The Falklands thread

Don't under estimate the mavity of the French giving us information on Exocet, and delaying deliveries. It sounds like a minor contribution... but just think about what kind of message that sends to potential buyers of French military hardware. Who is going to buy from the French if they give out information like that at a moments notice?

The USA helped us a great deal as well. Least of all the sidewinder missiles which helped the Harrier outmatch anything in the sky.

I do sometimes think though. If the USA were going to be so obvious in helping us, why not just commit fully, and prevent war by threatening direct intervention?

I do think we could retake the Islands now if they were somehow taken, it just might be a little more costly money wise. Tomahawks could replace the long range in land strike capability that the harrier provided, and the type 45's could keep the skies clear. Especially if we get the other two type-45's people seem to be pushing for a lot recently. We also have experience fighting the exact same war in 82, so we know the land and likely logistical problems that might arise. Furthermore our ability to mount a large amphibious assault has improved. We can get more men and kit on land, more quickly than we could in 82. I recall we also have plans for new RFA ships soon, not to mention the new Carriers and Frigates. In 15 years I think the RN is going to be in a good place.

*leans back in armchair*
 
Last edited:
Strife212 said:
It's not possible to retake the Falklands without carriers.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, HMS Ocean could feasibly act as a lynchpin in any amphibious assault on the Falklands, the Type 45s would effectively negate any Air Power that Argentina could manage and not to mention that first the Argentines would have to actually take the Islands to begin with, something they simply do not currently have the military capability of doing.

The RAF have the capability to send significant Air assets from Ascension, The type 45s could effective ground the Argentinian Air Force, Ocean can be outfitted with Apaches which would fill the gaps in Air Superiority, our ground and naval assault forces have a decade of battle hardened experience and our armed forces are far more modern and state of the art than they were comparatively in 1982. Would it be easier with the QE class super carriers....of course....are we incapable of retaking an Argentinian held Falklands....not on your life.

Also that if Argentina attack the UK then the EU are obliged to respond, unlike 1982.

The world is a very different place than in 1982, the disparity between British and Argentine military superiority is enormous despite numbers, and the advent of the EU and the military treaties we have with the US mean that all this 'we can't retake the Falklands without a Carrier' is rhetorical at best.
 
Jokester said:
To be honest, even something like HMS Ocean operating Apaches would be sufficient air power.
Click to expand...

Quite, with the Daring Destroyers and Air Strike support out of Ascension, it is entirely feasible that the UK coud retake the Islands.....the mistake would be to fight the war like they did in 1982....we have a different armed forces and different tactics and operations would be necessary.
 
EdGey said:
I do sometimes think though. If the USA were going to be so obvious in helping us, why not just commit fully, and prevent war by threatening direct intervention?

*leans back in armchair*
Click to expand...

remember the global political situation in 1982....with direct US intervention the situation would have become more than a dispute between two countries....it would have invited the involvement of the Russians and likely China and all the Cold War reactionary posturing and threats that would have created......remember a world where the worlds two military superpowers were lined up facing each other along a iron curtain in Europe and you can see why the US did not send in the gunboats.....
 
That's fair enough then! Do you think the US would threaten direct intervention if the same thing happened today?
 
EdGey said:
That's fair enough then! Do you think the US would threaten direct intervention if the same thing happened today?
Click to expand...

I doubt they would need to.....as the EU treaty means that an attack on the UK is an attack on the EU and hence why countries don't generally mess with the EU or it's members at least not directly as an invasion of the Falklands would require. You can almost guarantee that a CSG would be deployed to the South Atlantic if the UK requested it however, given our current joint military operations and the way that UN resolutions are now enforced compared to 1982....also it is doubtful that China would side with the Argentines given the importance of the UK and the EU to their economy, and similarly with Russia. It is one thing to not support the West against third parties when the third party is not being overtly aggressive, quite another to support a country who has actually invaded your economic ally.....

The reality is that Argentina is no more powerful militarily than Libya and a conventional military occupation of the Falklands would be political and military suicide for Argentina and they know that.
 
Last edited:
EdGey said:
That's fair enough then! Do you think the US would threaten direct intervention if the same thing happened today?
Click to expand...

No, the US has its own interests to look after in South America. This is why their public statements are either in the middle or favour Argentina. However, if the Falklands were attacked I would expect a similar situation as '82 when publicly they offered us no backing but privately supplied fuel, missiles etc.
 
I_M_Weasel said:
But in Argentina they weren't defeated, they were just really unlucky, while the uk were very lucky.

They were unlucky their bombs didn't explode (didn't drop them within correct parameters)

They were unlucky exocet didn't hit carriers (didn't identify targets/Uk countermeasures worked)

While the UK were lucky to hit the Belgrano (would've missed if we'd not been on target)

Lucky that we had better aircraft, with better weapons and pilots....etc


The Argentinians don't really want to accept they were well beat.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of them believe they sank HMS Invincible, we changed HMS Ilustrious into Invincible, Ark Royal into Illustrious then we built a clone carrier in a foreign shipyard (in c 6 months) to hide it as it would have been embarrassing for us. Also all the crew have been kept silent about it for 30 years and all the foreign shipyard workers as well.

Some others think they didn't sink her, but did damaged her, but we magically repaired her at sea so that you couldn't tell she was damaged, naturally also keeping everyone silent etc etc.
 
shine said:
No, the US has its own interests to look after in South America. This is why their public statements are either in the middle or favour Argentina. However, if the Falklands were attacked I would expect a similar situation as '82 when publicly they offered us no backing but privately supplied fuel, missiles etc.
Click to expand...

Reagan publicly announced support for the UK and declared economic and military sanctions against Argentina whilst giveing material support to the UK. Casper Weinberger went as far to offer the use of a US Aircraft Carrier if the British needed it....they didn't.

The US followed a policy of non-interference, due to fears within the constraints of the Cold War and the knowledge that the UK was more than capable of dealing with the situation on its own.
 
Castiel said:
Reagan publicly announced support for the UK and declared economic and military sanctions against Argentina whilst giveing material support to the UK. Casper Weinberger went as far to offer the use of a US Aircraft Carrier if the British needed it....they didn't.

The US followed a policy of non-interference, due to fears within the constraints of the Cold War and the knowledge that the UK was more than capable of dealing with the situation on its own.
Click to expand...

Any links for this?
 
singularity said:
Any links for this?
Click to expand...

The original sources:

D. George Boyce, The Falklands War, Palgrave MacMillan, (2005). page 92. Also see Richardson, L., When Allies Differ: Anglo-American relations during the Suez and Falklands Crises, London, (1996).

And:

http://web1.millercenter.org/poh/falklands/transcripts/falklands_2003_0515.pdf

The wiki quote:

In early May, Casper Weinberger offered the use of an American aircraft carrier. This seemingly extremely generous offer was seen by some as vital: it was noted by Rear Admiral Woodward that the loss of Invincible would have been a severe setback, but the loss of Hermes would have meant an end to the whole operation. Weinberger admitted that there would have been many problems if a request had ever been made; not least, it would have meant U.S. personnel becoming directly involved in the conflict, as training British forces to crew the vessel would have taken years.
Click to expand...
 
EdGey said:
Didn't know that...

I wonder how that would have worked out.
Click to expand...

It would have been awkward at best according to Casper Weinberger, nonetheless the offer was made......US policy was carefully positioned with the cooperation of the British.....the non-interference policy suited both Nations and was carefully orchestrated.

Remember the US had treaties with both the UK through NATO and Argentina through the Rio Pact......The US refused to back Argentina stating that they negated the Rio Pact by being the aggressors and as the UK didn't attack Argentinian soil there wasn't much the Argentinians could do about it.....NATO at that time was limited to attacks within Europe so they used that also.

Today however, the NATO treaty is different because of the Global threat to its members, so in all likelihood the US would be oblieged to support the UK if Argentina decided to be the aggressor once again......and never underestimate the 'special relationship' especially now after a decade of joint military operations globally.

Not that we would need their intervention.
 
Quite a staggering offer really. I couldn't see it going down well in the US or the UK had we accepted it.

Good thing we didn't need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom