Actually Gen S. Argie and Brit sldrs have worked together sucessfully in other peace keeping ops, including at least one op where the Brits were under command of an officer of the Ejército Argentino.
Ive worked with Argentine AF in the Balkans… No problems there.
I believe they’ve worked together in Cyprus on the Green Line to.
VIVA LA PATRIA!!!.
maybe you can find pics of the malvinas in the argy military topic.
I mostly agree with LB’s summing up of the Falklands War.
I dont think the JUNTA actually for one minute thought that the Brits would attempt to recover the Islands and free the people from an evil Fascist Dictatorship.
When they did realise that the Brits were sending the Task Force, I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the JUNTA Cabinet Office that day!
Of course then they had to do something. They have a few weeks, do they put all their best troops on the Island? No they fill the Islands with Conscritps, these poor guys are treated worse by their own officers than they are by the British who eventually capture them. So why didnt they use their best and most professional units on the Islands? Ive always wondered about that, any ideas.
Then, they go and complain that the Brits beat them only because they had professional troops and this was somehow meant to be unfair. War isnt meant to be fair! Same with the sinking of the Belgrano, it was a warship and we were at war.
I think in the end the Argentinians got off lightly in the War, in fact it was probably one of the best things to happen to them. It got rid of an oppressive military Dictatorship and brought in a period of change and Democracy. Also, the British could have went further - they could have attacked the mainland of Argentina, sunk every Argentinian ship and shot down every single aircraft, using the F-4s from the newly recaptured Stanley airport.
Instead of moaning about it and pretending to have sunk half the fleet, you should be thanking the British for saving your country from a Dictatorship.
I would love to fought in malvinas and killed at least an enemy,at least that must had been the wish of every conscripts in the islands.
of course we will go back,every argentine knows,and most of us wish to fight there,and the veterans want to go AGAIN,they cannot wait.
we will invade,in democratic times,both democratics and dicators want the islands back,and the argies want to kill kelpers.
easy,and we sent our best troops you are saying?,a few of cazadores de monte and buzos tacticos and a lot of eighteeners.
the truth is that we will invade,i don’t know when,but im sure we will do.
No Erwin, the sorry truth is, that you wont invade again. You would still look bad in the worlds eyes. And gues what, you would still lose. Your countries weaponry has not moved on and your ships would never get near the Island!
The UK military is so far ahead of your country it would be even less of a contest this time around. Just accept the facts and move on. If not, your going to be bitter and twisted for a very very long time.
Large Brew I
1- the Argentine forces got bitch slapped in 1982 but the fact that the rest of South America are still laughing about it.
As I can see you are not south American. All the south American countries congratulated to the argentine armed forces and recognized its honour. Not only south American nations, the powerful countries too, as Spain, Italy, the Soviet Union, France, United States, and… the United Kingdom too.
2- Having looked at the Argentine military thread the UK had best start producing Centurions and Sarecens again as those Tams and APC thingys look a bit retro.
Are you sure? In 1983, the TAM was an excellent dreadful medium tank, and with his “big brother” TAP (Tanque Argentino Pesado, or Heavy Argentine Tank) could been a really lethal duet. Unfortunately the TAP was cancelled. Although the TAM isn’t the best medium tank from the world now, the TAM could be used from all the argentine territory, since the frozen lands of the South West, passing from the high mountains of the Andes Range, the North East dense Missionary Jungle, to the hot deserts of the North West, with high speed and excellent power. Tell me which british-made medium tank of the 1983’s or earlier could be used in all these terrains in combat.
Blandesburg
1- Eagle it occurs to me that a lot of the problems re removal of French technicians and their embargo was your Junta’s own stupid fault
I am not talking why the French had gone. I’ve posted the French gone in order to show who was being helped by France, if Argentina or the United Kingdom.
2- the French had a number of overseas territories themselves, some of which are disputed, if they had assisted Argentina in a military escapade instead of a diplomatic solution they would have put their own disputed territories at risk.
Oh, Of course… France needed to defend the imperialism, which isn’t supported by the UN in it’s non colonization committee. Although it, France could be acceded to be neutral, as Colombia, which have territories in the Panama coasts, but took a neutral position at the war.
3- The US as a NATO ally was obliged to provide support to Britain against an act of aggression
Did you know that as US signed the NATO treaty, signed the TIAR (Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocate Assistance) too, which says that all the American nations would joint forces to provide supports to another American nation against aggressions of a non-american nation?
The United States needed to control the South Atlantic in his “world”, and who of the two nations had more military units to defend the South Atlantic? Of course, for the United States, the United Kingdom had to stay in the islands.
4- while Britain was a liberal democracy commited to self-determination Argentina was a fascist military dictatorship with a questionable human rights record.
Yu are boasting that the British government wouldn’t negociate with Argentina because Argentina had a dictatorship government with a questionable human rights records… Although it, Ms Thatcher never stopped the good relationships with Chile and it’s dictator Augusto Pinochet, have dealings and selling weapons to Chile, who had a long list of disappeared people.
The human rights weren’t a problem for UK. If you are a dictatorship, but you are allied, you are welcome?
Fluffy Bunny GB:
1- If you want the Falklands back, then come and fight for them
With that phrase you are showing what class of person you are, you haven’t got any sense of humanity, inciting to the argentine people to recover by force the islands, boasting of your superiority in military and the support of the world powers.
2- You invaded another country’s territory. That sort of thing isn’t done in polite society.
Well, we have a lot of things to say. First of all, Argentina never invaded the Malvinas, Argentina recovered them. And who are you to talk about politeness?? In the point 1 you are inciting to the violence, and you don’t have any serious evidence to support the british sovereignty over the Malvinas.
I remember you that the United Kingdom invaded countless nations from all over the world in the imperialism ages, as China, India, Egypt, Central America, South Africa, Australia, several countries of the Middle East, Asia and Africa, and the Malvinas islands too.
In 1833 the Malvinas islands were an Argentine territory, with inhabitants from more than ten years, and with no reason the United Kingdom invaded an occupied the territory… is that polite?
3- The reason the British are usually on the winning side in a war is that we are good at them, having lots of practice over the years.
Of course, Great Britain are the great world power you are only because the United Kingdom solve its problems with the weapons, invading illegally another countries becoming rich with their recourses, that’s why you have practice with weapons over the years.
4- Excepting the example above, we hadn’t lost since 1776 despite having been fighting almost all the time.
Are you saying that never lost a campaign (I am not talking about wars, I am talking about campaigns)? Ok let’s see…
*1806, the River Plate’s (argentine) military forces advance from the city of Cordoba and defeat the British forces which had occupied Buenos Aires 15 days before, in order to set up a british colony in South America, defeating them and taking them as prisoners.
*1807, the British forces lands in Quilmes (south of Buenos Aires) and try to re-invade the River Plate’s Colony. The River Plate’s (argentine) military forces, joined to the inhabitants of Buenos Aires, repealing to the invader.
*1807, the British forces who were defeated in Buenos Aires are expelled from Montevideo.
*1812, in the war between the United States and the United Kingdom, the US Navy defeated to the Royal Navy in the most of the battles, taking the triumph to the United States.
*1940, in Dunkerque the british forces were forced to go away and leave alone to France, and failing the british campaign in the continent of Europe.
*1941, If the Japanese Empire wouldn’t attacked the United States, and it didn’t intervene at the war, the United Kingdom would been defeated by the german forces.
Large Brew II
1- All those poor ill trained conscripts dragged from their homes to invade the Falklands without any notice armed with weapons that did’nt work.
First of all, it wasn’t the conscripts who RECOVERED (not invaded, theres a huge difference between these terms), were the Argentine Navy special forces, formed by marines, Amphibious Commandos and Tactic Divers, with good equipment.
The pages are doing reference to the combats later than the recovering, where the conscripts had to fight to a superior enemy, with bad equipment and lack of meals.
2- The British task force did not sail in secret, it was broadcast live on TV and it’s progress was reported daily across the world
You are wrong again, when the Task Force arrived to Ascension island, Argentina hadn’t got capabilities to know where the fleet really was, if the fleet was moving or it was in Ascension. All that movements were searched by aircraft of the Argentine Air Force, finding the Royal Navy and searching it since the April 20, when the argentine ships were engaged with the Total Exclusion Zone watched by the british nuclear submarines, that’s why the charge ships didn’t enforced the land forces in the islands.
3- The final stages of the conflict involved British forces attacking up hill against a numerically superior forces who had been dug in for weeks. On paper the final assaults on the hills surrounding Stanley favoured the defending forces yet in each case the defenders failed to prevent the advance.
The Argentine forces had much more disadvantages than advantages in the final battles… stay “dug” as you say is not the best, the soldier loose physical skills, and the worst, the soldiers were there by months, suffering frozen temperatures and being all day wets.
About a defence is favoured, that’s wrong. Always, in all battles, the defender surrounded have minimum possibilities to survive.
4- The one thing that made the real difference was spirit. The British fighting man is taught to get the job done with what you have at hand. At the end of the day they were’nt fighting for Queen and Country or for the Islanders . They were fighting for men on either side of them and the honour of their regiment.All things considered they did a good job.
Are you treating to say that only the british soldiers had a fighting spirit? I remember you that a bad-equipped army with conscript without military training hold to the british forces out from Argentine Port by 2 month and a half. The argentine forces fought for their partners and their country. The british forces only stayed in the Malvinas to be paid. A lot of tales of british soldiers ensures that they didn’t know why they were fighting in the South Atlantic, only “compelled” by the Army.
5- Was strategic planning for the invasion limited to occupation with no contingency for defending against military retaliation from the UK. While it may be true that Galtieri did not think that the UK would attemp to retake the Islands you can not operate on assumptions, if you take a piece of land you have to plan to hold it (…)
Galtieri wanted to be the hard man of South America but all he achieved was the humiliating defeat of his Army.
I don’t defend Galtieri. But when the soldiers were in the islands… It was like an argentine obligation of support them. I could see it’s the first time I agree with you.
Gen. Sandworm
1- im sure if Argentina are wanting to test their military might the Americans will let you come and play in Afganistan or Iraq. But I guess we will have to put you all in the north of Iraq because the Brits are in the south. Dont need you guys standing on the corner bitching about the Falklands and miss a car bomber.
Our forces are professionals, they won’t do that. And… if a car bomber is going to the argentine side, do the british will stop it? I hope so.
BDL
1- I believe they’ve worked together in Cyprus on the Green Line to.
BDL, Argentine and British forces are joined in Cyprus as in Balkans. What’s more, royal marines were in charge of a veteran of war argentine commander. There’s a good photo about that.
the sorry truth is that your government is lying you,but you still believe it blindly,there is a secret of state about the malvinas war (in your government part).
we look bad in the world eyes?,it is not a war (that mostly the world don’t knows),just like telling a foreigner that you are argie makes him say “Girls!”;“Maradona”;“hand of god”;“Carlos Gardel”;“Beef”;"Patagonia or “Peron” and it is nice to see that we are known.
there are other things and to be truly,its not important for me how the foreigners look at me.
of course you have better weapons,and economy!,our troops have been in unfavourable conditions and still hurted your assses a lot,you had help from worldwide,come on!,you even knew were our ships were going because the chileans told you!.
usa gave you oil and sidewinders!.
you cannot accept whatever isn’t told by your government,tatcher and blair (oh,trustable people,eh?).
the uk military won a lot of wars,that’s good,but for other things than troops quality,wining a war don’t means your troops are better,for ex,the russian could won a war to usa in the soviet times,but still,the usa has far better troops.
you have to accept the fact that we destroyed more than 50% of your crappy navy with a pair of exocets (and old bombs in some cases).
we gave you nice stuff,great involvement for fighting with conscripts under a junta and with bad stuff at the side of a 3rd world country,don’t you think so?.
our airforce is far better also,and i don’t admirate your army,as you are the only (and the british descendents in other parts of the world) who think that you are the best soldiers (COME ON!!! :lol: :lol: ).
live with this: MALVINAS,VOLVEREMOS!!!
thanks eagle! 
,i see that you still can broke and blow up those british arrses full of acne! ,go ahead,im afraid you know more than me,them,and the whole site about the malvinas!.
Nobody who has ever been to war would love to see another one. You’re talking like some young child who hasn’t got a clue about the reality of war.
Look up the CVR(T) family of vehicles (as used in the Falklands War amongst other conflicts).
I am not talking why the French had gone. I’ve posted the French gone in order to show who was being helped by France, if Argentina or the United Kingdom.
France had no choice about removing the technicians from Argentina after you had invaded the Falklands. They were obliged to under both NATO and EEC treaties. Surely the Junta should have seen that coming before they invaded?
Did you know that as US signed the NATO treaty, signed the TIAR (Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocate Assistance) too, which says that all the American nations would joint forces to provide supports to another American nation against aggressions of a non-american nation?
The United States needed to control the South Atlantic in his “world”, and who of the two nations had more military units to defend the South Atlantic? Of course, for the United States, the United Kingdom had to stay in the islands.
The Argentinians were the aggressors though, so the TIAR would have been null and void. If Britain had attacked Argentina, it would (could?) have been a different matter.
Well, we have a lot of things to say. First of all, Argentina never invaded the Malvinas, Argentina recovered them. And who are you to talk about politeness?? In the point 1 you are inciting to the violence, and you don’t have any serious evidence to support the british sovereignty over the Malvinas.
If Argentina were merely recovering their own territory, they would have been supported by the UN and others. The fact is that the UN do not recognise the Argentinian claim and that is why you got no world wide support for the invasion.
I remember you that the United Kingdom invaded countless nations from all over the world in the imperialism ages, as China, India, Egypt, Central America, South Africa, Australia, several countries of the Middle East, Asia and Africa, and the Malvinas islands too.
Yes we did, but that was a different time with different standards of behaviour.
Of course, Great Britain are the great world power you are only because the United Kingdom solve its problems with the weapons, invading illegally another countries becoming rich with their recourses, that’s why you have practice with weapons over the years.
Before the Falklands, the last war the British Army had fought was Korea in the early 1950s.
Are you saying that never lost a campaign (I am not talking about wars, I am talking about campaigns)? Ok let’s see…
*1806, the River Plate’s (argentine) military forces advance from the city of Cordoba and defeat the British forces which had occupied Buenos Aires 15 days before, in order to set up a british colony in South America, defeating them and taking them as prisoners.
*1807, the British forces lands in Quilmes (south of Buenos Aires) and try to re-invade the River Plate’s Colony. The River Plate’s (argentine) military forces, joined to the inhabitants of Buenos Aires, repealing to the invader.
*1807, the British forces who were defeated in Buenos Aires are expelled from Montevideo.
*1812, in the war between the United States and the United Kingdom, the US Navy defeated to the Royal Navy in the most of the battles, taking the triumph to the United States.
*1940, in Dunkerque the british forces were forced to go away and leave alone to France, and failing the british campaign in the continent of Europe.
*1941, If the Japanese Empire wouldn’t attacked the United States, and it didn’t intervene at the war, the United Kingdom would been defeated by the german forces.
No idea about the South American campiagns, so I can’t comment on them.
In the 1812 war, the Americans attacked Canada, were defeated there and then the British Army advanced as far as Washington, burning the White House. Doesn’t sound like a defeat to me.
Dunkirk was a defeat, but since it was not the end of a war, it is not a lost war. The British won the war in 1945, along with the rest of the Allies.
1941 - By 1941, Britain was completely safe from German invasion, having defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940. Whether Japan had attacked the US or not, Germany could not have beaten Britain.
First of all, it wasn’t the conscripts who RECOVERED (not invaded, theres a huge difference between these terms), were the Argentine Navy special forces, formed by marines, Amphibious Commandos and Tactic Divers, with good equipment.
We’ve discussed the recovered/invaded issue already. Large Brew was responding to Erwin’s post that the British only won because the Argentinian forces were all conscripts with rusty guns.
You are wrong again, when the Task Force arrived to Ascension island, Argentina hadn’t got capabilities to know where the fleet really was, if the fleet was moving or it was in Ascension. All that movements were searched by aircraft of the Argentine Air Force, finding the Royal Navy and searching it since the April 20, when the argentine ships were engaged with the Total Exclusion Zone watched by the british nuclear submarines, that’s why the charge ships didn’t enforced the land forces in the islands.
The Argentinians didn’t have any access to the BBC news reports from the Fleet, that told the whole world that the Fleet was on the way?
The Argentine forces had much more disadvantages than advantages in the final battles… stay “dug” as you say is not the best, the soldier loose physical skills, and the worst, the soldiers were there by months, suffering frozen temperatures and being all day wets.
About a defence is favoured, that’s wrong. Always, in all battles, the defender surrounded have minimum possibilities to survive.
The British forces suffered just as much as the Argentinians from the weather, maybe more since they were advancing in the open while the Argentinians were in prepared positions.
Are you treating to say that only the british soldiers had a fighting spirit? I remember you that a bad-equipped army with conscript without military training hold to the british forces out from Argentine Port by 2 month and a half. The argentine forces fought for their partners and their country. The british forces only stayed in the Malvinas to be paid. A lot of tales of british soldiers ensures that they didn’t know why they were fighting in the South Atlantic, only “compelled” by the Army.
British soldiers only fought for the money? Have you seen our wages? British soldiers fight for their mates and their country just as much as yours do.
the sorry truth is that your government is lying you,but you still believe it blindly,there is a secret of state about the malvinas war (in your government part).
we look bad in the world eyes?,it is not a war (that mostly the world don’t knows),just like telling a foreigner that you are argie makes him say “Girls!”;“Maradona”;“hand of god”;“Carlos Gardel”;“Beef”;"Patagonia or “Peron” and it is nice to see that we are known.
there are other things and to be truly,its not important for me how the foreigners look at me.
of course you have better weapons,and economy!,our troops have been in unfavourable conditions and still hurted your assses a lot,you had help from worldwide,come on!,you even knew were our ships were going because the chileans told you!.
usa gave you oil and sidewinders!.
you cannot accept whatever isn’t told by your government,tatcher and blair (oh,trustable people,eh?).
the uk military won a lot of wars,that’s good,but for other things than troops quality,wining a war don’t means your troops are better,for ex,the russian could won a war to usa in the soviet times,but still,the usa has far better troops.
you have to accept the fact that we destroyed more than 50% of your crappy navy with a pair of exocets (and old bombs in some cases).
we gave you nice stuff,great involvement for fighting with conscripts under a junta and with bad stuff at the side of a 3rd world country,don’t you think so?.
our airforce is far better also,and i don’t admirate your army,as you are the only (and the british descendents in other parts of the world) who think that you are the best soldiers (COME ON!!! :lol: :lol: ).
live with this: MALVINAS,VOLVEREMOS!!![/quote]
:roll: Reality check!
*First of all, the CVR Scorpion is not a Tank, is an armoured vehicle. You can compare it with the armoured vehicle Panhard, not with the TAM, which is by far more heavier and powerful.
*A membership of the TIAR didn’t put requirements about who was the agressor, if the american nation or the foreign, that decition had been taken in the OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos), where all the nations take the decision of helping or not to the american nation, and the OEA acceded to Argentina. If you signed the TIAR, you must to accept these clausules.
*You said:
“If Argentina were merely recovering their own territory, they would have been supported by the UN and others. The fact is that the UN do not recognise the Argentinian claim and that is why you got no world wide support for the invasion.”
LOL, as I can see, when you are living in a world power country you don’t realize that all the UN decisions always benefit the world powers, when they are involved in a conflict, or always the decision of the world powers must be accepted by all the others members of the security commitee.
*You are accepting that the United Kingdom invaded and occupied several countries and territories, including the Malvinas, but you are excusing that were another times… and it is a excuse to keeps this territories now, as the Malvinas, when the british behaviour “improved” and you realize that was wrong?
*I repeat, as United States, the United Kingdom prefers solve it problems with the weapons instead of the brain. Before the South Atlantic was the last war since Korea but… when you had problems with North Ireland, your Paras were there. When you had problems in Suez, your Paras were there. When “Saddam had his powerful nuclear arsenal with London in it aim (?)” -in fact, oil-, your troops were there.
More history. In 1950, two argentine scientists took seat in the “Salvajes” island, in the Malvinas archipelago. How reacted Churchil? He sent a combat frigate with an entire Royal Marine unit prepared to give battle. And of course, all the invations of the XIX and XX centuries.
*You said:
“Dunkirk was a defeat, but since it was not the end of a war, it is not a lost war. The British won the war in 1945, along with the rest of the Allies.
1941”
Dunkirk (or Dunkerque) was a terrible defeat, a frustated campaign. And I said, I was talking about CAMPAIGNS, not wars.
*Talking about the fleet movements, when the Task Force arrived to Ascension Island the BBC never showed exact informs about where the fleet was, and its logical that the Argentine forces didn’t believe all the english news.
*You said:
“The British forces suffered just as much as the Argentinians from the weather, maybe more since they were advancing in the open while the Argentinians were in prepared positions.”
The british forces stayed in the open field only by 25 days, when the Argentine forces stayed in open fields (the prepared positions were only holes without protection of the wind, rain or snow by 70 days, and without movement or change of clothes, the cold in the Malvinas is freezing if you are still by days, and of course if you don’t change your wet clothes, it becomes worse and worse.
*I am sorry if I offended you sayint the british soldiers fights only for the money, but a lot of interviews I’ve seen shows that argentine soldiers fought because they felt the MALVINAS cause much more than the british. And I said that because a member said something like “We won because we have more spirit than the argentines”, and I can’t accept that phrase.
Greetings from Argentina.
Eagal, If you look at the facts of the whole conflict Galtieri had realised the game was up as soon as the task force set sail. The Argentine Navy realised this which is why they returned to port.
It took 25 days for the task force to arrive in theatre to enforce the exclusion zone during which Argentina had a window of opportunity to increase it’s assets on the Islands. The composition of the task force was widely known giving the Argentine command time to counter with an overwhelming force.
As you stated the troops detailed with the defence of the mountains surrounding Port Stanley were in position for 70 days. This should have given them ample time to constuct some serious defensive positions.
The terrain favored the defender as in all cases the mountains were defended by a numerically superior force who had been dug in for at least two months and should consequently have been able to dictate the the shape of the engagement with criss crossing fields of fire ect covering all approaches to the defensive perimiter
On paper a numerically superior force defending the high ground against a smaller assault force should if not prevail at least be able to hold their position for a substancial period of time especially if they have a re supply route availible.
Once the fighting starts. Adreniline overides everything it dosent matter who was wetter or more hungry. This is when a soldiers job comes down to it’s basics, stand and fight. The British forces carried the day because they had the greater will to win.
The Argentine forces may have been motivated by national pride and the desire to right a percieved injustice but they were also aware that Galtieri had stabbed them in the back which is not very good for moral.
I noticed that you mentioned the use of the Paras in suez, we also deployed conscripts as we did in Korea and the one you missed Malaya. the parachute regiment was deployed to NI but so was the rest of the British Army at various times so your point is ? . I seem to remember that the Argentine invasion force was spear headed by SF teams tasked with nutralizing the Royal Marine garrison with a sneak attack on their barracks with the intention of killing them in their bunks, luckilly they had gone to work before the SF teams arrived.
Face it lad, you had the opportunity to be a soldier and you jacked it.
You can still join up if you really want to, but being an chairborne warrior is probably better suited to your personality.
Your patriotism is laudable and you have an interest in the army, but you don’t have a Scooby about war.
Most veterans want to go through that again ? Wake up and smell the maté !
As BDL said if you’ve been in a real war it’s not something you look forward to.
Stop acting like a war comic addicted child, it’s unbecoming.
You will invade in democratic times ?
Argentinians want to kill the inhabitants of the Falklands ?
Sometimes you astound me Erwin.
So are you saying you sent second rate troops ?
Why ? Poor Int or lack of choice ?
Crack on young lad, there’s nothing so heroic as a young man murdering an eighty year old woman… :roll:
Of course Erwin, of course.
True, but the TAM is only a Marder MICV with a bigger turret. The CVRT family are very good light armoured vehicles and the 30mm Rarden cannon is capable of penetrating T-54s and T-55s, so the TAM wouldn’t give it too many problems. The TAM is a good tank for the Argentinian Army, but it is not a world beater.
*A membership of the TIAR didn’t put requirements about who was the agressor, if the american nation or the foreign, that decition had been taken in the OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos), where all the nations take the decision of helping or not to the american nation, and the OEA acceded to Argentina. If you signed the TIAR, you must to accept these clausules.
But the US also had commitments under NATO, given a choice between siding with their oldest Allies or a POLITICALLY insignificant South American country, are you surprised the US came down on our side?
edit - you also said earlier that "Did you know that as US signed the NATO treaty, signed the TIAR (Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocate Assistance) too, which says that all the American nations would joint forces to provide supports to another American nation against aggressions of a non-american nation?"
From that, it is clear that the TIAR is a defensive treaty, not a promise to join in any war that you may chose to start.
*You said:
“If Argentina were merely recovering their own territory, they would have been supported by the UN and others. The fact is that the UN do not recognise the Argentinian claim and that is why you got no world wide support for the invasion.”
LOL, as I can see, when you are living in a world power country you don’t realize that all the UN decisions always benefit the world powers, when they are involved in a conflict, or always the decision of the world powers must be accepted by all the others members of the security commitee.
If might is always right at the UN, why did at least two Security Council members refuse to back the invasion of Iraq?
*You are accepting that the United Kingdom invaded and occupied several countries and territories, including the Malvinas, but you are excusing that were another times… and it is a excuse to keeps this territories now, as the Malvinas, when the british behaviour “improved” and you realize that was wrong?
The British Empire building was done in a different time, when it was considered right by all European countries, we cannot judge their actions by todays standards, because their standards were much different. We ‘keep’ the Falklands because that is what the population of the Islands wish.
*I repeat, as United States, the United Kingdom prefers solve it problems with the weapons instead of the brain. Before the South Atlantic was the last war since Korea but… when you had problems with North Ireland, your Paras were there. When you had problems in Suez, your Paras were there. When “Saddam had his powerful nuclear arsenal with London in it aim (?)” -in fact, oil-, your troops were there.
More history. In 1950, two argentine scientists took seat in the “Salvajes” island, in the Malvinas archipelago. How reacted Churchil? He sent a combat frigate with an entire Royal Marine unit prepared to give battle. And of course, all the invations of the XIX and XX centuries.
We had to react with weapons in 1982, our territory had been invaded and our subjects were living under occupation. The invasion of Iraq was 21 years after the Falklands, so isn’t relevant to the discussion.
*You said:
“Dunkirk was a defeat, but since it was not the end of a war, it is not a lost war. The British won the war in 1945, along with the rest of the Allies.
1941”
Dunkirk (or Dunkerque) was a terrible defeat, a frustated campaign. And I said, I was talking about CAMPAIGNS, not wars.
It was a defeat, but I don’t think it was a terrible one, since it could have been a hell of a lot worse.
*Talking about the fleet movements, when the Task Force arrived to Ascension Island the BBC never showed exact informs about where the fleet was, and its logical that the Argentine forces didn’t believe all the english news.
It should have been easy enough to work out roughly when they were going to arrive though - you know a rough average speed that the fleet will be moving at and you know how far they have to go. Distance divided by average speed gives you a rough time for the journey.
*You said:
“The British forces suffered just as much as the Argentinians from the weather, maybe more since they were advancing in the open while the Argentinians were in prepared positions.”
The british forces stayed in the open field only by 25 days, when the Argentine forces stayed in open fields (the prepared positions were only holes without protection of the wind, rain or snow by 70 days, and without movement or change of clothes, the cold in the Malvinas is freezing if you are still by days, and of course if you don’t change your wet clothes, it becomes worse and worse.
Why didn’t the Argentinians spend those extra 50 odd days constructing proper dug outs and trenches then? They would still have been cold and wet, but you can make yourself fairly comfortable in that amount of time.
*I am sorry if I offended you sayint the british soldiers fights only for the money, but a lot of interviews I’ve seen shows that argentine soldiers fought because they felt the MALVINAS cause much more than the british. And I said that because a member said something like “We won because we have more spirit than the argentines”, and I can’t accept that phrase.
But the battles showed that the British soldiers had more fighting spirit than the Argentine soldiers. The Argentinians should have beaten the British, there should have been no way on earth the British could have won that war. It was superior morale and fighting spirit that helped us win that war. It’s very easy to tell someone in an interview how eager you were to fight and how much you believed in a cause, it’s a lot harder to show that sprit when a battalion of Paras with fixed bayonets is advancing towards your position.
edit - to clear up the confusion and perceived insult in the original.
LARGE BREW
It took 25 days for the task force to arrive in theatre to enforce the exclusion zone during which Argentina had a window of opportunity to increase it’s assets on the Islands. The composition of the task force was widely known giving the Argentine command time to counter with an overwhelming force.
I repeat, until April the 20th, the argentine government never took the possibility of a real war seriously. When it started to think in a war, the british nuclear submarines were patroulling all the maritime exclusion zone, was like send the cargo ships to their unfailing sinking.
The terrain favored the defender as in all cases the mountains were defended by a numerically superior force who had been dug in for at least two months and should consequently have been able to dictate the the shape of the engagement with criss crossing fields of fire ect covering all approaches to the defensive perimiter
On paper a numerically superior force defending the high ground against a smaller assault force should if not prevail at least be able to hold their position for a substancial period of time especially if they have a re supply route availible.
A defence need to have at least a real military superiority than the attacker (the argentine forces weren’t superior in equipments, supports and technologies at all, the british were superior by far). The argentine forces were exhausted with that 70 days of suffering with lonely, cold and hunger. The forces hadn’t got an apropiate nutrition.
The worst, the argentines hadn’t any support off the continent, only a very few non-cordinated CAS attacks of the A-4 Skyhawks, but without the possibilities of the british forces, as smart missile systems, total naval support, total aerial support, enough nutrition and ammo.
The argentine forces were only superior in number. That wasn’t improve the situation, only exhausted more the ammo and the food available.
The British forces carried the day because they had the greater will to win.
You are wrong. They won because they had all the necesary supports and extremely superior equipments and training. The spirit didn’t played alone, and I think it was the least importante fact to have in account to the british forces in the Malvinas islands.
The Argentine forces may have been motivated by national pride and the desire to right a percieved injustice but they were also aware that Galtieri had stabbed them in the back which is not very good for moral.
You are wrong again. If you see the interviews to the soldiers did it from the Malvinas islands, they never remembered to Galtieri, they always said, “we’ll fight for our just sovereignty”, “we’ll fight for our motherland”, “this cold is soportable if this means recover our motherland sovereignty”, and things like that… never “we’ll fight to honour our great leader Galtieri”
I noticed that you mentioned the use of the Paras in suez, we also deployed conscripts as we did in Korea and the one you missed Malaya. the parachute regiment was deployed to NI but so was the rest of the British Army at various times so your point is ?
My point is make understand that the british forces are wherever the United Kingdom have a problem to solve. Few times using the brain… almost always using the weapons.
BDL
the TAM is only a Marder MICV with a bigger turret. The CVRT family are very good light armoured vehicles and the 30mm Rarden cannon is capable of penetrating T-54s and T-55s, so the TAM wouldn’t give it too many problems
The TAM is a complete argentine design. Although the argentine designers based the TAM chasis on the Marder I, it was only the external appearence. The TAM is six tons heavier, and the weapons are more powerful (the main cannon 105mm TAM, 75mm Marder I; secondary weapon 20mm TAM, 7.92mm Marder I). The max speeds and the range of service are different by far too, as better as the armor. Is like a foolishness compare the TAM with the Marder I.
About the TAM versions, are the best armoured systems in latin america, each TAM-system in each specialty, as the TAM-VCLC (rocket launcher), the TAM-VCRT (tank recuperation), TAM-VCPC (general command post), TAM-VCA (autopropulsed artillery), TAM-VCMUN (ammunition provider) and TAM-VCTP (troops transport).
If a Scorpion can penetrate easily a TAM, a TAM can penetrate more easily a Scorpion, with more power and from a longer distance, so, in similar conditions, the TAM of course is superior than the Scorpion.
it is clear that the TIAR is a defensive treaty, not a promise to join in any war that you may chose to start.
As the OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos) recognizes and recognized the sovereignty of Argentina from the south atlantic archipelagos, the United Kingdom was attacking an american state, attacking, since April 25th, argentine territory. As is an attack over agentine territory, the OEA recognized the argentine denunciation about a foreign attack, allowing the TIAR. Of course the United States started a threating campaign to the american nations to not send millitary support to Argentina. Brazil, Peru, Cuba and Venezuela, though, sent or offered forces to Argentina.
If might is always right at the UN, why did at least two Security Council members refuse to back the invasion of Iraq?
And tell me… what we do with only words? If the UN were really impartial, a huge coalition of the Russian, German, French, Chinese, etc armies would be formed to deffend Iraq, as happened with Kuwait in 1991, as happened with Cyprus, as happened with the Balkans. Only when an US enemy is the “agressor” the UN forces or a UN-allowed coalition goes to fight.
The truth is if the UN doesn’t allow to the United States and it allies to attack a nation, the United States, only they don’t hear to the UN, as the UN don’t stop anything.
The British Empire building was done in a different time, when it was considered right by all European countries, we cannot judge their actions by todays standards, because their standards were much different. We ‘keep’ the Falklands because that is what the population of the Islands wish.
I repeat that decision about respect the islanders’ wish is not allowed by the UN rules, because the islanders doesn’t satisfy the “native” designation (We’ve talked about the self-determination right before, you know what I am talking about).
And of course, the UN recognize a kind of self-determination of the inhabitants of the Malvinas islands because the country who is in fault is the United Kingdom. If another country which is not a world power would be involved, the UN wouldn’t recognize it. A simple power issue, unfortunately not a justice issue, the same as the quote I’ve done above this.
We had to react with weapons in 1982, our territory had been invaded and our subjects were living under occupation.
If I am based on the above’s quote, you are saying that the Malvinas are british only because the islanders want it, so… where was YOUR TERRITORY???.
If you recognized that and the main problem was that british subjetcs were under argentine flag, you could stop the fleet and let our ships (about 30 cargo ships) or our aircraft (more than 60 heavy aircraft as C-130, B-707, B-737, B-747, BAC-111) be boarded by all the 2000 islanders and they could be carried out from the islands to London, Southampton or wherever the UK want, don’t you think so?
The invasion of Iraq was 21 years after the Falklands, so isn’t relevant to the discussion.
I think that is relevant, I was showing that along the years, the United Kingdom always used it weapons to solve the problems.
It should have been easy enough to work out roughly when they were going to arrive though - you know a rough average speed that the fleet will be moving at and you know how far they have to go. Distance divided by average speed gives you a rough time for the journey.
Thanks for you little physics class, fortunately I didn’t need it (I am studing at a technical mechanical high school).
I tried to say you that when the Task Force arrived to Ascension Island, nobody but the british forces, had the possibility to know really what was happening there. You didn’t know if the fleet was anchored, if the fleet was returning to Southampton or if the fleet was going to the south atlantic archipelagos, and if the fleet wasn’t anchored, there wasn’t possibilities to know when the fleet had gone, so your calculation of speed = distance/time is not useful here.
Why didn’t the Argentinians spend those extra 50 odd days constructing proper dug outs and trenches then? They would still have been cold and wet, but you can make yourself fairly comfortable in that amount of time.
The first tweenty days because the argentine government didn’t ordered that, the war wasn’t taked as a possibility. The others thirty days were too endangered with the naval-aerial bombing over there positions, that’s why the soldiers only stayed on the holes relatively in safe of the attackings.
But the battles showed that the British soldiers had more fighting spirit than the Argentine soldiers. The Argentinians should have beaten the British, there should have been no way on earth the British could have won that war. It was superior morale and fighting spirit that helped us win that war. It’s very easy to tell someone in an interview how eager you were to fight and how much you believed in a cause, it’s a lot harder to show that sprit when a battalion of Paras with fixed bayonets is advancing towards your position.
Tell me if that is not SPIRIT:
*Attacking to the center of a fleet of 20 ships, armed with cents of AAA units and thousands of SAM available and the support of Sea Harrier (armed with the best short range missile over the world by that time, the AIM-9L), with aircraft without RWR, without radar, without smart weapons, without aerial support, without air-air missiles only compared with the desesperating pilots of the Luftwaffe or the Japanese Air Force, in 1945. Never an argentine aircraft ran away, always attacking as crazy suicides.
*Attacking to the center of the Task Force with only a diesel submarine, interning alone without any connection with the argentine forces, sailing by weeks under the heart of the british fleet without any defences.
*Being more than a month working 20 hours a day, handling with each cable of the entire systems of AM-39/MM-38 Exocet, in order to load it systems without french assistance, to complete succesfully an “impossible task”, as the french named the possibility that Argentina could use the Exocets.
*All the land forces standing the positions by 70 days, without an apropiate nutrition, with lower military material, without connection with the continent, without naval-aerial support, being continually attacked with smart weapons.
*The Marine 5th battalion forces (Batallón 5 de Infantería de Marina) defended and repeled three times an attack of the Scott Guards in Tumbledown, without an apropiate nutrition by days, with lower military material, without naval-aerial support, being continually attacked by support fire of the british forces. This battalion kept fighting the afternoon June 14th in Wireless Ridge, ignoring the argentine surrender, alone against all the british land forces.
*The Army Special Forces Comandos Unit, fighting and defeating in several times to the best “special forces from all over the world”, as the SAS is known.
*The Pucará pilots on the Darwin & Goose Green battle, when the aircraft were destroyed on land, removing the weapons of these aircraft and putting them over tractors, launching rockets and loading machinegun fire against the PARA-2.
*The light artillery (the heavy artillery wasn’t moved to the conflict, thinking that a war wasn’t possible) with a range lower than 10.5km, fighting hand-to-hand to the heavier british artillery, with a range of 17km, moving all the time, firing and quickly running and hiding into holes to protect themselves to the british artillery bursts, to then reincorporate and fire, and repeat the sequence every time.
*Several tales of conscripts with a poor military training who keep there positions heroically, with possibly two conscripts fighting against 50 british professional soldiers. That was said by the same british soldiers who fought in the south atlantic war.
*In Darwin battle, the commander, Lt Estevez was hit in his shoulder, and he kept the commanding in the front of the battle. He was hit again in a leg, an he kept his position. He was hit again in the arm, being pulled up, and he kept his position commanding the argentine forces. He was hit by 4th and last time in his head, falling dead at the instant.
A Sub-Leutenant took the command and he was hit in his arm and he kept commanding and turn the artillery firing until a burst of machinegun reached him, dying. A simple soldier took the command turning artillery firing until he fell dead.
*British forces ensures have seen argentine conscripts fighting only with their bayonets in the Longdon battle, when their ammo was exhausted, fighting agaisnt one of the biggest military powers of the world, only with a “simple knife”. It is remarked by the argentine forces who lived it.
Al the british forces stressed that they found a really unexpected and surprising resistance of the argentine forces in all the combats. In Malvinas the british equipment defeated to the argentine spirit.
or a small, insignificant South American country, are you surprised the US came down on our side?
I am here to have respectable discussions, not to be humbled by others members with this kind of phrases. I think I didn’t fault to the british or another member (or his country) respect never, and I am only asking the same for me. Respect. Respect for me and my country, ok? Thank you very much.
BDL and I appear to be on the same track regarding the British view of the Argentine response to operation Corporate( the retaking of the Falkland Islands ) with the benifit of hind sight we should have been trounced.
The Argentine forces defending the hills around Stanley had ample time to not only dig in but to construct fixed defensive positions that would have rendered an assault if not impossible but at least more costly.
Having read about the speed at which the US forces in Vietnam were able to build extensive fire bases often under fire and knowing what a few men supplied with sand bags, sheet iron and a couple of spades can achieve in a few hours, the Argentine forces should have been able to build a Dr Evil style secret base in the six odd weeks prior to the arrival of the British forces.
The Army and Airforce seemed to be fighting seperate engements without any palpable combined stratagy. The failure of the Argentine command to take the battle to the British forces during the initial landing was a major mistake given the ammount of kit and troops they had available.
Had the Argentine Army taken advantage of their Air Force tying up the FAA harriers in defence of the bridgehead to bring up Artillary and armour with infantry support Corporate could have gone tit’s up from day one. Lucky for us that they chose to sit on their hands and wait for the arse kicking to come to them.
As BDL stated the national pride displayed by Erwin and Eagal is in deed laudable but they fail to understand that the freedom they enjoy living in a domocracy was won for them by the British forces in 1982. Had corporarte failed the Junta would have continued and prehaps that derogatory comment by Erwin about the Argentine political leader in one of his posts would have bought him a one way flight over the south atlantic just like the estimated 30’000 people that disapeared under the Junta.
.