The Falklands

[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?

[HorseSoldier]

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

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

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

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

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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

Mohoender,

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

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

Tony

[Mohoender]

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

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

[Tackleberry]

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

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

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

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

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

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

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

[Mohoender]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklan..._Defence_Force
.

[dude_uk]

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by dude_uk

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

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

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

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklan..._Defence_Force
.

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

[Legbreaker]

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