"Could Argentina take the Falklands? " Topic

The language coming out of South America is becoming even more bizarre. Considering that the UK government didn't deliver any public rebukes over the Falklands until AFTER a several years of sabre-rattling, insults and threats by Kerschner's govermnment to deflect attention away from her failing domestic policies (including the uber-bizarre rants about Prince William serving there), one wonders if Argentina has a similar expression to 'The pot calling the kettle black':

link

I see good ol' Hugo is also sticking his oar in, ranting about the RN sending a warship down there… which it has done every year since 1982…

Shame the RN doesnt drop a few on Caracas on their way down there.

An 'interesting' wargames setting could be an occupied Falkland Islands with the local Islander guerillas supplied covertly and aided by UK special forces fighting the occupying Argentinan government forces.

No.

This is a strange thread. I have been expecting many things from TMP but not this. Not unpleasant, but strange.

As a Frenchman whose (part of) family is from St-Malo, I raise my ears when I hear about the "iles Malouines, Malvinas, Falkland islands" and I try to hear both opinions.

My previous comment (about St-Malo ownership on "Malouines" islands) was obviously a joke…

…but I seriously think that no European country can claim long-term ownership on overseas lands without collaboration with local neighbours: it cannot work on the long term.

For example I think that, whatever the flag, French Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Guyane, should link with the CLACS (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) as most countries in this part of the world; and -perhaps also- with ALBA-TCP.

Ooops out of topic is it?

But Patrice, the islanders have been cut off BY their neighbours. Unlike their neighbours, have not attacked, invaded, threatened, insulted or abused another country other than by their continued existence. Collaboration was offered to Argentina but was refused as Argentina took the inaccurate view that they already owned the place. The Falklanders have the right to self-determination.

And nobody has yet explained how Argentina can possibly have a 'prior claim' when a. Argentina didn't exist when British settlers move in, and b. Argentina has now signed TWO treaties recognising British sovereignty (the first in the late 1800s – I forget the exact date – and the second in 1982).

Patrice

It has 'worked' for many generations.

All right I will play devils advocate. What if the Argentinans managed to get commandos onto the island, take the airfields destroying the UKs aircraft in the process? Then they proceeded with a massive airlift or at least around the clock airlift of men and equipment onto the islands. They also make better preparations to repel the UK than 1982. On top of that the Argentians splurge and buy some cutting edge technology (anit ship / anti aircraft missiles) From what I have read the land campaign was by no means a walk over due to logistics. If the Argentinans could make it twice as difficult next time would it make a difference?

How do the commandos get onto the islands undetected and destroy the aircraft AND take the entire airfield, with its 2,000 military personnel AND destroy the SAMs AND sink the guard ship AND resupply/reinforced in the face of an SSN with TLAMs?

How many commandos does Argentina have?!

Undetected I don't have the answer for but it has been done in the past it could be done in the future.

Destroying the aircraft would be fairly easy once they are brought under direct or indirect fire the same can be said for SAMS.

Once the Typhoons and SAMS are down conduct a paradrop to expand the airhead and reinforce the commandos

Are all 2,000 military personnel at the airfield and are all of them combat arms? What state of readiness would they be in if they came under surprise attack? Could all of them reach their armory and draw weapons before they were cut down?

The SSN is the only thing I don't have an answer for and I have to admit I am no expert on its capabilities. Could one SSN prevent an airlift to support an invasion?

According to wikipedia….2 commando companies and 1 special forces company.

Also according to wikipedia the Argentine air force has one squadron of hercules and one squadron equipped with civilian airliners (Fokker F-28).

As far as how many commandos Argentina has they could expand that number to whatever they desired or needed.

The UK could also beef up the garrison in this fictional scenario…..as of today the Argentinans do not seem to have the ability to successfully invade the Falkland Islands.

Yes its a fictional scenario but It also assumes the UK maintains its current level of readiness while the Argentinans have the element of surprise and preparation.

What if the Argentines use a commercial vessel to approach undetected? Then, under cover of a massive strike by air-launched cruise missiles to disrupt the defenses, swarm ashore using air-cushioned vehicles capable of rapid deployment of infantry and light armor. Once there, they conduct an airlift of reinforcements as well as land-based aircraft.

Unless a plucky Air Force weatherman escapes to radio intel back home, it would be hard to retake the island from the Russians…err…Argentinians.

The Typhoons are all dispersed in individual HASs under permanent armed guard force, surrounded by wire. The Commandos would have to take each one and have large quantities of engineering stores to blast their way in to get to the aircraft. The SAMs are similarly under permanent armed guard, surrounded by wire. There would also be an armed QRF centrally on station, as well as the control of entry guards and roving patrols. The station personnel also undergo regular tactical readiness drills, just as we did during the Cold War.

What if the Argetinians perform an orbital insertion from their moonbase, having already softened up the defences with suicide penguins and submrine tanks…

I'm going with the suicide penguins…

Davies I bet you are a real joy to game with…

The Argies have a secret weapon:

"Hey tommy, quieres joder?"

Thwack!

"Now where are my wire cutters?"

Problem with the SSN is that it can only do one of two things – sink ships or not sink ships.

What, exactly, would the trigger be to sink ships?

People don't play Moderns against me due to the sucide penguins.

Odd question, clearly not grounded in an appreciation of current realities and whose clear answer is an emphatic no.

1) The noises emanating from the Casa Rosada are made, almost wholly, for domestic consumption. There's pattern to it and it usually accompanies some form of economic mishap. Currently Argentina has a burgeoning inflation rate and a fairly indifferent level of economic growth. This causes considerable chagrin as Argentinos realise that their neighbours in Brazil have half the unemployment rate and economic growth that makes their own inconsequential by comparison.

2) Argentina has no military capacity to launch an invasion or sustain an occupation. It scrapped it's amphibious lift capability, has an aging airforce and has to rely on occasional use of a Brazilian aircraft carrier to give what is left of its naval air arm any currency in operations. The professinalism of Argentina's military, has no doubt increased and they have got some experience in peackeeping and Aid to the Civil Power operations in Haiti under Brazilian command but they have had no combat experience since 1982.

3) Being part of Mercosur makes the whole thing even less likely. Brazil, Paraguay and Chile might make soothing sounds in international forums but it's a bit like the host at a party trying to make polite conversation when their neighbour has just farted next to the canapes. Argentina is increasingly reliant on the Mercosur partnership and nobody in Brazil or Chile has even the remotest enthusiasm for more Argentine military folly. Relations have improved greatly since 1982 but I doubt Chile would be enthsiastic for a return to Argentine military adventuries. For starters it might begin a whole new wave of concern vis a vis the Beagle Channel. That was settled some years ago by treaty but Argentina does have an unfortunate record of reneging on its agreements.

Ask the average Brazilian what they think and given you can find one who has heard of the Malvinas, chances are they will just shrug their shoulders. Warm and fuzzy as Mercosur is, to the average Brazilian, Argentinos are still figures of fun, the butt of inumerable jokes or a lucrative source of tourist revenue as the wealthier ones abandon their country in favour of Santa Catarina, to see what an actual beach looks like. Only in football are they taken vaguely seriously (but the jokes get even more pointed).

Bottom line? Bad for the economy and it wouldn't please the neighbours. Both Chilean and Brazilian governments were quite content with the way the last war panned out. Argentina isn't a country whose economy can sustain major shocks. Anyone recall 2001? No, probably not but I'll guarantee you most Argentinos do.

4)Lovely people, my daughter's godmother is a porteña but even there I detect no popular enthusiasm for anything silly like another war at least not among the ones I know.

I like fantasy football too but really you need to pick teams that have some basis in reality. I notice that Venezuela invariably gets thrown into the mix, largely, it seems, so that folk in the US can get all excited about their own improbable bogeyman.

Fun but it's pure fantasy.

Grizzlymc

Interesting point re. the SSN.

I have no doubt that the SSN would be under very strict orders which would prevent it pre-empting any invasion, however, the minute it was obvious the Argentines meant business, it could be very useful indeed:

1) sinking any follow-up troop ships
2) sinking any supply ships, thus cutting off the invaders
3) sinking those ships which the Argentine invaders arrived in, thus essentially holding them in place – note how much use the British made of ships in 1982 to move men and stores around the islands
4) Tomahawk strikes on Argentine landing zones
5) Tomahawk strikes on MPA if it fell into the wrong hands somehow
6) Tomahawk strikes on Argentine air-bases trying to supply their cut-off forces in the Falklands by airlift

And back to the suicidal penguins:

(Yes, I know there are no polar bears down there…)

Any mileage in the Argentinians taking South Georgia first and using that as an operating base?

Similarly, a couple of charter flights and cruise ships with clandestine "passengers" might offer a chance at a "coup de main" on the main island(s).

South Georgia is further from the Falklands than Argentina, so I'm guessing the answer would be a 'no'.

And 'passengers' wouldn't be able to carry any heavy weaponry, leaving them at the mercy of the garrison.

Was a VDV drop planned to carry much heavy weaponry, or was that more reliant on super saturation?

I think that the situation is very different from 1982.

A coup de main by three companies of special forces is likely to lose against the existing garrison.

Whereas in '82 taking the island was easy and keeping it was not, we now have the reverse.

Taking it would require an enormous amphibious operation.
Once taken I doubt the UK's capacity to project enough forces to get it back again.

An SSN can seal the islands off, but a smart invasion will have its supplies in place. A long siege would not be politically expedient.

Problem is how do you take the islands from a significant garrison of professionals fast enough to prevent the RAF from putting a squadron or two of -planes down there?

Actually they might just go for South Georgia – no population and it highly unlikely the UK would expend resources to get it back – its just a rock and some sea birds. Essentially looking at Argentinian territorial claims in the area all they seem to want to do is land grab in support of those claims.

At the time of the 1982 invasion Argentina landed a reinforced battalion landing team, equipped with amphibious tractors and supported by sizeable naval gunnery support, if required. At the time of the invasion, Argentina could have guaranteed absolute air superiority over the islands, had it been required. The forces facing the Argentine invasion were, in effective terms, somewhat less than two platoons of Royal Marines, more like a reinforced platoon.

At the time Argentina possessed dedicated amphbious lift capability and could disgorge amtracs and landing craft from offshore.

In 1982 there was no Royal Navy presence in the area beyond an aging icebreaker with a couple of Oerlikon guns and a helicopter.

In 2012, Argentina has no dedicated amphibious lift capability beyond an aging, converted Type 42 destroyer and what is effectively a stores vessel. Even in the event that an Argentine invasion force gained surprise and they were able to transport a force large enough to contest the garrison's presence, which if you just count the roulement company alone is about twice size of the the 1982 garrison, they would have a very circumscribed set of options in terms of where they landed. The options aren't incredibly wide in the first place, if you study the British operations. I don't really see the Argentien navy motoring up to the jetty at Port Stanley or Mare Harbour and hoping nobody notices or is unsporting enough to intervene. It's about as likely as them all boarding the weekly LAN flight dressed as tourists.

Today, the Argentine armed forces could not guarantee air superiority to an invasion force. Indeed they they would struggle to gain parity, such is the state of their remaining air assets.

Today, any invasion would face the prospect of an RN presence clearly capable of dispatching both any air support the invasion force might have as well as the vessels carrying such a force.

Today the Argentine forces combat capability is considerable less in relative terms than it was in 1982. The only advantage they have re 1982 is that they would no longer have to place their best, most acclimastised and combat ready troops along the Chilean border to secure it against possible Chilean attack. Moot point as these troops could not be readily moved anyway.

There isn't the vaguest chance of this happening, at least not within the foreseeable future. It would require seismic shifts in terms of diplomacy,strategic alliance, economic growth and military capacity for Argentina to attempt it.

One final point. The 1982 invasion took place under the junta, who were faced with a near terminal prognosis in terms of public approval. It took place in the absence of a free press and any form of democratic opposition. These conditions no longer pertain.

But it looks good in the papers…

Yep.

And maybe the fuss it is making will force HM Government to reverse some of their more ridiculous defence cuts? I doubt it, but if the RN ultimately ended up with 12 Darings as per the original plan (instead of reduced class of 6) and some of the Harriers were leased back from the USMC (to operate from Ocean and Illustrious – I know they are not Sea Harriers, but they have to be better than nothing) as a stop-gap until the Queen Elizabeths are ready, it might all end up for the good.

But I won't hold my breath.

So the MoD should base it's procurement decision on the basis of something that can't or won't happen? Ok, you organise the whip around for the dosh.

Ocean can't take Hariers, as the flight deck isn't designed/strengthened for the job.

This Ocean?

link

"HMS Ocean can deploy up to 800 men using four large landing craft and 12 medium-support helicopters, principally Lynxes and Sea Kings. It can also carry up to 15 Sea Harrier attack aircraft."

Although from elsewhere:

"Whether HMS OCEAN is capable of operating as a fourth aircraft carrier is a source of some speculation. HMS OCEAN has been closely modelled on the Invincible class ships and she is capable of carrying Harriers. At present it is believed that she is not capable of operating Sea Harriers because firstly, it does not have an angled jump-deck to allow fully-laden Harriers to operate, and secondly it is believed that her magazines are not fitted out for this role. However, it may not be difficult to add these features to HMS OCEAN although it is likely that such expense would only be justified in time of war when one of the other Invincible class ships has been badly damaged or sunk. "

So perhaps ok as a ferry to get them closer to a land base or larger carrier?

The chief problem is that Ocean doesn't have the strengthened and heat-protected deck necessary for sustained Harrier ops. You could probbly manage to land and take of a couple of times, but Ocean's flight-deck would then be terminally knackered.

Argentine commandoes, cleverly disguised as penguins would seem to be the way forward for an amphibious assault.

Fodase

What are they basing their decisions on now? Cutting HM Forces in the middle of a war doesn't seem any more logical.

Er, their economic circumstances perchance? I don't see the US or Greece planning on a big military build up in the current climate.

Now if someone can provoke Argentina to invade during the 2014 World Cup or the Rio Olympics Britain might be able to find someone to do the job for them, without getting their hands dirty. Brazil has a real military. Of course under the Treaty of Tordesillas, the Falklands should have been in the Portuguese sphere anyway. :-)

Pity we don't have the Harriers anymore, as a boxboat ( link ) could easily have been fitted with a deck that could have taken them, rather like the "Atlantic Conveyor", and containers could easily be fitted out as workshops and storage and fuel tanks. On the other hand, we don't have the British flagged boxboats to use either……

under the Treaty of Tordesillas, the Falklands should have been in the Portuguese sphere anyway

And a sizeable chunk of Brazil should be in Argentina/Uraguay/Bolivia/Peru/Columbia

NOW this is a nice what if.

Yeah, there is that but their former rulers agreed to change the boundaries, bit like Argentina's claim on the Falklands.

Wouldn't be much of a what if though. I don't see anyone tremorring at the military might of say Bolivia.

Let's drag someone else in. Venuzuela has a nice army.

Whilst it is true that Bolivia has lost every war tht it has fought since independence, thay did win one battle during the wars of independence. Whilst the men of Cochabamba were away fighting for General Sucre, the spanish approached. So the women and children fled to the hills on both sides of Cochabamba. The royalists saw this enormous army on both sides of the valley and fled.

Peru has a reasonable army, but much weaker than Brazil – their airforce is ok.

Not sure how much claim venezuela has on Brazil.

I still like 1970s Chile v Argie or Chile v Peru and Bolivia.

I take it you have seen the Chilean film 'Mi mejor enimigo'? If you haven't then you really should, it's a wonderful little film.

I agree the 1978, almost war would be a great gaming topic, alas nobody makes suitable Chileans. One of the few occasions where the standard billiard table flat wargame terrain would look just right. Of course that one could easily get out of hand. Brazil mobilised along its border during the crisis.

One of the recent Argentine Chiefs of Staff got himself embroiled in a bit of controversy when he stated that they couldn't have won the war with Chile. I've often wondered how they thought they would capture the Andean passes and get to Santiago.

Its a good movie.

I know Patagonia quite well, although part of the Frontier is that flat, there are glacial valley just built for ambushing troops.

I would guess that north of Coyhaique, the alpine front would go on for as long as the rest takes with more casulties due to conditions than enemy action.

There could have been some interesting battles between Salta and Antofagasta on the Chilean Altiplano.

The naval and air wars would have been interesting. I am told that at that time every regional airport in Chile and Santiago had two planes on readiness with warmed up engines, 24/7.

I know people who did their servicio militar freezing their nuts off on both sides of the border, glad I wasnt here.

An ex sergeant major in Chilean Armour reckoned that they could take the Argies, or the Peruvians, but if they had both hit at the same time, they would have been up against it – shermans vs T54s, I have always felt that he was game.

What on earth were the Brazillians

Fodase

'Er, their economic circumstances perchance?'

Yet they still have GBP 600 million to throw at India each year (which says they don't need it) and GBP 15 billion to throw at the EU each year.

With this in mind, I don't think economic circumstances require the savage defence cuts, and if any government spending needs trimmed, then surely HM Forces should be the last thing to be cut – especially given that the British are fighting a war at this time.

What a shame the British PM back in 1982 had bigger balls than the current one.

Grizzly,

Brazil has a long history of distrusting Argentina. As a soon as Argentina mobilised in preparation for Operation Soberanía, the southern military regions went on alert and mobilised. Whilst it probably wouldn't have come to outright war, it would have kept Argentina guessing and meant they would have needed to keep reserves along their border with Brazil, complicating their planning. Mirage vs Mirage, M-41 vs Sherman Firefly anyone?

Dear Bulldog,

The decisions on budget priorities and defence spending are a matter for HM government, I'm not sure this is really the place to discuss them.

As you may have noticed by now, whilst Britain is at war in Afghanistan, it's a land locked country so I'm not sure the absence of half a dozen destroyers or a carrier has much impact on operations . The highly improbable Falklands scenario isn't either.

Dear Fodase

As you may have also noticed, the British have also just been dragged into several months of naval / air action off Libya where the absence of a carrier / air-defence destroyers was most certainly an issue.

You may also be aware of growing tensions between the West and Iran. Again, the absence of a RN carrier lead the British government to have to beg the USN for HMS Argyll to join their flotilla for purely political reasons – the Americans quite rightly declared the RN's presence would be of no appreciable benefit.

Afghanistan is indeed a land-locked country which means cutting the British Army is a strange thing to do at this time.

Defence cuts were happening when HM Forces were still heavily involved in Iraq. This is not a land-locked country.

As we are discussing whether or not Argentina could take the Falklands, I would suggest that the state of the British defence budget / spending priorities / recent and near-future reductions in the RN are somewhat pertinent to the debate.

And though you declare that 'the decisions on budget priorities and defence spending are a matter for HM government' increasing numbers of serving and retired Generals and Admirals, and large sections of the media / public opinion think HM Government has got it wrong.