The Falklands war

[daniel_g]

Back on topic, an Argentine 'win' needs and British 'defeat' need definition.

With HMS Conquerer at sea, the Argentine Navy could never be an effective force. However an Argentine airforce operating Mirage IIIs from Stanley after failed Black Buck raids and equipped with 10 air launched Exocets after failed MI6 operations creates a different scenario for Britain.

An alternate plan would have been for the naval blockade to continue with the fleet stationed out of Mirage range. To gain air superiority (or even parity), British special forces would have to disable Stanley airfield - a bit more challenging than Pebble Beech, but possible. With Mirages stuck in Stanley or moved back the mainland, the conflict could proceed as was, however we would be a month or two later (into winter) and the exocets from the mainland would still be a considerable threat. I'm not sure how many 'Sheffields' the British public could accept however; the Goose Green Battle was purely fought to give some good news back home.

My gut feeling is that once Thatcher had decided to go to war, the British Forces would retake the islands whatever the consequences.

The junta mandated the use of Spanish and the metric system

The same metric system use in UK and Falkland Island schools since the mid 1970s?

The usual Third World practice of heavy penalties for failure to "show respect" to "officials" and "national symbols" soon followed Menendez' appointment.

Despite political corruption and a right wing military Junta, I would never describe Argentina as third world? Whilst the Falkland Islanders were pretty much under house arrest, apart from the internment of the Goose Green population in the community centre for a month, the Argentine army acted very honorably. Think about the US approach to Japanese Americans during WW2 and the use Guantanamo Bay in the current conflict.

 

[Wanderlust]

The same metric system use in UK and Falkland Island schools since the mid 1970s?

Alright - Replace 'metric system' with 'making everyone drive on the wrong side of the road'.

 

[Bill Cameron]

The same metric system use in UK and Falkland Island schools since the mid 1970s?

Daniel,

If the metric system was in use in everyday life, why did the Argentines feel the need to mandate it's use along with Spanish three days after the occupation began?

Whilst the Falkland Islanders were pretty much under house arrest, apart from the internment of the Goose Green population in the community centre for a month, the Argentine army acted very honorably.

Acted honorably during a brief occupation.

I was writing about a failed or nonexistent British attack and subsequent much longer occupation during which time the junta would be under considerable economic and diplomatic pressure to withdraw. The presence of men like Menendez and Astiz on the Falklands and South Georgia respectively don't bode well for the Falklands islanders during a lengthy occupation. Both were involved in the "dirty war" up to their filthy necks and Astiz was even wanted for questioning by foreign powers.

Think about the US approach to Japanese Americans during WW2 and the use Guantanamo Bay in the current conflict.

Apples and oranges. Neither of your deliberately provocative "analogies" are actually analogies for a lengthy Argentine occupation of the Falklands. Do try better next time.


Bill

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The junta invaded in hopes of becoming so popular with the Argentine people that they could remain in power or at least avoid punishment.

That's a reason so many officers with reason to fear punishment for their roles in the Dirty War were sent to the Falklands or South Georgia. The latter, by the by, a territory Argentina had recognized as British property.

The result was that the regime couldn't wait, even though they had every reason to believe the British would be much weaker in only a few months.

 

[daniel_g]

Daniel,
I was writing about a failed or nonexistent British attack and subsequent much longer occupation during which time the junta would be under considerable economic and diplomatic pressure to withdraw.

Fair point

Neither of your deliberately provocative "analogies" are actually analogies for a lengthy Argentine occupation of the Falklands.
Bill

There are very few occupying powers that act 100% honorably; the British during the Boar War; the USA in Vietnam (My Lai in particular); Russian forces in Chechnia; all the way to Sadam Hussein's use of captured Britons from Kuwait as a human shield.

Argentine treatment of Rex Hunt's insubordination resulted in him being expelled to Uraguay; the only Falkland Islanders killed or seriously injured were a result of British shelling.

Given the Argentine Junta's record on the mainland and the nature of occupying forces in general, it would not have been surprising if the Argentine forces had acted more cruelly to the local population.

 

[Wanderlust]

Argentine soldiers killed livestock, and confiscated just about every civilian vehicle on the islands during their tenure there. When the decision to surrender came, Argentine soldiers trashed many of the houses they were billeted in, pissing on walls and crapping on the carpets, etc. In some of the battles - Goose Green, for one - captive civilians were kept in buildings perilously close to the line of fire. No, civilians weren't tortured or killed, but the occupiers were by and large far from gentlemanly. And what Bill is saying that the period of occupation was too brief, and too much of the world's media was focused on the islands, for the Junta to properly get into it's role as occupier. We'd likely have seen something different if the occupation had gone on for any length of time.

 

[daniel_g]

I would rather be living in Stanley when occupation came and have my house trashed than be living in My Lai and have a bullet in the back of my head!!

I think we're getting way off topic now though!!

 

[Wanderlust]

The question is more whether you'd like a bullet in the back of the head at My Lai, or to be 'disappeared'.

 

[MacCaulay]

I would rather be living in Stanley when occupation came and have my house trashed than be living in My Lai and have a bullet in the back of my head!!

I think we're getting way off topic now though!!

The question is more whether you'd like a bullet in the back of the head at My Lai, or to be 'disappeared'.

Wow...I just got into this topic...but perhaps I'll back slowly away...



...anyhoo...I suppose the whole Exocet thing has been done to death so I needn't say it, but what about the QE2?

Everyone's always freaked out about "If they put an Exocet into the carriers, the Royal Navy would be out of luck!" Heck, I've got the book Sandy Woodward wrote on it and he says the same thing.

But what if a Super Etendard had managed to put an Exocet into the side of the QE2?

 

[daniel_g]

The question is more whether you'd like a bullet in the back of the head at My Lai, or to be 'disappeared'.

It's a too simplistic an argument to go along with the British tabloid approach that the Brits were the goodies and the Argies the baddies.

My Lai is a fact, disappearances on the Falklands is a conjecture so the two scenarios are not comparable. My opinion is that the Argentine troops on the Falklands behaved in a manner that exceeded the expectations of the troops from a right wing Military Junta; and their behavior exceeded some western forces behaviour. Feel free to disagree, but let's get back on topic.

The Falklands war is extremely interesting because there have been very few recent wars where opponents of similar technical and organisational capability have fought each other. Ultimately through a lack of in-theatre airstrips, limited munitions and general naval power meant that the Argentine forces did not have the capability to defend the islands against the British task force.

 

[oudi14]

The Argies WERE the baddies. Argue all you like about territorial claims, but those who waged the Dirty War were bad people, period. Maybe not the average Jose, who was drafted and sent to the Falklands, but Galtieri, Anaya, Astiz, et al. were bad men.

It's a too simplistic an argument to go along with the British tabloid approach that the Brits were the goodies and the Argies the baddies.

My Lai is a fact, disappearances on the Falklands is a conjecture so the two scenarios are not comparable. My opinion is that the Argentine troops on the Falklands behaved in a manner that exceeded the expectations of the troops from a right wing Military Junta; and there behavior exceeded the behavior of western forces. Feel free to disagree, but let's get back on topic.

The Falklands war is extremely interesting because there have been very few wars where opponents of similar technical and organisational capability have fought each other. Ultimately through a lack of in-theatre airstrips, limited munitions and general naval power meant that the Argentine forces did not have the capability to defend the islands against the British task force.

 

[daniel_g]

But what if a Super Etendard had managed to put an Exocet into the side of the QE2?

The Task Force was separated into two fleets; the second fleet containing the car ferries (only the British would go to war in a bright orange car ferry!!!) and QE2 etc was only taken into the islands after 'coast was clear'. the QE2 went into San Carlos water at night and was unloaded at dawn; Canberra unloaded by mid morning...but it would have been very painful. It would have been difficult for the British government to appease the tabloid outcry at casualties that would have run into hundreds.

 

[juanml82]

Alright - Replace 'metric system' with 'making everyone drive on the wrong side of the road'.

Which had some sense, as there were a lot of military trucks in the area driven by conscripts who drove on the right side of the road (pun intended). Doing otherwise would've been an invitation to nasty traffic accidents.

Regarding the occupation, the one that happened was pretty much mild compared with how civilians usually fare in war. Regarding livestock, there shouldn't have been any sheep left after the war was over. Now, in a longer ATL occupation marked with resistance from the locals, the criminal record of the people in charge doesn't speak about nice possibilities.

Britain couldn't have invoked Nato's article 5, which doesn't mean her allies wouldn't have joined the war anyway.

The thing is, let's say you put the proper PODs for the defeat of the British task force. IE, the Argentinean invasion happens on May 25th, so the British fleet can't arrive until September/October due winter. A lot of thing happen differently, the most important, the Argentinean Air Force has time to realize the bombs they're using wouldn't work and begun tinkering with the fuses so they do. So, when the British task force arrives the air strikes on it goes more or less the same way as in OTL, but with far greater British losses as most of the bombs are exploding now. Let's say the attacks still concentrate on the escorts instead of the carriers, support or transport ships, but IITL the British fleet is eventually left with barely any escort ships and can't risk to continue operations.
The war might very well don't end there. The UK can call her allies, with better naval aircraft than the Harriers, can continue to enforce a submarine blockade on the islands, can use subs to raid Argentinean commerce, can retort to chemical weapons (and the Argentinean Armed Forces had no NBC protection at that time), can try to bomb cities in the mainland with Vulcans (which would only succeed if they manage to do it by surprise). Things just turn nastier, but the war can go on.

 

[Wanderlust]

It's a too simplistic an argument to go along with the British tabloid approach that the Brits were the goodies and the Argies the baddies.

My Lai is a fact, disappearances on the Falklands is a conjecture so the two scenarios are not comparable. My opinion is that the Argentine troops on the Falklands behaved in a manner that exceeded the expectations of the troops from a right wing Military Junta; and their behavior exceeded some western forces behaviour. Feel free to disagree, but let's get back on topic.

Then I'd like to know what your sources are for the supposed eternal good behaviour of the Argentine troops, please. It's insulting to dismiss my views, which came from a very real possibility and are backed up by multiple sources as a 'British tabloid approach' simply because you don't agree with them.

 

[HJ Tulp]

The thing is, let's say you put the proper PODs for the defeat of the British task force. IE, the Argentinean invasion happens on May 25th, so the British fleet can't arrive until September/October due winter. A lot of thing happen differently, the most important, the Argentinean Air Force has time to realize the bombs they're using wouldn't work and begun tinkering with the fuses so they do. So, when the British task force arrives the air strikes on it goes more or less the same way as in OTL, but with far greater British losses as most of the bombs are exploding now. Let's say the attacks still concentrate on the escorts instead of the carriers, support or transport ships, but IITL the British fleet is eventually left with barely any escort ships and can't risk to continue operations.
The war might very well don't end there. The UK can call her allies, with better naval aircraft than the Harriers, can continue to enforce a submarine blockade on the islands, can use subs to raid Argentinean commerce, can retort to chemical weapons (and the Argentinean Armed Forces had no NBC protection at that time), can try to bomb cities in the mainland with Vulcans (which would only succeed if they manage to do it by surprise). Things just turn nastier, but the war can go on.

How so? If the British stay out of the South Atlantic with their surface vessels the Argentine Airforce/Navy will not now what problems their missiles and bombs have.

 

[juanml82]

By making exercises with the Argentinean's type 42 destroyers which will show they need to fly at 10 m agl to have a reasonable chance to succeed. Then, it's just a matter of realizing the bombs they were using had to be dropped from at least 50 m to explode. All this happened in OTL, it's just that they didn't have enough time to act on the information. If the arrival of the Task Force is delayed, there is time.

 

[sloreck]

One of the problems with the Argentine Army (and to a somewhat lesser extent the Navy & Air Force) is that it is, at least among officers, a very "political" army. Without going in to great detail a great deal of work on civil-military relations shows that the more a military is involved in the actual politics of running a country the less professional it is as military especially as you get to higher echelons. This goes double for a country run by a military Junta. The enlisted men recognize quality leaders and competency on a military level you can't BS them - that's why junior officers and mid-grade officers who have these qualities but are not politically tied to the right groups (if they are they gradually become more political & less military) tend to be moved around a lot & shunted to dead end posts so they cannot build a loyal following among the troops. When you have all strategic decisions, and most important tactical ones made by officers selected more for political reliability/connections than military talent, the most skilled 2nd Lts can't make it work.

Assuming that the Argies damage the task force enough or time their invasion better, the Brits can carry on a blockade to wreck their economy. A few nuke boats off the coast put every merchant with an Argentine flag down, and you can set up a quarantine line beyond effective air range where surface ships stop neutrals on their way to Argentina - if carrying contraband the ships are escorted to the UK or elsewhere by a prize crew, condemned by a prize court & seized (with cargo). All perfectly according to international law & precedents. All it takes is a few seized ships and the neutrals will stop carrying cargoes to Argentina, and Argie flagged merchants will either stay in port or slowly sink. By the time the weather changes & allows for invasion.....

BTW if the forces on the Falklands start letting the locals starve to feed themselves (as only air bridge stuff gets to Falklands) expect to see the Brits demand & get folks for war crimes trials, and demand and get reparations from Argentina ( free beef or raw materials, wheat, whatever).

 

[Astrodragon]

Most of the people posting that Argentina could have won the war seem to be ignoring the British feelaing about the war. Which was that it was a matter of principle, and no-one gets to invade people who want to be British and gets away with it.

Waiting till later in the year would make ground action more difficult. It wouldnt have stopped the British interdicting first shipping to the islands, then Argentinian shipping in general. Given that the Marines at least are normally tasked to reinforce Norway (in winter), I'm not that convinced that the British would be put off by winter weather anyway.

And if the Argentinians do better at taking out escorts? Then the British build, buy and borrow more. Look for more specops raids on the Argentinian mainland, and even for the possibility of a proper carrier in the next TF (the Americans were looking at what was involved in selling Britain one of their older carriers, with its planes, for a rather attractive price, if it was needed. As it was, it wasn't)

Finally, the Argentinian economy would have been the big loser in any longer confrontation. It would have been fairly easy for the British to stop traffic to and from the country. Yet Britain paid for the war out of the contingency fund!

Finally, the Argentinians were NOT model occupiers (despite what the apologists here say). Yes, they werent as bad as some. Lets not bother, shall we, to mention things like using schools and hospitals as weapons storages, for example.

 

[juanml82]

Astrodragon: what is a "model occupying force" in war and how many wars have seen them?

 

[Riain]

The QE2 never went anywhere near the Falklands, it went to Sth Georgia and transferred its troops to the Canberra which went in again. Here's a link to a photo of this event. http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/Cordella%20and%20Junella%20alongside%20QE2%20and%20Canberra%20at%20South%20Georgia.jpg QE2 transitted south at 28kts so nothing could escort her and it would have been amazing if anything in the Arg inventory could get a shot off at her.

Incidently the same applies to the carriers, the troops 'awarded' Woodward the 'Star of Burma' for staying so far to the east. Nothing in the Arg inventory ever got any sort of lock on the CBG, let alone made any sort of threatening attack.