outclassed?,lol
secret plan?,we just fucked you from the arrse,im don’t post shit,you do 
.
you didn’t destroy us in an equal air to air combat,if you did,prove me that.
also,you did the same damage to our fleet with your planes? :lol: .
oh,destroying the 40% of the EX best navy in the world isn’t something easy.
The FAA was completely outclassed. It wasn’t by the USAF, it wasn’t the USN and it wasn’t l’Armee del Air, it was the Fleet Air Arm and the Fleet Air Arm alone. Twenty odd Sea Harriers flying against the whole Argentinian air force didn’t suffer a single air to air loss. They blew the cream of your air force out of the skies.
And 40% of our Naval Task force was not destroyed - some ships were sank undoubtedly, but you don’t lose 40% of your ships and then win a war 8000 miles from your own country.
What has Apache got to do with anything? We were comparing TAM to Challenger 2, unless I missed something. The Challenger 2 (as you’ve been told) is pretty much invulnerable to shaped charged weapons such as the RPG or the Panzershrek. The calibre doesn’t matter if you’re facing the Chally, they are pretty much unstoppable.
we kicked you in the british invations in 1806 and 1807,and with partisans,militia and people throwing burned oil on your heads[/quote]
Argentina wasn’t declared independant from Spain until 1816 :?:
[quote=“BDL”]
The FAA was completely outclassed. It wasn’t by the USAF, it wasn’t the USN and it wasn’t l’Armee del Air, it was the Fleet Air Arm and the Fleet Air Arm alone. Twenty odd Sea Harriers flying against the whole Argentinian air force didn’t suffer a single air to air loss. They blew the cream of your air force out of the skies.
And 40% of our Naval Task force was not destroyed - some ships were sank undoubtedly, but you don’t lose 40% of your ships and then win a war 8000 miles from your own country.[/quote]
i was wrong,the 20% of your ships were down,but the other 60% was full of holes and damaged :lol:
that’s not true,we never had air to air battles there.
Isn’t it obvious? British Army Challenger 2 will have Longbow equipped Apache on it’s side - Argentine TAM won’t. 
[quote=“festamus”]
Isn’t it obvious? British Army Challenger 2 will have Longbow equipped Apache on it’s side - Argentine TAM won’t. :)[/quote]
yes,but we also have choppers,we are going to buy apaches,but we delayed that to buy comanches.
we are reequiping our army,as we buy the sk-37s
erwin, we established a long time ago that the site that you use to get your statistics on the Falklands War is made up bollocks. The vast majority of the ships in the Task Force got through the war undamaged.
If there wasn’t a single air to air battle in the Falklands War, why do you keep going on about the Sidewinder missiles? Without air to air combat, the Sidewinder would have mad no difference to the war, so why do you keep going on about it?
How did all those Skyhawks and Mirages end up on the bottom of the Atlantic without air to air combat?
Bare faced lie. The Argentine forces lost many in air-to-air engagements with SHAR’s, but managed to down no SHAR’s in air-to-air engagements. Undisputed, documented fact.
You could be in for quite a wait then:
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The U.S. Army has decided to pull the plug on the development of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter and instead use the money to upgrade its current fleet and replace aging National Guard and Army Reserve helicopters, Pentagon officials said Monday.
The military has already spent $6.9 billion over the last two decades to develop the Comanche, conceived as a surveillance and attack aircraft with “stealth” capability to make it difficult for an enemy to detect. But only two prototypes have ever been built, and the high-tech chopper was still at least two years away from regular production.
“It’s a big decision. We know it’s a big decision, but it’s the right decision,” said Army Chief-of-Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, who said the program was scrapped after an internal study showed the money could be better used to improve other aspects of Army aviation.
Schoomaker said the Pentagon was budgeted to spend $14 billion between now and 2011 to build 121 Comanches. Now, that money will be directed to upgrading more than 1,400 aircraft and buying almost 800 new helicopters for the Guard and Reserve.
Schoomaker also insisted that the money spent on developing the Comanche was not wasted because the technology could be adapted for use on other aircraft.
“Much of what we’ve gained out of Comanche we can push forward into the tech base for future joint rotor-craft kinds of capabilities, as we look further out,” Schoomaker said.
Pentagon officials also said the Comanche, conceived in 1983 during the Cold War, was a victim of changing needs as the military’s focus has shifted to the war on terrorism.
“If you look at the operational environment in which we’re now operating and the one we think we’ll be operating in the future, we think that is not where we should put our focus,” said Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee.
Schoomaker also said keeping the Comanche “survivable” in the current threat environment would require design changes that would cost “several billion dollars” and erode the chopper’s stealth capability, one of the primary reasons for developing the aircraft.
He said the decision to end Comanche came from inside the Army, not from above, and he said President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have both given assurances that the money saved will be dedicated to other Army aviation programs.
The Comanche was being designed and built as a joint project by Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, employing about 1,300 people. The companies issued a joint statement saying they were “surprised and disappointed” by the Army’s decision.
“Five of these advanced technology aircraft are on the production line today, and we are on plan for the program,” the statement said. “While we regret the Army’s announcement, we are committed to working closely with our customer and will engage in further discussions to ensure we have a complete understanding of the next steps for Comanche.”
The helicopters were being built at a plant in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Taken from CNN
If the Yanks can’t afford to carry on developing Comanche, how is Argentina going to?
well,my news are from january,im not a high officer of this army.
maybe he buys the apaches,who knows?.
i will ask bendini!
Shouldn’t be too hard to get some ex US Army Apache’s through FMS. But good luck getting Longbow!
longbows?
good idia
idea isn’t idia
longbows?
good idia[/quote]
Longbow would be a good idea, since it’s what makes the Apache so good. But you’d already know that wouldn’t you, being such an expert on military matters.
To be fair here I think that most of the Argentinian losses were to AAA and SAMs. Also mush like the lufftwaffe fighters in the BoB the Argentines didnt have time to hang around and dogfight due to extreme fuel pressures.
I commend the skill and bravery of all the pilots involved both British and Argentinian. Its just a pity for the Argentinians that their Army didnt live up to the professionalism shown by their Air Force.
Dont forget, it was also a war aganst a fascist style dictatorship. The Argentinians should be glad they lost as from it sprang the democracy they now enjoy.
As for buyig even more weapons today with the Argentine economy in the shape it is, that is just plain stupido.
Im confused, how does a missile or self propelled device have a “calibre” have we gone back to piat? Shaped charge weapons, calibre dpesnt affect capability payload and design does. Beharry drove the equivalent an Armoured Personnel Carrier through an RPG “storm” to win his VC.
His APC doesnt even have the superior Chobham armour, rated the best in the world for certain characteristics, (the M1 Abrahms leads the field in other factors) Chobham armour is Superior to all other forms of reactive plate tank armour.
anyway we didnt use Chobham in the F.I. We used infantry and huge hairy bollocks and consequently scared the living shit out of your “macho” moustachioed, puny-chested, pre-pubescent conscript army, with a bunch of tutu wearing, effeminate queers, with lipgloss and handbags. Your boys ran away from a bunch of faggots*.
(by Erwins reasoning)
our economy is bad.
but we have expensive artillery vehicles,new tanks,steyr augs,m16s and investigations in misiles and nuclear technology (i dk about nuke technology,but as i saw!,we can make nukes! 
)
we have to cut the president’s salary instead of the army equipment.
hi mate,a hand held at missile comes in different caliber,we have last technology heavy rocketlauncher imported.
Which AT missile have the Argentinian Army bought?
i put the panzerschreck as an exmaple
i see that situations you are putting,but it’s just an argument like ironman’s had.
it isn’t proved.
he proved with one of those that the carbine is an assault rifle Rolling Eyes Laughing Laughing Laughing .
I don’t quite follow you here? I quoted the example of Pte Beharry as an instance in recent combat where Chobahm armour has defeated hand held AT missiles. I’m not sure why this isn’t relevant.
the apache can destroy a challenger,yes or no?
Almost certainly. Unless we are at cross purposes here, an APACHE isn’t a hand held AT missile.
When you refer to the SK 37, do you mean the SAAB VIGGEN or is it another type of weapons system?
Please correct spelling mistakes by EDITING, not by posting again.