South Atlantic War, or Falkland/Malvinas Conflict

[Miragedriver]

I am saddened that every time we try to have a Falklands/Malvinas war post it always turns ugly.

I always try to write as neutral as possible from a fact point of view with none or little opinion (bias). It is unfortunate that these interesting posts turn into political/ideological rant fests.

This was a war that should have never been fought. The blunders made by the Argentine Military continue to astound me to this very day. I am not trained as a military tactician, but my study (due to intense interest) has leaded me to write sever posts on this thread (and on the one listed below). As an amateur armchair general I could have prosecuted the war better (as many of you could have also).

Things worked out the best way possible, for both Britain and Argentina. If the war had not been started by the incompetent Generals seeking to maintain power. The islands would probably be in some type of joint administration or at the very least enjoy from a fruitful cooperation between Argentina and England.

For more non-bias posts see:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/history-of-south-american-nation-inter-rivalry-and-arms-buildup.t6905/page-3

Beginning with post 25

 

[Miragedriver]

PLEASE….LET’S ALL PLAY NICE WITH NO ASSUMPTIONS and ask yourself DOES THE RESPONSE MAKE THINGS WORSE?

Please remember:
Respect one another’s views.
Question ideas, not individuals.
Commit to learning, not debating.
Avoid blame and speculation.
Avoid inflammatory language.

If we debate long enough, it’s possible that we’ll become unhinged from reality and start to ignore the above rules.

 

[Miragedriver]

Continuation from post 1 above:

There were defiantly blunders made, and believe me when I tell you that I am a flag waving Argentine patriot, but not to the point that I defend idiots for stupid actions. Here are just a few of them that ended up costing Argentina the war:

1) Not placing professional military forces on the island. The fear of war with Chile left the best troops on the Chilean border while conscripts from the temperate region around Buenos Aires where sent.


2) Advancing the time table. If Military planners had waited six to eight more months the Royal Navy would not have been in a position to organize the task force


3) Extension of the runway at Port Stanley. Failure to do this guaranteed the British control of the air around a portion of the islands.


4) Failure of the Navy to transport mobile forces to the island.


5) Failure to organize a counter attack on the landing force in San Carlos.


6) Failure to recognize that low altitude tactics were working but that this caused bombs to not detonate on impact. This single item could have changed the course of the war.


7) Logistics were wrongly planned; they cannot be IMPROVISED, under these circumstances Argentina proceeded this way, and suffered the consequences.


8) There was time to plan counter attacks and set traps, but with a static defense Argentine forces weren’t familiar with the geographical territory and were not permitted to maneuver.

9) Failure to attack the logistic supply lines from Ascension Island south


10) Argentina underestimated the enemy and let them take the lead by constantly giving them a chance to take the initiative.


These are just some of the mistakes that were made by the High Command. Replacement aircraft would not have made a difference since the British were under a similar constraint. They could not keep their forces at sea indefinitely and were fast approaching there do or return date. Additionally there was a limited amount of munitions that the task force had.


The British also made their fair share of blunders, but they were fewer and the centuries of experience and training they have mitigated the damage caused by their mistakes.

 

[b787]

PLEASE….LET’S ALL PLAY NICE WITH NO ASSUMPTIONS and ask yourself DOES THE RESPONSE MAKE THINGS WORSE?

Please remember:
Respect one another’s views.
Question ideas, not individuals.
Commit to learning, not debating.
Avoid blame and speculation.
Avoid inflammatory language.

If we debate long enough, it’s possible that we’ll become unhinged from reality and start to ignore the above rules.

My friend, since i was a kid, i was 11 years old in 1982, i supported Argentina, as i have grown i am against war, war is no solution for anything, however nations do war for two simple reasons, power which is mostly economic power, and the sense the different people are no human, or at least not as human as them selves, but it is 99% economic power.


Since i know this turns controversial i will give what i believe in 3 videos in Spanish you easily ca understand


In my opinion, no colonial power ever leaves their economic or political colonies or even conquests unless they get less economically from keeping them or simply the people expel them or they are defeated militarily thus i agree with these videos

Aldo Rico puts it clear

Nicolas Kasenzew, see what he said in minute 5:30 to minute 6:30

read this if you think it does not go to the old history of Spain fighting England, remember

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[b787]

 

[b787]

See this is another video that summarizes my point of view

 

[FORBIN]

Falklands Beach party on HMS HERMES on her way home from Falklands

 

[Miragedriver]

See this is another video that summarizes my point of view

What is interesting my friend is that I am a contributing writer (for fun) to Adrian Salbuchi’s (the fellow on the far right) show (Proyecto Segunda Republica). We have often had interesting conversations on the topic. We agree on many things and disagree on a few.

 

[Deino]

I close this political battle-field again !

Sad, very sad, that some must use such topics again to spread their political agenda.

 

[Miragedriver]

Photo taken from an Argentine Dagger while attacking UK's HMS Broadsword during the Falklands/Malvinas War