• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Musings about Falklands past and present

The Don said:
I also suspect that detection facilities have been upgraded significantly since the early 80's and so it'd be impossible for an Argentinian invasion force (if one could actually be assembled) to get to the Falklands.

I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.

Unless the Argentine Navy somehow manage to control Falklands territorial waters then anything floaty will end up at the bottom of the South Atlantic and as you pointed out that control hat would also have to include underwater too.
Click to expand...
Since the four largest warships in the Argentine Navy are smallish warships in the first place, and in the second place are ill-crewed, ill-maintained, and likely unarmed, controlling Falklands territorial waters is not really in the cards.
 
The Don said:
I also suspect that detection facilities have been upgraded significantly since the early 80's and so it'd be impossible for an Argentinian invasion force (if one could actually be assembled) to get to the Falklands.
Click to expand...
Giraffe radars, and the old Rapier missiles being replaced by vastly better CAMM. Nice bits of kit both.

I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.
Click to expand...
I couldn't say, but I would have imagined any aircraft approaching the islands would be challenged and, if unresponsive, would be intercepted. Typhoons would murder unprotected transports, and I doubt the Argentines have the ability to protect them.

Unless the Argentine Navy somehow manage to control Falklands territorial waters then anything floaty will end up at the bottom of the South Atlantic and as you pointed out that control hat would also have to include underwater too.
Click to expand...
They have two diesel electric subs. No idea if they're operational or not, but in a navy whose ships sink whilst alongside in port now and again...
 
abaddon said:
I suppose the long march to death at Goose Green didn't happen either. The Royal Marines didn't get shafted by their own government's ineptitude. Sure.

When the logistics failed to turn up because the UKgov didn't bother to provide it, those hard bastards in green yomped it on foot, made it, and achieved their objectives at cost. For some reason, UKians want to trivialise that and I don't know why.
Click to expand...


First, it was 2 PARA that marched and assaulted Goose Green; the only RM casualties were the crew of a helicopter shot down while attempting to evacuate the paras' mortally wounded commander (Lt Col H. JonesWP, VC, OBE).

Second, whether the fact that the ship carrying the heavy transport helicopters was sunk was due to the "government's ineptitude" is at best highly debatable, but to claim that they "didn't bother to provide" logistical support to the paras is simply false.
 
theprestige said:
That's what I've been trying to figure out. The Argentine navy is in pitiful condition. Their two submarines are laid up. They have maybe one real amphibious assault ship. Their four "destroyers" would be classed as light frigates by most other modern navies.
Click to expand...


They have one amphibious cargo ship, which can carry four LCVPs and several rubber boats, and one destroyer-transport which can carry about 300 troops, two helicopters, and several rubber boats. So *at best* they could maybe lift one marine battalion, but they wouldn't be able to unload much of their heavy equipment unless they could somehow capture Port Stanley.

theprestige said:
Their air force is similarly sad. Whatever attack planes they sent would be operating near the limits of their range, giving them little time on target and little fuel to spare for maneuvers.
Click to expand...


All of the Mirages and Super Etandards, and most, if not all, of the Skyhawks, have been officially retired. The only combat aircraft they have that can fly are a couple of dozen light counter-insurgency Pucarás, which lack the range to reach the Falklands, unless they intend to fly one-way missions, land at remote airstrips in the islands, and hope they can recover the planes and crews later.

theprestige said:
And they'd have to maneuver. The Falklands garrison now includes a Type 45 destroyer. This is a potent, modern air defense platform. Even if the RAF remained entirely out of the fight, the Type 45 by itself guarantees that the outdated Argentine planes would never be able to achieve air superiority.
Click to expand...


Due to the decision to cut Type 45 acquisitions from 12 to six, sometimes a Type 23 frigate is assigned. However, recent upgrades, including the CAMM which Seismosaurus mentioned, have vastly increased the anti-air capabilities of the Type 23.

theprestige said:
The weak Argentine naval surface force, consisting of a handful of clapped-out frigates and corvettes, and escorting their troop transport, would have to face off against the Type 45, an RN frigate, and probably one or more RN submarines. Assuming any Argentine ground troops made it ashore, they'd be confronted by a well-equipped, well-prepared, and well-entrenched enemy force.
Click to expand...


Actually, it would be either a frigate or a destroyer, but the odds would still be very heavily in the RN's favor.

theprestige said:
The Argentine troops would be stranded ashore, with no air support, no naval fire support, and no hope of resupply or reinforcement. With every passing day, their situation would worsen, and RN and RAF reinforcements would draw closer.
Click to expand...


Assuming any even made it ashore.

theprestige said:
Unless abaddon has a vastly different and better-documented assessment of current Argentine military strength, I don't see how they could today take the 1982-strength Falklands, let alone the 2017-strength Falklands.
Click to expand...


They *might* be able to take the 1982-strength Falklands by sheer weight of numbers, but I wouldn't put money on it.
 
The Don said:
I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.
Click to expand...


They supposedly have 7 assorted C-130s. Even if they could somehow get all of them in the air at once (:sdl:) and avoid having any of them shot down (:sdl:), they could drop somewhat less than 500 paratroops, with no heavy equipment or supplies to speak of.
 
Also not to mention the political backlash would be very damaging to Argentina;they would get support from almost nobody and condemnation from most,if not all, of the major powers.
It is just not worth it for Argentina.
From A military point of view,the UK might be in bad shape, but compared to Argentina.......
 
And any new Second Lt in the US Marine Corps would take one look at Argentina's amphibious capability and die laughing.
 
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.

Now the UK does not have that influence anymore by choice. Article 50, remember? Some in the UK are threatening war on Spain, for pete's sake. This is not likely to create feelings of endearment. Nor prevent deals over which the UK has no further control.
 
Aber said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...
In 2016, the UK blocked Argentinian attempts to acquire Spanish Mirage's.

The UK blocked the Argentine attempt to acquire Saab Gripens.

The UK blocked the Argentine attempt to acquire ex-Israeli Kfir's.

Would you like to move on to naval power? Or shall I bombard you with references?

In any event, I am sure that Argentina relishes Brexit.
 
abaddon said:
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why the kit the Argentinians already have is rotting away at the pier. That explains why they don't have new kit.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Second, whether the fact that the ship carrying the heavy transport helicopters was sunk was due to the "government's ineptitude" is at best highly debatable, but to claim that they "didn't bother to provide" logistical support to the paras is simply false.
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone picked up on that.
I really can't see how the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor is "government ineptitude".
 
If one battalion is the maximum the Argentinains can land, the invading force will be outnumbered by the British Garrison. Not a good recipe for a successful amphibious assault.
 
And the Argentine Amphibious Assault Craft appear to be World War Two level:LCVP's and a few rubber boats. The won't cut it against a modern defense. Might have been fine for Normandy or Tarawa;not so good nowdays.
 
abaddon said:
There is a reason for the state of the Argentine Navy. That reason is that the UK has influenced France, Spain and Italy to not sell Military Tech to Argentina.

Now the UK does not have that influence anymore by choice. Article 50, remember? Some in the UK are threatening war on Spain, for pete's sake. This is not likely to create feelings of endearment. Nor prevent deals over which the UK has no further control.
Click to expand...
You're really of the opinion that all UK influence over other countries will cease with Brexit? How curious.

Meanwhile, that's only a rather small fraction of the story. Argentina's recent governments haven't really trusted their own military much, and so haven't spent a whole lot of money on them. And they also haven't really had the money to spend, frankly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom