and of course some good ol students will take a walk thru tianamen square (which btw i have been to and did the aussie thing and kicked a footy there with my dad until a guard starting to come over to spoil our fun!) and enter the politburo and hey presto, you've got yourself a new govt. communism is a sick joke, it is terminally ill and in it's final stages, ultra-nationalism (ala nazis) will always be around, karl marx, hahaha, dream on bullwinkle!

Quote Reply

Raslin RE:FUNNY and stupid!!!!! 8/3/2004 3:47:45 AM

The world wasnt ready for communism. It seems we will have to wait.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us