Senerio - opinions please

Welcome to World's Armed Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Senerio - opinions please; theoritical senerio
Topic Started: Jun 4 2004, 05:18 PM (243 Views)
bop_2k	Jun 4 2004, 05:18 PM Post #1
Lieutenant Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #115 Joined: May 29, 2004	This is a theoritical senerio. France owned the falklands, not the british. Argentina invades the islands. Could the french have re envaded the islands like the British?



RBTiger	Jun 6 2004, 06:17 PM Post #2
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	Frankly, I have no idea of the French Military capablities at that time. You'd have to find a Frenchmen or at least a European for that.
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


Mogz	Jun 8 2004, 04:41 PM Post #3
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	Yes France could have, the French military is superior in some regards to the U.K. First and foremost the French actually have "real" carriers (for lack of a better term). In the 80's they had two: Foch (R99) Clemenceau (R98) Each were capable of carrying 40 fixed-wing fighters. The British, having only Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) carriers suffered at the hands of the Argentinian Air Force because their Sea Harriers were sub-sonic. Furthermore the French Navy was significantly larger than the British Navy in the 1980's (still is today). A major problem for the British at the Falklands was the fact that the Argentine Navy and the Royal Navy both used the Type 21 Destroyer. Given this fact the Argentine Navy had a good concept of the type 21's weak air-defense capabilities. Therefore the Argentine Air Force exploited this flaw, sinking numerous British warships. The British did have the Type 42 Destroyer which is a very good air defense vessel, and they had the Type 22 Frigate which aided them greatly, however the French could have brought some great guided missle destroyers to the war; The Tourville Class, The Georges Leygues Class, and The Cassard Class. The one area I have reservations about is the French Army. Their Army isn't exactly renowed for their skill, and a major cause for the British victory on land was the fact that the Royal Army is highly trained. The British committed the 3rd Commando Brigade (Royal Marines), the 7th Gurkha Regiment (Nepalese soldiers, highly trained), and the 5th Infantry Brigade to which the Parachute Regiment was attached (well known for their fighting ability). Some fierce fighting took place on the Falklands, especially the resistance 3 Para encountered at Mount Longdon (Sergeant McKay won the Victoria Cross there). All in all I think the French Army would be up to the task, but i'm sure the operation would have taken longer. The French Airborne would probably be the premier fighting force to be sent, as well as some component of the Foreign Legion. I think in the end French numerical superiority would win the day, whereas the British won due to skill (being unable to get more than 10,000 troops down there).



RBTiger	Jun 9 2004, 04:56 PM Post #4
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	Britain did it with only two carrier groups (CVs). I guess from the above post that France could have, but it wouldn't be fair to say that the French were better at that time. Skill also counts in the"betterness" agenda.
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


Mogz	Jun 9 2004, 09:24 PM Post #5
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	I honestly think that in the 80's the French military was superior to the British. The Royal Military saw large budget cuts in the late 70's and as a result some of the sting was taken out of Britain. Take for example their methods for transporting their ground forces to the Falklands. In the 80's the Royal Navy only had two amphibious assault ships (fearless and Intrepid), clearly not capable of transport 10,000 combat troops to the islands. While granted yes the assault carriers Hermes and Invincible were equiped to transport men, their abilities were but a drop in the bucket. The Royal Navy actually had to commandeer civilian cargo haulers, one of which was turned in to a helicopter carrier. I have no doubt in the fighting ability of the British Army circa 1980's (especially the Parachute Regiment) but if Britain had gone toe to toe with the French military in the early 80's it would most likely have been a victory for France. That said with the Falklands, France could have done it. The sea and air campaign would have been a mess for Argentinia due to Frances enhanced Navy and ability to field supersonic aircraft. The area the war would have bogged down in my opinion was on the land, where the British Armys superior training paid off.



RBTiger	Jun 11 2004, 07:32 PM Post #6
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	The Argentinian Mirage's gave them a hard time, but the Harriers were able to pull it off. Who would you rate better, Royal or french navy, in the 1980's? Did the French have any answer to UK's Harriers for its Naval roles?
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


Mogz	Jun 12 2004, 02:48 AM Post #7
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	Yes the Mirage was an excellent air craft for its period and for all intents and purposes SHOULD have been able to beat the Royal Air Forces Harriers, however one thing the British had was superior training. Where other pilots would have folded trying to engaged supersonic aircraft in sub-sonic aircraft, the British pilots simply adpated and overcame. Personally I cannot name one Navy better than the other in 80's. Both had extreme merits, and extreme downsides. One of the aspects of the Royal Navy that was great during the 80's was the goal-keeper weapons system (called the CIWS in North America). This gun system was invented by the Royal Navy in 1975 and was meant to enhance their ships relatively weak air-defense capabilities (considered a ship-saver in the Falklands). In the 80's the French Navy hadn't yet to employ any close in weapons systems for air defense, they instead relied on taking down incoming air threats from a distance. The problem with this tactic is that there is a certain umbrella that the ships missile defense systems can cover. Once a threat has penetrated that umbrella it gets increasingly more difficult for the threat to be taken down as the range decreases. The Royal Navy also had 4 VTOL carriers in the 80's (Hermes, Ark Royal, Illustrious, and Invincible). While not capable of carrying supersonic aircraft, VTOL aircraft can still be a great assest to a naval taskforce. The Harrier Jump-jet is one of the worlds greatests military inventions, and the payload that aircraft can carry makes it dangerous to any thing it goes up against. The French Navy, as I mentioned earlier, had 2 "proper" carriers in the 80's (up to 3 now). Capable of carrying 40 supersonic aircraft, the French Navy could greatly use these two carriers in any conflict, thus giving them an edge over an enemy that neither had carriers, nor could field supersonic aircraft at sea. The exocet missile is a great piece of French military hardware. For those that aren't aware, the exocet (France used the MM-40 in the 80's) comes in two formats; Surface-to-surface Anti-ship, and Surface-to-air anti-ship. The missile skims just above the water (6 feet) and travels at around Mach1. Given the speed and height at which it travels, the exocet is a suberb ship killer, something the Royal Navy found out in the Falklands.



RBTiger	Jun 13 2004, 03:59 PM Post #8
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	Speaking of the Invincibles, aren't the Uk retiring it and giving it to India? Thanx for the info about the navies at that time.
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


Mogz	Jun 14 2004, 03:50 AM Post #9
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	I'm pretty sure the U.K. gave India HMS Hermes years ago, as for the Invincible Class I honestly don't know if they plan to give them over. However I do know they're being retired in a favor of two super carriers in a few years, but there is talk of them keeping HMS Ark Royal for use in conjunction with the Royal Marines. Why they'd do that I don't know because they alreayd have; HMS Ocean, HMS Albion, and HMS Bulwark.



bop_2k	Jun 14 2004, 04:03 AM Post #10
Lieutenant Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #115 Joined: May 29, 2004	They will convert Ark Royal into a slightly larger Ocean which has been the most succesful singlur ship in the last decade. Ark Royal will be a heli carrier like ocean! By the way this is ESSENTIAL! Albion and Bulwark if you have done your homework do not provide anywere near the same capibilities as ocean they are not carriers of any sort and will never be! Hermes was given away to india in the v early 90s maybe 1988 not 2 sure but will check if u want. It currently serves and is going to undergo a re fit to keep it in service untill the new carriers come. There is rumors that canada will be purchasing one of the old carriers but nothing has been confirmed



Mogz	Jun 14 2004, 04:15 AM Post #11
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	Yeah I know Bulwark and Albion pale in comparrison to Ocean (which is amazing actaully). I see the sense in keeping Ark Royal around, but it was launched in the 70's, getting a tad old. Thanks for confirming India took over Hermes. Yeah Canada has been looking to increase our amphibious capabilites for years. Since our last Carrier (HMCS Bon Aventure) was decommissioned in the 70's we haven't had a reliable method for moving large contingents of men around at sea. We were also trying to work out a deal with the U.S. to buy a Wasp Class for dirt cheap, but as far as I know that fell through.



bop_2k	Jun 14 2004, 02:47 PM Post #12
Lieutenant Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #115 Joined: May 29, 2004	wasnt ark royal not lauched in the 80s. It was only comissioned after the falklands to provide th uk with greater force projection which was needed at that time. Heard about those canadian rumors aswell but cannot see them purchasing a approx 40000 ton carrier, at least not with the current gov. Maybe their will b a chance if the conservatives take power in the next election? They i believe have promised an increase in defence procurment and also to raise defense expendature



bop_2k	Jun 14 2004, 02:58 PM Post #13
Lieutenant Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #115 Joined: May 29, 2004	Found info on the conservatives future planning on the armed forces. - 80000 regular force - 50000 reserve force - replace the lepord battle tanks (no replacement has been decided) - buy 2 aircraft carriers (says that it will more than likely be one around the size of the oldbonnadventures but with new technology itill be a smaller crew) - replacement of the CF-18 hornets (i believe this will be with the F-22s untill the JSF comes) - possible review of repaceing the halifax destroyers - 7000 rapid reaction force able to deploy independatly anywere in the world If this happens then canada will have woken up again! Dont know why they wanna replace the halifax tho they are a good ship and the money could be spent better elsewere.



Mogz	Jun 14 2004, 04:05 PM Post #14
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	I believe Ark Royal was launched in 1978, but I suppose I could be wrong. I do know however that it was in service before the Falkands, because it was off the coast of Cyprus thus not able to participate in the campaign. As for the current political ramifications on the Canadian Forces, yes the Liberal government currently in power cares nothing about the military. For years the budget has been slashed and thus the Forces aren't maintained. If the Conservatives gain power on June 28th we'll be seeing a massive influx of cash for the Forces. That said i'd like to comment on some parts of that list you posted: The Leopards - The plan is to scrape MBTs all together in the Canadian Army. The last time a Canadian tank saw combat was in Korea in 1953 (granted Leopards were sent to the Former Yugoslavia but never saw combat). The plan is to introduce more LAVs (light armored vehicles) to augement the current ones. This LAV "family" will eventually consist of: Currently in service: LAV-III Infantry Fighting Vehicle - 600 Coyote Armored Recon Vehicle - 280 Coyote Direct Fire Support Vehicle - 60 Bison Multi-purpose vehicle - 190 Not yet in service: 120mm gun variant (anti-tank) Javelin variant (anti-air) ADATS variant (anti-tank) Engineer variant (field engineer work) New Carriers - I've heard that Conservatives talk about this, however i'm curious to see what air craft (if any) they put on them. CF-18's - Ugh that should have been done ages ago, I saw the first Hornet fly in Canada when I was a kid (don't remember it thougH), and now i'm almost 22. It's high time the Hornet is replaced. The Halifax Class - These aren't destroyers, they're actually guided missile frigates. However they're around 10 years old now and are due for a refit. My cousin is on the HMCS Winnipeg and my buddy is on the HMCS Fredricton and they both say their ships need an overhaul. The sad part is though the government has yet to make plans to replace them. However what really needs to be replaced are our Iroquois Class destroyers, they're getting on in years. Rapid reaction force - That force has existed and not existed for years. It used to be the Canadian Special Service Force (CSSF), comprised of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade, an air detachment from CFB Trenton, and a helicopter detachment from CFB Kingston. That said the CSSF was no longer a functional unit in the 70's (dismantled by the Government), however was reintroduced as the Ace Mobile Force Group (AFM Group) in the 80's, and subsequently disbanded in 1994 when the Minister of Defense (David Collinette) disbanded the Canadian Airborne Regiment after the fiasco in Somalia (I hate that man). Since then each mechanized brigade of the Army takes turns supplying the immediate reaction force (IRF). Thanks for the info bop!



Bloodbath	Jun 16 2004, 01:17 PM Post #15
Captain Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #134 Joined: June 16, 2004	If you go by history french are real time loosers...they lost most wars with britan..during the race to colonies they lost in most..in ww2 they lost their own land...the french lack in spirit strength. there is no way they could even have caputred the island in the first place
	The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him.it shows that you recognise his superiority to your own self


RBTiger	Jun 16 2004, 03:50 PM Post #16
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	Well, the french did have good control over Africa for much of the last century.
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


Bloodbath	Jun 16 2004, 04:29 PM Post #17
Captain Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #134 Joined: June 16, 2004	Hmnn..Taming a bunch of wild people armed with spears and armoured with cow hide.....gimme an Ak 47 i can do it better than the french for sure.
	The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him.it shows that you recognise his superiority to your own self


RBTiger	Jun 16 2004, 04:32 PM Post #18
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	I know the French weren't the best militarily, but now do have an excellent military (they're in SC with Russia, US,UK, China).
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


Mogz	Jun 17 2004, 12:46 AM Post #19
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	Wow bloodbath, congratulations, you know nothing. The French are a victim of sterotypes, just like Canadians are all said to live in igloo's, and all Americans are inbred. The French have engaged and fought well in numerous battles throughout history. Some notables that come to mind in the 20th century are: The Marne Offensive - World War I Monte Casino - World War II Ouisterham - World War II Battle of Twin Tunnels - Korean War Battle of Dien Bien Phu - Vietnam 1954 (lost but fought well) And those are the ones that come to mind. The bottom line is the French military is a lot better than people give it credit for. Yes they could have retaken the Falklands in '82, and could do so with greater ease today.



Bloodbath	Jun 17 2004, 04:28 PM Post #20
Captain Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #134 Joined: June 16, 2004	I am not talking about battles.Pitch USA against say pakistan then pakistan will certainly win a few battles but definetely they will loose the war. Even the weakest nations have won battles but that dosent mean that theirs is a good military.
	The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him.it shows that you recognise his superiority to your own self


bop_2k	Jun 17 2004, 06:07 PM Post #21
Lieutenant Posts: 23 Group: Members Member #115 Joined: May 29, 2004	wow bloodbath dont make rash comments like that! I am no great fan of the french military that was why i wanted to know if they could have retaken the islands. I believe that the french are slightly over rated, did you know that they only have somthing like 24 - 36 fighter planes ready now to take off in the event of a war (which i know wont happen) and are still considered to have the best airforce in eu! lol! but in total thay are a first class outfit with number 3 power projection in the world and with some of the best fighting troops even if most of army is conscript. I know a guy who used to be in foreign legion but left due to injury and i can tell you i would not like to be going against them in battle!



Mogz	Jun 17 2004, 07:41 PM Post #22
Knowledgeable Member Posts: 295 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: June 8, 2004	The bottom line here bloodbath is that you made a crass comment yet your only basis for it, are typical sterotypes of the French people. Bop hit the nail on the head when he refered to French force projection. Not many nations have the capabilities that France does and just because they have a poor track-record (due to sterotypes) that doesn't mean they couldn't mount an operation much like Britain did, if not with better success in the sea and air campaigns.



RBTiger	Jun 20 2004, 12:30 PM Post #23
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	I believe France has the 3rd best force projection capablities in the world, after UK and US. Also, they have the 3rd best military industry, after US and Russia.
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


PLA1021	Jul 5 2004, 10:30 AM Post #24
Champion Poster Posts: 476 Group: Members Member #127 Joined: June 9, 2004	RBTiger Jun 20 2004, 12:30 PM I believe France has the 3rd best force projection capablities in the world, after UK and US. Also, they have the 3rd best military industry, after US and Russia. 3rd best military industry would be Germany would it?



bop_040	Jul 5 2004, 04:42 PM Post #25
Informative Member Posts: 241 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: June 19, 2004	3rd best you could say is franco - german as there is alot of consolidation in their industries with mergers such as eads, which is 80% civilion and 20% military but will be larger than boeing soon.



RBTiger	Jul 7 2004, 03:52 PM Post #26
Field Marshal Posts: 1,212 Group: Field Marshal Member #1 Joined: November 25, 2003	Franco-German have a better industry than UK for sure.
	World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests”


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · War Scenarios · Next Topic »