"Could Argentina take the Falklands? " Topic

The Daily Telegraph recently reported the view of General Sir Mike Jackson about the Falklands:

link

To paraphrase the article, the basic difference between now and 1982 is that, today, the British would have to somehow manage to prevent an invasion taking place, rather than being able to re-capture the islands after a successful Argentine invasion.
Though the British forces in place are considerably more impressive than they were 30 years ago, they are still far from awe-inspiring. And with the RN not having any carriers any more (until 2020?), if the Argentinians did manage to take the islands and gain control of the RAF base at Mount Pleasant, there would seem no way that the British could re-invade without American assistance.
Another significant change is that Chile is now much more friendly to Argentina and unlikely to give the save sort of covert support she gave the British in 1982.

But the official line of the British MoD seems to be that Argentine forces are much less formidible than they were in 1982:

link

Is this true?

link

link

Though it probably will, I do not want this to turn into a debate on the rights-and-wrongs of who should own the Falklands – but I would be very interested to hear what people think in terms of:

a) could Argentina mount a successful invasion against the British forces currently there (the garrison of about 1300 men, a flight of Typhoons, likely a frigate as a guard ship and possibly an SSN).

b) if so, what would happen then?

a) could Argentina mount a successful invasion against the British forces currently there (the garrison of about 1300 men, a flight of Typhoons, likely a frigate as a guard ship and possibly an SSN).

A single SSN would prevent the invasion.

Have no idea of the strengths of the current Argentine armed forces but I think the possible presence of a RN SSN is a game changer. Knowing it's lurking out there would likely keep the Navy in Port and then how do you land an invasion force plus heavy support weapons.

I agree a re-capture effort by the Brits would be trickier without naval air cover.

Of course they can take it.

They've already proved that.

KEEPING IT is the trick, and I don't think they're quite up to that capability yet.

With the aid of the British bean counters, and naval, air, and army budget cuts, it may be doable in the near future, if not now.

The lack of carriers is bad, but even worse is the lack of Sea Harriers, since those could have been used from the deck of a large cargo vessel, and/or supertanker, if pressed to create a vessel to carry them in the interim. Presumably, with the global recession, there are still plenty of those available for purchase, or lease.

If you are worried about SSNs, then just fly over them in a C-130, and land, or drop paras. Aerial resupply could be carried out as well, bypassing any subs, or naval vessels in the area.

Not sure what the situation is with SSMs, but presumably Argentina now has plenty of Exocets, and/or other seaskimmers, if needed.

Of course, they'll need to mount an attack to take out, or damage the RAF fighters on station in the islands, but that shouldn't be too difficult, if they really want to. Losses of Argentine aircraft and pilots will probably be high, as occurred last time, but numbers are on their side.

The real issue are the British ground troops on the island. The larger garrison there would be a tough nut to crack, but if resupply could be threatened by aircraft with seaskimmers, then only minimal supplies will be available to them, via covert delivery by the submarines.

Mako11

But the point is that they did it last time against completely different forces – ie. in 1982, their invasion faced less than a tenth of the British forces currently there, and the British had no air cover in 1982. Also the British MoD says that Argentina no longer has the capability to mount an invasion.

So what they achieved in 1982 is largely irrelevant, which is the whole subject of this debate.

On the contrary, if they managed to take the islands again, KEEPING IT would actually be the easy part today, given that the RN no longer has any carriers, and the Argentine's would have RAF Mount Pleasant to operate from.

The Wiki links I posted earlier suggest the Argentine air force has 23 fighter planes, which certainly gives them a massive numerical advantage over the RAF's 4 Typhoons on paper, but how many of those 23 would be available / servicable, and how would they fare trying to acheive air superiority so far from their home bases?
And qualitively, I would back the Typhoons to play merry-hell with the attacking fighters – but who knows. The RN Sea Harriers certainly did well against Argentine aircraft in 1982.

And dropping in paras with the Typhoons still in existence would be a very brave / foolhardy thing to do.

So would the Argentine strategy be to neutralise the RAF fighters first, rather than to land troops immediately? If so, that might give the British time (though how much?) to reinforce RAF Mount Pleasant with more aircraft?

That's the key. Last time the British knew an invasion was coming but had nothing on the islands to stop it. This time taking the islands in the face of typhoons (considering the state of Argentina's airforce) would be very very difficult I would imagine.

Re. a single SSN being able to prevent an invasion… theortically, this is of course correct… but just a thought:

the RN had plenty of SSNs in 1982, and they didn't prevent the successful invasion.
And there had been lots of evidence (esp from the British Naval attache in Buenos Aires) of what the Argentines were up to, so no reason why one (or more) could not have been rushed to the scene back then. And – more importantly – no reason for the Argentine navy to assume one WASN'T there, but this didn't seem to impact their decision to invade.

No British PM is going to lightly make the call for an SSN to sink a troop-carrying ship which may (or may not) be en route to the Falklands. Just look at the (still ongoing) fuss over the sinking of the Belgrano which occured long after hostilities had commenced back in 1982.

They can be taken, could they be taken with acceptable losses is the question…

Once taken can they be held, well that becomes a political question, if the UN votes no, then they can't, if the UN votes yes, they can, if it prevaricates it then rests on how many favours the British can call in.

Don't forget that any sign that Argentina was preparing forces that could be used for an invasion and the islands could be reinforced.

Another few Typhoons and extra boots on the ground and it really becomes a non starter.

Ascent

Yes – 100% correct. Beef up the Typhoons to a full squadron, add some Tornadoes with maritime strike capability (do the Tornadoes still have this? I recall they used to use the Sea Eagle ASM) and a battalion of infantry and – as you say – it's a non-starter.
But that all depends on the British government reading the signs correctly this time – it largely ignored all the evidence in 1982, from what I understand?
Strange that no armour is stationed on the Falklands (as far as I am aware?). Not the best terrain for MBTs perhaps, but even a few Scorpians / Scimitars would be a game-changer against the sort of light forces the Argentines would be likely to be able to land.

No Sea Eagles any more but an LGB could do the job. Would Brimstone work against shipping?

Scorpions are now out of service but Scimitars could be useful, the light weight would be an asset out there. I believe they were used in the original conflict.

Also given the current situation I'd say the government are more likely to pay attention.

Martin Rapier

My understanding is that the Argentine LVTP7s were the deciding factor in the initial invasion / battle of Port Stanley, as the RM garrison's one-and-only Carl Gustav 84mm was on South Georgia at the time? (where it was used to put a hole in a corvette, I believe).

So one could argue that even light AFVs against light infantry could be an important deciding factor?

Interesting that – as you say – AFVs played little or not part in the rest of the conflict. I believe the Argentines had Panhard ACs.

Ascent

Re. Scimitar – they were indeed – just a troop from the Blues and Royals, I believe?

Re. Scorpian – might have been worthwhile saving a few from the scrap-heap and transferring them to the Falklands Islands Regiment / RAF Regiment at MPA.

Re. ASM for Tornado – can Storm Shadow be used against shipping? I see no reason why not?

"Scorpions are now out of service but Scimitars could be useful, the light weight would be an asset out there. I believe they were used in the original conflict."

Scorpians and Scimitars, only a troop of each.

The Falklands aren't really tank country:) A few light AFVs for road work might be useful, but the need logistic support etc. The Argentianians AFVs didn't do them much good in 1982.

R Mark Davies

Interesting post – many thanks.

You mention a force being landed to reinforce the island's TA platoon. My understanding was that – in 1982 – there was a permanent RM garrison (only maybe company strength) on the Falklands / South Georgia, though?
Indeed, I think it was stronger than 'normal' because it was in the middle of a change over?
Or am I hopelessly mistaken?

Martin Rapier

My understanding is that the Argentine LVTP7s were the deciding factor in the initial invasion / battle of Port Stanley, as the RM garrison's one-and-only Carl Gustav 84mm was on South Georgia at the time? (where it was used to put a hole in a corvette, I believe).

So one could argue that even light AFVs against light infantry could be an important deciding factor?

Interesting that – as you say – AFVs played little or not part in the rest of the conflict. I believe the Argentines had Panhard ACs.

I believe the Argentine Air Force is a shadow of its former self.

Still, with today's modern cluster-bomb, and runway destruction/denial munitions, a jet, or two should be able to shut down the runway the Typhoons have to use, at least long enough to permit an attack by a reasonable sized force of commandoes (offloaded by sub, or fishing boats), or paras.

No doubt, the attack on the Pucaras by British special forces was noted during the last conflict.

Supposedly, the Argentines were contemplating attacking both Ascension, and Gibraltar, with special forces, but never carried those raids out.

The C-17s would play little part in the conflict, if the runway is lost to, or damaged by the Argentines.

I have no idea how the 1,300+ British troops on the islands are deployed, but suspect at least a good portion of them may be there to protect the airfield(s), and surrounding strategic points on the islands.

Still, 1,300 troops is a small number to defend such a large area, with numerous islands.

I doubt the Argentinians will try again anytime soon, but think they could make a good attempt, if they set their minds to it. There would probably be little to no warning, if their military was smart. Just load the troops on the subs, fishing boats, or cargo planes, and go, with little to no fanfare.

I agree, more Typhoons would make things a bit more difficult, and British resolve should not be underestimated.

If a landing force was detected at sea, I suspect more enemy vessels would be sunk by the SSN(s), without hesitation.

Of course they could take them. But it would be political suicide internationally and Britain would not just walk away.

Jaz
6sided.net – read gaming blogs

The thinking that a bully can invade a neighbor

Yes, Naval Party 8901 was in the middle of its rotation – the new garrison had been dropped off by HMS Endurance, but the Argentinian 'scrap merchants' had raised their flag on South Georgia, so Endurance had taken a small party to investigate, intending to pick up the old garrison on its return. This meant that they had nearly double the usual number; minus the dozen that had gone to South Georgia, but with the addition of nine RN sailors, an RN officer and an armed ex-RM at Stanley.

Both groups had an 84 and some 66s. As you say, the 84 at South Georgia was used to good effect, but the 84 at Stanley was also used to knock out an LVTP-7 (a 66 having missed). There was also an 81mm mortar at Stanley, but the barrel was cracked and it couldn't therefore be fired.

Yes, the Argentinians had some AML-90s in addition to the LVTPs, though they don't seem to have been a factor in the battle at Stanley – they were presumably landed later from larger landing craft or from a ship at the dockside.

If my memory serves the Falklands garrison in April 1982 normally consisted of a single RM Platoon (that would be Troop wouldn't it?), increased to two at the time of Argentine assault due to said changeover, for a grand total of some 80 all ranks! There may have been a Gazelle as well, and Endurance was stationed in the area, but that was it. Scimitars, and I think Scorpions, were present in the Task Force, and able to provide valuable supporting fire during at least one of the set-piece assaults.

There seems to be a renewed interest in the area due to a variety of factors, from Services worried about cuts, the possibility of natural resources in the territorial waters, and the looming 30th anniversary of a short and surprisingly bloody conflict (over 250 British dead in a few weeks of fighting and in excess of 1200 Argentine). An imminent Argentine assault seems unlikely, but if the UK capability to reinforce due to a perceived threat, or respond rapidly to an assault, continues to diminish, who knows?

The Argentines have nothing beyond cratering effect to block the runway – even if they could reach it, which, having to get past Typhoons, Rapier and Starstreak, they would not. Cluster-munitions would do nothing other than cause superficial damage and they do not have area-denial weapons such as JP-233 or deep-penetration cratering bombs.

The Typhoons can also operate off either of the two taxiways. So closing down MPA simply is not going to happen. And as mentioned above, the C-17s can also operate off a number of other airstrips around the Falklands, where the Typhoons cannot.

While the Argentinians have a handful of 1970s-vintage strike aircraft that can reach the Falklands, they don't have any capability whatsoever to extend fighter cover over the islands, so how are they a. going to counter the Typhoons, b. going to defend their strike aircraft and fleet and c. stop the C-17s conducting reinforcement flights?

I should also add that Argentina no longer has any sort of amphibious assault capability. It could only ever mount such an operation after a massive re-armament programme and/or in coalition with several other nations.

Gary, yes the Blues & Royals had a mixed troop (or was it two troops?) of Scimitar and Scorpion. There were also FV180 Combat Engineer Tractors with the REs.

As it happens, the last time I looked, the RAF EOD team at MPA had a Scimitar and a Spartan, which is standard kit for airfield bomb disposal.

Edited to add: Endurance had a Wasp in 1982.

I always wondered about their AML-90 deployment as well, and wondered why they, and the British armor didn't play a larger role in the battles.

Then I ran across a posting that mentioned the AML's were pretty much restricted to the roads surrounding the town, on East Falkland, since the ground on much of the rest of the island was very soft and boggy. They sunk in to their axle hubs if they attempted to move cross country.

Not sure if that also applies to the British tracked armor, but suspect it might as well.

I have no way of knowing about the accuracy of the statement on the islands, but suspect it may be true, given the weather, and pics I've seen. It appears the ground is either very rocky, or very soft over much of the islands.

Another interesting anecdote is that Argentina is pursuing the development of nuke powered submarines of their own, having seen how much of a game changer they can be, at the strategic level:

link

Of course, even their little diesel-electric sub proved very hard to find, and corner, during the last conflict. Rumor has it that a lot of whales and/or fish schools were killed during the various depth charge attacks made on them, instead of the Argentine sub.

Breaking News: The MOD have obviously read this thread and are now deploying HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic.

Wheeled vehicles cannot operate off road on Falklands terrain – this was proved when HQ 5 Inf Bde tried to move its signals vehicles from Darwin to Fitzroy overland. They managed about 3 miles in 8 hours and most bogged in before the effort was called off. They were subsequently moved by landing craft (Foxtrot 4) when they were sunk in Choisel (?) Sound on 8th June 1982.

The Scorpions and Scimitars however could operate freely (except on the very steep rocky bits) due to their very low ground pressure (less than a loaded soldier). Some of the vehicles drove from Teal Inlet across the mountains and arrived at Fitzroy the following day without any problems. There was quite a bit of surprise when the vehicles tipped up unexpectedly out of the blue – a case of "Where the did you lot come from?"

However they did tend to churn up the tracks into deep mud when the ground thawed or the temp rose above freezing.

:-)

Malibu Max

The Scimitars had (and still have) infinitely better off-road ability than the wheeled Argentine armoured cars. I believe I am right in saying that the Scimitar puts down less weight per square foot than a man's boot.

Mark R Davies

I think the Argentine air forces average loiter time over the Falklands was only 2 minutes. Have they made any steps to improve inflight refueling?
As you say, the Argentine navy is not what it was in 1982:

link

They no longer have an aircraft carrier and have only four 30-year old destroyers, three diesel subs and their coastal craft. Interestingly, one of their Type 42s has been converted into some sort of half-arsed amphibious command ship?

link

RJT2003

Interesting – I thought she was bound for the Gulf to support the Daring et al.

BBC news link:

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16810417

Famously, in the original conflict both the Scimitars and Scorpions surprised everyone with their off road capability, and I heard an (apocryphal?) tale of a lad stopping and jumping out of his Scorpion and sinking up to his knees.

Pat

RJT2003

Thanks for the link. I love the way the BBC call it 'destroyer ship HMS Dauntless'!

If Sea Viper is as good as the RN claim, Dauntless should be able to knock most of the Argentine air force out of the sky in a few minutes. But then, I think people thought that about Sea Dart in 1982…

link

Good to see Phalanx fitted to the Type 45s, but incredible that they are 'fitted for, but not with' Tomahawks and Harpoons.

Other than the Scimitars, the best off-roaders in the Falklands War seemed to be tractors belonging to the Islanders. I believe these gave sterling service in hauling stores ashore at San Carlos.

Re: Scimitars and Scorpions, the ground commander didn't believe what he was told about their terrain crossing ability so didn't put them to best use.

4 Scorpions, 4 Scimitars and 1 Samson were taken.

Another interesting article:

link

I note they claim the Brigadier has 'three naval vessels' under his command, excluding the rumoured SSN. Those would presumably be HMS Montrose, HMS Clyde and HMS Protector, the new ice patrol ship?

I think people are asking the wrong questions…

Given the forces the Argentinians have today, and if you were tapped to be the commander to plan an invasion, how would you do it?

Typhoons are no better than Cessnas on the ground. The odds of all 4 being flight ready at any given time are slim. I think therein lies the key to a successful invasion.

With God and the help of a few Royal Marines the Argentines would get sent packing. The Brits did a fantastic job of it last time and that was without the benefit of combat experinced troops. But now that most of all the Regts in England have seen combat I would think the Argentines wouldn't fair as well as they did last time.

I would disagree, last time they had plenty of troops who had been in very tense situations but who hadn't been allowed to fire back often (Ulster). Giving them a target in front of them was a relief for many of them.

Probably not.
Even if they did, they couldn't keep them.

I presume the incessant Argentine belligerence is for home-market consumption and nothing else, or the people promulgating it are madmen.
-Kle.

TGerritsen

Taking out the Typhoons on the ground (if that's what you were suggesting?) would certainly be the way forward… but how? Its not like they are undefended, and does Argentina have the capability to land special forces on the Falklands without the British spotting them?

Then there's the timing. Assuming all four Typhoons are knocked out on the ground, the Argentine follow-up would have to be immediate (ie. before the RAF can fly more in) and would have to avoid the attentions of HMS Dauntless and / or an SSN lurking there. And if the RAF's shiny new planes have just been blown up, you can be damn sure these'll be on weapons free.

And for a follow-up to be immediate, there has to be a build up of forces / preparations, which means there is a chance the British will discover this in the weeks before any special ops raid, which will in turn see security levels heightened at MPA, making the job of the Argentine commandoes harder still…

Dauntless was scheduled to go down South anyway. They do periodically send a destroyer down there in lieu of a frigate, so this is absolutely nothing unusual and is a complete non-story from the usual suspects at the BBC.

Bulldog, by 'tractors', are you sure they weren't referring to CETs rather than civilian tractors? They were fantastic bits of kit and even had rocket-launched land-anchors for pulling themselves (and whatever they were dragging) out of trouble.

Re Typhoons: At the very worst, there might be two Typhoons down with technical problems. That still leaves the two most advanced fighter aircraft in the entire southern hemisphere on QRA, with enough capability to shoot down the entire Argentine Air Force AND Naval Aviation in a single sortie…

As already mentioned, Argentina can't just suddenly launch an invasion without warning and can't do it without major re-armament and/or fighting as part of a coalition.

Even if they manage to mount a special forces raid to destroy the (defended) Typhoons in their HASs, then what…? Watch as your reinforcements get shot out of the sky by Rapier and warship or sunk by warship and SSN or destroyed in their home bases by Tomahawk…

R Mark Davies

No – I mean tractors as in 'Farmer Palmer's Massey Ferguson'. I remember watching a programme on the Falklands War from the point of the view of the islanders, and a few of the old boys speaking about it.
But I agree the CET is a fantastic piece of kit.

While I agree that Dauntless's deployment is routine, having sources from the RN (allegedly) saying that she could 'shoot down every plane in South America' isn't!

What? They didn't greet the Booties with cries of "Get orf moi laaaand!"?

The US is a good deal less friendly with the current Argentine government than in 1982. Any calculation by the Argentine government as to risk probably has to consider a best case of active, early and vigorous US material assistance all the way up to a possibility of the US as a co-belligerent with the UK. ( not ground troops but a CVBG seconded to the RN ).

In the unlikely event Argentina goes for a military solution and in the equally unlikely event they could overcome a much better prepared defense than in 1982, they should be under no illusions as to having any military capability to keep the Falklands should the UK decide to take them back.

As someone pointed out this time round I imagine British forces would have a much higher number of veteran combat troops than they did last time. On the flip side I believe Argentina has done away with conscription in favour of a smaller number of better trainned troops. Chances are both sides ground pounders are going to be better than last time around.

McKinstry

I'm not so sure about American views – I believe Obama has made noises to the effect that he thinks a 'solution' should be found. He certainly doesn't come across as anything like as pro-British as the last few Presidents. If you read some of the comments on the bottom of the links I posted, a few Americans post such things – not sure exactly how valid they are.
The whole of South America also seems to be broadly behind Argentina, whereas in 1982, Chile was openly hostile to them and I don't think they got on too well with Brazil?

Hmmm, I remain to be convinced that the US would provide any meaningful support to the UK on this occasion. Not at least while Hilary Clinton is constantly referring to the 'Malvinas' and the need for a 'negotiated settlement'.

link

link

What's to negotiate, Hilary? We owe Argentina nothing. Aside from their brief occupation in 1982, the FALKLAND Islands have NEVER been Argentinian and Argentina does not have even the slightest scrap of a legitimate claim. Spain, France and even the USA have stronger claims on the islands and Argentina recognised British sovereignty in a 19th Century treaty and again during the surrender in 1982. There is also the tiny, inconvenient little matter of the islanders themselves who live there, who wish to remain British and have the inalienable right under international law, to self-determination.

Clinton should have pointed out these salient facts to the South American Meat-Packing Glitteratii of MERCOSUR and the OAS, but instead got splinters in her arse from sitting on the fence. Thanks for the staunch support to your ally, Hilary…

Of course, if Venezuela decides to stick it's nose in (Chavez has blustered in the past about intercepting the Royal Navy), or if US oil exploration or extraction operations were threatened, that could change matters.

R Mark Davis

Interesting point.

Perhaps the UK / Falkland Islands government should play clever, and ensure that ExxonMobil or Chevron win the bidding for at least one of the blocks in any future oil boom.
I see the semi-sub Leif Eriksson is on its way there – very advanced, capable and expensive exploration rig. I spent Christmas 2004 on her, offshore Angola.

Dear fellow members, from Argentina view didn't exist the tiny possibility of an invation/war about Malvinas (Falklands)/Great Britain.
Imho it's clear that BOTH governments are using the theme as "camouflage" because of other more important local problems (economy?).
I don't know how it's taken in England, but here, we KNOW when our politics give us great speeches about the Islands and we answer them with a big wry smile.
The proof is that our President mention the theme and as nobody take note of that, change inmediatly for another one and there are not a single word in our newspapers again about the Islands for a while.
If someone had been lern about the War of 1982 in my country, is that a return to the Islands only could be by diplomacy effort.

Now, if you are interested to talk about a "what if" modern wargame about the Islands, you had to take note that there are not more a militia/obligatory service soldiers in my country since those days.
Our Army is totally professional.
Cannot confirm if they are good or bad, but now to be a soldier tooks two years when we go there with two month of training.
About our Air Force we had 98 planes, but of different quality and origin. And take note on a map how big is our country and how many "air national space" we had to protect.
So, how many airplanes can be used for a fictional operation against the Islands?.
Don't know, maybe 25 planes?.
The Navy is not so bad, but of course we are far away from any British ship.
Our Aircraft is out of use, but it would be interesting in a wargame if it could be reclicled and used.
In a case of a landing, moral of the soldiers would be a factor to take note too.
As the Marine infantry was the unit which show the best quality of combat at 1982 (their soldiers (obligatory service by citizens) had two year of training while in the Army it tooks not more than three month) they had duplicate they units.
The other branch which change was our "Commandos" which 50% of those who went to war were old, fat or with low moral and now if you see them, they are real commandos soldiers.
There is a new branch of "Marine Commandos" with a Seal training outside of our country.
If we had to take note which branch had changed more since 1982 it was the land Army and the Marine infantry.

Interesting for a wargame, no way in reality.

Amicalement
Armand

Hopefully it will remain a wargame possibility and we can continue working with Argentinian soldiers with the UN!

Tally Ho!

Of course, if Venezuela decides to stick it's nose in (Chavez has blustered in the past about intercepting the Royal Navy)

Now THAT is something to wargame! And the unfortunate misunderstanding during a US freedom of navigation exercise that results in American involvement.

I think the Falklands will remain in the UK consciousness for a while yet. It was our first 'televised' war, and brought home to a lot of folks just how costly such things endeavours are (more fatalities overall than Operation Telic I think, which committment was measured in years, not weeks), seeing RN vessels under attack and the aircraft targeting them while sat in the front room, and listening to the ever longer list of ships sunk or damaged.

I think some service chiefs have sensed a bat, already partly fashioned, with which to beat certain ministers in response to ever deeper defence cuts , particularly as regards projecting air power without a convienent land base. I don't think anyone is in the mood for hostilities, just let's hope all the politicos involved restrict themselves to speeches rather than playing their own wargames.

Gary