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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.p...ight=Falklands

And here...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...ight=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]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

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.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by 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 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 ) 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]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

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]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

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]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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 withdrew

Perhaps 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.

.

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.