The Falkland Islands War: Winning With Infantry

If you want on or off the Western Civilization Military History ping list,please let me know.

There's a Western Civilization Military History ping list???

Please add my name to that list, Sparta!

Oops - nomenclature brain fart. L1A1 is indeed the inch pattern FAL the Brits (and other Commonwealth types) used. LAR, light automatic rifle, is the English translation of FAL.

British historians tend to overestimate British military achievements.

On the contrary...British historians were the fore runners of the likes of Lichtman and Doris Goodwin.

The British Paras are however an awesome fighting force deserving all the credit they can get. The SAS -WERE- legendary.

The British Harrier VTOL fighter was overated. Only a rush shipment of US AIM-9 Sidewinder All Aspect infrared missiles allowed the Brits to suceed against the Argentine high performance Mirage fighters which had to often break off due to limited range over the British fleet.

Spot on the AIM-9 L enabled the Harrier to engage head on targets.Thank you Ronald Reagan.

British warships did not have an equivalent of the US Navy Close In Weapons System (radar guided 20MM rotary cannon) and suffered losses accordingly.</>

No arguement there. Lost a tooth in the PO's mess in Portsmouth just after we returned from the South Atlantic, when I asked a matelot.... "What's the most powerful contraceptive in the world?" "Exocet missile, kills seamen at 40 miles" Touchy, them sailors. I really gnawed his fist though.

Argentine bombs had fuse problems which resulted in many perforated but otherwise undamaged British ships. This was a very tightly held secret during that war.

Some secret...The BBC World Service broadcasted that the Argentinians were bombing too low, not giving the arming device enough time to engage, the next day HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope were sunk.

One you missed...Rapier anti-aircraft missle systems were designed and built for West Germany TOO and had no depression...which is why the Artillery put them on the hilltops.

”overestimate British military achievements”

So, an 8000 mile supply line, an amphibious landing and forced march (Yomp or Tab) over freezing, wet and inhospitable terrain. Then to fight a dug-in, prepared enemy who controls the high ground and, in a lot of instances, out numbers you. And win.

Well I’m fairly impressed!

Nice catch.

Aye, the Brits did OK. But in many ways, the Argies made it a lot easier. They over-rode their local commanders with some really stupid orders that weakened their defense AND GAVE AWAY THEIR ADVANTAGE ON THE GROUND.

Without command and control SNAFUS on the Argie part, the Brits would have been much more roughly handled. Perhaps they still would have won. But without heavy (make that MASSIVE) US help and Argentine General Staff incompetence, it would have been a good deal uglier than the mess it truly was.

LESSON HERE: You cannot win a war with Lyndon B. Johnson/McNamara-style command and control

Aye, the Brits did OK

You know something? I’ve heard all this before, all the reasons why the British didn’t actually ‘win’ the Falklands war.

Argentine incompetence, conscripts (who hadn’t eaten, slept or were cold), the Argie Navy withdrew to port, bombs didn’t go off, the airforce was at its operational limit, MASSIVE US help, the AIM9 . . . the list goes on no doubt.

Maybe the thread should be about how the US saved the Brits - Again. Or how the Argentines lost the war. I mean it couldn’t actually be that the British were better trained, motivated and competent enough to overcome the enemy and their own challenges.

Credit where credit is due, to those who were there.

You are correct.

And it was the guts and drive of Margaret Thatcher who epitomized this incredbile feat of arms conducted 7,000 miles from base.

What also impressed me at the time was the way the Brits adapted their way around setbacks, to give the Argies their well-deserved thrashing.

I am glad we could be of some help.

There is no question that the British infantry outclassed the Argentinian infantry. However, this was not a war that was won or lost with infantry but a war that was won with Sea Power.

No matter how good your infantry is, the projection of infantry power requires your ability to transport them from Point A to Point B. In this case, Point B was in the enemy’s back yard and Point A was 8,000 miles away.

The Royal Navy’s fast attack submarines prevented the Argentinians from transporting the kind of heavy equipment that might have made a difference in their land defenses. The fate of the General Belgrano made it absolutely clear to the Argentinians that Britannia ruled the waves off the Argentinian coast.

Be that as it may, the conflict was not a showcase for “high-tech” 1980’s naval warfare. Let me explain.

At the time, I was the Medical Officer on a U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser. The C.O. used the opportunity to have discussions with the officers in the Ward Room regarding what tactics would or should be used in the upcoming war.

To tell you the truth, we had a hard time relating to the naval situation as it was totally out of synch with 1980’s U.S. Navy carrier battle doctrine. The situation was, to be blunt, rather primitive. .

During that time period, I had read Dudley Pope’s history of the Battle of Copenhagen and that had gotten me interested in reading the remainder of the Royal Navy’s history during the Napoleonic era. The mental fast forward to the late 20th Century brought into sharp contrast the sorry state the Royal Navy had sunk to in going from total maritime dominance to sustaining major battle damage from a Third World country.

From before Napoleonic times until World War II, the Royal Navy was at the forefront of naval technology. Even in carrier warfare, the armored deck, the angle deck, the steam catapult and the carrier landing guidance system were British innovations. Now, the Royal Navy was totally outclassed in modern naval warfare and resorting to ski jump carriers that, at 20,000 tons, were merely cruisers modified to carry VTOL aircraft.

In the vernacular of the day, the Brits were going to war with “Gary Hart Carriers".

However, even if Santa Claus had given the Brits a decent CVA or CVN as an early Christmas present, a CVA filled with Harriers was not the answer. The CVA itself is just expensive real estate with little combat capabilities. What makes a CVA or CVN a potent weapon is all the defensive components of the carrier battle group and the defensive and offensive aircraft mix of the carrier.

In 1980’s naval warfare with aircraft carrying standoff weapons it was simply not acceptable to allow an enemy aircraft within 100 miles of a U.S. Navy battle group during wartime according to U.S. Navy battle doctrine. E-2 Hawkeye aircraft provided the carrier battle group with long range sensing. The F-14 fighter squadrons provided an air superiority fighter that was more than a match for any enemy aircraft. As a last resort, the “small boys” provided last ditch missile air defense. Most of the resources of a U.S. Navy carrier battle group are devoted to absolute defense of the battle group.

Without “real carriers”, the British were limited to Harriers which are simply not acceptable in modern naval warfare. Without E-2 Hawkeyes guiding air superiority fighters to engage enemy aircraft 100 miles from the fleet, the British fleet was virtually a sitting duck to air attack. Without such air superiority fighters and their forward "eyes", even antiquated Skyhawks were able to fly over the British fleet and drop “dumb bombs” on the British fleet.

Such a sorry state of affairs would not have come to pass if the British Government had not cancelled the Queen Elizabeth class carriers in the 1966 Defense White paper.

At some point, it must be admitted the technology has passed you by and you must upgrade or die. So it was in going from sail to steam to ironclads to Dreadnoughts to battleships to carriers.

Such upgrades are monumentally expensive. However, without them, every tin pot dictator than can afford to buy a few squadrons of antiquated jets will be able to drop dumb bombs on Royal Navy task forces. The British powers-that-be did not admit the need to modernize the Royal Navy’s carrier forces in the 1960’s and way too many Royal Navy ships were therefore unnecessarily lost in the 1980’s at the Falklands.

Pictured below is an artist’s rendition of what the HMS Queen Elizabeth CVA.01 and the HMS Duke Of Edinburgh CVA.02 would have looked like if their construction had not been cancelled. If they had been at the Falklands, the Royal Navy would have been able to fight a modern naval war as it should be fought.

However, this was not a war that was won or lost with infantry but a war that was won with Sea Power.

Sea power played its part, but it wasn’t the sole reason or in fact the determining reason behind the British success. All three forces played their part, add to that the political will from Maggie Thatcher and her cabinet which also proved an overwhelming factor in the war, and it was something the Argentinians hadn’t counted on. The RN provided the means to get to the South Atlantic and move around, limited air defence, point defence during the landings and Naval artillery support. The infantry endeavours are well documented, but they dealt the final blow to Argentine aspirations not the RN. Some have indicated that the RAF role was subservient to the Navy/Marines and Army, most forget that RAF Nimrods were flying ASW mission throughout - hastily armed with Sidewinders no less! Also Vulcan Bombers flew from the UK to attack Stanley Airport, although these Black Buck missions were not successful the political message was clear - the Argentine mainland was in range. The RAF also flew special forces HALO missions before the arrival of the main task force.

If any of the armed or political forces lacked the ability to overcome the challenges to adapt and move forward the war would have been lost for sure. Compared to the US, then and now in fact, the military resources available to British are limited, flexibility and professionalism being the key. And outside the US, then and now, which other country would have or does have the will and ability to undertake this kind of operation? In my view not many if any.

The Royal Navy’s fast attack submarines prevented the Argentinians from transporting the kind of heavy equipment that might have made a difference in their land defenses.

What kind of heavy equipment? Heavy Tanks would have bogged down as soon as they were outside the Port Stanley perimeter. Unlike the British the Argies had 155mm artillery and Pucarra ground attack aircraft in the Islands. All other equipment could be flown in by C130, and by some accounts that’s what they were doing up to the very end of the conflict. But like Iraq, the Argentines chose to defend a position when they should have moved forward on the unprepared troops on the beaches, then if necessary, fall back to a fixed position defence around Stanley. HMS Conqueror sinking the Belgrano was a severe blow to the Argentine Navy, but it wasn’t a fatal blow. Political and military commitment was as much to blame for the recall to port of the Argentine Navy as the presence of Royal Navy submarines. The Argentine surface fleet was considered to be a dire threat to the task force and their diesel subs even more so, but they never committed. The constant hunt for the subs did, by some accounts, contribute to the decline in the local whale population.

The Royal Navy 1982

With the adherence to being “a good NATO partner”, shrinking Empire, reduced global commitments and reduced defence spending, successive British governments did gut the Royal Navy and its capabilities. The Invincible Class aircraft carriers were, in fact, designated Through Deck Cruisers a political expedient that was supposed to sound the death nell of RN Carriers and the Fleet Air Arm. Surprisingly it was the RAF that saved the FAA, had the RAF not chosen the Harrier the RN’s budget alone wouldn’t have stretched to the development of the Sea Harrier and FAA fixed wing aircraft would have been consigned to history.

As part of the NATO alliance, the RN surface role was to provide ASW capability, between Greenland/Iceland and Iceland/UK, to stop Soviet subs from leaking into the Atlantic to attack US and Canadian troop ships and carrier groups. The RN carriers were primarily designed as command ships capable of deploying a large number ASW helicopters, Sea Harriers were only intended to offer a limited defence ability against Soviet aircraft. Air defence elements would have been supplied from land based aircraft from Scotland and US carriers, point defence would be from Frigates and Destroyers which would also deploy ASW helicopters.

The Royal Navy went to a war with an ability to fight the Soviets but without the air cover from land based and US carrier aircraft. The RN paid in the Falklands for being a good NATO partner, but to apply U.S. Navy carrier battle doctrine was never applicable. The choices were stark; relinquish the right to the Falklands and and the rights of its people, and subsequently send a message to every tin-pot dictator that Britain would no longer protect its sovereign rights; wait until the right ships and forces could be massed through alliances, building or acquisition; or plan as well as you can, send the best you got, and as a last resort improvise.

I know it may seem strange that Britain could send its armed forces to a war with less than perfect equipment, out numbered and so far away that in the event of something going wrong you would have little chance of getting out alive. Well, its been going on for centuries we like to call it tradition. The proofs out there Agincourt, Spanish Amarda, Battle of Britain . . .

And, although its taken far too long, things are set to change for the RN. New Type 45 Air defence destroyers, 2 new 60,000 ton carriers with JSF to replace the Harrier. It’s all here:

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk

Sea power played its part, but it wasn’t the sole reason or in fact the determining reason behind the British success. All three forces played their part, ........

However, as Spain, Napoleon and Hitler found out, the mightiest army in Western Europe is absolutely impotent against an island nation that controls the sea around it. Sea power not so much determines if the war is won or lost but whether the Land Battle of Britain ever takes place at all.

Compared to the US, then and now in fact, the military resources available to British are limited, flexibility and professionalism being the key. And outside the US, then and now, which other country would have or does have the will and ability to undertake this kind of operation? In my view not many if any..... The Royal Navy went to a war with an ability to fight the Soviets but without the air cover from land based and US carrier aircraft. The RN paid in the Falklands for being a good NATO partner,.....

That is exactly my point.

I see by your profile page that you are British. My point is not to criticize Britain for not being a good military partner to the U.S. A more loyal ally we Americans will never have.

My point is that, to it's own detriment, Britain has paid too much attention to NATO's needs without taking into account Britannia's needs. Just as sometimes the U.S. has a vital interest that does not involve NATO or Britain, Britain might have a vital interest that does not involve the U.S. or NATO.

....but to apply U.S. Navy carrier battle doctrine was never applicable.

But my point is that it should have been applicable.

I know it may seem strange that Britain could send its armed forces to a war with less than perfect equipment, out numbered and so far away that in the event of something going wrong you would have little chance of getting out alive. Well, its been going on for centuries we like to call it tradition. The proofs out there Agincourt, Spanish Amarda, Battle of Britain . . .

To get back to the should have been applicable......

The tradition of waiting to the last minute to prepare for war was also passed down to the U.S. In World War One, American aviation was so primitive that U.S. fighter squadrons flew French Nieuports and SPADS. (One, the 25th Aero Squadron, flew British S.E.5a's but never saw combat.)

However, the lead time in technology was much different in the old days. In World War One, a new generation of air superiority fighter could be designed and produced every few months. Now, designing a modern weapons system takes years or decades. If purchased from the U.S., training still takes years.

Therefore, the American tradition of being caught flat-footed when war broke out ended with World War Two. Modern technolgy no longer allows such a luxury.

The White Paper that cancelled the Queen Elizabeth class carrier in the 1960's doomed HMS Sheffield in the 1980's.

It is true that only the U.S. can put a decent carrier into battle. Once the French figure out how to keep the Charles de Gaulle's propellor from falling off, they may also be able to do likewise.

My point is that, if any other nation besides the U.S. should have at least one modern CVA or CVN, that nation should be Great Britain.....not France.

If Great Britain had had a single modern CVA or CVN at the Falkland, even the Charles de Gaulle, (assuming you Brits found a way to keep it's propellor from falling off) the Royal Navy should not have lost a single ship to Argentinian aircraft.

What kind of heavy equipment? Heavy Tanks would have bogged down.....

During the war, the Argentinian Air Force fighter bombers were forced to take off from Argentinian bases, re-fuel in the air to top off their tanks and then fly their combat sorties with very limited air time over the British fleet. With unlimited heavy sea lift capability the control of the sea lanes gives, construction battalions could have turned the Falklands into an unsinkable aircraft carrier. More beans and bullets may have greatly strengthened the number of the land defenders but, with the Argentinian conscript army, the value of that is debatable.

French CVN Charles de Gaulle (Propellor not included)

And, although its taken far too long, things are set to change for the RN. New Type 45 Air defence destroyers, 2 new 60,000 ton carriers with JSF to replace the Harrier. It’s all here: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk

Future Royal Navy Carriers

Very nice. I hope you did not sub-contract out the propulsion system to the French. ;-)

Please add me to the list.

No shots were taken head on against any Argentine Mirage. All kills with Sidewinder in the Falklands were rear-hemishphere.

.

Great analysis !

Kudos for mentioning Agincourt, the Spanish Armada, and the Battle of Britain ...

That's the "fundamental" why behind the reason the great language in the 20-21st centuries is "English"

"Coggeshall" in Essex ...

Patton-at-Bastogne

.