Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.


Horse****

Its a hell of alot easier for Britain to deploy troops to the Isle of
Wight
than it is for Argentina

Obviously yes, but it still much more difficult than moving them by trains
or road.

Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?

Again NO ,

Why not? I thought they were much more effective than ill-trained Argentinan
military?

Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better
instrument
of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
particularly relevant...


On the contrary it was a core requirement. The politically reliable
force was his last defense against an army revolt.

....which is why they were given better equipment and more resources.

Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat
units"
in
the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as
we
do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training
units
or from scratch according to mobilization plans.


Which is a bit unfortunate if the enemy isnt considerate enough to give
you
advanced warning of his plans

For most countries, it's rather unlikely that someone just invades them out
of blue sky. If such threat exists, it can be dealt with longer conscription
time or keeping separate high-readiness units.

Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their
task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.


Which leaves exactly who guarding the interests of the nation ?

Like what interests?

Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
maintain their rifles" -story.


Multiple sources , here's just one
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=341922002

"I was 19 when they sent us to the Falklands," he says.
"I had done my military service, but I think I'd only touched
a gun once for about 15 minutes. I didn't have a clue how
to load a rifle."

Then Argentinian military training has been truly atrocious and tells
absolutely nothing about actual battle performance of a proper conscript
army. If anything, with that sort of training it's surprising they managed
to put up even that much resistance.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:08:04 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?

Again NO ,

Why not? I thought they were much more effective than ill-trained Argentinan
military?

Are you trying to be obtuse? The RN in 1982 (and now), does not have
the amphibious transports to land a divisional sized force in fighting
order on a hostile shore. The fighting has nothing to do with it, it's
the getting there.

If on the other hand 1Div had magically arrived in Argentina, then
they probably would have done pretty damn well against the Argentine
forces.
Chieftains (probably one of the two best tanks in the world in 1982),
supported by TOW armed Lynxes, who had been training to fight the best
Soviet Guards armies versus what the Argentines would be likely to
have at the time (I'm afraid Google let me down on the OOB in 1982
except for the forces sent to the Falklands). It'd be slaughter.

Can anyone help out with the OOB for 1982 in Argentina (and the UK
come to that)?

Peter Kemp