The Falklands

[James Langham]

V1 and 2.X give different views as to what happened in the Falklands. This is intended to reconcile the two versions:

In August Argentina tries to divert attention from the poor situation at home considers launching an invasion of the Falklands. A naval task force is prepared and even sets sail. Following these Argentinian military moves, the company of British troops was augmented to a combined battalion (mainly consisting of TA - one ex-regular sergeant had even been there as a Lance-Corporal in 2 Para in 1982!) on the Falkland Islands arriving just before the task force is in a position to launch. The Argentines backed down with the Argentine government planning to let the islands gradually suffer with reduced support from the UK and decide to establish closer links with Argentina (and in years to come gradually become Argentinian). The defending battalion however remained on the islands not seeing combat. Or at least this was believed to be the situation until records were released under the thirty year rule which shows that the TA were engaged in a nasty game of cat and mouse with a unit of Argentine Naval Commandos that had landed 24 hours in advance of the main body. One of the RAF's 1435 Flight's F3 Tornados is lost when it collides with an Argentine Mirage when shadowing the Argentine fleet.

[Rainbow Six]

Hi James,

Personally, I'm not sure that if a task force had already set sail from Argentina, we'd be able to get reinforcements to the south Atlantic quickly enough to make a difference (I think this was one of the problems in 1982), so I'd be inclined to suggest that British Intelligence gets word that the Argentineans are assembling a task force so sends the reinforcements before it sets sail, causing the Argentineans to back down.

I think the other factor that might be important is the possibility of a Royal Navy Hunter Killer sub being active off the Falklands (I could imagine HM Government making sure the Argentines thought that one was present, even if it was a bluff...). That option is obviously much less likely (though not impossible) the longer the Twilight War goes on - when you mention the Argentine task force setting sail in August, which year are you referring to?

Finally, the nuclear genie is well and tryly out of the bottle by the end of 1997. Who knows whether HMG might nuke Buenos Aires if the Argentineans make a move after that time? (Or again, threaten to do so as a bluff...)

I also think that the Falkland Islanders would manage to remain fairly self sufficient during the Twilight War, and there would be little likelihood of them voluntarily establishing closer links with Argentina.

Also, the Falklands has come up here before....you might be interested in this thread...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=941&highlight=Falklands

Cheers

Dave

[James Langham]

Hi James,

Personally, I'm not sure that if a task force had already set sail from Argentina, we'd be able to get reinforcements to the south Atlantic quickly enough to make a difference (I think this was one of the problems in 1982), so I'd be inclined to suggest that British Intelligence gets word that the Argentineans are assembling a task force so sends the reinforcements before it sets sail, causing the Argentineans to back down.

I think the other factor that might be important is the possibility of a Royal Navy Hunter Killer sub being active off the Falklands (I could imagine HM Government making sure the Argentines thought that one was present, even if it was a bluff...). That option is obviously much less likely (though not impossible) the longer the Twilight War goes on - when you mention the Argentine task force setting sail in August, which year are you referring to?

Finally, the nuclear genie is well and tryly out of the bottle by the end of 1997. Who knows whether HMG might nuke Buenos Aires if the Argentineans make a move after that time? (Or again, threaten to do so as a bluff...)

I also think that the Falkland Islanders would manage to remain fairly self sufficient during the Twilight War, and there would be little likelihood of them voluntarily establishing closer links with Argentina.

Also, the Falklands has come up here before....you might be interested in this thread...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=941&highlight=Falklands

Cheers

Dave

Sorry as it is pulled from my history it doesn't have the date, it's 1996.

I had assumed that the fleet preparing resulted in the flying in of reinforcements (not possible in 1982).

The Argentine alternative plan is wishful thinking and unlikely to work, especially after the war with Brazil.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think that realistically, the Falklands would be eventually forgotten about by England, leaving them to fend for themselves. I'd like to say that the Argentinians would be too busy with running their own falling-apart country to worry about the Falklands, but they just might take the opportunity to take them back. I'd also like to think that the British on the Falklands would be allowed to remain by the Argentinians undisturbed, but I think there'd be some ugly racial violence.

[James Langham]

I think that realistically, the Falklands would be eventually forgotten about by England, leaving them to fend for themselves. I'd like to say that the Argentinians would be too busy with running their own falling-apart country to worry about the Falklands, but they just might take the opportunity to take them back. I'd also like to think that the British on the Falklands would be allowed to remain by the Argentinians undisturbed, but I think there'd be some ugly racial violence.

I'm not so sure about forgetting them. Bear in mind there is a military garrison and a British military defeat there would be politically unthinkable (the Lib-Lab government will be acutely aware that the Conservatives will be able to say at the next election "we won them back for you to lose them").

A foreign adventure is a well known solution to internal problems. Gambling that a task force in 1996 would be far harder to mount than in 1982 (especially as the bulk of the Army is deployed to Germany or on home defence) would be a reasonable assumption.

[Rainbow Six]

Sorry as it is pulled from my history it doesn't have the date, it's 1996.

I had assumed that the fleet preparing resulted in the flying in of reinforcements (not possible in 1982).

The Argentine alternative plan is wishful thinking and unlikely to work, especially after the war with Brazil.

Yep, sounds feasable enough for 1996...and of course you're right about not having the option of RAF Mount Pleasant in 1982. Just out of curiosity, do you have an approx date for full mobilisation of the TA in your history?

I'm not so sure about forgetting them. Bear in mind there is a military garrison and a British military defeat there would be politically unthinkable (the Lib-Lab government will be acutely aware that the Conservatives will be able to say at the next election "we won them back for you to lose them").

A foreign adventure is a well known solution to internal problems. Gambling that a task force in 1996 would be far harder to mount than in 1982 (especially as the bulk of the Army is deployed to Germany or on home defence) would be a reasonable assumption.

I agree with both of these points. Actually it strikes me that if the Argentines decided to try and use force their best option might be to wait until some time in 1997 to make their move, by which time the British Army and the Royal Navy would be fully committed elsewhere. If they move any time before October 1996 there would be more options available to counter them (I still like the sub option....:)).

(Last paragraph based on V1 timeline...)

[James Langham]

Yep, sounds feasable enough for 1996...and of course you're right about not having the option of RAF Mount Pleasant in 1982. Just out of curiosity, do you have an approx date for full mobilisation of the TA in your history?



I agree with both of these points. Actually it strikes me that if the Argentines decided to try and use force their best option might be to wait until some time in 1997 to make their move, by which time the British Army and the Royal Navy would be fully committed elsewhere. If they move any time before October 1996 there would be more options available to counter them (I still like the sub option....:)).

(Last paragraph based on V1 timeline...)

TA mobilization occurred in Sept 1995 for a number of specialists, mainly Intelligence Corps types. The remainder mobilise with the outbreak of the German-Polish fighting in late July 1996. Note that the TA in my background was better recruited as Options for Change (mainly) was dropped after the August Coup and incentives for the unemployed to enlist were put in place. Also remember that British TA units were designed (unlike the USNG) to deploy straight to war if necessary (at least as units they were, individuals were a different case.

In hindsight 1997 would be better, however the Argentines are not to know the future and in 1996 they take the opportunity based on the British Army being deployed (they do not know if in a few months the will stand down from alert).

[Rainbow Six]

TA mobilization occurred in Sept 1995 for a number of specialists, mainly Intelligence Corps types. The remainder mobilise with the outbreak of the German-Polish fighting in late July 1996. Note that the TA in my background was better recruited as Options for Change (mainly) was dropped after the August Coup and incentives for the unemployed to enlist were put in place. Also remember that British TA units were designed (unlike the USNG) to deploy straight to war if necessary (at least as units they were, individuals were a different case.

Yep, that all sounds good...your take on it seems to be much the same as mine, other than the fact that I've based my work on a V1 timeline (my Options for Change actually increased the size of the armed forces slightly), so a full mobilisation doesn't take place until the Bundeswehr cross the Inner German Border in October 96, although selected units / individuals start to get called up well before that.

In hindsight 1997 would be better, however the Argentines are not to know the future and in 1996 they take the opportunity based on the British Army being deployed (they do not know if in a few months the will stand down from alert).

Fair point...it's not like they could give the crystal ball a rub...:)

Cheers

D

[James Langham]

Yep, that all sounds good...your take on it seems to be much the same as mine, other than the fact that I've based my work on a V1 timeline (my Options for Change actually increased the size of the armed forces slightly), so a full mobilisation doesn't take place until the Bundeswehr cross the Inner German Border in October 96, although selected units / individuals start to get called up well before that.



Fair point...it's not like they could give the crystal ball a rub...:)

Cheers

D

In "PURE" V1 I would have the Argentinians go for it in about December 1996 giving them enough lead time to prepare after the British Army deploys. My history started as 2.2 and then tried to incorporate 2.0 and 1.0 history items to try and get a background that didn't contradict itself. Worryingly it now runs to 65 pages...

Thinking about what you have said I will have some units get called up earlier, mainly the support arms that are predominantly TA. I will also start recalling reservists (again specialists) alongside the TA.

[Matt W]

Why go to all the effort of invading?

Item 1: World War 3 would mean MAJOR problems for the UK in terms of importing enough food.

Item 2: Argentina is a major food exporter and has a fairly competent/large military-industrial complex

I can see a simple diplomatic proposal from the Argentines.

"Remember Lend-Lease? In WW2, you gave the Americans lots of money (and naval bases in the Caribbean) in exchange for some obsolete cruisers. Our version of Lend-lease will be a little more generous. We'll give you food, ships, planes, weaponry and strategic metals. We'll even ship it for you. All we ask in exchange is a little cash and the right to put a Naval base on the Malvinas... I mean "Falklands". After all... if we're sending convoys to you... it would be really helpful to have a resupply point there."

"Oh.. and if you want anything else? Copper perhaps? I'm sure we could put in a good word for you with the Chileans. It's time that dispute in Antarctica was settled. Or perhaps you're running short of rubber? I believe Guatemala might be willing to provide a vast amount. Assuming that you were willing to be reasonable about Belize, of course"

BOTTOM LINE: Historically, the UK has been willing to sell off bits of Empire when it really needed to (for example, Churchill was willing to give Northern Ireland to Eire if it allied with Britain) Who knows what the South American nations would be willing to give in exchange for a few islands? Would we see the RAF operating Pucaras, perhaps? A supply of Argentinian FAL rifles for the TA?

[pmulcahy11b]

A foreign adventure is a well known solution to internal problems. Gambling that a task force in 1996 would be far harder to mount than in 1982 (especially as the bulk of the Army is deployed to Germany or on home defence) would be a reasonable assumption.

Britain already has enough of a foreign adventure on its hands.

The problem is that sooner or later, the Falklands and the Mother Country are simply going to lose touch, since the distances are so vast, with everything except radio.

[helbent4]

Britain already has enough of a foreign adventure on its hands.

The problem is that sooner or later, the Falklands and the Mother Country are simply going to lose touch, since the distances are so vast, with everything except radio.

Paul,

I tend to see this as well. The Argentinians had a good relationship with the people of the Malvinas (which is probably the correct way to refer to the Falklands with respect to the Argentinians) in the 70's up until the war. There were talks between Britain and Argentina to hand over the islands to Argentina, or at least devolve sovereignty in some sense.

That said, is there some strategic reason for the UK to hang onto the Malvinas/Falklands?

Tony

[James Langham]

Paul,

I tend to see this as well. The Argentinians had a good relationship with the people of the Malvinas (which is probably the correct way to refer to the Falklands with respect to the Argentinians) in the 70's up until the war. There were talks between Britain and Argentina to hand over the islands to Argentina, or at least devolve sovereignty in some sense.

That said, is there some strategic reason for the UK to hang onto the Malvinas/Falklands?

Tony

Every so often there are rumors of oil finds nearby - these haven't yet come to anything yet.

The most likely reasons to invade/reinforce are actually political and based upon how you will be viewed (and voted against) not practicalities. After all realistically why re-invade in 1982? Having said that if Europe has gone up then I can't see the resources being spared. Pre-war the prospect of British troops being attacked tends to REALLY upset the public (who vote...).

I like the idea of food for the islands. This might make it into the background as an offer that falls through when the war with Brazil starts.

As an aside if you do go for the FALs then I would have a red band carved in the stock and around the magazines (FAL magazines can be used in an SLR (L1A1) but it falls out when cocked!).

[Rainbow Six]

Every so often there are rumors of oil finds nearby - these haven't yet come to anything yet.

There's some drilling going on at the minute but as you've said so far it hasn't come to anything - who knows whether may change in the future.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/sealionfield/

That said, the field currently being explored is a very recent discovery (2010 or thereabouts), so shouldn't be a factor in V1 or V2 T2k.

[James Langham]

There's some drilling going on at the minute but as you've said so far it hasn't come to anything - who knows whether may change in the future.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/sealionfield/

That said, the field currently being explored is a very recent discovery (2010 or thereabouts), so shouldn't be a factor in V1 or V2 T2k.

True but there have always been rumors since the mid 80s that I can remember.

Also since when politicians needed a rational reason?

[HorseSoldier]

I think a reinforcing of the Falklands would tend to be a logical step in the general run up to the war in Europe -- with everything getting tense, sending additional troops there makes sense. Probably would have been a regular unit, later replaced by TA when they're mobilized.

As for why retain the Falklands -- if the Suez were closed by, say, dropping a nuke or two on it, any oil from the Middle East bound for Europe or the UK would be coming around Africa. Having a functional naval base and air field in the South Atlantic could come in pretty handy. Might not be a really good argument in the dark days of 2000, but the UK was one of the nations that took over the garrisoning of Saudi Arabia from CENTCOM a few years later in the Traveler 2300 timeline. Might have made it very important to keep control of the Falklands then (which, ISTR, is the situation circa 2300 in that game).

[Mohoender]

As for why retain the Falklands -- if the Suez were closed by, say, dropping a nuke or two on it, any oil from the Middle East bound for Europe or the UK would be coming around Africa. Having a functional naval base and air field in the South Atlantic could come in pretty handy. Might not be a really good argument in the dark days of 2000, but the UK was one of the nations that took over the garrisoning of Saudi Arabia from CENTCOM a few years later in the Traveler 2300 timeline. Might have made it very important to keep control of the Falklands then (which, ISTR, is the situation circa 2300 in that game).

Good thinking but Falklands will be better fitted to maintain sea roads to the Pacific. For Africa, it will be St Helens and a few more islands. Falklands are way off-roads.

[helbent4]

Good thinking but Falklands will be better fitted to maintain sea roads to the Pacific. For Africa, it will be St Helens and a few more islands. Falklands are way off-roads.

Mohoender,

This is a good point. I do think there would need to be a strategic reason for garrisoning the Malvinas/Falklands. If it's out of the way then there's less of a rationale, and of course South America is not going to be a source of supply like it was in WWII.

If some manufactured goods are coming from Australia (largely untouched in the Twilight War), then perhaps convoys to Europe would travel by way of South America? This would be to avoid the hot war zones off Indonesia and the Middle East. In that case, there would be a point to maintain the Falklands garrison.

Tony

[Mohoender]

I agree with Australia but I also tend to have Chile more or less untouched.

Then it could be the supply line to the troops in Asia.

[Tackleberry]

Chile were also a big help in 1982, they still have a "disagreement" with Argentina themselves.

A friend of mine works in the oil industry and he has said they have found some oil down there, and its similar to North sea oil in its quality. Its just a lot trickier to find it.

RAF Mount Pleasant would allow the reinforcement of the Falklands within 16 hours, so 3 Aircraft and there is an extra 600/800 troops in place, thier resupply would be an issue, but there was certainly enough Ammo on the Islands in the mid 80's to keep a decent sized force going for a while.

Food could be locally sourced from other South American states, but loosing that many troops for a few years would be inconvenient in the least. The local population may not be so welcoming of a large force of bored troops on their doorstep.

[Rainbow Six]

I think a reinforcing of the Falklands would tend to be a logical step in the general run up to the war in Europe -- with everything getting tense, sending additional troops there makes sense. Probably would have been a regular unit, later replaced by TA when they're mobilized.

In principle I agree that reinforcing the Falklands garrison seems logical. The problem is that I'm not sure where the additional troops might have come from, especially if the signs are pointing towards a War in Europe. I just can't see any valid strategic reasons for the Falklands to be that high up the list of priorities. As I've said before, if the UK Government wanted to send a "subtle" message to the Argentines, I think it would be to let them know that an RN hunter killer sub is in the area and any hostile ships approaching the islands will be sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic.

The best I can see Army wise might be some sort of ad hoc Battalion Group...maybe a Company from one of the London based Guards Bns, a couple of TA Companies (possibly from one of the "larger" Bns - I think one of the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters TA Bns slated for home defence had five rifle Companies), maybe pull the Gurkha Company from Sandhurst (I've read that in the weeks leading up to the liberation in 1982 many Argentine conscripts were terrified at the prospect that the Gurkhas were coming...)

Others' thoughts may vary...especially if you advocate any sort of increase to the Army's RL size in the years leading up to the War.

[Mohoender]

I had been doing some research lately on the Falkland Islands as I have them still occupied by UK. I foudn something interesting on the Falkland Islands Defence Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force
.

[dude_uk]

At the chance of this topic being split into a discussion of the TA during the WW3, Britain Puts its forces first on alert when the Soviets cross the Chinese border in '95.

Britain does stand down its alert in October, not a stretch to keep some of its forces on alert.

[Rainbow Six]

At the chance of this topic being split into a discussion of the TA during the WW3, Britain Puts its forces first on alert when the Soviets cross the Chinese border in '95.

Britain does stand down its alert in October, not a stretch to keep some of its forces on alert.

The TA (and, to a certain extent the HSF) is probably well worth a thread of its own imho...

[HorseSoldier]

I had been doing some research lately on the Falkland Islands as I have them still occupied by UK. I foudn something interesting on the Falkland Islands Defence Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Defence_Force
.

The interesting part on those guys really is that they use the AUG instead of the L85, which is logical given the quality of the pre-A2 L85s, but interesting to see FIDF given enough latitude to find a better solution.

[Legbreaker]

They're funded entirely by the Falklands Government and not the British, therefore why shouldn't they chose whatever equipment they want?
Naturally you'd expect them to use mostly British equipment as they're so closely affiliated, but as you point out, the early L85 was a complete peice of crap. You can bet they would have heard all about it from their training instructor.

[HorseSoldier]

They're funded entirely by the Falklands Government and not the British, therefore why shouldn't they chose whatever equipment they want?

Maybe just weird from an American perspective, then, since none of our Nat'l Guard or reserve units have the independence to adopt alternate small arms and the like. (But then even for the NG, 95% of funding is from the federal government.)

[Rainbow Six]

I realise it states in Wiki that the FIDF is entirely funded by the Falkland Islands Government, but I'm not 100% sure how accurate that is.

The Falklands Islands Government's own website states that the islands are self sufficient in all areas except defence, which comes out of the UK defence budget.

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Economy.html

(It is, of course, possible that the UK contribution refers to the British Armed Forces on the islands and the FIDF are classed separately from that).

Either way, I agree with HorseSoldier...whilst I follow the logic behind the decision, it strikes me as a little unusual that the FIDF would go with something other than the L85...jmho...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Interestingly, the Falklands Island Defence Force appears to be closer to the US concept of a State Militia rather than a Territorial Army/Army Reserve unit. I figure that's how the Falklands can state that defence is the province of the British government when there is obviously some contribution by the Falklands local government.
That would go some way to explaining why they are equipped the way they are.

The following article details the 150th anniversary of the FIDF
http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle24.html

[Mohoender]

The Falklands Islands Government's own website states that the islands are self sufficient in all areas except defence, which comes out of the UK defence budget.

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Economy.html



That is in no way surprising. The FIDF is a small force that count between 80-200 members. From what I read, it is strictly a territorial unit taking up a lot of tasks with most of them faling under the domain of civil defense.

In 1982, they were ordered to surrender by the governor but members who had not been taken under custody, played their role as informant/scouts (or so it is said).

The bulk of the island defense indeed comes from UK (RN, RAF and British Army). However, they will be of some interest in the case of T2K. Strictly speaking I have just been writing exactly the smae thing than Stainlesteelcynic.:p