Argentina versus a minor European power for the Falklands War

[Blue cat]

Tromp and De Ruyter?

I think the lead ship was Tromp. I don’t recall the name of the second one.

 

[Citycat]

Something similar to this happened IOTL, when India invaded and annexed Portuguese Goa.

I would expect a similar outcome in this scenario, Argentina would simply seize the Falkland Islands, if the said colonial power did not have the ability to defend the Falklands and had no international support. Apart from protesting, there would be nothing the colonial power could do, just as Portugal was powerless to stop India IOTL.

 

[Insane Ranter]

I wouldn't expect a notional small NATO nation to get direct military assistance in terms of force from other NATO nations being prepared to fight Argentina in such a conflict but I suspect they could count on various forms of other help from their NATO allies.

I believe that Article 5 only deals with attacks North the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[Garrison]

But that assumes that the situation develops as OTL surely? I mean if it’s something from a minor European Power, would they have the same extremely limited forces that the U.K. had OTL?

Well you can't have it both ways. Either they are a minor European power in which case they don't have the resources to fight for the Falklands. Or they have the resources so they aren't a minor European power. Option 1 sees the Argentinians easily take the Falklands, option 2 rewrites European history so you can't use the OTL war as a reference.

 

[FrangibleCover]

I suppose the good news for the Dutch if they keep their carrier is that it's a two carrier delta for them, since Karel Doorman is Veinticinco de Mayo. The carrier isn't really the issue though, it's an issue of amphibious shipping and fleet support units. To retake the Falklands the UK required every available amphibious vessel, every available RFA and a large number of civilian ships taken up from trade to fulfil roles as diverse as aircraft transport, hospital ship and improvised oiler. Britain can do it, France can do it, the rest of European NATO put together would be needed to assemble a third force that could do it. Especially given that the question here doesn't also transfer Ascension and the other Atlantic islands to the Falklands-owning power, which will make everything that much harder.

 

[Blue cat]

I believe that Article 5 only deals with attacks North the Tropic of Cancer.

I wasn't envisioning help being provided via Article 5. There is nothing to stop certain like minded NATO nations from helping each other out if they so choose, although some forms of help (such as direct military intervention in a conflict) might have consequences and or be very unlikely to happen. Other forms of help such as providing needed equipment, providing forces to cover NATO issues etc seem more likely to me.

 

[pdf27]

They can't. The UK and France are the only European powers with that kind of power projection. Frankly, expect Argentina to get the islands by force way before 1982.

That brings up an interesting possibility: the French are definitely in the mix (Malvinas ultimately derives from St Malo) and they have the capabilities to make an interesting match up in 1982 with follow-on changes.

1. Foch and Clemenceau are in service and recently modernized: fighter air group is 20x Crusaders (guns + MAGIC), ~30 Super Etendard plus helicopters, recce and anti-submarine aircraft. Excellent ASuW capability but air defence will be shaky due to lack of AEW and no AIM-9L equivalent.
2. No nuclear attack submarines yet.
3. T-47 air defence destroyers are trying long in the tooth but the missile system is good enough that the same systems were reinstalled in the follow-on class.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

That brings up an interesting possibility: the French are definitely in the mix (Malvinas ultimately derives from St Malo) and they have the capabilities to make an interesting match up in 1982 with follow-on changes.

1. Foch and Clemenceau are in service and recently modernized: fighter air group is 20x Crusaders (guns + MAGIC), ~30 Super Etendard plus helicopters, recce and anti-submarine aircraft. Excellent ASuW capability but air defence will be shaky due to lack of AEW and no AIM-9L equivalent.
2. No nuclear attack submarines yet.
3. T-47 air defence destroyers are trying long in the tooth but the missile system is good enough that the same systems were reinstalled in the follow-on class.

Yeah what people tend to overlook about the Sea Harrier was for its other shortcomings it was a new aircraft with a modern radar. The F-8 was a beautiful bird but even by 1982 it was obsolete. I remember reading a thread on a military forum many years ago about a “French Falklands” scenario where French posters said that they’d have struggled to maintain air cover.

Another factor is that France can’t carry out Black Buck type raids with bombers, while the damage on the ground inflicted by the Vulcans is still debated, there’s no doubt that they spooked Argentina into keeping its Mirage III’s close to Buenos Aries to guard against an attack. Take that out of the equation and Argentina can send its best fighters South for offensive ops, so the balance tips in its favour.

As a bit of an aside, one of the French guys on that forum was pretty miffed at how poor the Marine Nationale’s air defence were until the Rafale entered service. Apparently by the early 80’s it was well aware of this and wanted to buy or lease Hornets until the Rafale was ready, but Dassault went nuts and killed the idea. The delays in its introduction meant that the F-8’s soldiered on until December 1999, while a detachment was on Foch at the beginning of Operation Allied Force they were sent home after it quickly became clear that the Yugoslav air force had been neutralised. An ignominious end for a fine bird!