PDA

View Full Version : The reasons we retook the Falklands


mooncat
20-05-05, 22:58
The first and obvious reason for our victory in the South Antlantic in 1982 was that the best fighting troops in the world are the British Armed Services.

But while their undisputed valour and sacrifice remains foremost in our memories, a lot of victories were brought about by the incompetence of the Argentine forces and in particular their leadership.

If the Argentine Fleet hadn't retreated back to the Argentine mainland after the sinking of the Belgrano they could have made the Royal Navy's life there a little more hectic than they did, and we could have lost twice as many ships that we tragically did.

If they had started the counter attack straight away when we were pouring men and ordinance ashore, then again, we may have never secured a beach-head at San Carlos. but it was a good few hours before the counter attack came (too little too late). When the 2nd Para were taking Goose Green they were monumentally outnumbered which even shocked them at how many prisoners they took there, Under better leadership, the Argies may have put up a tougher fight.

The Mountain assaults at Harriet and Longdon and Tumbledown were once again answered with no counter-attack (bar a few tragically well aimed shells at longdon) and once we controlled all the high ground above Port Stanley, the War was all but lost to them.

It was a war that the Argentinians should have won, as they had every thing in their favour, yet they still mangaed to lose it through silly mistakes, bad leadership, and the biggest mistake was to squarie up to a force that although smaller was and always will be infinetly better and well trained than they ever could be.

Bombardier
20-05-05, 23:56
Hear hear !, like you say we are good, but they didnt make things as difficult as the could have.

A sharp sal; to all those lost and those that fought there.
Ps : Mooncat I have provided you with an avatar, if its not what you want just change it buddy, its no problem.

Zofo
21-05-05, 10:03
Certainly the Arg. fleet putting back to port was important but the Belgrano was the lesser of the targets required by RN.
The 21 Mayo, the Arg. aircraft carrier was in a pincer movement with Belgrano (outside the TEZ) and carried Etendards and Skyhawks. That vessel was by the most important. An attack was expected by Admiral Woodward and everyone was ready but it never materialised. There had been a problem with the Arg. carrier so it never happened. It could have though.
Woodward had ordered the hunter killer attack subs to find and shadow the Arg. warships - Conqueror as we know found the Belgrano but SSNs Spartan & Superb had not got hold of the carrier. Belgrano was the target.
Its sinking caused the Arg. fleet to withdraw but if Northwood's "game plan" had been less rigid and allowed the Brit submarines the latitude wanted by Woodward, it is possible that both ships would have been sunk.

Matzos
21-05-05, 14:58
I agree with all that has been said.
During the period of the 'war' my unit would receive intell reports from the Islands, one thing that was being reported on was the feeling between the ordinary soldier in the Argentine forces and the Officer ranks. The poor soldier was thrown into field given the basic rations and had to just 'get on with it'. Where the Officers, in many cases, were living the high life. There seemed to be no love lost between the two. There were also noted cases of the Arg. Officers leaving their troops to fight on their own.
And as mooncat stated, the Argentine forces would be facing the best, in my view, fighting force in the world. (sorry to our US friends)

I have just finished a great book published by Penguin, 'The Fight For The "Malvinas"' Its the full account of the war as the Argentinians saw it and in some cases it is an eye opener to the way the war went from the other side.

I must finish with, as a member of the RAF, the bravery of the Argentine pilots was second to none. They know that in some cases they would not be returning to their home bases. Flying at wave top to their targets and having only minutes over the target area and knowing that Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force aircraft would be waiting for them. I sal; their bravery.

Bombardier
21-05-05, 15:55
I sal; their bravery.

Me too ! sal;

Zofo
23-05-05, 12:59
Our mob had a detachment down there in '82 and they could well have been part of the source for your info Matzos. There was an RAF gang there too (pretty much co-located) but each looking at their own targets so to speak. This was not just battle debriefs of prisoners etc or what various recce types came up with on OPs but a little more technical.

Some good briefs came out from that for us (I joined 2 years afterwards but the lessons were still valid).