Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
The British Navy is a lot smaller than it was in the early 80s during the cold war even though they say they keep a sub on station in the area.
The British forces there are nothing but a speed bump if the Argies got serious about another sneak invasion. The Brits would have to mount another campaign to take it back or take the issue to the UN.
Does anyone think the UN would tell the Argies to go home?
Do you think the Brits have the military might and political will to mount another campaign for the islands?
British Navy
Subs.............1980 32 - 2009 12
A/C................1980 3...- 2009 3
Sur. Combat..1980 67 - 2009 24
Lots of logistical issues for both sides.
|
First of all I'm aware that my meager military experiences do not qualify me to make an infallible analysis of the situation at hand! I'm what you would describe as an "armchair general".
Further on I can only concur that the UK would have big problems retaking the Falklands after a successful Argentinean invasion.
Nonetheless for such an invasion to be successful the Fuerzas Aereas would need to gain aerial superiority. And I’m afraid that would not be so easily realized given today’s situation. The air defense radar installations on Mt Harriet and at Byron Heights are state of the art. As the Argentinean FA does, as far as I know, not have an anti-radar capacity it would be very hard to sneak in undetected. The four Tiffies are a serious thread to any attacking aerial platform and the FAA's Mirages and A4, as well as the Armada's Super Etendards should be no match for them. The more so when you consider that the Argentineans would be operating on the limit of their range with a very short time on target, where as the Typhoons have an aerial refueling capability, with the VC10 operating out of RAF Mt Pleasant.
I doubt that the odds would be much better on the naval front with a RN hunter sub as well as a frigate patrolling the island's waters.
The only viable option, again in the eyes of an "armchair strategist", would be for the Argentineans to launch a SOF raid to destroy the radar installations and the aircraft at RAF Mt Pleasant on the ground. I don't have enough knowledge about the Argentinean's capabilities to make a definite judgment about the chances of success for such an operation! But I guess you will agree that it would take a substantial force, 150 to 200 strong, to carry out such a raid! Do the Argentineans have the capabilities to infiltrate such a large number of troops undetected?
Even if they would manage to take out the British air defenses, this would still leave the naval thread to the Armada’s naval landing forces! I guess you will agree that the Armada lacks the ASM capacities to hunt down a Trafalgar class SSN.
The UK land forces might be unimpressive at a first glimpse! An infantry company from the British Army augmented by the company strength infantry of the FDF surely is utterly overstretched to defend the whole territory of the Falklands. But what if the Brits would choose to concentrate their infantry forces on the eastern parts of East Falklands, only to defend Port Stanley and their main military installations? What good would a foothold on West Falklands or at San Carlos do the Argentineans? The yomp across East Falklands was a unique military feat, and I sincerely doubt that the Argentineans have enough units on par with the Royal Marine Commandos and the Paras, to repeat that exploit! So deny the only road across the eastern Island, connecting Port Stanley to Lafionia and San Carlos, to the invader and things will bog down very quickly. The more so as the 8500 ft and 5000 ft runways at RAF Mt Pleasant would allow for aerial reinforcements to be flown in.
I don’t want to loose any time writing about the UN, best take it’s a sad joke, worst you can consider it as an institutionalized protection for the tyrants of the world.
I’m totally convinced though that the Brits would not let a military attack on the Falklands pass unpunished! For them it’s as much a part of the UK as Reading, Edinburgh or Trafalgar Square! The inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, by their own choosing so! Caving in only an inch to the Argentinean’s demands, or even worse, not protecting them against any form of aggression would be paramount to political suicide for any British politician.
Regarding the military strength of the UK you are perfectly right that the RN is not the same as it used to be in 1982, but neither are the Argentinean military forces. And please take into account that, alltough the number of vessels in the Royal navy has been constantly decreasing during the last three decades, the quality of the remaining vessels has been improving! As for the amphibious capabilities of the RN, they are much better then they were in 1982! But I have to admit that it is doubtful if those phibs would help much due to the RN's lack of aircraft carriers.
Another aspect I would not choose to neglect is the fact that, imho, the US could not deny their full military help to the UK. The Warsaw Pact is gone, the Cold War is over and there is no excuse for the US not to help their most valuable ally against an invasion.
So has changed the relationship of the US with it's south american neighbours! Morales, Chavez and the whole bunch of anti imperialistic left wing lunatics are more and more influential. The relations of the US with most of the South American governments couldn't get much worse, even if the US would choose to intervene on the side of teh UK. Staying neutral, on the other hand, might only strengthen Chavez and his cronies.
Then we have to consider the British engagement in the GWOT.
Do you really think any government of Her Majesty would leave the squaddies in Afghanistan if the US administration would choose not to help against an Argentine military action? Already the british public opinion regarding the Afghan war is slowly changing. I don’t think the Brits would carry on in the GWOT if they felt betrayed by the US. The repercussions of a serious deterioration of the “special relationship”could easily lead to a collapse of NATO.
These are just my thoughts on the highly hypothetical situation we've been discussing. In no way I do want to qualify my poor understanding of military matters as being on a higher level then that of the QP's on this board!
Best regards.
tom
Hybrid Mode
