Would Argentina deploying its best Mountain fighting brigades affected Falklands war?

[Killerkai1]

Hi,

I'am reading Martin Middlebrook's book the 'Argentine fight for the Falklands'...In his account Middlebrook brings out the refusal of the Argentine army to deploy its best brigades, trained in Mountain and cold weather fighting to the combat zone due to a dispute with Chile...Would this though have affected the out come of the war itself?....For example he points out how the Argentines defensive lines were over extended and badly sited etc. Is there any reason to think that the Argentine commanders of the brigade would have better idea of the operational art of warfare...Your views please..........

[ArchieGates]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b39/ArchieGates/ist2_5942166-bowl-of-popcorn-and-be.jpg

Ohhhh, this should be good, got me beer and popcorns, have at it fellas....

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Haven't read that particular book, but have read fairly extensively on the Falklands conflict and the answer is....Maybe some of the fighting but not the outcome.

A more professional and elite force could have held some of the positions taken by the Argentine defense and perhaps repelled initial British attacks on Mount Longdon or Wireless Ridge, for example and cause heavier casualities to the British forces. They might have been more manuverable and able to initiate counterattacks that might discomfort the Brits. it would have been bloodier and harder.

But the outcome would have been the same, since Britian controlled the sea lanes (so supplies and reinforcements could not be provided to the Argentine forces) and if not total air supremacy (see Sir Galahad disaster), they controlled the battlefield and could have escalated air assaults on Argentine positions--and the use of helicopters for Special Forces actions.

So it could have been a tougher go, but the end result would have been the same. IMHO as always, I am interested in seeing what others think.

[Kiiski]

Haven't read that particular book, but have read fairly extensively on the Falklands conflict and the answer is....Maybe some of the fighting but not the outcome.

A more professional and elite force could have held some of the positions taken by the Argentine defense and perhaps repelled initial British attacks on Mount Longdon or Wireless Ridge, for example and cause heavier casualities to the British forces. They might have been more manuverable and able to initiate counterattacks that might discomfort the Brits. it would have been bloodier and harder.

But the outcome would have been the same, since Britian controlled the sea lanes (so supplies and reinforcements could not be provided to the Argentine forces) and if not total air supremacy (see Sir Galahad disaster), they controlled the battlefield and could have escalated air assaults on Argentine positions--and the use of helicopters for Special Forces actions.

So it could have been a tougher go, but the end result would have been the same. IMHO as always, I am interested in seeing what others think.


I have to agree. The comparison between different battles at the end of the campaign demonstrates this (at least to me) rather clearly.
The battle of Tumbledown Mountain (which was defended by first class Argentine troops, as far as I understand) turned out costlier for the British compared to Mt Harriet or Two Sisters. Still, the outcome was the same regardless of the theoretical quality of the Argentine troops.

Perhaps it is more appropriate to ask, whether the Argentine land forces would have performed better under better leadership. The lack of action and initiative despite the odds favoring the Argentines is striking.

The claim that the Argentine forces were over-extended is rubbish. The line Wireless Ridge-Longdon-Two Sisters-Mt Harriet is little longer than 15 km. There seem to have been as many as 6500 defenders. As there was little initiative on the Argentine side, bigger numbers wouldn't have helped them in earlier phases, either.
Considering that the British were fairly lightly armed (no heavy armour, limited artillery and air support), this should have been more than sufficient. The defensive positions were superb. Andrew Whitehead, CO 45 RM Commando, is said to have commented on the Argentine positions on Two Sisters: “With fifty royals I could have died of old age holding this place.”

All in all, the Argentines (understandably) did not seriously believe that the British would invade. And when they did, it was too late to reinforce. I don’t suppose they could have maintained a higher amount of troops for longer periods. And I don’t believe that switching one unit to another would have made a whole lot of difference. At least not without a totally different quality of leadership.

[cagey veteran]

put the info into that program they use on "deadliest Warrior" on spike.

or find some wargamer kid to roll his 27 sided dice on it.

bottom line-
the brits travelled around the world, on boats, to whithin a stones throw of a huge SA nation, unleased their football hooligans, and then raised their Union Jack.

I don't think a few extra scarpa wearing, liederhausen sporting, spanish speaking troops were going to affect that outcome.

[coltfan111]

put the info into that program they use on "deadliest Warrior" on spike.

or find some wargamer kid to roll his 27 sided dice on it.

bottom line-
the brits travelled around the world, on boats, to whithin a stones throw of a huge SA nation, unleased their football hooligans, and then raised their Union Jack.

I don't think a few extra scarpa wearing, liederhausen sporting, spanish speaking troops were going to affect that outcome.

Lol, well I think you said it for us mate.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

put the info into that program they use on "deadliest Warrior" on spike.

or find some wargamer kid to roll his 27 sided dice on it.

bottom line-
the brits travelled around the world, on boats, to whithin a stones throw of a huge SA nation, unleased their football hooligans, and then raised their Union Jack.

I don't think a few extra scarpa wearing, liederhausen sporting, spanish speaking troops were going to affect that outcome.

And thank you for your opinion, Mr. Jeremy Clarkson....p-):)

[happyslapper]

I've read at least 2 editions of that book, and if I recall, Middlebrook also goes into considerable other details about why the Argentines lost the war. Would deploying a more relevant unit/series of units have had a significant effect on the outcome? my bet is no.
Argentina failed to properly supply and equip its forces, it's navy turned and ran, it's airforce was brought to its knees. Argentina had already lost it's ability to wage war in the air and seas, so the battle was already effectively lost.

Were conscript units from the south of Argentina any more motivated? I doubt it. Did they have better tactics? Marginal. Were they a match for the likes of the Royal Marines or Paras? My bet, again, is no. Argentinas very best troops failed, so why wouldn't the mountain units...

[Mastermind]

You know...from my study of the F War, it would have made no difference. It is my understanding, that Argies had some pretty well equipped and trained men in place...in damn good placement, too...and plenty of them...yet, they still fell to the Brits in little time. Britain was just not about to lose that war....no matter what. That's just the way they are...and, lets face it...Maggie Thatcher...the "Iron Maiden"! Hell, I would have been proud to serve under her, myself. And I'm not even British except by heritage....and, to speak quite honestly about that...a bit proud of it.

[miguelencanarias]

I have to agree with Stainless Steel Rat in his first post.

The best training and equipement mentioned has to be taken in context:
Better training as in not being the poorly-led wretched conscripts who hadn't fired more than 30 rounds in total during basic. So we are talking about reaching perhaps average level compared to British regular army.
Better equipment as in not getting frozen by poor winter clothing as the other conscripts, and marginally better fed. OK, the Argie FN FAL with folding stock was much appreciated, but it doesn't really make the difference.

If I remember correctly, even the best trained unit in the whole Argentine Armed Forces, the Buzo Táctico unit (SEAL- like) had a very hard time taking the positions of the Royal Marines the first day of the invasion.

[armored_diplomacy]

Hmmm ....

From my highly-amateur point of view: it would have made the war longer and bloodier, but with no control of the air or sea, and no serious damage-capability to the capital ships of the Task Force, the outcome would have being the same.
The interesting question is: how long could have the RN effectively support it´s own troops on the ground, if a stronger Argentine defense would have being deployed, with enough supplies (considering the "there´s gonna be a war" option from the very beginning)?.

Maybe ( I repeat: maybe) a longer campaing with more casualties would have resoult in a sort of "negotiated" end.

But, as in any other "What If", even if the answer is a big YES !, the facts provide a quite different scenario.

[Killerkai1]

I was interested reading the testimony of Yugoslav commanders in Kosovo in the various war crimes tribunals how extensive the Serbs defensive plans were for any kosovo land conflict, extensive barriers, major mining of road routes and control of key villages and towns as well as special training to rebut any NATO ground offensive (the Serbs thought an attack would be airborne in nature) and undertook measures to overwhelm any landings by paratroopers. The Serbs also counter attacked with vigour when the KLA tried a major offensive through Pastrik....Contrast that with the Argentines who did nothing to stop the British landing ashore aside from air attacks......Their land forces were not located to support when another when the British breached they lines.........

[martinexsquaddie]

more dead a longer harder fight
allegedly the guards captured an Argie staff officer who they had met on some staff course first words "how the **** did you fail to hold that "
Argentininan gov gambled and lost the invasion was a stupid idea when he task force set sail the gem was up.
But if they had done the senisble thing and backed down they'd have been lynched so they made a desperate gamble few more successful sunken ships a lucky battle they might have won unlikey though.

[BlackHigh]

look at the british documentry about the falklands "how close to defeat"
its actaully unebliveble how many opportunities the argentinans missed and ho many strategic errors they did

[coltfan111]

look at the british documentry about the falklands "how close to defeat"
its actaully unebliveble how many opportunities the argentinans missed and ho many strategic errors they did

Massive what ifs. It's like asking what would have happened if the Germans had manged to achieve their goals in the battle of the bulge.
The Argies were not just beaten on a strategic level anyway, they were throughly beaten on a tactical and man to man level too.

[Kiiski]

The interesting question is: how long could have the RN effectively support it´s own troops on the ground, if a stronger Argentine defense would have being deployed, with enough supplies (considering the "there´s gonna be a war" option from the very beginning)?.

Maybe ( I repeat: maybe) a longer campaing with more casualties would have resoult in a sort of "negotiated" end.

But, as in any other "What If", even if the answer is a big YES !, the facts provide a quite different scenario.

Very good point. Admiral Sandy Woodward stated after the war that he reckoned his ships were going to fall apart by the end of June (Argentine surrender 14.6.1982).
It turned out that the carriers were able to operate longer than expected but on the other hand, the capability of RN for fire support was already weakened at some of the final battles.

So maybe, just maybe, if the Argentines had put up a much better show, the British might have been inclined to accept some other outcome than total surrender of the Argentine land forces.

I'm not really into what if-theories, but if one must be put forward, I have to go with a_d's version.

[happyslapper]

look at the british documentry about the falklands "how close to defeat"
its actaully unebliveble how many opportunities the argentinans missed and ho many strategic errors they did

So?

The same is true of every war. There are countless 'missed opportunities' and what-ifs for the British too, it works both way.

And that is fundamentally the difference between a professional army, and a less professional one. The former will capitalise on far more opportunities.

[HellToupee]

The war was decided at sea not on the land the only thing that would effect the outcome would be Argentina having more exocet missiles.

[Royal]

Contrast that with the Argentines who did nothing to stop the British landing ashore aside from air attacks......Their land forces were not located to support when another when the British breached they lines.........

Dig out a map of Kosovo and a map of the Falklands. Have a look at them.

Compare terrain, distance, supply lines, weather conditions etc.

Slap yourself in the face.

[Killerkai1]

OK...fair enough...but i think it is still fair enough to say that Yugoslav commanders had a better idea of the operational art then the Argentines....