Why did Argentina fail in the Falklands Conflict?

[Mcgruder]

There have been a lot of threads regarding who is the rightful owner of the falklands, so I want to avoid that and instead focus of the military conflict of 1982 itself.

Argentina had the military advantage, so why did they fail to hold the Falklands from the British?

I am interested in your views on the subject.

[spanish_emperor]

thye had the military advantage? are we talking about the same British Empire? i have relatives in argentina and remember that Argentina made up all this patroism so everyone would arm themselves and go to war...Argentina lost most of its male population and i don't remember argentina having the most up to date weapons. Everybody that went to fight came back on a box, and the Argentinian government didn't surrender but kept sending more men for what? The war was over before it began.

[Yuiis]

thye had the military advantage? are we talking about the same British Empire? i have relatives in argentina and remember that Argentina made up all this patroism so everyone would arm themselves and go to war...Argentina lost most of its male population and i don't remember argentina having the most up to date weapons. Everybody that went to fight came back on a box, and the Argentinian government didn't surrender but kept sending more men for what? The war was over before it began.

Argentinian (From wiki)Casualties and losses649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner
---------
1 cruiser
1 submarine
4 cargo vessels
2 patrol boats
1 spy trawler
---------
25 helicopters
35 fighters
2 bombers
4 transports
25 COIN aircraft
9 armed trainers

Most of its male population? Huh? Other than that, yes, Argentina's military wasn't as advanced and well trained as the British. Noty that I know much more about it really though...

[bushbush]

thye had the military advantage? are we talking about the same British Empire? i have relatives in argentina and remember that Argentina made up all this patroism so everyone would arm themselves and go to war...Argentina lost most of its male population and i don't remember argentina having the most up to date weapons. Everybody that went to fight came back on a box, and the Argentinian government didn't surrender but kept sending more men for what? The war was over before it began.

hahahha, did britain use nukes?

[Rapax]

thye had the military advantage? are we talking about the same British Empire? i have relatives in argentina and remember that Argentina made up all this patroism so everyone would arm themselves and go to war...Argentina lost most of its male population and i don't remember argentina having the most up to date weapons. Everybody that went to fight came back on a box, and the Argentinian government didn't surrender but kept sending more men for what? The war was over before it began.

Do you actually know which war is being discussed?


Argentine did not have the military advantage, at best they had a geographical advantage which in the end was negated by their lack of a powerful navy and an insufficient air force. Britain had the better navy and the better pilots and in the end that's what made the difference.

[Claudius Gothicus]

thye had the military advantage? are we talking about the same British Empire? i have relatives in argentina and remember that Argentina made up all this patroism so everyone would arm themselves and go to war...Argentina lost most of its male population and i don't remember argentina having the most up to date weapons. Everybody that went to fight came back on a box, and the Argentinian government didn't surrender but kept sending more men for what? The war was over before it began.

You're really pushing me to insult you for claiming you have relatives in my country to give you some sort of discussing superiority while knowing nothing about the war or it's consequences. But I won't, however I will call your statement the most ignorant piece of writing that I found in TWC in a long time.

We lost because we had no Carriers and no air base in the Islands, our planes had to resupply mid air and our ground troops were too many to actually give them what they needed, 11000 conscripts are nothing against 3000 well trained royal marines especially if they have been starving for a month.

Using less troops but better trained marine or mountain infantry would have made a lot for us in the ground war.

Finally we ran out of exocet missiles and Super Etendarts

[Rapax]

Finally we ran out of exocet missiles and Super Etendarts

Well just the missiles really. 5 to be precise.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Well just the missiles really. 5 to be precise.

True, no Super Etendarts were damaged, had the war been started a little bit later we could have used much more missiles, and the task force would have been in quite a predicament.

However I always wondered what would have happened if the Royal Marines were repulsed, maybe a second Hiroshima in Cordoba City?

[TheXand]

We won because of superior equipment and training, there really isn't that much more to it.

Be funny if another Falklands War broke out again, apparently the Argentinians are a little peeved that the Brits now have the best jets in the southern hemisphere.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Falklands.html

[emperorpenguin]

However I always wondered what would have happened if the Royal Marines were repulsed, maybe a second Hiroshima in Cordoba City?

There were rumours (denied by the MOD) that a ballistic sub had been sent to Ascension, with the aim of nuking Cordoba should things go badly. President Mitterand's psychologist also said that Thatcher had told Mitterand that Britain would use nukes if France didn't supply Exocet codes to the UK.

All in all it is most likely a rumour. As much as I despise Maggie, she would not have nuked a city over the Falklands. Had we lost there'd have been plenty of re-negotiating and US diplomacy to try to achieve a settlement.

[Azog 150]

We lost because we had no Carriers and no air base in the Islands, our planes had to resupply mid air and our ground troops were too many to actually give them what they needed, 11000 conscripts are nothing against 3000 well trained royal marines especially if they have been starving for a month.

Actually, you did have one carrier (Even if it was an old World War 2 one). It just didn't get used in fear of loosing it.

Also, I don't see where everyone got this idea that the Royal Marines did all the fighting. There was the Para's, the Welsh and Scots Guards and the Ghurkas as well (Although they didn't get to fight becuase as soon as the Argentines heard the Ghurkas were coming they ran away)

Using less troops but better trained marine or mountain infantry would have made a lot for us in the ground war.

There was over a thousand Argentine Marines on the island. They put up a pretty good fight on Mount Longdon, they also fought at Mount Tumbledown. However, they were still outclassed by the British troops and didn't ultimately make that much difference.

[pannonian]

You're really pushing me to insult you for claiming you have relatives in my country to give you some sort of discussing superiority while knowing nothing about the war or it's consequences. But I won't, however I will call your statement the most ignorant piece of writing that I found in TWC in a long time.

We lost because we had no Carriers and no air base in the Islands, our planes had to resupply mid air and our ground troops were too many to actually give them what they needed, 11000 conscripts are nothing against 3000 well trained royal marines especially if they have been starving for a month.

Absolutely. The Royal Marines tend to perform worse when they're well fed, so it's British doctrine to keep them hungry for success, and just plain hungry. They advanced relentlessly on the Argentine machine guns, not because they were professional and believed in the mission, but because they were starving and desperate to capture Argentine supplies, or failing that, to capture Argentine soldiers to eat.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Absolutely. The Royal Marines tend to perform worse when they're well fed, so it's British doctrine to keep them hungry for success, and just plain hungry. They advanced relentlessly on the Argentine machine guns, not because they were professional and believed in the mission, but because they were starving and desperate to capture Argentine supplies, or failing that, to capture Argentine soldiers to eat.

I was referring to the Argentinian forces I just missed a coma sorry. I was pointing out that the British had enough troops and they were in perfect condition while we had too much and in terrible conditions.

Azog: Yes I know there were Argentinian Marines in the islands, and they performed quite well for their possibilities, but yeah the entire line was collapsing and their equipment was not adequate for night fighting.

The Junta also made the terrible mistake of sending troopers from a sub tropical area to fight a war in the South Atlantic. They used too much soldiers without thinking about logistics and once the British arrived the ARA(Navy) disappeared completely from the operation until the sinking of Belgrano

[William the Bastard]

IIRC the better trained Argie troops were all kept on the Chilean border in case they were attacked from that direction. Don't know how much difference it would make had they been on the Islands though. Probably a few more dead but the outcome would have been the same.

[Barbarian Nobility]

As far as I understood the Argentinians maintray soldiers were 16year old conscripts....fighting the SAS

But to be fair it had alot to do with british covert operations eliminating the threat of Argentine airforce and missiles which proved themselves very capable of damaging expensive british military hardware

[MaximiIian]

Why did Argentina fail?
They were fighting Britain.

Britain.

I rest my case.

[Holger Danske]

Why did Argentina fail?
They were fighting Britain.

Britain.

I rest my case.

Worthless argument...

The main reason the Argentine military failed was because of it's inability to gain air superirority and effectively combat the british warships. Had the Argentine airforce been more competent then perhaps the British would have faced far greater casualties than they did. Kodos of cause to the British for taking advantage of this shortcoming.

[Captain Jin]

Worthless argument...

The main reason the Argentine military failed was because of it's inability to gain air superirority and effectively combat the british warships. Had the Argentine airforce been more competent then perhaps the British would have faced far greater casualties than they did. Kodos of cause to the British for taking advantage of this shortcoming.

It wasn't so much incompetence as it was time on station concerns. They had to fly from the mainland and by the time they reached their area of operation they weren't looking at a surplus of fuel. That's a considerable thing to have to deal with.

[Rapax]

It wasn't so much incompetence as it was time on station concerns. They had to fly from the mainland and by the time they reached their area of operation they weren't looking at a surplus of fuel. That's a considerable thing to have to deal with.

There's an argument to be made that British pilots had better training and apparently air tactics as Argentine fighters seemed to lose every engagement against Harriers, even from positions of superiority.

[Captain Jin]

There's an argument to be made that British pilots had better training and apparently air tactics as Argentine fighters seemed to lose every engagement against Harriers, even from positions of superiority.

I guess that's true. But I guess I was just arguing that they weren't incompetent. It does seem staggering that the Brits could establish air superiority with Harriers.