"Falklands ground war query" Topic

question why did the Argentines lose the ground war?
They seem to be rather evenly matched.

Really?. You are asking that for real? (smile)

When you fixed positions like the Maginot line (WW1) against a modern Army, seeing to the sea (the front of that "fortress") and your enemy, walking, arrived to the rearguard of that positions, you loose or you loose.

Not mention the quality of the troops and their equipment.

Finally, a bunch of m… f… cowards as officers (from Captain to up) who flied and leave they troops alone…

Well, you tell me my friend… (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Virtually nil logistical supplies, along with dubious training and leadership.

I suspect our friend Armand can provide a lot more info, since he has first-hand knowledge of the subject.

Ha!!!

He beat me to it, though if you'll note the times, just by a few seconds.

All the Elite, Modernised, Fanatic Argentines were saving the Earth while fighting Aliens in Antarctica.

In reality, the Royal Navy had a great respect for the Argentine Air Force-look at the ship losses.

Those Pucara's are sexy Stukas.

Yup straight from the horses mouth. When well led and supplied the Argentine forces could, and did, give the liberating forces a hard fight. Luckily (For us not you Tango. ;-P) the main Argentine forces were neither.

Fatman

Argies equipment wasn't bad and their weapons were about the same as the Brits, but horrible leadership.

The Argentine pilots were incredibly brave, the other forces were under trained , equipped, and led by sub par officers.

The pucara's didn't do much iIRC, the damage to the RN was mainly by the super etendards and sky Hawks.
The IWM at duxford has a pucara which was brought back afterr the war. One of the curators told me that when the war ended everyone wanted their pictures taken sitting in the pucaras on the airport. All went well until some bright spark pulled the ejector handle while having his photo taken and discovered in quick succession; that it was still live, it worked and that he wasn't strapped to the seat. As a result the engineers went round and ejected all the seats and canopies to stop any further fatal accidents. The seats were still usable but not the canopies.
The result was that the museum had to write a polite letter to the Argentine airforce asking if they could please have a new canopy for their pucara.
Thankfully relations had improved a bit by the and they were sent one.

My friend Irish Maine… weapons were not good, I can tell you. Many FAL began to bend when one fired in automatic.

The maintenance (essential) of each weapon before and during the conflict was always very bad.

Recruits of 17 not even know how to load the magazines. The ammo was about 40 per head. Lots of ammo was wasted "chasing" sheep because we had no food. The treatment of the troops by the NCOs was atrocious. Fortunately many of them paid with their lives when the fighting started (and his injuries were not by British bullets!), Many others NCO fled with THE officers who support them. I could go on much longer, but would only bring me back bad memories.

The only thing I will say was that those Argentine soldiers / conscripts fought with courage and honor beyond what their possibilities.

The British themselves can testify that.

It was hard, much hard you can imagin.

Amicalement
Armand

I can't remember what search keywords to use offhand, but Armand once provided a longer on-the-ground perspective here on TMP – as I recall the discussion was one of TMP's better moments (I'm being serious) in terms of adult behaviour about a potentially sensitive subject.

Edit – found it (was easy to find actually): TMP link

Certainly many of the more recent publications detail just how hard a fight it was on the ground.

Leadership and logistics seemed to have been decisive factors.

My nephew was there recently as RAF groundcrew and his description of the weather and envronment during Spring makes me shudder to think about fighting in Winter.

David

Armand's earlier posting is still one of the best ever accounts of the conflict from a participant's perspective.

Rick

There is another one where Armand talks to RMD about it. Again a very good thread, and you can learn a lot.

I have often thought that soldiers,even those who fought each other have a lot more in common than they do with the politicians who got them there, no matter whos side they are on.

In answer to the OP, essentially it is what happens when you put long service regulars with some prior exposure to a combat environment (although not all-out war) in Northern Ireland up against inexperienced conscripts. The Royal Marines in particular had spent years training to fight a light infantry battle against Russian conscripts supported a smattering of Spetznaz/VDV, and found themselves fighting Argentinian conscripts supported by a smattering of Argentininan Commandos.

I know a couple of people who fought there and it wasn't a walkover by any means, as the casualty figures on both sides testify.

I also know someone who was in the Bundeswehr in the early 1980s. He said they were always a bit frightened of the British Army as they seemed to be itching for a fight, whereas they were just planning on how to surrender as easily as possible.

Martin's comment reminded me of one about the 1914 British Army. A German soldier referring to them as "hard violent men".

There was another from some period or other, I think it was the C18, where the British were described as poor in the camp but makes up for it in battle.

Perhaps we are more warlike than we think and Tommy Atkins has always been spoiling for a fight…

Although, and here I think the Americans (for obvious reasons) are exactly the same, we tend to fight because it is a job that needs to be done, rather than for honour or glory. Unlike a lot of our European cousins…

Having served along side some Brit troops in germany, I dont know that they are looking to start a fight, but if somebody insists on haveing one, they came to the right place. Thats why, in that earlier thread I found the idea that the troops stationed there where just going to surrender without giving it a go to see how it worked out just totaly wishfull thinking. Tommy dont play that

Owen

If the space aliens ever show up, they'd better pummel us from orbit or infect us and wait out their genetically-modified plagues to kill us.

Landing on a planet to go mano-a-mandible with a bunch of warlike badasses like we have here would be a major miscalculation.

I remember reading an article once comparing the infantry tactics of both sides and explaining key difference and how they might have affected the outcome of the battles..

It was really interesting, I googled all over but haven't been able to find it again…

Francisco

I think Tango has said it all in his comments … after all he was there …

Here's that thread mentioned by Badger. It started out as a dull discussion on unit organisation, but became much more:

TMP link