Falkland War

[pithorr]

Hm, I am surprised we haven't discussed this issue yet...
I would appreciate some knowledge as I don't know any details about that war.
Had Argentina a chance?

 

[unmerged(469)]

Sure.

After the invasion Argentina pulled out most of its trained troops and replaced them with conscripts.


A very large number of the bombs dropped on the Royal Navy by Argentine A-4s turned out to be duds. I'm no ordinance expert, but I would think that could have been avoided with foresight.

 

[peo]

Yes.
They had one chance.
If they had moved their troops instead of sitting still.
There were enough of them to throw the brittish off the islands but they stayed in the villages so they lost.

Also it would have been smart if they hadn't removed their airforce to protect the mainland against the brittish bombers.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Still did enough damage to the British fleet though.

 

[phelbas]

If they had have got hold of more guided-missiles for their air-force the fleet would ahve taken a greater hammering, and possibly a carrier would have got it. then the picture would have been different.

 

[unmerged(904)]

Yes if the French missiles they had worked better or if the Jeanne Kirkpatrick part of the Reagan administration won the argument and stopped US support of Britain.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Sheilbh
Yes if the French missiles they had worked better or if the Jeanne Kirkpatrick part of the Reagan administration won the argument and stopped US support of Britain.

How much of a difference did that make?

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
How much of a difference did that make?

The general view I've heard is that US support was absolutely essential for Britain. Although apparently some people were quite frustrated with the vacillating at the start of the crisis.

 

[phelbas]

They provided arms and intelligence for Britain including sattelite survallience, which was of great benifit.

However the US did it usual thing of protecting it's own intrests first. It's closest ally and friend is attacked, you think she would have been more willing to send ships and troops. but then she had to worry about proping up brutal right-wing regimes in South america at the same time. Must have been a hard choice for the US close friend and ally or evil dictatorships. Pity they decieded to keep in with both and not just support Britain.

Though considering the US invaded teritory whose head of state was the Oueen Elizabeth we should'n have expected much. (Grenada)

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by phelbas
Pity they decieded to keep in with both and not just support Britain.

To be totally fair to the use Cap Weinberger apparently promised US support the same day as the explosion, as did Al Haig and eventually the US did support us fully.

Though considering the US invaded teritory whose head of state was the Oueen Elizabeth we should'n have expected much. (Grenada)

What was more of a problem was they didn't even give us a heads up.

 

[phelbas]

To be totally fair to the use Cap Weinberger apparently promised US support the same day as the explosion, as did Al Haig and eventually the US did support us fully

Yes but if from day one the US had threatened military intervention in support of the UK and sent a carrier battle group to sit off the falklands, do you think the Junta would have been up for a fight. They didn't want to fight briatin never mind the US.

Our navy did do a good job considering it was poorly equipted for the task it had to acheive, though there were some obviously incompetent actions, like the situation around the Sir Galahad. And of course some luck.

the argentian air force fought with great courage, thank god they didn't have better weapons.

 

[unmerged(904)]

Indeed, God bless the French and their crappy weapons
I think I read somewhere they disliked the government in Argentina so deliberately sold them below par arms.

Absolutely if the US had supported Britain from the start things would've finished up much earlier but despite what seems like a tussle the fact is two of the more powerful members of the Administration were totally behind the British. In retrospect I think it's fair to say that with Weinberger and Haig against Kirkpatrick and the deputy SoS American support was pretty much a given.

 

[King]

The greatest help the US gave Britain was the new model of Sidewinder. These were all aspect heat seeking missiles and as such could get a lock even on the front of the plane. The Argenitine Planes need to get behind the British planes before they could get a lock. This lead to the Argenitine planes taking heavy losses before they got the Bomb Alley outside San Carlos. Many Arginite Pilots believed today that if they too had had all aspect missile or the British had not had them then they could of done a lot more damage to the British ships, possibily winning the war. Biritish sea Harriers would account for 20 Argentine Aircraft through out the conflict, out of a total of 91 lost through all reasons (most destoyed on runways in Falklands). Britain claims to have lost only one Plane in air combat, infact British Sam missiles shot down more British aircraft than the Argentine airforce did.

 

[phelbas]

What about the Belgrano, should we have sunk her or not?

I think she was a warship, and argentina had started a war by invading British territiory, therefore she was a perfectly legit target. plus it made sure the argentinain navy was rather wary about putting to sea, so making lfe for the task force easier.

 

[String]

Originally posted by phelbas
What about the Belgrano, should we have sunk her or not?

I think she was a warship, and argentina had started a war by invading British territiory, therefore she was a perfectly legit target. plus it made sure the argentinain navy was rather wary about putting to sea, so making lfe for the task force easier.

I have never understood the fuss about Belgrano.
Britain and Argentina are at war
Belgrano is an argentinian cruiser
A british submarine sinks it
a lot of people die

for those who are unaware - in war people die (especially those in the armies/navies/airforces/)

 

[unmerged(904)]

The problem with the Belgrano is that we established an exclusion zone, within that exclusion zone hostilities would take place, outside they would not. The Belgrano was heading out of the exclusion zone. I don't think it should've been attacked but I don't think it's as big an issue as it has been made.

 

[String]

Originally posted by Sheilbh
The problem with the Belgrano is that we established an exclusion zone, within that exclusion zone hostilities would take place, outside they would not. The Belgrano was heading out of the exclusion zone. I don't think it should've been attacked but I don't think it's as big an issue as it has been made.

well it was if it was in the exclusion zone then it was perfectly justified.. afterall it was the biggest ship in the argentinian navy.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by Sheilbh
The problem with the Belgrano is that we established an exclusion zone, within that exclusion zone hostilities would take place, outside they would not. The Belgrano was heading out of the exclusion zone. I don't think it should've been attacked but I don't think it's as big an issue as it has been made.

No offense to you of course, and Im not a Brit so my opinion is worthless here...but if Argentina didnt want to lose the Belgrano, maybe they shouldnt have invaded and occupied British territory.

I mean its nice to have rules of war and all that, but Argentina didnt exatly "play fair" by invading British a possession without a declaration of war. So I wouldnt lose too much sleep over the Belgrano...

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by String
well it was if it was in the exclusion zone then it was perfectly justified.. afterall it was the biggest ship in the argentinian navy.

Inside or outside, an enemy ship is an enemy ship and "fair game". The only effective "exclusion zone" is inside the territorial seazone of a neutral country.

D.

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
No offense to you of course, and Im not a Brit so my opinion is worthless here...but if Argentina didnt want to lose the Belgrano, maybe they shouldnt have invaded and occupied British territory.

I agree Argentinian losses are what they should expect for invading. However we said that there was to be an exclusion zone and that forces outside that zone would be safe. So I suppose the argument really is whether we broke our own rules or whether by them we were justified as the Belgrano was leaving.

No offense taken

Inside or outside, an enemy ship is an enemy ship and "fair game". The only effective "exclusion zone" is inside the territorial seazone of a neutral country.

I couldn't actually tell you the reason for the exclusion zone but my guess is that the UK didn't want a wider conflict, we wanted hostilities localised in the Falklands were we were fighting a war of liberation, not the whole South Atlantic or Argentina as a whole. So while that's technically true, for proactical purposes the exclusion zone existed.

Incidentally did we actually declare war on Argentina, I can't remember it being mentioned when I read something about it. Although it did mention civil servants having to go back to WW2 records to see how a nation actually went about declaring war