Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dissertation Thesis - Falklands War
ted    9/4/2008 8:21:31 AM
Hello. I have been thinking what subject to base my final paper on before I graduate later this year and have decided to base my work on the Falklands conflict of 1982. However, I am unsure what aspect of the conflict I should focus my paper on and was wondering if any of you were knowledgable on the subject and could point me along certain paths. Any help you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Yimmy       9/6/2008 12:50:25 PM
Regarding the Falklands, I always thought that Iwo Jima in WWII made for a very interesting comparison - given how well the Japanese did in defending a small rock with no fresh water, entrenching over 100,000 soldiers and sustaining them, in contrast to how poorly Argentina attempted to hold a land mass the size of Northern Ireland.
 
The 4.5 inch naval gunfire support the RN gave certainly was not in the same league as the 16 inch shells the USN were using.
 
Quote    Reply

Marine Rifleman       9/6/2008 10:27:55 PM

Regarding the Falklands, I always thought that Iwo Jima in WWII made for a very interesting comparison - given how well the Japanese did in defending a small rock with no fresh water, entrenching over 100,000 soldiers and sustaining them, in contrast to how poorly Argentina attempted to hold a land mass the size of Northern Ireland.

 

The 4.5 inch naval gunfire support the RN gave certainly was not in the same league as the 16 inch shells the USN were using.



 

I think there are some important differences to consider:

(1)    Japan had much more time to prepared the defenses of Iwo Jima

(2)     Geography, Japan only had to defend a single Island of 8 square miles.  The Falkland islands consisted of two main Islands East Falkland (2,550 sq mi) and West Falkland (1 750 sq mi).

(3)    The US faced an enemy at Iwo Jima that would fight to the Death. The UK faced an enemy of differing quality some fought well others surrendered at the first opportunity.

(4)    Japan knew at that point of the war that the Allies would only accept and unconditional surrender, Argentina hopped to force a diplomatic settlement.

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/7/2008 8:01:06 AM
 

I think there are some important differences to consider:

Yes of course.  The two scenarios are not the same, but having read up on both of them I think interesting comparisons can be drawn.

(1)    Japan had much more time to prepared the defenses of Iwo Jima

True, but Japan had other campaigns occuring at the same time, and had scarce resources.  Argentina had more than enough time to dig in and prepare positions.  (3rd April - 21st May, being the dates of the Argentinian landing and then the landing of 3 Cmdo on the Falklands).

(2)     Geography, Japan only had to defend a single Island of 8 square miles.  The Falkland islands consisted of two main Islands East Falkland (2,550 sq mi) and West Falkland (1 750 sq mi).

This is an advantage for Argentina, not a handicap.  The larger island allows for far greater "defence in depth", and provides far more room and options for the placement and moving of forces.

(3)    The US faced an enemy at Iwo Jima that would fight to the Death. The UK faced an enemy of differing quality some fought well others surrendered at the first opportunity.

The Japanese were largelly veterans, however 23,000 were crammed on the small island (I don't know where I got the 100,000 figure from).  In comparison Argentina built up a force of around 10,000 - when their army alone consisted of around 60,000.  If they expanded conscription they could have inflated this figure.  Of course Argentina had Chilie to worry about, but they could have fought far harder for the Falklands if they were in it to win it.

(4)    Japan knew at that point of the war that the Allies would only accept and unconditional surrender, Argentina hopped to force a diplomatic settlement.

They would have been more likely to win a better settlement if they held a stronger hand so to speak.  The British could only land a finite number of troops on the Falklands.
I think the comparison shows just how well the Japanese did.  Of course it is open to question which is harder to fight on, harsh freezing, boggy moreland or barren hot, sulphur rock. 
 
Quote    Reply

Marine Rifleman       9/7/2008 10:47:17 AM

 

I think there are some important differences to consider:


Yes of course.  The two scenarios are not the same, but having read up on both of them I think interesting comparisons can be drawn.

(1)    Japan had much more time to prepared the defenses of Iwo Jima


True, but Japan had other campaigns occuring at the same time, and had scarce resources.  Argentina had more than enough time to dig in and prepare positions.  (3rd April - 21st May, being the dates of the Argentinian landing and then the landing of 3 Cmdo on the Falklands).

(2)     Geography, Japan only had to defend a single Island of 8 square miles.  The Falkland islands consisted of two main Islands East Falkland (2,550 sq mi) and West Falkland (1 750 sq mi).


This is an advantage for Argentina, not a handicap.  The larger island allows for far greater "defence in depth", and provides far more room and options for the placement and moving of forces.

(3)    The US faced an enemy at Iwo Jima that would fight to the Death. The UK faced an enemy of differing quality some fought well others surrendered at the first opportunity.


The Japanese were largelly veterans, however 23,000 were crammed on the small island (I don't know where I got the 100,000 figure from).  In comparison Argentina built up a force of around 10,000 - when their army alone consisted of around 60,000.  If they expanded conscription they could have inflated this figure.  Of course Argentina had Chilie to worry about, but they could have fought far harder for the Falklands if they were in it to win it.

(4)    Japan knew at that point of the war that the Allies would only accept and unconditional surrender, Argentina hopped to force a diplomatic settlement.


They would have been more likely to win a better settlement if they held a stronger hand so to speak.  The British could only land a finite number of troops on the Falklands.


I think the comparison shows just how well the Japanese did.  Of course it is open to question which is harder to fight on, harsh freezing, boggy moreland or barren hot, sulphur rock. 


 

I think the size of the Islands played against Argentina not for them.  Japan had fewer possible avenues of approach to defend and their defenses were in depth. The Falklands are simply too large for Argentina to offer a Iwo Jima type of defense.

Argentina?s best chances to defend the Falkland were first defeat or turn back the British Task Force before it could land and failing that they had to prevent to prevent a successful  landing.    Unfortunately for Argentina they lacked the numbers necessary to defend all likely British landing sites and also lacked the mobility to move forces enough forces  to the site the British had chosen  to contest the landing (San Carlos).  Once  the British Forces were established ashore and the Falkland Islands isolated it was over for Argentina.


 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/7/2008 11:58:54 AM
Obviously sinking the British fleet would have won the war for Argentina, but with British SSN's and Argentinian aircraft having limited range that was never going to happen, at least the opportunity didn't arise until "Bomb Alley".  The carriers could always be held to the East out of range.
 
I don't agree that to win Argentina had to beat the amphibious landings on the beaches.  That was the policy which Japan attempted up until Iwo Jima - and it was an utter failure as a doctrine.  Once the beach defences were breached, they were seperated into pockets, bypassed, and latter destroyed as with blitzkrieg.  Defence in depth with room to maneuver is far more capable a defence.
 
Iwo Jima was not real defence in depth, through the limited size of the island.  It was rather a bastion to the South, and a stronger bastion to the North.  When the Americans landed the bastion in the South lost its lines of communication with the North rapidly (the tunnel wasn't complete), and fell soon after.  Then it was just a matter of storming the Northern mount.  This is while the Falklands offered numerous strong points, with excellent clear lines of fire.  Digging into bogs isn't ideal, but the effectiveness of artillery is also substantially reduced.
 
Ultimately, the British only had so many troops to land (two brigades or so).  Had the Argentinianslanded 30,000 conscripts headed by a few elite units, dug them in and embedded large stockipiles of supplies in the month and a half they had - a British landing simply would not make progress.  The issue then would be if the Argentinians could withstand a blockade, or rather if a RN blockade could force the Argentinians to back down before negotiations progressed through international pressure..
 
Quote    Reply

theBird       9/8/2008 3:08:40 PM
One thing Important about the war is that it was the biggest Sea and Air fight between modern nations since WWII, and thus is a good showcase of modern naval warfare, with anti-ship missiles playing a major role.  Kinda serve the same purpose as the Tanker Wars with Iran except much much bigger.  It also demonstrated how effective submarines could be in modern naval wars.
 
Quote    Reply

forvalour       9/14/2008 7:09:21 AM
does anyone know why NATO didnt help help Britain, attack on one is an attack on all. A CBG and MEF would have made it much easier.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       9/14/2008 1:46:20 PM

does anyone know why NATO didnt help help Britain, attack on one is an attack on all. A CBG and MEF would have made it much easier.
Simple, the British mainland wasn't attacked. Article 5 of the NATO charter doesn't cover attacks on overseas possessions and territories.
 
Or at least, that's my understanding of it. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. 
 
B.L.

 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    NATO's role   9/14/2008 8:39:28 PM

Right.  This was covered in another thread, but according to the NATO charter members have no military obligations south of the Tropic of Cancer.  NATO was created soley to guard the security of Europe (North American security was a bit of a moot point and incidental).  Several of the members (Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and France) have had to deal with colonial conflicts on their own since 1945.  Several NATO countries participated in the Korean Conflict, but under the UN flag, not NATO.  One big bonus for NATO members is that if they go to war in some far away country they can count on the diplomatic, political, and possibly even military support of other NATO nations.  The United States did not contribute troops to the Brits during the Falklands Campaign, but they did provide fuel, Stinger missiles, and equipment to construct airfields.  Were Venezuela to make a play for some of the Dutch possessions in the Caribbean, the Netherlands could probably count on American, French, British, and possibly even Portuguese support were it to intervene militarily.  NATO was created to safeguard Western Europe from the Red horde, but it has also served to forge alliances that have global implications. 

 
Quote    Reply

ambush       9/14/2008 10:31:46 PM

Right.  This was covered in another thread, but according to the NATO charter members have no military obligations south of the Tropic of Cancer.  NATO was created soley to guard the security of Europe (North American security was a bit of a moot point and incidental).  Several of the members (Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and France) have had to deal with colonial conflicts on their own since 1945.  Several NATO countries participated in the Korean Conflict, but under the UN flag, not NATO.  One big bonus for NATO members is that if they go to war in some far away country they can count on the diplomatic, political, and possibly even military support of other NATO nations.  The United States did not contribute troops to the Brits during the Falklands Campaign, but they did provide fuel, Stinger missiles, and equipment to construct airfields.  Were Venezuela to make a play for some of the Dutch possessions in the Caribbean, the Netherlands could probably count on American, French, British, and possibly even Portuguese support were it to intervene militarily.  NATO was created to safeguard Western Europe from the Red horde, but it has also served to forge alliances that have global implications. 



As I understand it  the UK  did not invoke Article 5 to provide the US and other allies Geopolitical/diplomatic cover-avoid pisising off Latin American allies.   I think Article 5 specifies security of the North Atlantic area.  So under that argument an attack on a hypothetical NATO member Georgia would harldy qualify for Article 5 so I don't think it is limited by geography.
 
As it was the assistance the US did provide  pissed them off anyway.
Among the assistance provided: Took over the UKs NATO Naval, aerial tanker and other commitments freeing UK assets for the Falkland operations.
 
Provided kits to wire the Harrier GR.3s to operate for Sidewinders
Rumored varous intell information
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics