How the Falklands War was won

The Daily Telegraph ^ | 27/03/2007 | Michael Novak

[sukhoi-30mki]

How the Falklands War was won By Michael Novak Last Updated: 1:03pm BST 27/03/2007

The opening phases of the Falklands Conflict began in December 1981 when more than 40 Argentine "scrap metal workers" landed on the island of South Georgia, pointedly refusing to report to the British base at Grytviken to have their entry visas stamped.

Project Alpha was a deliberate operation designed by the new military junta of Gen Leopoldo Galtieri to test British will ahead of Project Azul, a full-scale invasion of the Falkland Islands.

The Argentinians eventually left but returned on March 19, 1982 - this time raising the Argentinian flag - and the Royal Navy survey ship Endurance was dispatched to South Georgia with a small detachment of Royal Marines to eject them.

UK media reports of Royal Navy nuclear submarines on their way to the Falklands panicked the junta into ordering a modified invasion force to depart on March 28. It was not in fact until a day later that three British submarines left Gibraltar for the south Atlantic.

The limited Argentine force, which included only 900 ground troops, was bound to be too strong for the 68 Royal Marines stationed in the Falklands capital Port Stanley.

The Argentinians landed on the morning of April 2 and swiftly overcame the British commandos, a situation mirrored in South Georgia, which fell a day later.

The initial feeling among Margaret Thatcher's advisers was that diplomacy was the only way out, sending an expeditionary force 8,000 miles south was a perilous business and one to be avoided at all costs.

But senior figures within the armed forces disagreed. Sir Henry Leach, the First Sea Lord, told Mrs Thatcher that failure to retake the islands would leave the UK impotent on the world stage and she needed little persuasion that he was right.

The popular mood was firmly behind the British prime minister. It seemed to most people that a set of tin-pot south American dictators renowned for their willingness to resort to torture were lording it over British citizens and territory and that something must be done.

Mrs Thatcher announced the dispatch of a task force to the Falklands, with the initial elements, including the aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible, departing Portsmouth almost immediately.

The speed with which the Task Force got underway was astonishing. By April 8, the rapidly refitted cruise liner Canberra departed Southampton with 2,000 paratroopers and commandos on board, the docksides crowded with well-wishers waving the Union Flag.

Then, as now, the navy was facing extensive cuts and the assault ship Intrepid had to be brought back into commission rapidly to take part in the race south.

With the British task force heading towards the Falklands, there was a flurry of feverish but ultimately pointless diplomatic negotiations led by Alexander Haig, the US Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, British commandos and special forces retook South Georgia; the UK declared a 200-nautical mile exclusion zone around the islands; and President Ronald Reagan threw US military support behind the British.

On May 1, British special forces landed on West and East Falkland to recce landing sites while the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm attacked Port Stanley airfield, destroying four Argentinian aircraft but failing to shut down the runway.

A day later the Royal Navy submarine Conqueror sank the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano, with the loss of 323 lives, leading Admiral Jorge Anaya to order his ships back to port.

The decision to sink the Belgrano - famously welcomed by the Sun with the headline Gotcha - caused much controversy. But there was little doubt her Exocet missiles were a threat to the British task force much of which was already in the region.

The threat from the Exocets was confirmed two days later on May 4, when the British destroyer Sheffield was hit in "bomb alley" south-east of the Falklands with the loss of 20 lives.

She was the first Royal Navy ship lost in action since 1945 and in London the successful Argentinian attack briefly rocked the war cabinet but with little choice it held firm.

Early on May 21, troops from 2 and 3 Bns of the Parachute Regiment, plus marines from 40, 42 and 45 Royal Marine Commandos landed virtually unopposed to form the main bridgehead at San Carlos on the western coast of East Falkland.

Three days later and the Argentinians enjoyed another short-lived success when the destroyer Coventry was hit by three bombs, capsized and sank with the loss of 19 of her crew while the roll-on roll-off ferry the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet, killing 12.

On May 26, 2 Para set off to the south to mount a surprise attack on Darwin and Goose Green and the next day 3 Para and 45 Commando headed east towards Port Stanley.

There was much attention focused back in Britain on the fact that the commandos called their forced march a "yomp" while the paras were "tabbing", making a "tactical advance to battle".

With the BBC World service announcing that a British parachute battalion was poised to take Goose Green, Lt-Col "H" Jones, the CO of 2 Para, realized all hope of a surprise attack was lost and ordered his men to attack that night.

Despite being outnumbered three to one, they won the battle but Jones was killed and was subsequently awarded a posthumous VC.

The last Argentinian success of the conflict came on June 8 when the landing ships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram were attacked by Argentine aircraft at Bluff Cove, killing 48, mainly members of the Welsh Guards who were being landed to join the battle for Stanley.

With the Scots and Welsh Guards now joining the force, having been ferried down on the requisitioned QE2, a substantial British force of 8,000 men was now lined up against the Argentinians.

The first phase of the assault on Stanley began on June 11, with 45 Commando attacking Two Sisters, screaming the company war cry Zulu, Zulu and forcing the Argentinians to flee with the loss of only four British marines.

Meanwhile 42 Commando lost only one man in capturing Mt Harriet and Goat Fudge. The fiercest fighting came in 3 Para's assault on Mt Longdon just five miles west of the Falklands capital. The young Argentinian soldiers stood and fought.

The paras lost 18 men in the battle and when they eventually reached the top of the mountain they found one of their own Sgt Ian McKay surrounded by dead Argentinians. He was the second British soldier to be awarded a posthumous VC for his part in the conflict.

The second phase of the assault followed on June 14 with the Gurkhas taking Mount William and 2 Para attacking Wireless Ridge backed up by heavy shelling from their own artillery and naval guns. They lost only three men and found more than 100 Argentinian bodies.

But the fiercest hand to hand fighting came on Tumbledown, taken by the Scots Guards with the loss of seven men to around 30 Argentinians killed.

With the British troops now poised to take Stanley itself, the Argentinian commander Brig-Gen Mario Menendez surrendered, thoroughly vindicating Mrs Thatcher's courageous decision to ignore her advisers and retake the Falklands.

[Jim Verdolini]

"Blair is no Margaret Thatcher".
Maybe not, but I think he is Maggie's equal and just as determined."

Sorry, no comparison. What is worse, the UK simply does not have the ability to wage war any more. Their Army is half the size of our Marine Corp and their navy forces in the theater are 1 frigate and 3 minesweepers.....

The only way they could act would be with specops and with our help.

Remember, they are partly responsible as their rules of engagement mandated surendering those folk when confronted.

[Milwaukee_Guy]

The Brits tend to have a habit of overstating and over analyzing their military achievements. Too many "scholars" in wool suits with too much time, rewriting history. I much prefer American or German authors of military history. The worst are the Russians, unreadable propaganda.

I very much respect the Tommy's as well trained and professional soldiers. The British foot soldier has little to apologize for.

History however has granted the Brits a lot of plain old good luck.

Take for example,

- The US effected emergency supplies of the latest AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles to the Brit's. The latest US AIM-9 had a true "fire and forget" head on capability. It was the US AIM-9 and -not- the British Sea Harrier which provided local but not strategic air superiority for the British.

- The Argentine Mirage would have dominated the Harriers were it not for the latest AIM-9 and the lack of range of the Mirage as deployed by Argentina. By the same token the British Harriers never could make a real threat against Argentine bases.

- The Argentine pilots were brave almost to a fault. Brimming with prestige and machismo they forced their low level attacks using American A-4 Skyhawks and French Super Entendards against British warships with telling effect. Only the lack of proper bomb fusing saved the British from serious naval disasters. The Argy bombs were fuzed "too long" and penetrated many British ships without exploding. If the Argys had targeted the QE or other troops ships, with proper fuses, the loss of life would have made the Brits reconsider the whole operation.

Given all that I very much would like to see another Margret Thatcher around to challenge tyranny and aggression. Despite the Brits faults during the Falklands, good training and a firm goal found them victory.

The Falklands War was the first real demonstration of "high tech" weaponry since WWII. Alot of time has passed since the Falklands and the capabilities of modern East/West weapon systems has not been demonstrated in a full scale war.

Maybe Iran and the Gulf will be the next demonstration?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So know one was buying the Argentinian claim that they were just liberating the islands from European imperialism?

Predictably, the "Daily Worker" American Communist Party crowd were taking that line. I remember arguing with some guy trying to sell the rag on the street over it. But that was mostly reflexive anti-American/anti-Reagan/anti-Thatcher sentiment rather than a seriously thought out position.

[Jack_Macca]

Every conflict, battle or war has it's mistakes and luck. I think you will find all those topics written by British writers soon after the War.

To say that history "has granted the Brits a lot of plain old good luck" sounds out of place in your excellent and informative post.

As well as silly, it seems to be quite emotive and grudging. Every victor in sport, business or war gets lucky. This is why the SAS say "Who Dares Wins"!

"... Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way. I learned a deep respect for one of Goethe's couplets:

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it! "

-W.H. Murray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Murray

[pau1f0rd]

I'd take what people say to a visiting American with a pinch of salt. It's not for nothing the Aussies call us 'whingeing Poms'! Lovely weather at the moment by the way!

[BBell]

That was back before Newsweak became a liberal rag.

[Jake The Goose]

I take everything I say with a pinch of salt.

No offense intended - I hope it wasn't taken.

[wannabegeek]

I think this Jim_Trent is too nutty, he believes everything he reads in the Internet, it doesn't matter who wrote it. Having been around all sort aircrafts, me don't think it's easy to restore a Vulcan B.2 to fight a war that quick.

Tommyjo, do you know how many Vulcan B.2 was in service before start of the Falkland war?

[ArmstedFragg]

If we're talking about the bombing of the runway, the issue was refueling operations. The mission was flown from Ascension Island and required 17 refuelings. The aerial tankers themselves need other tankers to refuel them. There were two aircraft on the mission, with the back-up plane making the run because the primary aircraft had to turn back shortly after takeoff when it couldn't pressurize the cabin.

At the time, the mission was the longest bombing mission in history.

[ArmstedFragg]

Falklands today.

Nice photo gallery.

http://www.visitorfalklands.com/

[Dave Elias]

"Their intelligence service nearly rivals that of Israel."

What the Israeli intelligence that was so on the ball regarding Hezbollah last year?

I'm sure the British would be thrilled with the comparison.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Well that's a fault with military historians around the world.About the AIM-9L being decisive,well lets not ignore the Harrier.It had excellent agility & besides,if it wasn't there,the missiles would have been of no use.

[Army Air Corps]

What about the GR.7s?
They can carry Sidewinders and ASRAAMs. Moreover, they also can carry Aden gun pods.

[Doctor Don]

Maggie was tougher than Tony is!

[sukhoi-30mki]

They are upgrading the GR.7s to the GR.9 standard.It can carry ASRAAMs,but they don't even have a radar,so no BVR-weapons & they are heavier than the SeaHarriers.They wouldn't stand a chance against most opponents with those weapons.The SeaHarrier FA.2 armed with the Blue Vixen radar & AMRAAM was generally regarded as the best fighter in Europe till about 8 years ago.Those have been retired.

[Army Air Corps]

Stupid move as it leaves a considerable gap until the F-35 is delivered to the Royal Navy.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

I understand that they used something like 8 bombers for each mission of one or two that actually dropped bombs. They would use the others as tankers, carrying no bombs, but carrying as much fuel as possible. They would leave from England and some would refuel the others then turn around and head for home. Only the last one or two would make it all the way.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Where are you getting this info?

[Tommyjo]

The integration of ASRAAM onto UK Harriers was abandoned. The only air-to-air missile is the Sidewinder.

Although the Aden gun pods are carried they don't actually have any guns in them.

The UK version of the AV-8B doesn't have any cannon fit and can't carry the original 30mm Aden. The plans were for the development of the Aden 25mm cannon. That is what you see sometimes carried on the UK Harriers. No cannons are in them and it acts as aerodynamic aid. Sometimes they are replaced with the strakes. The last UK Harriers to carry cannons was the Sea Harriers. They carried the original 30mm Adens in pods. They are all retired now from active UK service.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harriergr7.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harriergr9.cfm

[Tommyjo]

Thanks for the info. I'm afraid Jim would have been inventing history if he believes that a Vulcan was taken out of the Offutt museum because of the Falklands. The refuelling probes were taken off Vulcans in the U.S. but that is as far as it went.

[Tommyjo]

All the Sea Harrier Mirage/Dagger encounters that resulted in kills were from the rear-aspect. The Mirage/Daggers were less manoeverable and couldn't turn inside the Sea Harriers.

The Sea Harriers manoeverability was proved time and time against French Mirage in exercises. The work up exercises with the French also proved this. The Sea Harriers had also exercised against F-15s and F-5s in the UK.

The only thing that the Mirage/Dagger had advantage on was their superior speed. They had early Sidewinders and Israeli Shafrirs and Matra 530s. The AIM-9Gs that were already in UK service would have been suffice in those encounters. The AIM-9Ls were already in UK service, but assigned to NATO stocks.