User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 5:01:26 PM EDT
[#1]
The Argentinian B-52s couldn't find a good place to tank over the Atlantic. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 5:03:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Never heard that one before |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 5:04:53 PM EDT
[#3]
I think it was actually and LPH in case one of their "carriers" was sunk. The Brits actually had officers in the US studying the suitability. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 5:06:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Zing. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 5:06:44 PM EDT
[#5]
I know the Brits were really pissed at the Frogs for the Exorcit missiles that the were used against them there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:35:21 PM EDT
[#6]
You need to read "Airwar South Atlantic" by Ethell and ?? to get an idea of just how far the Falklands are from the UK. It's a helluva long way from Acension Island where they staged the early war air raids and recon from. The Brits actually had to land a Vulcan in Brazil due to fuel shortage when it couldn't tank due to a technical fault. That caused a few diplomatic problems. I couldn't believe that the Brits didn't make a late night dash to the west and kick ass on a couple of Argie mainland airbases. THAT would have got their attention. rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:38:07 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:40:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Exocet 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:42:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Sure they can, just like Chubby Chavez, yak yak yak yak yak blab blab blab. GD noise will make your ears bleed eventually  rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:45:48 PM EDT
[#10]
I'm not talking about sending the General Belgrano up the Thames...in a free society, an SOF team doesn't have to be very good to infiltrate and cause damage.
I've often wondered about the level of damage Spetsnaz teams tear-assing around Western Europe right before and during the Big One, or North Korean SOF could play. The Argentines weren't incompetent. Their advisors in Nicaragua were doing a credible job. So why didn't it come into play in the Falklands? As far as the LHAs, how were we going to remove the integrated commo gear, and ten thousand other things to sanitize the ship. Where were the Brits going to get the thousand sailors, none of whom ever saw the ship, to sail it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:46:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Did you mean the Malvinas Islands?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:52:02 PM EDT
[#12]
That was a terrific war!
I remember the cover of, either Time or Newsweek......"The Empire Strikes Back". Terrific war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:54:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Probably not a good idea with the SAS tearassing around the UK hunting IRA. Wouldn't take much to shift to Argies who would stick out like sore thumbs.
A credible job in a third world nation doesn't mean they weren't incompetent. In fact, their military wasn't actually designed to fight other militiaries. Their job was to keep the Junta in power.
It was a LPH, not an LHA. Integrated commo gear? You do realize the LPHs were 20+ years old at the time. And you're talking about the early 80s. It wasn't like we were going to give the Russians advanced commo gear. As for getting the 1k sailors, I'd guess from the RN who have been operating carriers of that size for some time. Not to mention LPHs had a crew of ~600, not 1k. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:06:26 PM EDT
[#14]
What are you talking about ? Poor fucks [ on both sides ] dying because 3 dumbass generals can't run a country for shit and got to find some way to distract the populace ? When the troop ships pulled into the bay where they were to drop off the troops the CO was told by another CO that it would be best to get his troops off the ships ASAP. Dumbass didn't listen and bam they got nailed by argie A4's that for once were high enough for the bombs to have time to arm or else lit fires etc. Lots of supplies lost along with the men. When the Atlantic Conveyor got sunk there went most of the helos for the cross island hops. Ground pounders then had to march across the whole GD island to attack the dug in argies, some of whom actually fought pretty well. There are no terrific wars. I figured out how to end war. Send in the politcians first. The argies should have put those 3 generals on a leaky shrimp boat with a couple of single shot 22's and said 'Go take back the Malvinas, ALL GLORY ARGENTINA'. rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:20:11 PM EDT
[#15]
That was a hell of a War. Vulcan Bombers making insanely long runs bombing Airstrips on the Islands. The Brits moved some Subs down their as well, to prevent the Argies from resupplying and reinforcing their troops on the Islands. The Argentinian Troops on the Islands were poorly supplied. The theory by General Garabaldi and his junta at the time was that Britain wouldn't put up a fight over the Islands because it had been trying for years to get rid of them. Big Mistake, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to war over them, because not doing so would send a very bad message to the Soviets in Eastern Europe.
The Argentian Air Force would fly A-4 Skyhawks armed with dumb gravity bombs. They frequently didn't have enough fuel for a round trip, so that usually meant a ditch in the very cold ocean. The Argies had a few Mirages, armed with Exocet Missiles. Before the War broke out Britain was well on its way to having ZERO Aircraft Carriers: figuring that War would come from the Soviets, and the RN would have the Americans for Air Support. The Brits landed teams of SBS and SAS members on the Islands to prep the way for the Invasion, as well as carry out recon. When the Brits actually landed, some of the Argies fought pretty well, others not so good. The general consensus was that the Argentinian Army Officer Corp wasn't well trained or motivated. The Brits used L1A1's (Inch Pattern) against the Argentinians armed with Metric Pattern FALs. Also the Brits used the L42A1 Sniping Rifle (a No.4 Mk.1 Lee Enfield rebarreled for 7.62 NATO). SBS and SAS units used M16's. The war put the United States into the curious position of watching two of its Allies fight it out. The United States was obligated under Treaty to support both the Argentinians as well as the Brits. The Brits lost the HMS Sheffield from a Fire that broke out when an Exocet Missile hit. And the Argentinians lost the General Belgrano (former USS Phoenix) which got Torpedoed. After which the Argies quickly turned their sole Aircraft carrier back to port. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:38:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Some of the toughest air missions were flown by the tanker crews. There were some flights that almost ended in ditchings. There would have been much more damage done by the A4's if the bombs had have actually exploded. They came up against the quandry, fly high enough for the bombs to arm and you get shot down by the ships missiles. Arm the bombs with instantaneous fuses and you get blown up by your own bombs. They actually didn't know that the bombs weren't going off. It was mentioned in a Brit newspaper that created quite a stir but the argies didn't pick it up. Exocet was carried by the Super Etendard. Mirages were used to supress flak and try and take on the Sidewinder armed Harriers that were taking a real toll on the A4's. The SAS destroyed most of the Pucara aircraft on the island. Thermite grenade in the cockpit. Several argie aircraft were shot down by their own AAA in Port Stanley after raids on Brit ships shelling the airfield and surrounding installations. rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:43:16 PM EDT
[#17]
I'll step up to the plate on this one. My guess is hired crews, normal ship systems (not too hard to operate between ship types) and removing the com gear, etc and replacing it wouldn't be too difficult. the Brit's show enormous resourcefulness in short time adapting to meet needs. As I recall, there were several quick conversions of aircraft types, some with wooden fixtures. Interesting to note: a Vulcan had crashed in Detroit (the crew still interned there) and a team came out several years later to salvage the refueling gear to support the war. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:55:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Fixed it.  -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 8:03:18 PM EDT
[#19]
For one reason - they didn't think that the Brits would/could fight for the islands. If the Argentines had thought for one second that the Brits would fight they would have lengthened the runway to accomodate fighter and attack jets. An incredible weakness for the Argies was that their jets were pretty much at bingo fuel upon arrival at the islands. They had time for one pass, typically never leaving low level, and then had to RTB. If they had a FOB on the Falklands/Malvinas it would have dramatically altered the conflict. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 8:06:48 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 9:02:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Good question. No history book that I have read ont he matter (and they are many) ever suggests that the UK even tried this. The US was content to hold their coats and help in every way we could, provided no one noticed. The AIM-9L missile was credited with much of the Brit air successes.
Both then and now, the Argies have no aircraft or combination of tanker/aircraft that can reach that far. The number of nations that do is very small.
Better question, why did they go ahead and sell Hermes right after the war? A LHA might have made a suitable ad hoc substitute but lacked the radar and control facilities to maintain a air arm of HArriers. Way better question - why did the surface to air missle systems of the Brits all fail so damn miserably, both on land and sea? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 9:19:54 PM EDT
[#22]
It wasn't that the SAM systems failed, its that the Brits lacked AEW support. They had picket ships out front to provide radar coverage, but it wasn't enough. They had insufficient warning to do anything about it.
NATO didn't get involved because the action occured south of the equator- the NATO treat doesn't apply there. Also, it might have pissed off Spain. The Falklands war was all about keeping the Junta in power. The Agentine economy had collapsed, and the natives were getting restless. The Junta did what just about every regime does when they get into trouble- they externalised. They picked what they thought would be an easy fight to gain prestige at home. The Falklands had been a settled issue for over 100 years by that point. As I understand it, Spain renounced its clim to the Falklands before Argentine inderpendence, so Argentina really has no legal claim to it. Just like Spain has no legal claim to Gibralta. Everyone in both places are more British than the British are, so integrating them into Argentine (or Spanish) society would be like trying to integrate Mexico into the U.S. Argentina has more to wory about than a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 9:21:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Also they never made any large scale raids on the British fleet anchorage-prefering two and three aircraft attack runs hoping for surprise rather than overwhelming British air defenses. Also keep in mind that the SAS had eyes on just about every Argie air force runway and as soon as and aircraft took off the fleet air defenses were expecting it before it even showed up on radar. The Argentinians were also unsucessful in defending the airspace over the islands from harrier and heliborne air support so while the argentinian troops were essentially cut off from resupply/air support/medevac the British had almost no problem doing so --except maybe the lousy weather. If the Brits had not been willing to fight for the Falklands then the calculations of the Argentinians would have paid off. The funny thing is The Argentinians had time to build or improve an forward operating base for at least a few fighter bombers. They underestimated Britians will and her fighting forces capabilities and as usual the British Navy as many of Her former opponents have done. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 9:52:40 PM EDT
[#24]
I've heard most of those didn't do much. It's an interesting war. I find the air defense part really interesting. This was really the first major action where SAMs launched from ships was a factor. They didn't do all that well, imo. A book I like on it is "The Battle for the Falklands" by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Hastings was, IIRC, a reporter on the ground with the Brits. Also, the Argie bombs didn't work because the fuzes were bad. The US maker sent out a warning notice about the fuzes and replacements, but since the Argies were embargoed, they couldn't get them. The Argies argued that this was wrong, since it wasn't a new weapon but just for replacement parts covered under warrenty. Also interesting for the SAS ops, and such. And the first (and only I think) use of Harriers in the way they had been advertised. Forward deployed on land in places without a runway (fighters would fly off the ship and refuel on land to improve their time on station). Some of the infantry assaults are classic, imo.
I mean, that's the kind of shit they used to sing songs about. The war also shows the ability of a well trained determined force to overcome lots of obstacles (lack of vehicles, support, shit conditions). It was a good job by the Brits, imo. And I'm part Irish.  I think the Argies main problem was they right away went to a defensive mindset, and pecked at the Brits. I mean, the Brits come ashore on the first landing and just sit around basically for a bit. Sending in air attacks in ones and twos when you know the AD is weak and they can't put up a heavy CAP screen? That was just dumb of the Argies. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:07:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Hermes was approaching its sell-by date, and was going to be retired regardless.
HMS Invincible had been on the selling block as well before the war, it was slated to be sold to Australia to replace HMAS Melbourne. The British cancelled this idea after the war on the basis that "You know, maybe we do need these things" As for the Exocet deal, France did more or less what it could: It stopped all export of new weapons/equipment to Argentina, which was in the process of taking deliveries, and provided the British with any technical expertese they may have needed which they couldn't have gotten from their own Exocets. Admittedly, for a while, the French forgot about the advisors in Argentina, and in the absence of orders, they kept advising for a little while.
Well, yes and no. It had a serious emphasis on keeping an eye on Chile. It is theorised that that is why the units which were best suited for the Falklands operation weren't used: They were kept on the Chilean border. The 'intake' system for the conscription they had was a bit weird. If you wanted to invade Argentina, you were best to do it between January and March, as that's when the new trainees are inducted. I don't think that 'incompetent' is really a word I would ascribe to the Argentinian military. Lacking in motivation, absolutely. Lacking in support (i.e. logistics), to a good point. Plenty of arms and ammo, not much food/clothing. On the occasions that they actually did choose to fight, they tended to fight hard and well, on land and air. (That half-hearted dismounted counterattack by AML crews notwithstanding). A lot of the issues were strategic (Let's not escort our bombers sort of thing), sometimes they were just beaten into submission by firepower: HMS Alacrity was sent home early because it had fired so many NGS rounds that the gun had worn out. Fascinating little war, well worth studying. It would have even more interesting had the Argentinians waited six months. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:13:40 PM EDT
[#26]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:34:00 PM EDT
[#27]
What makes you think that some NATO agreements weren't used?
borrowing or buying a US ship was previously discussed. IIRC the consensus was that the time involved to make it happen after the political and military decisions would have taken too long. No matter how competent the Brit crew, there would have been probably about a minimum2 month work-up and training for the crew. Lots of the bridge and CIC gear would have been close enough to Brit stuff for an easy turnover, but start looking at the electronics and comm gear and the engineering plant (and "hotel" facilities - mess kitchens, laundry,) learning the ropes or at least the piping systems, electrical distribution systems, just takes a while to come up to speed. There is no line in the Atlantic that stops NATO, I've been on NATO exercises in the Pacific. As far as competence goes, one could probably argue that the incompetents (defining them as unable to professionally perform their duties as assigned or as happened) (BTW per Rumsfield you go to war with the Army you got) significantly outnumbered the really competent. And in many cases incompetents prevented the competent from accomplishing their mission. Plus they didn't have the necessary level of motivation in a lot of their troops to go up against the extremely motivated and professional forces the Brits brought to bear. Not to say rampant cowardice, but expecting undertrained confused conscripts going up against the Black Watch with pipers, The Paras, the Ghurkhas, et al to stand and fight in a losing battle is not realistic. The Argie pilots were braver than hell, but their armaments types couldn't arm the bombs correctly. I would say that the Argie middle management was pretty competent, but the political leaders and general staff weren't competent by definition startaing a war in which you get your ass soundly kicked is not competent, and most of the junior enlisted just weren't adequately trained or equipped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2006 11:46:56 PM EDT
[#28]
What kept us from sending down a couple CVBGs and ARG's to help out the Brits?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:03:55 AM EDT
[#29]
I think Reagan offered support to the Uk during the conflict. Thatcher made it a point to prove England can take of it's own ~alone. Point proven, I dare say!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 12:55:36 AM EDT
[#30]
As for NATO, the US was in the position of trying to play peace broker between the two right up to the last minute. Probably an invocation of NATO would have killed that effort, and a peaceful solution would have been the cheapest route for everyone invovled. Some US support, like tankers, etc was supposedly provided under NATO, but who knows what really went on exactly.
Using Argie SF would have been counter-productive. The islands were taken as a distraction to keep the Junta in power. They didn't want an all-out war against the Brits, so the idea of actually attacking Britain directly was not in keeping with the objective. They figured the UK would write-off the islands and that'd be that. If you start blowing up train stations in London, you end up asking to get your ass kicked. You also risk similar reprisals in your own country. If you compare an unpopular military Junta to a democratically elected government, it's pretty obvious which has more to loose in an irregular action. The more the Argies kept the war within the exclusion zone the better off the Junta leaders were. If they started to pull-off terrorist hits in England, then the UK would start doing things like shooting up ships outside the exclusion zone, blockading the country with subs, using Vulcan bombers on the mainland, SAS raids on high value targets on the mainland, etc. It's a can of worms best not to open. More than likely the LPH offer was so that the Brits would still have a capability after the war. Rather than have to replace the lost ship through a build, which would take too long and cost too much, they could just take over one of ours and use it for a while. Sorta like the four stack destroyers we loaned them prior to us getting in WWII. It doesn't mean that they had to have plans to use it in the actual conflict, but being able to replace that capabilty quickly would be important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 1:06:25 AM EDT
[#31]
US political interests in Latin America. Most of these guys were supported by us at one time or another since they were anti-communist. Remember the bigger picture is to isolate Castro, and fight the Soviet Union. Throwing in with the Brits actively could have screwed up alot of other efforts that were frankly more important. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 5:30:41 AM EDT
[#32]
Alexander Haig did manage to piss off a lot of people of both sides with his 'shuttle diplomacy'. rj |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 5:42:13 AM EDT
[#33]
The argies did send in several waves to attack the landing ships and disembarked men and supplies. By then they had already lost quite a few planes and pilots. The Harrier/sidewinders, blowpipes, surface to air from the ships and Blowpipe shoulder fired missiles were taking a toll. Several planes were lost due to losing fuel on the way back to base. Plus several argie planes were lost to argie AAA. The argie ground attack pilots fought [ and died ] bravely and well. The argie "Air Superiority" pilots { mirage } displayed very poor leadership, willingness to engage the enemy and tactics. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 5:46:02 AM EDT
[#34]
You have to remember this was early 80's and the computer systems of the times were very basic. Prone to crash at inoportune times to say the least. When they did work they worked great. They also had a problem picking out the aircraft against background clutter so they were of limited use once the ships were in the bay disembarking troops or when the ships were shelling argie positions. rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 5:52:53 AM EDT
[#35]
The SAS would have destroyed them on the ground like they did the majority of the Pucara's or else the RN would have sent in a couple of frigates during the night and shelled the base. rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 5:54:48 AM EDT
[#36]
Forced them to pull their fighters to the mainland, severely restricting their range and loiter time. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 5:55:14 AM EDT
[#37]
One other finding that came out of this war was how great a low level fighter jet the Harrier is. I rmemeber reading an article in which several Britishand Argentine pilots were interviewed. At low levels with their ability to vector their thrust, the British pilots would start a turn with the fast closing Argentine jet on their tail. They would then vector their thrust and push themselves further towards the center of the turn. The Argentine jet couldn't do this and if they continued their turn they wound up right in front of the British Harrier. Several Argentine jest were lost this way and one British pilot admitted feeling sorry for the Argentinian pilots caught this way. He thought their pilots very good and very brave becasue they knew their chances when undertaking missions so far from base were not that good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:07:25 AM EDT
[#38]
Good conflict to study.
The blowpipes were abject failures. I am pretty sure they didn't account for a single hit. The fuses were designed for a longer fall. The A-4s came in so low, they didn't arm. The Brit press reported these failures and some admirals were pretty pissed. Sidewinders were 100% once they got lock, brutally effective. If the args had their fuse issue put together, it would have been a different war. Big lessons learned. British paras with sterlings were completely outclassed by args with FALs. Paras can walk across an entire island, though they don't like to. SAS is a force multiplier. Heavy cruiser vs submarine? Submarine wins. Modern small warships are pretty much, one and done when it comes to hits from modern weapons. Size is survivability. Exocets work. Harriers did OK, but not that well. Fastest with the mostest still applies. Argentina couldn't hold the malivinas from argentina. Leadership remains the only variable. The brits were well led and the args weren't. That was the difference. A little more competence on the arg side and they might have attrited the brits to negotiation. Thatcher has more balls than most men. Highly recommend the book "The Falklands War", though I would like to see one from the arg viewpoint as well. US supported UK more than is known. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:44:36 AM EDT
[#39]
Single most Fatal action that represents the FalkLands,,,,,the Destruction of FN FAL's
  what a shame
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:18:13 AM EDT
[#40]
Pg 175 "Air War South Atlantic" copywright 1983 by Ethell & Price: ".........Because there was scarcely any fighter-versus-fighter combat, Sea Harrier pilots never used VIFF { thrust Vectored In Forward Flight } while engaging enemy aircraft............." "Once Sea Harrier pilots had enemy aircraft in sight they usually pounced from above, closed rapidly to within missle firing range, and loosed off a Sidewinder. If the missile worked properly - and almost invariably they did - the target aircraft had little chance of escaping destruction....." rj |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:32:24 AM EDT
[#41]
Argentinians fought well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:53:03 AM EDT
[#42]
Here is a good book that tells the Argentine side of the conflict: The Fight for the Malvinas By Martin Middlebrook, who went there and interviewed many Argentines. It dispells a lot of British claims about some battles, especially the initial invasion. The Brits claim to have "badly damaged" an Argie corvettte (they didn't) and destroyed a Marine LAAV-7 amtrack with rocket and gunfire. The only damage the amtrack had were 200 dings on its armor from 7.62 fire; the Charlie Gustav round the Brits thought hit and destroyed it missed. The smoke they saw was the smokescreen the amtrack layed down as it reversed out of harm's way. Lots of stuff like that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:02:37 AM EDT
[#43]
Pg 70, The Falklands War, Mashall Cavendish, (C) 1983: "[On May 1] Flt Lt Penfold, operating from Hermes, suddenly found himself in a brief dogfight with Mirages. One of the enemy fired an AIM-9B Sidewinder at Penfold's wing-man who managed to dodge using 'VIFFing'[...]" Damned if I know what I did with Sharkey Ward's book, that's probably the definitive source for answers. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:07:01 AM EDT
[#44]
Their pilots certainly did. The poorly led draftees on the ground didn't do so well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:08:12 AM EDT
[#45]
Yep.... ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:12:07 AM EDT
[#46]
ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:24:30 AM EDT
[#47]
So, what's the definitive book on this war? I've seen the pics of the piles of FALs to be destroyed, terrible thing!
Michael |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:25:32 AM EDT
[#48]
No it wasn't, it was the wrong war fought for the right reasons between two best friends.... ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:30:44 AM EDT
[#49]
Definitve book?.... those that 'did it' think 'Don't Cry for Me Sergeant Major' by Robert McGowan and Jeremy Hands is the best account of the 'real' war. The definitve 'official' book?...'The Royal Navy and the Falklands War' by David Brown is a good account. I have a collection of others but you won't be able to source them in the US. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:43:59 AM EDT
[#50]
That's the beauty of the intraweb.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
