I was just flipping through the internet the other night, and somehow a piece came up on the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina and Great Britain.

And odd little colonial war it was. We're now almost 35 years past it, and what are your memories of it? Could it happen again? Did Argentina have any business starting it? did the U.K. have and reason to fight it? What is the threshold, people-wise, for defending someone's right to be a citizen of a faraway nation? What has changed? What remains the same?

I do remember a friend of mine, who was originally from Argentina was totally against the Junta's occupation of The Falklands. Everyone in her family was, except her very elderly grandmother. I also remember Johnny Carson making a killing on his monologues for "The Tonight Show", having his audience kind of mock the British Parliament by saying "hear hear!" after some of his jokes.

An interesting time.

"I was just flipping through the internet the other night" you made me laugh.

Dutchy wrote:

"I was just flipping through the internet the other night" you made me laugh.

I don't know how to surf......

As far as I understand it, the Falkland-war or Maldivas-war as you wish, was initiated by Argentina because the junta which was in power was quite weak, they needed something to strengthen them. Nothing works better then create a common enemy and then a group or country comes together. (Russia is an example - the west or Ukraine of Iran with the US, or Israel with the Palestine and the other way around). The Falklands is kind of special, because it was uninhabited before the English came. So the case for Argentina to claim it, seems only to be proximity, so weak at best. Moreover Margaret Thatcher needed to proof herself in a mens world, so she took it back.
Nowadays I think the UK would be more then willingly to give it to Argentina, but the people on the Falklands are unwillingly to do it, they rather stay with the UK, which is understandable. I think the official line from the UK is, if the islanders want independently or join Argentina, it's up to them. Same here in The Netherlands, if the Dutch Caribbean Islands want their independence then most people (probably 95% plus) in The Netherlands will have no objections, but it is up to them.

Dutchy wrote:

As far as I understand it, the Falkland-war or Maldivas-war as you wish, was initiated by Argentina because the junta which was in power was quite weak, they needed something to strengthen them. Nothing works better then create a common enemy and then a group or country comes together.

The Argentine government still does this. Whenever the ruling party is in trouble, they try to trot out "Las Malvinas" as distraction for whatever policy disaster is taking place. Macri has not done it yet but I'm sure it is coming....

usflyer msp wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As far as I understand it, the Falkland-war or Maldivas-war as you wish, was initiated by Argentina because the junta which was in power was quite weak, they needed something to strengthen them. Nothing works better then create a common enemy and then a group or country comes together.

The Argentine government still does this. Whenever the ruling party is in trouble, they try to trot out "Las Malvinas" as distraction for whatever policy disaster is taking place. Macri has not done it yet but I'm sure it is coming....

I highly doubt that. Argentina is more integrated into the world community, lots of words, no action, or military action anyway. Might be the same as Spain wants Gibraltar back, but they will do nothing about it.

usflyer msp wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As far as I understand it, the Falkland-war or Maldivas-war as you wish, was initiated by Argentina because the junta which was in power was quite weak, they needed something to strengthen them. Nothing works better then create a common enemy and then a group or country comes together.

The Argentine government still does this. Whenever the ruling party is in trouble, they try to trot out "Las Malvinas" as distraction for whatever policy disaster is taking place. Macri has not done it yet but I'm sure it is coming....

Correct and despite the more sensible approach by Ms Malcorra she got a grilling from the majority hardliners only last week. Never say never if a crack pot government were to get into power in future then I am sure if economic issues were bad at home they would fan the flames to divert attentions again. The only people who can decide to stay with the UK or ( unlikely ) wish to be part of Argentina are the Falkland Islanders themselves. Until such time their will is copper fastened and protected by the UK. The current Conservative government in power are even less likely to entertain the demands of Argentina.

OA260 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As far as I understand it, the Falkland-war or Maldivas-war as you wish, was initiated by Argentina because the junta which was in power was quite weak, they needed something to strengthen them. Nothing works better then create a common enemy and then a group or country comes together.

The Argentine government still does this. Whenever the ruling party is in trouble, they try to trot out "Las Malvinas" as distraction for whatever policy disaster is taking place. Macri has not done it yet but I'm sure it is coming....

Correct and despite the more sensible approach by Ms Malcorra she got a grilling from the majority hardliners only last week. Never say never if a crack pot government were to get into power in future then I am sure if economic issues were bad at home they would fan the flames to divert attentions again. The only people who can decide to stay with the UK or ( unlikely ) wish to be part of Argentina are the Falkland Islanders themselves. Until such time their will is copper fastened and protected by the UK. The current Conservative government in power are even less likely to entertain the demands of Argentina.

Plus the fact that unlike in 1982, most of South America seems to be more open in their support of Argentina in their belief that The Falklands should be theirs.

As far as the U.K. giving them up, I hope they never do. Anyone remember the Tom Clancy novel "Debt Of Honor", where the Japanese took Guam and the Marianas? In that book, there is an argument going on in U.S. government circles if the relatively few people out there who would fall under Japanese rule were worth fighting over. And although fiction, I agree with Jack Ryan's assessment that it does go back to a debt of honor for people who say they WANT to be associated with the U.S. in that instance, or, in this one, who want to be citizens of The Crown. That's called self-determination, and even if it were 50, to me you fight for someone's right to hold the passport they freely want to hold.

Dutchy wrote:

Might be the same as Spain wants Gibraltar back, but they will do nothing about it.

But until the Argentine people give up the emotional attachment, this remains a danger. IMO the potential for a new war is not insignificant, there is a segment of Argentine population that remains irrational about this subject. The subject can potentially provide fodder for a future Argentine populist: a Donald Trump type. British politicians would be wise to remain guarded in public statements they make regarding the Falklands, lest they accidentally create fuel for nationalist fires in Argentina at some point in the future.

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I always imagined the British navy to be this amazing group but from the footage I saw it seemed very stretched and "in over their heads."

Any country with enough power wants to assert it around. Look at what China is doing, what Russia is doing, India and Pakistan with each other, etc. It's easy enough to rile up people over such matters, unfortunately.

I'd like my country to have balls and take back the Channel Islands !

Just kidding...

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I always imagined the British navy to be this amazing group but from the footage I saw it seemed very stretched and "in over their heads."

Nowadays, missles would sort things out quite well.

The irony is that before all that, there was military cooperation between the UK and Argentines. The Argentines purchased Gloster Meteors and Bill Waterton of Glosters even went over there to supervise the whole operation of putting them back together, and also assisted in the training of the Argentine pilots.

I recall some people at the time describing the Falklands War as the the "War of Thatcher's Face" - a reference to an earlier war, that of "Jenkin's Ear". Thatcher certainly wanted to prove herself but more importantly wanted to demonstrate that Britain, despite its slipping role, was still a force to be reckoned with. It wasn't just about Argentina taking some islands: what if Nigeria wanted to seize British oil assets or some other country wanted to threaten British controlled territory?

Thatcher also recognised that nothing pulls a country together more than a war, at least in its early stages. This is why she was happy to sink her own foreign minister along with the Belgrano. Before Falklands, against a background of rising unemployment, her ratings were at a low. Just as Galtieri used the issue to deflect attention from domestic issues, so Thatcher did and her popularity soared.

The irony is that for all the talk of "defending the rights of British citizens", Thatcher's own Nationality Act had stripped the islanders of British Citizenship and of the right of abode in the UK. When someone pointed out that they weren't actually citizens at all, retrospective legislation was rushed through Parliament to restore their citizenship. Prior to that, the "will of the Islanders" had simply been ignored.

The Falklands War also highlighted differences between the US and the UK and threatened to become the most serious breach. At the onset the US did not automatically support the British position, although they soon came round to it. The reason is that the US was more concerned with events in Nicaragua and was hoping to organise a pan-American force to intervene. Argentina was expected to play a roll in what was an attempt to remove the elected Government. This put the US in a quandary. Should it support the UK and risk the plan for regime change in Nicaragua or should it risk a rupture in the NATO alliance during a crucial stage in the Cold War? For the time being, Nicaragua would have to wait as the goal of undermining the "Soviet Empire" was deemed more important and Thatcher was Reagan's closest ally.

I view the Falkands War as a conflict that was about protecting the rights of people who wanted to remain part of a long established relationship with the U.K. Argentina had virtually no support among the Falklanders and the Argentinian government clearly wanted a significant diversion from years of corruption and mismanagement. Some suggest that the UK should have simply abandoned their reponsibility because there are only a few thousand citizens half way across the world that were inconvenient to protect - but Thatcher was a leader of principle regardless of cost. She believed in upholding international law and when the US gave no initial support and the EU "allies" like France continued to sell Exocet missiles to Argentina, she decided the UK must go it alone. It was a conflict of principle in my view and one where the easy option could so easily have been justified by a weaker leader.

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I think it's quite normal. The aggressor gets to pick the time and place of the battle. The defender has to defend against all possible scenarios. The aggressor almost always makes the defender look unprepared.

As mentioned here as well, the UK military ended up having to 'go it alone' whereas so much of what they were doing at the time presumed they'd be working as an element of NATO or other alliances. The documentaries I saw showed how Thatcher was very disappointed at the lack of help they got from their allies. Maybe this resulted in a lesson learned?

Hillis wrote:

Could it happen again?

Quick answer, no. At one time the Argentine Navy and Air Force were two of the most formidable fighting forces in South America. Now they are but a shadow of their former self. The primary fighter/attack aircraft are roughly two dozen A-4 Skyhawks of which only around five are operational. For all intents and purposes the FAA can't effectively defend their own airspace. Never mind supporting an invasion of the Falklands.

The navy is in not much better shape. The carrier Veinticinco De Mayo was was scrapped back in 2000. Of the two Type 42 destroyers one sank while tied to a pier. The rest of the navy is under funded and suffers from a lack of spare parts for it's equipment. So even if they wanted to attack the Falklands again they really don't have the means to do so.

Revelation wrote:

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I think it's quite normal. The aggressor gets to pick the time and place of the battle. The defender has to defend against all possible scenarios. The aggressor almost always makes the defender look unprepared.

As mentioned here as well, the UK military ended up having to 'go it alone' whereas so much of what they were doing at the time presumed they'd be working as an element of NATO or other alliances. The documentaries I saw showed how Thatcher was very disappointed at the lack of help they got from their allies. Maybe this resulted in a lesson learned?

If I remember it correctly, the date for the attack was trickered by the leak of a submarine heading to the Falklands.

LMP737 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Could it happen again?

Quick answer, no. At one time the Argentine Navy and Air Force were two of the most formidable fighting forces in South America. Now they are but a shadow of their former self. The primary fighter/attack aircraft are roughly two dozen A-4 Skyhawks of which only around five are operational. For all intents and purposes the FAA can't effectively defend their own airspace. Never mind supporting an invasion of the Falklands.

The navy is in not much better shape. The carrier Veinticinco De Mayo was was scrapped back in 2000. Of the two Type 42 destroyers one sank while tied to a pier. The rest of the navy is under funded and suffers from a lack of spare parts for it's equipment. So even if they wanted to attack the Falklands again they really don't have the means to do so.

England haven't got a navy to take back the Falklands either. No long range bombers, no fixed wing aircraft capable of flying of the carrier. So they have to take it back without air cover, not a good place to be for grunts. They can, of course, get Apache to the Falklands, but that's about it. Argentina still has the quite capable A-4AR Fightinghawk and Super Etendard. Don't know how operational they are. The defense is only made up of 4 Typhoons.

But don't think anything will happen, though.

Dutchy wrote:

England haven't got a navy to take back the Falklands either. No long range bombers, no fixed wing aircraft capable of flying of the carrier. So they have to take it back without air cover, not a good place to be for grunts. They can, of course, get Apache to the Falklands, but that's about it. Argentina still has the quite capable A-4AR Fightinghawk and Super Etendard. Don't know how operational they are. The defense is only made up of 4 Typhoons.

But don't think anything will happen, though.

Only a handful of the A-4's are operational, the Super Entendards are grounded. Not that it would matter much since the Typhoons stationed on the Falklands would make short work of them. Any RN attack sub would have a field day with any Argentine naval units.

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I surfed through some books on that war...

UK and Argentina had a somewhat comparable technology in terms of fighters, ships and missiles. In the Gulf War of 1990/1991 one side had tremendous fire power and an advantage in technology (F-117, laser-guided bombs, much more modern tanks) over the adversary. I can't remember right now any other modern war between two states where armament was +/- on the same level.

Another peculiar thing about this war is... after World War 2, the attacks on the ROK Cheonan and the Admiral Belgrano are the only two incidents where a submarine sunk another ship in anger.

Decisive were three things.
1. The Harriers jets, which were able to operate from ships, while Argentina had to fly all the way from the mainland.
2. The submarines. After the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano, Argentina pulled out their ships. Replenishment of the land forces on Falklands? Uh oh, we have a problem.
3. The British soldiers. Their willingness to walk over the whole island and liberate towns at the other end, with only a small part of their equipment being carried by helicopters, just met the Argentinians on the wrong foot. They lacked means of transport, but yet their doctrine called for trucks.


David

cpd wrote:

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I always imagined the British navy to be this amazing group but from the footage I saw it seemed very stretched and "in over their heads."

Nowadays, missles would sort things out quite well.

The irony is that before all that, there was military cooperation between the UK and Argentines. The Argentines purchased Gloster Meteors and Bill Waterton of Glosters even went over there to supervise the whole operation of putting them back together, and also assisted in the training of the Argentine pilots.

Many of the RN ships were new builds and had just entered service, these included the Invincible carrier, the type 22 frigates and the type 42 destroyers. The look of "tiredness" was mainly down to either operating in the South Atlantic for an extended period, or having been pulled out of refit before being painted. As to the bombers barely making it, they were being asked to operate over a range that was entirely outside of their normal role and to drop conventional bombs, having spent the previous 20 or so years with nuclear weapons.

The UK had withdrawn from "East of Suez" in the mid 1960's, until 1982 the entire UK military machine had been tasked with holding back Russia until reinforcements could arrive from the USA. The Royal Marines would go to Norway, the army would hold on in Germany, our frigates would keep the sea lanes open, and the RAF would operate from the UK/Germany and require minimal refuelling. Suddenly we had a colonial battle of the type we were told would never happen again 7,000 miles from home.

The result was that the RAF who had said the Royal Navy didn't need large carriers as they could cover everything, now had their nearest base 3,500 miles from the war zone and couldn't meet their promises.
The Royal Navy no longer had enough lift capacity as ships they envisaged making multiple trips to Norway could now only make one due to the distance.

As to the comment "nowadays missiles would sort things out quite well" that was one of if not the biggest problem in the campaign. The Navy had invested heavily in missiles, and their performance ranged from unreliable to abysmal. Sea slug and sea cat were as much use as a chocolate fireguard, sea dart was fine for high altitude targets of which there were very few, and sea wolf had only just entered service and had a worrying tendency to suffer from "computer says no" Anti aircraft guns had been cut to a minimum as much as anything to improve stability in the North Atlantic. Typical anti aircraft armament for a frigate or destroyer was a pair of 20mm oerlikons or 40mm bofors guns. Immediately after the Falklands many ships gained Phalanx computer controlled guns and additional manually controlled guns

flyingturtle wrote:

[

UK and Argentina had a somewhat comparable technology in terms of fighters, ships and missiles.


David

The one thing the Argentinians really had in their favour was air launched exocet. HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor fell victim to it, and the RN's operations them had to be geared round trying to keep out of its way. This moved the carriers Eastwards and reduced the Harriers air defence coverage. This exposed the landing fleet to old technology in the form of Skyhawks dropping bombs at low level. Providing the pilots are skilled and brave there is next to no defence against a 1000 lb bomb delivered at 100 feet or less. The bombs then took out more ships than the exocets had. The carriers however had got to be protected, we only had two and the loss of one would have been game over.

Dutchy wrote:

England haven't got a navy to take back the Falklands either. No long range bombers, no fixed wing aircraft capable of flying of the carrier. So they have to take it back without air cover, not a good place to be for grunts. They can, of course, get Apache to the Falklands, but that's about it. Argentina still has the quite capable A-4AR Fightinghawk and Super Etendard. Don't know how operational they are. The defense is only made up of 4 Typhoons.

But don't think anything will happen, though.

Firstly, its Great Britain, or Britain. Not England

Secondly: Sure, we don't have the biggest navy in the world but we DO have ships, we DO have planes, we DO have refuelling and supply aircraft and also there is a substantial permanent military presence in the Falklands. Also also, there is no need for bombers any more. The Royal Navy surface and subsurface fleet have missiles to take care of bombardments.

In 1982 there was just a small detachment of SAS on training there, about 60 I think. They put up a fight and bloodied the Argentine noses a little but knew it they couldn't hold the islands alone, they just (in their words) "gave it a go".

Today there is normally an entire garrison of soldiers, airmen and sailors on the islands. There are also several fighters and supply aircraft stationed there. The Royal Navy have at least one surface ship and one Submarine nearby at all times. (As evidenced when Argentina recently threatened oil expeditions and fishing fleets form the Falklands. The Royal Navy had the submarine stationed there pop up long enough to be seen). The Argentines have not forgotten about the General Belgrano.

Just one of the RAF Typhoons stationed there could probably take out every single aircraft Argentina could send over before they even knew it had eyes on them and it wouldn't break sweat doing so either. There are also missile defences in place to take out hostile aircraft or missiles.

So, in short, the Islands are not defenceless.

garpd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Firstly, its Great Britain, or Britain. Not England

It's my pet name for these cute little islands on the other side of the North Sea, please don't take that away from me

Dutchy wrote:

It's my pet name for these cute little islands on the other side of the North Sea, please don't take that away from me

Oh, ok

Bongodog1964 wrote:

cpd wrote:

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I always imagined the British navy to be this amazing group but from the footage I saw it seemed very stretched and "in over their heads."

Nowadays, missles would sort things out quite well.

The irony is that before all that, there was military cooperation between the UK and Argentines. The Argentines purchased Gloster Meteors and Bill Waterton of Glosters even went over there to supervise the whole operation of putting them back together, and also assisted in the training of the Argentine pilots.

Many of the RN ships were new builds and had just entered service, these included the Invincible carrier, the type 22 frigates and the type 42 destroyers. The look of "tiredness" was mainly down to either operating in the South Atlantic for an extended period, or having been pulled out of refit before being painted. As to the bombers barely making it, they were being asked to operate over a range that was entirely outside of their normal role and to drop conventional bombs, having spent the previous 20 or so years with nuclear weapons.

The UK had withdrawn from "East of Suez" in the mid 1960's, until 1982 the entire UK military machine had been tasked with holding back Russia until reinforcements could arrive from the USA. The Royal Marines would go to Norway, the army would hold on in Germany, our frigates would keep the sea lanes open, and the RAF would operate from the UK/Germany and require minimal refuelling. Suddenly we had a colonial battle of the type we were told would never happen again 7,000 miles from home.

The result was that the RAF who had said the Royal Navy didn't need large carriers as they could cover everything, now had their nearest base 3,500 miles from the war zone and couldn't meet their promises.
The Royal Navy no longer had enough lift capacity as ships they envisaged making multiple trips to Norway could now only make one due to the distance.

As to the comment "nowadays missiles would sort things out quite well" that was one of if not the biggest problem in the campaign. The Navy had invested heavily in missiles, and their performance ranged from unreliable to abysmal. Sea slug and sea cat were as much use as a chocolate fireguard, sea dart was fine for high altitude targets of which there were very few, and sea wolf had only just entered service and had a worrying tendency to suffer from "computer says no" Anti aircraft guns had been cut to a minimum as much as anything to improve stability in the North Atlantic. Typical anti aircraft armament for a frigate or destroyer was a pair of 20mm oerlikons or 40mm bofors guns. Immediately after the Falklands many ships gained Phalanx computer controlled guns and additional manually controlled guns

I wasn't meaning those kinds of missiles. I was thinking of something more awful. Which hopefully will never be used. Hence why having submarines near the island is more than enough deterrent.

garpd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It's my pet name for these cute little islands on the other side of the North Sea, please don't take that away from me

Oh, ok

Thank you, you are most gracious about it. Then I will let you call my country, The Netherlands, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Holland, or greater Amsterdam, or that pink bit on the map just right next to the Germans, if you prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

Dutchy wrote:

garpd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It's my pet name for these cute little islands on the other side of the North Sea, please don't take that away from me

Oh, ok

Thank you, you are most gracious about it. Then I will let you call my country, The Netherlands, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Holland, or greater Amsterdam, or that pink bit on the map just right next to the Germans, if you prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

I call it the "Only place in the world where you go up hill to visit the beach"

garpd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

garpd wrote:

Oh, ok

Thank you, you are most gracious about it. Then I will let you call my country, The Netherlands, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Holland, or greater Amsterdam, or that pink bit on the map just right next to the Germans, if you prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

I call it the "Only place in the world where you go up hill to visit the beach"

Indeed, a frequently heard conversation in the Netherlands, are you going to claim to the beach today? Neh, to much effort claiming all the way up there

Dutchy wrote:

Indeed, a frequently heard conversation in the Netherlands, are you going to claim to the beach today? Neh, to much effort claiming all the way up there

ha ha

Despite my vast interest in military history, I don't know a whole ton about the Falklands War. The only somewhat-detailed account that I've read was part of a book about logistics in war. I wish I could remember which book it was. I read it a little over 4 years ago. It was a very good account of the logistical efforts for a variety of conflicts, the last of which being the Falklands. It was an impressive feat for the Brits to be able to sustain operations for the Falklands.

Dutchy wrote:

Thank you, you are most gracious about it. Then I will let you call my country, The Netherlands, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Holland, or greater Amsterdam, or that pink bit on the map just right next to the Germans, if you prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

That was actually a really good video...

Hillis wrote:

As far as the U.K. giving them up, I hope they never do.

Never is an awfully long time. There can hardly be any doubt that the Falklands would probably be better off if they were part of an integrated South American economy. If Argentina one day turns into a shining beacon of democracy and a strong economic power too, then why not let them secede to Argentina? At the end of the day, it is the Kelpers decision, not the UKs.

Dutchy wrote:

England haven't got a navy to take back the Falklands either. No long range bombers, no fixed wing aircraft capable of flying of the carrier. So they have to take it back without air cover, not a good place to be for grunts. They can, of course, get Apache to the Falklands, but that's about it. Argentina still has the quite capable A-4AR Fightinghawk and Super Etendard. Don't know how operational they are. The defense is only made up of 4 Typhoons.

The Super Etendard's have been gone for many years, and the last A-4ARs were grounded earlier this year with structural fatigue and cracks, along with the last Mirage's. They only have those Alpha-Jet style trainers left, some Tucano's and the Pucaras. Even if they did have any A-4ARs left, they are ground attack aircraft, and almost completely useless against a Typhoon. They lack a proper radar, and could only be armed with a pair of AIM-9Ms, with a range of less than 10 km. Compare that to the Typhoon which can sling at least 10 missiles, 8 of which are AIM-120s or Meteors, which could engage the Skyhawks from at least 100 km away.

The British might not have any long-range bombers, but I am willing to bet than a pair of Tornado's, F-35s or Typhoons armed with Storm Shadows, operating out of RAF Ascension Island with MRTT support, could do it with much less trouble (and to much greater effect) than the Vulcans did. Add to that the Tomahawk equipped submarine force that could render all mainland Argentine bases out of service. The Type 45 destroyers would do their part to render the airspace unusable to whatever Argentina could attempt to send up against the RN helicopter carriers, and the AH-64s would ruin the day for any Argentine forces on the Islands.

Honestly, the current British military is significantly more capable than the force in 1982 was, despite all the defence cuts.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

As to the comment "nowadays missiles would sort things out quite well" that was one of if not the biggest problem in the campaign.

While missiles aren't infallible, the major errors at the time have been addressed since. A Type 45 also has significantly more (and better) weapons to choose from than a Type 42 and a Type 22 combined.

VSMUT wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

As to the comment "nowadays missiles would sort things out quite well" that was one of if not the biggest problem in the campaign.

While missiles aren't infallible, the major errors at the time have been addressed since. A Type 45 also has significantly more (and better) weapons to choose from than a Type 42 and a Type 22 combined.

Ah yes the Type 45's which also extensively suffer from "computer says no syndrome" due to insufficient electrical generating capacity. As long as the Argentinians wait until they've all had a hole cut in the side and additional generators installed, we'll be guaranteed a positive outcome.

garpd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

garpd wrote:

Oh, ok

Thank you, you are most gracious about it. Then I will let you call my country, The Netherlands, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Holland, or greater Amsterdam, or that pink bit on the map just right next to the Germans, if you prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

I call it the "Only place in the world where you go up hill to visit the beach"

Now that you mention it, you do climb a hill to visit the Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana. I remember doing so and thinking it was odd that I was climbing to get to water.

Revelation wrote:

garpd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Thank you, you are most gracious about it. Then I will let you call my country, The Netherlands, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Holland, or greater Amsterdam, or that pink bit on the map just right next to the Germans, if you prefer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

I call it the "Only place in the world where you go up hill to visit the beach"

Now that you mention it, you do climb a hill to visit the Mississippi River in New Orleans, Louisiana. I remember doing so and thinking it was odd that I was climbing to get to water.

Well Dutch experts helped the New Orleaners out with that one. We are experts in claiming towards the water

My 'favorite' part of the whole mess was the Time Magazine cover as the UK fleet was about to sail

"The Empire Strikes Back"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ContentCreator wrote:

I've watched a lot of documentaries about it and what has surprised me about the conflict was how ill-prepared the UK was to fight such a battle. The bombers barely made it and the navy ships looked tired and out of date.

I always imagined the British navy to be this amazing group but from the footage I saw it seemed very stretched and "in over their heads."

The logistics train to fight in that region of the world would have stressed the US Navy and Air Force at the time, much less the smaller, but highly professional and capable UK forces. While many nations in South America were not hostile to the UK in the conflict, no nation was willing to provide support facilities. They wouldn't have done so for the US either.

During the 'war' I was stationed at the US Naval Facility on the island of Antigua in the Caribbean. One of the side missions we had at that base was supporting the USAF C-141 twice weekly flights to Ascension and Johannesburg - these were the logistics support flights for the US military contractors on Ascension and the US Embassies in the southern half of Africa.

There was a lot of discussion with the C-141 crews about how difficult Ascension had become due to the huge presence of UK military aircraft/ contracted aircraft. The ramp areas were packed like a mall at Christmas. The 'base' didn't have enough beds to sleep the people there on temporary duty, the dining facility couldn't feed everyone in less than three or four hours - and then it was time for another meal to be served. The local population, economy didn't have the capability to provide anywhere near the supplies needed. Everything - milk, butter, bread, meat, vegetables, etc - had to be either flown in, or brought by ship.

There simply was no closer support facility. At the time some folks suggested using South Africa - the base near Cape Town - as a support facility. It is nearly the same distance from Port Stanley as Ascension.

The USAF has made some amazing flights from bases in the US for combat missions over Southwest Asia. But unlike the 1982 conflict - those missions had bases that refueling aircraft could use much closer to the target. Certainly not 3,300 nm.

The flights to Port Stanley from Ascension were longer than the B-52 bombing missions to North Vietnam - 3,300 nm vs 2,300 nm - and those USAF flights involved three tanker refueling sessions.

Missiles are only an option if the desire is to totally destroy the location. That was not the mission of the UK forces. Their goal was to re-occupy the islands, and assist the Argentine military forces in departing. It was a critical mission goal to leave the islands safe for the civilian population to return/ resume their lives.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can understand the basic argument by the people from Argentina that the islands were supposed to be their territory.

I can also understand the argument by the majority of the people living in the Falklands at the time - that they were emotionally attached to the UK, that the UK had supported them for their entire lifetimes, that the nations of South America - especially Argentina - had ignored the Falklands.

I also found the whole 'war' incredibly stupid. The loss of too many lives on both sides over what should have been a 10-15 year negotiation under the auspices of the UN, and a likely resolution to give Argentina some type of official standing.

Another really neat part of being stationed on Antigua was that I was there to see a new nation born in peaceful circumstances, when the nation received its full independence from the United Kingdom.

The Falklands/ Malvinas will never be able to sustain itself economically - but that should have also been settled peacefully.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Ah yes the Type 45's which also extensively suffer from "computer says no syndrome" due to insufficient electrical generating capacity. As long as the Argentinians wait until they've all had a hole cut in the side and additional generators installed, we'll be guaranteed a positive outcome.

Well the problem was limited to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf and other tropical areas

rfields5421 wrote:

I also found the whole 'war' incredibly stupid. The loss of too many lives on both sides over what should have been a 10-15 year negotiation under the auspices of the UN, and a likely resolution to give Argentina some type of official standing.

Mmm, I think Thatchers response was the correct one. Her Majesty's troops were fired upon and an over seas territory was invaded. There was no warning given, no lines of communication. It was an aggressive act.
Thatcher running to the UN would have just confirmed the Argentine leadership's opinion of the UK being weak and unwilling. They did not expect the UK to sail thousands of miles to take back the Falklands.

Diplomatic discussions with Argentina have been constant for several decades, even before the conflict. Argentina will stop at nothing short of 100% ownership. There is no negotiating with that sort of frame of mind. Like trying to convince an Airbus fan to like Boeing or vice versa. There is no point. You can talk peace all you want but when the other side doesn't want to listen, it is fruitless.

There have been two independent referendums on the islands about nationality. Each time, the vote was 95% or more to remain British. So long as that remains the status quo, Britain will defend those islands.

When the British public sees a photo like this, it kinda galvanises a nation.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Ah yes the Type 45's which also extensively suffer from "computer says no syndrome" due to insufficient electrical generating capacity. As long as the Argentinians wait until they've all had a hole cut in the side and additional generators installed, we'll be guaranteed a positive outcome.

Yes, with their non-existent air force and navy that spends most of its time tied to a pier.

LMP737 wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Ah yes the Type 45's which also extensively suffer from "computer says no syndrome" due to insufficient electrical generating capacity. As long as the Argentinians wait until they've all had a hole cut in the side and additional generators installed, we'll be guaranteed a positive outcome.

Yes, with their non-existent air force and navy that spends most of its time tied to a pier.

Rather like us then with our T45's which have hardly left Portsmouth this year.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Rather like us then with our T45's which have hardly left Portsmouth this year.

If I were the Argentine Navy I would be more worried about a RN attack sub.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Ah yes the Type 45's which also extensively suffer from "computer says no syndrome" due to insufficient electrical generating capacity. As long as the Argentinians wait until they've all had a hole cut in the side and additional generators installed, we'll be guaranteed a positive outcome.

Yes, with their non-existent air force and navy that spends most of its time tied to a pier.

Rather like us then with our T45's which have hardly left Portsmouth this year.

Perhaps they an shoot at each other and have it done with it?

If I was the UK govt and Argentina had another go I'd take the gloves off and order one of the Astutes to lob a few cruise missiles at the Presidents Palace and various other govt buildings, then I'd sink any Argentine flagged vessels anywhere near the islands and basically blockade the Argentine ports. Make em suffer.

I remember it well, though are are some myths around it.
The French were totally co-operative as regards to embargoing arms and French AF Mirage III's provided ACM training for the RN Sea Harriers as they passed the French Atlantic coast.

The RN were well prepared, however as stated it was for a very different kind of war, the capital vessels of the RN were the Nuclear SSBN's and in 1982 11 strong SSN fleet, along with 15 conventional subs, one of which carried out insertions of Royal Marines SBS troops.

Sea Dart was fairly successful, not a huge number of kills, I've heard estimates of a low to 5, or up to 8, however what they did do was force Argentine aircraft to fly so low their bombs often had no time to fuse.

I don't buy into the idea that Thatcher was a warmonger, she was told, in no uncertain terms the severe risks of a military operation to re-take the islands.
Which had to be a total success, the Suez fiasco 25 years before still scarred the establishment, hence in any case a major diplomatic route had to be tried first.
Had the US not supported the UK, had this also contributed to a lack of success, with or without casualties, with or without a conflict, then Thatcher's government, already unpopular would be soon out of office.
The opposition party then a policy and a leader who wanted to not only dismantle the UK nuclear force but also expel the US forces from the UK.
(The Soviets were excited, they knew his would be the political result and they did not think the UK would be able to take the islands, when the US support was confirmed they still thought the UK would fail however).

But poor old Al Haig was stopped at every turn by the Junta, who were often drunk, when he thought he had something he could take to London, the Argentine Foreign Minister would send the contents of a private letter of his 'thoughts on our talks' which basically went back on everything Haig thought he had agreed, to the New York Times!

That crucial US support was 103 AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles, the Sea Harriers were already cleared for the AIM-9G/H, they cleared the 9L on the way down.
As well as Shrike anti radar missiles, since the existing UK Martel had never been cleared for such a long time on an external weapons pylon for a Vulcan raid, up to that point the longest bombing mission ever undertaken.
SATCOM images and USAFE KC-135's took up the slack supporting the RAF in their Cold War roles, notably air defence F-4's and Lightnings, presumably with the boom having the drogue mod.

In terms of the ground forces, they carried out a tremendous feat of arms, not all of the Argentine troops were ill trained 17/18 year olds, though some were, other conscripts were more experienced and better led and there was a sizeable number of professionals, included special forces, on the islands.
They had more and larger artillery, many more in numbers, many positions were commanding geographically and well protected.
Though many were neglected and badly treated by their own officers, they were surprised how better off they were in both food and treatment as British POW's, many having been told lurid tales about British professional 'killers' and Gurkha's who eat their POW;s.
Many had also been told that the islanders would welcome them.

The best reasoning for fighting that war, (the islands are ironically now in much better economic shape with a bigger and younger population now), are perhaps from what the First Sea Lord told Thatcher when they met when it was clear that Argentina had invaded, 'If we don't we'll be living in a different country, one whose word counts for nothing'.
It was a short but bloody conflict, the loss of life on both sides was terrible, however the Junta were to blame, a government lest we forget that tortured so many of it's own people, in the previous 7 years, murdering some 30000 of them.
Not an option to leave 1800 UK nations in their hands, many in the US did not 'get' this war, the UK Ambassador reminded them of how they felt when 77 of their people were hostages in Iran and who gave (unlike as shown in the film Argo) unconditional support.

Aesma, I'd like France to invade the Channel Islands too. And maybe Argentina could supply us with some Exocets

"Battle for the Falklands" by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins is a cracking read if anyone wants to delve deeper. I was five during the Falklands War and only vaguely remember it but read this book a number of times in my teenage years. It's vaguely jingoistic but very factual and explains the military campaign as well as the political,situation well.

steveinbc wrote:

I view the Falkands War as a conflict that was about protecting the rights of people who wanted to remain part of a long established relationship with the U.K. Argentina had virtually no support among the Falklanders and the Argentinian government clearly wanted a significant diversion from years of corruption and mismanagement. Some suggest that the UK should have simply abandoned their reponsibility because there are only a few thousand citizens half way across the world that were inconvenient to protect - but Thatcher was a leader of principle regardless of cost. She believed in upholding international law and when the US gave no initial support and the EU "allies" like France continued to sell Exocet missiles to Argentina, she decided the UK must go it alone. It was a conflict of principle in my view and one where the easy option could so easily have been justified by a weaker leader.

Arms sales are a long process, I don't see how France could have sold missiles during the short war, if it had wanted to.

From the BBC.com website :

At the start of the conflict, France's left-leaning president, Francois Mitterrand, had come to Britain's aid by declaring an embargo on French arms sales and assistance to Argentina.
He also allowed the Falklands-bound British fleet to use French port facilities in West Africa, as well as providing London with detailed information about planes and weaponry his country had sold to Buenos Aires.
Paris also co-operated with extensive British efforts to stop Argentina acquiring any more Exocets on the world's arms market.

I think the real issue was that despite being equipped with the Exocet, the RN had no real defense against it.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

The one thing the Argentinians really had in their favour was air launched exocet. HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor fell victim to it, and the RN's operations them had to be geared round trying to keep out of its way. This moved the carriers Eastwards and reduced the Harriers air defence coverage. This exposed the landing fleet to old technology in the form of Skyhawks dropping bombs at low level. Providing the pilots are skilled and brave there is next to no defence against a 1000 lb bomb delivered at 100 feet or less. The bombs then took out more ships than the exocets had. The carriers however had got to be protected, we only had two and the loss of one would have been game over.

I don't think Argentina had all that many Exocet's, because if they had more, they really could have done some damage to the British fleet.

One advantage that the British had was that they had American military satellite access, to let them know where not only the troops were on the Island, but a better idea where their ships were as well. I'm still kind of surprised to this day that the British didn't more seriously consider bombing air bases on the Argentine mainland. War can't really be subtle, and maybe that would have saved the Sheffield. But war is politics by another means, and the politics won out in that case.

chimborazo wrote:

Aesma, I'd like France to invade the Channel Islands too. And maybe Argentina could supply us with some Exocets

"Battle for the Falklands" by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins is a cracking read if anyone wants to delve deeper. I was five during the Falklands War and only vaguely remember it but read this book a number of times in my teenage years. It's vaguely jingoistic but very factual and explains the military campaign as well as the political,situation well.

I think I might have read that one back a few years.

Hillis, Britain did implement a plan to blow up the Argie's planes on land. One way trip for special forces, leave the Sea King and bug out to Chile iirc.
I seem to recall it being in General Sir Peter de la Billiere's memoirs as he was in charge of the SAS then.