Of the three branches of the Argentine Military the airforce put in by far the best performance. I think they came closer to winning the war than most people think. The Argentine airforce and RN got into an attritional battle where fortunately (for us) the Argentines cracked first. On the subject of defence against exocet there was apparently a lot of material but a lot of it was contradictory. :-?
The tactic was later tested in NATO exercises off Norway - the 'phibs 'hid' in the fiords. Eric Grove (Mr Beardy) wrote a book on it 'Battle for the Fiords, NATO's Forward Maritime Strategy in Action'.
Sorry, it was judged to have been quite successful, the attackers had a repeat of the problems the Argentines had.
Well Well, very interesting statistics. I am begining to have the opinion the actually the Brits din do that well in Falklands war. It is only a Strategic victory and matter of Great Britian National Pride. Such a heavy and costly losses for Island populated with more sheep than human. :cry:
There's a Interesting WAT IF scenrio. WAT IF ... Red Chinese invade HONG KONG before 1997. Will Falkland repeat itself? Would the Brits travel their downsized army/ Navy and Marines half way across the Globe to retake the island? Or the Chinese is more patience than Argie to keep their cool and wait for 100 years until the "lease" of HONG KONG expire and march their Red troop into HONG KONG without blood shred. Interesting ... :smok:
Seem that the Brits NEVER learn their lesson from the sinking of PRINCE OF WALES & REPLUSE in malaya ...
What makes you say that exactly? The Falklands task force had fairly good air cover and the FAA Sea-Harriers did a good job covering the ships. The Fuerza del Aera did cause some naval losses but it was hardly comparable with the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, and a significant number of Argentine aircraft were lost. What makes you think we didn't do that well either? The campaign was successful and every bought fought by the British in the Falklands was won by them. Yes it came at a cost of men and materials, but the Argentine dead, wounded and captured in every battle and the campaign as a whole was far greater. The British managed to sail a task force half way round the world, reinvade, win every battle and win the campaign. ...and you don't think they did that well?
I must admit, that on paper the whole operation is a minefield and disaster waiting to happen. A forced landing into occupied terratory with limited air and artillary when the entire land is a defenders dream. All done thousands of miles away from your bases so that anything you need you have to take with you and plan for weeks in advance of the landing. Your entire air cover limited to a few planes off two ships, and a naval fleet which has significant holes against untested missle attacks. The whole opperation is a series of if's and buts in that If the brits had lost a carrier or troop ship out to sea if the argies had commited their navy if the argies had left their better troops on the isle if the argies had landed any armour if the brits harriers had proved less effective in air to air and a whole multlitied of other things that could have gone horribly wrong. Just imagine if the Sir Gallaghad had took an exocet in the middle of the Atlantic and the sorts of losses the infantry would have sustained them Frankly I am amazed that we pulled it off and it's a strong tribute to our military and lady luck that we did FNG PS, if the chinese had done the same to HK there would be nothing we could do. UK vs China? I don't think so.
:lol: I am fan of SAS, PARAs and Gukahas, esp on their brave and outstanding performance on Falkland. I hv no doubt that Brits did relatively well as indivdual fighting soldier but not on their intelligence. The losses of valunable warship warships attributed to their lack of low level air picture (radar) in which they have greatly under estimated the Argies. Thus i am only commenting on the material losses, which seem ... significant. I think the losses of modern UK fleets are substantial and more impactful or compare to Argies Outdated warship and expandable conscripts. Bottom line, An Empire fading away ... Of course not to forget that many countries, including mine benefited from Bits colontial rules. Send my rgds to your Queens! :smok:
I must concur with Simon on this one. The British ground-troops devastated the Argentine forces in every meeting during the Falklands War. The British Paras and SAS were kicking-arse and taking names. The Exocet missle was VERY tough to defend against at that point in time, but I too admire the courage of those Argentine Skyhawk fighter-pilots. The Harrier pilots showed skill and determination as well. Didn't one of the royal family serve in helicopters in that war? The British sub HMS Conqueror sinking the ex USS Phoenix (CL-46) Brooklyn-class Light-Cruiser. renamed the ARA General Belgrano is the only incident in which a nuclear-powered sub has torpedoed and sunk a ship in hostile-action. A very interesting read too. In an aside, we always used to joke about hitting the lottery and buying a sheep-ranch in the Falklands. Great way to sweep for minefields, eh? Baaa, Baaa, BOOOM! Mutton-chops again tonight?! Tim
Has anyone mentioned that most of the British helicopters recorded as lost went down with the Atlantic Conveyor unmanned ?
25th anniversary of the Falklands war this year. Still remains a bone of contention between the UK and Argentina
After serving with someone who was there I can confirm this. There was also a lot of regulars so most of the best troops were on the islands.
Werent most of the argentines conscripts ? or what was the ratio between ground troops and conscripts. It's no wonder the british won the majority(or most)land encounters considering you had highly trained and professional troops versus conscripts with probably just their boot camp behind them. The sea was different as attacking argentinian pilots were pros.
There was a far greater amount of professional soldiers amongst the Argentine ground forces than is popularly believed in the UK at least. Even amongst the conscripts only the private soldiers were national servicemen, their NCOs and officers were entirely full timers. Even then, Goose Green came pretty close and again was a much closer affair than is popularly believed too and if it weren't for Jones's solitary charge reinvigorating the attack 2 Para could have been in very serious trouble, the attack had stalled and with dawn approaching the defending conscripts were feeling more confident. 2 Para would have be caught out in the open in daylight facing entrenched MGs... Similarly Wireless Ridge pitted 1 Para on the British side against the Argentine 1st Parachute Regiment, tough professionals, all full timers and certainly not conscripts. I'm not too sure about the other engagements, I'll have a google later when I get a chance.
I think it was the Max Hasting account of the War that commented that even poorly trained conscripts will feel invisible if they're in a strong position firing down slope with lots of ammo. Classically your supposed to have 3 to 1 in number before launching an attack. The Para didn't find out until after the battle just how severly they had been out numbered. Bet that was a bit of an eek! moment.
No doubt. But the discovery that they were not invincible in such positions, IMHO, was a big factor in the collapse of Argentine resistance aroun Port Stanley. And the fact that the British prevailed under such unfavorable circumstances shows the benefits of a well-trained, professional military.
I imagine that the best aspect of a profesional/well trained army is persistance under fire. To stay at your post when all are running, to run at other peoples posts when everyone else ducked. I guess persistance in the face of fire is what ultimatly seperates the winners from losers. FNG