TFW: Historical Quality

[JDC]

Were all Argentine foces green?

[Gary Bezant]

Hi Jim,

All of the resource data I used leans towards the vast majority of the troops being of poor quality. The evidence points towards them being poorly trained and certainly poorly led. There are accounts that while the rank and file were deployed on the open mountains the officers had acquired accommodation in Port Stanley. That said, they were still quite able to give a good account of themselves. The first day of Goose Green proves that they could be tenacious in defence.

However the Special Forces and quite possibly the Marines were of a higher calibre in both training and leadership.

I have tried to reflect this in TFW by using the training level tool in the Scenario Builder. When playing TFW I set both sides to veteran as the training level tool is designed to implement the differences in military skill.

I hope this has answered your question. If not let me know.

By the way thanks for taking the time and trouble to review TFW.

regards

Gary

[Cantata]

Gary is pretty much correct. The forces used to capture the Falkland Islands and South Georgia were better trained and equipped than the conscripts used to garrison the islands. The Argentine Special Forces and Marine units were removed from the islands after the conquest was completed. The garrison troops placed on the islands were mostly conscripts serving their mandatory military service (2yrs?).

In addition to poor local leadership, it seems the Junta pretty much left the island forces to their own devices, barely sending enough supplies, much less providing adequate equipment for the terrible weather and conditions found on the islands. The Argentine garrison sat in defensive positions on top of hills overlooking a barren landscape in rotten weather for a long time... there was little to boost morale among the ranks.

Once the General Belgrano (an Exocet-armed cruiser) was sunk, the Argentine navy went back to port and never ventured out again, ending all resupply to the island troops. Only the Argentine Airforce remained to defend the newly conquered Ilas Malvinas, and they did a very admirable job of it, although at a very high cost.

[JDC]

Thanks, guys. Your answers helped. I'll mention the training tool aspect in the review although I think it should have been mentioned in the scenario selection of the manual. I'll double check that.

[CarlosV]

Cantata said:
...The garrison troops placed on the islands were mostly conscripts serving their mandatory military service (2yrs?)....

The conscripts had one year of mandatory military service. They was 18 years old.
I know, I'm argentine and I was conscript in 1974; but in those years the military service took place at 21 years old.

Sorry, but my english is very poor.

Los conscriptos tenían 1 año de servicio militar obligatorio. Ellos tenían 18 años de edad.
Lo sé, soy argentino y fuí conscripto en el año 1974; en aquellos años el servicio militar tenía lugar a los 21 años de edad.

[Patrick Proctor]

CarlosV,

Your English is excellent!

[Gary Bezant]

Thanks for your input Carlos.

[Chelco]

Hola Carlos! Otro Argentino aqui!

I would like to add that the view of the Argentinean forces being poorly led applies only at the grand-tactical/operational/strategical levels. At the tactical level, many Argentinean officers were capable and professional. They deployed themselves among their troops too. If there is any doubt about this, take a look at the list of fallen during the war: many are middle and low rank officers. The view of a distant commander safely accommodated in Port Stanley probably applies to highly ranked officers like Parada, Jofre and Menendez himself.

[Patrick Proctor]

I hope that no one equates (and I know you didn't mean this) our weighting of the forces in TFW with any commentary on the relative patriotism, valor, or value of the soldiers as individuals.

But it is our analysis that the training level of the British soldiers on the island, and the relative quality of their equipment was superior to that of the Argentinian force in the battles examined. Note I said TRAINING. Training and leadership are not the same thing. The leadership of each force was not examined. Rather (and Gary, the game designer, can speak to this much better than I) the relative efficiency and lethality of each forces was examined. And, in this examination, it seems that British forces were consistently more successful in each engagement, which general points to deficiencies in training and equipment.

And, again, Chelco, I know you were not implying any such thing. I just felt this was a good opportunity to say it explicitly.

[Chelco]

Pat you are a gentleman. And you are spot on too!

The game models each force adequately. I was just giving a small comment on some misconceptions that are common (mainly in my country, Argentina) about the middle and low rank officers from the Argentinean Army and Navy. Even after all these years, who could have been better used to correctly put blame or glory into each rank of the Argentinean Army/Navy, the concept of "incompetent/coward/evil/torturer/anti-democratic" Argentinean Army/Navy officers during the Falklands/Malvinas war is alive and well. The soon to be released movie "Iluminados por el Fuego" is a clear example of that.

The amount of errors made by high rank Argentinean officers at the strategical and operational levels is huge. However, many middle and low level officers knew of those mistakes and got into fierce arguments to correct them. For example, Col Balza (in charge of Artillery Group 3, south east of Port Stanley/Puerto Argentino) had to beg for long range artillery he knew he needed for the upcoming battle. He correctly anticipated where the UK would push hard and knew what type of artillery they had. He finally got just one artillery piece for that purpose without authorization from his superiors. Just incredible.

Looking forward for Jim's review.