The Falklands

[James Langham]

V1 and 2.X give different views as to what happened in the Falklands. This is intended to reconcile the two versions:

In August Argentina tries to divert attention from the poor situation at home considers launching an invasion of the Falklands. A naval task force is prepared and even sets sail. Following these Argentinian military moves, the company of British troops was augmented to a combined battalion (mainly consisting of TA - one ex-regular sergeant had even been there as a Lance-Corporal in 2 Para in 1982!) on the Falkland Islands arriving just before the task force is in a position to launch. The Argentines backed down with the Argentine government planning to let the islands gradually suffer with reduced support from the UK and decide to establish closer links with Argentina (and in years to come gradually become Argentinian). The defending battalion however remained on the islands not seeing combat. Or at least this was believed to be the situation until records were released under the thirty year rule which shows that the TA were engaged in a nasty game of cat and mouse with a unit of Argentine Naval Commandos that had landed 24 hours in advance of the main body. One of the RAF's 1435 Flight's F3 Tornados is lost when it collides with an Argentine Mirage when shadowing the Argentine fleet.

[Rainbow Six]

Hi James,

Personally, I'm not sure that if a task force had already set sail from Argentina, we'd be able to get reinforcements to the south Atlantic quickly enough to make a difference (I think this was one of the problems in 1982), so I'd be inclined to suggest that British Intelligence gets word that the Argentineans are assembling a task force so sends the reinforcements before it sets sail, causing the Argentineans to back down.

I think the other factor that might be important is the possibility of a Royal Navy Hunter Killer sub being active off the Falklands (I could imagine HM Government making sure the Argentines thought that one was present, even if it was a bluff...). That option is obviously much less likely (though not impossible) the longer the Twilight War goes on - when you mention the Argentine task force setting sail in August, which year are you referring to

Finally, the nuclear genie is well and tryly out of the bottle by the end of 1997. Who knows whether HMG might nuke Buenos Aires if the Argentineans make a move after that time (Or again, threaten to do so as a bluff...)

I also think that the Falkland Islanders would manage to remain fairly self sufficient during the Twilight War, and there would be little likelihood of them voluntarily establishing closer links with Argentina.

Also, the Falklands has come up here before....you might be interested in this thread...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=941&highlight=Falklands

Cheers

Dave

[James Langham]

Hi James,

Personally, I'm not sure that if a task force had already set sail from Argentina, we'd be able to get reinforcements to the south Atlantic quickly enough to make a difference (I think this was one of the problems in 1982), so I'd be inclined to suggest that British Intelligence gets word that the Argentineans are assembling a task force so sends the reinforcements before it sets sail, causing the Argentineans to back down.

I think the other factor that might be important is the possibility of a Royal Navy Hunter Killer sub being active off the Falklands (I could imagine HM Government making sure the Argentines thought that one was present, even if it was a bluff...). That option is obviously much less likely (though not impossible) the longer the Twilight War goes on - when you mention the Argentine task force setting sail in August, which year are you referring to

Finally, the nuclear genie is well and tryly out of the bottle by the end of 1997. Who knows whether HMG might nuke Buenos Aires if the Argentineans make a move after that time (Or again, threaten to do so as a bluff...)

I also think that the Falkland Islanders would manage to remain fairly self sufficient during the Twilight War, and there would be little likelihood of them voluntarily establishing closer links with Argentina.

Also, the Falklands has come up here before....you might be interested in this thread...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=941&highlight=Falklands

Cheers

Dave

Sorry as it is pulled from my history it doesn't have the date, it's 1996.

I had assumed that the fleet preparing resulted in the flying in of reinforcements (not possible in 1982).

The Argentine alternative plan is wishful thinking and unlikely to work, especially after the war with Brazil.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think that realistically, the Falklands would be eventually forgotten about by England, leaving them to fend for themselves. I'd like to say that the Argentinians would be too busy with running their own falling-apart country to worry about the Falklands, but they just might take the opportunity to take them back. I'd also like to think that the British on the Falklands would be allowed to remain by the Argentinians undisturbed, but I think there'd be some ugly racial violence.

[James Langham]

Political attitudes

I think that realistically, the Falklands would be eventually forgotten about by England, leaving them to fend for themselves. I'd like to say that the Argentinians would be too busy with running their own falling-apart country to worry about the Falklands, but they just might take the opportunity to take them back. I'd also like to think that the British on the Falklands would be allowed to remain by the Argentinians undisturbed, but I think there'd be some ugly racial violence.

I'm not so sure about forgetting them. Bear in mind there is a military garrison and a British military defeat there would be politically unthinkable (the Lib-Lab government will be acutely aware that the Conservatives will be able to say at the next election "we won them back for you to lose them").

A foreign adventure is a well known solution to internal problems. Gambling that a task force in 1996 would be far harder to mount than in 1982 (especially as the bulk of the Army is deployed to Germany or on home defence) would be a reasonable assumption.

[Rainbow Six]

Sorry as it is pulled from my history it doesn't have the date, it's 1996.

I had assumed that the fleet preparing resulted in the flying in of reinforcements (not possible in 1982).

The Argentine alternative plan is wishful thinking and unlikely to work, especially after the war with Brazil.

Yep, sounds feasable enough for 1996...and of course you're right about not having the option of RAF Mount Pleasant in 1982. Just out of curiosity, do you have an approx date for full mobilisation of the TA in your history

I'm not so sure about forgetting them. Bear in mind there is a military garrison and a British military defeat there would be politically unthinkable (the Lib-Lab government will be acutely aware that the Conservatives will be able to say at the next election "we won them back for you to lose them").

A foreign adventure is a well known solution to internal problems. Gambling that a task force in 1996 would be far harder to mount than in 1982 (especially as the bulk of the Army is deployed to Germany or on home defence) would be a reasonable assumption.

I agree with both of these points. Actually it strikes me that if the Argentines decided to try and use force their best option might be to wait until some time in 1997 to make their move, by which time the British Army and the Royal Navy would be fully committed elsewhere. If they move any time before October 1996 there would be more options available to counter them (I still like the sub option....).

(Last paragraph based on V1 timeline...)

[James Langham]

Yep, sounds feasable enough for 1996...and of course you're right about not having the option of RAF Mount Pleasant in 1982. Just out of curiosity, do you have an approx date for full mobilisation of the TA in your history



I agree with both of these points. Actually it strikes me that if the Argentines decided to try and use force their best option might be to wait until some time in 1997 to make their move, by which time the British Army and the Royal Navy would be fully committed elsewhere. If they move any time before October 1996 there would be more options available to counter them (I still like the sub option....).

(Last paragraph based on V1 timeline...)

TA mobilization occurred in Sept 1995 for a number of specialists, mainly Intelligence Corps types. The remainder mobilise with the outbreak of the German-Polish fighting in late July 1996. Note that the TA in my background was better recruited as Options for Change (mainly) was dropped after the August Coup and incentives for the unemployed to enlist were put in place. Also remember that British TA units were designed (unlike the USNG) to deploy straight to war if necessary (at least as units they were, individuals were a different case.

In hindsight 1997 would be better, however the Argentines are not to know the future and in 1996 they take the opportunity based on the British Army being deployed (they do not know if in a few months the will stand down from alert).

[Rainbow Six]

TA mobilization occurred in Sept 1995 for a number of specialists, mainly Intelligence Corps types. The remainder mobilise with the outbreak of the German-Polish fighting in late July 1996. Note that the TA in my background was better recruited as Options for Change (mainly) was dropped after the August Coup and incentives for the unemployed to enlist were put in place. Also remember that British TA units were designed (unlike the USNG) to deploy straight to war if necessary (at least as units they were, individuals were a different case.

Yep, that all sounds good...your take on it seems to be much the same as mine, other than the fact that I've based my work on a V1 timeline (my Options for Change actually increased the size of the armed forces slightly), so a full mobilisation doesn't take place until the Bundeswehr cross the Inner German Border in October 96, although selected units / individuals start to get called up well before that.

In hindsight 1997 would be better, however the Argentines are not to know the future and in 1996 they take the opportunity based on the British Army being deployed (they do not know if in a few months the will stand down from alert).

Fair point...it's not like they could give the crystal ball a rub...

Cheers

D

[James Langham]

Yep, that all sounds good...your take on it seems to be much the same as mine, other than the fact that I've based my work on a V1 timeline (my Options for Change actually increased the size of the armed forces slightly), so a full mobilisation doesn't take place until the Bundeswehr cross the Inner German Border in October 96, although selected units / individuals start to get called up well before that.



Fair point...it's not like they could give the crystal ball a rub...

Cheers

D

In "PURE" V1 I would have the Argentinians go for it in about December 1996 giving them enough lead time to prepare after the British Army deploys. My history started as 2.2 and then tried to incorporate 2.0 and 1.0 history items to try and get a background that didn't contradict itself. Worryingly it now runs to 65 pages...

Thinking about what you have said I will have some units get called up earlier, mainly the support arms that are predominantly TA. I will also start recalling reservists (again specialists) alongside the TA.

[Matt W]

Why go to all the effort of invading

Item 1: World War 3 would mean MAJOR problems for the UK in terms of importing enough food.

Item 2: Argentina is a major food exporter and has a fairly competent/large military-industrial complex

I can see a simple diplomatic proposal from the Argentines.

"Remember Lend-Lease In WW2, you gave the Americans lots of money (and naval bases in the Caribbean) in exchange for some obsolete cruisers. Our version of Lend-lease will be a little more generous. We'll give you food, ships, planes, weaponry and strategic metals. We'll even ship it for you. All we ask in exchange is a little cash and the right to put a Naval base on the Malvinas... I mean "Falklands". After all... if we're sending convoys to you... it would be really helpful to have a resupply point there."

"Oh.. and if you want anything else Copper perhaps I'm sure we could put in a good word for you with the Chileans. It's time that dispute in Antarctica was settled. Or perhaps you're running short of rubber I believe Guatemala might be willing to provide a vast amount. Assuming that you were willing to be reasonable about Belize, of course"

BOTTOM LINE: Historically, the UK has been willing to sell off bits of Empire when it really needed to (for example, Churchill was willing to give Northern Ireland to Eire if it allied with Britain) Who knows what the South American nations would be willing to give in exchange for a few islands Would we see the RAF operating Pucaras, perhaps A supply of Argentinian FAL rifles for the TA

[pmulcahy11b]

A foreign adventure is a well known solution to internal problems. Gambling that a task force in 1996 would be far harder to mount than in 1982 (especially as the bulk of the Army is deployed to Germany or on home defence) would be a reasonable assumption.

Britain already has enough of a foreign adventure on its hands.

The problem is that sooner or later, the Falklands and the Mother Country are simply going to lose touch, since the distances are so vast, with everything except radio.

[helbent4]

Britain already has enough of a foreign adventure on its hands.

The problem is that sooner or later, the Falklands and the Mother Country are simply going to lose touch, since the distances are so vast, with everything except radio.

Paul,

I tend to see this as well. The Argentinians had a good relationship with the people of the Malvinas (which is probably the correct way to refer to the Falklands with respect to the Argentinians) in the 70's up until the war. There were talks between Britain and Argentina to hand over the islands to Argentina, or at least devolve sovereignty in some sense.

That said, is there some strategic reason for the UK to hang onto the Malvinas/Falklands

Tony

[James Langham]

Paul,

I tend to see this as well. The Argentinians had a good relationship with the people of the Malvinas (which is probably the correct way to refer to the Falklands with respect to the Argentinians) in the 70's up until the war. There were talks between Britain and Argentina to hand over the islands to Argentina, or at least devolve sovereignty in some sense.

That said, is there some strategic reason for the UK to hang onto the Malvinas/Falklands

Tony

Every so often there are rumors of oil finds nearby - these haven't yet come to anything yet.

The most likely reasons to invade/reinforce are actually political and based upon how you will be viewed (and voted against) not practicalities. After all realistically why re-invade in 1982 Having said that if Europe has gone up then I can't see the resources being spared. Pre-war the prospect of British troops being attacked tends to REALLY upset the public (who vote...).

I like the idea of food for the islands. This might make it into the background as an offer that falls through when the war with Brazil starts.

As an aside if you do go for the FALs then I would have a red band carved in the stock and around the magazines (FAL magazines can be used in an SLR (L1A1) but it falls out when cocked!).

[Rainbow Six]

Every so often there are rumors of oil finds nearby - these haven't yet come to anything yet.

There's some drilling going on at the minute but as you've said so far it hasn't come to anything - who knows whether may change in the future.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/sealionfield/

That said, the field currently being explored is a very recent discovery (2010 or thereabouts), so shouldn't be a factor in V1 or V2 T2k.

[James Langham]

There's some drilling going on at the minute but as you've said so far it hasn't come to anything - who knows whether may change in the future.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/sealionfield/

That said, the field currently being explored is a very recent discovery (2010 or thereabouts), so shouldn't be a factor in V1 or V2 T2k.

True but there have always been rumors since the mid 80s that I can remember.

Also since when politicians needed a rational reason