Uk was 2 weeks away from leave the Falklands, or surrender, and was a consequence from the Argentine pilots globally, not just San Carlos engagements.
That is totally untrue. If this is what is being said around the place in Argentina you are lying to yourself. British losses were minor and non critical to their war effort.
If in land, artillery munition hadn´t run out, Argentines wouldn´t have left the hills surrounding Port Stanley and stand some more time.
The Argentine units left the hills because British soldiers forced them out. Argentine artillery were still firing up until the end of the conflict. This is more Argentine lies to cover up their defeat.
The rate of unit losses along the conflict is something also to consider in both sides, Argentine lost aircrafts, but in the exchage of sacrifices, Uk had 30-40 ships touched and had lost also +30 aircraft including at least 10 Harriers and the Invincible also hitted by bombs. Who could sustain, for say 2 more weeks, or a month, still more units lost? But units are lost in different engagements, attacked in terrain, or accidentally.
LOL. More Argentine propaganda. Invincible was never hit, the number of ships hit you claim if way over the top along with aircraft losses. Their loss rate had sharply dropped off after May 25 and the greatest threat after this date outside of the Stanley area was attrition.
About fatigue or spares or maintenance, in the short term, 2 weeks 1 month, is not something too important, it would be for the next year if the Uk had decided to leave it for the next year.
The British were in much better situation for logistics than the Argentines. Most of the Argentine air force that hadn’t been shot down was grounded by the end of the war. The British not only sustained their rate of effort right to the end by kept HMS Invincible in theatre flying for weeks after the war until it was relieved by a new carrier. There was no ‘leave it to next year’ except in the post war fantasy minds of Argentineans, or if the weather got worse.
If Argentine had waited to have all the contracted Exocets, had waited to fix and maintain correctly their aircraft and submarines, and waited the Uk to dismantle some of the important ships, that was in the way, probably Uk could not retake islands so quick or with more looses.
Well it wasn’t a matter of waiting it was the Argentine planning schedule. The Navy was instructed to prepare to take the islands not before mid September 1982 and no later than the 150th anniversary of the kicking out of the Argentine colony in January 1983. If the invasion had gone to schedule it would have been around New Years Day 1983. But the Argentines were rushed into invasion because of the scrap iron incident on South Georgia.
If the invasion had gone to schedule then the British force in the new year would have been much stronger. They would have had three carriers (Invincible wasn’t due to be handed over to Australia unil a few months into 1983 when Hermes finished her refit and Lusty would be ready), more Sea Harriers, a better trained Sea Harrier force, new people in key positions and because of the better summer weather a chance to spend a few weeks working up the invasion force in home waters before sending it south. The LSDs were still on hand (just not in commission) and its even feasible the Tiger class cruisers could have been readied for service. If the invasion fleet hadn't sailed until mid February they would have gone loaded up with extras like Phalanx CIWS. Since it took the RN 11 weeks to have Sea King AEW they would have been available to cover the landings under this timetable.
To counter this the Argentines would have had the full 14 Super Etendard force but with only one Exocet per aircraft as the second missiles were not available until 1983. There is no evidence to suggest their one operational Type 209 submarine would be in better condition and even if it was the crew wouldn’t have time to train and British intelligence revealed the operating box of this boat which made it effectively useless (the British just stayed out of the box which was called “Santa Maria” for some reason by the ARA). The boost in land based Super Etendards would not be enough to counter the much stronger RN force. Because of the better weather there may have been a fleet action but this would have ended very badly for the ARA. General Belgrano times ten.
But it is impossible to determine who morally or ethically owns the islands, and if they dont reach an agreement to share them, then it will be the law of the jungle, the stronger, and Argentine politicians should have realized that Uk with Usa support and also European, was going to win, soon or later, and they should have realized of useless life sacrifices for a chunk of terrain. But in reality, as an English soldier said, Argentine was just 2 weeks from the "victory", in that campaign.
Well the British have been living there for 150 years so it’s pretty clear its theor island, morally and ethically. If the British have to give it back to Argentinia then the Spanish should give back Argentinia to the Indians. The Argentine claim is so flimsy and even predated by the British is only makes sense from a ultra nationalistic perspective. Being that you live next door to a place has never been considered reasonable grounds for real estate ownership.
The claim that the British were two weeks from “failure” is nonsense. The weather was the biggest concern but the Argentine forces were comprehensively defeated at every opportunity. The British had targeted the only source of fresh water at Stanley right at the ceasefire so I don’t know how the Argentineans could have held out for another two weeks without water even without taking into consideration their lack of a defensive position, broken units, failed morale and complete logistical isolation. Of course one British push on Stanley and they would have broken in hours. It was not the finest moment in Argentinean military history, but when one considers the Dirty War a long way from the worst.
nfloorl:
