Falkland/Malvinas Islands Debate- Your Opinion?

[Fintanland]

I think Koyro is blinded by Nationalism. The only reason anyone can support Falklands being British is due to Nationalism. They belong to Argentina geographically. Britain should give them to Argentina after letting all who don't want to live in Argentina go to Britain.

Geographically? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. The Falkland Islands are several hundred kilometers away from mainland Argentina. And since when are the "wishes" of bloody rock more important than the wishes of the people who live on the rock?

[Imperiatom]

Hardly what you need to remember is that, in comparison to 1982, the Argentina military is fairly weak and neglected. They took the islands completely by surprise and overwhelmed the small garrison of some 69 royal marines. Today the British armed forces keeps 1200 personnel on those islands current alongside and increased air force and naval presence. There is also a Joint Rapid Reaction Force containing elements of all three services which could be deployed to the islands in the event of receiving intelligence of a specific threat to the islands.

The whole problem of a "Rapid" reaction force to the islands is that they won't be so rapid. Everything needs to be staged by aircraft across quite some distance.

All the more reason to justify an increased military presence at the Falklands. Anyway, the Argentine Forces lack any real capacity to land on the Island. They have a single landing ship which is a modified tanker. Whereas the Royal Navy has HMS Ocean, an Amphibious Assault Ship, 2 Landing Assault Ships and 3 Landing Dock Ships, with around 61 Marines Landing Craft. We could easily take the Islands back, even without proper Aircraft Carriers. Personally i think we should have kept the Harriers, but the fact is we didn't for whatever reason.

Without "proper aircraft carriers", any such British counter-invasion would get mauled. Even craptastic Argentine Skyhawks managed to get dumb bombs planted on landing ships in the middle of the British fleet.

We will rightly or wrongly be out of afghan by the end of next year. Their navy is nothing that our new Astute-class submarine's cant handle as happened last time our Subs are at least a generation ahead of any ship they process it would just be the general belgrano all over again.

Sinking a pre-WW2 light crusier with a state-of-the-art submarine is not something worth boasting about. Ever seens a submarine force alone stop a invasion outright?

The subs will get their surface fleet out of the way and from what i have seem of the new destroyers and frigates they are more than capable of shooting the Argentine's down without air cover at sea and would be happy to travel down in the fleet.

I'm not boasting i am just stating that it would be the same result as before.

[Kryskov]

I suppose if we really wanted to find out, someone with Arma II could download map mods, AI overhauls, army units overhauls, naval overhauls, etc. You would have to basically want to have your computer commit suicide, however.

And regarding the issue on whether the British would be able to re-take such and island, the US, France, Germany, pretty much all of NATO would provide supplies to the British (like in the actual Falklands War). Supply lines wouldn't be terribly overstretched. Additionally, if the navy were to commit most of its subs, frigates, destroyers, and the helicopter carrier, I imagine that the Argentinians would stand little hope of withstanding the naval and aerial barrages. And the Argentinians would be especially screwed should France or the US get involved militarily.

[Imperiatom]

This is why you don't send the assault ships alone. You send the Frigates and Destroyers as escort craft to destroy enemy Naval, Air and Submarine Forces. Like i said, a single Type 45 Destroyer can comfortably neutralise the argentine air force. 2 is overkill. It's not like you need Aircraft to strike ground positions either. Ballistic Missiles and Naval Gunfire can soften Argentine ground forces. I grant you it would be a great deal easier with actual fixed wing aircraft, but still.

The Argentine Military is no match for the British Armed Forces. Thats a fact.

And no, sinking a World War II Cruiser is no achievement.

So while a British fleet is sailing towards the Falklands, the Argentine Navy...does nothing? Quite simply, if the British tried that, the only way Argentina would fail to inflict a steep toll would be to send biplanes with hand grenades against the British. The admiral that says "Yeah, let's just land on this island in range of enemy aircraft without air cover" would swiftly be put on trial for treason. There was a reason that aircraft carriers became the norm following the Second World War.

In a fight on equal terms, the Argentine's stand little chance against the British. Dug in on a island in range of LBA, with the enemy at the end of a extremely long supply chain? Thing's are more equal. That is provided the Argentine's can take the islands in the first place - difficult, but not impossible.

we have more nuclear submarines than they have ships. Plus if war was declared we would send all of our fighter aircraft to the Island airbase and strike their airbases on the mainland. could also send the paras down there within a day or so.

[Machtergreifung]

The whole problem of a "Rapid" reaction force to the islands is that they won't be so rapid. Everything needs to be staged by aircraft across quite some distance.



Without "proper aircraft carriers", any such British counter-invasion would get mauled. Even craptastic Argentine Skyhawks managed to get dumb bombs planted on landing ships in the middle of the British fleet.



Sinking a pre-WW2 light crusier with a state-of-the-art submarine is not something worth boasting about. Ever seens a submarine force alone stop a invasion outright?

The subs will get their surface fleet out of the way and from what i have seem of the new destroyers and frigates they are more than capable of shooting the Argentine's down without air cover at sea and would be happy to travel down in the fleet.

I'm not boasting i am just stating that it would be the same result as before.

The subs, should they end up operating close to the shore (as they would need to, as the Argentine fleet wouldn't need to leave LBA umbrella) they would be hunted down swiftly by ASW aircraft. Even if they weren't sunk, they would spend so long being chased by aircraft and inshore patrols as to be useless at hunting warships.

As potent as some of the newer ships seem to be, they would stand little chance against a combined air and naval attack on the task force. Look at all those engagements between surface ships and aircraft fighting surface ships, any occasions where the surface ships came off ahead of ships + aircraft? HMS Glorious doesn't count because that situation is never going to occur again.

[Fintanland]

And the Argentinians would be especially screwed should France or the US get involved militarily.

Yes. Especially since, last time I checked, Brazilian-US relations were actually quite workable, so if the US can talk Brazil into letting the RAF use some bases, the air cover would be much improved.

[Farnhamia]

So while a British fleet is sailing towards the Falklands, the Argentine Navy...does nothing? Quite simply, if the British tried that, the only way Argentina would fail to inflict a steep toll would be to send biplanes with hand grenades against the British. The admiral that says "Yeah, let's just land on this island in range of enemy aircraft without air cover" would swiftly be put on trial for treason. There was a reason that aircraft carriers became the norm following the Second World War.

In a fight on equal terms, the Argentine's stand little chance against the British. Dug in on a island in range of LBA, with the enemy at the end of a extremely long supply chain? Thing's are more equal. That is provided the Argentine's can take the islands in the first place - difficult, but not impossible.

we have more nuclear submarines than they have ships. Plus if war was declared we would send all of our fighter aircraft to the Island airbase and strike their airbases on the mainland. could also send the paras down there within a day or so.

I doubt the airbase on the island could accommodate all of Great Britain's fighter aircraft.

[Marcurix]

I think Koyro is blinded by Nationalism. The only reason anyone can support Falklands being British is due to Nationalism. They belong to Argentina geographically. Britain should give them to Argentina after letting all who don't want to live in Argentina go to Britain.

Yea, no. There is the whole "the people who live there want to be British" thing too.

Geography doesn't really factor into it, and would cause problems for a few other places too. Like the Tierra del Fuego for instance.

[Machtergreifung]

I suppose if we really wanted to find out, someone with Arma II could download map mods, AI overhauls, army units overhauls, naval overhauls, etc. You would have to basically want to have your computer commit suicide, however.

And regarding the issue on whether the British would be able to re-take such and island, the US, France, Germany, pretty much all of NATO would provide supplies to the British (like in the actual Falklands War). Supply lines wouldn't be terribly overstretched. Additionally, if the navy were to commit most of its subs, frigates, destroyers, and the helicopter carrier, I imagine that the Argentinians would stand little hope of withstanding the naval and aerial barrages. And the Argentinians would be especially screwed should France or the US get involved militarily.

Arma 2 is a bad for this sort of simulation. Something like War in the Pacific would be better.

In the actual Falklands War, AFAIK only the Americans directly gave material support (that actually enabled the British to even get to the Falklands in the first place).

So while a British fleet is sailing towards the Falklands, the Argentine Navy...does nothing? Quite simply, if the British tried that, the only way Argentina would fail to inflict a steep toll would be to send biplanes with hand grenades against the British. The admiral that says "Yeah, let's just land on this island in range of enemy aircraft without air cover" would swiftly be put on trial for treason. There was a reason that aircraft carriers became the norm following the Second World War.

In a fight on equal terms, the Argentine's stand little chance against the British. Dug in on a island in range of LBA, with the enemy at the end of a extremely long supply chain? Thing's are more equal. That is provided the Argentine's can take the islands in the first place - difficult, but not impossible.

we have more nuclear submarines than they have ships. Plus if war was declared we would send all of our fighter aircraft to the Island airbase and strike their airbases on the mainland.

Not going to happen. By the time most of the aircraft have staged through a dozen or so airbases, the islands would have fallen, or the airbase knocked out. If neither of them have happened, the war would be over anyways.

[Imperiatom]

The subs will get their surface fleet out of the way and from what i have seem of the new destroyers and frigates they are more than capable of shooting the Argentine's down without air cover at sea and would be happy to travel down in the fleet.

I'm not boasting i am just stating that it would be the same result as before.

The subs, should they end up operating close to the shore (as they would need to, as the Argentine fleet wouldn't need to leave LBA umbrella) they would be hunted down swiftly by ASW aircraft. Even if they weren't sunk, they would spend so long being chased by aircraft and inshore patrols as to be useless at hunting warships.

As potent as some of the newer ships seem to be, they would stand little chance against a combined air and naval attack on the task force. Look at all those engagements between surface ships and aircraft fighting surface ships, any occasions where the surface ships came off ahead of ships + aircraft? HMS Glorious doesn't count because that situation is never going to occur again.

The subs are armed with up to 38 cruse missiles so they don't have to go anywhere near the shore and secondly they have a sonar signature smaller than a dolphin so the chance of being detected is so small.

[Machtergreifung]

And the Argentinians would be especially screwed should France or the US get involved militarily.

Yes. Especially since, last time I checked, Brazilian-US relations were actually quite workable, so if the US can talk Brazil into letting the RAF use some bases, the air cover would be much improved.

While Brazil and America get on well, American bases on Brazilian soil has been a big no for Brazil, and most of Latin America. I can't see why that would change for the British.

[Farnhamia]

I suppose if we really wanted to find out, someone with Arma II could download map mods, AI overhauls, army units overhauls, naval overhauls, etc. You would have to basically want to have your computer commit suicide, however.

And regarding the issue on whether the British would be able to re-take such and island, the US, France, Germany, pretty much all of NATO would provide supplies to the British (like in the actual Falklands War). Supply lines wouldn't be terribly overstretched. Additionally, if the navy were to commit most of its subs, frigates, destroyers, and the helicopter carrier, I imagine that the Argentinians would stand little hope of withstanding the naval and aerial barrages. And the Argentinians would be especially screwed should France or the US get involved militarily.

Arma 2 is a bad for this sort of simulation. Something like War in the Pacific would be better.

In the actual Falklands War, AFAIK only the Americans directly gave material support (that actually enabled the British to even get to the Falklands in the first place).

we have more nuclear submarines than they have ships. Plus if war was declared we would send all of our fighter aircraft to the Island airbase and strike their airbases on the mainland.

Not going to happen. By the time most of the aircraft have staged through a dozen or so airbases, the islands would have fallen, or the airbase knocked out. If neither of them have happened, the war would be over anyways.

Over, like in 1982, when the Argentines seized the islands and were subsequently ejected by the British? That kind of over?

[Priory Academy USSR]

Yes. Especially since, last time I checked, Brazilian-US relations were actually quite workable, so if the US can talk Brazil into letting the RAF use some bases, the air cover would be much improved.

While Brazil and America get on well, American bases on Brazilian soil has been a big no for Brazil, and most of Latin America. I can't see why that would change for the British.

There's a difference between permanent military forces and a base for a few months while bombing runs are conducted, much like how Britain used Italian military bases during the Libya conflict. However, given that Brazil will most likely favour having good relations with Argentina over good relations with the UK, it's doubtful they'd let them stay anyway.

[Democratic Koyro]

Yes. Especially since, last time I checked, Brazilian-US relations were actually quite workable, so if the US can talk Brazil into letting the RAF use some bases, the air cover would be much improved.

While Brazil and America get on well, American bases on Brazilian soil has been a big no for Brazil, and most of Latin America. I can't see why that would change for the British.

Brazil support Argentina's claim on the Islands. They refuse HMS Clyde, a permenantly stationed Offshore Patrol Ship at the Falklands, permission to dock at their ports, so any British bases in Brazil are out of the question.

[Machtergreifung]

The subs, should they end up operating close to the shore (as they would need to, as the Argentine fleet wouldn't need to leave LBA umbrella) they would be hunted down swiftly by ASW aircraft. Even if they weren't sunk, they would spend so long being chased by aircraft and inshore patrols as to be useless at hunting warships.

As potent as some of the newer ships seem to be, they would stand little chance against a combined air and naval attack on the task force. Look at all those engagements between surface ships and aircraft fighting surface ships, any occasions where the surface ships came off ahead of ships + aircraft? HMS Glorious doesn't count because that situation is never going to occur again.

The subs are armed with up to 38 cruse missiles so they don't have to go anywhere near the shore and secondly they have a sonar signature smaller than a dolphin so the chance of being detected is so small.

Have fun finding anything to shoot at if you can't get near the shore, because that's where the Argentine fleet would be.

[Marcurix]

Arma 2 is a bad for this sort of simulation. Something like War in the Pacific would be better.

In the actual Falklands War, AFAIK only the Americans directly gave material support (that actually enabled the British to even get to the Falklands in the first place).



Not going to happen. By the time most of the aircraft have staged through a dozen or so airbases, the islands would have fallen, or the airbase knocked out. If neither of them have happened, the war would be over anyways.

Over, like in 1982, when the Argentines seized the islands and were subsequently ejected by the British? That kind of over?

Britain does have a carrier is reserve too, which people seem to keep forgetting.

[Democratic Koyro]

Over, like in 1982, when the Argentines seized the islands and were subsequently ejected by the British? That kind of over?

Britain does have a carrier is reserve too, which people seem to keep forgetting.

She's in Active Service as a Helicopter Carrier. Its the aircraft which are missing.

[Kryskov]

Also, try looking at Argentina's fleet. Their 4 "destroyers" are actually frigates, and... "The Argentine Navy struggles to meet maintenance and training requirements because of financial problems and import restrictions. The Almirante Brown class are reported to be short of spares and suffering engine problems, plus all their ordnance is past its expiry date."

The muscle of the Argentinian Navy, everyone. If Argentina were to commit ALL of its navy, it could be wiped out by 22 helicopters in maybe a couple hours.

[Machtergreifung]

Arma 2 is a bad for this sort of simulation. Something like War in the Pacific would be better.

In the actual Falklands War, AFAIK only the Americans directly gave material support (that actually enabled the British to even get to the Falklands in the first place).



Not going to happen. By the time most of the aircraft have staged through a dozen or so airbases, the islands would have fallen, or the airbase knocked out. If neither of them have happened, the war would be over anyways.

Over, like in 1982, when the Argentines seized the islands and were subsequently ejected by the British? That kind of over?

Over, as in the Argentine gamble big, fail and get slaughtered, like Dieppe. That sort of over.

While Brazil and America get on well, American bases on Brazilian soil has been a big no for Brazil, and most of Latin America. I can't see why that would change for the British.

There's a difference between permanent military forces and a base for a few months while bombing runs are conducted, much like how Britain used Italian military bases during the Libya conflict. However, given that Brazil will most likely favour having good relations with Argentina over good relations with the UK, it's doubtful they'd let them stay anyway.

Brazil supports Argentina's claim. It would'nt let the British base bombers under any circumstances.

[Farnhamia]

While Brazil and America get on well, American bases on Brazilian soil has been a big no for Brazil, and most of Latin America. I can't see why that would change for the British.

There's a difference between permanent military forces and a base for a few months while bombing runs are conducted, much like how Britain used Italian military bases during the Libya conflict. However, given that Brazil will most likely favour having good relations with Argentina over good relations with the UK, it's doubtful they'd let them stay anyway.

The US has no air bases in Brazil. We have a Naval Support Detachment in São Paulo.

[Democratic Koyro]

Also, try looking at Argentina's fleet. Their 4 "destroyers" are actually frigates, and... "The Argentine Navy struggles to meet maintenance and training requirements because of financial problems and import restrictions. The Almirante Brown class are reported to be short of spares and suffering engine problems, plus all their ordnance is past its expiry date."

The muscle of the Argentinian Navy, everyone. If Argentina were to commit ALL of its navy, it could be wiped out by 22 helicopters in maybe a couple hours.

Exactly. The Argentine fleet is literally no match against the Royal Navy. Any fleet battle would be hysterically one-sided.

[Machtergreifung]

Also, try looking at Argentina's fleet. Their 4 "destroyers" are actually frigates, and... "The Argentine Navy struggles to meet maintenance and training requirements because of financial problems and import restrictions. The Almirante Brown class are reported to be short of spares and suffering engine problems, plus all their ordnance is past its expiry date."

The muscle of the Argentinian Navy, everyone. If Argentina were to commit ALL of its navy, it could be wiped out by 22 helicopters in maybe a couple hours.

Source?

Even so, the logistical position of the Argentine's is marginaly better than that of the British.

[Priory Academy USSR]

There's a difference between permanent military forces and a base for a few months while bombing runs are conducted, much like how Britain used Italian military bases during the Libya conflict. However, given that Brazil will most likely favour having good relations with Argentina over good relations with the UK, it's doubtful they'd let them stay anyway.

The US has no air bases in Brazil. We have a Naval Support Detachment in São Paulo.

I wasn't saying that. I was talking about how Britain could (or couldn't, given the realities) use Brazilian airbases during a hypothetical conflict.

[Democratic Koyro]

Also, try looking at Argentina's fleet. Their 4 "destroyers" are actually frigates, and... "The Argentine Navy struggles to meet maintenance and training requirements because of financial problems and import restrictions. The Almirante Brown class are reported to be short of spares and suffering engine problems, plus all their ordnance is past its expiry date."

The muscle of the Argentinian Navy, everyone. If Argentina were to commit ALL of its navy, it could be wiped out by 22 helicopters in maybe a couple hours.

Source?

Even so, the logistical position of the Argentine's is marginaly better than that of the British.

How so? They have a single Logistics Ship. The Royal Navy has the RFA dedicated to Logistics and Support, which operates 11 Repelishment, Repair, Casulty clearing and Oiler ships, 3 landing ships and 6 Sealift ships.

[Olivaero]

I don't understand why you keep on bringing up HK in this debate.. you know full well why the UK couldnt keep HK even if the people wanted to. Land wars in Asia Have never been an option ever. The fact is we have the oportunity to keep these islands if the islanders want to to be kept and, they do. So we will, until the last man.

People put a great deal of weight behind the islanders self-determination. Where was this when the citizens of Hong Kong were wrapped up in a present and handed to the Chinese? Does Britain only care about self-determination when it can fight the opposing nation?

Well those are the only times the UK can actually offer the people in question self determination. It is the Chinese's fault that the people of HK were not given a chance have self determination.