Argentina becomes British Vietnam

It would require a lot of changes, but what about putting the UK in a war somewhere with jungles? It certainly wouldn't be Argentina, but it would help.
 
It would require a lot of changes, but what about putting the UK in a war somewhere with jungles? It certainly wouldn't be Argentina, but it would help.

You shouldn't try to derail a thread in this way. The post is clearly about the Falklands War. To try and divert onto "jungles" could be viewed as a form of trolling.
 
David, I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I thought this thread won't go anywhere, so I just suggested an alternative for Killer300 to consider, since the Falklands idea wasn't working out. Granted, it's off-topic, but trolling is a strong choice of a word. I thought maybe Killer300's considering writing a story about Britain in a crappy war, and thought I'd give some advice. Sure, it might have been better to do it in a PM, but it's no big deal.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Well if you had the Argentinian airforce engauge the Harriers at the outset, and sink a few more ships. it would be a completely different war.
 
Well this is kinda harsh. Why have you got give the us Brits Vietnam when we already had 3 Afghanistan's before the Soviets got involved.
 
You shouldn't try to derail a thread in this way. The post is clearly about the Falklands War. To try and divert onto "jungles" could be viewed as a form of trolling.

How about the dense tropical jungles of the Pampas? I think the Argentinian cavalry ride llamas.

Anyhow, as mentioned above the WI is fairly - to extremely - unlikely since the British wouldn't have invaded Argentina. Also it is wrong, or at least US-centric, to use the phrase British Vietnam, which could easily mean something like British Columbia and British Honduras to mention just a few places from across the globe. It would be correct to say, as pointed out by KarneeKarnay, that the term should be 'Afghanistan'.

However, if the Argentinian Army had figured a way to militarize the sheep there in the Falkland Islands into a form of guerilla-sheep movement than that would have been an added difficulty of the British Army, but probably extended the war by about one hour.
 
Last edited:
If the Argentine government had a warranty that Chile won't invade if the Patagonian troops are sent to Malvinas.

IOTL, and I telling cause I have relatives and friends who were in both places(Patagonia and Malvinas), the troops sent to Malvinas were mainly from Northern Argentina(there we have some jungles), a place where having a day with less than 20°C is very unlikely. Besides this, the troops sent to the Islands had barely started their training, had no appropiated clothes and most important, weren't trained to stand the cold. Because of this, their morale was below 0, they were frightened, freezing, hungry and didn't now what to do. I can recommend you the film "Iluminados por el Fuego"(Blessed by fire) to understand this better.

Now, if you send the troops that were in Patagonia, and where trained to fight and stand in the cold, the British could very well got a bloody nose in the ground fight.


Going to the Vietnam like part, there's no way the British could succeed. They could take Tierra del Fuego, some coastal cities in Patagonia but nothing more. They would have easily overextended. And Argentines are very good guests with Invasion forces. The Brits learnt this a long time ago.
 
Top