Argentina have better defences and troops in Falklands 1982

What if Argentina had better defences and troops in the Falklands 1982. Was their an attempt by Argentina to send in reserves or attack the Task force before it reached the Falklands
 
First you would need to remove the fear of Chile taking advantage of the sending of Argentina's best forces to the Falkland Islands and leaving Argentina to be defended by conscripts.

It was the need to use the lesser quality troops as the bulk of the occupying forces that made the Argentine commander choose to fight a defensive battle on ground of his choosing with close logistic lines against British forces with limited heavy weapons, the longest logistic lines in history and fewer troops than the defenders.

With well trained mobile professional troops he could have acted to prevent a successful British landing. Ironically, if the Belgrano had been reserved until the invasion had captured the Falklands then it could have commanded the seas around the islands with its 8 inch guns from a protected anchorage and prevented the Royal Navy from providing fire support to ground forces.

However, had the best Argentine forces been sent to the Falkland Islands then Britain would have opted for the Plan B. Plan A was to go as soon as possible with whatever could be found in a hurry and this is what was chosen IOTL, Plan B was to wait until the local summer and assemble the best force that could be put together. This would have included at least 2 more aircraft carriers and 2 8 inch gun cruisers so Argentina would still have lost but with fiercer fighting and heavier losses on both sides.
 
What if Argentina had better defences and troops in the Falklands 1982. Was their an attempt by Argentina to send in reserves or attack the Task force before it reached the Falklands

A better economy usually equates a better military. An earlier PoD will help. This would have given ample reason to afford a more sophisticated and larger air force which would have given Argentina Air Superiority. With Air Superiority, comes superiority over any naval or land operation. A successful nuclear program would also help.

However, if a nation becomes too powerful, too wealthy and sophisticated, the British will just hand it back like Hong Kong. Thus, defeating the purpose of having a Falkland war. For capitalist economies, Economic prosperity, trade is better than a war between sophisticated military nations especially with nukes.
 
A better economy usually equates a better military. An earlier PoD will help. This would have given ample reason to afford a more sophisticated and larger air force which would have given Argentina Air Superiority. With Air Superiority, comes superiority over any naval or land operation. A successful nuclear program would also help.

However, if a nation becomes too powerful, too wealthy and sophisticated, the British will just hand it back like Hong Kong. Thus, defeating the purpose of having a Falkland war. For capitalist economies, Economic prosperity, trade is better than a war between sophisticated military nations especially with nukes.

I'm not sure Hong Kong is a good analogy - Britain had an agreed 99 year lease treaty with China that she legally fulfilled as one would expect of the UK once that lease was up.

There was no such agreement or treaty with Argentina over the rights of the various Islands involved and Britain's 'ownership' of the Falklands pre-dates the formation of the earliest Argentine State.

A more powerful Argentine military and industry does not change this.

A more prosperous Argentina probably removes the Junta and the principle reasons for distracting the Argentine People with a quick "Military Victory" to hide the misrule of the nation.

In short the war does not happen

A more prosperous, democratically run Argentina might have secured the Falklands through agreement with the Islands population - although the Kelpers are quite patriotic.
 
Was their an attempt by Argentina to send in reserves or attack the Task force before it reached the Falklands

AFAIK, all reinforcements during the combat phase were sent in by air, and no attempt was made to attack the TF before it reached the Falklands.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
The Dirty War and Argentinian history is something I am still trying to learn about, so this isn't the best educated person speaking here. But Argentina still wouldn't be able to beat GB without an earlier POD, IMHO. Argentina's economy had some serious problems, and the war was an attempt to distract from that-there was no basis for victory. The junta drastically underestimated the British and thought they wouldn't react, and also failed to understand the US-UK relationship, so they didn't prepare correctly. There is the whole Chilean matter, and the fact that most of the military's Dirty War(which has been occupying the junta since 1976, distracting it from other issues. It was a de facto civil war, preventing them for preparing for such an operation in 1982) allies supported the British. The junta expected Reagan to support them against Thatcher, but it was clear by 1982 that they were getting desperate and their grip on power tenuous, and Reagan wasn't stupid. He wasn't going to back the losing and less important horse, even if he owned both.
 
Last edited:
What if Argentina had better defences and troops in the Falklands 1982. Was their an attempt by Argentina to send in reserves or attack the Task force before it reached the Falklands

They had lots of time early on but didn't think GB would fight, after the RN SSNs arrive its to late as you cant do much apart from C130s.

The main problem is that they are fighting a serious opponent who can just keep sending stuff until they regain the islands (had they realised that they would fight before they would not have started it).

JSB
 
AFAIK, all reinforcements during the combat phase were sent in by air, and no attempt was made to attack the TF before it reached the Falklands.

Half of the attempt to attack the Task Force was sunk by HMS Conqueror and the other half shit it and went home.
 
...if the Belgrano had been reserved until the invasion had captured the Falklands then it could have commanded the seas around the islands with its 8 inch guns from a protected anchorage and prevented the Royal Navy from providing fire support to ground forces.

However, had the best Argentine forces been sent to the Falkland Islands then Britain would have opted for the Plan B. Plan A was to go as soon as possible with whatever could be found in a hurry and this is what was chosen IOTL, Plan B was to wait until the local summer and assemble the best force that could be put together. This would have included at least 2 more aircraft carriers and 2 8 inch gun cruisers so Argentina would still have lost but with fiercer fighting and heavier losses on both sides.

BELGRANO had 6" guns, not 8". Where would they put her? The British knew there were minefields off Port Stanley, and never contemplated a direct landing there. You have an awful lot of other places to choose from.

What 8" cruisers was the RN thinking of sending, exactly? And I don't know what these two other carriers were.
 
What 8" cruisers was the RN thinking of sending, exactly? And I don't know what these two other carriers were.

Illustrious only missed out on the war by a few weeks and I assume the other is Bulwark that was still knocking round somewhere and could (I assume) have made it down south if the RN really needed her (and if there were actually enough aircraft to put on the extra two decks at that point).

The cruisers would, I assume again, would be Tiger and Blake (which are 6'' ships not 8''). They were in reserve in '82 and apparently surveyed and found to be in good condition. I think the RN were worried they wouldn't be able to man them if they were sent though so they stayed at home.
 
Top