Falkland Islands

[Schone23666]

It seems the Falklands are in the news yet again, after all this time. Anyone's who's been following has probably noticed the war of words (so far) between the UK and Argentina over this set of islands.

I guess this raises the question, in the Twilight 2000 world, would Argentina have made a second go at the Falklands? While there's certainly the matter of pride (or hurt pride) on both sides of the aisle, I would suspect one reason Argentina is making a fuss over the Falklands now (besides both the timing of various events, the anniversary, and the bump Kirchner is getting in the polls) is the potential presence of oil and natural gas deposits in the area, along with the local fishing grounds. Both are going to be pretty important in a post T2K world, and I can't see either Argentina, the UK or any other country ignoring that. Last I read, there is at least one American oil company along with several UK oil companies now exploring/drilling the region, much to Argentina's chagrin.

This also raises another issue...how much capability did Argentina have at the time in T2k? And how much of a capability do they have now in real life militarily?

[Legbreaker]

I can recall seeing somewhere that before Chile and Argentina got into it against each other, Argentina did in fact invade the Falklands again, but were forced out to defend on the mainland.
The UK were in no position to stop them coming and didn't have a lot to do with seeing them off again either (except perhaps sending a few harsh words their way).

I can't recall where I saw it though, but I'm convinced it's canon (V2.x anyway).

[waiting4something]

Yes! This I was wondering this too. The Falklands was like the U.S.A.'S Grenada. Over in New YORK minute with the Cold War, 1980's mentality, and cool pre rail gun weapons.

[Legbreaker]

The difference being that the Falklands actually were invaded by an unwelcome foreign power and it was up to the UK to expel them.
In Grenada, the US were the invaders and their actions were condemned by the UN.
The similarities were that both were over in a relatively short space of time and the assaulting force (UK and US) were technolgically and militarily far superior to those they faced, but the same could really be said of the Nazi invasion of Poland....

[Fusilier]

The similarities were that both were over in a relatively short space of time and the assaulting force (UK and US) were technolgically and militarily far superior to those they faced.

The technology point is arguable. For example in '82 the British only had a few dozen sets of night vision spread out over their 8 battalions in theater while the Argies had hundreds. They weren't outmatched technologically as one might think, the British were just better soldiers.

[Legbreaker]

The British did however have much newer ships and planes. The men on the ground may have had similar equipment, but the same could probably be said of US troops in Grenada - it's not like today when every man is loaded down with electronics.

[Fusilier]

The British did however have much newer ships and planes. The men on the ground may have had similar equipment, but the same could probably be said of US troops in Grenada - it's not like today when every man is loaded down with electronics.

Ships yes, but even though no Harriers were lost due to air combat, only ground fire and accidents, the Mirage was a credible threat. The Cubans in Grenada on the other hand didn't even have air support. Most of the ships that were lost were not from the modern exocet but free fall iron bombs too.

I will agree that it isn't like today where the soldier has so much reliance on technology. The battles in 82 were about men and rifles.

[Schone23666]

Ships yes, but even though no Harriers were lost due to air combat, only ground fire and accidents, the Mirage was a credible threat. The Cubans in Grenada on the other hand didn't even have air support. Most of the ships that were lost were not from the modern exocet but free fall iron bombs too.

I will agree that it isn't like today where the soldier has so much reliance on technology. The battles in 82 were about men and rifles.


It still boils down to men and rifles. There's just more gizmoes thrown in.

[Rainbow Six]

I can recall seeing somewhere that before Chile and Argentina got into it against each other, Argentina did in fact invade the Falklands again, but were forced out to defend on the mainland.
The UK were in no position to stop them coming and didn't have a lot to do with seeing them off again either (except perhaps sending a few harsh words their way).

I can't recall where I saw it though, but I'm convinced it's canon (V2.x anyway).

Pretty sure you're right...I think it's in the section towards the back the BYB that describes the global situation. I don't think it's mentioned at all in V1 other than a reference in the Survivor's Guide to UK about a Battalion of Territorial Infantry being sent to bolster the island's defences but that's about it.

Schone, there have been a couple of previous threads about the Falklands which you may find of interest...

Here...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2631&highlight=Falklands

And here...

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

[Schone23666]

Ah, thanks for that RainbowSix, I missed those threads. I just thought it felt relevant to raise it up again since the Falklands are once again an issue, apparently.

However, Avantman42 did list a series of incidents that show this is hardly an old issue:

1903: Argentina acquires administration of a meterological station in the South Orkney Islands, and claims it as evidence of a transfer of sovereignty throughout all the Falkland Islands Dependencies
1927: Argentina asks the International Postal Union to accept Argentine jurisdition over all the Falkland Islands Dependencies
1947: Argentina issues stamps for use in 'Malvinas and Dependencies'
1960: UN Resolution 1514 calls for an end to colonialism; Britain lists the Islands as a colony and Argentina objects
1964: An Argentine pilot lands a Cessna 172 on Stanley racecourse, plants Argentine flag and hands over letter declaring Argentine sovereignty
1966: Aerolineas Argentinas DC4 lands on Stanley racecourse after being hijacked by 20 terrorists calling themselves 'Condors' who take 4 Islanders prisoner but surrender after 1 night
1966: Argentine marines dropped off at night by submarine Santiago del Estero to reconnoitre potential landing beaches near Stanley
1968: Small private plane with 3 Argentines on board, sponsored by Argentine press, crash-lands in Stanley
1973: Newly-elected Argentine Peronist government renews sovereignty claim in the UN
1975: Air travellers from Falklands now required to obtain clearance from Argentine Foreign Ministry (all air travel to/from the islands is via Argentina)
1976: British Antarctic Survey ship RRS Shackleton fired-on by Argentine gunboat
1976: Argentina sets up illegal and clandestine military base on Southern Thule, a Falkland Islands Dependency situated south of South Georgia
1977: Argentine sailors land on the island of Morrell in the South Sandwich Islands, claiming they are undertaking scientific research
1977: Britain secretly sends a nuclear submarine and two frigates to the South Atlantic in response to Argentine preparations for naval 'manoeuvres' which then halt
1981: Argentina protests to UN over lack of progress on sovereignty dispute

All the above happened before General Galtieri's junta seized power in Argentina.


Hmm, seems familiar, doesn't it?

The Falklanders have stated their desire to remain under the Union Jack though, haven't they? I've heard of various opinions on the Argentine side about "what to do with the Falklanders" if the islands became Las Malvinas ranging from just letting them continue to live under the Argentine flag (though somehow I don't think it would go over that smoothly) up to "forced relocation" (which I don't think would go over well at all).

[Rainbow Six]

The Falklanders have stated their desire to remain under the Union Jack though, haven't they?

Correct. The Islanders' wishes are that the Falklands remains an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.

[Schone23666]

To any and all our fellow U.K. readers and players, I've been following Sean Penn's latest antics and how he's waded into this international dispute. I'd like to apologize on American's behalf for this turkey who stars in turkey films, who clearly had no business getting involved in this dispute in the first place. :rolleyes:

[Mahatatain]

The British did however have much newer ships and planes. The men on the ground may have had similar equipment, but the same could probably be said of US troops in Grenada - it's not like today when every man is loaded down with electronics.
Fusilier has already mentioned how big a threat the Mirage was (particularly with the extra Exocet missiles the French reputedly sold the Argentinians after the war had started :mad:) but I have read somewhere that the British ground troops preferred the FN FALs that the Argentinians were armed with to the SLRs they were armed with and that some of them "swapped".

I've also read somewhere that the British troops were armed with a lot more AT weapons which they used against fixed positions. The basic difference in the ground war was really the training and (therefore) quality of the troops.

[Sanjuro]

I have read somewhere that the British ground troops preferred the FN FALs that the Argentinians were armed with to the SLRs
I haven't heard that, but I have heard some SF units (most notably the MAW cadre during the attack on Top Malo) who were armed with M16s regretted the loss of stopping power.

[Fusilier]

I haven't heard that, but I have heard some SF units (most notably the MAW cadre during the attack on Top Malo) who were armed with M16s regretted the loss of stopping power.

That's true - at least more than just a rumor. There's a youtube video of one of the MAWC guys talking about Top Malo and specifically mentioned shooting up one of his targets with a number of rounds but not killing him. He was quite disappointed in the weapon like you mentioned.

[Mahatatain]

I haven't heard that, but I have heard some SF units (most notably the MAW cadre during the attack on Top Malo) who were armed with M16s regretted the loss of stopping power.
I was an Army cadet in the mid 80's and on an annual camp I also remember meeting a soldier who had served in the Falklands (I have a feeling that it was "served" rather than "saw action" but this was a long time ago) but I also remember him talking about this subject as it started with him explaining how you could "convert" an SLR into a full auto weapon by using a matchstick. I don't remember how and it sounded incredibly dangerous to the firer but that was what he claimed.

He also said that most of the soldiers preferred the Argentine FN FALs.

[Rainbow Six]

I was an Army cadet in the mid 80's and on an annual camp I also remember meeting a soldier who had served in the Falklands (I have a feeling that it was "served" rather than "saw action" but this was a long time ago) but I also remember him talking about this subject as it started with him explaining how you could "convert" an SLR into a full auto weapon by using a matchstick. I don't remember how and it sounded incredibly dangerous to the firer but that was what he claimed.

I've heard this before as well. A guy I used to work with was with the 7th Armoured Brigade REME duing Gulf War 1 and spoke about SLR's being converted to fully auto a couple of times. The way he told it it wasn't that tricky to do but I remember he did say that someone nearly shot their own foot off...

[rcaf_777]

British Troops I think liked the full Automatic Fire on FN FAL instead of the Semi Auto on their weapons

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I heard that more than a couple of (iron) bombs that hit British ships didn't go off because the arming mechanism had been inadvertently painted over, not allowing the arming prop to spin up, and had that not been the case there would've been more shipping losses than there were. Not sure how true it is or isn't.

The British forces had a rough go of it, and technically I agree they were a lot more closely matched than some may think.

[Fusilier]

I heard that more than a couple of (iron) bombs that hit British ships didn't go off because the arming mechanism had been inadvertently painted over, not allowing the arming prop to spin up, and had that not been the case there would've been more shipping losses than there were. Not sure how true it is or isn't.

The British forces had a rough go of it, and technically I agree they were a lot more closely matched than some may think.

That may have happened, but the main reason was the planes were dropping them too low and they weren't arming in time. The Argies figured it out after San Carlos though and adjusted the fuses.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regards to the matchstick trick, it's not particularly difficult and it's no more dangerous than having any other 7.62x51mm weapon on full auto. This 'trick' was part of the 'knowledge' passed on by various senior infantry soldiers in the Aussie Army and I obviously the British Army as well.

I distinctly recall reading at least one book on the Falklands that British troops favoured the FALs for two reasons: -
1. a fair number of the FALs had the folding stock
and
2. as has been mentioned, the FAL has a full auto selector

[Legbreaker]

I've heard this before as well. A guy I used to work with was with the 7th Armoured Brigade REME duing Gulf War 1 and spoke about SLR's being converted to fully auto a couple of times. The way he told it it wasn't that tricky to do but I remember he did say that someone nearly shot their own foot off...

I know it as fact. I've done it.
It's simply a matter of breaking the match to the correct length and knowing where to put it in the working parts (hint, the safety sear is involved). Can also be done with a piece of string with an end hanging out of the weapon (for ripping out when somebody comes along wanting to know who the hell has been screwing with their rifle), or simply removing the safety selector entirely (very, very easily done) but that completely removes any and all safeties (besides unloading and ensuring there's nothing chambered).

[James Langham]

From memory there is a difference between 1.0 and 2.x on if the Falklands are invaded, I think there is some info on the Falklands in the 2.0 entry on the Harrier plate in the Nautical and Aviation book.

Kit wise the British Army had the advantages of M72s and Milans as bunker busters. Night sight wise the Argentinians were FAR superior (later generation and more common). There was also an Argentine ground surveillance radar but it was turned of on the critical night to not give it's position away.

Navy wise after the sinking of the General Belgrano the Argentine Navy never left port so it is hard to compare, if the carrier had been committed then the results could have been quite different.

Air Force wise the Argentine Air Force pilots were highly respected, operating at extreme range and pushing home attacks in the face of heavy fire. As has been stated they were let down by the bombs they dropped. I have not come across the paint problem, most sources I have read gave the reason as the bombs were released too low and did not arm.

Logistically the British were at the end of the tether by the ceasefire, the loss of heavy lift helicopters on the Atlantic Conveyer was a major disaster.

Overall it would not have taken much for the British to have ended up holding part of the islands and negotiating.

As a sad aside more servicemen and women have committed suicide with PTSD since the war than died in it.

[RN7]

FALKLAND ISLANDS
Status: British Overseas Territory
Language: English (Spanish widely understood)
Geography: Located in the South Atlantic Ocean with a land area of 4,700 square miles comprising two main islands and 776 small islands.
Climate: Maritime Subarctic, similar to the Shetland Islands of the North Atlantic but with less rainfall and colder winters.
Population: 3,100
History: Well we all know about it!

DEMOGRAPHICS
Of the 3,000 plus population over 90% are of the usual ethnic British mix (English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh), including British military and contract workers and some of Gibraltarian origin. Among the native Falklanders there is also some French and Scandinavian ancestry. There is also a significant Chilean minority, a few Argentines and Japanese and a number of people from the other British Atlantic territories. Most of the population is of various Christian denominations, and the largest town is the capitol Stanley with a population of over 2,000. Despite Argentine claims to the contrary no Falklander has shown any desire to become Argentinean any time soon.

ECONOMY
Traditionally dependent on sheep farming and fishing, the Falklands War totally transformed the economy. Tourism, commercial fishing, communications, transport and construction, diversified agriculture and servicing the defence forces have given the Falkland Islands the highest standard of living in South America. Commercial shipping fleets from Japan, Spain, South Korea and Taiwan as well as native fishing vessels are granted licenses from the Falklands Fisheries Department and intensively fish within Falkland waters. Significant and exploitable oil and gas reserves are known to be present within four sedimentary basins located around the Falkland Islands, of which three are firmly in Falkland Islands waters and claimed by Britain.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Before the Falklands War there were no paved roads outside of the Stanley, only tracks. By mid-2000 there was nearly 500 miles of paved road network. There is no rail system in the Falklands, a former track north of Stanley harbour was closed in the 1920’s. There are two main seaports, Stanley in East Falkland and Fox Bay in West Falkland, and a ferry service operates between Port Howard and New Haven on both main islands. Outside of RAF Mount Pleasant the Falklands has only one main airport at Port Stanley Airport which has two asphalt runways. Since 2003 flights to Argentina have been suspended and scheduled flights to the UK and Chile are undertaken from Mount Pleasant. Internal flights to 26 landing fields across the Falklands are still maintained by the Falkland Islands Government Air service whose five BN2B Islander aircraft are based from Port Stanley Airport. The British Antarctic Survey also used Port Stanley who’s Dash 7 and four Twin otters are used for flights to British Antarctic bases at Rothera and Halley and other bases in Antarctica and South Georgia. The British Antarctic Survey also operates a research ship and a logistic supply ship who frequently call at the Falklands.

MILITARY

Falkland Islands Defence Force
Locally funded volunteer defence force which works with British forces. Basically a well funded and supported militia with high quality training and equipment and British military leadership.
Strength: One company of over 200 personnel when mobilised with British Territorial Army standard training.
Role: Light infantry, with reconnaissance, amphibious and logistic support roles.
Weapons: L-7 7.62mm GPMGs, Steyr AUG 5.56mm assault rifles, Browning L9A1 9mm pistols, AG36 grenade launchers. Various military and civilian sniper and hunting rifles also used.
Vehicles: Land Rovers, civilian vehicles, motorbikes and quad bikes.
Other Equipment: Rigid inflatable boats.

British Army
The British Army maintains a small garrison unit in the Falkland Islands of a roulement infantry company, an engineer squadron, a signals unit, a logistics group and supporting services based at Mount Pleasant. Total strength at any one time is about 500 personnel. Standard British small arms are used plus a few heavier weapons such as M2 Browning’s, mortars, and possibly anti-tank missiles and man-portable SAM’s in stock. Vehicles include Land Rovers and some trucks. During the early part of the Twilight War when the war was going well for NATO and before the UK is nuked it is probable that the Falklands garrison was reinforced with extra troops and stocks of heavy weapons, such as towed light artillery guns and possibly a few light armoured vehicles such as Scimitar etc. At the very least it is likely that the original Army units plus additional war stocks would remain in the Falklands during the Twilight War.

Royal Air Force
The RAF presence in the Falklands is centred on RAF Mount Pleasant, which was heavily developed after the Falklands War in 1982. Mount Pleasant has two asphalt runways (2,590m & 1,525m) supporting RAF aircraft and helicopter operations. Four Tornado F.3s were rotationally based at Mount Pleasant until they were replaced by Typhoon’s in 2009. A VC-10 tanker, a Hercules transport and two Sea King helicopters are also based at Mount Pleasant, as well as two civilian operated Sikorsky S-61’s. Scheduled flights to London and Chile are maintained from the air base, as well as less frequent flights to RAF bases in the UK, Ascension Island and to other locations in the Falklands. Mount Pleasant also houses a joint communication unit for electronic warfare and command and control systems for the Army, Royal Navy and RAF, and a battery of Rapier SAM is maintained by the RAF Regiment. According to any article I have seen about the RAF in the Twilight War the Tornado F.3 was kept in the UK throughout the war in Europe until the later stages as it was a long ranged interceptor rather than an agile tactical fighter, and the small size of the RAF force in the Falkland’s may have led to it remaining there throughout the T2K conflict, as four combat jets and a few support aircraft would not have made any difference to the outcome of the war in Europe.

The presence of the Tornado F.3s would also be a major deterrent to Argentina. The F.3 is derivative of its bomber cousin and has a two hour CAP endurance without drop tanks and a combat range at sub-sonic speed of over 1,000 nautical miles. It is also very fast and can reach speeds of well over Mach 2. It carries eight air-to-air missiles and a 27mm Mauser cannon, and has ten hardpoints for 19,800 ibs of ordinance, and the Argentine Air Force has nothing that can handle it.

Royal Navy
The Royal Navy has a port facility at Mare Harbour adjacent to RAF Mount Pleasant. At this time one Castle Class Patrol Vessel with a helicopter flight deck, 1x 30mm gun and capacity to temporarily support up to 120 troops is based in the Falkland Islands, and there is also a small Royal Marine presence. A missile destroyer or frigate and an ice breaker/fleet auxiliary are assigned to the South Atlantic Patrol to protect British interests in the region including the Falkland Islands. British nuclear attack submarines are also regularly sent to the region. In the T2K period the Castle Class patrol vessel is likely to be still in the Falklands, although other ships may have been withdrawn to the North Atlantic. However the remote and untouched location of the Falkland Islands would also be an attractive option for naval commanders and the surviving British government, and it is possible that a few major British warships could be held in reserve in the Falklands.

ASSESMENT
Without even looking at the Argentine military it is clear that they retain the capacity to invade the Falkland Islands with a large and functional army, air force and navy, although I doubt their military capabilities have increased much or at all since the Falklands War. However the Falklands are infinitely better prepared for an Argentine invasion than they were in 1982 and they and the British government would be expecting it. Reinforcement from Britain after the UK is nuked will be limited or non-existent, but even in the Twilight War it would be difficult for Argentina to invade and they would be facing a thousand well armed and motivated British troops and natives. RAF Tornado F3s in the Falklands would also be a major deterrent to an invasion as they would be to powerful for the Argentine air force to deal with, and would create havoc on any Argentine naval force heading towards the Falklands if armed with anti-ship missiles. If the British have a nuclear attack submarine in the South Atlantic; and I suspect that at least a few British subs will survive the war, they could be in Falklands waters in days and you can forget about the Argentine navy getting involved.

[Adm.Lee]

I've read a bunch on the 1982 war, and I have no arguments with any of the above statements.

I will say that "Sharkey" Ward's book, Sea Harrier over the Falklands was a fantastic read.

[Legbreaker]

I think there is some info on the Falklands in the 2.0 entry on the Harrier plate in the Nautical and Aviation book.

Next to nothing on the Falklands I'm afraid:
Harrier II, RN; Falklands, 1999.
The Royal Navy made extensive use of the Harrier jump-jets in the 1980's war with Argentina and in the late 1990s Falklands Crisis as well.
This aircraft sports a dark gray camouflage pattern with subdued British national roundels and the usual warning and safety markings (the red/white triangles at various locations on the aircraft). The legend "Royal Navy" appears on the tail fin, along with a winged fist emblem that may be an individual flight marking of some kind. The white "721" just to the rear of the national insignia is the aircraft's ID number.
There is also plate F2 from the same book, but it tells us even less:
Westland Lynx, UK; South Georgia Islands, 2000.
This Lynx is one of three assigned to the British Army garrison of the South Georgia Islands and is used both for patrols and liaison purposes. Ordinarily the maritime version would have been used, but shortages forced the British to make use of standard Lynxes in some less important spots. These aircraft have been equipped with internal flexible fuel bladders for extended range operations.
The aircraft has not been stationed to the islands long, as it still sports the olive/tan dry summer camouflage pattern instead of a more suitable colour scheme. The only other markings are the ID numbers in black and the subdued British national roundel.
The 2.2 BYB has the following to say:
Argentina/Brazil: The Argentineans attempted to reoccupy the Falklands/Malvinas after 1996, and the British were unable to spare more than a token force for the islands' defence. Argentina itself withdrew when war broke out with Brazil in 1998, and a small scale exchange of low yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central government in both countries has broken down,and both are now divided into semi-feudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments.
So what can we extrapolate from that information?
The British essentially let Argentina have the Falklands in 1997 as they were too deeply involved in Europe to do anything more than throw a little harsh language at the invaders.
The Argentinians withdrew of their own volition (perhaps spurred on by partisans and what was left of the pre-war TA force).
Soon after, and with the UK carriers out of action, at least one Harrier II was sent south but was likely only a token (if sent at the beginning of the conflict, it's likely in my mind the Argentinians would have captured and destroyed it, or at least it's supporting unit/base. Leaving the aircraft in the Falklands while war raged across Poland doesn't make sense either, especially when the Pact pushed back from mid 1997). It may have been used to harass the Argentinians on the mainland, but was more likely used as air defence of the islands (and therefore probably didn't see a lot of combat).
Three Lynxes (only!) are in the islands with one not arriving until sometime in 2000.
All in all, the Falklands appear to have definitely been at the bottom of the priority list for defence, supplies, units, etc. If it hadn't been specifically stated the Lynx had only been in the area for a short time, I'd be inclined to say all aircraft would have been recalled by the UK to help at home and the islands left to fend for themselves.

[Targan]

Leg, some of your points are not certain. What you've extrapolated is reasonable but by no means definitive. You'll note that the quote says

The Argentineans attempted to reoccupy the Falklands/Malvinas after 1996, and the British were unable to spare more than a token force for the islands' defence.

It doesn't say that the Argentineans actually successfully occupied the islands. From that I would infer that, somehow, there was ongoing resistance on the part of British and Falklands military forces for between 18 months and 2 and a half years. For some of that time there may have been full-blown warfare going on (albeit with modest-sized forces involved), probably winding down as supplies and men ran low and resupply failed to arrive.

Soon after, and with the UK carriers out of action, at least one Harrier II was sent south but was likely only a token (if sent at the beginning of the conflict, it's likely in my mind the Argentinians would have captured and destroyed it, or at least it's supporting unit/base. Leaving the aircraft in the Falklands while war raged across Poland doesn't make sense either, especially when the Pact pushed back from mid 1997).

Again, you could choose to have things this way in your campaign but it isn't necessarily so. The great thing about something like a Harrier II is that you can land it just about anywhere and as RN7 has already pointed out, the Falklands consists of "a land area of 4,700 square miles comprising two main islands and 776 small islands". That's a whole lot of potential places to hide one or more VTOL aircraft, helicopters and supporting supplies and equipment.

The only thing we know for certain is that 1 Westland Lynx helicopter was transported to the islands by the British late in the Twilight War. Everything else is open to interpretation.

[Legbreaker]

It doesn't say that the Argentinians actually successfully occupied the islands.
The very next sentence seems to imply they saw at least some success.Argentina itself withdrewPerhaps they didn't hold all the islands, but I would think the majority, focusing on the main settlements is quite likely especially since the BYB states: ...the British were unable to spare more than a token force for the islands' defence..Everything else is open to interpretation.

I absolutely agree.

Maybe the Harrier(s) did spend the entire war on the islands, but the plate specifically states it's from the Royal Navy. My understanding is all RN Harriers were assigned to carriers, which would almost have to be needed in the Northern Atlantic and not sent to a 3rd class battlefield well away from the main action of the war. Therefore, it makes more sense in my mind at least for the Harrier not to appear in the Falklands until after the decisive battle(s) off the coast of Norway in June 1997. This may have been in response to the Argentinian invasion, however as supporting vessels were rather hard to come by at this time, and the existing ground support facilities for the previously assigned Tornados, etc were probably in Argentine hands...

If in the unlikely event the RAF base was still in British hands, then it would make more sense to send Tornados (since logistical support was there already) and the Harriers into Europe (as replacements and where supporting units already existed). Harriers can indeed operate from rough strips (there's about 26 scattered about the islands I think), but they also need specialist support, mechanics and the like which may be a little hard to come by early on (and especially in the latter half of 1997). Yes, Harriers don't actually need a strip to operate from, but they still need fuel and armaments which need other aircraft or heavy vehicles to deliver. As the Falklands doesn't have much of a road network, that severely limits where they might be found.

Yes, a Harrier could theoretically be launched from the helicopter platform of most ships, but straight out VTOL seriously limits how much fuel and weaponry they can carry. Without an aircraft carrier, they're going to need somewhere on the islands to be fully effective.

As you rightly point out, we don't even know if the Harrier(s) are still there in 2000 - only that three Lynxes are in the area and at least semi active. This of course raises the question of where are they getting their fuel from? My guess is it's not from the North Sea fields and shipped down through the UK - it's too valuable at home. Maybe the Falklands are being used as a stopover by the occasional US cargo ship on the route between the middle east and the east coast of the US? Maybe the UK has done a deal with South Africa - fish for fuel?

One other point is that the token UK force was obviously no match for the might of Argentina, which at the time was not fighting anywhere else (unlike the UK). Therefore, Argentina would have the resources available to hunt down all supporting units for aircraft. From what I can remember, there's a lot of land area admittedly, but it's a fairly barren and open place. A few overflights would probably be all it took to find those support units, or at least narrow down possible hiding places for ground units to check out.

Given that, it seems likely all aircraft and ships would have been withdrawn from the area to prevent their destruction - aircraft support units would have either been evacuated if possible, or disbursed into the wilds to join the partisans/TA.

[Targan]

I'm not suggesting that one or Harrier IIs were actively used in the fighting on the Falklands, but I think it's entirely possible that British forces literally hid one or more aircraft when it became apparent that they would otherwise be captured or destroyed by the Argentinians.

I concede the point on the aircraft markings, though. RN Harriers wouldn't have been assigned to the islands pre-war. Perhaps one or more Harriers arrived on the islands having been flown off a critically damaged British carrier?

I'm leaning away from the idea that the British would send irreplaceable, highly valuable Harrier IIs all the way to the Falklands late in the war. Heck, maybe they would, given that they were willing to send at least 1 helicopter. It still seems more likely to me that an RN Harrier(s) would end up in the Falklands by accident. And in that case it would severely limit it/their operational use, if little or none of the support equipment and personnel came with it/them.

[Rainbow Six]

From memory there is a difference between 1.0 and 2.x on if the Falklands are invaded, I think there is some info on the Falklands in the 2.0 entry on the Harrier plate in the Nautical and Aviation book.

There is indeed a difference. Legbreaker has already quoted the relevant quotes concerning V2, but there is contradictory information in the V1 Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom.

From page eight, referring to events in August 1997

Following Argentinean military moves in the South Atlantic a battalion of Territorial Army Infantry was sent to the Falkland Islands. The Argentines backed down, but the battalion remained.

The 01 Jan 2001 order of battle on page 45 reconfirms that the Battalion is still in place (which Battalion is sent is never specified). That, as far as I can tell is it for V1.

I'd suggest it is possible that the Harrier referred to in the V2 Aviation sourecebook could have found its way to the South Atlantic as part of the same reinforcement (per plate's the reference to the late 1990's Falklands crisis, which fits with the dates more or less). However I do agree that V2 suggests an Argentine invasion of the Falklands was at least partially successful with the Islands being occupied for a limited time, whereas V1 suggests that the Argentines backed down before an invasion took place.

[Rainbow Six]

Three Lynxes (only!) are in the islands with one not arriving until sometime in 2000.
All in all, the Falklands appear to have definitely been at the bottom of the priority list for defence, supplies, units, etc. If it hadn't been specifically stated the Lynx had only been in the area for a short time, I'd be inclined to say all aircraft would have been recalled by the UK to help at home and the islands left to fend for themselves.

Heck, maybe they would, given that they were willing to send at least 1 helicopter. It still seems more likely to me that an RN Harrier(s) would end up in the Falklands by accident. And in that case it would severely limit it/their operational use, if little or none of the support equipment and personnel came with it/them.

Guys, looking at the information on the Lynx, it's worth remembering that the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands (of which South Georgia is a part) are two separate island chains, which are (I think) about six hundred miles or so apart so when the plate states that the Lynx "has not been stationed to the Islands long" that may refer to how long it has been in the South Sandwich Islands rather than how long it's been in the South Atlantic. It's possible the Lynx may have been based in the Falkland Islands since before the war and has transferred from there to the South Sandwich Islands (for whatever reason) rather than having arrived directly from the UK.

[Legbreaker]

I tend to like the V2 version better - as if a single battalion of reservists would cause the entire Argentine military to back down while the rest of the UKs forces are tied up for the foreseeable future against the Pact!
Seems exceedingly unlikely doesn't it?
At the very least Argentina would have landed a force on at least one island, probably one with something they needed as a stepping stone to take the rest of the islands such as port facilities or airport. The TA force themselves probably wouldn't have been the cause of their withdrawal, but the fear the UK would unleash some of their nukes on them back home on the mainland - timing could work given NATO started using them in July 1997....

[Legbreaker]

Guys, looking at the information on the Lynx, it's worth remembering that the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands (of which South Georgia is a part) are two separate island chains, which are (I think) about six hundred miles or so apart so when the plate states that the Lynx "has not been stationed to the Islands long" that may refer to how long it has been in the South Sandwich Islands rather than how long it's been in the South Atlantic.

What's the range of a Lynx? What's the range when you add in the capacity of the internal fuel bladders as stated in the plate notes?
Given South Georgia is administered from the Falklands, and as far as I am aware, the Falklands themselves are the focus of military operations, what's to say the helicopters aren't used right across the area (besides fuel of course)?

[Rainbow Six]

When it comes to the V1 version, I'm inclined to think that the August 1997 reinforcement might have taken two forms - you have the open and public deployment of a TA Infantry Battalion and (possibly) a small number of RN Sea Harriers, and then you have the covert action - most likely the deployment of an RN hunter killer submarine to the South Atlantic, with a message relayed to the Argentines through remaining diplomatic channels that if they attempt an amphibious landing their fleet will be sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic (starting with the troopships). And in the event that wasn't enough to deter them, there's the hint of nuclear attack on the Argentine mainland.

To me, these are the things more likely to deter the Argentines. Whether a submarine is available to be sent to the South Atlantic in summer / autumn 1997 is of course highly debatable, but the thing is one doesn't neccessarily have to be...it could be a bluff on the part of the British Government...question is whether the Argentine Government would risk calling that bluff.

With regard to V2, the thought does cross my mind that a campaign set in the Argentine occupied Falklands would be something a little different from the norm...

[Targan]

With regard to V2, the thought does cross my mind that a campaign set in the Argentine occupied Falklands would be something a little different from the norm...

Yes, that idea tickles my fancy too. And I love it that the Falklands Defence Force uses AUG Steyrs.

[Rainbow Six]

What's the range of a Lynx? What's the range when you add in the capacity of the internal fuel bladders as stated in the plate notes?
Given South Georgia is administered from the Falklands, and as far as I am aware, the Falklands themselves are the focus of military operations, what's to say the helicopters aren't used right across the area (besides fuel of course)?

According to wiki 328 miles with standard tanks. Haven't a clue what the bladders would add.

What you suggest is possible, however the plate notes do specifically refer to the Lynxes being assigned to the British garrison of the South Georgia Islands (Which I take to mean the South Sandwich Islands) and as noted that's a completely different island chain than the Falklands. That suggests to me the Lynx has recently arrived in the South Sandwich Islands from somewhere and it seems to me much more likely that it came from the Falklands than the UK.

[Rainbow Six]

Yes, that idea tickles my fancy too. And I love it that the Falklands Defence Force uses AUG Steyrs.

Yep...I haven't gamed for years but if I was I'd definitely be up for trying to put a campaign together based on the V2 events.

[Rainbow Six]

A minor point, but it just crossed my mind that the Royal Navy operated the Sea Harrier during the 1990's, which was different from the Harrier GR7 (AV8B in US service) described in the aviation handbook so whilst it's shown in RN colours in the colour plate it's likely that Harrier was originally an RAF aircraft that came into RN service one way or another.

[James Langham]

Actually current strength is about 1400 troops - basically an infantry bn plus supporting elements.

I tend to like the V2 version better - as if a single battalion of reservists would cause the entire Argentine military to back down while the rest of the UKs forces are tied up for the foreseeable future against the Pact!
Seems exceedingly unlikely doesn't it?
At the very least Argentina would have landed a force on at least one island, probably one with something they needed as a stepping stone to take the rest of the islands such as port facilities or airport. The TA force themselves probably wouldn't have been the cause of their withdrawal, but the fear the UK would unleash some of their nukes on them back home on the mainland - timing could work given NATO started using them in July 1997....

[Legbreaker]

From Wiki:
GR.7
The GR7 had its maiden flight in May 1990 and made its first operational deployment in August 1995 over the former Yugoslavia. While the GR7 deployed on Invincible class aircraft carriers during testing as early as June 1994, the first operational deployments at sea began in 1997. This arrangement was formalised with the Joint Force Harrier, operating with the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier.
While IRL the RN doesn't appear to have received GR.7s until 2006, they were assigned to and operating from carriers as early as 1994. It's reasonable to assume with the divergent timeline in T2K, the number of Harriers given to the RN directly from the factory was increased and this included GR.7s.
This assumption receives some support from the plate notes as there's no mention of prior RAF involvement with the aircraft in question. That of course could simply be because any RAF insignia has been completely obscured, however a vast number of other plate notes indicate paint has faded and previous markings are beginning to show through. With the harsh sea conditions the Harrier is likely to have seen, it seems likely significant weathering could be expected, likewise revealing prior markings.
Additionally as we can tell from the Lynx entry (amongst others) paint for touch ups isn't exactly common.
Actually current strength is about 1400 troops - basically an infantry bn plus supporting elements.
Still, the TA aren't exactly first line troops are they? Admittedly neither are the Argentine forces (as far as I know), but 700 odd combat troops and their support isn't exactly a huge bump in the road for them, especially as they have their own airforce and navy backing them up.

[JSerena]

Hey guys,

just read an article today in Daily Mail about Fauklands mission and Royal family, specifically prince William being a pilot there. Basically, it suggested that the army in Fauklands is not very pleased about having any members of Royal family there, since the safety requirements has to be 3x as strict as they would be otherwise.
What do u think about it? Do u agree that members of Royal family shouldnt serve in the war in Faukland Islands?

[RN7]

Hey guys,

just read an article today in Daily Mail about Fauklands mission and Royal family, specifically prince William being a pilot there. Basically, it suggested that the army in Fauklands is not very pleased about having any members of Royal family there, since the safety requirements has to be 3x as strict as they would be otherwise.
What do u think about it? Do u agree that members of Royal family shouldnt serve in the war in Faukland Islands?

Well Prince Andrew was a co-pilot of a Sea King on HMS Invincible during the Falklands War flying anti-submarine, anti-ship, casualty evacuation, transport and search and air rescue missions, while Prince Harry has done a combat tour in Afghanistan and is a British Army combat pilot flying Apache's. So I doubt they are all that concerned sending Prince William to the Falkland Islands were the worst that is likely to happen to him is being the target of some mild Argentine propaganda from Cristina de Kirchner who should be more concerned with solving her own country's economic problems than stirring up trouble with Britain over a chain of islands that they have no chance of ever controlling.

[Schone23666]

Well Prince Andrew was a co-pilot of a Sea King on HMS Invincible during the Falklands War flying anti-submarine, anti-ship, casualty evacuation, transport and search and air rescue missions, while Prince Harry has done a combat tour in Afghanistan and is a British Army combat pilot flying Apache's. So I doubt they are all that concerned sending Prince William to the Falkland Islands were the worst that is likely to happen to him is being the target of some mild Argentine propaganda from Cristina de Kirchner who should be more concerned with solving her own country's economic problems than stirring up trouble with Britain over a chain of islands that they have no chance of ever controlling.

As far as Kirchner is concerned, there is a few things worth noting. Kirchner is a member of a political group along with her husband that is pointedly dedicated to the reclamation of the "Malvinas" (Unfortunately, the name of said group eludes me at this point though I read about them recently, I'll try to find it again). Another, Argentina is feeling the effects of the economic downturn and is being forced to trim the budget and social programs, along with the usual political problems that continue to plague the country. The "crisis" that Kirchner is pushing is giving her a serious bump in the polls when beforehand her polls were looking pretty abysmal (long story, but again, lots of problems involving political and budget issues in the country and Kirchner made some bad calls as it appears). And finally....rich fisheries, oil and natural gas treasure troves around the Falklands? The Argentines aren't stupid, they want those islands and the potential resources they could gain from them. Just how well the Argentines would effectively administer the islands, and efficiently harvest said resources were they in control of the islands might be another matter.

The Argentinians figure if they can play the "poor exploited country versus the colonialist power" card against the U.K. at the United Nations, they might be able to garner enough sympathy along with an economic blockade courtesy of Mercosur that'll lead to a successful handover of the Falklands to the Argentinians. However, IMHO, this is more a "Holy Grail" fantasy (with respect to the actual Holy Grail myth, of course). The Argentinians claim on the Falklands is flimsy at best from a pure legal sense, there is no original ethnic group that is claiming ownership of the Falklands, and the 3,000 current Falkland Islanders, who sadly appear to have been largely overlooked by most worldwide media have vocally stated their desire to remain an independent territory of the United Kingdom. Suffice to say, the Falklanders have had some colorful words to describe Christina De Kirchner, Hugo Chavez (who's been offering military support to Kirchner) and Sean Penn (who's been vocally supporting Kirchner's position) as of late, to put it mildly.

[Targan]

The Argentinians claim on the Falklands is flimsy at best from a pure legal sense, there is no original ethnic group that is claiming ownership of the Falklands, and the 3,000 current Falkland Islanders, who sadly appear to have been largely overlooked by most worldwide media have vocally stated their desire to remain an independent territory of the United Kingdom.

I think the Australian media is far from perfect but I keep hearing points like these, especially from American posters on this forum, referring to the worldwide media (or perhaps by that they really mean American media with a worldwide reach) overlooking important points in stories like these.

The Australian media, in its reporting on the occasional Argentinian chest-beating and flag-waving over the Falklands issue, has consistently pointed out that the Falklanders have no interest whatsoever in being ruled by Argentina. And for me that is the most important point in the whole debate. If the overwhelming majority of Falklanders want to remain a self-governing territory of Britain then that is how they should remain, and Argentina can just back the f*ck up.

And that Sean Penn has taken up Argentina's cause in this issue? It strikes me as really odd. I'm not a big fan of Penn's work in film (some of his roles have been ok) but I have always had the impression that he's a fairly intelligent, well informed kind of guy. Why the hell has he taken this stance over the Falklands issue? Of course he's entirely entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, but why is he going out of his way to back Argentina in this in the media? It confuses me. :confused:

[Schone23666]

I think the Australian media is far from perfect but I keep hearing points like these, especially from American posters on this forum, referring to the worldwide media (or perhaps by that they really mean American media with a worldwide reach) overlooking important points in stories like these.

The Australian media, in its reporting on the occasional Argentinian chest-beating and flag-waving over the Falklands issue, has consistently pointed out that the Falklanders have no interest whatsoever in being ruled by Argentina. And for me that is the most important point in the whole debate. If the overwhelming majority of Falklanders want to remain a self-governing territory of Britain then that is how they should remain, and Argentina can just back the f*ck up.

And that Sean Penn has taken up Argentina's cause in this issue? It strikes me as really odd. I'm not a big fan of Penn's work in film (some of his roles have been ok) but I have always had the impression that he's a fairly intelligent, well informed kind of guy. Why the hell has he taken this stance over the Falklands issue? Of course he's entirely entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, but why is he going out of his way to back Argentina in this in the media? It confuses me. :confused:


Targan, by "worldwide" media, I meant to include American media as well, hope that clears that up. ;)


As for Sean Penn....sigh, Penn, well, it's pretty well documented that he's pretty chummy with guys such as Castro and Chavez, and tends to take up their political views (he's not the only one in Hollywood either, sadly, more one of many). Castro and Chavez seem to have latched their support on to Kirchner, if to once again try to poke the eye of the "Imperialist Westerners" if nothing else. I think it'd be rather amusing if the Americans sent a Carrier Battle Group along with a Marine Expeditionary Unit down to the Falklands to "settle" the dispute, and all Chavez and Castro could do was whine. :p

But this isn't Penn's first foray into international politics. Remember when he was calling Saddam's Iraq a paradise where the kids flew kites? Granted that wasn't so far from the truth in some cases as long as you were in the good graces of the Hussein family...

[Legbreaker]

I think it'd be rather amusing if the Americans sent a Carrier Battle Group along with a Marine Expeditionary Unit down to the Falklands to "settle" the dispute, and all Chavez and Castro could do was whine. :p

Not that the US could get away with even thinking about doing that given it's a dispute strictly between the UK and Argentina. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government looking very fondly over the US throwing their weight about where it's definately not wanted.

The UK, despite the last few decades of cutbacks, still has the strength to deter the Argentine military, otherwise the Argentinians would have already acted.

[Legbreaker]

Westland Lynx, UK; South Georgia Islands, 2000.
This Lynx is one of three assigned to the British Army garrison of the South Georgia Islands and is used both for patrols and liaison purposes. Ordinarily the maritime version would have been used, but shortages forced the British to make use of standard Lynxes in some less important spots. These aircraft have been equipped with internal flexible fuel bladders for extended range operations.
The aircraft has not been stationed to the islands long, as it still sports the olive/tan dry summer camouflage pattern instead of a more suitable colour scheme. The only other markings are the ID numbers in black and the subdued British national roundel.
I've spent a little time looking at the South Georgia Islands and I can't for the life of me work out what even one, let alone three perfectly good helicopters are doing there!?
There's no permanent residents on the islands, and it's not exactly a high priority military target, so what the hell is going on? Industry is virtually non-existent (fishing is about it) so they can't be there to protect them.
Argentina did have a small hidden base on the southernmost island (well away from the semi-permanent settlement), but the UK kicked them out in 1982 after the Falklands War.

My best guess is the writers weren't aware of just how desolate and remote the islands are. :confused:

[RN7]

As far as Kirchner is concerned, there is a few things worth noting. Kirchner is a member of a political group along with her husband that is pointedly dedicated to the reclamation of the "Malvinas" (Unfortunately, the name of said group eludes me at this point though I read about them recently, I'll try to find it again). Another, Argentina is feeling the effects of the economic downturn and is being forced to trim the budget and social programs, along with the usual political problems that continue to plague the country. The "crisis" that Kirchner is pushing is giving her a serious bump in the polls when beforehand her polls were looking pretty abysmal (long story, but again, lots of problems involving political and budget issues in the country and Kirchner made some bad calls as it appears). And finally....rich fisheries, oil and natural gas treasure troves around the Falklands? The Argentines aren't stupid, they want those islands and the potential resources they could gain from them. Just how well the Argentines would effectively administer the islands, and efficiently harvest said resources were they in control of the islands might be another matter.

The Argentinians figure if they can play the "poor exploited country versus the colonialist power" card against the U.K. at the United Nations, they might be able to garner enough sympathy along with an economic blockade courtesy of Mercosur that'll lead to a successful handover of the Falklands to the Argentinians. However, IMHO, this is more a "Holy Grail" fantasy (with respect to the actual Holy Grail myth, of course). The Argentinians claim on the Falklands is flimsy at best from a pure legal sense, there is no original ethnic group that is claiming ownership of the Falklands, and the 3,000 current Falkland Islanders, who sadly appear to have been largely overlooked by most worldwide media have vocally stated their desire to remain an independent territory of the United Kingdom. Suffice to say, the Falklanders have had some colorful words to describe Christina De Kirchner, Hugo Chavez (who's been offering military support to Kirchner) and Sean Penn (who's been vocally supporting Kirchner's position) as of late, to put it mildly.

I totally agree and Kirchner's rhetoric is very transparent. The sad part of it all is that Argentina might once have been a very wealthy country. At the turn of the 20th century it was one of the richest countries in the world and was a major player in the world economy, and was a real alternative to North America and Australia for European immigrants. Despite being Spanish speaking there are more people of Italian origin in Argentina than Spanish, and a lot of peope of German, French and even British descent. At one time Britain was even a major investor in the Argentine economy and there were very friendly links despite some irrelevant issues over the Falklands.

However then came Peron who led Argentina down the path of populist socialism like most of the rest of South America, with its own band of nationalism/fascism and Argentina has been an economic basketcase and political backwater ever since.

Kirchner's recruitment of Castro and Chavez has to be one of the greatest public relations disasters in Argentine history. I mean does Kirchner really think America or even Europe is going to take Argentinas side with these two scumbags supporting Argentina? As for Sean Penn, well he's of Irish decent so he's trying to be cool, but he's also a Hollywood actor which says it all as they are notable in the most parts for their high intelligence, NOT!

[RN7]

And that Sean Penn has taken up Argentina's cause in this issue? It strikes me as really odd. I'm not a big fan of Penn's work in film (some of his roles have been ok) but I have always had the impression that he's a fairly intelligent, well informed kind of guy. Why the hell has he taken this stance over the Falklands issue? Of course he's entirely entitled to have his own opinion on the matter, but why is he going out of his way to back Argentina in this in the media? It confuses me. :confused:

Hey he married Madonna and is a Hollywood actor and has been in fist fights all over the world, so I think he a bit confused too!

[RN7]

Not that the US could get away with even thinking about doing that given it's a dispute strictly between the UK and Argentina. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government looking very fondly over the US throwing their weight about where it's definately not wanted.

The UK, despite the last few decades of cutbacks, still has the strength to deter the Argentine military, otherwise the Argentinians would have already acted.

I don't think Argentina's military has progressed in any significant way since the Falklands War. Unfortunately for Argentina the British military has despite defence cutbacks, and certainly its air force and navy is two generations ahead of Argentina's. Despite being without a real carrier for the next five years the RAF and RN would absolutely slaughter them to put it midly, and would do the same to anything Cuba or Venezuela trew at them.

[Rainbow Six]

Not that the US could get away with even thinking about doing that given it's a dispute strictly between the UK and Argentina. I can't imagine the Queen and HM Government looking very fondly over the US throwing their weight about where it's definately not wanted.

The UK, despite the last few decades of cutbacks, still has the strength to deter the Argentine military, otherwise the Argentinians would have already acted.

Agreed. I understand the US did provide the UK with some low key support during the 1982 War - access to US satellite imagery springs to mind as one example - but I don't think UK defence cuts have reached the stage where we would need to go cap in hand to the Americans and ask them to "settle" things for us.

I've spent a little time looking at the South Georgia Islands and I can't for the life of me work out what even one, let alone three perfectly good helicopters are doing there!?
There's no permanent residents on the islands, and it's not exactly a high priority military target, so what the hell is going on? Industry is virtually non-existent (fishing is about it) so they can't be there to protect them.
Argentina did have a small hidden base on the southernmost island (well away from the semi-permanent settlement), but the UK kicked them out in 1982 after the Falklands War.

My best guess is the writers weren't aware of just how desolate and remote the islands are. :confused:

Totally agree...there's no logic in basing helicopters on South Georgia. I'd question why there would be a permanent British garrison of any sort.

[Rainbow Six]

Hey guys,

just read an article today in Daily Mail about Fauklands mission and Royal family, specifically prince William being a pilot there. Basically, it suggested that the army in Fauklands is not very pleased about having any members of Royal family there, since the safety requirements has to be 3x as strict as they would be otherwise.
What do u think about it? Do u agree that members of Royal family shouldnt serve in the war in Faukland Islands?

I didn't read that article but I do recall similar concerns being raised when it was first mentioned that the Household Cavalry Regiment (which Prince Harry served in at the time) was to be deployed to Afghanistan. It was feared that his presence in theatre would attract insurgents, thus increasing the risk to other soldiers. You may recall that when he did finally deploy there was a complete news blackout (which was finally broken by a blogger iirc, at which point he was quite quickly pulled back to the UK). I believe part of the reason he retrained as an Apache pilot was so he could avoid the same sort of issues in any future deployment as a helicopter pilot is more "anonymous" than a bloke on the ground (that same logic may have applied when Prince Andrew went to the South Atlantic in 1982).

However that was Afghanistan - as RN7 points out, Argentine sabre rattling / UN protests notwithstanding, I'd be surprised if the risks are judged to be particularly high in the Falklands.

[headquarters]

Well - there is oil.Or great prospects of it anyhow.

Of course there will be an argument. Kirchner - btw - has said that military options are of the table as fars as the islands go.

There is of course a solution that is blatantly obvious - cut the Argentines in on the oil like they want and live happily ever after. Just a thought.

[Targan]

Totally agree...there's no logic in basing helicopters on South Georgia. I'd question why there would be a permanent British garrison of any sort.

Unless that was where the British hid some helos and Harriers and associated personnel, supplies, equipment and POL during the Argentinians' attempted occupation of the Falklands. They may have mothballed some of those assets there after the Argentinians left because it became impractical to bring them back to the main islands, at least for a time.

[Rainbow Six]

Unless that was where the British hid some helos and Harriers and associated personnel, supplies, equipment and POL during the Argentinians' attempted occupation of the Falklands. They may have mothballed some of those assets there after the Argentinians left because it became impractical to bring them back to the main islands, at least for a time.

That's certainly possible but the notes on the plate state that the Lynx is fully operational and actively carrying out patrols, which doesn't suggest it's mothballed?

[Targan]

That's certainly possible but the notes on the plate state that the Lynx is fully operational and actively carrying out patrols, which doesn't suggest it's mothballed?

The photo was taken to celebrate the aviation assets on South Georgia being returned to operational status? Maybe they finally had the fuel and spares to start 'em up and fly 'em back to Stanley.

[Legbreaker]

Fatal flaw to that theory.
The notes specifically state the aircraft hasn't been there long.

[Targan]

Tricky. Trying to match up available canon data when it doesn't really make any sense. I'm just throwing ideas out there, is all. Maybe it'll make more sense to me after another Blanton's on the rocks. Well, that's my excuse anyway :)

[Rainbow Six]

Here's a theory...

Two Lynxes are mothballed on South Georgia. They're mostly operational, but are missing vital parts (or pilots).

A third Lynx (the one in the plate), fitted with long range fuel bladders, is despatched from the Falklands with the neccessary parts (or crew) to restore the two mothballed helos to a fully operational state. This ties in with the line about it having recently arrived in the islands. The photo was taken during this period?

Perhaps when all three are operational they all move to the Falklands?

Like Targan says it's tricky though...there's a few "what if's" in there.

Personally, I'm inclined to think it makes more sense if we accept it as a typo of sorts and change all reference to the South Georgia islands to the South Atlantic Islands, leaving it to one's own choice whether the helos are on the Falklands or South Georgia. (As far as I know technically there's no such place as the South Georgia Islands anyway - it's either the Island (singular) of South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands...)

[Fusilier]

Personally, I'm inclined to think it makes more sense if we accept it as a typo of sorts and change all reference to the South Georgia islands to the South Atlantic Islands, leaving it to one's own choice whether the helos are on the Falklands or South Georgia. (As far as I know technically there's no such place as the South Georgia Islands anyway - it's either the Island (singular) of South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands...)

You aren't alone on that. There are several geographical errors in the different books so I'm assuming that this was just another one.

[Rainbow Six]

Guys, looking at the information on the Lynx, it's worth remembering that the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands (of which South Georgia is a part) are two separate island chains, which are (I think) about six hundred miles or so apart so when the plate states that the Lynx "has not been stationed to the Islands long" that may refer to how long it has been in the South Sandwich Islands rather than how long it's been in the South Atlantic. It's possible the Lynx may have been based in the Falkland Islands since before the war and has transferred from there to the South Sandwich Islands (for whatever reason) rather than having arrived directly from the UK.

Looking at this again, I think I was wrong when I said the islands are six hundred miles apart...according to the Commonwealth website (link below) South Georgia is 1,390 kilometres east south east of the Falklands, so even with the added fuel from the bladders that's a big distance for a Lynx to cover (and the consequences of a navigational error would most likely be fatal).

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140430/south_georgia_and_the_south_sandwich_islands/

Also, South Georgia isn't actually part of the South Sandwich Islands per se - they're another 640 k's away from South Georgia...

[Rainbow Six]

You aren't alone on that. There are several geographical errors in the different books so I'm assuming that this was just another one.

It would be the most logical explanation...

[Sanjuro]

If you want to stick with canon (geographical errors notwithstanding) you could say that at least two of the helos were from a ship that suffered damage; perhaps the helos were airborne on ASW work and the helideck/hangar was hit? Admittedly, that creates the questions of whose submarine and who won, but it is a logical reason for those Lynxes being there.
One of the things I like about this website is the fact that I can use words like "notwithstanding"...

[Legbreaker]

What if an infrequent naval patrol of the islands uncovered the recently reestablished Argentine base on Thule Island?
The small patrol boat did not have the ability to do more than report their presence at which point a platoon or perhaps even company of infantry was transported by ship to the islands to deal with them.
The three helicopters were brought along to provide mobility and longer range scouting capability.
Once the Argentinians are dealt with, the entire force would be withdrawn (after ensuring there was nothing left for the Argentinians to rebuild).

That could explain why three operational Lynxes are present and there's a reference to a UK "Garrison".

[James Langham]

An interesting BBC article on the current Rw position:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

[RN7]

An interesting BBC article on the current Rw position:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

A good assesment of the current balance of power in the Falklands Islands and the relative capabilities of Argentine and British forces. British forces in the Falklands are much stronger than they were in 1982 and Argentina just doesn't have the hardware to pull off an invasion.

Mount Pleasant guarantees the defence of the Falklands Islands, and it could be reinforces within 24 hours from Britain via Ascension Island and inflight tankers. If Argentina decided to become militant about with Hugo and Fidel throwing in their support four ships would probably be enough to deter them. A nuclear submarine and a Type 45 in the South Atlantic and another sub and Type-45 in the Carribean would put an end to any hostile air and naval manouvers. The Type-45 can track and take out anything they have flying, and despite having a published armamant of 48 air defence missiles the unofficial figure may be closer to 100 missiles.

[Mahatatain]

An interesting BBC article on the current Rw position:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373
More on the current RW situation - two cruise liners were apparently denied entry into Argentina because they had stopped at the Falklands. I bet the local Argentinian tour guides were pissed off that their trips were cancelled!:D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17184955

[RN7]

Interesting article about a planned British special forces raid on the Argentine mainland during the Falklands War that was cancelled at last minute. The SAS were supposed to have been active in Argentina during the war reconnoitering Argentina military movements but this would have taken things to a new level.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9158097/The-secret-Falklands-suicide-mission.html

[RN7]

In slightly more detail and including some information about Britains deperate attempt to stop Argentina getting more Exocets..

http://www.eliteukforces.info/articles/sas-versus-exocets.php

[Targan]

Those were great reads, RN7. Thanks for posting the links.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think I've said this before, but:

The Falklands would probably be important as a jumping-off station for the British and important to the Argentinians as a matter of national pride early in the Twilight War, but perhaps as early as late 1997, nobody would be bothering with the Falklands anymore. As for those who lived there -- as time went by, visits from the outside became fewer and fewer, and the livestock supplies became smaller and smaller, those people would become smaller and smaller in number. By 2000, they would be hanging on to a more and more bitter edge of survival; after a century or so, the reconstituting world might find what's left, including a less-and-less coherent account of the last days...

[Sanjuro]

Their livestock supplies would last a lonnggggg time (as long as you're not allergic to mutton)!