History of South American nation inter-rivalry and arms buildup

Miragedriver

Brigadier
And then people ask; “Why is there tension between Argentina and Chile?”

National Review - My articles on the Falklands War in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, and on NRO yesterday, have stirred up some interesting reactions. One of the most significant relates to the role of Chile. Most people have known in a general sense that Chile gave useful intelligence help to Britain during the conflict. But the full details of this help, which turns out to be extraordinarily significant, have not really migrated from histories of the conflict into the wider public mind.

After my pieces appeared, however, José Piñera (best known as the man who invented the most stable and successful free-market national pension system in Chile) sent me a memorandum on Chile’s role — and how it came about — written by General Fernando Matthei Aubel, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean Air Force at the time. It is like something out of a James Bond novel.

Margaret Thatcher, then prime minister, sent a senior Royal Air Force officer incognito to Santiago, apparently without the knowledge of either Foreign Ministry, to approach the General with a proposal for collaboration. Matthei went directly to General Pinochet who agreed:

He authorised the operation on the condition that under no circumstances could Chilean territory be used by the British to mount any operation against Argentina. General Pinochet also instructed me to keep our own Ministry of Foreign Affairs out of the picture. I would like to point out that there was no other person present at this meeting. Wing Commander Edwards was given a complete briefing on the Argentinean Air Force by our own intelligence team. He was then given free access to our air operation centre in Punta Arenas, where we monitored all Argentinean air force operations through our long-range radar and our ground-based communications equipment. Wing Commander Edwards carried a portable radio with a direct satellite link to the staff of the British Task Force. During April 1982 we worked hand in hand with the British. An RAF Nimrod was flown to Chile to perform an electronic and communications mission for mutual benefit.
Just how valuable this intelligence operation was to British conduct of the war was demonstrated tragically on the one day it was unavailable:

At the very end of the Falklands War, on June 8th, two British attack transports, “Sir Gallahad” and “Sir Tristam”, were attacked and destroyed by Argentinean fighter bombers with considerable loss of life. That day, after several months of continuous operation, our long-range radar had to be switched off for long-overdue maintenance. The Argentinean forces were then able to achieve a complete surprise attack. One can only speculate how the British Task Force would have fared, without the half-hour warnings on Argentinean air strikes provided by Chilean intelligence.
So the Brits had very good reason to be grateful for Chile, to Pinochet, and to the Chilean air force. But read the Matthei Memorandum in full on Mr. Piñera’s website here.

#more#The history of the memorandum itself is also interesting. It was prepared for Lady Thatcher in 1999 when Pinochet was arrested and placed under house arrest in London. She regarded this as a “judicial kidnapping.” She felt that Britain had a moral obligation to Pinochet that was violated by his treatment at the hands of the Blair government. And she was one of a very small number of public figures who spoke out publicly in his defense. Her speech to a fringe meeting of the Tory Party conference in 1999, available here, drew on this memo. She also threw in a withering evisceration of the supposed legal case against Pinochet. But her main anxiety is that if Britain treats her friends in this way, the country will eventually end up with very few friends.

One final important point: In a very shrewd column in today’s London Independent, Dominic Lawson tells the story that Tony Blair, a young anti-war Labour candidate in 1983 who was massively defeated in the aftermath of the Falklands victory, later told friends that he had learned the lesson that wars are good for prime ministers. Unfortunately for Blair, that only applies to successful wars. Most of his wars don’t qualify. And as Lawson points out, the Falklands was a war in which the Brits, though helped by the U.S. and Chile, did the fighting and winning themselves. Thatcher gained politically because it was a patriotic war as well as a victorious one. Blair rarely justified Iraq and Afghanistan in patriotic terms of British national interest. He talked much more about the international community or about the U.S. alliance as reasons for fighting. People don’t want to die for other peoples’ interests.

As a result Thatcher’s war was popular — and it strengthened the relationship between Britain and America; Blair’s wars were unpopular and they undermine it. American conservatives often wonder why Blair, whom they admire, is so detested by British conservatives. Well, that’s why.

I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
And then people ask; “Why is there tension between Argentina and Chile?”

General Fernando Matthei Aubel said:
At the very end of the Falklands War, on June 8th, two British attack transports, “Sir Gallahad” and “Sir Tristam”, were attacked and destroyed by Argentinean fighter bombers with considerable loss of life. That day, after several months of continuous operation, our long-range radar had to be switched off for long-overdue maintenance. The Argentinean forces were then able to achieve a complete surprise attack. One can only speculate how the British Task Force would have fared, without the half-hour warnings on Argentinean air strikes provided by Chilean intelligence.

So the Brits had very good reason to be grateful for Chile, to Pinochet, and to the Chilean air force. But read the Matthei Memorandum in full on Mr. Piñera’s website
Now that is great info.

Very few people are ever aware of those types of details in any conflict.

Thank you for that.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Quote from Jura on different thread:

Miragedriver, when starting this thread you described major wars fought between Latin American countries, which was interesting and I thank you for this, but now a thought occurred to me: Could you please describe traditional Allies in the region? If there's such a thing ... I mean "country X wouldn't go against Y" or "X would ask Y for help if threatened by Z" ... sorry if the question doesn't make sense :)


We can start from north to south with nations that have a strong animosity to downright dislike and hatred of their neighbor stating with:

1) Guatemala and Belize
2) Venezuela and Guyana
3) Venezuela and Colombia (mostly at top official levels)
4) Peru and Chile
5) Bolivia and Chile
6) Argentina and Chile
7) Brazil and Peru (this is just a dislike)
For more detail please read part two in the beginning of this thread.

Recently Argentina sign a defense agreement if Venezuela (big mistake). However all in all South America is quiet for now. The only nations that are in a massive arms buildup are Brazil, Chile and Venezuela.

Venezuela’s build up stems mostly from the late Hugo Chavez and his revolution. Now that he is gone there is a chance of Venezuela returning to normal and stabilizing relations with Washington.

Brazil’s military buildup is mostly to protect its natural resources and replace older equipment in its inventory. Brazil has no territorial conquests in mind. It is not part of the Brazilian mindset. They are just wanting to become a player on the world stage.

Chile is upsetting the equilibrium of military power in the Southern Cone region of South America. However nothing is being said, since they are one of America’s best allies in South America. Chile has long standing disagreements with Peru, Bolivia and Argentina. In the case of Peru and Bolivia it is over the historical tensions tracing back to the 19th century War of the Pacific include an ongoing Santiago-initiated dispute over the maritime border between the neighboring countries. In the case with Argentina it is over the dispute about the dividing line along the Southern Patagonian ice fields. Also Pinochet provided Margaret Thatcher’s government with intelligence that helped London defeat Argentina in the Falklands War. There is ongoing tension between Argentina and Chile over the Antarctic, due to Chile and England’s having overlapping claims on Argentine Antarctic claims. This last issue may be the catalyst for a large war in South America which Chile is very wisely preparing for and arming its self with two strong allies; America and Britain.

Possible future war:
Chile and Argentina, in addition to Britain, claim the entirety of the Antarctic Peninsula, the northernmost part of the continent. Should Chile ally itself with the West and against Argentina, the latter would be isolated and could become a potential victim of a Falklands War-style defeat should it continue to press its claims. If a war were to break out between Argentina and Chile over the Antarctic, rest assured that Britain would (by vested interest in Antarctica) become involved. Since Peru (a long time allies of Argentina) would try to take revenge over its loss in the “War of the Pacific” they could possible commence military operations in northern Chile aided by Bolivia (another land looser in the War of the Pacific). At that point one could speculate that Ecuador may involve itself against Peru and with the defense treaty Venezuela my assist Argentina.

As you can see the key to future peace in South America hinges on one item. A peaceful solution to the conflicting Antarctic claims.



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
Last edited:

Miragedriver

Brigadier
The Falkland/Malvinas War, or the War of the South Atlantic, Part 1

I pondered long and hard before writing this post, since both English and Argentines still get their feathers ruffled over this topic after 32-years. The following is meant to be an educational, objective and detached historical chronology of the events that took place on disputed wind swept islands in the South Atlantic between April and June on 1982. Other than Argentines and English most people have never heard of, nor care of, this archipelago and events that took place in the onset of winter. Thank you all for your encouraging comments of my mini-series. I hope you enjoy this abbreviated summary of the conflict from strictly a naval perspective. (I currently have 15 installments to post over the next several weeks. However, if this topic causes too much "bad vibes" I will discontinue)

The naval battle for the Falkland/Malvinas was a surprisingly savage and hard fought war, pitting two different continent powers against each other. Virtually every weapon of modern naval warfare was employed in this conflict -- ships, submarines, aircraft carriers, anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and amphibious warfare.

As best as I can recall, the US Navy hasn’t lost a single warship since the Korean War? The naval war in the Falkland/Malvinas provided, many nations navies, including the US Navy, with a significant number of lessons to digest, from anti-aircraft operations at sea and in littorals, to damage control training.

Current US Navy doctrine and shipbuilding programs are now focused on fighting in the littorals, that is, the narrow band of water near the shores of land. These waters, with their restricted room for maneuvers and cluttered environment, pose challenges that blue water operations don’t. Therefore understanding the lessons of the naval war in the Falkland/Malvinas can provide clues as to challenges current navies will face in combat in littorals.


Introduction
On April 2nd, 1982, forces from Argentine Buzos Tácticos (rough equivalent of the US Navy Seals) staged an amphibious invasion of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands in the South Atlantic, approximately 300 miles east of the Argentine coastline. This initial landing force was followed up by 300 naval infantry (marines) which landed later. The Falkland/Malvinas has long been contested by Argentina and Great Britain. Talks had been underway to arrange a transfer of sovereignty from Great Britain to Argentina, but had hit a deadlock over one major sticking point - the approximately 2,000 residents of the islands thought of themselves as Britons, and had absolutely no desire to become Argentine. The Argentine government, a fascist military junta at the time, intended the invasion more as a diplomatic and political maneuver than a military operation/expedition. Incredibly, they thought the invasion would present the British with ultimatum, giving the Thatcher government a justification to write off the islands. The junta was stunned by Margaret Thatcher’s immediate announcement of Britain’s intent to form a task force and retake the islands by force of arms if necessary.

dL1ovLH.png

Britain quickly assembled and sortied a large naval task force centered on two light carriers, the Invincible and the Hermes, armed with as many Harrier jump jets and Sea King helicopters they could fit on. The task force also had anti-aircraft destroyers and anti-submarine frigates, as well as a large number of amphibious warfare ships and merchant ships pressed into service. This task force was intended to secure control of the air and sea surrounding the Falkland/Malvinas, and land an amphibious force to defeat by force or remove peacefully Argentine forces from the islands and thereby reinstate British control of the islands.

TKM7qml.png

Each side faced challenges they were only imperfectly prepared to meet. For Argentina, the challenge was to maintain sea and air communications with the islands in the face of determined opposition by a modern navy equipped with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. For the British, the challenge was to deploy and sustain a carrier and amphibious task force 8,000+/- miles from home, and operate in waters the enemy could cover with land based airpower and patrol with submarines.

NEXT PART TWO: ENGLISH FORCES



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
Last edited:
The Falkland/Malvinas War, or the War of the South Atlantic, Part 1

I pondered long and hard before writing this post, since both English and Argentines still get their feathers ruffled over this topic after 32-years. ...

Miragedriver, my SDF Amigo, I'm looking forward to read your account!
at this stage I hope you won't mind me to put here my personal "reminiscences", which are very brief since I was 11-year old kid from behind the Iron Curtain plus separated by like ten thousand miles from where the hostilities were taking place (now I found the direct distance Punta Arenas - Prague: 9 954 km; of course I know Punta Arenas is in Chile, I just wanted to give here some specific figure), and what I remember is that this was the first Military Conflict I followed, by reading all news I found in Czech newspapers, Polish popular magazines plus, once the war was over, kind of analyses in a Czechoslovak military journal ... this information wasn't biased (I mean in some obvious way) as the UK was considered by local Communists to be "likely enemy", while Argentina as "Fascists" ... I specifically remember reading about sinking of General Belgrano, and of Sheffield, even after 32 years you mentioned.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Miragedriver, my SDF Amigo, I'm looking forward to read your account!
at this stage I hope you won't mind me to put here my personal "reminiscences", which are very brief since I was 11-year old kid from behind the Iron Curtain plus separated by like ten thousand miles from where the hostilities were taking place (now I found the direct distance Punta Arenas - Prague: 9 954 km; of course I know Punta Arenas is in Chile, I just wanted to give here some specific figure), and what I remember is that this was the first Military Conflict I followed, by reading all news I found in Czech newspapers, Polish popular magazines plus, once the war was over, kind of analyses in a Czechoslovak military journal ... this information wasn't biased (I mean in some obvious way) as the UK was considered by local Communists to be "likely enemy", while Argentina as "Fascists" ... I specifically remember reading about sinking of General Belgrano, and of Sheffield, even after 32 years you mentioned.


Thanks Jura, I would be very interested in see some of those articles. I is difficult (but not impossible) to find non-bias information in either English or Spanish


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
Thanks Jura, I would be very interested in see some of those articles. I is difficult (but not impossible) to find non-bias information in either English or Spanish


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

OK what I actually meant was that the Warsaw Pact hadn't taken sides in this conflict as both were considered evil LOL
(contrary to a complicated story of the support of Iran/Iraq during their conflict going on at the same time) so both were bashed (UK for "Colonialism", Argentina for "Fascism") but I think information was not intentionally withheld -- for example once a warship was sunk, it was reported no matter whose warship it was
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
OK what I actually meant was that the Warsaw Pact hadn't taken sides in this conflict as both were considered evil LOL
(contrary to a complicated story of the support of Iran/Iraq during their conflict going on at the same time) so both were bashed (UK for "Colonialism", Argentina for "Fascism") but I think information was not intentionally withheld -- for example once a warship was sunk, it was reported no matter whose warship it was

I will be posting part two and three this weekend
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
The Falkland/Malvinas War, or the War of the South Atlantic, Part 2

RhUroh6.jpg

HMS Invincible

English Forces
Even though the Royal Navy of 1982 was no longer the undisputed master of the oceans of the world, it was still a formidable, modern force.

The ease in which the English assembled the task was due in fact that they had just concluded joint maneuvers with US naval units in the North Atlantic. Part of a larger NATO exercise to contain Soviet forces in event of armed conflict. Even though the British government had no contingency plan for an invasion of the islands, and the task force was rapidly put together from whatever vessels were available. The nuclear submarine Conqueror set sail from France on 4 April, while the two aircraft carriers, Invincible and Hermes in the company of escort vessels, left Portsmouth only a day later. Upon its return to Southampton from a world cruise on 7 April, the ocean liner SS Canberra was requisitioned and set sail two days later with 3 Commando Brigade aboard. The ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2 was also requisitioned and left Southampton on 12 May with 5th Infantry Brigade on board. The whole task force eventually comprised 127 ships: 43 Royal Navy vessels, 22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships and 62 merchant ships. That is a combined force of 254 vessels. All of these vessels rendezvous at Ascension Island and then headed out as an integrated force.

Surface forces
1. Carrier Forces: The British task force dispatched to the Falkland/Malvinas was centered on two light carriers capable of operating helicopters and Harrier jump jets. One, HMS Hermes, was a conversion of an older light carrier which was already sold to India, but not delivered. The other, HMS Invincible, was purpose built to operate as a Harrier carrier. While this two carrier force was a greater force than most navies of the world, it was a far cry from the capabilities the Royal Navy had possessed as little as six years previously before Britain’s last full size carrier, HMS Ark Royal, was decommissioned. The British Ministry of Defense was even then planning on disposing of the two existing carriers it still had as a cost cutting measure. It was in large part this massive downsizing of the British forces that led the Argentine junta to judge that the British had no stomach for a fight. Had the British retained the services of HMS Ark Royal, with its formidable FGR.2 Phantom fighters (that’s the British version of the F-4 Phantom) and SB.2 Buccaneer attack aircraft, the Argentines would almost certainly never have contemplated seizing the Falklands by force.

2. Destroyers and Frigates
a. Type 42 (Sheffield class) Destroyer - With long range air surveillance radars, and the long-range Sea Dart missile system, the Type 42s were designed to provide an area air defense umbrella over a task force. These were the most modern air defense destroyers in the British fleet. HMS Sheffield, Coventry, Glasgow, Cardiff and Exeter served in the Task Force.

K2WPho7.jpg

Type 42 Destroyer

b. County Class Destroyer - An older design, armed with the Sea Slug missile, the County class ships had the same basic mission as the Type 42s. HMS Antrim and Glamorgan served in the Task Force.

0ZJB33x.jpg

County Class Destroyer

c. Bristol Class Destroyer - HMS Bristol was a one-ship class armed with the Sea Dart missile. She was designed for the same mission as the Type 42s and the County Class destroyers.

d. Type 12 (Modified) Frigates- HMS Yarmouth and Plymouth were older frigates optimized for the anti-submarine warfare mission. Their primary anti-aircraft weapon was the obsolete Sea Cat missile.

TDJy7A5.jpg

Type 12 Frigate

e. Leander Class Frigate - Another older frigate class approaching obsolescence, very similar in appearance to the Type 12 class. Like the Type 12s, the Leander’s primary anti-aircraft weapon was the Sea Cat missile. Serving in the Task Force were HMS Andromeda, Argonaut, Penelope and Minerva.

D8gd404.jpg

Leander Class Frigate

f. Type 21 Class Frigate - The Amazon Class frigates were an austere, low cost design for a general purpose warship. The class was designed with sales to foreign navies in mind as well as the Royal Navy. Lightly built, and with relatively poor armament and sensors, they were not considered a great success by the Royal Navy. Like earlier British frigates, they had the Sea Cat missile as their primary anti-aircraft weapon. HMS Antelope, Ardent, Arrow and Avenger served in the Task Force.

sszg5v1.jpg

Type 21 Class Frigate

g. Type 22 Class Frigate - Disappointed with the Type 21 class frigates, the Type 22 class frigates were larger, equipped with better sensors, and in addition, had the excellent Seawolf short range missile system aboard for self-defense against low flying aircraft and missiles. HMS Broadsword and Brilliant were deployed.

UhyL4Dk.jpg

Type 22 Frigate

h. Most British destroyers and frigates were also armed with the French MM38 Exocet anti-ship missile. Most also carried either one or two 4.5”(115 mm) guns for use against shore, surface and aerial targets. These destroyers and frigates also carried a limited number of obsolete optically aimed 40 mm and 20 mm cannons for close in defense. At a time when the US Navy was beginning to equip its ships with the radar aimed 20 mm Phalanx cannon for last ditch defense, the limitations of these, 20mm and 40mm, guns would soon become apparent.

3. Amphibious Warfare ships
a. Fearless Class assault ships - Fearless and Intrepid were designed to transport amphibious assault landing craft, troops, and the troops heavy equipment for delivery via well decks, or landing by helicopters operating from platforms at the rear of the ship. Lightly armed for only the most rudimentary self-defense, it was intended for them to operate with close escort by warships at all times. Each ship could transport from between 400 and 700 troops.
b. Sir Bedivere Landing Ship Logistic- The six ships of the Sir Bedivere class that served in the South Atlantic were used to carry the enormous quantities of military cargo that any landing force needs. Ammunition, packaged fuel, vehicles, rations, artillery, and other supplies were carried aboard these vessels, and unloaded via helicopter, or by landing craft provided by the Fearless class ships. Sir Bedivere, Sir Tristam, Sir Galahad, Sir Lancelot, Sir Geraint, and Sir Percivale fought in the conflict. Each of these ships could carry from 340 to 530 troops and about 30 vehicles.

4. Auxiliaries and Merchant vessels- in addition to the warships and amphibious shipping the British task force also had a large number of auxiliaries and commercial vessels to provide fuel and logistical support to the fleet at sea, and carry the large number of ground troops that would be needed to successfully overcome the Argentine army ashore. Notable examples of the merchant vessels include the Atlantic Conveyor, the Canberra, and the Queen Elizabeth II.

Submarine Forces
Britain operated both several nuclear and one diesel electric submarine in the conflict. British submariners have long had a reputation as being among the best in the world. Nuclear submarines deployed were HMS Spartan, Splendid, Conqueror, Valiant and Courageous. HMS Onyx was the only conventionally powered British submarine deployed.


Air Forces
1. Fixed Wing Aircraft - extreme distance from friendly airfields prevented the British from deploying any conventional strike or fighter aircraft to the theater. The only tactical the small British could deploy were the Harriers of the Hermes and Invincible air groups. The small size of these ships also severely limited the total number of aircraft that could be operated.
a. Harrier- The Harrier FRS.2 of the Fleet Air Arm was primarily a light attack aircraft, but it was equipped with an air to air radar and the then state of the art AIM-9L Sidewinder short range air to air missile. In addition, several RAF Harrier GR.3 jets were later deployed. These aircraft lacked the FRS.2’s radar and air to air capability. So desperate for Harriers were the British, the civilian container ships Atlantic Conveyor and Atlantic Causeway were quickly modified to ferry Harriers forward from Britain to the South Atlantic. These Harriers were used to bring the Hermes and Invincible air groups to full strength.

pnqdMGr.jpg

British Harrier

b. Vulcan Bomber - Operating from Wideawake airfield on Ascension Island, several strikes on Stanley airfield were made by Vulcan B.2 bombers heavily supported by Victor K.2 tankers. These attacks, made with conventional bombs to crater the runway, and AGM-45 Shrike missiles to target Argentine radars, were of little success.

s3GOEpD.png

British Vulcan Bomber

c. Nimrod maritime patrol – Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, evolved from the original jet transport, the Comet, also operated in support of the task force. Staged from Ascension, they provided surface surveillance ahead of the task force during its movement from Britain to Ascension, and then from Ascension toward the task forces operating area east of the islands themselves.

9VyKQMW.jpg

Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft


5. Helicopters
In addition to fixed wing aircraft, the task force brought along a number of Navy and Army helicopters, to support both the actions of the fleet, and the army forces ashore.
a. Chinook - Originally, several Chinook HC.1 helicopters were to support operations ashore. Due to losses at sea, only one Chinook survived to participate in the battle ashore.

eT3SnKe.png

British Chinook Helicopter

b. Sea King - Several variants of the Westland Sea King helicopter provided support to both naval and ground operations. Prince Andrew, then second in line to the British throne, was a Sea King pilot.

c. Wessex - The Westland Wessex, a turbine powered version of the US CH-34, provided transportation support to ground forces.

d. Lynx/Wasp/Gazelle- Most destroyers and frigates carried a light helicopter for anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, and surface surveillance. The Army also operated utility versions ashore for reconnaissance, liaison and transportation missions.


Ground Forces
A detailed description of the ground battle is outside the scope of this post (may be a future post), but any amphibious operation by definition must tie the ground, air and naval elements together. The British deployed a roughly divisional strength force to the Falkland/Malvinas.

1. 3 Commando Brigade
2. 5 Infantry Brigade

Each brigade consisted of several battalions of infantry or Royal Marines, supporting artillery, and a variety of supporting combat service, and combat service support troops. In addition, large numbers of troops from the Special Air Service (SAS) and the Special Boat Service (SBS)* were deployed.

*the British SBS is equivalent to US Special Forces.

NEXT PART THREE: ARGENTINE FORCES



Don’t forget to check out the http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/general-pictures/world-picture-day-7025.html


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
Top