The Falklands

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by James Langham

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

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

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

(Last paragraph based on V1 timeline...)

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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



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

(Last paragraph based on V1 timeline...)

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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

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

Originally Posted by James Langham

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

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

Cheers

D

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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



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

Cheers

D

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

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

[Matt W]

Why go to all the effort of invading?

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

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

I can see a simple diplomatic proposal from the Argentines.

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

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

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

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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

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

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

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

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

Paul,

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

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

Tony

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Paul,

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

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

Tony

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

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

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

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

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

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

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

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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

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

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

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

Also since when politicians needed a rational reason?