Falklands Island War

[Hoover]

Greetings to a denizen of the home of the old HQ 1 Armd Div. Are you a BAOR Brat?

No, I am German and served for 12 years in the German Army, first as an Engineer, then in a LogBn.

Amateurs may talk tactics while the professionals talk logistics

That was written above the BnCdr office

But back t topic: I am knowing a Argentine who was as a young man in the Falklands, and also I am knowing some British soldiers who fought there. And yes, morale within the Argie forces were very high at the beginning, but when they realized that the British will fight for their islands morale went below zero. I think that, if the Argie Air Force would have been able to sink one of the carriers morale would rise again. And a soldier with high morale is dangerous.

The air superiority was important if not crucial. The Argies were only to attacking in hit and run tactics due to the range limits of the Mirages and Skyhawks. Without the carriers the Brits wouldn´t have that superiority.

In German we have a saying: Am Ende ist man immer schlauer! (One is always wiser after the event. )
The Argies fought the air/sea battle in very traditional manner, with the targets only being combat ships. I have highly respect for the Argie pilots.

Regards
Frank

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Hoover and the community as a whole. Howdy Frank! Well sir, in light of your installment of Thursday - June 07, 2018 - 5:58am, old yours truly would like to recommend the following thread for your perusal. The thread is entitled as FALKLANDS WAR CONSCRIPTS TORTURED - VERY FAKE NEWS and it is located within the OTHER ERA section of the forum. The thread's author goes by the nom de plume of Peter Tsolakis and its creation date is Saturday - November 18, 2017 - 1:07pm. Do not let the thread's title fool you. The contents of the thread does offer an illuminating glimpse into just a few of the trials and tribulations of Argentinian garrison life in the Falklands archipelago. In it's own unique way, the thread is as much about the maintenance of morale as it is about the administration of non-judicial punishment. I hope you find the thread of some interest to yourself. Well, that's my latest two cents worth on this hypothetical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in the Fatherland. Auf Wiedersehen!


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

I would suggest this is essentially a political question.

The loss of an aircraft carrier might have had a substantial impact on British politics, especially as it might involve several hundred fatalities. This would bring into question the whole premise of following the military rather than political route and might have forced a compromise diplomatic solution.

I would question how important direct air support really was to the ground fighting on either side. Once the British were ashore ground attacks by aircraft seem to have had limited impact. None of the seven battalion-sized ground battles seem to have relied significantly on air support.

So, I would propose that sinking an airaft carrier before the British had landed was likely to have had a bigger impact than after they were ashore.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Sid Guttridge and the community as a whole. Howdy Sid! Well sir, in respect to your installment of Saturday - June 09, 2018 - 4:49am, old yours truly believes you might have a kindred spirit with brother T.A. Gardner. The gentleman's posting of Tuesday - May 08, 2018 - 9:36pm essentially reflects your point of view. To recap, after the British landing force was ashore, the loss of one of the Royal Navy's jeep carriers would become a moot issue - at least from an operational perspective anyway. Since I really have no idea just how deeply British aviation assets were involved with either close air support or harassment and interdiction missions for the landing force, I shall forego disputing the importance OR lack of importance of the theoretical loss of that singular Royal Navy jeep carrier. However, the untoward loss of one of these Royal Navy jeep carriers might very well impact the geopolitical dimension of this conflict. I, for one, am not of the belief that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would seek any accommodation with the likes of Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri. She is too deeply invested with this enterprise to do anything other than fighting on until the final victory. I rather imagine if push came to shove, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher might very well invoke Article Five of the N.A.T.O. Charter. After all, the Falkland Islands are still the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. It's just some sobering food for thought. Yorkshire pudding anyone? Well, that's my latest two cents or pence worth on this continuing Anglo-Argentinian saga - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[South]

Good morning Uncle Bob, Sid, T.A. and all,

Ref: Article 5 of the N.A.T.O. Charter;
Ref: Falkland Islands are still the sovereign territory of the U.K.

Re: "the geopolitical dimension of this conflict";

Here's the headache; it involves invoking Article 5 and the geopolitical consequences;

I'm going to do some rambling that's still correct and accurate for our purposes here - research - but much is still going to be absent.

Former French PM Rocard (1988-1991) mentioned publicly that NATO Article 5 had a secret clause. Basically, NATO equipment and shared resources (Do not think of EuroCorps - This post is serious) was for members' use for their "metropolitan" area and not outside of this area. For example, NATO member Portugal could not use NATO-provided equipment outside of Iberia Portugal such as places like Angola. France could not use NATO resources for eg use in the Comoros. .............Except that above-referenced secret clause allowed the UK to make an exception(s).

When France discovered the secret clause to Article 5, they withdrew from the peacetime military component of NATO, never to completely return.

The geopolitical consequences were immense (past tense).

In lieu of Yorkshire pudding, are there any decent seafood restaurants in Stanley ?

Feet Notes:

All this stuff is not pure science or material with mathematical certainty.....I'm setting myself up for a fall; the aforesaid is not certain either. After all ,the inert elements are not inert.. In 1973, during the 1973 (can't spell) Yom Kippur war, NATO Portugal informed the US that Portuguese territory (to wit: the Azores) could not be used to resupply Israel. Portugal had extensive business interest in Arabie and at risk. Herr Reverend Dr Kissinger recommended that NATO Portugal reevaluate their policy soonest within the same day - or Lajes, Azores would be the seat of government of a new sovereign nation soonest within the same day. On reflection, NATO Portugal cooperated with the USAF resupply runs.

French restaurants are also good for seafood culinary delights with Tahiti radioactive garnishes being premier.

I'm now in the mood for a small, light breakfast of 2 dozen White Castle hamburgers and 2 dozen cans (Thimbles !) of Whitstones carbonated water. I'll skip the seafood delights even if only mercury-laden.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in light of your installment of Sunday - June 10, 2018 - 2:56am, old yours truly is really miffed with you! Did you really have to go and louse up my ARTICLE FIVE gambit with FACTS!? Boy, the unmitigated nerve of some people! Actually, I am still not very clear about the SECRET or NOT-SO-SECRET status of the Falkland Islands. The sheer physical distance notwithstanding, would not the Falkland Islands still be considered just as British as the principal British Isles themselves? As far as I know, and that's not exactly saying much, the Falkland Islands are neither considered nor seen as colonial possession by Her Majesty's government. Have I misconstrued OR taken something out of its proper context here? In the final analysis, if you were the commander of the Falklands Task Force, would you not be pleased as punch to see a United States Navy Battle Group steaming over the horizon? Incidentally, on other forum related topics orientated to the greater Falklands dispute, I often hear what is tantamount to a THUNDERING SILENCE when it is "suggested" that the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand could be doing a tad more to support the mother country during its time of need other than paying polite lip service to HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. Generally speaking, I am told over AND over again that there are no collective military provisions as such within the conglomeration known as the British Commonwealth of Nations and therefore, no one is technically obligated to support London. I guess we all live and learn. Speaking of living and learning, did you have the marijuana munchies a little while ago!? TWO DOZEN WHITE CASTLE HAMBURGERS and TWO DOZEN CANS OF WHITSTONE CARBONATED WATER!? It only goes to prove that God looks after fools and little children. It's just some friendly food for thought. Hostess Twinkies anyone? Well, that's my latest two cents or pence worth on this now meandering hypothetical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[South]

Good morning Uncle Bob (Just got up; AM for me),

You hit on the issue. What London considered as their non-colonial homeland called the "UK", Washington, D.C. did not. Aristotelian logic is not involved. Good old international relations governed. Much I don't know about.

A related example; France's Algeria, constituting 3 Departments of France, was considered by many (I'm using this vague term on purpose) as not being an integral component of France.

Another, but more minor example; When President Reagan ordered the liberation of Granada, the US did not inform PM Margaret Thatcher who was the technical political leader of the island. This involved a "diplomatic skirmish" because the protocol was not adhered to by the US.

Understand and agree: The British Commonwealth of Nations doesn't have a military component. Any impolite interference with the Nigerian oil fields, however, just might generate some "activity" by selected members of the the British Commonwealth of Nations and some friends.

New Zealand ? Aren't they still busy working the RAINBOW WARRIOR campaign ? Regardless, the place is safe. NZ is a nuclear-free nation.

It would be unethical - and illegal - to munch on marijuana muchies within the Commonwealth of Virginia, less the Northern Virginia Autonomous Oblast.

The above constitutes my demonstration that I know less about all this than what I do know.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Hoover]

Hello Sirs,

the §5 NATO contract restricts the area on Europe and North America. So Great Britain could not ask for NATO help in that conflict.

For us it is no question that the Falklands are a part of Great Britain, but talk with Argentines abaout that topic. My friend still calls the Malvinas as "currently under British administration".

So I am afraid that the conflict is not yet solved.

Regrads from the sunny Verden in Germany
Frank

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Hoover,

I would suggest that while the UK regards the Falklands as very definitely British, they are not part of Great Britain.

It is this ambiguity that gives the Argentines a tiny amount of leverage to exploit.

I suspect that, had Galtieri not invaded the Falklands, some form of compromise arrangement on sovereignty would have been reached long ago. Certainly that was the apparent drift of British foreign and defence policy in the decade before the Falklands War.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, and I am of the opinion that islands are British in international law (as presumably are the Argentines, who present it as a decolonization, not legal, issue), pragmatic considerations imply that sooner or later such a compromise, may again be attempted. However, this relies on memories fading on all sides and the Argentines not doing anything so rash again. However, I am 62 and doubt I will live to see it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both Sid Guttridge and the community as a whole. Howdy Sid! Well sir, In respect to your posting of Wednesday - June 20, 2018 - 8:41am, old yours certainly admires your testicular fortitude for your frank commentary concerning the United Kingdom's dominion over the Falklands Archipelago. In light of your candor, at what fine point of legality does the British Overseas Territory of the Falklands become a stepchild of Great Britain? As far as my recollection serves, the repetitive assertion of the forum's disparate Anglophilic constituency is that the Falkland Islands are as much a part of Great Britain as is the Isle of Wight and to suggest otherwise is tantamount to religious heresy. One could almost come to that very conclusion after Her Majesty's Government went through the trouble and considerable expense to construct what would become the Mount Pleasant Royal Air Force Base in year 1985 and the creation of such an installation could easily infer territorial permanence. Beyond that, is the not so inconsequential matter of political self-determination for the fine burghers of the Falkland Islands. It was (and is) my "understanding" that they want nothing to do with Argentinian Governance since there is never any certainty what sort of regime will hold sway in Buenos Aires. In short, the Falklanders see themselves as British and nothing but British. With that said, old Uncle Bob is not terribly optimistic over any future agreement which MIGHT transform the disputed Falklands Archipelago into a condominium not too dissimilar from the arrangement that France and The Netherlands have over the bisected island of Saint Martin (France) and Sint Maarten (The Netherlands) in the Caribbean basin. Like yourself Sid, I am also 62 years old and I too doubt if I will ever live to see it. Well, that's my latest two cents or pence worth on this continuing Anglo-Argentinian saga - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourself of Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Hoover and the community as a whole. Howdy Hoover! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Wednesday - June 20, 2018 - 8:15am, old yours truly is not terribly surprised over the social attitudes and political positions of your Argentinian friends and acquaintances. During the actual course of the now thirty six year distant Falkland Islands War, I cannot say there was anything near a unanimity of support for either Great Britain or Argentina among my friends and acquaintances either. For the most part, no one had heard of OR much less knew where the Falkland Islands were located and when you clarified those two geographic points, they in turn would then inquire why anyone would want to fight over an obscure rock in the quite distant South Atlantic Ocean. I had no rational answer for that pointed question. I would say ten percent of support went to Great Britain and ten percent of support went to Argentina. The remaining eighty percent could have cared less over the entire sordid matter. Now, it is my layman's opinion that if there is yet another flare up over the present day Falkland Islands, I believe that you will see even less "AMERICAN" support for Great Britain NOW than as it was in year 1982. That is the consequence of the not so subtle incremental changes in the ethnic demography within the United States of America since year 1982. I will forego elaborating on those incremental changes since it would constitute expressly prohibited political discussion within the forum. And like yourself, I also concur that the Falkland Islands conflict is not yet solved and it is not likely that the Falkland Islands conflict will ever be solved. Since Great Britain cannot invoke article five of the N.A.T.O. Charter, then the United Kingdom ought to start lining up allies NOW rather than later. You can bet that Argentina will be doing the same. Well, that's my latest two cents or pence worth on this continuing Anglo-Argentinian saga - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in the Fatherland. Auf Wiedersehen!


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[Hoover]

Dear Robert,

...surprised over the social attitudes and political positions of your Argentinian friends and acquaintances.

In Argentina there is still a lot of stateside propaganda reagrding the "occupied" Malvinas. I am afraid that there are a lot of people there who are believing that. And the Battle for the Falklands are going to be mystified and glorified. I am in doubt that most Argentines had read the excellent book by Martin Middlebrook abaout the Argentines in the Falklands.

There are a lot questions abaout the US and French role in the war which are not discussed to end in my discussion.

France first sold Super Etendard Navy attack planes to Argetine, later, shorty before the invasion, Exocet air-surface missiles. The US provided reconaissance informations about the British sea force, capabilities and LVTP 7 AmTracs. There were only 2 open conflicts in that end of the world:
Tierra del Fuego at the south end of South America and the Falklands. I am sure that both (France and the US) knew what the target of the operation was. And the Argentine plan of occupying the Falklands and start a diplomatic war under support of the USA for finding a political solution is another hint for me.

kindest regards
Frank

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Hoover and the community as a whole. Howdy Hoover! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Friday - June 22, 2018 - 6:19am, old yours truly will duly concede that there is much to discuss gravitating upon the OVERT and COVERT involvement of outside state actors in the Falklands Island War of year 1982. And yes, the Republic of France and the United States of America were the two OVERT principal state actors that had stakes or interests below the Tropic of Capricorn. Now, contrary to your stated assertion, the United States Intelligence Community did NOT provide Argentina with any information regarding the movement of the British Naval Task Force. On the contrary, the United States Intelligence Community provided Great Britain with both satellite and signals data about the activities of the Argentinians. In addition, the United States Navy was shipping fuel to the island of Ascension in support the British operation. Finally, the United States of America also provided Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and Stinger shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles to the British Military Establishment. Incidentally, I am totally mystified about your comment which concerns the L.V.T.P. 7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicle. Yes, the United States Marine Corps upgraded their L.V.T.P. fleet in year 1982, but it is news to me that any such technical information was relayed to the Argentinians. Finally, the COVERT role of neighboring Chile should not be overlooked. The Chilean junta provided Great Britain with the use of its military facilities on the island of Saint Felix out in the Pacific Ocean. Royal Air Force Nimrod MR2 aircraft flew maritime intelligence missions out of Saint Felix and Royal Air Force crewed Chilean marked Canberra bombers also sortied out of Saint Felix. The commandos of the Special Air Service also operated out of Saint Felix. Finally, the Chilean Military Intelligence Services also conducted their own radar tracking and electronic eves dropping on the Argentinians which was naturally passed along to the British. I'll leave any discussion about France's involvement for another installment. On an incidental matter, you alluded to a SECOND CONFLICT in the environs of Tierra del Fuego at roughly the same time of the Falklands Island War. I am personally NOT aware of a SECOND CONFLICT at that time. Could you offer a bit of elaboration on this area of conflict? Thank you very much. Well, that's my latest two cents or pence worth on this continuing Anglo-Argentinian saga - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in the Fatherland. Auf Wiedersehen!

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[aghart]

Argentina had two type 42 destroyers, Tigercat and Blowpipe missiles, and Canberra bombers, all maufactured in the UK. The point is if you sell weapons, it is possible they could be used against your friends or even yourself! So to try and blame the USA or France because their weapons were used in the conflict is wrong.

[Hoover]

Dear Ucle Bob,

I referred to the US help for Argentina BEFORE the Argentine invasion, nut during the war. The US delivered the LVTP 7 and trained the Argentine Marines in amphibious landing tactics. Also there were a small conflict about the Tierra del Fuego long before the Falkland war.

So the US could count at one hand (or two fingers) were the Argentine amphibiuos force would be needed. Falklands or Tierra del Fuego. The latter was a low burning political conflict without real danger of becoming a war. So, only the Falklands were at hand.

And the US supported the Argentines in the years before the war with Britain regarding a political solution of the "post colonial conflict". The Argentine Junta is said being very angry that the US were 100% on British side after the invasion. They hoped for US help at the UN.

Luck for the British, that the proposed invasion was changed from September 1982 (as planned) to April 1982. In September all Etendards would have been Exocet-able and up to 50 rockets would be in stock, and not only 5 Exocet AM39 ready for plane-born use as in April 1982.

Hope that explains my thoughts about the US.

Bye
Frank