In 1982, why didn't USSR supply Argentina with additional weapons to sink the British fleet?

[Damir877]

What are they going to do? Build another carrier and try again? I don't think so.

They would have plenty of other options,especially with help from entire West including Argentina's neighbour Chile.Turkey doesn't have carrier yet they landed on Cyprus,just saying,but i see we strongly disagree on this subject which is fine.
My point was just that when you get to war with a world power like Great Britain takes much,much more then a single missile to win.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

They would have plenty of other options,especially with help from entire West including Argentina's neighbour Chile.Turkey doesn't have carrier yet they landed on Cyprus,just saying,but i see we strongly disagree on this subject which is fine.
My point was just that when you get to war with a world power like Great Britain takes much,much more then a single missile to win.

Falklands is near Argentina. Far from Britain. It's very difficult for Britain to fight at Falklands. Very easy for Argentina to do so.

 

[Damir877]

Falklands is near Argentina. Far from Britain. It's very difficult for Britain to fight at Falklands. Very easy for Argentina to do so.

Historical facts (1982) say otherwise...

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Historical facts (1982) say otherwise...

You ain't seen the last of Falklands war, not by a long shot.

 

[Damir877]

You ain't seen the last of Falklands war, not by a long shot.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

What do you mean by that?

It means Argentina won't give up Falklands and war will escalate again.

 

[KAL-EL]

How do you figure Britain almost lost it's carrier? any details at all?
If US carriers were such easy targets for USSR anti ship missiles, how come the USSR did not sink a SINGLE US carrier?

Shhhhh... he thinks it's all like a video game

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

How do you figure Britain almost lost it's carrier? any details at all?
If US carriers were such easy targets for USSR anti ship missiles, how come the USSR did not sink a SINGLE US carrier?

You lost more than 60,000 men in Vietnam. That's more painful than sinking a carrier. And they could have done it if they wanted to.

 

[Trango Towers]

With only 5 anti ship missiles and limited number of obsolete 1960s Mirage III and A-4 and Etendard, Argentina was able to sink 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and several large ships, and shot down 10 British fighter jets and 24 British helicopters, crippling the British navy. If Argentina got fresh supplies, they would have driven Britain out of South America once and for all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

USSR could have supplied then state of the art MiG-31 fighter jets and hundreds of anti ship missiles to sink the British carrier and Britain would have lost to Argentina.

Which 10 fighter jets and 24 helicopters did argentina destroy? If the bristish navy was crippled how did it win...what a dumb article.....check out the total number of harriers that the UK forces had.

You ain't seen the last of Falklands war, not by a long shot.

Every time i make a mistake by reading what you have written it jut confirms that with each article you are ranting more and needlesly with zero logic.

 

[TexasJohn]

You lost more than 60,000 men in Vietnam. That's more painful than sinking a carrier. And they could have done it if they wanted to.

I'm afraid your missile went off-topic AND target! we were talking about the Falklands remember? how did you manage to sneak in Vietnam? and your point?

 

[nahtanbob]

With only 5 anti ship missiles and limited number of obsolete 1960s Mirage III and A-4 and Etendard, Argentina was able to sink 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and several large ships, and shot down 10 British fighter jets and 24 British helicopters, crippling the British navy. If Argentina got fresh supplies, they would have driven Britain out of South America once and for all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

USSR could have supplied then state of the art MiG-31 fighter jets and hundreds of anti ship missiles to sink the British carrier and Britain would have lost to Argentina.

why would the soviets interfere ?

 

[timmy_area51]

the only sunk british warship was sank by a french anti-ship missile supplied by France and launched by a french mirage airplane , this guy is a russian troll , ussr had no hand in falkland war .

 

[vostok]

Because Argentina did not ask.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

the only sunk british warship was sank by a french anti-ship missile supplied by France and launched by a french mirage airplane , this guy is a russian troll , ussr had no hand in falkland war .

Nope. British lost 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 3 other ships. Most of the ships sunk were sunk by aerial bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War