America's Army Sucks, Fact

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:43:09 -0500,
Alan Minyard wrote:
On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they
unavailable?


they had blowpipe as their manpad. it was not very useful against fast
movers and IIRC press reports were not very flattering about its
performance.

www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm has a list of argentine
aircraft losses.

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:
[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they unavailable?

Blowpipe was used in respectable numbers, though it was more effective
against Pucaras than fast-movers. The SAS had some Stingers, which were
also used.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:



I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they
unavailable?


They did, the Short Blowpipe to be precise, there were not as good as the
current generation of manpad's but still managed to shoot down a
number of the Argentine aircraft, mainly the Pucara's operating in
the CAS role IRC.

Keith.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:06:01 GMT, walt moffett
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:43:09 -0500,
Alan Minyard wrote:
On 31 May 2004 16:01:19 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

The reason the Argentines came in low was Sea Dart, and the reason they
knew to come in at low to beat Sea Dart[1] was because they had two Type
42s of their own. However it's only prudent to assume that it if someone
sells you military kit that the version they sell you isn't as good as
the one they use themselves, so they might have been concerned that a
pop-up attack would have left them fatally exposed to Sea Dart[2]?

[1] Though I believe they was a successful engagement with Sea Dart
against a target at 50 feet?
[2] Though, IRIC, the Type 42s (and HMS Bristol) where never deployed
into San Carlos Water.

I have often wondered why the Brits did not use manpads. Were they
unavailable?


they had blowpipe as their manpad. it was not very useful against fast
movers and IIRC press reports were not very flattering about its
performance.

SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.

Peter Kemp

In article , John Mullen
writes
"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Legal Tender
writes
Those stupid American's saved your ass in two wars, or did you forget
that.
Also England has been around for a year or two, why don't you tell us how
England treated all of their POW's through out your history.
I think you will find what the Americans did was nothing compared to what
the Brits have done to their POW's over the years.

Frank

Which was what, exactly?

Do you mean the torture of IRA suspects in the 70s? That is the worst recent
example I can come up with. Like the current nonsense in Iraq, it actually
ended up making many more recruits for the guerrillas we were trying to
fight, and (along with internment) put the conflict beyond the scope of any
purely military solution.

However, the perpetrators of these abuses (which I am certainly not
defending) knew enough about the illegality of what they were doing not to
film or photograph themselves doing it and play kids' games with the
resulting images.

That was kind of silly IMO.

John


So you're taking specific examples from a situation that was by no means
a "normal" war to apply as a general rule? If not, that was the
inference from your post.
The IRA do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, so are not
POWs.
IMO people who blow up women and children indiscriminately, and murder a
woman who comforts a dying soldier, and then claim political status,
deserve all they get. Doesn't make it right, though.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:



SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.


Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
understood?

In message , Howard
Berkowitz writes
In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:
SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.

Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
understood?

It's a sacred military ritual, violation of which requires vengeance.




--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Denyav wrote:

...US military was and is unable to win anywhere
without "overwhelming power"

Spoken like a real library warrior.

Nobody "wins" without overwhelming power. Perhaps you would prefer the massive
battle of attrition (something with which the soviets have had a great deal of
experience) over tactics which minimize your own casualties.


But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American Aristocrats
and Knights, a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.

You clearly know less about the present-day US, than you do about the USA of
1865. Perhaps what you really require is a slave- or peasant-class in the
background before you can imagine a modern equivalent of your so-called
"aristocracy".

Aristocracys tend to spend their energies in pursuit of the past, and we are
well rid of them, and their apologists.



Jack

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:25:19 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Howard
Berkowitz writes
In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:
SAS/SBS were issued with Stingers and IIRC got the first kill with a
Stinger when a Pucara flew over a patrol which had stopped to brew up
(have a cup of tea), and was promptly shot down.

Is brewing up first part of the firing procedure, or just well
understood?

It's a sacred military ritual, violation of which requires vengeance.

Exactly - some damn Argentine disturbed them while they were warming
the teapot (aka slapping a mess tin of water on a hexy burner), and
vengence had to be had immediately - the war being on was merely a
coincidence - we're just lucky they weren't on an exercise outside
Heathrow!

Peter Kemp