Article

2006-09-25 Britain

Britain and Argentina on collision course over Falklands

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Seafarious 2006-09-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Time to pull out the Maggie shirts w/the phrase, "Don't cry for me Argentina...."

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-09-25 00:20|| 2006-09-25 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 So when does Chavez put in his sulfurous words?

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-09-25 10:11|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-09-25 10:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Somebody please explain why anyone wants that cold piece of rock.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-09-25 10:29|| 2006-09-25 10:29|| Front Page Top

#4 You think they would have learned the first time they got their asses kicked...

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-09-25 10:30|| 2006-09-25 10:30|| Front Page Top

#5 The Brits won with grit last time. Their capabilities have decreased since then. And Tony Blair's successor is not Margaret Thatcher. Might be a good time to test him, especially if it distracts the natives from the Bolibarian successes.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-25 10:31|| 2006-09-25 10:31|| Front Page Top

#6 Didn't the Brits before the last dust-up give the residents the choice of staying with Britain or going to the Argies?

Posted by Cheaderhead 2006-09-25 10:45|| 2006-09-25 10:45|| Front Page Top

#7 4 million sheep Mojo.

Posted by 6 2006-09-25 12:37|| 2006-09-25 12:37|| Front Page Top

#8 There's 4 million Argies there already?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-25 12:41|| 2006-09-25 12:41|| Front Page Top

#9 Sovereignty over that cold piece of rock carries sovereignty over a large area of sedimentary basin around it, and that basin just might contain oil, which at recent prices might be worth chasing after. The last confrontation was during the last period of high oil prices.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-09-25 12:51|| 2006-09-25 12:51|| Front Page Top

#10 On a related note, Spain requested the UN look into the return of its colonies in South and Central America.

Posted by RWV 2006-09-25 12:55|| 2006-09-25 12:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Fact is the Argentines would have won if they had attacked during the Winter (Southern Hemisphere winter that is) when conditions are so bad carriers cannot operate. They would have had months to politely pack the citizens back to England making it politically difficult for Thatcher and others to justify recapturing the rocks when the seas calmed down.

British got lucky.

I would guess the Argies learned there lesson about timing by now.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-09-25 13:04|| 2006-09-25 13:04|| Front Page Top

#12 I don't know. I thought the British carriers, and the harriers they carried, were capable of operating in weather that would shut down other carriers?

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-09-25 13:14|| 2006-09-25 13:14|| Front Page Top

#13 British carrier crews operate in the North Sea year-round; the waters off of the Falklands aren't any worse than the conditions the Brits face in the North Sea in the Atlantic storm season. As a matter of fact, the worst year-round sea conditions in the world exist right off the northern coast of Oregon : that is the location that the US and other coast guards train in for extreme sea conditions.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-09-25 13:34|| 2006-09-25 13:34|| Front Page Top

#14 Hey, it worked so well for Argentina last time.

Blair may be no Thatcher, but Bush is no Reagan. I could see us assisting the Brits if the Argies try anything. Israel would be another alliance, since the Argies still have a few bombings to account for.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-09-25 15:37|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2006-09-25 15:37|| Front Page Top

#15
Fact is the Argentines would have won if they had attacked during the Winter (Southern Hemisphere winter that is) when conditions are so bad carriers cannot operate.

I remember the following sentence from a "biography" of the Harrier: "Its VTOL capabilities allow it to operate in weather conditions where even F14 Tomcats and A6 Crusaders have to remain grounded".

Argies attacked in March (Spetember in Northen Hemisphere terms, but most battles took place in
May and June (November and December in Northern Hemisphere Terms).

Argentinian's best asset was to have much more air support at hand and that is nullified in bad weather. Also while bad weather would have hampered British landings, once the British set foot it favours the side who is best trained and equipped

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-09-25 15:48|| 2006-09-25 15:48|| Front Page Top

#16 Someone give Buenos Aires a call. With Tony Blairs assistance in the ME, if he just so happens to call upon the US to enforce the NATO commitment, you'd think Bush would decline? It's one thing for the Argies to face an ad-hoc formation of Brits, its another thing to face a full blown American Carrier and Amphib group steam in the South Atlantic. And considering we have enough on our plate, it is a distraction that is not going to be humorous.

And yes, the Argie economy is in the pits because they won't give up their dead end policies and programs.

Posted by Snusing Shater6913 2006-09-25 15:57|| 2006-09-25 15:57|| Front Page Top

#17 I believe it was Admiral Sandy Woodward's book that mentioned the unlikelyhood of sustained carrier operations in the South Atlantic winter which is so brutal even American supercarriers would be bouncing around so much as to prevent any takeoffs (probably where the F-14 data mentioned above came from).

The Harrier is fine once it's in the air, but to have enough fuel for combat operations the harrier needs a short takeoff using a ramp, something that would be impossible with the rough seas.

I also understand the south atlantic winter is the worst in the world, we just don't hear much about it because there is generally no reason for shipping in those areas during the winter.

It could be done. Harriers can work off an improvised airfield on the Falklands themselves. but the logistics of moving the fuel and personal to keep combat operations going.

Of course they could just say the Gurkas are going and watch the Argies surrender rather than face them. Seemed to save a bit of time last go around.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-09-25 17:27|| 2006-09-25 17:27|| Front Page Top

#18 Among the other reasons the Argies lost:

1) their army was all draftees, the Brits were all volunteers

2) the Argie army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led

3) the Argie officer corps wouldn't fight

4) lack of food and provisions on the islands

5) no decent air cover

6) no artillery brought to the island, the Argies didn't even have heavy mortars

7) bad comm gear for the Argies, excellent for the Brits

8) Argies lacked espirit de corps -- they simply weren't willing to fight. The Brits were their usual bloody-minded selves on the battlefield.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-09-25 17:29|| 2006-09-25 17:29|| Front Page Top

#19 As I recall, we can thank the French for what few naval aviation successes the Argies had.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-25 17:55|| 2006-09-25 17:55|| Front Page Top

#20 My point is the only way they could have won is if they timed the game when the Brits couldn't play. From the timeline they were pretty close at that, if they'd timed it themselves instead of letting a bunch of scrap-metal workers jumpstart the war they would have had a better chance.

The Argies were so bad they had to land jets at different fields from where they took off in order to hide the losses from their own pilots.

The story I like best though is when the Para learned how to say grenade in Spanish and would yell it up to the Argie trenchline and watch the Argies jump out of the trench in fear.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-09-25 17:55|| 2006-09-25 17:55|| Front Page Top

#21 And the Rapier like Rapier.

Once the Marines and their ships were under SAM cover in San Carlos water it was all over. More screw ups happened, mainly due to over confidence I expect - but give a little credit to the Argentine Airforce, they could fly.

Posted by 6 2006-09-25 17:59|| 2006-09-25 17:59|| Front Page Top

#22 For all the talk about how it was touch-and-go last time the fact remains Britain decided to fight with one hand tied behind her back and a giant pillow wrapped around her fighting fist.

Any conflict with Argentina where the "exclusion zone" is not limited to British territorial waters but takes the form of a proper war with Argentine shipping is utterly insupportable for any Argentine government. It would probably take less than ten minutes to identify strategic targets in the shape of oil distribution, the electrical grid, etc. around Buenos Aires which could be flattened in a variety of entertaining ways. And any attempt to remove Falkland Islanders against their will could legitimately be declared a war crime and place the Argentine military beyond the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

And that's when you send in the Gurkhas.

Posted by Flea 2006-09-25 18:02|| 2006-09-25 18:02|| Front Page Top

#23 The Argentine pilots fired their few Exocets at point blank range coming in right on the deck. Other sucess were achieved by dumb bombs dropped from so low they often didn't have time to fuse. Again good pilots. Piss poor infantry. Worse navy.

Posted by 6 2006-09-25 18:04|| 2006-09-25 18:04|| Front Page Top

#24 It would probably take less than ten minutes to identify strategic targets in the shape of oil distribution, the electrical grid, etc. around Buenos Aires which could be flattened in a variety of entertaining ways.

With nukes maybe, but the RAF only managed a few V Bomber raids staging out of Accesion Island to attack Stanley Airfield.... 1 bomber at a time. Doubtful they'd have tried to attack the mainland with airpower. Course they could have mined the hell out of the coastal water, that would have worked, but might have taken awhile.

Posted by 6 2006-09-25 18:10|| 2006-09-25 18:10|| Front Page Top

#25 prepared sub warfare could make any return to action a LOT more messy for the Argentinians. The Generals with the ribbons and sprockets won't be the ones drowning.

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-25 19:09|| 2006-09-25 19:09|| Front Page Top

#26 a LOT more messy for the Argentinians

Indeedy.

Posted by 6 2006-09-25 19:30|| 2006-09-25 19:30|| Front Page Top

#27 Ahem, the British need something to occupy them.
Straw: Britain must push US to resolve ME conflict

Posted by gromgoru 2006-09-25 19:32|| 2006-09-25 19:32|| Front Page Top

23:59 Zenster
23:58 Oldspook
23:50 Super Hose
23:48 gorb
23:46 gorb
23:41 gorb
23:40 Super Hose
23:38 Zenster
23:35 gorb
23:29 Zenster
23:27 gorb
23:25 Old Patriot
23:20 Frank G
23:13 Super Hose
23:10 Old Patriot
23:09 Super Hose
23:05 Super Hose
22:59 mcsegeek1
22:52 FOTSGreg
22:50 Pappy
22:46 Barbara Skolaut
22:44 Super Hose
22:37 Tony (UK)
22:37 Super Hose