Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

> >
> > The lack of armoured support in the Falklands had at least as much
to do
> > with the terrain as with the logistics. Even if the Brits had been
able to
> > get MBTs ashore, they wouldn't have been able to drive very far
without
> > running major risks of bogging down. The light vehicles they did use
were
> > far better suited to the terrain - and since the Argies didn't have
> > anything heavier to oppose them with, they were sufficient to do the
job.
>
>Eh, even a few more trucks, never mind some more helicopters, would
>have been highly appreciated.	But a lot of the advantages of the
>British Army were nullified by inability to put a serious armor/mech
>force on the ground.  It came down to simply training.  Fortunately,
>the Brits were very good and the Argies very bad in that department.

As I understand it, the original British plans were to move their
infantry 
units using air mobility to preposition for battles - but they ended up 
walking because most all of their helicopter "eggs" were in the Atlantic

Conveyor "basket" and sank with the ship.

Armour/Mech forces would have been fairly useless in the terrain. 
Luckily 
for the British, they've been good at light-infantry for centuries.  The

equipment the British had was generally on par with what the
Argentinians 
had (I've read more than one account that said the Argentineans had
better 
night vision equipment, for example).  So, as Jon points out, it came
down 
to training (and esprit de corps, professionalism, dedication,
leadership).

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l