Argentina wants a provocative 'Falklands are ours' badge at 2012 Olympics

I doubt that Argentina will ever seek to re-take the islands militarily.

First of all, as John Green pointed out, the military sitiuation in the islands has changed since 1982, meaning that the Argentinians would face a much tougher task to succesfully invade the islands, even if they were able to surprise us.

But secondly, what would Argentina gain from such an invasion?

Argentina has changed since 1982. It is no longer a failing military dictatorship, but a democracy that is enjoying a high level of ecomic development. Why put that at risk with the opprobrium from the international community that an unprovoked invasion of the Falklands would generate?

I appreciate that the Falklands may be more attractive than they have in the past by virtue of the oil and gas reserves, but an invasion to secure them would again only see the international community condemning Argentina for such an aggressive act.

A much better course of action would be to wait for the oil and gas reserves to be realised and then soften their stance to allow Argentina to share some of the benefits via the support industry.

After all, if Argentina was ready to re-take the islands, wouldn’t they have done so when our attention was diverted on both Iraq and Afghanistan?

I just can’t see an invasion happening – Argentina have too much to lose.

IE

…meaning the UK forces would have to field the larger forces…

Why? We didn’t need ‘larger forces’ back in 1982! :diablo:

I’m no Montgomery or Patton, but if the Argentineans made quick work of moving in, they’d be set up before the UK-based gear you describe could get there. After all you only have a handful of C-17s and no A400s.
Then, they’d be the defenders and the UK the invaders…meaning the UK forces would have to field the larger forces described by Bmused55 in the post above.

I’m not so sure. The Argentineans did exactly that last time round. Moved in quick and dug in.

We still sent them home.

I’m no Montgomery or Patton, but if the Argentineans made quick work of moving in, they’d be set up before the UK-based gear you describe could get there. After all you only have a handful of C-17s and no A400s.
Then, they’d be the defenders and the UK the invaders…meaning the UK forces would have to field the larger forces described by Bmused55 in the post above.

I think there is enough kit there to fend off until the forces arrived.
They were defending last time, remember.

Whether the UK can defend them depends to a great extent on how much warning they have of a probable attempt, and how many forces the UK really has available. If they have some notice they can shift some extra Typhoons if they can find any, and some ground forces by air. C17s could be particularly interesting here as they could send some quite nasty bits of kit, like Apaches, MLRS, heavy arty ect. With a defenders advantage, sending well equipped defensive troops would also have a big impact, if the UK sends 1000 troops in C130s, then the Argies could need to find as many as 3000 to counter that.

I’m no Montgomery or Patton, but if the Argentineans made quick work of moving in, they’d be set up before the UK-based gear you describe could get there. After all you only have a handful of C-17s and no A400s.
Then, they’d be the defenders and the UK the invaders…meaning the UK forces would have to field the larger forces described by Bmused55 in the post above.

Ha ha, sounds about right. Might as well have a go, eh?! Love it.

As I understand it, there is a larger resident military force on the Falklands today, than the token force that was present during the initial invasion in 82? Would that not make the task of invading much more difficult this time round?

The token force present on the FI in 1982 was about 20. And that was the marines on the survey ship.
They had little more than a rocket propelled Grenade launcher – which did some damage to an Argentine Submarine IIRC.

Wasn’t it actually the Navy that provided most of the air cover?
I seem to remember the RN Harriers came up trumps against the much faster aggressor aircraft due to their maneuverability.

I think you’re right on the five to one ratio on attacker to defender.
Even then, I am confident our forces there could hold out as they’ll likely be better equipped and most will already have been battle hardened in Afghan and Iraq.

However, I don’t think the Argentineans will ever try again. They’ll huff and puff, buts that’s as far as they’ll go.
We gave them a sound beating in 82. They did not expect such a response and when it came we surprised them with the speed and resolve our forces had.
That epic cross country tab and immediate and effective attack by the Paras will not have been forgotten.

#39

Most large scale movements of armed forces is presaged by an increase in radio traffic thus alerting the opposition. I’ve no doubt that we monitor Argentinian traffic continuously which enables us to tailor our response.

A sea crossing by a significant number of transports would be readily visible from satellites. I wouldn’t think that we will move submarine units in response to a perceived threat. I’m sure that they are there already with at least one on station. As the threat increases then more submarines will arrive.

An invasion of the Falklands is a formidable undertaking. Whether by sea or, which hardly seems possible, by air – remember – the FAA/RAF achieved air superiority very quickly – any aggressor would need to feel supremely confident of their ability and resources. Argentina is not in that league.

PPP mentions a three to one ratio of attacker to defender. I think that a more desirable ratio is five to one. For the Argentinians, I don’t think that even this would be enough.

John Green

As long as Prince William is there flying a Helo, believe me, we would soon find everything needed to defend the Islands, money would be no problem, as we could probably afford to buy an aircraft carrier from the Americans, complete with fighter a/craft up to it’s gunnles;)
Jim.

Lincoln .7 :diablo:

As I understand it, there is a larger resident military force on the Falklands today, than the token force that was present during the initial invasion in 82? Would that not make the task of invading much more difficult this time round?

@John Green

The nuclear powered submarine would have to transit to the location, and since we have about 8, it is probably going to be a long trip! There are no Tornados in the Falklands, they were replaced by Typhoons a while back.

Whether the UK can defend them depends to a great extent on how much warning they have of a probable attempt, and how many forces the UK really has available. If they have some notice they can shift some extra Typhoons if they can find any, and some ground forces by air. C17s could be particularly interesting here as they could send some quite nasty bits of kit, like Apaches, MLRS, heavy arty ect. With a defenders advantage, sending well equipped defensive troops would also have a big impact, if the UK sends 1000 troops in C130s, then the Argies could need to find as many as 3000 to counter that.

I’d hardly call the Type-42 ‘clapped-out’ in 1982; the Royal Navy were also using (almost) identical ships against Argentina and they were still being built in Britain.

Also one of the reasons that the Argentine Air force did so well against RN Type-42 destroyers was that they’d been practicing their attack strategy against their own ships. All-in-all I think the Argentines had a very healthy respect for the Type-42; the two Argentina had were arguably the best ships in their fleet.

I don’t know about ‘most damage’ more ships were sunk or damaged by British-made bombs!

Don’t forget that Argentina used plenty of British-made equipment during the Falklands War. 😉

Yes clapped out type 42 Destroyers and 40 year old Aircraft Carrier

Our French allies did the most damage with the Super Etendard and Exocet

Germany is still waiting for payment for countless MB G-Wagons supplied to them.

Did I mention the Skyhawks from Uncle Sam?

Given the right backing and leadership our armed forces(all arms) are the best in the world and would I am sure would make it 2-0(but I hope it never comes to that!)

…aerial transport into Stanley Airport and the effusive welcome of the RAF’s Tornado’s…

Only if they attack in a squadron of time-machines! 😀

John G. Having read what you have just posted, I can now sleep soundly tonight, your answer makes good reading;)
Cheers.
Jim.

Lincoln .7

#31

I think that we’re un-necessarily pessimistic about our ability to defend the Falklands, they are after all situated some three hundred miles separate from the South American Continent.

Any attack by Argentina would require either a sea crossing by a huge number of vessels transporting the invading forces which would place them in the loving arms of the nuclear attack submarines of the Navy or, aerial transport into Stanley Airport and the effusive welcome of the RAF’s Tornado’s and radar directed guided missile ground defences.

Alternatively, the Argentinians might have a numerically powerful and well equipped parachute army that has sufficient air transport to carry thousands of men and their equipment plus food and hospital supplies and facilities.

However the General commanding the Argentinian parachute soldiers will, as part of his Staff training, have read the history of the German parachute attack on Crete during WW2 (Pyrhic victory) and the story of Arnham (disaster).

They’ll then decide that all this is not for them and continue dancing the Tango and playing rugby.

Don’t forget; Argentinians are Italians who speak Spanish but think that they are British.

Don’t forget that Argentina used plenty of British-made equipment during the Falklands War. 😉

cri848, Yep, and don’t forget they may also have the help of the “Frogs” to help them again, like supplying exocet missiles and the technitions to teach them.
Jim.

Lincoln .7

#20 &21
The point is that if we won’t defend a few “sparsely populated islands in the middle of nowhere” what else won’t we defend?
That’s how the rest of the world sees it.
If the French and the British armies had confronted the German Army when they marched into the demilitarized Rhineland, the chances are that WW2 would not have happend or, at least, been postponed giving the British more time to re-arm.
John Green

With all the Uk defense cuts, I’d suggest a large part of the world (at least those who care about these things) thinks the UK is unable to defend the islands.
Mind you I didn’t say unwilling or the forces not being brave or smart enough, but technically unable to project power in the region.

A lot of people here dislike Thatcher and Reagan…but their underlying thesis of “weakness invites war” could very well be proved here.

It Argentina really want the islands, they might try to test UK resove again.
And without carriers or Vulcans, I’m not sure they is a great deal the MoD could do to stop them.