Responder al tema

Mensaje

<blockquote data-quote="Rumplestilskin" data-source="post: 2356166" data-attributes="member: 229">No. Pero si para ellas fue válido, no veo por qué para nosotros no. Las armas anti submarinas nucleares fueron sacadas de servicio. Aún así, fuimos a la guerra contra una armada que las poseía en su momento, y no las usó. Y eso a pesar de que, según estudios de la citada Escuela Naval de la USN: &nbsp;None of the attacks were successful, but the havoc this ship created was extraordinary. More than 200 Anti-Submarine WarfareASW) ordinance devices were expended by one of NATO's leading ASW powers. (pag 10 del buscador, 6 del pdf)<a href="https://es.scribd.com/document/273252801/The-United-States-Navy-vs-the-Third-World-Submarine" target="_blank">https://es.scribd.com/document/273252801/The-United-States-Navy-vs-the-Third-World-Submarine</a>On the Argentine side the submarine San Luis was free to patrol and this caused the British task force to be on the defen,,e at all times. The British expended &quot;most of their ordnance on suspected contacts - most of which were false contacts caused by the ocean's many anomalies.' 7 The British ships present to counter the Argentine submarine threat were: one carrier, eleven destroyers, five nuclear powered submarines, one diesel submarine, and over 25 helicopters.8 Even though no ships were sunk by the San Luis, this is an impressive amount of ships to be tied up by one diesel powered submarine. This is more impressive considering that she was not even hit by the British force.Hablando de la economía de fuerza del arma submarina. Justo antes trata el caso del Conqueror. (pag 18 del pdf)<a href="http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279554.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279554.pdf</a> Desde luego es que lo ideal es que se de una cooperación de diferentes medios, nadie está planteando el uso deliberado de solo submarinos.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rumplestilskin, post: 2356166, member: 229"] No. Pero si para ellas fue válido, no veo por qué para nosotros no. Las armas anti submarinas nucleares fueron sacadas de servicio. Aún así, fuimos a la guerra contra una armada que las poseía en su momento, y no las usó. Y eso a pesar de que, según estudios de la citada Escuela Naval de la USN: None of the attacks were successful, but the havoc this ship created was extraordinary. More than 200 Anti-Submarine Warfare ASW) ordinance devices were expended by one of NATO's leading ASW powers. (pag 10 del buscador, 6 del pdf) [URL]https://es.scribd.com/document/273252801/The-United-States-Navy-vs-the-Third-World-Submarine[/URL] On the Argentine side the submarine San Luis was free to patrol and this caused the British task force to be on the defen,,e at all times. The British expended "most of their ordnance on suspected contacts - most of which were false contacts caused by the ocean's many anomalies.' 7 The British ships present to counter the Argentine submarine threat were: one carrier, eleven destroyers, five nuclear powered submarines, one diesel submarine, and over 25 helicopters.8 Even though no ships were sunk by the San Luis, this is an impressive amount of ships to be tied up by one diesel powered submarine. This is more impressive considering that she was not even hit by the British force. Hablando de la economía de fuerza del arma submarina. Justo antes trata el caso del Conqueror. (pag 18 del pdf) [URL]http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279554.pdf[/URL] Desde luego es que lo ideal es que se de una cooperación de diferentes medios, nadie está planteando el uso deliberado de solo submarinos. [/QUOTE]

Verificación

Guerra desarrollada entre Argentina y el Reino Unido en 1982