RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2012, 02:21 PM
James Langham James Langham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.
The problem with gaming this war is that we have too much hindsight. Looking back it is obvious that nobody expected a military reaction - it is just so unlikely (even the British Ministry of Defence considered the task impossible). No gamer would make the POLITICAL decisions that lead to the main decisive points.

The best summing up of how implausible the events were is this excellent article written somewhat tongue in cheek:

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samp...te_history.htm

Next time we complain T2K is implausible just remember this...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2012, 04:53 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Langham View Post
The problem with gaming this war is that we have too much hindsight. Looking back it is obvious that nobody expected a military reaction - it is just so unlikely (even the British Ministry of Defence considered the task impossible). No gamer would make the POLITICAL decisions that lead to the main decisive points...
Are you saying that the Argentinians didn't expect a military reaction? I suppose they thought it highly unlikely, but in military intelligence, one must look at enemy capabilities instead of trying to divine enemy intentions. The British had the capability of sending a military task force to retake the Falklands and the Argies knew this. Failing to take the possibility seriously was a colossal mistake. My argument is that, if they'd taken the possibility seriously, they could have prepared a welcome that would have stood a very good chance of securing a strategic victory.

I contend that the Argentinians were taking a gamble, hoping and praying that the British would not be willing to expend the blood and treasure necessary to win back a strategically insignificant imperial afterthought. Clearly, they miscalculated badly. But, the possibility of a British military response was an obvious possibility. It didn't/doesn't take hindsight to come to that conclusion.

I'm arguing that if the Argies had played smarter, they could have won the war. The Argies still had two weeks or so to prepare for a possible British invasion after the Thatcher government decided on a military response. I can't recall the name of the liner the Brits used to transport some of their troops to the Falklands, but its sendoff was a big public spectacle. It's not like the invasion was marshalled and launched in secret. We could start the wargame from the point the British TF left England and I think I still could have come up with a way to secure a strategic victory for the Argentinians.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:31 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Are you saying that the Argentinians didn't expect a military reaction? I suppose they thought it highly unlikely, but in military intelligence, one must look at enemy capabilities instead of trying to divine enemy intentions. The British had the capability of sending a military task force to retake the Falklands and the Argies knew this. Failing to take the possibility seriously was a colossal mistake. My argument is that, if they'd taken the possibility seriously, they could have prepared a welcome that would have stood a very good chance of securing a strategic victory.

I contend that the Argentinians were taking a gamble, hoping and praying that the British would not be willing to expend the blood and treasure necessary to win back a strategically insignificant imperial afterthought. Clearly, they miscalculated badly. But, the possibility of a British military response was an obvious possibility. It didn't/doesn't take hindsight to come to that conclusion.

I'm arguing that if the Argies had played smarter, they could have won the war. The Argies still had two weeks or so to prepare for a possible British invasion after the Thatcher government decided on a military response. I can't recall the name of the liner the Brits used to transport some of their troops to the Falklands, but its sendoff was a big public spectacle. It's not like the invasion was marshalled and launched in secret. We could start the wargame from the point the British TF left England and I think I still could have come up with a way to secure a strategic victory for the Argentinians.
From Wikipedia..

" Argentina's original intention was to mount a quick, symbolic occupation, followed rapidly by a withdrawal, leaving only a small garrison to support the new military governor. This strategy was based on the Argentinian assumption that the British would never respond militarily. Argentine assault units were indeed withdrawn to the mainland in the days following the invasion, but strong popular support and the rapid British reaction forced the Junta to change their objectives and reinforce the islands, since they could not politically afford to lose the islands once the British came out to fight. The junta misjudged the political climate in Britain, believing that democracies were weak, indecisive and averse to risk, and did not anticipate that the British would move their fleet halfway across the globe."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:32 PM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Are you saying that the Argentinians didn't expect a military reaction? I suppose they thought it highly unlikely, but in military intelligence, one must look at enemy capabilities instead of trying to divine enemy intentions.
True, but the British had given some indication of their intentions. The lone warship down there, HMS Endurance, was due for retirement later in 1982. One or both of their carriers was nearly sold to India (or was it Australia?). There was a negotiating team in place to talk about transfer of the islands. Unfortunately, there was some dust-up between some scrappers, and Argentinian sub, and some Marines on South Georgia-- I forget the details, but it spooked the Argentinians into jumping the gun and launching the invasion.

Quote:
The British had the capability of sending a military task force to retake the Falklands and the Argies knew this. Failing to take the possibility seriously was a colossal mistake. My argument is that, if they'd taken the possibility seriously, they could have prepared a welcome that would have stood a very good chance of securing a strategic victory.
A better way to "win" would have been to wait 6-12 months, and then walk in when the British couldn't have done a darn thing about it. If they had timed it closer to the Antarctic winter, they would have had the weather to support them. The Royal Navy was very anxious to avoid operations in the winter, as hard on ships and planes.

[quote] I contend that the Argentinians were taking a gamble, hoping and praying that the British would not be willing to expend the blood and treasure necessary to win back a strategically insignificant imperial afterthought. Clearly, they miscalculated badly. But, the possibility of a British military response was an obvious possibility. It didn't/doesn't take hindsight to come to that conclusion. [\quote]

Agreed.

Quote:
I'm arguing that if the Argies had played smarter, they could have won the war.
Agreed.
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-09-2012, 12:19 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
One or both of their carriers was nearly sold to India (or was it Australia?).
One was to be sold to Australia. The Invincible I think.
The Melbourne had been retired a short time before because of the intended purchase and if it had been known it would fall through, the Melbourne may have been retained for a few more years.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-09-2012, 01:22 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
The Melbourne had been retired a short time before because of the intended purchase and if it had been known it would fall through, the Melbourne may have been retained for a few more years.
And so it was that ever since Australia's naval aviation has been restricted to helicopters. And the Melbourne ended up assisting China's carrier-based pilot training. How stupid.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.