# How to pull off Para drop at Falklands



## Admiral Beez (Feb 10, 2022)

If the British had 72 hours notice of the Argentine invasion could a force of Paras be dropped? Challenges are that the Brits have no heavy lift transports and their medium lift Hercules are not equipped for inflight refueling. My thinking is the Brits needs to borrow a C-5 Galaxy from the USAF (if there's one local) or re-acquire the recently sold Short Belfast for a one-way forced landing.


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> If the British had 72 hours notice of the Argentine invasion could a force of Paras be dropped? Challenges are that the Brits have no heavy lift transports and their medium lift Hercules are not equipped for inflight refueling, and they're too slow to get there in time. My thinking is the Brits needs to borrow a C-5 Galaxy from the USAF (if there's one local) or re-acquire the recently sold Short Belfast for a one-way forced landing.


Capitalism is a remarkable system. If I had the bucks and a brigade or two ready with 72 hours notice, I’m sure there were plenty of air transport available. Especially as a government could high speed rubber stamp the paperwork (or lose it).


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

That's some swag you got there. 

Ask General Pinochet for help. Did Chile have C-130? Could they range out to the Falklands?

Use a civilian flight to get to Santiago. Anything which can't be flown on a civilian flight can be taken from the Chilean army.

Take the C-130 and land at Port Stanley

Does that work?

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> That's some swag you got there.
> 
> Ask General Pinochet for help. Did Chile have C-130? Could they range out to the Falklands?
> 
> ...



Yes, they did have 130s. Don't know if they could reach the islands, and I'm skeptical Chile would want to get involved in that war in any event.

At the time the RAF had about 30 Hercs in service which had refueling capabilities, which would be needed for any airdrops. I think it was 5 battalions used in that war that were airborne-capable, so any use of paras/Commandos would have to be done with a shuttle from Ascension. It could be done but I don't know if it could be done in 72 hours.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2022)

Trying to allocate a C-5, get the crew briefed, have it load and on site would require quite an effort.

Also, having a USAF aircraft getting involved in that situation would be a diplomatic can of worms...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Feb 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yes, they did have 130s. Don't know if they could reach the islands, and I'm skeptical Chile would want to get involved in that war in any event.
> 
> At the time the RAF had about 30 Hercs in service which had refueling capabilities, which would be needed for any airdrops. I think it was 5 battalions used in that war that were airborne-capable, so any use of paras/Commandos would have to be done with a shuttle from Ascension. It could be done but I don't know if it could be done in 72 hours.


Work to fit refuelling probes to the RAF Hercules only began after the outbreak of the Falklands War with the first succesful contact with a Victor tanker taking place on 3 May 1982 and the first operational sortie on 16 May. The programme to refit the C.1 fleet was not completed until after the war was over.

6 C.1 were also with HDUs as tankers but the first of those did not fly until July 1982.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Work to fit refuelling probes to the RAF Hercules only began after the outbreak of the Falklands War with the first succesful contact with a Victor tanker taking place on 3 May 1982 and the first operational sortie on 16 May. The programme to refit the C.1 fleet was not completed until after the war was over.
> 
> 6 C.1 were also with HDUs as tankers but the first of those did not fly until July 1982.



I had thought that upgrading had started in the late 70s. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## EwenS (Feb 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I had thought that upgrading had started in the late 70s. Thanks for the correction.


In 1978 a programme began to stretch 30 of the RAF Hercules fleet from C.1 to C.3 configuration. They were then probed later on in the 1980s.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

EwenS said:


> In 1978 a programme began to stretch 30 of the RAF Hercules fleet from C.1 to C.3 configuration. They were then probed later on in the 1980s.



Therein lies my confusion -- thanks again. Remember, lads, don't grow old!


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

Bletchley Park 2.0 as given us 72 hours. What's (if anything) is at Ascension Island? Can some of that be shuttled to the Falklands? Replace those guys with some troops from the "cavalry". What situation? No war yet. We got 72 hours. Perhaps a friendly request from one friendly nation to another. You guys would know U.S. airlift capability better than I. How was the airline industry doing at the time? I'm guessing there were a few empty civilian heavies around the U.K. 

Here's the thing; once stuff starts heading to the Falklands, with a new company or two already reinforcing and a task force enroute, how eager will Argentina be to carry through?
You'll be tipping off the Argentinians that there's a security leak.


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Therein lies my confusion -- thanks again. Remember, lads, don't grow old!


Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.



Well, the alternative of not growing old can have a scary aspect to it too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

Amen, Brother!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> That's some swag you got there. Ask General Pinochet for help. Did Chile have C-130? Could they range out to the Falklands? Use a civilian flight to get to Santiago. Anything which can't be flown on a civilian flight can be taken from the Chilean army. Take the C-130 and land at Port Stanley. Does that work?


I like that.

72:00 hours - Maggie and the Chiefs get the word of the imminent invasion. Six hours of chatter, including calls to Chile and to British Airways to secure and fuel a 747. Alert sent to Governor Rex Hunt to prepare for the landings and to recall the 22 Marines sent to South Georgia.
66:00 hours - Chile agrees to the BA flight, but wants time to consider whilst enroute. BA agrees, begins to fuel and prepare a 747. Alert goes out to Parachute Regiment (and six RAF transport command aircrew) to kit up and meet at closest 747-capable airport/base in 6 hours
60:00 hours - 400 Paras arrive at airbase, load munitions and kit, etc.
58:00 hours - Boeing 747 takes off for 15 hour flight from UK to Santiago. During these 15 hours Maggie and the British ambassador push Chile to agree to sell/borrow two C-130s or other aircraft for a one way trip to Stanley field. Chile agrees, paints over national markings on two C130s, sends them to Santiago.
43:00 hours - Boeing 747 lands at Santiago, Paras take two hours to unload and transfer to two private C130s for three hour flight to the airbase at Ibáñez del Campo.
38:00 hours - C130s arrive at Ibáñez del Campo, refuel. Chileans pilots depart, handing over to RAF pilots. One hour for refuel and checks. Two hour flight to Stanley
35:00 hours - Two C130s arrive with 400 Paras, boosting the Falklands garrison to 400 Army, 79 RMs and six RAF aircrew. The C130s are painted with RAF roundels.
30:00 hours - Chilean and British media broadcast footage of the garrison. Word gets to the Argentine commanders waiting to depart with their invasion vessels.
30:05 hours - Maggie phones up Galtieri and tells him that she knows what he's about, that her boys are now in force and will kill any Argies that land
Looks like we can do the above with about 30 hours to spare. Even if I'm ignorantly optimistic I'd think getting the Paras onto the ground within 72 hours notice is doable. But are 400 lightly armed Paras going to deter the Argentines? At best beyond their rifles and grenades they've brought a few LMGs and Carl Gustavs.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

I said a civilian aircraft would land in Santiago, Chile.
I said Chilean C-130 would be used to transport men to Port Stanley.

At no point did I say Chile was involved.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Feb 10, 2022)

The C-130E/H (not sure which version the Chileans had) only had a capacity for 92 troops (64 paras). So you are going in with less than half you are planning.

Politically I'm not sure the Chileans would agree to be so openly involved (where else can a Herc come from?). Historically, while they helped us, everything that happened in Chile had to be kept very hush hush. Use of Hercs this way seems a bit too overt to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

If there are fresh boots on the ground and more inbound on a better equipped and trained navy, don’t think anymore would have been needed. 
That alone would have shaken Galtieri.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The C-130E/H (not sure which version the Chileans had) only had a capacity for 92 troops (64 paras). So you are going in with less than half you are planning.
> 
> Politically I'm not sure the Chileans would agree to be so openly involved (where else can a Herc come from?). Historically, while they helped us, everything that happened in Chile had to be kept very hush hush. Use of Hercs this way seems a bit too overt to me.


Shangri-la

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Frog (Feb 10, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> If the British had 72 hours notice of the Argentine invasion could a force of Paras be dropped? Challenges are that the Brits have no heavy lift transports and their medium lift Hercules are not equipped for inflight refueling. My thinking is the Brits needs to borrow a C-5 Galaxy from the USAF (if there's one local) or re-acquire the recently sold Short Belfast for a one-way forced landing.



They call the French to borrow an A400...


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

Technical point of order. If war starts in 72 hours then doing something now is not war. So the Chilean is just charter flights to some place. So no big deal. If a Chilean Herc overflys says Port Stanley on a training flight then I am sure these things happen. Just coincidence.


----------



## EwenS (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Shangri-la


Can't get a US supercarrier down there in 72 hours!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> I said a civilian aircraft would land in Santiago, Chile.
> I said Chilean C-130 would be used to transport men to Port Stanley.
> 
> At no point did I say Chile was involved.



Chilean C-130s being used necessarily involves Chile in the impending conflict. They've got a long frontier with Argentina. Do you really think they want to court that trouble?



The Basket said:


> Technical point of order. If war starts in 72 hours then doing something now is not war. So the Chilean is just charter flights to some place. So no big deal. If a Chilean Herc overflys says Port Stanley on a training flight then I am sure these things happen. Just coincidence.



I'm sure the Argentinians would give it a pass and take no action, then. It's not like those C-130s would have to overfly Argentina on the way ... oh, wait. They would indeed have to overfly.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> I said a civilian aircraft would land in Santiago, Chile.
> I said Chilean C-130 would be used to transport men to Port Stanley.
> 
> At no point did I say Chile was involved.


Like it not, by providing passage they are involved. Also, how does one travel from Chile to the Falklands without overflying Argentina?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> Like it not, by providing passage they are involved. Also, how does one travel from Chile to the Falklands without overflying Argentina?


Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.

Whether the Chileans want to get involved depends on this large bag of cash. It's a large bag of cash. Plenty of cash is the issue.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.
> 
> Whether the Chileans want to get involved depends on this large bag of cash. It's a large bag of cash. Plenty of cash is the issue.


Britain helped keep Pinochet out of The Hague. That’s a thank you of great value.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.
> 
> Whether the Chileans want to get involved depends on this large bag of cash. It's a large bag of cash. Plenty of cash is the issue.



That's 2000 miles one way from Santiago -- which was your original starting point -- to the Falklands via Punta Arenas. Five hours from Santiago to Punta, another two to the islands, and then where's the airplanes gonna go? You've already maxed out the C-130's range, they're landing at the Falklands or ditching nearby. Ask the Germans how landing on a hostile airfield goes.

It's not like the Argentinians are going to not notice the 130s headed out over the Atlantic, either. You're still going to have to address the political fallout for that reason.

_25 de Mayo_ would already be at sea too, right?

Color me skeptical.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2022)

C-130 would land and refuel at Punta Arenas airport. And land back at Punta Arenas.

I am not saying this is realistic or even happening but it is possible or in the realms of possiblity.

Plus British forces could be in Belize or North America so it may be possible to build a scratch force of troops from them guys.

Again feasible no idea and equipment will have to be lifted from the Chilean army. Coz you ain't carrying grenade on a civilian flight.

So can you get British troops to Port Stanley in 72 hours. Yes. It is theoretically possible. 

It is feasible or reality.... probably no but that's not the query. It can be done.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That's 2000 miles one way from Santiago -- which was your original starting point -- to the Falklands via Punta Arenas. Five hours from Santiago to Punta, another two to the islands, and then where's the airplanes gonna go? You've already maxed out the C-130's range, they're landing at the Falklands or ditching nearby. Ask the Germans how landing on a hostile airfield goes.


My idea was the air drop was always a one way mission.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> My idea was the air drop was always a one way mission.



Okay, that's doable.

Wise is another question.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

The Basket said:


> C-130 would land and refuel at Punta Arenas airport. And land back at Punta Arenas.
> 
> I am not saying this is realistic or even happening but it is possible or in the realms of possiblity.
> 
> ...



Logistically yes, politically no.


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 11, 2022)

I think "borrowing" USAF/USMC C-130s and painting them in UK colours within 24 hrs is doable. Whether the tankers that refuel them are RAF or USAF would not be knowable at the time. Aircraft enthusiasts around the world would be saying "Those tricky British, keeping the IFR capability of their Hercules C Mk.1s a secret all this time" . . . at least until someone leaks the confidential info years later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 11, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> I think "borrowing" USAF/USMC C-130s and painting them in UK colours within 24 hrs is doable. Whether the tankers that refuel them are RAF or USAF would not be knowable at the time.


IIRC the Victor tankers used a boom system incompatible with the USAF system. It really was British negligence that the Stanley airfield wasn't lengthened to accept commercial transatlantic aircraft. How much would that have cost?

Reading up on the invasion I think the fifty-seven Royal Marines put up a spirited defence that must have brought a degree of worry to the hundreds of Argentine conscripts - knowing that several thousand more will be coming soon. The conscripts are just lucky the garrison wasn't made up of Gurkhas, reputed to rarely surrender.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:

_
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War. Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Crown Colony, on April 2, 1982. The Argentines overwhelmed the small British military contingent on Port Stanley, the islands' capital, and took the town without inflicting any casualties. The next day, Argentine marines seized South Georgia Island, a British Overseas Territory about 1,120 miles from the Falklands. By the end of April there were more than 10,000 Argentine troops on the islands.

The challenge for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government seemed overwhelming, given the more than 8,000-mile distance between Britain and the islands. In fact, the British outpost in the South Atlantic that was closest to the Falklands, Ascension Island, was just under 4,000 miles away. Nevertheless, backed by the Reagan administration's strong and timely political, materiel and intelligence support, and despite some naval losses, Britain was able to retake the islands in a matter of just over two months.

Argentina has never come to terms with British control of the islands, which dates to 1833 (they became a Crown Colony eight years later). There was an Argentine settlement on the islands at the time, and ever since Buenos Aires has claimed the Malvinas, as it called them, as its own sovereign territory. Despite its decisive defeat in the Falklands War, and despite the preference of the islanders to remain British citizens, Argentina has never relinquished that claim. It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.

Enter China. This week, Argentina joined China's massive Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement that Argentine President Alberto Fernandez and his counterpart, Xi Jinping, signed on Feb. 7 calls for $23 billion worth of Chinese investments for what Fernandez termed "works and projects." Chinese official reporting has stressed not only the importance of trade and investment between the two countries, but also has noted the importance of "regional connectivity," which no doubt signifies an open door for Huawei's 5G network. The agreement represents a giant Chinese foothold in Latin America.

In their joint statement outlining the specifics of what is essentially an economic agreement, however, the two sides also backed each other's territorial claims. Argentina reiterated its support for the One China policy that is the cornerstone of Beijing's claim to Taiwan. For its part, China voiced its support for the Argentine claim to what the statement called "the Malvinas." _

Those interested can read the full article here:









Britain, China and the Falkland Islands: Why the US must weigh in


Washington must make clear to Buenos Aires and Beijing that it fully supports keeping the Falklands under British control.




thehill.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:
> 
> 
> _This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War. Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Crown Colony, on April 2, 1982. The Argentines overwhelmed the small British military contingent on Port Stanley, the islands' capital, and took the town without inflicting any casualties. The next day, Argentine marines seized South Georgia Island, a British Overseas Territory about 1,120 miles from the Falklands. By the end of April there were more than 10,000 Argentine troops on the islands.
> ...


I gotta get back to this one later!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

A few things to unpack...



EwenS said:


> Politically I'm not sure the Chileans would agree to be so openly involved (where else can a Herc come from?). Historically, while they helped us, everything that happened in Chile had to be kept very hush hush. Use of Hercs this way seems a bit too overt to me.



True, during the war, British Special Forces were flown into and operated from Chile aboard Sea Kings. It's also worth mentioning that before the Falklands war Argentina and Chile came very close to war in 1978, so there was quite a bit of animosity between the two countries by 1982 and the Chileans were keen to help Britain, but covertly, as the activity by British Special Forces in Chile was kept secret for a number of years.



Thumpalumpacus said:


> Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:



It's an interesting development, Argentina could do with the money as it has a notoriously bad economic record, from being one of the wealthiest nations in the world at the end of WW2 to becoming much poorer owing to badly mismanaging its economy, largely owing to government corruption, coup d'etats etc, so the money will be of use, but will gaining Chinese moneys and an empathetic communist government actually enable action in attempting to secure the Malvinas? I doubt it. China has the capability to take Taiwan but won't because of world pressure, but militarily, Argentina is not in a position to take the Malvinas at all. Perhaps the current government will pull a Galtieri and detract from the country's financial woes and drum up patriotic fervour by putting the money into re-enacting Operacion Azul (changed to Rosario) and invade the islands, at the expense of stabilising the economy?



Thumpalumpacus said:


> It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.



This is not strictly true, Britain has attempted negotiation before and it is worth noting that even before the war the British discussed and proposed concessions with Argentina. It has always been Argentina that has rejected Britain's claim over the island (I know you didn't write that, dude, the quote system used your name).

Its worth noting that regarding the 72 hours thing, a couple of things regarding the British task force and its preparation. It took the British 72 hours to get the two carriers and warships ready and sail to Ascension, although a lot of stuff was delivered following the departure of the fleet from Portsmouth, including the RAF's Harrier GR.3s, which flew from RAF Wittering/St Mawgan to Ascension Island, which is a loooong way for a Harrier, let alone ten of them (one turned back), being refuelled en route by Victors. Much equipment departed afterwards, the Atlantic Conveyor and other vessels brought equipment and personnel to Ascension and were either picked up there or met down at the islands.

It's also worth noting that the Soviets passed information to the Argentine government regarding the disposition of the British task force through its intel sources once it sailed. Once it departed Ascension, the fleet was tailed almost the whole way to the South Atlantic by FAA spy aircraft, including 707s, one of which was intercepted by a Sea Harrier. The Argentinians knew what was coming. How they reacted was entirely up to them.

I don't believe that para-dropping in is going to change the outcome of Argentine forces taking the island, not unless the British have overwhelming superiority in numbers and equipment. Azul (changed to Rosario) was a well designed and well executed plan with support from the other branches of the armed forces, which was unusual at the time as infighting between branches of the armed forces was rife. Azul was dreamed up by the head of the Armada Adm Jorge Anaya years before 1982 and its actuation was done with support from other military heads, oddly, however the lack of co-operation between the forces marked Argentina's disappointing showing during the British recapture of the islands.

The invasion involved amphibious craft, surface warships and submarines, so the British need firepower and a lot of stuff that had to be brought from the UK, as it traditionally was if stopping the invasion was going to succeed. such a thing would have been an utter waste of paratroopers and whosever aircraft was used to convey them. Just wait, the task force is on its way...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## c1951 (Apr 13, 2022)

If I remember there was one British para drop during the conflict when a senior officer was parachuted in. Its now 40 years ago but I can remember it being discussed and the number of Victors used to keep the RAF Charley 130 in the air


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2022)

c1951 said:


> I can remember it being discussed and the number of Victors used to keep the RAF Charley 130 in the air



Off the top of my head I can't recall the action in particular you're referring to, but flying the single Vulcans to the islands from Ascension required around 11 Victor tankers. Maritime patrol Nimrods conducted sorties during the war and they were refuelled en route by the Victors, the IFR capability having just been added to the Nimrods at the time of the war. One Nimrod recon sortie lasted 19 hours.

I do know that C-130s often carried long rang cargo drops by installing tanks in their holds, one flight lasting 18 hours on a supply drop to a warship at sea.


----------



## c1951 (Apr 14, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Off the top of my head I can't recall the action in particular you're referring to, but flying the single Vulcans to the islands from Ascension required around 11 Victor tankers. Maritime patrol Nimrods conducted sorties during the war and they were refuelled en route by the Victors, the IFR capability having just been added to the Nimrods at the time of the war. One Nimrod recon sortie lasted 19 hours.
> 
> I do know that C-130s often carried long rang cargo drops by installing tanks in their holds, one flight lasting 18 hours on a supply drop to a warship at sea.


Unfortunately I can remember most of it
Best leave it like that


----------



## mikemike (Apr 18, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Off the top of my head I can't recall the action in particular you're referring to, but flying the single Vulcans to the islands from Ascension required around 11 Victor tankers.



As far as I remember, it was 11 tankers each way, a total of 22 Victors, they mostly refuelled other Victors on the way. Must have run down the remaining life on the planes quite significantly.

Now, if the Argentinians had waited another 6 months to launch the operation, Iron Maggie would have castrated the RN for them. Seems to be a recurring theme for the Cons,
because they now have two big carriers without escorts or planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## c1951 (Apr 19, 2022)

Here is some gen https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...Journal-30-Seminar-The-Falklands-Campaign.pdf has the account of the Charley 130 drop-tablets of stone

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 24, 2022)

mikemike said:


> As far as I remember, it was 11 tankers each way, a total of 22 Victors, they mostly refuelled other Victors on the way. Must have run down the remaining life on the planes quite significantly.



Yup, during the bombing raids, but the SEAD raids with XM597 there were only five Victors each way as the Vulcan had tanks in its bomb bay. The RAF certainly got a lot out of their Victors, they remained in service for another ten years and took part in Desert Storm, too.



mikemike said:


> Now, if the Argentinians had waited another 6 months to launch the operation, Iron Maggie would have castrated the RN for them.



The timing with perfect for Britain. Argentina would have had a larger number of Super Etendards and Exocets, too if the invasion had taken place later. As it was, they only had five air launched missiles.

Galtieri was feeling the pressure of public dissent. When the Junta held its coup in 1976, all dissent was brutally suppressed, but when Galtieri took over in December 1981, with the help of his pal Anaya, head of the navy and Lami Dozo, head of the air force, he enacted an expression of dissent policy and pretty much straight away crowds began gathering outside the Casa Rosada, the presidential Palace in the main square in Buenos Aires. It was a strange move, but the retaking of the islands was as much to placate the restless population that has suffered continuous hardship under the junta as it was to assert Argentinian sovreignty over the islands. Anaya and his aids had drawn up the invasion previously, and enacting it was a big part of the junta's El Processo in asserting Argentina as the big regional power. 

The invasion had a short window as through intelligence Anaya had learned that a British nuclear submarine had embarked from Gibraltar and he incorrectly assessed that it was on its way down to the islands. That particular sub went north to hunt a Russian Alpha entering the North Sea, but of course two nuclear subs were already heading south for the islands, but Anaya didn't know this.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (May 5, 2022)

No.

1: British chutes and drop procedures were (and are still are), rather different from US practice.
2: The Falklands are a very bad place for paratroop drops. It's very boggy, it's very windy.


----------



## c1951 (May 10, 2022)

Macandy said:


> No.
> 
> 1: British chutes and drop procedures were (and are still are), rather different from US practice.
> 2: The Falklands are a very bad place for paratroop drops. It's very boggy, it's very windy.


But they did it


----------



## Macandy (May 10, 2022)

c1951 said:


> But they did it




Who did what?


----------



## SaparotRob (May 10, 2022)

Who’s on second. What’s on first.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 10, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Who’s on second. What’s on first.



WTF is in left field.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (May 10, 2022)

Who dat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (May 11, 2022)

special ed said:


> Who dat?



Who dat up dere shoutin who dat down dere?


----------

