Fighting a Second Falklands War

[harryriedl]

Yes that is correct.

The real joker in the pack though is Tomahawk and both Venezuela and Argentina know that UK attack subs could sit 200 miles offshore and give them serious problems miltarily.

How far can the Venezuelan airforce fly attack missions offshore ? The Atlantic is still pretty wide near them and any UK forces heading south could always head down the african Coast, and would have support from Ascension for the middle Atlantic

i positive that the Venezuelan f16 don't have the range and i don't think the Su30 do eatheir and Venezuelan isn't overendowed with tankers:vamp for any kind of strike

 

[XaNDeR]

Nah , are you guys joking this is the Argentinian navy we are talking about , nobody in the world stands a chance against such a power..
No but really.. Im not trying to insult argentinian navy they are fairly good but its stupid to think that RN would not have the assets or capability to be able to succesfully complete such a scenario , which won't happen anyway.

RN has good capability and pretty decent power projection compared to US , and absolutely amazing power projection compared to anyone else than Russia or France.
If a reincarnation of falkland war happened ( which won't ) they are more than capable of handling it.

 

[riksavage]

The Brit’s have the added advantage of knowing the ground extremely well (unlike in 82). Most of the UK’s infantry battalions have trained on the island (excellent live firing), have conducted extensive patrolling and war-gamed to death all invasion possibilities including a once a year a 24-hour re-forger exercise conducted by the designated UK spearhead battalion. Combine this with the equipment stock-piled on the island (105mm’s etc.) coupled with the vast improvements in equipment now issued to the UK land forces and you have a potent force, which will be on the island before any Argentineans step ashore in considerable numbers.

The UK continues to practice the reinforcement of existing Tornado assets, which now would be supplemented by a Typhoon squadron.

The UK army may be stretched, but at least one Para or RM battalion is on 24-hours notice to move. In a worse case scenario the UK will make us of it’s strategic lift (4 x C17’s) to deploy a reinforced company to back-up the existing regular infantry company + Falklands defence force assets already on the ground. To neutralise that threat the Argentineans will need to get at least one intact SF Battalion ashore – no easy task. Plus they will be facing UK troops with extensive combat experience (Afghanistan / Iraq) at all levels, officer, NCO right down to ordinary foot-soldier.

The threat of just one UK attack submarine in the vicinity of the islands will cause the Argentineans serious problems both tactically and psychologically. The memory of the sinking of the Belgrano and associated loss of life remains very strong :shudder .

 

[harryriedl]

The Brit’s have the added advantage of knowing the ground extremely well (unlike in 82). Most of the UK’s infantry battalions have trained on the island (excellent live firing), have conducted extensive patrolling and war-gamed to death all invasion possibilities including a once a year a 24-hour re-forger exercise conducted by the designated UK spearhead battalion. Combine this with the equipment stock-piled on the island (105mm’s etc.) coupled with the vast improvements in equipment now issued to the UK land forces and you have a potent force, which will be on the island before any Argentineans step ashore in considerable numbers.

The UK continues to practice the reinforcement of existing Tornado assets, which now would be supplemented by a Typhoon squadron.

The UK army may be stretched, but at least one Para or RM battalion is on 24-hours notice to move. In a worse case scenario the UK will make us of it’s strategic lift (4 x C17’s) to deploy a reinforced company to back-up the existing regular infantry company + Falklands defence force assets already on the ground. To neutralise that threat the Argentineans will need to get at least one intact SF Battalion ashore – no easy task. Plus they will be facing UK troops with extensive combat experience (Afghanistan / Iraq) at all levels, officer, NCO right down to ordinary foot-soldier.

The threat of just one UK attack submarine in the vicinity of the islands will cause the Argentineans serious problems both tactically and psychologically. The memory of the sinking of the Belgrano and associated loss of life remains very strong :shudder .

the FiD force also has teeth compared with 1982 and is very professional these days

 

[jimma]

lets not forget that the argies were hoping to exploit a latency in our imperial ways. They thought we would never send a force that far away to protect some volcanic rock. Now they know that we would so such an attack is seriously unlikely.

Jimma

 

[raven1971]

I agree with Neutral Zone - the "hermanos" (as the Argentines are referred to here in Brazil) haven't got the will to go to war over the islands yet again. It is interesting that the maps you buy in Argentina still show the Islands as being part of Argentina, part of the Tierra Del Fuego province. Latest I'd heard is that Kichener wanted to try a "diplomatic solution"- unlikely as it is that that would ever provide a result they're seeking.

I can't recall who said they were suprised the Argentines didn't "go the Russian route" with weapons after the war; let's not forget, the regime at the time was a right-wing dictatorship very friendly towards Washington - despite President Reagan's support for Britain in the conflict. Any feelers towards the Russians would have cost the regime even more dearly than the loss of the war did - even though the war itself was the event that gave Argentina the push towards ending the dictatorship.

Venezuela is a different case, and ultimately one which frightens me more (I work quite close to Venezuela and Colombia). Chavez has not only purchased 100,000 new AK-103 rifles from Russia (in addition to many other weapons), he has also gotten a contract to build a factory to produce Russian-designed weapons in the city of Maracay. That the FARC have begun migrating northward away from the Putumayo region (Vaupes department) into Guaviare (and thus towards safe havens in Venezuela) should come as a suprise to no one, and the final destination of Chavez-produced weapons should raise eyebrows, especially given his relations with the US and the progress made by the Colombian Army under Plan Colombia.

Raven

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Andy in West Oz]

I personaly have been onboard HMS Manchester a type 42 destroyer despite her age she is still capible of defending british intrests and i know they have been tasked to protect american aircraft carriers in the gulf, and ive also heard that during the 1991 gulf war a type 42 engauged and shot down two missiles fired at an american ship. (ive only heard this dont quote)

I think that was HMS Brazen. She engaged and shot down one Silkworm (?) that was fired at USS Missouri. Have often wondered what the Silkworm would have done to something as heavily armoured as Missouri.

Andy

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think that was HMS Brazen. She engaged and shot down one Silkworm (?) that was fired at USS Missouri. Have often wondered what the Silkworm would have done to something as heavily armoured as Missouri.

Andy

Thats a good point! if an 15inch armour peircing shell would have trouble peircing all that side armour, how is a 200odd kg warhead going to fair???? maybe the old battleships would have been all but impervious to most AShM's apart from the one the sov one tonners???

 

[riksavage]

I’m sure it was the T42 Destroyer HMS Gloucester that shot-down the Silkworm with a Sea Dart. The reason being my old man met an LT. off the Missouri in Perth years ago who claimed they have the ships (Gloucester’s) plaque in the wardroom.

Is the Falklands worth fighting for – hell yes, there’s oil in them there hills! Plus the fishing rights bring the islanders a pretty penny, which I understand contributes to the existing Garrison. The scramble for resources in the Artic Oceans will make the Falklands more strategically important from a security perspective. Like Ascension Island we could ultimately see a joint UK/US presence there in years to come.

 

[windscorpion]

Even without the potential revenues there the fact remains the people there were British and the territory was British and had been invaded by a foreign power. If you are just going to sit back and let it happen then why bother having an armed forces at all? What a great message it would have sent to every other potential aggressor around the world.. especially the Soviets!

 

[riksavage]

Very true, The Falkland invasion response by the UK military and resolve by Maggie i nthe face of ship losses had an impact upon Soviet Doctrine. As a result they commited more divisions facing the UK in BAOR.

 

[jimma]

The British people on the island do not want to be under Argentine rule. We have a responsibility to our land and to our people.

I consider the invasion of the Falklands the same as an invasion of the British isles.

 

[swerve]

....

Is the Falklands worth fighting for – hell yes, there’s oil in them there hills! Plus the fishing rights bring the islanders a pretty penny, which I understand contributes to the existing Garrison. The scramble for resources in the Artic Oceans will make the Falklands more strategically important from a security perspective. Like Ascension Island we could ultimately see a joint UK/US presence there in years to come.

A pity nobody told Maggie & her cabinet that in 1979, or maybe they wouldn't have shelved the Shackleton report & ignore its proposals to improve the airport & port & invest in oil exploration, downgraded the Falkland Islanders British citizenship (including taking away their right of abode in the UK - rescinded after the war), rejected proposals to spend some money on the run-down barracks, announced the withdrawal without replacement of the S. Atlantic patrol ship, & started negotiating with the Argentinean junta about a cession of sovereignty. It was that lot - and the poor response to some carefully escalated Argentinean provocations - which convinced Galtieri et al that we wouldn't fight for the islands. If the government had shown a little spine before the war, I doubt very much it would have happened.

http://www.falklands.info/history/history6.html

If we want to avoid future wars, we have to learn from that, & avoid making the same mistakes. Don't ignore the effect on others of decisions taken for internal reasons. Don't ignore signals sent by prats like Chavez, however worthless we think them. Send clear signals of our intent.

BTW, there's a problem with a US presence in the Falklands: the USA doesn't recognise our (or anyone elses) claims in the Antarctic, so unless they change that policy (unlikely), giving them a base would tend to undermine our position down there rather than reinforce it.

 

[Andy in West Oz]

I’m sure it was the T42 Destroyer HMS Gloucester that shot-down the Silkworm with a Sea Dart. The reason being my old man met an LT. off the Missouri in Perth years ago who claimed they have the ships (Gloucester’s) plaque in the wardroom.

You're right Rik, dunno why I was thinking Brazen. Was reading about her involvement in some other ops recently but can't even remember what that was! :unknown

Re the Falklands, I think the UK would ultimately be successful again but one major advantage they've got now is the presence of aircraft on the islands. I imagine a regular CAP would prevent/deter any attempt at an attack. If an invasion did eventuate, SSNs could prevent any resupply by sea and provide a platform to strike, at arm's length, Argentinian assets on the islands. It could be that "easy". SSNs could do what the Black Buck Vulcans did...and more.

Having said that, let's hope it never comes to that.

 

[raven1971]

While i'm all for territirial integrity I still find it strange that anyone would be willing to lose hundrends (if not thousands) of lives over a stray couple of pieces of rock many hundreds (Argentina) or thousands (UK) of kilometres away from your country. Wikipedia has it with a population of 3060 and a GDP of US$75 million. Are there large petrolium deposits I do not know about?

Petroleum deposits near the Falklands were officially revealed in 1993, the year after Britain increased the territorial waters around the archipelago. In addition, the Islands represent a major fishing hub, as well as a "rest stop" for British ships sailing round Cape Horn, one which they don't need to pay port fees. I have a link for a BBC report on it, but I haven't posted 15 times yet on this site, and as such I can't post URL. Go to Yahoo and search for "Falklands oil" and the thread should come up in the first link.

Raven

 

[riksavage]

Swerve you are bang on the nail. However we must look at today’s UK military in the context of 1982. Back then we were a NATO configured force, Army – BAOR, Navy – ASW North Atlantic.

Today the UK military is smaller, but much, much better equipped and prepared for expeditionary warfare. The average infantry regiment has today the same firepower at company level that an 82 battalion had in its entire Orbat. Combine this with strategic lift, both amphibious and air-mobile and we are looking at a completely different ball game.

Should our South American friends decide to invade they will suffer disproportionate casualties. Combine this with the fact that the current Argentinean General Staff couldn’t organize a 'panic in doomed submarine' and we have a recipe for a tango-two-spins-disaster!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

While i'm all for territirial integrity I still find it strange that anyone would be willing to lose hundrends (if not thousands) of lives over a stray couple of pieces of rock many hundreds (Argentina) or thousands (UK) of kilometres away from your country. Wikipedia has it with a population of 3060 and a GDP of US$75 million. Are there large petrolium deposits I do not know about?

If the inhabitants were facing execution I can imagine a rescue attemt being made but if at worse it was deportation to the UK then why bother? Millions seem to like living in the UK.

I'm sure the Falkland Islanders are nice people but their lives are not worth more than an equivalent number of British or Argentinian sailors.

I probably should make some comment about buying billions of dollars more of ships or planes or something but I don't think the end result is worth it. Sometimes sabre rattling is not the best option.

The reason the British fought and died on Falklands was because it is British Territory inhabited by British citizens who were invaded by a nation governed by a fasist Junta who were encouraged by a British government who were happy to trade away right of their own citizens in the name of a perverse peace, similar to 1938, with Munich. Like in 1939 the British did not simply go to war over some south Atlantic rocks/distant nation but for the principle of self determination and defence of there own people.

 

[swerve]

The reason the British fought and died on Falklands was because it is British Territory inhabited by British citizens who were invaded by a nation governed by a fasist Junta who were encouraged by a British government who were happy to trade away right of their own citizens in the name of a perverse peace, similar to 1938, with Munich. Like in 1939 the British did not simply go to war over some south Atlantic rocks/distant nation but for the principle of self determination and defence of there own people.

Fine principles, but unfortunately I can't believe that the same government which was willing to ignore them from 1979 to 1981 suddenly became a convert to them. Rather, the government realised that the British people wouldn't stand for seeing British territory invaded, & saw that abandoning the islanders would lose the next election. Your mention of Munich is apt. I get annoyed by people who compare Maggie to Churchill over the Falklands. More like Chamberlain. He was forced to fight in the end.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Fine principles, but unfortunately I can't believe that the same government which was willing to ignore them from 1979 to 1981 suddenly became a convert to them.

I never siad they did, only thats why they fought

Rather, the government realised that the British people wouldn't stand for seeing British territory invaded, & saw that abandoning the islanders would lose the next election. Your mention of Munich is apt. I get annoyed by people who compare Maggie to Churchill over the Falklands. More like Chamberlain. He was forced to fight in the end.

Oh, I agree, someone was definatly reading from Chamberlains 'Principles of Foreign Affairs' before it all went pear shaped.