The Effects of Space, Time and <strong>Force</strong> onOperational Planning in the Falklands WarRobert S. Bolia, Office of Naval Research Global, JapanOperational planners need to consider the factors of space, force and time in planningany military operation. The Falklands War was no exception. Despite taking place within arelatively small terrestrial theatre, with less than an infantry division deployed on each side,the conflict involved complex joint operations executed by naval, air and ground forcesacross thousands of square kilometres of the South Atlantic. It is the fact that this occurredwithin a comparatively short time and with so few forces that make it an excellent case study.This article, incorporating little-known Argentinean sources, will endeavour to analyse howthe three operational factors were—or should have been—taken into account by operationalplanners on both sides.At first glance, the Argentines must have believed that space, at least, was on their side.The islands they called the Islas Malvinas were 6034 kms from the nearest British possession,Ascension Island; the UK itself was another 6798 kms beyond that. 1 The Royal Air <strong>Force</strong> (RAF)had no aircraft that could realistically attack the islands, which meant that Argentina had atleast a month to garrison and provision the islands before a British task force would reach theSouth Atlantic. 2On the other hand, Argentina had air bases at Rio Gallegos and Rio Grande, both less than700 kms from the islands, meaning that any British landing could be opposed by Miragesand Skyhawks of the Fuerza Aérea Argentina (FAA) and Skyhawks and Super Étendards ofthe Armada de la República Argentina (ARA). 3 This view failed to account for the fact thatthe carrier-based Sea Harriers of the Royal Navy (RN) Fleet Air Arm would be significantlynearer to the islands than the FAA or ARA assets, leaving the latter—at the very edge of theiroperational range—too short of fuel to seriously vie for air superiority.Space was also a consideration for the British operational planners. The mission of the taskforce was essentially spatial, ‘to repossess the Falkland Islands as quickly as possible’. 4 Inorder to accomplish this, they needed to control the sea lines of communication betweenAscension and the islands, as well as the seas around the islands. The latter was facilitatedby the declaration on 12 April 1982 of a 200-mile Maritime Exclusion Zone (MEZ) centredon the Falklands, designed to ensure the safety of the British fleet but also to compel theArgentineans to reinforce their positions by the much less efficient air route. 5In addition to gaining and maintaining control of the seas, the British also had to plan foran amphibious landing and subsequent ground campaign, which could not be regardedas independent events. The objective was the recapture of the islands, which meant thedestruction or capture of the Argentine garrison, most of which was located at Stanley. It wasnot feasible to land at Stanley itself, since it would be too well-defended. At the same time,26
the further from Stanley the landing was made, the longer the operation would take. 6 In theend, San Carlos was chosen because it had the best beaches for landing a brigade-sized unit,was relatively immune to attack by surface vessels, was well-sited for land-based air defencesystems, and was near patches of flat land that could be used for the construction of airstrips. 7Weather was also a factor for both sides. The South Atlantic seas are notoriously rough, whichwould need to be taken into consideration for the transit from Ascension, logistic operationsand, ultimately, the landing at San Carlos. The meteorological and geographical conditionson the islands were also important for planning an operation. The Falklands sit between50°S and 53°S, roughly the same distance south of the equator as London is north. The dailytemperature ranged between 2°C and 9°C during April and May, and would have fallen furtheras autumn turned to winter. It was wet much of the time. The terrain was similar to that ofScotland—soft peat into which heavily-laden infantry or marines would sink as they marched,punctuated by hills characterised by craggy rock outcrops—except that there were no roads. 8All these features should have had an impact on force composition.The force factor was the cause of considerable debate among British planners. Conventionalmilitary wisdom is that the ratio of attacking force to defenders should be three-to-one. Becauseof the limited availability of sea transport and the requirement to meet its commitments toNATO and in maintaining stability in Northern Ireland, this was out of the question. Thedecision was made to send only a brigade-sized landing force in the hope that the disparityin force ratio could be made up by superiority in training, as well as the availability of closeair support and naval gunfire support. 9 Although the lack of roads and uncertain helicoptersupport meant that 3 Commando Brigade would be somewhat hampered, their training hadprepared them to be adaptable. It had also prepared them for the South Atlantic weather, withboth the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment having undertaken considerable coldweathertraining in Germany, Norway and Northern Ireland. 10The Argentine planners had fewer choices. Their elite infantry units were deployed on theborder with Chile, in case the ongoing territorial dispute between the two countries shoulddeteriorate further. 11 They had virtually no special forces, since these had been disbandedyears earlier. 12 The remainder of the available forces comprised 19-year-old conscripts, most ofwhom had little more than a month of military training. 13 Since most of them lived and trainedin mild or even subtropical climates, they were unprepared for cold-weather operations. 14In terms of naval forces, British operational planners used everything they had available: thecarriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, which provided Sea Harriers to defend the taskforce, attack the enemy fleet and engage in combat air patrol and close air support operationsover the islands; the RN’s two amphibious assault ships, HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid;frigates and destroyers to provide air defence, naval gunfire support and Exocet capability; andsubmarines to patrol the MEZ. 15The ARA had assembled a similar—if reduced—task group, although the presence in the SouthAtlantic of a British fleet and several nuclear submarines dictated additional considerations.Initially, ARA planners sought to use carrier aviation from the Venticinco de Mayo to attack theBritish carrier battle group, under the probably correct assumption that significant damage27
- Page 3 and 4: Australian Defence ForceCONTENTSISS
- Page 5 and 6: asics of the ADF’s approach to wa
- Page 7 and 8: Oceanography and Force 2030: harnes
- Page 9 and 10: The warm, relatively fresh waters o
- Page 11 and 12: In a further example, the Australia
- Page 13 and 14: Direct threats include maritime ter
- Page 15 and 16: Commodore Rod Nairn is a career hyd
- Page 17 and 18: Institute of Marine Science, $80m i
- Page 19 and 20: The nature of casualties presenting
- Page 21 and 22: Contracted solutions in less hostil
- Page 23 and 24: Planning implications of increased
- Page 25 and 26: When a nation is at war, it is acce
- Page 27: NOTES1. Doug Brooks, ‘Role of pri
- Page 34 and 35: 20. Comisión de Análisis y Evalua
- Page 36 and 37: Coral Sea neighbours - then and now
- Page 38 and 39: sources. In contrast, such trade be
- Page 40 and 41: New Caledonia’s significance toda
- Page 42 and 43: years, it was often perceived—by
- Page 44 and 45: NOTES1. K. Mushakoji quoted in R. A
- Page 46 and 47: Lasers or Longbows? A Paradox of Mi
- Page 48 and 49: Military complexityAs military capa
- Page 50 and 51: accounts for 93 per cent of the pro
- Page 52 and 53: The paradox of military technology
- Page 54 and 55: fleet is massive, with sustainment
- Page 56 and 57: NOTES1. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Ric
- Page 58 and 59: 30. D. Korowicz, ‘Things Fall Apa
- Page 60 and 61: This new capability provides techni
- Page 62 and 63: ‘Reaching back’ for information
- Page 64 and 65: Figure 2. Chart summarising an exam
- Page 66 and 67: Fast OR typically uses established
- Page 68 and 69: the results produced. For example,
- Page 70 and 71: of findings if very short time-scal
- Page 72 and 73: Dr Tim McKay is Head of the DSTO Op
- Page 74 and 75: strategic documents signed by the U
- Page 76 and 77: • Strategic Command (STRATCOM), t
- Page 78 and 79:
Geographic Combatant Commands in th
- Page 80 and 81:
8. This evolution and expansion can
- Page 82 and 83:
27. In particular, in contrast to t
- Page 84 and 85:
Nevertheless, it can be argued that
- Page 86 and 87:
Proposed conceptThe proposed networ
- Page 88 and 89:
organisations could deploy at short
- Page 91 and 92:
The PacificHugh AmbroseText Publish
- Page 93 and 94:
Bloody Victory: the sacrifice on th
- Page 95 and 96:
Somme as critical to the forging of
- Page 97 and 98:
Command and Control: the sociotechn
- Page 99 and 100:
Human Factors Issues in Combat Iden
- Page 101 and 102:
The Canadian paper on CAS (Chapter
- Page 103 and 104:
The Ashgate Research Companion to M
- Page 105 and 106:
There is also a chapter on early vo
- Page 107 and 108:
The authors’ chief vulnerability
- Page 109 and 110:
Books of this genre are intended to
- Page 111 and 112:
The ninth chapter is entitled ‘To
- Page 113 and 114:
Many members of the ADF may honestl
- Page 115:
GUIDANCE FOR AUTHORSThe Australian