User Controls
Whats up with your Navy, UK?
-
2021-01-07 at 4:43 PM UTC
-
2021-01-07 at 4:46 PM UTC
-
2021-01-07 at 4:48 PM UTC
-
2021-01-07 at 5:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson the UK could not have got it's troops and equipment to the falklands without ships…
https://www.skyscanner.com/
https://www.welcomeargentina.com/index_i.html
http://www.atlasforwarding.com/argentinafreightshippingandtransport.html -
2021-01-07 at 5:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump https://www.skyscanner.com/
https://www.welcomeargentina.com/index_i.html
http://www.atlasforwarding.com/argentinafreightshippingandtransport.html
ok...thanks for the links? -
2021-01-08 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson The point was quite clear…the UK could not have got it's troops and equipment to the falklands without ships….troops and equipment could have got to waterloo without muskets…
Your example was not only irrelevant but poorly thought out.
so my example would be fine if i used foots and horses instead of muskets and bayonets ? -
2021-01-08 at 6:47 PM UTC
-
2021-01-08 at 7:33 PM UTCeven if you paratrooped them into battle (which I believe happened as well in the Faulklands) you can't exactly get the troops out unless you have a landing clearance (which the Army corp of Engineers could do after making a base camp) and even then, landing a cargo plane like troops jump out of is bigger than a commercial plane (not in length but cabin size) and needs more runway to clear for takeoff. thats probably over a mile or two of runways. it's easy to get 12 of these planes side by side dropping troops all in at once, over and over again but not getting them the fuck out. which means more cargo dropped for food and medicine and needs until all are cleared.
so Ships come in handy for this. but the point was about Z-class battle ships and not giant acc from the old fleet. they're good for carrying troops in and I would think stay safely behind the destroyers. they also carry amphibians vehicles. you can't just pull an acc up a shoreline likes its dry docking. -
2021-01-11 at 3:48 PM UTC
-
2021-01-11 at 3:49 PM UTC
-
2021-01-11 at 3:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bugz even if you paratrooped them into battle (which I believe happened as well in the Faulklands) you can't exactly get the troops out unless you have a landing clearance (which the Army corp of Engineers could do after making a base camp) and even then, landing a cargo plane like troops jump out of is bigger than a commercial plane (not in length but cabin size) and needs more runway to clear for takeoff.
With no backup the Paratroopers would have quickly been captured/rounded up as they were heavily outnumbered. And the argies could deploy more troops/supplies very quickly from the mainland.
Any cargo plane would have been shot down by the Argie Mirage fighters. The Cargo planes would have had no fighter cover due to the distances involved. Ships were 100% necessary as there was no "nearby" base and the Americans refused to help/remained neutral because the fat fucks didn't want to jeopardize their canned tuna fish supply from Argentina. -
2021-01-11 at 3:55 PM UTC
-
2021-01-11 at 8:47 PM UTCGiant air balloons?
-
2021-01-11 at 8:48 PM UTC
-
2021-01-12 at 12:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by lannies loose labia longs for the laptop lactation from a laotian ladyboy this isnt WWII. modern 'fighters' have literally unlimited range with aerial refueling.
there were a couple of sorties made of vulcans that were only possible due to aerial refueling. which also caused one to almost lawn-dart itself. yea, that was a fun and exciting episode for everyone involved…and the US which wasnt supposed to be involved.
theres really no need for aerial refueling on modern planes because disposable fuel tanks are available since ww2.
they only make aerial refueling part of their strategy to instill homosexual tendencies among the service members.
