Joe Biden on the Falklands conflict, 1982

[semigoodlookin]

If the first task force had failed, this would imply even heavier losses to the fleet which simply were not sustainable. There was no second task force.

I don't know and we will never know, but I just don't agree. The task force was not the entire British fleet, although I know the fleet was already diminished because of budget cuts.

I think the only scenario of there being no second movement would be if the British had just decided to drop the issue. That's possible but I am not sure that would have happened during that era. I don't know if the country could have sent another task force quickly or whether it would have taken years, but I am convinced military action would have continued against Argentina, maybe even through declaring war, which never happened during the conflict. Incidentally, I know why the British didn't decalre war at that time, but doing so would have made the conflict much easier to win.

For me, this is more just an interesting discussion because we all know what did happen, so it's just playing games thinking about possible situations that could have happened.

 

[Sybille]

I wonder if behind the scenes the US gave a green light to Galtieri in hopes that the almost certain defeat would mean the end of the junta and no longer have to prop it up. Remember that at this time the US was sponsoring other military dictators in Lat Am, but one by one had cut ties with most of them by the end of the 80s.

As Joe pointed out, an attack on Britain would effectively be an attack on NATO, and it's hard to believe (but not improbable) that Argentina would not have been aware of this when they proceeded. As far as I know, that has been the only time any country has been stupid enough to do that.

"Under Article 5 of the treaty, an armed attack from outside the alliance on any one NATO state would be considered as an attack against all NATO allies. The alliance members are sworn to help the party being attacked. (...) NATO has only invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty once, after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US.

The treaty was later clarified to include members' territories, vessels, forces or aircraft above the Tropic of Cancer. For this reason, the alliance was not involved in the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina."

NATO in a nutshell – DW – 11/10/2017

NATO has been at the heart of defense policy for many Western European nations for decades. As time has gone on, it's moved eastwards. But how did the alliance become what it is? Who pays for it? Where is it going?

www.dw.com

 

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I’m sure it was well over half of the fleet that was involved, if a carrier had been lost in this assumed scenario I think it would have been over.

 

[QuilmesSlo]

Yes, quite right there was no second British task force, but there existed the real possibility the US would ultimately have intervened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/

 

[Redpossum]

There was simply inability and inaptitude from the Argentine military that played a major part in this defeat

On the ground, yes. But let us not forget that air units of the Argentine military performed in a truly heroic fashion, suffering horrendous losses and inflicting major damage on the British fleet. Look at this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War - and check the "casualties and losses" box on the right. The RN lost 2 Frigates, 2 Destroyers, the cargo ship Atlantic Conveyor stuffed full of expensive helicopters, and a pair of gator navy ships. Those pilots fought in a bad cause, but they fought bravely and well, in spite of terrible disadvantages in equipment.

 

[semigoodlookin]

On the ground, yes. But let us not forget that air units of the Argentine military performed in a truly heroic fashion, suffering horrendous losses and inflicting major damage on the British fleet. Look at this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War - and check the "casualties and losses" box on the right. The RN lost 2 Frigates, 2 Destroyers, the cargo ship Atlantic Conveyor stuffed full of expensive helicopters, and a pair of gator navy ships. Those pilots fought in a bad cause, but they fought bravely and well, in spite of terrible disadvantages in equipment.

I think they fought herocially on the ground too.

Once the British had a foothold on land, it was a losing battle. Similar to the air combat, the Argentine's were fighting in a bad cause on the ground too and in my opinion once the British made land, all Argentine's (and indeed Brits) who died after did so needlessly (yes, all the casualties of the war were needless, but I hope you get the point).

The indivual heroism of most the soliders in that stupid conflict is not in doubt. The military organization backing the Argentine forces on the islands was a shambles, moreso on the ground.

 

[Alpinista]

I think they fought herocially on the ground too.

Once the British had a foothold on land, it was a losing battle. Similar to the air combat, the Argentine's were fighting in a bad cause on the ground too and in my opinion once the British made land, all Argentine's (and indeed Brits) who died after did so needlessly (yes, all the casualties of the war were needless, but I hope you get the point).

The indivual heroism of most the soliders in that stupid conflict is not in doubt. The military organization backing the Argentine forces on the islands was a shambles, moreso on the ground.

It might have been heroic. I was referring to the point that the soldiers (conscripts mainly, I believe) were left there on the ground freezing without adequate equipment and without sufficient food. This also happened in other wars, but then it was mostly a "we will be home by Christmas"-optimism which lead to these situations. Here we are talking about invasion forces that were sent in April / May to the Malvinas with cold weather conditions.
In addition there was reportedly a lot of abuse from the superiors (short: they were treated like s***); obviously that didn't help the morale much

 

[on the brink]

I think they fought herocially on the ground too.
................................
The indivual heroism of most the soliders in that stupid conflict is not in doubt. The military organization backing the Argentine forces on the islands was a shambles, moreso on the ground.

The Argentine soldiers carried old rifles, and where often issued the wrong ammunition. Their generals sold them out. People I know donated their jewelry to buy equipment, and cases of food for the troops, but they got nothing. It is amazing those poor kids fought at all.....!

However, Argentines love their country with a passion - even those who leave yearn for it. This may be difficult to believe, but it's true. They complain about everything, and grumble incessantly, but they love it.

 

[EL_TIGRE_de_Tigre]

I think they fought herocially on the ground too.

Once the British had a foothold on land, it was a losing battle. Similar to the air combat, the Argentine's were fighting in a bad cause on the ground too and in my opinion once the British made land, all Argentine's (and indeed Brits) who died after did so needlessly (yes, all the casualties of the war were needless, but I hope you get the point).

The indivual heroism of most the soliders in that stupid conflict is not in doubt. The military organization backing the Argentine forces on the islands was a shambles, moreso on the ground.

Semi you raise a good point. One I strongly agree with. Needless death(s):

I have a personal belief that dying for your country or a cause you believe in is not for me. I'll die to protect myself, my family and the ones who I care about. After that, NOPE! I won't die to protect my property / anything I own or possess. I won't die due to an argument / disagreement and I certainly will not die as a result of fighting a battle such as a war.

TO me, it is not what I am about or what I believe in. I respect those who think different from me. And I certainly am thankful for those who have died so that I can have the kind of life I enjoy. BUT - NOPE! I fight no one's battles but my own.

Often times, conflict can be avoided, yet it is not.

I am simply not interested in being a hero. Once you die, you are dead and you are not coming back. Life is simply too good to be a hero.

 

[camel]

On the ground, yes. But let us not forget that air units of the Argentine military performed in a truly heroic fashion, suffering horrendous losses and inflicting major damage on the British fleet.

If you have 3 hours to spare (and I know everyone here does...), here's a pretty good interview with Dave "Mog" Morgan, a British ex-fighter pilot who flew a Sea Harrier in the war. Here's the 5-minute teaser, I'll post the links below for parts 1, 2, and 3.

Teaser:

Part 1: 10 Percent True #11 P1 - Dave "Mog" Morgan, Sea Harrier Falklands Fighter Pilot
Part 2: 10 Percent True #11 P2 - Dave "Mog" Morgan, Sea Harrier Falklands Fighter Pilot
Part 3: 10 Percent True #11 P3 - Dave "Mog" Morgan, Sea Harrier Falklands Fighter Pilot

One thing I remember him saying is that the Argentines' air tactics seemed like they were from World War 2 -- that is to say, 40 years of date. He also mentions that he still has contact with some of the Argentine pilots he fought against, including the son of a pilot he shot down and killed.

Edit: By the way, if anyone has a similar interview, but from an Argentine pilot, I would love to hear it.