Falklands War 1982 Documentary

[Dougie]

What a success story Argentina has been since then, especially in comparison with Chile.

Many would argue that Pinochet and the Chicago Boys were more competent stewards of the economy than the Argentine Junta whose economic track record was abysmal. Having the Argentine Junta in power for more years wouldn't have done anything positive in terms of economic conditions.

The Junta was an enormous failure across the board - economics, military, human rights.

 

[UK Man]

Let's face it the whole of S America is a basket case when it comes to most things including financial stability.

Many things in Argentina remind me of how things worked in the UK 50 years ago.

 

[camberiu]

Let's face it the whole of S America is a basket case when it comes to most things including financial stability.

Many things in Argentina remind me of how things worked in the UK 50 years ago.

It seems that the UK is about to rejoin the club.

 

[Fiscal]

Why did the Argentinians start a war they could never have possibly won?

 

[camberiu]

Why did the Argentinians start a war they could never have possibly won?

Actually on a purely military perspective, the odds were kind of on their favor. The post-world war II Royal Navy was designed and equipped to support the US Navy in the North Atlantic. More specifically, it was designed and equipped to help blockade and contain the Soviet Navy within the Greenland, Iceland and Northern UK gap, so that they could never reach the open Atlantic. So it was a Navy designed and equipped to operate close to home where it could resupply often.
Sending it to fight in the extreme South Atlantic stretched the Royal Navy and its logistics to the breaking point. With limited capacity to carry fuel, ammunition and supplies and a very small carrier air wing (the 2 British carriers were minuscule with less than 20 planes each), they had one shot and one shot only to retake the islands. If the first attempt failed, that was it. They would have to return home to resupply, refuel, repair and rest the crews.This process would take several months, which was more than enough time for Argentina to dig in , reinforce the island defenses and make it unconquerable. Also, it is unlikely that the British coffers could afford a second attempt.
Also, on paper at least, 1982 Argentina had a pretty formidable military, with modern and up to date aircraft, ships and submarines.
A British victory back in 1982 was not certain at all, and if the Argentina military had been half-competent, a British military defeat would have been almost certain.
The big question that bewildered a lot of people was: Even if they won, then what? After the euphoria and the jubilation of the victory passed, all the structural problems that destroyed the popularity of the junta would still be there, but Argentina would now be cut off from all Western powers. What then? Argentina would have been labeled a pariah by the Western powers and ostracized, leaving the USSR as the only alternative. Could anyone imagine Galtieri bending the knee to Leonid Brezhnev?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Actually on a purely military perspective, the odds were kind of on their favor. The post-world war II Royal Navy was designed and equipped to support the US Navy in the North Atlantic. More specifically, it was designed and equipped to help blockade and contain the Soviet Navy within the Greenland, Iceland and Northern UK gap, so that they could never reach the open Atlantic. So it was a Navy designed and equipped to operate close to home where it could resupply often.
Sending it to fight in the extreme South Atlantic stretched the Royal Navy and its logistics to the breaking point. With limited capacity to carry fuel, ammunition and supplies and a very small carrier air wing (the 2 British carriers were minuscule with less than 20 planes each), they had one shot and one shot only to retake the islands. If the first attempt failed, that was it. They would have to return home to resupply, refuel, repair and rest the crews.This process would take several months, which was more than enough time for Argentina to dig in , reinforce the island defenses and make it unconquerable. Also, it is unlikely that the British coffers could afford a second attempt.
Also, on paper at least, 1982 Argentina had a pretty formidable military, with modern and up to date aircraft, ships and submarines.
A British victory back in 1982 was not certain at all, and if the Argentina military had been half-competent, a British military defeat would have been almost certain.
The big question that bewildered a lot of people was: Even if they won, then what? After the euphoria and the jubilation of the victory passed, all the structural problems that destroyed the popularity of the junta would still be there, but Argentina would now be cut off from all Western powers. What then? Argentina would have been labeled a pariah by the Western powers and ostracized, leaving the USSR as the only alternative. Could anyone imagine Galtieri bending the knee to Leonid Brezhnev?

In fact the mayor buyer for argentine grains was the USSR and they helped the AR airforce with their satellites.

 

[Fiscal]

Actually on a purely military perspective, the odds were kind of on their favor. The post-world war II Royal Navy was designed and equipped to support the US Navy in the North Atlantic. More specifically, it was designed and equipped to help blockade and contain the Soviet Navy within the Greenland, Iceland and Northern UK gap, so that they could never reach the open Atlantic. So it was a Navy designed and equipped to operate close to home where it could resupply often.
Sending it to fight in the extreme South Atlantic stretched the Royal Navy and its logistics to the breaking point. With limited capacity to carry fuel, ammunition and supplies and a very small carrier air wing (the 2 British carriers were minuscule with less than 20 planes each), they had one shot and one shot only to retake the islands. If the first attempt failed, that was it. They would have to return home to resupply, refuel, repair and rest the crews.This process would take several months, which was more than enough time for Argentina to dig in , reinforce the island defenses and make it unconquerable. Also, it is unlikely that the British coffers could afford a second attempt.
Also, on paper at least, 1982 Argentina had a pretty formidable military, with modern and up to date aircraft, ships and submarines.
A British victory back in 1982 was not certain at all, and if the Argentina military had been half-competent, a British military defeat would have been almost certain.
The big question that bewildered a lot of people was: Even if they won, then what? After the euphoria and the jubilation of the victory passed, all the structural problems that destroyed the popularity of the junta would still be there, but Argentina would now be cut off from all Western powers. What then? Argentina would have been labeled a pariah by the Western powers and ostracized, leaving the USSR as the only alternative. Could anyone imagine Galtieri bending the knee to Leonid Brezhnev?

Assuming for the sake of argument that Britain had only "one shot", what is the relevance of that point if the odds of success on their one shot were inordinately high? The war didn't seem remotely close with some sort of give and take, it was over in 10 weeks.

 

[camberiu]

Assuming for the sake of argument that Britain had only "one shot", what is the relevance of that point if the odds of success on their one shot were inordinately high? The war didn't seem remotely close with some sort of give and take, it was over in 10 weeks.

The thing is that the odds of success were not extraordinarily high.
Let's say that the weather turned bad for a few days and made it impossible for the Royal Marines to do an amphibious landing on the islands.
The Harrier jets consume a ridiculous amount of fuel and because the British carriers were small, they could only do a very limited number of sorties in the campaign. The food, fuel and supplies were limited, and the Royal marines were put into very cramped and tight quarters until the time to try to disembark and take the Island. There was no way the British task force could lay siege to the islands for very long. The window for success was extremely narrow and there was no room for a second attempt if anything trivial like weather, was not on their favor.

What if there was a malfunction on the engines of the 17 year old HMS Fearless which was the main vessel carrying the British amphibious force, or on the carriers HMS Hermes (a 22 year old vessel at the time) or HMS Invincible? Or if those three ships had been hit by an Argentina Exocet missile or by a torpedo from ARA San Luis? The loss or incapacitation of any single one of those vessels would end the chances of success for the invasion.

Or if instead of defending the islands with green and ill equipped conscript troops from the northern provinces, the Argentine military instead had deployed the well trained, well equipped, professional divisions from the South who were adapted to fighting in antarctic climates? All they would have to do was to make the amphibious landing difficult enough for the British to run out of their limited supplies and ammo.

None of those events that I listed were unlikely and would have ended the "one shot" invasion.

 

[UK Man]

The ONLY adantage Argentina had was the distance between the UK and the Falklands.....end of story.

 

[camberiu]

The ONLY adantage Argentina had was the distance between the UK and the Falklands.....end of story.

8,000 miles is one hell of an advantage to any opponent of anything less than the US Navy.