Falklands -If it happened again could we take them back?

Discussion in 'Falkland Islands (Op CORPORATE)' started by predatorplus, Jun 17, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I made a video to pay tribute to the British victory in Falklands 25 years ago, now I knew this would happen and it has, it has caused a huge uproar from the argie people and one yank…

    The yank said ‘take the islands now, with its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan they are weak and won’t be able to retake them’ (well along those lines)

    This comment got me thinking…

    A: even though we are in these two operations we still have troops back home (right now I think the paras and marines are home right now??), now they where the main fighting force that retook the island along with the welsh guards (please correct any wrong information)

    B: they all have recent battle experience that said to be worst than Falklands war, the argentine army doesn’t have any recent battle experience (last being the 1st gulf war)

    C: since 1982 we have upgraded a lot of weapon systems, plus new subs ships air craft carriers etc, where as the Argie are still mostly using the same kit as they did in 1982.

    D: the FDF and British garrison on the island is larger than it was in 1982 and now also has aircraft, where as in 82 it was a small detachment of marines and no aircraft and some FDF with WW2 rifles.

    C: we have better aircraft and instead of the paras having to sail down they could jump into battle?? And maybe see the marines jumping?? To response time will be cut from a few weeks to a few days

    D: In 1982, we didn’t have very strong ties in the EU, but now ‘are’ stronger. But does the Falklands come under EU ‘rules’ like some other EU overseas terrorises? Where as war on one EU country = war on all

    These are just my thoughts, but I may be a bit misinformed as im not in the loop yet, so please feel free to correct, alter or add to that, and I would really like to hear your opinions and views on this, possible but unlikely 2nd invasion that by the looks of youtube and other sites would be 100% supported by the argie people…

  2. E: tomahawk cruise missiles heading for Bueno Aires.
  3. Argentina re-equipped after 1982 but really has't done a lot since - most of their stuff is decades out of date. Our gear, while less in numbers, is at least relatively modern and we have precision weapons. Wouldn't say it would be easy, but I think UK would still win.

    Nice vid, BTW.
  4. cheers mate, and just incase some of you are sitting there and have jsut come out of your cave, and thinking 'what video' here is the link...

  5. Only problem is most of the Naval task force is either "mothballed" (or whatever the precise navy term is) or has been sold to Chile, India, Pakistan etc.

    The Garrison down south does include aircraft (Tornado's from memory) and the FIDF is beefed up, but are the armed forces too stretched?

    We've a fairly major presence in 2 Op theatres (Herrick and Telic)
  6. The real question now, as in 1982, is why a p1ssant third world country like Argentine with crippling economic problems would think they could take us on in the first place, no?
  7. Depends whether the delightful Kirchner wants to continue to be awkward, or really p!ss us off.

    Besides wars always take people's minds off of problems at home (in theory anyway)
  8. i think that the islands are a card that is only played when the govnerment is losing face with its people, im not sure what the situation is in argieland at the mo...
  9. Presidential elections later this year, can't remember when though

  10. C: we have better aircraft and instead of the paras having to sail down they could jump into battle?? And maybe see the marines jumping?? To response time will be cut from a few weeks to a few days

    The reason the Paras and the marines had to tab/yomp to goose green and then to stanley is that 3 or the 4 chinooks that would have transported them across the island were lost, they had the same c-130 Herc now as they did back then, but it was only used to ferry RAF to and from accension islands, the problem is that the conflict was 8000 miles away from blighty, hence the reason why the navy task force was sent with helicopters intended to drop the men somewhere near.

    Also The welsh gaurds were sadly decimated by an attack on the sir galahad, and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) were only able to send out a small force to backup 42 cdo, I wouldn't describe them as the main fighting force, though no doubt they performed admirably.

    The majourity of the fighting was done by 2 and 3 para, the scots gaurds and 3 cdo brigade, the conscripts facing the gurkas heard of their reputation and ran away!

    To answer the original question, given the lack of funding given to the navy I would doubt we could send out a task force to recapture the Falklands, but I doubt given the size of the garrison on the FI (500 plus FIDF) and the qaulity of the argintinian army they would dare attack it this time, and if they did I don't think they would be successful.

    That being said, everything I know about the Falklands is learned from books and stories told by old sqauddies and the guys who went there certainly gave us some big boots to fill
  11. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our fast attack subs aren't exactly a key requirement for garrisoning Basra. Express delivery of Tomahawks to B-A aside, if I were to be sat aboard an Argentinian troopship heading toward the islands, I'd be bricking it.
  12. The strikes by the Vulcans (literally days before they were due to be scrapped, never mind mothballed), although they did relatively little physical damage, changed the Argentines' plans. Instead of increasing the number of their aircraft on the islands (which would have given them air superiority, thus perhaps preventing the ability of the British forces to land without heavy casualties and scuppering supply), they were retained in Argentina. Although we still have an aerial tanker force that would take the place of the Victor tankers used then, we don't have bombers that have the ability to allow crew changes during flight.

    The Exocet missiles used by the Argentines showed the vulnerability of ships, so flying off an aircraft carrier may not be a durable proposition.

    No, if the Falkland islands were garrisoned to the same level as in 1982, retaking the islands would be a difficult proposition.

    With the current garrison, it's a bit of a different matter. Provided that they could keep a suitable length of shore open (for supply and reinforcement) and prevent the Argentines from establishing forward air bases (thus denying air superiority), I have confidence that the Argentines wouldn't be able to conquer the islands, though they would probably be able to establish quite large land gains.

    After that, it would become a war of attrition. Whichever country was prepared to accept the greatest losses would win. Provided that the airfields remained in British hands (and usable), British forces could inflict greater casualties and end up the overall winner.

    The Argentines would also need to send in all of their forces and resupply logistics at the beginning of the invasion because to delay would leave them (as in 1982) at the mercy of British submarines.

    There, now if the General Staff need any assistance, they just need to PM me. Alternatively, if the Argentine Government would like some pointers, there would be the issue of some rather large wads of cash to consider first.

    While the Argentines have a bee in their bonnet about sovereignty of Las Malvinas, I suspect that if they actually saw what the place looks like, they'd give the place a wide berth. We, on the other hand, have British subjects living there and have the moral obligation to defend them.
  13. Whatever, ignore the Yank (and tell him I, his fellow countryman, wants him to kindly shut the feck up). The British armed forces can easily defend them.
  14. Chief - I'd really, really like to believe you, but the sad fact is that if there were to be another conflict, it wouldn't be easy and it would be very costly.

    By maintaining a credible deterrent, a lot of lives will be saved.
  15. Heard a former Chief of Defence Staff answering this question on TV last week.

    In a nutshell, he reckoned that it could be done but only if the UK pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't fight wars on 3 fronts at opposite ends of the world.

    In terms of the army, it's not the lack of infantry that would be the problem, it's the lack of essential specialists. Eg he defence medical services are already stretched to the limit in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no spare helicopters to be had.

    The RAF are already struggling with the air bridges to sandy places without having to set up two more to Ascension and the Falklands. Remember, in 1982, Ascencion's air base became the busyest airport in the world. The RAF simply couldn't manage that and their existing commitments.

    The navy fared best in the CDSs assessement. Unsurprising as they don't have much involvement in Iraq or land locked Afghanistan. The ships we do have are more capable but there are fewer of them. The absence of the Sea Harriers would be somewhat offset by the availability of cruise missiles to attack mainland air bases.

    Now, as then, it would be an extremely close run thing. It could be done but we'd have to sacrifice Iraq and Afghanistan.