Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd November 2003 at 06:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hypothetically of course…
I would bet on the Argentineans.
They had a greater number of super sonic fighters (Mirage IIIEA, Nesher) and strikers such as the A-4 family. The FACH has under an arms embargo on it’s American supplied fighters (F-5E/F, A-37) so would have maybe had a small squadron of Mirage 50s (the last showed up in the mid 1980s) and the Hunters to defend from the Neshers and Mirage IIIEAs. The FACH Canberra’s did not show up until 1982 unlike the FAA which had them for years. The Argentinean airforce was much more equipped for a fight while no offense the Chileans were more a show air force.
By: - 23rd November 2003 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I too beleive Argetine woud prevail but chilean airpilots are very well trained and as we saw in the Falklands Argetinean Nesher and Dagger pilots had few training and were easy killed by the brits . However argentinean A4 were numerous and their pilots in the flaklands did many suicidal bombings .Maybe US would support Chile but even so Argentineans had better chances because of theur A4s and its more powerful industry , able to mass product the TAMS MBTS as well as their higher GDP .
By: - 24th November 2003 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Argentina airforce was custom designed to take on Chile when the Falklands war broke out all the doctrine, training and equipment that was designed for an inter-american war was completely unsuited for a naval intidiction war fought at long ranges without support from the army and navy.
By: - 24th November 2003 at 00:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What were they going to go to war about? Bat guano production rights?
By: - 24th November 2003 at 01:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
google wrote:
What were they going to go to war about? Bat guano production rights?
Funny, but no!
When things turned really hot in 1979 it was about three islands on the Beagle Channel. I don't have a figure as of square miles claimed by each side, but the islands are probably smaller than Manhattan. Its the limit along the channel, and the proyection of the EEZ onto the Drake waters what really matters.
Besides the Beagle Islands conflict also many other unsettled territorrial claims (minor ones, mostly uncharted or unmarked borders along the Andes, which all have been worked out during the last decade or so) raised tension between the neighboring states and if it got to war its very difficult to predict where it would have stopped. Its unlikely the conflict would have stayed circumscripted to the islands alone, as mayor naval actins would have taken place on Drake Waters and Magellan Strait, and probably land warfare would have taken place on the Tierra del Fuego Island.
Only if it went very well for Argentina on the innitial phases, the conflict could have extended further North to occupy as much of the disputed territories along the Andean border.
On the other hand, if Chile presented fierce resistance, Argentina may have scaled down and limited the war scenario to the islands alone.
Chile was in no position to take the inniative at the time IMHO, but just organize defense the best they could.
As for possible war outcomes, Argentina had a numerical superiority (at least on paper) of about 2 to 1 men, 3 to 1 tanks and 4 to 1 aircraft.
One very important additional advantage for Argentina is that the airfields and army bases in southern Patagonia (namely Rio Gallegos and San Julian) could be resupplied by road, while the bases in southern Chile must be resupplied by ship.
King Jester
PD: In 1984 or 85 IRCC a plebiscite carried out in Argentina ended the conflict by accepting Chilean soverignty on the disputed islands and surrounding waters, a solution which is commonly refred to as the "british laudum" or the "hammer laudum" because of the shape like a hammer of "former" argie soverign waters given to Chile by the british laudum commission.
Posts: 669
By: WACHENR0DER - 22nd November 2003 at 19:00
Prior to the Falklands war, Argentina and Chile were on the brink of war before the Pope intervened. Assumng that they did go to war (which would've been difficult due to the terrain), how do you think an air war would go there?