History of South American nation inter-rivalry and arms buildup

TerraN_EmpirE said:

the Falklands conflict In my mind has to be a unique study for modern wars in that both sides were very very evenly matched. Both sides were using light infantry, Naval forces, and air power that when stacked against each other had a lot of overlap even using the same weapons and systems.
this is in stark contrast to latter conflicts or earlier ones in the modern era, where we had Coalition forces and Super power or Alliance powers acting in interventions.

So the Results of the war came down to the grade of the troops used and the commanders. The Argentine Navy pretty much cut and run. They might as well have been sunk because the British had sea superiority, after the sinking of the Belgrano and the Air Forces became the only backing the Argentines had. that locked the Argentines to the forces on the islands. No reinforcements no counter landings. British troops were top tier forces Airborne and Marines. The Argentines could only really launch CAS and try for air superiority.

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

Imagine what the aftermath would have been like if the results where reversed. Britain defeated by a developing nation (at the time, now third worldish). That would have put the strength of NATO into question at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. At the time Britain’s Navy was second only to the United States in the western world.

One could even speculate that perhaps the Soviet Union would not have collapsed since the US and NATO would not have been so bold and spent them militarily into the ground.


Back to bottling my Grenache

Click to expand...

asif iqbal said:

At the end of the day war comes down to who makes the most mistakes and Argentina made some horrible ones

The ones who make mistakes are ones who are not trained and experienced but sometimes it comes down to sheer judgment and calling the right move

But you must remember British army once landed on the island were very gusty and had a bull dog spirit and even Argentinas best equipped and trained soldiers did not match the will and skill of British soldiers who walked by foot over many days to reach their objectives when almost entire Chinooks fleet was wiped out on the Atlantic Conveyor they had not back up plan on how to cross the island without helos but the training kicked in and they marched by foot

Also you must remember that the Royal Navy's SSN fleet was very powerful and if it was given a unrestricted warfare they naval casualties on the Argentinian side would have been enormous but UK was very aware of the outcry after sinking of the Belgrano

And although no Americans were nearby the behind the scene action was plenty including those sidewider integration to the harriers

Plus this was height of Cold War and two USN full strength carrier strikes forces were present in the Mediterranean on standby if things were not going to plan

Bottom line is, in my opinion it was a fair and square fight between two nations with little outside help and one came out on top, the one which wanted it more and the one which had that little bit of extra in its tanks

But that was 1982 over 3 decades ago today the situation is different and Helmand showed how far Britain has fallen and I don't think we will see Britain take part in any large scale military operations overseas let alone lead them

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

The Argentine decision to occupy the islands with large numbers of infantry, at the expense of a smaller, balanced combined arms force showed a fundamental lack of understanding of modern warfare by the Argentine leadership. Had the Argentine government studied MacArthur’s campaign in the Pacific at all, they would have realized that MacArthur only landed infantry, not to destroy Japanese forces, but instead to seize airfields. The failure of the junta to improve Stanley Airfield to take strike aircraft is stunning, especially given the aggressiveness and skill of the aviators. Basing the strike elements of the FAA there may not have prevented the British from retaking the islands, but failure to do so virtually guaranteed that the British eventually would.


Back to bottling my Grenache

ps: TerraN, take a look at my postings on page two and three regarding the war

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

The blunders made by the Argentine Military continue to astound me to this very day. I am not trained as a military tactician, but my study (due to intense interest) has leaded me to write sever posts on this thread. As an amateur armchair general I could have prosecuted the war better (as many of you could have also).

Things worked out the best way possible, for both Britain and Argentina. If the war had not been started by the incompetent Generals seeking to maintain power. The islands would probably be in some type of joint administration or at the very least enjoy from a fruitful cooperation between Argentina and England.


Back to bottling my Grenache

Click to expand...

b787 said:

In my opinion, Argentina from the beginning made a big mistake, if you go to war make sure you have weapons to win it, England had submarines but so Argentina, however the submarine was not really supporting the war as the Harrier force did, but Argentina needed more exocets, why simply getting rid of the carrier force meant more exocets

In my opinion, and perhaps here are more patriotic than you, is Argentina only made a single mistake, yes only one, Argentina did the mistake of going to war without making sure the armed forces have the supplies of weapons guaranteed.
In 1973, Israel, always received weapons, if they lost F-4s, they got new F-4s, same if they lost A-4s.
In the Vietnam war and Afghan war, both the USA and USSR were much superior to the rivals in technology and casualties, however they lost their respective wars because is not technology what counts, but people willing to fight with weapons flowing.
Germany in 1941 had a much better army than the USSR, in fact they were destroying the Soviet Army quiet easily, what Germany did not do was destroy the Soviet arms industry, same Egypt in 1973, Israel never stop replenishing her weapons and Israel had a significant arms industry, in fact they built Kfirs by the mid 1970s.


Argentina lost because simply there were no more ammunitions by June 1st so the Army had no more weapons to fight, the Air Force also did not have more Exocets, or new Aircraft.

Brazil learnt the lesson, Peru in the 1980s and since that time always has bought weapons from different suppliers, Mirage 2000s with MiG-29s, however Argentina did not, in fact Argentina biggest mistake that only buy from nations that were allied of England, Germany, the US or France never ever made an arms Embargo on England, in the 1980s the French were making Sepecats Jaguars with England, the Germans Panavia Tornadoes with England and the US harriers with England, however Argentina had embargoes to most of her weapons programs remember Argentina made German subs under license, had US and French aircraft and even ships.

The Soldiers were not cowards, simply they ran out of weapons, the pilots ran out of exocets, just think in this if Argentina would had gotten 30 Exocets do you think the England would had taken the Island?

in the chess game, England played a better move by imposing an arms embargo, only that.

As a military Argentina was very professional, it was simply the Monroe doctrine did not really work, it worked to stop the Soviet Union in Cuba in 1961 but not to stop the British navy going to war, like the OEA did not help Argentina, the only nation that supplied weapons to Argentina of the Americas was Peru.

Click to expand...

Miragedriver said:

Well Amigo. There was defiantly more than one blunder made, and believe me when I tell you that I am a flag waving patriot, but not to the point that I defend idiots for stupid actions. Here are jus a few of them:

1) Not placing professional military forces on the island. The fear of war with Chile left the best troops on the Chilean border while conscripts from the temperate region around Buenos Aires where sent.

2) Advancing the time table. If Military planners had waited six to eight more months the Royal Navy would not have been in a position to organize the task force

3) Extension of the runway at Port Stanley. Failure to do this guaranteed the British control of the air around a portion of the islands.

4) Failure of the Navy to transport mobile forces to the island.

5) Failure to organize a counter attack on the landing force in San Carlos.

6) Failure to recognize that low altitude tactics were working but that this caused bombs to not detonate on impact. This single item could have changed the course of the war.

7) Logistics were wrongly planned; they cannot be IMPROVISED, under these circumstances Argentina proceeded this way, and suffered the consequences.

8) There was time to plan counter attacks and set traps, but with a static defense Argentine forces weren’t familiar with the geographical territory and were not permitted to maneuver.

9) Failure to attack the logistic supply lines from Ascension Island south

10)Argentina underestimated the enemy and let them take the lead by constantly giving them a chance to take the initiative.

These are just some of the mistakes that were made by the High Command. Replacement aircraft would not have made a difference since the British were under a similar constraint. They could not keep their forces at sea indefinitely and were fast approaching there do or return date. Additionally there was a limited amount of munitions that the task force had.

The British also made their fair share of blunders, but they were fewer and the centuries of experience and training they have mitigated the damage caused by their mistakes.



Back to bottling my Grenache

PS read some of my posts on the thread, it will explain for of the logistical and tactical errors

Click to expand...