WI Pinochet attacks Argentina during FL war

First of all, I searched the entire forum and I didn't found any thread about this, so I created this one

It seems that during the falklands war the argentinians kept a huge garrison in the border with Chile due their fear that he could use this as a oportunity to claim the argentinian part of tierra del fuego, what if he did attack as soon the news that the Belgrano was sunk?

Begin
 
Chilean and not a fan of Pinochet, but he would never do that, the SOB was relatively astute. The militar goverment was never aggresive against our neighbor countries
 
More on that.

At the time, Chile was under a weapons-embargo, putting Chile in a precarious military position, since its neighbors were considerably better armed, which forced Pinochet to rely on the defense factor in 1978, when Argentina wanted to invade Chile(Operación Soberanía) as well as in 1977 with Perú, when the Peruvian government also prepared for war against Chile(again, defense factor. The border with Perú was filled with anti personal mines. Some of which still lie there.)

Not only that, but Argentina had a relatively big amount of its army at the Andes, in case Chile attacked.

In my mind, it goes like this:

Chilean Army attacks and gets a colossal defeat.

Chilean Navy succeeds at battling the Argentine Navy, dealing it heavy losses.

Air Forces are a 40/60 for me(with Argentinian advantage)

Hope that answers your question.
 
Argentina attacks and the defending Chilean Army deals crippling losses in the Andes, since if a way through the Andes was lost, it would be made unsurpassable. Meaning dynamite. The mines also deal damage to the attacking Argentinians, and the order of the Chilean Army gives it an edge over its counterpart at the other side of the Andes.

50/50 on whether Chile or Argentina win Picton, Nueva and Lennox Islands.

The UN probably sanctions Argentina but doesn't lift the embargo on Chile.

The Navy and the Air Force would go nearly the same as the previous scenario, except this time, the Navies would be fighting for Picton, Nueva and Lennox.

So, either Argentina gets a crippling defeat or reaches a stalemate taking the three Islands, gaining a small foothold in Southern Chile.

If Argentina went with Operación Soberanía, it wouldn't have gone well at all.

The Exocet missiles make it difficult for the Chilean Navy, but Chile's greater logistics and communications make me 80% sure that Argentina loses.
 
What were the origins of Argentine and Chilean border disputes?
Which part of the Andes did both claim?
How good were roads in that valley?
How good were railroads in that valley?
How rich were mines in that valley?
Did local indigeous tribes have a preference about being ruled by white guys from the east coast or white guys from the west coast?
 
Ok, let's start. I'll do this in order.

The Uti Possidetis borders made by Spain. Chile claims(or claimed, since it renounced its claim to the Patagonia to avoid Argentina from joining Bolivia and Perú during the War of the Pacific(1879-1883)) that the Patagonia belonged to the General Captaincy of Chile, since Bolivar ratified the Uti Possidetis after the Independence(which was made worse when Alto Perú became Bolivia, causing confusion with every country neighboring Bolivia.) of South America. But Argentina claims that the Patagonia, as well as Southern Chile(from the Mapuche and then south.) belonged to the Viceroyalty of La Plata.

The two sides claim both sides of the Andes.

During the early days of the 80s the Carretera Austral(Austral Road) finished its early construction(after starting in 1977), getting more and more extended as the years passed but isn't finished yet. That's for the Chilean side.

Argentina started its road in 1983. So, not even started in 1978 or 1982.

So, bad for both sides.

Unexistent in that region. Railroad reached only Puerto Montt in Chile. Over 1,500 km away from Punta Arenas. Same in Argentina. It didn't reach that far. Transport was almost exclusively by air.

Mines, the few that existed there were unvaluable(when compared to the North(of both countries) or completely empty for 100 years.

No, they prefered to be left alone. Chile made German/Italian/Croatian inmigrants take the land of the Mapuche(who also live in Argentina) since the 1860s. Argentina slaughtered the Onas/Selk'Nam starting in the 1880s. From a small population of 4,000~5,000 people, in 20 years it was barely over 800. The other tribes(like the Chonos, or the Kawesqar, or the Yagans or the Tehuelches) were extinct since before the Independence,(or just not seen since then) at the brink of extinction, all pure members of the tribe dead, and extinct in Chile and barely alive in Argentina, respectively.

The southern tribes are basically just a list of genocide committed by Chile and Argentina.
 
IIUC Britain was dealing with Chile and offered to sell them some Hunters while allowing Nimrod flights from Chilean bases in particular San Felix island, in addition the British offered to sell the Chileans a pair of Canberra PR9s which had previously been offered as a lease to undertake photo-mapping of Chile. Negotiations progressed to such an extent that a pair of PR9s and a pair of Hercs in support transited to Belize by 26 April before Chile pulled the plug, However a Nimrod and VC10 did go to San Felix and flew operational sorties on 8, 15 and 18 May. http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm

If Chile did actually attack Argentina during the Falklands war I don't think their chances would be too bad given that Britain would be doing all the heavy lifting with regards to the Argentine Air Force and Navy. After 25 May the Argentine Air Force had been gutted, it had lost something like 1/4 of its fast jet strength, had others unserviceable due to damage and was running through their stockpile of spares. In total it conducted about 500 sorties with about 100 fast jets, a far cry from the British 1300 sorties with a total of 42 fast(using the term charitably) jets. Similarly the Argentine Navy had lost the Belgrano, a submarine and a couple of smaller craft and the rest were closely blockaded by SSNs. This would basically give the Chilean Air Force and Navy a free hand if they kept their aims limited, and given they'd received a number of warships and aircraft from Britain as a 'reward' the balance of power could remain reasonable after the war given Argentina's losses to the Brtish.
 
Bolivia probably complains about Atacama and the coastline. Especially if Chile loses.

Yep. That's a given.

Chile is a perfect example of won the war, lost the peace. Except between those two things there are 133 years.

IIUC Britain was dealing with Chile and offered to sell them some Hunters while allowing Nimrod flights from Chilean bases in particular San Felix island, in addition the British offered to sell the Chileans a pair of Canberra PR9s which had previously been offered as a lease to undertake photo-mapping of Chile. Negotiations progressed to such an extent that a pair of PR9s and a pair of Hercs in support transited to Belize by 26 April before Chile pulled the plug, However a Nimrod and VC10 did go to San Felix and flew operational sorties on 8, 15 and 18 May. http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm

If Chile did actually attack Argentina during the Falklands war I don't think their chances would be too bad given that Britain would be doing all the heavy lifting with regards to the Argentine Air Force and Navy. After 25 May the Argentine Air Force had been gutted, it had lost something like 1/4 of its fast jet strength, had others unserviceable due to damage and was running through their stockpile of spares. In total it conducted about 500 sorties with about 100 fast jets, a far cry from the British 1300 sorties with a total of 42 fast(using the term charitably) jets. Similarly the Argentine Navy had lost the Belgrano, a submarine and a couple of smaller craft and the rest were closely blockaded by SSNs. This would basically give the Chilean Air Force and Navy a free hand if they kept their aims limited, and given they'd received a number of warships and aircraft from Britain as a 'reward' the balance of power could remain reasonable after the war given Argentina's losses to the Brtish.

Still, the ground attack is too much to lose with little to win. A risk that Pinochet would not take.(especially in such a precarious position, after a severe economical crisis)

Merino might've taken the risk, but he was an idiot, so...there's that.
 
Top