The Falklands - how close did the UK come to defeat?

Thomas X

I actually watched a programme about this, it showed 8 possible scenarios in which we could have lost.
1) The first was timing, if the argies waited a couple extra months, we wouldnâ€™t have any of the carriers or amphibious ships, as we were planning ion getting rid off them, to focus on anti submarine warfare, which was the threat posed by the soviet union at the time. However after the war, the role of surface ships was confirmed forever.
2) Another was timing again, they only had a couple of the deadly exercet missiles, but if they waited just a bit longer they would have had hundreds more and could have more of a chance of sinking the British fleet.
3) Another, was the reason the argies invaded earlier then the argies had actually originally planned, was because they believed a British submarine was hading to the islands, it was not it was heading elsewhere. So if it wasnâ€™t for that misinterpretation of intelligence it wouldnâ€™t have happend, invading so early.
4) Another was if Margaret Thatcher didnâ€™t give the order to sink the Belgrano, which was trying to catch the British fleet, in a pinzer movement. If it wasnâ€™t sunk, its large guns would have sunk the British fleet.
5) Plus because of the sinking of Belgrano, the Argentinean fleet feared more torpedo attacks, so the argies sent there fleet backed to port, if they had stayed in the fight, they could have still been in with a chance of sinking the British fleet.
6) Another reason, was the airport runway at port Stanley, if they enlarged before the British arrived, they would have been able to use there jet fighters, which wouldnâ€™t have to reach 200 miles out to see, and only had limited time, until they had to turn back because of fuel.
7) Another way, is f the British didnâ€™t cross-country the island, (yomp) and made the decision just to stay where it was until helicopters arrived, because they yomped, they avoided the delay, which leads to the final reason.
8) The final way Argentina could have won, is if they had held out longer, and refused to surrender, if they could hold out just a couple of more weeks, the British fleet would have had to return for re-supply, giving them the victory.

DaveH

I was there and once the troops were on the ground it was pretty much a done deal.
The real point is that we should pay attention and not let the politicians hand over the islands at some point in the future after so many of our troops lost their lives !!

Bamford1000

Once the Marines were landed at San Carlos, and 2 Para set about their objectives there was little problem.

Our main problem was actually getting the soldiers landed which was the key reeason for the naval taskforce, and the tragedy that beset the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove was evidence of this.

The Royal Navy was effective in keeping the Argentine fleet in check, and the Argentine Navy quickly returned to port once Royal Navy SSN subs started patrolling the area.

The only credible force Argentina really had was it's air force, and even that suffered at the hands of the Carrier British Sea Harriers, and these aircraft were also instrumental in defending the carriers.

I don't think Britain was close to defeat at all, however the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor was a major setback as she was carrying Britains helicopters meaning the Marines had to yomp and the paras tab across the islands. Even if more British ships had been hit by exocets, the Argentines would still have had trouble re-supplying their forces due to the Royal Navy SSN subs in the area and it would have been difficult for the Argentinan military to sustain their occupation over a long period, whilst once British troops were succesfully landed it was game over for the Argentine Army.

If the war was fought today, I suspect Britain would launch submarine based tomahawk cruise missiles against mainland Argentinian Air bases and runway facilities in the South of the country, in order to neutralise any air threat.

BARRY B

We held back for political reasons. We could have flattened their mainland airfields but didn't. Hence the exocet.
We had a nuclear powered submarine in the area, which could have taken out land targets at will as well as the Belgrano. The difficulty was getting the kit down there not what we had to offer.

Prodigal Son

The threat from the French supplied Exocet missiles which the Argentines used was very real, resulting in the sinking of a few of our ships. I can only imagine that if the United Kingdom did suffer defeat, it would have been an embarrassment for NATO as a whole during the height of the Cold War.

Facile Princeps

They had no chance of hitting a carrier as they were kept well out of range of Argentina's missiles but the sinking of the merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor almost cost us the war on board the conveyor were helicopters and other supplies crucial to the battles ahead

CLIVE H

The concept of a power such as UK being defeated by the Argentine is silly. If we had been in a situation where it became impossible for us to win by taking the Falklands back, then there is no doubt that the British would simply have bombed Beunos Aires.

People who do not believe what I have said, do not know the British.

The Americans warned the Argentine Military Junta exactly what would happen, but they snorted and took no notice.

The Argentine has no concept of total war but the British do. Add to that simple fact that the British have the world's largest military-industrial complex [Portsmouth Dockyard] and you'll quickly see how rapidly things will happen.

The Brits sank the Belgrano and would sink the entire Argentine Armada if needs must.

The British had already arranged bases in Chile with Pinochet's government and would use those bases to hit Argentina hard - very hard.

Brian L

The loss of surface ships was actually due to misuse of countermeasures. Poor positioning and deployment is the reason why ships were ever in any danger. The Argies never hit a vessel they aimed for. It was a subject of study for the US Navy as to not let it happen again. Had they been able to hit their designated targets, they could have opened way for a Carrier attack, but with minimal success from an Exocet. It would have simply escalated the mainland attacks. Never really a issue of losing.

BannedwordUser

Brit carriers are armored, unlike the tin-can destroyer and transport sunk using Exocets. It would have been very difficult for the Argies to sink one of your CV's.

Scooby Doo

It was a walk in the park.

woulda,coulda,shoulda Thomas

Halcon

poor Argentinians, they were wiped out so easy!

Peter G

I'll put it this way;

Ant = Argies
T-rex = England

Also one think they didn't count on was the fact that our Royal Marines can quite happily march 40 miles with well over 40lbs of equipment on their back.

ducky

Surely.. if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's @ss hopping.

that's a big "IF" my friend
the Brits didn't lose even one plane right ?
but they shot down more than 20.

john w

The issue was never in doubt. On the other hand, had the fuses on the Argie's bombs worked, the UK would have come off very badly....

fill Yerboots

Had the Belgrano not been sunk I doubt her mainly conscript crew would have posed a real threat, she was performing an Italian Pincer movement where you pivot on your mattress back at base and face the wall. She wasnt a credible threat. Just a great shot for a Sub.
The air raids on Stanley were fantastic acheivments, given the running down of the Vulcan fleet and the lack of parts.
But we nearly missed the damn place even so. Had we not bombed it, well it was too short anyway for much stuff, and you dont just extend a runway by wishing, ita takes weeks at least. The Argentine soldiers were hammered, we had the Paras and Ghurkas, with SAS and Marine Commandoes. Plus the ordinary squaddies. Against mainly conscripts who were wet fed up under paid and badly led.
But had Maggie not pulled out Endurance, and the Foreign Office not put a 'for sale 'sign over the place, then it wouldnt have kicked off anyway. They could never have beaten us in a fair fight. And the Carrier carrying nukes? what do you think they carry day in day out, Lollipops? of course they carry nukes! its a detterent not a bank deposit. But they would not have been used, too many of Maggies friends were in BA and still are

Neil T

Academic now.As a serving infantryman at the time, I was not involved in the Falklands campaign, but I did talk to many who had been there after the fact (my uncle was in 2 Para and was there) and was told by him that it was never in any doubt that British forces would be successful in their mission to regain the Islands.It is a well known fact that the artillery were down to their last 5 or 6 rounds per gun when the Argentines surrendered, and that rations MAY have been in short supply - small arms ammunition was not a problem as the Argentines used 7.62mm the same as the British.As has been posted the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was a very considerable blow to the Task Force with the loss of all but one of its heavy lift Chinooks - who knows how much sooner the war would have ended had these assets been in place?Just as an aside I was on board HMS Aurora when the Task Force was heading south (at the end of Ex Spring Train, I think it was called), Aurora had a knackered boiler so did not participate - all her stores, were, however transferred to the other ships before she returned to the UK.

quasar

,we won better soldiers better training & the will to win & the harrier jump jet, all three services fighting together a team,
French supplied Exocet missiles were a real threat but the british goverment talked to the french & then we had counter measures that realy worked,

Russell W

"It doesn`t matter if you win by an inch or a mile....."

- Ancient Hollywood proverb.

robert c

If they could have sunk an aircraft carrier or more container ships we would have lost!

The Mechanic

Instead of 4 regiments we should have sent a troop of ladies and saved ourselves lots of money

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: