Operation Rosario. Background and aftermatch.

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#1

Seems that is for someones interest so I want to write something.

The military at the Power.

The 24th of march of 1976, the 3 Armed forces of Argentina delivered a coup de etat and ovethrowed the Perons widow, Isabel Martinez de Peron.

The situation favored the action, the woman was losing his popular support and the country was sumerged in a internal struggle against the left wing guerrilla, not to mention the cronic inflation wich afected the country.

Planifications for…what ?

As we know the violations to the human rights started right away.
In 1978 there was a nearly war with Chile for the ownership of a couple of islands in the Beagle channel, only very poor weather ( wich prevented the Argentine Navy to Attack) and the Strong intervention of the pope saved this two countries of a expensive conflict.

The planification for the invation of the islands began in 1979. The trio of Military commander summited a request to his generals for a plan to retook the Malvinas in the 150th aniversary of his capture by the british , that would be June of 1983.

Is a cliche to say that the ilegal goverment need a distraction to his action and that caused to involucrate in the war, perhaps there was a real will of retook a historic territory so care to the publc feelings.

The misjugded Geopolitics of the Military Junta.

If we seen the situation strictly from the military point of view the war was losed maybe before it start.

The integrants of the Junta was convinced that It will be no war at all, only a (maybe) intensive diplomatic crisis and the British would give away the isles like candy.

The commanders tough that they as a decent catolic anti-comunist force represented all the good of the occidental world and was completely integrated with this. Moreover, the historical very good relationship and the big comercial trade with the U.K should make an actual confrontation or bloodshed with Britain very unlikely.

Off course they take no account of the strong will showed for the Britons and think that nobody will care by a couple of tiny islands 12.000 km away.

But the mistakes will not end in here.

#2

Panzerknacker you make some very good points. If the attack had happened at another time I think you would have seen a different attitude from the UK. In some ways I think it was a good gamble on the part of the Junta but they got the timing wrong. 5 years latter and the UK probably would not be able to launch an invasion. One of the carriers was earmarked for sale, the Vulcans were to be paid off.

At the time of the invasion I drove pasted Duxford which had just put on display its latest exhibit, a Vulcan bomber. Although the Vulcans did not do a lot of damage it is that they had the possibility to do it.

The signals from FO indicated that we were not interested and did not have the capability to do anything about it if Argentina had taken the Islands by force.

But then the Junta should have thought what the reaction from its people would have done if South Africa had landed of part of Tierra Del Fuego.

They may have also looked to what happened when the UK and France invaded the Suez Canal and the reaction from the US. Thinking that the US would hold back the British so as not to create unrest in SAmerica and problems for them, as they would have to pick a side.

#3

If the Junta had held to their original timetable & invaded in '83, I doubt we would have had the two CV’s necessary for force protection.
As things stood, the Atlantic Conveyor was used as more than a mere transport.

#4

I think this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/CRD.htm

gives a pretty balanced picture of the history leading to the events of 1982.

If we can agree that this covers both sides of things in a reasonable manner, then it gives a reference point for future debate.

Edit: Eee, I just gained a stripe :smiley:

#5

Very good, Topor, but there are truthful things there little.
In some cases it would be necessary to correct it. :arrow:

#6

It maybe a cliche but it has been known throughout history that a common foe or goal, such as the capture of the falklands, can unite a divided country. Argentina was far from a utopia at the time, with the dirty war and economic melt down.

The Argentine Junta, if not the country, was very deluded about the Falklands. Many conscripts believed they would be welcomed as heros, rather than the social lepers they were treated as. They didn’t seem to grasp that the people on the Islands wanted to be British rather than be Argentine. Let’s face it, would you want to be part of a Country run by a military dictatorship with a penchant for throwing students out aircraft in flight and killing their people, not to mention economic turmoil.

Other key points that the Argies screwed up on must surely be the invasion of not only the Falklands, to which they believe to have claim, but also other islands which they clearly do not have any claim to.

I believe the Falklands would have and could have been taken even if the war had occured in '83. As has been mentioned the Atlantic Carrier was being used as an auxillary aircraft carrier, but also Britian was very restrained in it’s fight. Belgrano was sunk, but the ARA could easily have been decimated in harbour by the Onyx class and Conqueror class subs.

If long range bombers - maybe from ascension - was all that we had, then the war could very well have been taken to the Argentine mainland with airfields being destroyed to prevent Argentine air supeiroity.

Bearing in mind that the mainland was not specifically targeted but could have been, it would not have been against any law of conflict to go to the enemies homeland and kick his doors in.

#7

Yeah is a good point but eventually a "what if " argentine victory in 1983 I think that even defeated in the beginning the british could reagroup and strike again.

The major menace for the Royal in 1983 would be the 14 Super Etendar and his Exocet ( all the Exocet, not 5 like 1982)

#8

Probably , the estrategic armament of U.K can be a decisive factor. Maybe that could include the nuclear weapons in a extreme escenario. Even without those the migration of the war to the mainland would be reeeeal nasty thing to do, although probable.

#9

No offence intended but I’ll nip this bugger in the bud.

Panzerknacker wrote:

Maybe that could include the nuclear weapons in a extreme escenario.

There is no way on earth Nuclear weapons would have been used or even contemplated. The international backlash would have been severe. I am aware (thanks to AIDES) that there is some sort of conspiracy theory over the Brits having a plan to nuke somewhere or other in Argentina.

No way.

It wouldn’t have been nice for the Argentine people if the war had been taken to their back yard. But when you start a war, you take your chances.

#10

Which parts do you find factually incorrect?

If you can list them, then we can do some checking & either accept or dismiss them.

#11

No offence intended but I’ll nip this bugger in the bud.

Panzerknacker wrote:

[quote]Maybe that could include the nuclear weapons in a extreme escenario.

There is no way on earth Nuclear weapons would have been used or even contemplated. The international backlash would have been severe. I am aware (thanks to AIDES) that there is some sort of conspiracy theory over the Brits having a plan to nuke somewhere or other in Argentina.

No way.[/quote]

Yes, I know that s why a say in a “extreme” escenario, I ve realize that is very unlikely.

By the way… somebody had info related to nucler deep charges carried by the HMS Coventry and HMS Ardent, I had some info but the source is not the most reliable.

#12

According to MOD Oracle, which is a solid source.

At http://www.modoracle.com/

British commanders sailed into the Falklands war deeply concerned that the Argentinians could capture their nuclear weapons, previously secret official papers reveal.

They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy’s entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal.

Offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to tighten their grip on the islands. But keeping them on board the ships was also dangerous. The papers show the extent of the concern. They say: “It was also conceivable that weapons might fall into the hands of the Argentines, by salvage, if one of the [Royal Navy] ships had been sunk, stranded or captured.”

They add: “However unlikely, the consequences of this would be most serious and the acquisition of UK nuclear weapon technology in this way by a state which had no such weapon would have damaging consequences.”

The papers have been posted on the Ministry of Defence website, after the MoD earlier refused to release them to the Guardian and other newspapers under the Freedom of Information Act.

Although I still say that anyone who thinks they could have been used is not on this planet.

#13

They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy’s entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal.

So the charges was in the carriers not in the Frigates, interesting thanks.

#14

No, they were on seven of the ships. Of which Hermes and Invincible were only two.

The other five could well have included Coventry and Ardent.

However it is highly likely they were all removed to a place of safety, posibly at Ascension or to Ascension, or maybe just to the carriers during the war. Bearing in mind that Coventry was sunk, so there would have been a massive investigation had the Nuclear depth charges gone down with her.

Which I think would also remove the belief that Invincible was sunk during the Falklands.

#15

Fine now I get it.

Which I think would also remove the belief that Invincible was sunk during the Falklands

I dont know who say that before…Erwin I guess?

The Invincible was damaged not sunk, I dont know who was the idiot that invented the “teory” of the sinking, that only cause the disbelief of the serius argentine sources.

#16

By the way…What a hell happen with Eagle, he cause a lot of trouble and cry for this…and now he dont participate… :shock: …Oh the todays youth…¡¡ :x

#17

Tests, exams, who knows…

#18

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/nov/mcclureNOV04.asp

An American study.

And also an interesting reading on Argentina: http://library.nps.navy.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/ayqj2Y5dXF/SIRSI/268790057/523/7025 (with no popup stopper!!)

Edited: As for second link, search for Jason McClure as author. You’ll find his thesis titled “The Domestic and International Dimensions of Risk: Prospect Theory and Argentina.”

#19

Thanks for your links Dani.

I want to do some remarks about the Book “The Secret war for the Falklands” by Nigel west. ( very good book by the way, some nice info in there)

In the chapter “Stanley” he said that the ground launched Exocets used by the Argentine Army the night 11-12 june was taken from the Summer Class destroyer “ARA Segui”.

The fact is that those MM38 were extracted from the french made corvette “ARA Guerrico” ( French A-69 class)

ARA Guerrico.

#20

Would do but it won’t make a lot of sense. Can the mods by any chance move all the posts over together?