Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee
Actually, they did try to go all-in. I've read a lot on the Falklands, just none of it recently. I definitely remember some of this from Adm. Woodward's memoir.
The Belgrano and 2 DDs (IIRC), some with Exocet, were approaching the British TF from the south, while the CV and escorts came from the north. HMS Conqueror sank the CL, while the carrier was something of a bluff-- I think her catapults weren't working?
I'll look further into this, but the short form is that the Navy tried and the British broke it up.
|
If they gave up after losing only one unit of this force (a WWII-era light cruiser), then, IMHO, they weren't really trying that hard.
IMPO, the Argentinians lost the war because they didn't go all out- they were clearly hedging their bets. In many ways, the entire war was a ploy to distract the Argentinian public from the harsh junta rule at home, rousing nationalistic sentiment by giving them a foreign foe to focus their ire upon. As such, the Argentinians didn't risk a whole lot. To do so would potentially have left the junta too weak to control its own citizens. Instead, they sent limited forces to defend the newly-won Malvinas islands. They paid for this strategic blunder by losing the war and the junta fell not long after.
IF the Argentinians had sent more [quality] troops (and supplied them properly), more modern AA assets, expanded/built an airfeld capable of handling its more modern fighters and attack aircraft (and based a good number there), and deployed stronger naval forces within striking range of the islands, they may have been able to turn back the Brits and keep hold of the islands. They would have lost more, but they could have kept the Brits from gaining a sustainable foothold on the islands.
I think that it would make a really interesting scenario to war game out. I don't want to come across as cocky, but I think that, given full access/control of Argentinian military assets, I could pull off a strategic victory over the forces sent by the U.K. IRL.