Falklands War: Where were the Argie tanks?

[Hood]

The Argentines were as isolated as the British troops where and that must have had psychological impact on their morale. The British forces were at the end of a very long logistics trail but at the end of the day they had a naval force offshore keeping them supplied, providing fire support and aerial support. They also had public support behind them and knew the massive efforts being made to assemble ships and equipment, crash modifications and upgrades and trying everything no matter how difficult it seemed (like Black Buck etc.) - that amounted to a weight of support the Argentines never mustered.
An Argentine solider who looked out to Falkland Sound only saw British ships, the Argentine Navy was nowhere to be seen and their local air support was relatively weak (most of it was armed trainers). They were effectively besieged at that point. They were only 300 miles away from Patagonia but it must have felt more like 3,000 miles. If you are already not particularly enthusiastic for your mission, then feeling cast adrift and surrounded is quickly going to sap your morale.

 

[DWG]

They were only 300 miles away from Patagonia but it must have felt more like 3,000 miles.

That's a bit like describing a Brit as only 300 miles away from the Scottish Highlands.

 

[Purpletrouble]

No to mention an Officer Class with next to no leadership, command or management ability and an attitude straight out of the 18th Century. Officers that asked to be imprisoned separately from their men for their own safety. No force with them has a chance even with laser equipped hover tanks!

How did any Argentine Officer ever look in a mirror or at their rank and medals and not want to die of shame?

 

[nuuumannn]

die of shame

Hm, an interesting and possibly accurate assessment. Walking around BA there is plenty of evidence of an underlying desire to reclaim the islands and what they mean to the Argentine people. The Malvinas are everywhere. There's a purpose built museum, The Malvinas Museum (intriguingly located at ESMA, a former naval staff college used as a torture centre for dissidents - the Disappeared - during the Galtieri reign of terror), a map of the islands on their large notes, there are streets named Crucero General Belgrano, there are billboards and more permanent memorials located around the city and in the main square there are silent protesters encamped with placards and stuff that have kept a vigil since the war ended.

In all the military museums there are memorials and sections dedicated to the conflict as well as plenty of artefacts. In the NMA at Moron there are a few Malvinas survivors. In the hangar view, the Mirage III, the Dagger, the two A-4s and the Canberra were all used. Detail from one of the A-4s, note the map of the islands on the Mirage and Canberra.

 

[CNH]

die of shame

Hm, an interesting and possibly accurate assessment. Walking around BA there is plenty of evidence of an underlying desire to reclaim the islands and what they mean to the Argentine people. The Malvinas are everywhere. There's a purpose built museum, The Malvinas Museum (intriguingly located at ESMA, a former naval staff college used as a torture centre for dissidents - the Disappeared - during the Galtieri reign of terror), a map of the islands on their large notes, there are streets named Crucero General Belgrano, there are billboards and more permanent memorials located around the city and in the main square there are silent protesters encamped with placards and stuff that have kept a vigil since the war ended.

In all the military museums there are memorials and sections dedicated to the conflict as well as plenty of artefacts. In the NMA at Moron there are a few Malvinas survivors. In the hangar view, the Mirage III, the Dagger, the two A-4s and the Canberra were all used. Detail from one of the A-4s, note the map of the islands on the Mirage and Canberra.

We might covet someone else's territory; but however, if there is no legal or moral basis behind your claim, then you mustn't be surprised if it is rejected by the rest of the world.

 

[Purpletrouble]

die of shame

Hm, an interesting and possibly accurate assessment. Walking around BA there is plenty of evidence of an underlying desire to reclaim the islands and what they mean to the Argentine people. The Malvinas are everywhere. There's a purpose built museum, The Malvinas Museum (intriguingly located at ESMA, a former naval staff college used as a torture centre for dissidents - the Disappeared - during the Galtieri reign of terror), a map of the islands on their large notes, there are streets named Crucero General Belgrano, there are billboards and more permanent memorials located around the city and in the main square there are silent protesters encamped with placards and stuff that have kept a vigil since the war ended.

In all the military museums there are memorials and sections dedicated to the conflict as well as plenty of artefacts. In the NMA at Moron there are a few Malvinas survivors. In the hangar view, the Mirage III, the Dagger, the two A-4s and the Canberra were all used. Detail from one of the A-4s, note the map of the islands on the Mirage and Canberra.

Interesting - it doesn’t feel like the morality and in particular, the gross failings that led to 1982 are being aired or explored? More a direct emotional response - which is fair enough in some respects given the sense of loss, but the “learning from failure” doesn’t seem to have happened. (Eg post WW1 the west concentrated on “never again”, Germany, equally as Argentina not actually disabused of the justification- wentdown “where did we go wrong how do we avoid that again”.

Perhaps the failure was just pinned on the disliked (hated?) ex-regime rather than wider and more inbred issues of culture, especially in the military. Perhaps the poor state of the forces since reflects the politicians view of the military and a desire for distance/lack of threat - but the “reconcile with what happend and rebuild” doesn’t seem to have happened or be happening?

It still must be an interesting feeling to be an Argentine Officer. When I wrote my paper years ago it was incredibly difficult to get in depth Argentine views of what happened and why, not just for translation reasons - almost as if there wasn’t a lot of interest even professionally in that. I recall a few western books where the author had tried hard and travelled but they were the exception.

 

[riggerrob]

Dear Moderators,
May I warn that I am straying into politics and sociology. I will limit my observations to generalizations, because i have not seriously studied Argentine politics.

Dear CNH,
Coveting some one else's territory may be a Biblical sin, but it continues to this day.
Hah!
Hah!
Most pieces of land were once occupied by three or more tribes, nations, empires or whatever. For example, native (First Nations) land claims in British Columbia exceed 300 percent of the acreage currently above water! This is partly because various tribes migrated or defeated each other in battle. Sometimes one tribe occupied a beach in summertime, while a neighbouring tribe occupied the same beach in wintertime.

In the aftermath of any war, most ordinary citizens just want to forget the whole miserable thing and get on with rebuilding their lives. They may be too exhausted to grasp all the subtlties of politics leading up to a war. Chances are, it will take decades for scholars to understand "the whole truth." Generals and politicians retire to write their memoirs. Too often, their "research" requires tossing dozens of (embarrassing) documents into the fireplace. Official Secrets Acts require with-holding some State-Secrets until after all the guilty parties have died. And it is never wise to criticize the royal family.

It is easiest to blame one "evil" group in an effort to put the problem behind them. In the Argentine case, they blamed an incompetent military junta. I suspect that the Falklands War had minimal impact on the average Argentine citizen .... compared with the "Dirty War."

Above all, history is written by the victors while losers try to forget their mistakes.

 

[COLDOWN]

Hello
Argentine short answer here.

At the beginning of 1982 the Argentine Dictatorship had these tanks:
- AMX-13/105 Repotenciados, +50 units, as lights and anti-tanks (1968);
- Sherman M4 Repotenciados, +100 units, as mediums and anti-tanks (1977);
- T.A.M.s, +10 units, as mediums and anti-tanks (1978); and
- Kurassier SK-105/A1, +80 units, as lights and anti-tanks (1981).
I'm not counting another armoured vehicles.

The appropriate tank for the Malvinas soil problem was the Kurassier. Next one was the TAM. As you can see both of them were new in our army.
Kurassier was used as patrol in the Chilean border, as well with AMXs and Shermans. TAM was used as training tank.

Regards

PS: I don't like the "Argie" on the tittle, its offensive and immature.

 

[COLDOWN]

H/t MIROTVORES70 over at the 313news.net forum:

The image link in the opening post has died a death.
Here's a replacement image, courtesy of Wyvern posting in the South American Tanks thread over in Army Projects:

Those images are from the 1976 german TH-300, the first prototype of TAM, that in 1977 was named as TAM-A (or TAM-1).

The TAM series tank is from 1979, based on the 1978 TH-301 german prototype, wich is the result of argentine-german +1000 modifications in the german TH-300.

Regards
PS: Hope my english don't sux hard.

 

[CNH]

Dear Moderators,
May I warn that I am straying into politics and sociology. I will limit my observations to generalizations, because i have not seriously studied Argentine politics.

Dear CNH,
Coveting some one else's territory may be a Biblical sin, but it continues to this day.
Hah!
Hah!
Most pieces of land were once occupied by three or more tribes, nations, empires or whatever. For example, native (First Nations) land claims in British Columbia exceed 300 percent of the acreage currently above water! This is partly because various tribes migrated or defeated each other in battle. Sometimes one tribe occupied a beach in summertime, while a neighbouring tribe occupied the same beach in wintertime.

In the aftermath of any war, most ordinary citizens just want to forget the whole miserable thing and get on with rebuilding their lives. They may be too exhausted to grasp all the subtlties of politics leading up to a war. Chances are, it will take decades for scholars to understand "the whole truth." Generals and politicians retire to write their memoirs. Too often, their "research" requires tossing dozens of (embarrassing) documents into the fireplace. Official Secrets Acts require with-holding some State-Secrets until after all the guilty parties have died. And it is never wise to criticize the royal family.

It is easiest to blame one "evil" group in an effort to put the problem behind them. In the Argentine case, they blamed an incompetent military junta. I suspect that the Falklands War had minimal impact on the average Argentine citizen .... compared with the "Dirty War."

Above all, history is written by the victors while losers try to forget their mistakes.

I appreciate a lot of what you are saying, but very little of it applies to the Falklands. The inhabitants were more than content to remain tied to the UK.
There was a plebiscite in 2013: On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.

The Argentinian invasion had not a scrap of legality.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Not wanting to go overly political, and I think the Western view is that self-determination takes priority (although the UK cannot claim to be fully consistent in adhering to that) however the Argentine claim goes back to who occupied them first and so on - which is another minefield of facts and interpretations, but is recognisable as having at least a shred of legality. There is no guarantee for instance that if this was submitted to some kind of World Court, that it would rule in the UK’s favour.

I don’t think they dispute the people there want to be part of the UK, but more that the conditions that led to the population being there were unjust. Ultimately it is an emotional argument and the post about the museums underlines that hasn’t really changed.

As I can attest to in my own life, having both emotion, logic and the law with Court Orders on my side still does not resolve a situation with someone who will just not budge and steadfastly believes their own emotional argument.

I would be very interested to know if the Argentinians changed their military culture, especially at Officer level and if the failures of Strategy, Operational Art and tactics have been dissected and changes made.

 

[CNH]

" but more that the conditions that led to the population being there were unjust. "

In what respect?

Argentina was itself a nation of colonialism and European immigration.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Lets not get into that - there is a ton of stuff on the net as to the history and Argentina’s claim. I’m a Brit and see it firmly from the UK perspective but I’m not blind to others might not (and don’t).

 

[COLDOWN]

Nobody is talking about tanks

Feeding offtopic: It was never (only) about Malvinas/Falklands. Those islands are the access to Antarctica. The defeat of Argentina (in such an absurd war) weakened Argentine and Chilean territorial and maritime claims on that continent. And it weakened Brazil's position of political interference in South America.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Would the TAM have worked in the Falklands?

 

[Purpletrouble]

Nobody is talking about tanks

Feeding offtopic: It was never (only) about Malvinas/Falklands. Those islands are the access to Antarctica. The defeat of Argentina (in such an absurd war) weakened Argentine and Chilean territorial and maritime claims on that continent. And it weakened Brazil's position of political interference in South America.

Yeah but look how much interest it has got

Good points, I’d never considered those factors in S. America. The Junta must have been despised across the political region for bringing that upon it.

 

[COLDOWN]

This is one of the argentine books about armored vehicles in the Malvinas theme.
"Taste of Defeat. From Los Andes to Malvinas"

Continuing on the subject of "tanks", there is a record that ammunition from the TAM was sent to be used in the Malvinas. Most likely, they were a mistaken for the recoilless anti-tank cannon rounds. I can't found my source, sorry.

Nobody is talking about tanks

Feeding offtopic: It was never (only) about Malvinas/Falklands. Those islands are the access to Antarctica. The defeat of Argentina (in such an absurd war) weakened Argentine and Chilean territorial and maritime claims on that continent. And it weakened Brazil's position of political interference in South America.

Yeah but look how much interest it has got

Good points, I’d never considered those factors in S. America. The Junta must have been despised across the political region for bringing that upon it.

I do not know if it is correct that I, by my knowledge, go deeper into this topic. Perhaps it is difficult for Anglo-Saxons to understand what the Malvinas War was. For the Argentine society, the defeat in the military was a victory in the political, since it was the fall of a tyranny and the return to democracy. I'm going to save myself from the atrocities that were committed during those years. The rest of the countries of South America were also in this political situation and that (Spain and) Argentina accelerated the return to popular institutions was quite favorable for the region.

Have you ever heard of the Informe Rattenbach?
"The Final Report of the Commission for the Analysis and Evaluation of the Responsibilities of the South Atlantic Conflict, is an opinion of the commission on the political, military and strategic responsibilities of the Malvinas War (...)
The report recommended serious penalties for those responsible for what it called a "military adventure" (involving the death penalty for some), but its influence on the subsequent trial was almost nil. However, from a political and historical point of view, the report buried any attempt by the military and political leaders of the time to cover up or downplay their responsibilities.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattenbach_Report

 

[Purpletrouble]

Very interesting and no had not heard of that report, annoying as my research included defence libraries and this is clearly a stunning insight into the Argentine viewpoint of the war effort.

I couldn’t find an online English copy but various articles that draw on it suggest heavy criticism of officership and strategy plus logistics. Some praise for actual troops efforts. This does fit with my understanding from many other accounts (including former Sgt Major who was a Guardsman at Tumbledown and saw it for himself). The torture of their own people is just staggering and as one highlight of the report regarding how the “dirty war” had compromised the military and led to “depravtity” from some officers is, well, shocking.

Did this report/the war lead to changes in the Argentine forces? It seems from what I could find that it criticised the top, but doesn’t seem to be a “lessons learned” type document that would prompt change in both military culture and operational practices?

 

[Purpletrouble]

Again, back on topic I really don’t think tanks would have made a difference - the UK didn’t lack for anti-tank weapons given the plethora of carl gustav uses and the Scouts also had SS12 plus the Harriers were specialists at the anti-armour role given their NATO roles. From what I understand of the Falklands terrain, even tanks are quite limited in where they can go and there is little cover to hide their silhouette. Artillery seems a more effective weapon and the one the Argentines did cause a threat with, but again their logistics let them down with ammo supplies.

If tanks had been present they’d have likely been used as a reserve or semi-mobile bunkers. Ie. Just additional and slightly easier targets (vs trenches). Not as some kind of armoured flanking/rear force which could caused havoc. Again the topic of just tanks rather than an all arms balanced battlegroup reinforces that.

 

[nuuumannn]

We might covet someone else's territory; but however, if there is no legal or moral basis behind your claim, then you mustn't be surprised if it is rejected by the rest of the world.

Try telling that to your average Argentinian. As far as they are concerned, the islands are not 'someone else's territory' and that's the point they make. Personally, I took a 'sit on the fence' (I couldn't well take any other given my nationality) stance while I was there and those who I talked to about it displayed a logical and clear headed approach to the islands and their population's desires. I stated on more than one occasion that the people on the islands regarded themselves as British and nothing could change that. I also stated that the only way that Argentina would get the islands under Argentine rule was by force, to which the people I spoke to agreed. That, obviously would have dire consequences. I doubt that today the Argentine armed forces could in fact launch an amphibious assault on the islands, as they had in 1982, let alone retain them.

 

[nuuumannn]

More a direct emotional response - which is fair enough in some respects given the sense of loss, but the “learning from failure” doesn’t seem to have happened.

I would say that Argentine military personnel are not alone in not learning lessons from loss in combat.

I should offer my apologies to those wishing to concentrate on the use of Argentine armour during the Falklands War instead of debating the morality of the war for my role in this.

 

[CNH]

Try telling that to your average Argentinian. As far as they are concerned, the islands are not 'someone else's territory' and that's the point they make.

That sounds a little bit like the Russians saying the Crimea is 'not someone else's territory'.

Can we lay claim to Calais on the grounds that it isn't 'someone else's property'?

 

[timmymagic]

Again, back on topic I really don’t think tanks would have made a difference - the UK didn’t lack for anti-tank weapons given the plethora of carl gustav uses and the Scouts also had SS12 plus the Harriers were specialists at the anti-armour role given their NATO roles.

There were a shed load of MILAN sent south as well. Any tank would have been knocked out very quickly (LAW66 were everywhere as well). You can well imagine what effect a MILAN would have had on any of the Argentinian armour of the day...

 

[nuuumannn]

That sounds a little bit like the Russians saying the Crimea is 'not someone else's territory'.

Can we lay claim to Calais on the grounds that it isn't 'someone else's property'?

Why don't you go there and tell them they are wrong, then.

Regardless of what you might perceive my motives to be here, the Argentine people believe the islands are theirs, just as much as the British population on the islands are British. Rock = Hard Place. Nothing is going to change that; no logic, no failed war, no international laws, nothing.

 

[CNH]

That sounds a little bit like the Russians saying the Crimea is 'not someone else's territory'.

Can we lay claim to Calais on the grounds that it isn't 'someone else's property'?

Why don't you go there and tell them they are wrong, then.

Regardless of what you might perceive my motives to be here, the Argentine people believe the islands are theirs, just as much as the British population on the islands are British. Rock = Hard Place. Nothing is going to change that; no logic, no failed war, no international laws, nothing.

It has always been, and should always be, a cardinal principle that the sovereignty of a particular territory depends on the wishes of the people who live there.

That was also the cardinal principle of the decolonisation of the British Empire.

The fact that other people covet those lands gives them no rights whatsoever.

The Argentinian claim to the Falkland Islands is as tenuous as the Russian claim to Königsberg. Königsberg is now Kaliningrad by force of military action, not by any rule of law. And exactly the same would to apply the Argentinian claim to the Falkland islands should they take it by force.

 

[dan_inbox]

It has always been, and should always be, a cardinal principle that the sovereignty of a particular territory depends on the wishes of the people who live there.

While this principle is a good start, things can get complicated when massive migration is organized.
For ex, the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in '74 followed by the expulsion of its Greek-Cypriot population, then by the transfer of 60,000 Turks from Turkey.

Not that it would apply much to the Falklands, only to illustrate that dictatorships aware of the principle will find ways around it, if they have low enough morals.

 

[CNH]

While this principle is a good start, things can get complicated when massive migration is organized.
For ex, the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in '74 followed by the expulsion of its Greek-Cypriot population, then by the transfer of 60,000 Turks from Turkey.

Not that it would apply much to the Falklands, only to illustrate that dictatorships aware of the principle will find ways around it, if they have low enough morals.

As happened in 1945/6 in eastern Europe.
Prussia, as a country, was formally abolished by the Allies as a country. Its provinces were, to use a modern phrase, ethnically cleansed.
It was a clear example of how countries could land grab and be endorsed by the United Nations.

 

[JohnR]

With regard to British equipment during the Falklands a really useful addition would have been the Streaker load carrying variant of the Scorpion family. As a matter of curiosity how would Stalwart have performed on the Islands?

It is also a pity that Bulwark wasn't in better condition/readiness. She could have carried a worthwhile number of helicopter for transport Junglies and Pumas.

 

[Fluff]

With regard to British equipment during the Falklands a really useful addition would have been the Streaker load carrying variant of the Scorpion family. As a matter of curiosity how would Stalwart have performed on the Islands?

It is also a pity that Bulwark wasn't in better condition/readiness. She could have carried a worthwhile number of helicopter for transport Junglies and Pumas.

I think tracked would be best, as I would think this gives the lowest ground pressure. Stalwart was fully amphib, so could have been useful as well. But a lot of the kit went down with the atlantic conveyor, so they had to work with what they had. , it wouldnt have altered the outcome, nor the need for all that yomping.

 

[Roland55]

Would the TAM have worked in the Falklands?

I was recently reading about the story of the AAV-7s of the navy, and i kinda get an idea regarding the deployment of Armor by the Argentine Army and why it kinda didn't make any sense.

For starters, What vehicles?, as far as i can recall ive heard that the TAM and the M113 were considered (although much like Cooldown said, the Sherman and Kurassier were there to chose). In terms of deployment, all had to go trough the Argentine navy (Supposedly the SK-105 could have been carried by a C-130, but considering how busy this were, its unlikely that it could have happened), the other choices were, a transport ship like ARA Cabo de Hornos or a proper ship for the role...ARA Cabo San Antonio (tank carrying ship).

​

Cabo San Antonio was involved in the initial operations, deploying 20 AAV-7s that participated from the initial invasion, the AAVs were seen providing support and also cover for the troops (i recently found out about a theory that claims one was blown up and other nonsense) not much to say about them. As for what would be required for A TAM to be deployed...well, its Cabo San Antonio, while the rest of he fleet was extremely busy with logistics, San Antonio was the only that was held up in Mainland with no mission or purpose. But that would also involve, the ship going to Buenos aires, loading TAMs (or any other vehicle+spares+crew+etc..) and then there was the need for a place in the islands to service this vehicles...

​

The question of the hour? is it worth it?. Absolutely not (for once you're exposing a highly valuable Target, San Antonio, and the brand new vehicle where is extremely likely that its not going to perform well).

 

[Nik]

Disclosure: I may have lost a cousin to the Argentine 'Junta'.
If, like me, his side of family inherited 'Foot in Mouth' disease, he's in an un-marked grave. Other possibility is his family burned all our old letters etc, reverted from step-father's to father's family name, moved apartments several times to break the trail, then just lost track...

IIRC, there were whispers at the time that 'Junta' had kept their tanks etc close to home for fear the SAS/SBS would play hard-ball, inspire insurrection...

FWIW, there was a hilarious 'What-If' novelette by Marc H Jones which, IIRC, first surfaced on AltHistory.
In mid '50s, a prial of Firefly tanks is accidentally transferred to the Falklands rather than being scrapped.
WTF ??
Local garage takes them on, quietly maintains them.
Come the day, "But we thought you knew !!"
Much butterfly-squidging ensues, synergised by victims' startled cries of, "Itsa Tank !!"

 

[Roland55]

IRC, there were whispers at the time that 'Junta' had kept their tanks etc close to home for fear the SAS/SBS would play hard-ball, inspire insurrection...

Hard to believe considering that the main place where there was an "insurrection" (sure like 8 years before) was a remote province in the north with a terrain unsuited for the current tanks the army had!

FWIW, there was a hilarious 'What-If' novelette by Marc H Jones which, IIRC, first surfaced on AltHistory.
In mid '50s, a prial of Firefly tanks is accidentally transferred to the Falklands rather than being scrapped.
WTF ??
Local garage takes them on, quietly maintains them.
Come the day, "But we thought you knew !!"
Much butterfly-squidging ensues, synergised by victims' startled cries of, "Itsa Tank !!"

That would have been a nasty surprise for both sides, on one..well...they have a tank, on the other...probably the only time the Instalaza rocket launchers could have been used on their role..

 

[Archibald]

IRC, there were whispers at the time that 'Junta' had kept their tanks etc close to home for fear the SAS/SBS would play hard-ball, inspire insurrection...

Hard to believe considering that the main place where there was an "insurrection" (sure like 8 years before) was a remote province in the north with a terrain unsuited for the current tanks the army had!

FWIW, there was a hilarious 'What-If' novelette by Marc H Jones which, IIRC, first surfaced on AltHistory.
In mid '50s, a prial of Firefly tanks is accidentally transferred to the Falklands rather than being scrapped.
WTF ??
Local garage takes them on, quietly maintains them.
Come the day, "But we thought you knew !!"
Much butterfly-squidging ensues, synergised by victims' startled cries of, "Itsa Tank !!"

That would have been a nasty surprise for both sides, on one..well...they have a tank, on the other...probably the only time the Instalaza rocket launchers could have been used on their role..

"The fireflies of Port Stanley" https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:the_fireflies_of_port_stanley

 

[Archibald]

I think a C-130 could have carried some AMX-13s to the Falklands ? and that thing worked well on rugged grounds...

 

[Roland55]

I think a C-130 could have carried some AMX-13s to the Falklands ? and that thing worked well on rugged grounds...

1 AMX-13 or 1 Sk.105, along with crew and maybe some ammo/spares, to have a considerable force it would require at least 4/6 trips...and to be fair at that time the C-130 were a bit overtasked to make those trips.

 

[Fluff]

I think a C-130 could have carried some AMX-13s to the Falklands ? and that thing worked well on rugged grounds...

What’s the saying?
Never interrupt the enemy while that make a mistake?