Malvinas: A Study Case (1/3)

Malvinas: A Study Case
Part 1/3
Sigue en Parte 2 - Parte 3
By Harry Train,
USN Admiral

This analysis covers the Malvinas/Falklands Conflict chronologically, from the preceding incidents to the conclusion of the Battle of Puerto Argentino/Port Stanley. Strategically, it examines the conflict across general, military, and operational levels, taking into account each side’s operational concepts and strategic objectives. This approach provides a balanced view of the strategies and tactics employed, highlighting the complexities faced by both Argentina and the United Kingdom in one of the most pivotal conflicts of the late 20th century in the South Atlantic.

In the Southern Hemisphere, it’s known as the Falklands Conflict; in North America and Europe, the South Atlantic Conflict. The British refer to it as the "South Atlantic War."

At the National Defense University in the U.S., where I teach the Final Course for newly promoted generals and admirals, we cover two case studies of special interest: one is the Grenada crisis, which we study and discuss to learn from the mistakes made by U.S. forces, despite achieving objectives. Many of my students, having fought in Grenada, tend to justify their decisions emotionally, rationalizing choices that, in hindsight, were suboptimal.

For this reason, we teach a second case where the U.S. was merely an observer: the Falklands Conflict. Rich in political-military decisions and full of errors and miscalculations on both sides, this case offers our generals and admirals an opportunity to examine a complex diplomatic framework and see how political factors, some still overlooked, led to the failure of diplomacy and ultimately to war. This conflict also allows for the analysis of an unprecedented military-political phenomenon: one side still operated under crisis management rules while the other was already at war.

This case also lets U.S. generals and admirals consider the benefits of joint defense structures by examining Argentina's new joint command system, which was joint in name only. The conflict also held lessons for the U.S. Congress in organizing our national defense and showed the impact of chance on the outcome of war.

— Would the results have been different if British television had not mistakenly reported the deployment of two nuclear submarines from Gibraltar towards South Georgia on March 26?
— Would the results have been different if the weather had not been calm on May 1?
— Would the results have changed if the 14 bombs that penetrated British warships had exploded?
— Would the outcome have been different if the Argentine Telefunken torpedoes had functioned properly?
— Would the British response have been the same if not for the coal miners' strikes in Britain?

The conflict also provides a retrospective view of crucial decisions, such as Argentina’s failure to extend the Port Stanley runway to accommodate A-4s and Mirages, the lack of heavy artillery and helicopters delivered to the Islands between April 2 and 12, the division of Argentine forces between East and West Falklands, the decision not to exploit British vulnerability at Fitz Roy and Bluff Cove, and the British decision to attack the cruiser General Belgrano.

We also examine how the land war might have unfolded if the Argentine forces from West Falkland had been in San Carlos, forcing the British to establish their beachhead on West rather than East Falkland.

My vantage point during the conflict was as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and Supreme NATO Commander in the Atlantic. My role was solely observational, overseeing a conflict between two valued allies. As my friend Horacio Fisher, then an Argentine liaison officer on my staff, can attest, we received little information on the war’s progress at my Norfolk command. There, our assessments foresaw an Argentine victory until the conflict’s final weeks, as we were unaware of certain pivotal decisions that later proved us wrong.

What I’ll share with you is my personal view of the Falklands Conflict, a product of months of studying reports, records, and interviews with the main leaders from both sides. This study has been challenging, as reports and interviews often reflect conflicting perspectives on key political and military events. This is in itself instructive, illustrating the "fog of war." In my research, I’ve had full access to Argentine and British leaders, documents, and post-conflict analyses.

As I recount this painful chapter in history, you will mentally analyze how each side adhered to military principles such as objective, offense, mass, maneuver, simplicity, security, surprise, economy of force, and unity of command.

While the complete study follows a detailed chronology of events based on records from both sides, initial analyses for students are based on a series of essays I’ve written that address various aspects of the conflict. These include the diplomatic prelude, the collapse of deterrence due to perceptions of British defense policy after World War II, initial recognition of the issue, both sides’ initial planning, and the Davidoff incident.

Understanding the Problem

If successive Argentine governments ever considered using military force as a supplement to or substitute for diplomatic efforts to reclaim sovereignty over the Falklands, these actions were discouraged by the perception of British military capabilities and their willingness to use those capabilities to defend their interests. At no time before the deployment of Argentine forces to Port Stanley on April 2, 1982, did the Junta believe the British would respond with military force. Nor did Argentine military leaders at any point before or during the conflict believe that Argentina could prevail in a military confrontation with Great Britain. These two beliefs shaped Argentina’s political and military decision-making process before and during the conflict.

The conflict was the result of Argentina’s longstanding determination to regain sovereignty over the Falklands and Britain’s ongoing commitment to the self-determination of the islanders. For many years, this balance was maintained due to a confluence of personalities and political attitudes on both sides, the Falkland Islands Company’s influence over policy decisions in London, and shifting perceptions of British military power and national interest. These factors set the stage for the decisions that ultimately led to war.

Additionally, Britain’s Conservative Party, facing internal labor unrest and weakened by public discontent, was under pressure. The British Navy’s fear of losing its significance added to this complex decision-making environment. About one thousand lives were lost in the conflict, nearly one for every two island residents. Thirty combat and support ships were sunk or damaged, and 138 aircraft were destroyed or captured. Britain successfully defended the islanders’ "interests," while Argentina’s efforts to regain sovereignty failed. In the aftermath, the British Navy regained prestige in the eyes of political leaders, and Argentina transitioned to civilian governance.

Most writings on Falklands sovereignty devote hundreds of pages to the 150-year diplomatic struggle. Argentines place great emphasis on each step of this process and hold a firm belief in diplomacy, though they recognize the importance of military capabilities as a complement to diplomacy. They see military strength as potentially giving diplomacy a "slight elbow nudge" within certain limits and without crossing the threshold of war. The British, on the other hand, are masters of diplomacy and the use of military force in the classic Clausewitzian sense—as an extension of the political process, regardless of whether or not the threshold of war is crossed.

Argentina’s leadership during the conflict reflected a viewpoint of having “too much history not to act.” In the U.S. and Great Britain, we say that one begins their history with each war, making accounting and decision-making simpler. Whether or not these Argentine viewpoints are historically accurate is irrelevant; what matters is that these criteria had a profound impact on Argentine decisions in the prelude to the conflict.

Of particular interest to military professionals is the gap between the assumptions underpinning British and Argentine decision-making. Between the occupation of the islands on April 2 and the sinking of the Belgrano on May 2, Argentine authorities operated under the belief that they were managing a diplomatic crisis, while the British acted on the conviction that they were at war.

Argentina’s political objective was "a diplomatic solution to regain sovereignty over the islands." Britain’s objectives were "defend the interests of the islanders and punish aggression."

One could argue that Argentina lost the war between April 2 and April 12 by failing to use cargo ships to transport heavy artillery and helicopters for their occupation forces, as well as heavy equipment needed to extend the Port Stanley runway, which would have allowed A-4s and Mirages to operate. The indecision, rooted in Argentina’s preconceived notion that defeating the British militarily was impossible, was a dominant factor in the final outcome.

The Davidoff incident

The Davidoff incident is crucial for understanding the Falklands conflict; it served as the "spark" or, as Admiral Anaya put it, the "trigger." Post-war perceptions of the Davidoff incident in Britain and Argentina differ significantly. Here’s what I believe happened:

In September 1979, Constantino Sergio Davidoff signed a contract with a Scottish company, transferring the equipment and installations of four whaling stations in Leith on South Georgia Island to him. This contract gave him the right to remove scrap metal from the island until March 1983. The Falklands authorities were informed of this contract in August 1980.

The 1971 Communications Agreement allowed travel between the Falklands and Argentina with only a white card. However, in response to UN Resolution 1514, the British registered South Georgia as a separate colony from the Falklands, governed directly from Britain, though administered by the Falklands government for convenience. Argentina rejected this colonial status claim, arguing that South Georgia, like the Falklands, had always belonged to Argentina and therefore could not be anyone's colony.

The problem arose when Davidoff visited Leith for the first time to inspect the installations he had acquired and intended to remove due to their scrap value. British authorities in Port Stanley maintained that no one could disembark in South Georgia without first obtaining permission at the British Antarctic Survey base in Grytviken, also on South Georgia, where passports would be stamped. Argentina, however, argued that the white card sufficed for entry and exit, per the 1971 Agreement.

There remain many unanswered questions regarding the timing, authenticity, and notification to Argentina of Britain’s claim to South Georgia as a separate colony. It is worth noting that both countries interpreted the situation differently. Curiously, Britain chose to enforce rigorous procedures regarding visits to South Georgia just as it was benefiting financially from unrestricted travel enabled by the white card.

The incident formally began when Davidoff left Buenos Aires on the icebreaker Almirante Irizar, which he had chartered, and arrived in Leith on December 20, 1981. Having informed the British Embassy in Buenos Aires of his plans, he traveled directly to Leith without stopping in Grytviken for permission—likely unaware of this requirement—and then returned to Argentina.

Governor Hunt of the Falklands apparently learned of the visit through reports that the Almirante Irizar was in Stromness Bay and from people in Grytviken who reported someone had been in Leith. It seems probable that the British Embassy in Buenos Aires did not inform Hunt. Hunt urged action against Davidoff for bypassing the regulations, but London instructed him not to create issues.

The British ambassador protested to the Argentine government over the incident on February 3, warning that it should not happen again. This protest was dismissed on February 18.

Davidoff apologized at the British Embassy for any inconvenience caused and requested detailed guidelines on how to return to South Georgia to dismantle the installations properly. The embassy consulted Governor Hunt, who did not respond until after Davidoff's departure on March 11. On that day, Davidoff formally notified the British Embassy that 41 people were onboard the Bahía Buen Suceso, an Argentine Antarctic supply vessel. Information about their arrival should have been provided before their landing in Leith on March 19, bypassing Grytviken once more. The workers raised the Argentine flag.

 

War Triggers- The Argentine Viewpoint

Argentine authorities describe the events of March 19, 1982, as "the trigger." Although these events in South Georgia were far from forcing the key military episode beyond which there was no way out but war—and therefore do not fall into the category of a war starter—March 19 was certainly the spark for a cascade of confrontations and political-military decisions that set the stage for war to begin.

The British reaction to the Davidoff incident led Argentina to adjust its planning. The British Antarctic Survey's message from South Georgia reporting that "the Argentines have landed" polarized British reaction in London. In Buenos Aires, the Junta began considering the possibility of occupying the Falkland Islands and South Georgia before the British could reinforce them. Vice Admiral Lombardo was ordered to urgently prepare Operation Malvinas. Orders and counter-orders ensued.

The British government deployed HMS Endurance to South Georgia to remove the Argentine workers. The British were unaware that Argentina had canceled its initial plan to include military personnel in Davidoff’s legitimate project, but they did know of the Argentine Naval Operations Commander’s directive for two frigates to intercept HMS Endurance if it evacuated Argentine civilians. However, they were unaware that this order was later rescinded by Argentine political authorities, who feared a military confrontation.

Argentine personnel from the Alpha Group, initially intended to participate in Davidoff’s operation, were now redeployed to South Georgia as events unfolded and landed there on the 24th from the ARA Bahía Paraíso. A brief de-escalation occurred on March 25 when Britain learned of ARA Bahía Paraíso’s presence and authorized it to stay until March 28. During this time, Davidoff presented an explanation of his operation to the British Embassy.

The trigger was a (later proven false) report on British television that two nuclear submarines had departed Gibraltar for the South Atlantic. Argentine authorities took this information as accurate. Not wanting to risk a landing operation in the face of a British nuclear submarine threat, they calculated the earliest possible arrival date for the submarines. They were convinced that, from that point on, these submarines would remain stationed there for several years. Argentine authorities likely did not even know the exact time of the submarines' departure.

The Argentine public's support for what was seen as a valid commercial operation under the 1971 Communications Agreement framed a narrative of strong national interest against what was perceived as waning British interest. In an "now-or-never" mindset, the Junta ordered the execution of Operation Malvinas, setting April 2, 1982, as D-Day.

Operation Rosario 

The occupation of Port Stanley on April 2, without any British bloodshed, was a model operation—well-planned and flawlessly executed. The 700 Marines and 100 Special Forces members landed, achieved their objectives, and re-embarked as they were replaced by Army occupation forces. The Naval Task Force provided both amphibious transport and naval support.

I do not cover Operation Rosario in detail in this study because it was impeccable. What follows, and the absence of a conceptual military plan for subsequent operations, are of greater interest to my students. Here are two notable incidents:

1. On the afternoon of April 2, the Argentine Air Force in the Falklands initially denied landing authorization to an F28 carrying the naval aviation commander. The aircraft was eventually allowed to land after a 45-minute delay.

2. On April 2, the Argentine Air Force requested that the Joint Chiefs transport aluminum sheets to the islands by sea to extend the runway and expand the aircraft parking area for operational planes.

The ARA Cabo San Antonio transported LVTs and members of the 2nd Marine Infantry Battalion to the islands.

Performance of Argentine Transport Authorities

This marked the beginning of Argentina’s struggle to establish effective cooperation among its armed forces. The incident involving landing authorization for the naval aviation commander at Port Stanley symbolized what would soon become a significant coordination issue. The naval transport of runway materials highlighted an inability to set proper logistical priorities for the islands' support.

At that point, the Military Junta was increasingly concerned that resupplying the Falklands would pose a serious risk, as they hoped for a diplomatic solution. With British submarines expected to arrive in the area, any merchant vessel en route to the islands could become a target, risking an escalation they wished to avoid. Thus, resupply had to be limited to what few ships Argentina could load and dispatch before the submarines' estimated arrival.

Giving high priority to artillery and mobility support for the islands—particularly aluminum planks to extend the runway and heavy equipment to facilitate their installation—was crucial. The planks alone were useless without the necessary machinery. Failing to prioritize cargo and maximize the limited transport capacity proved a critical flaw, severely impacting both the naval and land campaigns. It’s worth noting that active U.S. involvement in the conflict became inevitable once extending the Port Stanley runway was no longer feasible.

Triggers of War - The British Perspective

When the South Georgia incident occurred, British Defense Secretary John Nott, Chief of the Defense Staff Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, and Fleet Commander Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse were attending the NATO Nuclear Planning Group meeting in Colorado Springs, where I was also present. As the crisis intensified, these key figures were dispersed: Admiral Lewin traveled to New Zealand, Admiral Fieldhouse to the Mediterranean, and Nott to Europe. During their ten-day absence, the UK observed Argentina escalating its claims.

Demonstrations had erupted in Argentina, and the country’s presence in Thule and South Sandwich was public knowledge in London. The Argentine occupation took place on a Friday, and with key members absent, the British War Cabinet set their objective: "Secure the withdrawal of Argentine forces and restore British administration in the islands."

Recognizing political, economic, and military constraints within Britain, the War Cabinet ordered the British Task Force to set sail on Monday. The fleet embarked, and commercial ships were requisitioned, despite uncertainty about the extent of the effort required. The government’s guiding concept for the operation became "deter and repel," forming the foundation of their initial response.

Argentine Naval Strategy

In Buenos Aires, naval authorities established their strategy:

• Carrier-based interdiction of maritime communication lines was considered and discarded.
• The use of docked vessels in the Falklands as mobile batteries was also considered and dismissed.
• Ultimately, Argentina adopted a “fleet in being” strategy, keeping a reserve fleet for potential postwar Chilean aggression. Avoiding direct naval battles, Argentina opted for a war of attrition—a prudent decision in hindsight.
• The Argentine Navy’s main objective was to inflict damage on the British Landing Force during disembarkation, when British forces would have limited freedom of maneuver.
• Additionally, Argentine concerns about fleet survival were heightened by U.S. Admiral Hayward’s assertion that satellites could track the Argentine fleet’s location at all times.

British Naval Strategy

British naval authorities developed a four-phase strategy to ensure an appropriate force structure:

• Phase One began on April 12, with nuclear attack submarines patrolling west of the islands to enforce the Exclusion Zone.
• Phase Two started on April 22 with the arrival of surface units and lasted until the landing at San Carlos on May 21. The mission was to establish air and maritime superiority in preparation for the landing, marked by a “war at sea” period. During this phase, South Georgia was recaptured, and the ARA Belgrano, HMS Sheffield, and Isla de los Estados were sunk.
• Phase Three began with the May 21 landing, lasting until May 30, focusing on establishing a beachhead, supporting ground troops, and providing air defense. HMS Ardent, Antelope, Coventry, and Atlantic Conveyor, as well as the Argentine vessel Río Carcarañá, were sunk during this phase.
• The Final Phase started on May 30, lasting until the ceasefire, with the mission of supporting ground operations and protecting maritime communication lines. During this period, the British landing ship HMS Galahad was sunk.

Sinking of the ARA Belgrano

On May 1, Vice Admiral Lombardo planned an operation to distract the British Task Force, which, according to Argentine intelligence, was preparing a landing on the Falklands that day. Lombardo’s idea was to form a pincer movement with Task Force ARA 25 de Mayo approaching the Exclusion Zone from the north and Task Force ARA Belgrano from the south, both outside the zone, forcing the British Task Force to abandon its support for the landing.

As ARA 25 de Mayo prepared to engage, the winds calmed, and technical issues limited the ship’s speed to 15 knots. Forecasts indicated continued calm for the next 24 hours, forcing Argentine A-4s to reduce their bomb load from four to one per aircraft. Doubts about the effectiveness of an attack with such a limited payload and reports that the British had not landed as expected led to the order for both task forces to retreat westward.

The ARA Belgrano had maneuvered around the exclusion zone, heading east and then north between the Falklands and South Georgia, to divert British attention from the impending landing and the presence of the 25 de Mayo. Sensing a real threat to his forces, Admiral Woodward requested and received authorization from London to attack the ARA Belgrano outside the exclusion zone to neutralize the risk.

When HMS Conqueror attacked and sank the ARA Belgrano, the Argentine cruiser had been heading westward for fourteen hours. With the sinking of the ARA Belgrano, all hopes for a diplomatic solution faded, marking the start of the naval war.

Maritime Exclusion Zones and Other Navigation Restrictions

The concept of a Maritime Exclusion Zone, as imposed by the British during the conflict, is neither new nor fully understood by all military and political leaders. The pros and cons of a “sanitary cordon” have been debated within NATO for years. Similar terms, such as “Maritime Defense Zone,” have been examined legally and analyzed militarily, with significant disagreements among lawyers regarding its legality under international law, as well as its tactical and strategic value.

Declaratory in nature, like its distant relatives the Blockade and Quarantine, a zone must be announced with clear geographic limits, effective dates, and the types and nationalities of ships and aircraft it applies to.

The blockade, a more traditional military term with a solid basis in international law, is typically defined as a wartime action aimed at preventing ships of all nations from entering or leaving specific areas controlled by an enemy.

The terms pacific blockade and quarantine evolved from blockade laws, with the key distinction being that they are not intended as acts of war. Instead, military action is only anticipated if the targeted state resists. The term quarantine gained prominence in October 1962, when the U.S. president proclaimed a strict quarantine of all offensive military equipment bound for Cuba.

 

Boletin del Centro Naval 748 (1987)

Operation South Georgias

Operation Georgias

Satellite image of South Georgia Islands taken by NASA

Date April 3, 1982
Place Grytviken , South Georgia Islands
Result Argentina takes control of Port Leith and Grytviken
Belligerents
Argentina vs. United Kingdom
Commanders
Captain Carlos Trombetta vs. Lieutenant Keith Paul Mills
Forces in combat
Argentina: 40 marines and the destroyer ARA Guerrico
UK: 22 Marines and HMS Endurance
Casualties
Argentina: 3 dead, 9 injured, 1 corvette damaged, 1 helicopter shot down
UK: 1 injured, 22 prisoners

Operation Georgias was the code name used by the Argentine Armed Forces to designate the occupation operations of the South Georgia Islands at the beginning of the Falklands War in 1982.
The invasion of South Georgia took place on April 3, 1982, when Argentine naval forces took control of South Georgia Island (renamed San Pedro Island) after surrendering a small group of United Kingdom Marines. in Grytviken. The Argentine intervention began on March 19, 1982 when a group of civilian workers arrived in Port Leith aboard the ARA Bahía Buen Suceso transport (B-4), raising the Argentine flag. Some Argentine marines had infiltrated among the workers, presenting themselves as civilian scientists.


Polar ship HMS Endurance in Mar del Plata in February 1982, shortly before its intervention in the Georgias.

Argentine workers in South Georgia

Davidoff contracts
In September 1979, the Argentine businessman Constantino Davidoff, director of the company Georgia del Sur S.A. and specialized in scrap metal business, signed a contract with the Christian Salvensen Co. of Edinburgh, by which it acquired the right to remove the remains of the old abandoned whaling facilities in the ports: Leith, Stromness and Husvik, on the Georgian islands. from the south.
Davidoff managed the service of the polar ship HMS Endurance at the British embassy in Buenos Aires in order to transport the personnel and equipment necessary to dismantle the facilities to the islands. As the British did not accept the request to use the HMS Endurance, in August 1981 Davidoff requested permission from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Argentine Navy to hire passage on the Antarctic transport ships. Knowing of the British government's decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from service in the South Atlantic and anticipating the possible evacuation of Grytviken, the Navy signed an agreement with Davidoff that allowed it to arrive at the islands at least twice a year.

Proyecto y Operación Alfa

In September 1981 the Navy conceived a plan to take advantage of Davidoff's business in South Georgia and thus establish a secret base in that disputed territory. This action was code-named Project Alpha.5 The plan consisted of infiltrating the military among the workers, with the excuse that they were scientists. Once HMS Endurance had withdrawn from the South Atlantic, starting in April it would be joined by 14 marines embarked on a ship destined to reestablish Argentine Antarctic bases, which would establish a permanent military base in South Georgia. That base would have the help of winter, which would prevent the measures that the British could take for its removal.
Parallel to the project, in October 1981 the Antarctic naval commander received the order from the chief of operations of the General Staff of the Navy to study a possible establishment of a scientific base on one of the islands in dispute with the United Kingdom. It was expected that the base could be installed in the 1981-1982 Antarctic campaign. That operation was called Operation Alpha. At the beginning of December it was decided that the base would be occupied by the military and not by civilians as had been planned, due to the need to keep it secret. The Amphibious Commando Group was ordered to enlist 1 officer and 6 non-commissioned officers. The same measure was taken with the same number of tactical divers.
On January 29, 1981, the training of the commandos and designated divers began, with Lieutenant Alfredo Astiz as their leader. The rest were Lieutenant Carrilaff, 1 diving non-commissioned officer, 1 nursing non-commissioned officer, 5 diving corporals and 5 amphibious commando corporals. On February 28 they were embarked in Ushuaia on the Antarctic campaign ship ARA Bahía Paraíso. So that it would not interfere with their plans for the Falklands, on March 16 the Military Committee canceled Operation Alpha, but the commandos remained on board preventively and left on March 18 for the South Orkneys accompanying the ship's Antarctic campaign.


ARA Almirante Irízar. 

Davidoff Travels

The businessman informed the British embassy of his trip, without requesting permission to do so on the icebreaker, and on December 16, 1981, he set sail for South Georgia aboard the icebreaker ARA Almirante Irízar (Q-5), to carry out a inventory of facilities to be dismantled in Stromness Bay. He arrived there on the 21st and left a few days later.6 On December 23, the British magistrate of South Georgia discovered traces of the Argentine presence in Port Leith and reported it to the governor of the Falkland Islands Rex Hunt, who relayed it to London. December 31st. The British government ordered its embassy to present a note of protest for the violation of its sovereignty by the unauthorized landing, but the Foreign Minister claimed to be unaware of the incident and on February 9 there was a new formal protest that was rejected by the Argentine Foreign Ministry on the 18th.
Another Argentine trip to the islands occurred in February 1982, when a business rival of Davidoff, bank employee Adrián Marchessi, made an unscheduled visit to Port Leith. Marchessi arrived at the Port Leith facility aboard the Caiman, a Panama-registered yacht, with which he had sailed from Mar del Plata.8 He reported to Grytviken, saying he was part of Davidoff's scheme and gave British authorities local details from the inspection made by Davidoff in December and even from other Argentine trips in the 1970s.

The raising of the Argentine flag

On March 18, 1982, the ARA Bahía Buen Suceso arrived at Port Leith, disembarking Davidoff's workers and his equipment, without passing through Grytviken as required by the British government. On that date, the only British presence in Port Leith was a team from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). On March 19, 4 members of the BAS heading to Bahía Carlita discovered the ARA Bahía Buen Suceso unloading equipment in Puerto Leith, with the Argentine flag flying. About 100 people were disembarked and had occupied a BAS shelter. The leader of the BAS team, Trevor Edwards, addressed Captain Briatore to inform him that his presence was illegal and that they must pass through Grytviken, then notified the British magistrate at King Edward Point. The senior BAS commander in Grytviken, Steve Martin, sent a message to Governor Hunt, who consulted with London. The commander demanded the removal of the Argentine flag and the reembarkation of the workers. The commander of the ARA Bahía Buen Suceso responded that the mission had the approval of the British embassy in Buenos Aires and ordered the flag to be lowered, but it did not appear in Grytviken as the British demanded.
On March 20, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was informed of what happened. As the Argentines had not complied with the diplomatic formalities, the British government decided to intervene on a small scale and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom (Foreign Office) ordered the sending of the HMS Endurance with the aim of forcing the operators to lower the flag. and prevent the disembarkation of personnel. The ship departed Port Stanley on 16 March with a complement of 22 marines.
On March 21, the British embassy held a diplomatic protest in Buenos Aires, requesting the Argentine government to evict the workers. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Nicanor Costa Méndez, responded by appearing to clear up the crisis, assuring that the ARA Bahía Buen Suceso would soon depart the islands and that the incident had no official consent.
On the morning of March 22, the ARA Bahía Buen Suceso departed from Port Leith. However, in the afternoon, a BAS observation post detected the presence of Argentine personnel and passed the information to London. Consequently, the Foreign Office ordered HMS Endurance to evacuate any Argentine personnel remaining on South Georgia.

Operation Georgias

On March 23, the Commander of the Antarctic Naval Group, 16 Captain César Trombetta, in command of the ARA Bahía Paraíso (B-1) that was in South Orkney, received orders from the General Naval Staff to head to maximum speed to the South Georgia Islands, with the mission of preventing the eviction of Davidoff's group of Argentine workers by the HMS Endurance, left for this purpose from the Malvinas Islands.
The British movements were met with a series of Argentine countermeasures: the corvettes ARA Drummond (P-31) and ARA Granville (P-33) were deployed between the Falklands and South Georgia, being in position to intercept HMS Endurance and rescue any Argentine personnel he had on board.
On March 24, the Argentine government informed the press of the workers' presence in South Georgia, while Astiz received the order to "disembark on March 25 at 00:15 in Port Leith in order to protect Argentine workers. "
The ARA Bahía Paraíso arrived at Port Leith on the night of March 24 and disembarked the group of 14 soldiers commanded by Astiz (Grupo Alfa), with individual weapons belonging to the ship. The ARA Bahía Paraíso remained in the area and patrolled the area with its helicopters during the following hours. News from the south reported an unusual movement of Argentine Navy warships in the South Atlantic Ocean. Upon arriving at Port Leith, HMS Endurance found the ARA Bahía Paraíso anchored, then both ships were chasing each other and hiding around the islands until they lost contact with each other on March 31.
Faced with the prospect of possible military conflict, the Foreign Office sought to achieve some form of compromise. Lord Carrington proposed to his counterpart Costa Méndez that he pardon the workers present at Port Leith and give them the appropriate documentation, which could include the stamping of temporary permits instead of passports, which was a crucial concession for the Argentine position. Argentina's claim, however, was that the arrival of any of its citizens to South Georgia should follow the procedures agreed in the 1971 communications treaty. Governor Rex Hunt strongly rejected this extension of the agreement, valid only for the Falkland Islands, and conveyed his concern to the British government.
The British plan was that BAS commander Martin would be responsible until the Argentine forces demonstrated any hostile intent, if that occurred Lieutenant Keith Paul Mills would take command.
On March 28, 1982, at 10:57, the destroyer ARA Santísima Trinidad (D-2) set sail as the flagship of the commander of Task Force 40, embarking its commander and the commander of the Malvinas Theater of Operations, General of division Osvaldo García, starting Operation Rosario that concluded with the surrender of the British governor of the Malvinas on April 2. That same day, 40 marines under the command of Lieutenant Guillermo Luna were embarked in Puerto Belgrano heading to the South Georgia, in the corvette ARA Guerrico (P-2) (currently P-32), traveling precariously and overcrowded for 4 days as it is not a ship with the capacity to transport troops and due to the weather conditions.
On 30 March, when it became obvious that invasion was imminent, the British government ordered the destroyer HMS Antrim, followed by two other surface ships and three nuclear submarines, to South Georgia to support HMS Endurance. . The rest of the British naval units were placed on four-hour alert.
On April 1, the General Naval Staff received Operations Order No. 1/82 "S" to "occupy Grytviken and hold Leith in order to ensure control of the Georgia Islands", for which it ordered the missile corvette ARA Guerrico , under the command of frigate captain Carlos Alfonso, join the ARA Bahía Paraíso, equipped with two helicopters from the Antarctic Group (1 Puma from the Argentine Army, 1 Alouette (from the Naval Aviation Command of the Argentine Navy) and a group of 40 infantrymen of marines under the command of Lieutenant Guillermo Luna who joined Astiz's forces in Puerto Leith. Until that date, South Georgia had not been included in the Malvinas Theater of Operations.




Badges of Alfredo Astiz at the Imperial War Museum in London.

With the available units, Task Group 60.1 was formed, with César Trombetta as commander, made up of the units:
60.1.1. Polar ship ARA Bahía Paraíso, commanded by frigate captain Ismael J. García.
60.1.2. ARA Guerrico corvette, commanded by frigate captain Carlos Alfonso.
60.1.3. Fraction of the Marine Infantry Battalion No. 4 (BIM 4) with 40 men, commanded by Lieutenant Guillermo Luna.
60.1.4. Two helicopters from the Antarctic Group: 1 Puma from the Army and 1 Alouette from the Navy's Naval Aviation Command.
60.1.5. Group of tactical divers and amphibious commandos (14 men), under the command of Lieutenant Alfredo Astiz.

As a consequence of the above, a series of high-level meetings and conversations took place in order to prevent the Argentine invasion. On the night of April 1, the president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, promised Thatcher to speak with the military junta to prevent the attack. However, his telephone conversation with Leopoldo Galtieri was fruitless.

British resistance

Cumberland Bay with King Edward Peninsula and Inlet and Grytviken.

The 2nd of April

On April 2, Astiz announced to the Argentines who were in Port Leith that his country had recovered the Malvinas.[13] Receiving the order to execute Operations Order No. 1/82 "S".
After learning of the fall of Port Stanley, Mills took urgent action: his men fortified the beach at King Edward Point, near the entrance to the bay, with wire and landmines and prepared defenses around the BAS buildings. HMS Endurance, which was a few miles offshore, provided communication between the small British detachment and London. Mills was authorized to open fire in self-defense after issuing a warning. A later statement from the British government instructed the marines "not to resist beyond the point where lives might be needlessly lost."
Due to inclement weather, the ARA Guerrico only entered Cumberland Bay at 17:00 on April 2, so the plans of the Argentine forces for that day in South Georgia were frustrated and Trombetta postponed them until on April 3. These plans consisted of the landing of Astiz's special forces at Hope Point, near Grytviken, to ensure the arrival of the ground forces teams, transported by helicopter. The ARA Guerrico was to provide naval fire outside the bay, but the corvette's arrival was delayed by a storm, so a new course of action was decided for the next day. According to the new plan, the first landing was to be made by the Alouette helicopter from the ARA Guerrico, followed by three waves of marines in the Puma from the ARA Bahía Paraíso. After sending a radio message demanding the surrender of the British, Trombetta had to order the ARA Guerrico to make an advance on the Capitán Vago cove where the port of Grytviken is located, just opposite King Edward Point. The corvette was only authorized to use its firearms at the request of ground forces. Astiz's men had to remain in the rearguard aboard the ARA Bahía Paraíso. All forces involved had to avoid enemy deaths for as long as possible. Freedman believes Trombetta made those provisions thinking he would meet only the BAS team. Apparently, the oversight at that point was due to the absence of HMS Endurance, which made him think that he would only deal with the BAS people, Trombetta ordered the corvette ARA Guerrico to approach the coast, send the Alouette helicopter on reconnaissance, and transport the first group of Marines in the other helicopter, a Puma.
During the night, the two Argentine ships established contact and remained in nearby waters, with the corvette in Stromness Bay.

April 3

On April 3 at 5:00 Luna received a naval message stating that HMS Endurance was in Grytviken with 22 marines. However, Trombetta thought that the landing area would be free of enemies, which they would find on the polar ship. At 7:35, with better weather conditions, the corvette arrived at Puerto Leith and transferred the marines to the ARA Bahía Paraíso, while the Astiz commandos were reembarked, leaving the workers protected on land by men from the ARA Bahía Paraíso under the orders of Lieutenant Cortez.
At 11:10 from the ARA Bahía Paraíso the surrender of Grytviken was demanded with a message in English, repeated 3 minutes later. The message stated that Rex Hunt had surrendered, not only in the Falklands, but also in his quarters, which was false.13 Lieutenant Mills received and then relayed the message to HMS Endurance, with the intention of buying time. . At the same time, he invited the BAS personnel to take cover inside the church premises. The British soldiers did not accept the surrender. By then, the Alouette was flying over Grytviken reporting that no possible resistance was observed and the ARA Guerrico made its first entry into the inlet. According to Mayorga, Captain Carlos Alfonso, commander of the corvette, was hesitant to expose it to such narrow waters. Mayorga also validates Freedman's speculation about Trombetta's incorrect assumptions regarding British military presence around the port, citing an official report. Trombetta also had some reservations about the corvette's adequate combat readiness, since she had been in dry dock until just a few days before leaving her home base in Puerto Belgrano.


Remains of the Argentine Puma helicopter.

Helicopter shoot down

At 11:25 Grytviken was ordered for the base personnel to go out to a visible place, warning that there would be a marine infantry landing and 10 minutes later from the corvette they noticed the presence of armed personnel.
The Puma grounded the first group of 15 Argentine marines (including Lt. Luna) with a machine gun at 11:41 at King Edward Point, opposite Shackleton House, where the Royal Marines were entrenched. . By then, the corvette knew that the Marines' deployment area was on the north shore of the mouth of the inlet. The second wave of marines left from the ARA Bahía Paraíso aboard the Puma at 11:47, formed by Lieutenant Giusti with 14 other marines and a machine gun. The commander of the Argentine group already on the ground, Lieutenant Luna, requested via the ARA Guerrico - he did not have direct communication with the ARA Bahía Paraíso - that the second wave be the one that should arrive third equipped with 60 mm mortars, but the Marines were already in flight. The landing took place to the east of Luna's position, well within sight of the British detachment.30 The helicopter was within gun range of Mills and his men at that time. The aircraft was hailed by intense fire from automatic weapons, but the pilot was able to cross the bay and made an emergency landing on the southern coast of the bay, on the shore opposite King Edward Point (or Punta Coronel Zelaya). The conscripts Mario Almonacid and Jorge Néstor Águila died and four others were wounded, the rest were out of combat position, but machine gun fire was opened on the hospital, wounding a marine in the arm. At the same time, Luna's troops began their march towards the Shackleton house, but once the helicopter was shot down, the British fired heavy fire on them. In view of that, Luna requested fire support from the ARA Guerrico.

Attack on the ARA Guerrico

The corvette then made its second advance on the inlet and at 11:55 opened fire. To his commander's disappointment, the 20mm guns jammed after his first shot, and with the 40mm he could only fire six volleys. The 100 mm cannon was disabled after the first shot. Completely exposed, the ship had no other option but to move away and turned into the cove, opening fire with its weapons located on the other side of it. The British directed their fire on the ship at 11:59. The corvette was hit by small arms fire and by a Carl Gustav 84 mm anti-tank rocket launcher. According to Mills, his men opened fire from a distance of 550 m. The attack killed Lance Corporal Patricio Guanca and wounded five other sailors, damaging power lines, a 40 mm cannon, an Exocet rocket launcher, and the 100 mm gun mount. When the corvette passed in front of the enemy position again to move away, it again received intense fire. Argentine sources acknowledge that more than 200 projectiles hit the corvette.
Meanwhile, the Alouette had been transporting the other 10 marines, out of range of British guns, even though it was a reconnaissance helicopter and not a troop transport.13 As the damaged ARA Guerrico headed out of the bay , the Argentine troops resumed the exchange of fire with Mills' marines. Once out of range of the British guns, from the vicinity of Hobart Rock, the corvette resumed fire with its 40-millimeter guns, repaired and back in service.33 This convinced Mills that everything was finished and ordered his marines to cease fire. This happened at 12:48, according to Mayorga. At 1:00 p.m. Mills approached the Argentine positions waving a white cape and surrendered, receiving the order to have his subordinates leave individually. Mills and his men were taken into custody by Astiz's group, who had remained in reserve during the battle. At 1:35 p.m. it was reported that the British flag had been lowered. HMS Endurance dispatched one of her Wasp helicopters to Cumberland Bay. The helicopter landed there and detected the Argentine corvette and the transport ship in the inlet, but found no signs of combat. HMS Endurance remained in the waters off South Georgia until 5 April. In the afternoon, 13 BAS civilians who were scattered in the vicinity were arrested. At 11 p.m., Grupo Alfa replaced Lieutenant Cortez and his men in protecting the workers in Port Leith.


ARA Guerrico.

Consequences

The corvette ARA Guerrico, with a loss of 50% of its firepower due to combat, departed Grytviken together with the ARA Bahía Paraíso at 3:15 on April 4, heading for Río Grande.35 The latter transported British marines to Río Grande, from where they were sent by plane to Montevideo,13 arriving in the United Kingdom on April 20. The Argentine forces desisted from attacking the BAS base on Bird Island, remaining there and in Schlieper Bay, Lyell Glacier and Saint Andrews Bay, 15 British BAS who remained outside Argentine control until the British recovery of the islands. . The Argentine Navy left a detachment of 55 marines on the islands, along with the 39 scrap metal dismantling workers who remained in Port Leith.34 South Georgia was retaken by British forces on April 25, 1982, in the course of Operation Paraquat.

Awards

• Lieutenant Mills received the Distinguished Service Cross.
• Captain Nick Barker of HMS Endurance was awarded the Order of the British Empire in the rank of Commander.
• The main artillery corporal Francisco Solano Páez was awarded the Argentine Nation medal for Valor in Combat.
  

Bibliography

-Freedman, Lawrence: The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war. Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7 
-Freedman, Lawrence and Gamba, Virginia: Señales de Guerra. Javier Vergara Editor, 1992. ISBN 950-15-1112-X 
-Insight Team Sunday Times (1982). War in the Falklands: the Full Story. The Sunday Times. 
-Contraalmirante Horacio A. Mayorga: No Vencidos. Ed. Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998. ISBN 950-742-976-X 
-The Argentine Invasion of South Georgias 

 

Wikipedia.es

Malvinas: Why Did the IMARA Perform so Well?

Organizational Factors and Combat Performance: The IMARA experience in the Malvinas [1]

by Alejandro L. Corbacho
Universidad del CEMA
Documento de Trabajo 255 

Abstract

When soldiers go into combat, they do so within the framework of an organization that sends them and supports them. In this way its quality is put to the test and for this reason, combat is the critical moment of any military organization. In this situation, its performance will depend not only on the strategic plans, its quantity and the available material, but also on the preparation and spirit that was instilled in its members throughout their time in the military organization.
There is no doubt that for the Argentine Armed Forces the Malvinas War was a critical moment. The following work explores the reasons for the behavior of the Marine Infantry units of the Argentine Navy (IMARA) based on the analysis of two organizational factors. The first factor, most commonly noted, is what is called structural in this analysis; the second focuses on some sociological aspects, more precisely the organizational culture. To explain the structural and cultural attributes of the Argentine Marine Corps, Navy officers on active duty or in retirement who participated or who were privileged witnesses of the events described, as well as official documents and articles and other printed testimonies, were interviewed.

[In Malvinas] The Argentines fought well and bravely in many parts of the islands. Not all. But many. And those groups of Argentines are more interesting than those who fled. [2] 

Introduction 
When soldiers go into combat, they do so within the framework of an organization that sends them and supports them. In this way its quality is put to the test and for this reason, combat is the critical moment of any military organization. In this situation, its performance will depend not only on the strategic plans, its quantity and the available material, but also on the preparation and spirit that was instilled in its members throughout their time in the military organization.

There is no doubt that for the Argentine Armed Forces the Malvinas War was a critical moment. This work investigates which of these issues affected the combat performance of a particular unit: the Marine Infantry of the Argentine Navy (IMARA).

The South Atlantic conflict that took place between April and June 1982 ended in defeat for Argentina and there are numerous works that analyze and reflect on the reasons for it. However, during the development of the conflict there were troops that stood out for their combat skills. These constitute successful cases that also deserve to be investigated. Among them are Marine Corps units. [3]

The following work explores the reasons for the behavior of Marine Corps units based on the analysis of two organizational factors. The first factor, most commonly noted, is what is called structural in this analysis; the second focuses on some sociological aspects, more precisely the organizational culture. To explain the structural and cultural attributes of the Argentine Marine Corps that were central to its outstanding performance in combat, Navy officers on active duty or in retirement who participated or who were privileged witnesses of the events described were interviewed and official documents and articles and other printed testimonies.

The Marine Corps in the Malvinas Theater
Once the recovery of the Malvinas Islands was successfully completed on April 2, 1982, the Marine Corps forces that participated in the operation must have returned to the continent since the original defense plan did not contemplate their subsequent use. However, when the British decided to respond militarily to the Argentine action, the Argentine authorities decided to reinforce the garrison of the islands and sent, among other units, a contingent of Marines.

The bulk of this contingent was made up of BIM 5. The Naval High Command decided to deploy this unit whose permanent base is in Río Grande (Tierra del Fuego) for several reasons:

1. for being the best adapted to combat in a terrain similar to that of the Malvinas;
   
2. for being well equipped; and
   
3. be highly trained, particularly, in night combat and in the use of air cooperation;. 

For its deployment in the Islands, BIM 5 was reinforced by a group of 12.7mm caliber heavy machine guns, by the First Section of Amphibious Engineers, and by Battery B of the Marine Corps Field Artillery Battalion.



Between April 8 and 12, the battalion's personnel and equipment [5] were airlifted to Puerto Argentino. There, the local High Command assigned him the responsibility of defending part of the belt of elevations that surround that city. BIM 5 corresponded to [6] Mounts Tumbledown, Williams, and Sapper Hill. In addition to the battalion, other IMARA units were present on the Islands: the Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion, the Amphibious Engineer Company (-), a detachment of Amphibious Commandos, the Third Section of Company D of the BIM 2, Second and Third Sections of Company H of BIM 3, two groups of Bantam anti-tank missiles, three groups of air traffic controllers, a Security section with dogs and a group of Marine Corps Command. These units participated in the defense of the capital, the Camber Peninsula, and Bourbon Island, and all entered combat [7] with satisfactory results. In total, the Marine Corps troops stationed on the islands reached 1,590 men. At the same time, the First Marine Brigade with 3,587 men remained waiting in Tierra del Fuego. This constituted the strategic [8] operational reserve of the South Atlantic Theater of Operations (TOAS).
It is important to highlight that during their stay on the islands the Infantes were well fed, had adequate clothing and appropriate communications equipment. Also important was the fact that during the waiting period from their arrival until the British landed, the Marines were kept busy preparing for that moment. The battalion also had tools to prepare positions suitable for the [9] Malvinas soil. These were the famous “barretas”. These preparations were later key [10] in the tough defense that the Infantry presented to the British attackers.

Mount Tumbledown: recognition

The British landed at dawn on May 21 in San Carlos (Isla Soledad) and the final battles for the heights surrounding Puerto Argentino took place between June 11 and 14. The Second Battalion Scots Guards attacked Mount Tumbledown on the night of the 13th [11]. A British correspondent who witnessed the fighting described the action in the following terms:

Within minutes, Argentine snipers using night sights had killed three of the Guards and wounded two others. The typical British formula of responding with fire from 66 and 84 millimeter rockets seemed to have little effect on the enemy positions located among the rocks. The Scots Guards heard the Argentines shouting and even singing while they fought. These were the best troops that General Menéndez had on the battlefield, they were BIM 5... As the night progressed, the hard fighting continued and the Argentines showed no signs of breaking and their main positions remained firm. .[12] 

This action described by Hastings and Jenkins lasted eleven hours. His story continues: 

The Guards reached the last positions at Tumbledown only after fighting inch by inch on the rocks using phosphorus grenades and automatic weapons to eliminate the enemy bunkers... The Scots Guards battalion had... captured one of the Argentine positions most strongly defended from war [13]. 

After a long night fighting, the remains of the Infantry reinforced by dispersed Army units were still in possession of the BIM 5 command post and Sapper Hill. From there the Infantry prepared for the counterattack. But around noon on June 14, the Argentine High Command ordered a ceasefire on the islands. The armed struggle for the Malvinas had ended. At the end of the battle, BIM 5 suffered a total of 61 casualties, of which 16 were killed and 45 wounded. The Scots Guards claimed to have had 9 [14] dead and 41 wounded.


The Sunday Times team of correspondents later informed their readers that at Tumbledown “the Guards had faced the toughest action of all. There was, well entrenched in a series of intricate bunkers cut into the ground, a well-trained Argentine Marine Infantry battalion.” Furthermore, “the volume of fire from the Infantry was intense and impressive.” Similarly, American military analyst Harry G. Summers noted that “as the Scots Guards approached the main heights of Mount Tumbledown they encountered strong opposition. Instead of the hasty field fortifications the British had encountered earlier in the war, they faced a well-entrenched company of BIM 5." The American added that "a British artillery officer described those positions as exceptionally well prepared." [15]. 


Even in defeat, the Infantes did not lose cohesion and remained united and orderly [16]. According to the story of Lieutenant Colonel Vaux, commander of the 42nd Marine Commandos, the Argentine Marines marched along the streets of Puerto Argentino “elegantly” (smartly) and carrying their regimental colors high. Finally, the British historian Martin Middlebrook [17] also has words of recognition for the performance of the Argentine Infantes:

The Argentine Infantrymen who consider themselves better soldiers than those in the Army probably are. Its basic component was also conscripts, but the Infantry system of incorporating new conscripts in batches throughout the year meant that the unit had a higher degree of training and did not have any young men from the 1963 class when they were sent to the Malvinas. . Another advantage that the Marines enjoyed was that they had better winter clothing... At the same time they were supported by their own Marine Infantry artillery battery. [18] 

On the Argentine side, the Marine Corps also had positive evaluations from sources outside the Navy. For example, a publication by the Argentine Army listed the reasons, which according to them, explain the superior performance of BIM 5.: 

The BIM 5 possessed a well-balanced set of weapons and excellent communications equipment. But much more important was that it had men who, as a result of the Navy's incorporation system, had completed their training, adapted from peace to the terrain and extreme weather conditions...at the same time it had a particular logistics system of the Navy. Navy...managing to maintain it with excellent combat aptitude. [19] 

On the other hand, the report prepared by the Analysis and Evaluation Commission (also known as the Rattenbach Report) reported that:

The BIM 5 (+)...demonstrated a joint vocation, a high degree of readiness, professionalism and adequate equipment, which was evident in the ground combat, during the defense of Puerto Argentino, an action where it had an outstanding performance. [20] 

Therefore, both our own and our adversaries recognized the outstanding performance of the Marine Corps units and in particular of BIM 5. [21].

Organizational factors: structural and cultural

In general, the combat performance of land units is explained by a psychological variable: the degree of cohesion. According to this, men and units in combat cohere (or stay together) for survival, trust in their comrades, or for patriotism. Furthermore, it is argued that a high degree of cohesion allows units to “try to accomplish their mission despite the situation.” Other authors [22] claim that other factors such as national character, the relationship between society and the armed forces, religious beliefs, and ideology affect the way units fight [23]. However, there are still other factors that have so far been little studied. These are variables related to the characteristics of the organization within which soldiers fight. These also help cement cohesion and can be important when explaining “combat performance.” This concept is used here in terms tactical effectiveness similar to that of tactical effectiveness ( ) defined by Millet and Murray as “the specific techniques used by combat units to fight in confrontations that aim to secure operational objectives.” According to the authors, “tactical activity involves the movement [or deployment] of forces on the battlefield against the enemy, the provision of destructive fire against enemy forces or targets, and the preparation of logistical support to be applied.” in the confrontation.”[24]

In addition to the personnel that gives life to an organization, it is made up of structural and cultural elements. The first are the skeleton, the visible, external elements or characteristics, which can be, among others, military material and equipment, the number of members and the organizational chart and geographical arrangement of the units. The latter are more subtle and therefore more difficult to observe with the naked eye. These are the basic assumptions, norms, beliefs, and formal knowledge that the members of the organization have. Both sets of elements configure and shape the collective behavior of soldiers. Therefore, this work is based on the assumption that in addition to the degree of cohesion, both the structural and cultural aspects of the military organization must be studied to comprehensively explain its performance in combat since these ultimately help to develop, reinforce or maintain cohesion. In this way, the focus of the research shifts from the human dimension to the organizational dimension of war.

In a historical overview of military organizations, British historian Jeremy Black describes the following pattern: while successful weapons and tactics can be easily reproduced, it is much more difficult to reproduce “efficient military performance.” According to Black, the latter seems to be connected with the quality of the cadres, that is, officers and non-commissioned officers [25]. Therefore, how is it possible to obtain high quality paintings? A quick answer to this question is to look at how military organizations recruit and educate their personnel to get the job done. During this process, the military organization instills uniform knowledge, procedures, and values that allow its members to share the same spirit that distinguishes one group of soldiers from another [26]. Therefore, to understand the performance of an organization it is necessary to pay attention to both its visible aspects and the more subtle ones that are its characteristic cultural elements. The latter constitute “the invisible force behind the organization's activities” [27].

Organizational culture is commonly defined as “the set of assumptions, values, norms, beliefs, and formal knowledge that shapes collective understanding” [28].

According to Mintzberg, ideology (or organizational culture) encompasses “the traditions and beliefs of an organization and what distinguishes it from other organizations and infuses a certain life into the skeleton of its structure.” [29] Thus, organizational culture is the normative and social glue that holds the organization together and expresses the social values and ideals that the members of that organization come to share. At the same time, it helps to overcome challenges external to the organization. Additionally, it is important to note that these ideas are considered valid because they have worked. More importantly, culture is considered the “toolbox” or “repertoire” of organizational behavior [30]. However, it is important to highlight that culture does not define objectives. In this regard, there is a certain degree of agreement among experts about the consequences of culture in organizations [31]: it helps manage collective uncertainties, helps create a social order, and generates continuity in beliefs and practices. At the same time, members who share the same culture create a collective identity and commitment. [32]

Finally, military organizations, as “total” organizations, instill in their members a common culture or esprit de corps. For example, when analyzing the case of the United States Marine Corps, one historian observed that its “men share an institutionally defined relationship based on subordination to the spirit of the Marine Corps.” Therefore, this research investigates the influence that organizational factors of a specific organization can have, that is, the combat behavior of the Argentine marine infantry [33].

Structural Factors

When describing the combat behavior of BIM 5, the comments expressed above agree in pointing out observable aspects, that is, structural factors. These were cohesion, a balanced set of weapons and equipment, superior logistics, and skill in preparing defensive positions. The observers also agreed [34] in valuing another characteristic of the Navy, the system of incorporation of conscripts.

According to one of its members, one of the characteristics of the Argentine Marines is “the obsession with training and enlistment.” And according to him, that means [35] that the Infantes want to be prepared at all times. Without a doubt, an element that helps develop this characteristic is the geographical location of the main base of the Marine Corps, Batteries. Indeed, the location of said base guarding the entrance to the Puerto Belgrano Naval Base helps explain part of this “impulse” for training. Therefore, the isolated location of the base provides the incentive to train more often than [36] any other unit located near a city.

Added to the isolation factor of the Battery garrison is the fact that the core of the force is concentrated there, the Marine Infantry Brigade and the Amphibious Support Force. The first “plans, regulates and supervises the instruction, training and all [37] activity or operational task of the Organic Units” of this great combat unit.

During the Malvinas campaign it was made up of the Command Battalion, BIM 1, BIM 2, Field Artillery Battalion 1, the Logistics Support Battalion, and the Amphibious Engineer Company. The mission of the Amphibious Support Force is to “supply with its personnel, means and weapons systems, the support and/or reinforcements ordered by the Marine Corps Command, at the request of the different Forces of the Corps that must enter or are located in operations” [38]. This unit was made up of the Amphibious Vehicle Battalion 1, the Communications Battalion 1, the Anti-Aircraft Battalion and the Amphibious Commando Group. It is another structural factor that can help consolidate military cohesion, or esprit de corps size. In this regard, the Argentine Marine Corps is a small force that exists within the context of a larger organization, the Navy. In this way, it is possible for its members to know or be more familiar with each other and learn to work together. In that case, it can be said that the Marine Corps is also made up of a dense web of relationships between its members [39]. In 1982 the Marine Corps had a total of 9,500 troops. The total number of troops in the Navy reached 36,000 at that time. This figure included conscripts [40].

Most officers interviewed agreed that these three factors help create an integrated, cohesive and coordinated amphibious force.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, an advantage that the Navy has over other armed forces arises from having its own means of logistical support. In this regard, a veteran officer of the campaign stated [41] that “the secret of the successful logistics capacity of the Navy's land units in the Malvinas was due to the fact that the logistics were ours.” In that sense, “we did not depend on anyone else” [42].

Finally, many observers pointed out another institutional aspect that distinguished the Navy compared to the Army. When the time came, they considered that the conscript incorporation system was critical for their performance. The Navy incorporated new conscripts in five successive bimonthly batches and the conscripts served a fixed period of fourteen months [43]. For many, this system adopted in the 70s was “one of the reasons why the force was always ready for combat” [44].
Up to this point, this research has identified a set of structural aspects that make up the organization's configuration: geographical location, concentration of troops, size, own logistical support and conscript incorporation system. The conjunction of these factors facilitated training and helped to form an integrated, dense and cohesive force that fulfilled the mission expected of it.

Organizational Culture: values, norms, beliefs and ideals

In addition to the factors here called structural, some of the positive assessments of the performance of BIM 5 mention the attribute of “professionalism”. This concept is difficult to quantify but responds, at least, to the impression that those who carry out a specific task perform it as expected [45]. The demonstration of professionalism in the face of a situation such as combat in extreme conditions against an enemy of stature is a demonstration of the presence of a shared culture that allows those who possess it to face and overcome it with greater success than those who lack this attribute. Analysis of official and semi-official documents and personal interviews with Navy and IMARA personnel suggests the presence of the following key elements as part of the organizational culture of the Navy and particularly the Marine Corps. While some elements are common to both, others are specific to the latter.

Integration 

The idea of integration of its cadres is incorporated into the Navy's educational system. From the beginning, with their incorporation into the Naval Academy, the young cadets become part of an integrated force. During the first two years, instruction is given without distinguishing between naval or infantry cadets. Later, when the last ones graduate as midshipmen, they all start in charge of an infantry section. After two years of service in the rifle companies, they begin their specialization in artillery, communications, engineers or infantry in the corresponding school units. It is important to note that Infants consider these specializations as orientations or technical skills [46]. This process contrasts with that used by the Army. There, the separation of weapons was strictly established and the cadets from the beginning received instruction in separate classrooms and had their blocks separated by weapons. [47]




Members of the Marine Corps are also accustomed to working as a whole on extensive campaigns [48]. Consequently, continuous activity generates integration, that is, a situation in which “everyone knows a little about everything and trains together.” For this reason [49], during the Malvinas campaign, the Marine Corps was very effective in the use of coordinated fire support. Integration was not only achieved within the force but also [50] [51] with the other components of the Navy such as naval support and, especially, aviation. In general, the Navy emphasizes the importance of unity of action and the concept of “interoperability”, that is, the ability to operate in any geographic area in conjunction with other components of the weapon [52].
Finally, due to the characteristics of the naval profession, it teaches its personnel the need to work harmoniously as a team. The staff knows that they will be confined to the same ship for a long time. Under these circumstances, the crew members are in close contact with each other and each one performs an important task for the entire group on the ship. Furthermore, the idea is present that “if the ship sinks, all crew members are equal on the rafts” [53].

The Importance of Leadership

Historian Craig Cameron in his book on the combat readiness of the US 1st Marine Division observes that “Marines almost universally attribute their achievements primarily to their extraordinary leadership at the small unit level.” Argentine infants were no exception to this observation [54].



When remembering his experience in the Malvinas, Commander Alberto Baffico points to the quality of leadership of the officers and non-commissioned officers as the key to the success of the Infantes. According to him, leadership is exercised both by presence and by example. The Navy in general emphasizes personnel leadership in both practical and theoretical terms [55].

In contrast to some accounts in which it is stated that Argentine officers abandoned their men at the front, Baffico maintains that the Infantes “were not alone in their positions.” Indeed, “there was a constant presence of the commanding officers.” Furthermore, “in the Navy it is important to be a natural leader and not merely an institutional one.” [56] Rear Admiral (IM) (ret.) Carlos Büsser pointed out that the good performance of the Marine Infantry units was due to the fact that

The officers and non-commissioned officers were always very close to the troops they led, in very direct contact with the different situations posed by modern combat and therefore, in a position to adopt resolutions quickly and safely. [57] 

In short, driving is “knowing how to give an order in such a way that it can be carried out.” [58]

In relation to the role of the leader, some interviewees mentioned that Navy officers are always taught to be concerned for the well-being of their subordinates. Their “concern for staff is real, not merely formal or simply stated” [59].

Furthermore, for infantrymen, “the man and his personal weapon are the most important weapon system” [60].

Discipline

As in any military institution, the Navy and Marine Corps emphasize the value of discipline. In this regard, Vice Admiral (IM) (ret.) Julio Bardi and Captain (IM) Enrique Olmedo agreed in describing the Argentine Infantry as a highly disciplined force. Both stressed that within the force discipline is both formal and fundamental. Infants tend to emphasize formal discipline because they are more rigid and because “they manifest fundamental discipline by adhering to the principles of formal discipline” [61]. Within the Navy, Infantrymen are recognized for their personal care and military manners [62]. According to one officer, “the infantrymen need their formal discipline as a complement to their combat training” [63].

The importance of the initiative

According to those interviewed, the Infantes respect the independent decision-making criteria. That is, they emphasize inventiveness, self-confidence, and the ability to carry out independent action. In this case, “the ability to act on one's own initiative is most marked in the Marine Corps” [64]. The author of this article vividly remembers his time at CIFIM in City Bell as a newly recruited conscript. During the training the non-commissioned officers always repeated: “the soldier thinks and executes!” [65] This contrasted with what his high school friends who were serving in the Army at the same time told him. They were not instructed under the slogan: “the soldier thinks, he executes!” This simple exercise highlights an important aspect of the culture of an organization where even its lower-ranking elements were instilled in the idea of “thinking.” This can be very useful for exercising initiative in the event that men lose the superiors who normally give orders.

The importance of planning

According to CN Olmedo, Infantry officers are educated in such a way that they develop a characteristic capacity for planning. For this reason, Infants are typically assigned planning tasks [66]. This tendency can be illustrated with an anecdote that exists in the Corps. During the Malvinas War, the General Staff of the Marine Corps Command, once it had planned and executed the mobilization and support operations of its troops on the islands and on the continent, was ordered to prepare numerous schematic plans. These very general plans were intended to cover a wide spectrum of contingencies. The demand to carefully plan every conceivable situation was so great that staff began using the unofficial acronym “PAPs” for these plans [67].

The value of tenacity

Tenacity is another of the values indicated by the officers interviewed. According to Captain (IM) (ret.) Jorge Errecaborde “tenacity is valued by the Marines.” Furthermore, it can be said that infants are different not because they are “more intelligent, but because they are more tenacious.” Infants are taught that they should do what they say they are going to do [68]. In this case, stated CN Olmedo, “the idea of fulfilling the mission is such that it must be very difficult to find a justification for not having fulfilled it” [69]. In the Marine Corps, training aims to teach recruits how to “overcome obstacles by creating the means to do so” [70]. A maxim characteristic among its members is: “overcoming shortcomings with ingenuity and sacrifice” [71].

Foresight: logistics culture

One of the advantages of the Navy most often commented on is that in the Malvinas it had “excellent logistical support.” CLIM (ret.) Büsser explains that the Navy had supplied the Marines stationed on the islands with food, fuel, medicine, spare parts and enough clothing for 180 days. The naval command also sent sufficient ammunition to sustain continuous combat for 30 days [72].
The reasons for such foresight derive from an important idea in the Navy. The concept of “ship” which means that to operate successfully the unit must be self-sufficient and, therefore, everything necessary to remain operational must be carried on board [73]. Consequently, due to these requirements, the Navy has developed a profound characteristic “idea of foresight”.

Learning capacity

With respect to preparation, the Navy as an organization showed a remarkable ability to learn from past experiences. In effect, the naval commanders took advantage of the military preparations of 1978 in anticipation of an armed clash with Chile over the Beagle Channel dispute. This experience allowed the Navy to adjust its equipment and obtain the necessary supplies to carry out a campaign in regions with harsh climates such as the Malvinas [74]. The North American naval specialist Robert Scheina agrees in commenting that “one of the lessons that the Argentine fleet learned during the tensions was its need for greater logistical capacity” [75]. Later, during the Malvinas experience, the logistical changes introduced after the 1978 mobilization worked adequately.

Conclusions 

Once the Malvinas War was over, different commentators highlighted the notable performance of the Argentine Marine Infantry units deployed in the Islands. The reasons for such performance, according to them, were the high degree of cohesion, the availability of a balanced supply of weapons and equipment, and the ability to prepare defensive positions. A more comprehensive analysis allows us to observe the presence of other characteristics that also contributed to the force carrying out outstanding work. These factors are: geographical location, concentration of resources, size, own logistical support and the conscript incorporation system. All these elements that we call structural are easily observable and facilitate the presence of the next level of factors, the organizational culture. At the same time, the mere presence of these factors does not guarantee outstanding performance but is supported by the notion of “professionalism.” Therefore, only when the factors are considered together do they help explain the behavior of the IMARA in combat. Thus, this research adds a rarely discussed dimension. It, more subtle and less visible, is present throughout the Navy's educational system and helps shape the spirit of the organization. In the case of IMARA, the organizational culture dimension includes the following elements: integration, leadership, discipline, initiative, planning, tenacity, foresight, and learning capacity.

It could be argued that these elements are common to the cultures of all military organizations and that this research is therefore superfluous. However, the Infantrymen as members of the Navy share these basic values and beliefs that were tested in combat and demonstrated notable performance during the campaign. Consequently, these values and beliefs can be considered valid components of the IMARA culture. This work does not mean to affirm that only the Marine Corps had outstanding behavior, as already noted, other Army units also had it. However, other research by the author seems to suggest that this behavior depended more on individuals, both officers and soldiers, than on the organization as a whole. [76]

This research also shows that as new troops joined, the Marine Corps was successful in instilling a “Marine pride” that appears to be a nearly universal trait of Marine forces around the world. According to an Argentine Infantryman “the Marines are the best troops that have ever existed in the history of our country and to this day” [77]. These words written in present times are similar to others written years earlier by a young United States Marine: “the spirit of the Marine Corps that I cannot explain (you feel it in your body and act according to it) is the reason why which ours is the largest combat organization in the world” [78]. Perhaps this last phrase is the one that best encapsulates the idea of organizational culture and the role it plays.

Finally, a Navy publication published shortly before the Malvinas conflict characterized the BIM 5 as a particularly cohesive unit, capable of “obtaining superlative achievements.” According to it, the causes that explain this condition are isolation, the geographical insularity of Río Grande, and the adverse conditions that prevail in the area. More importantly, the publication noted the presence of a special spirit that provides a “single and inflexible will... that drags and compels its men to give their best” [79]. This work is a first attempt to find an explanation for that spirit.



References 

[1] This is an improved version of the work presented at the XIVth Naval History Symposium, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, September 23-25, 1999. The author thanks Rear Admiral (ret.) Guillermo Delamer for his comments and the support provided during the research for the same, and Captain (ret.) Guillermo Montenegro for for their valuable comments and to the officers interviewed for having generously shared their experiences with the author. (New York: Brasseys,
[2] Nora Kinzer Stewart, Mates & Boys. Unit Cohesion in the Falklands/Malvinas War 1991). pp. 127-128.
[3] In addition to BIM 5, Stewart identifies as Argentine units that fought with distinction the 25th Infantry Regiment, the 601st and 602nd Commando Companies, the 7th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Artillery Group. p. 108.
[4] See, for example, Martin Middlebrook, The Fight for the Malvinas. The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War (London: Penguin Books, 1990) pp. 47-48; F. R. Aguiar et. al., Land Operations in the Malvinas Islands (Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar, 1985) pp. 33-34, 60-61, 103; and Carlos Augusto Landaburu, The Malvinas War (Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar, 1988) pp. 133.
[5] Disembarkation Separata No. 16 (1996), 14-15. CLIM (ret.) Carlos Büsser also mentions geographical proximity as one of the reasons that led to the decision to send BIM 5 to the islands (Emilio Villarino, Battalion 5. The Marine Infantry Battalion No. 5 in the Malvinas War (Buenos Aires: Aller Atucha, 1992), p. 9. The BIM 5 is the school unit specialized in cold areas, low mountain terrain and combat in the southern mountains. The VLIM (ret.) Julio Juan Bardi explained in a personal interview with the author that the fact that BIM 5 was prepared and ready was the product of the Navy's strategic vision. This highlighted the battalion in a maritime area (Personal interview, Buenos Aires, 10-08- 99).Vice Admiral Julio Juan Bardi was commander of the Marine Corps during the 70s.
[6] Battalion 5, 58. From the Front. Marine Infantry Battalion; Carlos H. Robacio and Jorge Hernández, Villarino, Battalion N° 5 (Buenos Aires: Solaris, 1996) pp. 250 and 258. On April 28, the Malvinas Military Garrison was organized into two sub commands, the Litoral Army Group and the Puerto Argentino Army Group. BIM 5 came under the command of the latter.
[7] Disembarkation, Separatas No. 10 (s/f), 14 (1995), No. 15 (1995), and No. 20 (1997).
[8] On the South Georgia Islands there was also a small detachment of Marines (70 men) (Landing). According to the Official Report of the Argentine Army No. 160, March 1997, pp. 41-42 the number of force personnel in the Malvinas reached 10,001 (t. 2, Annex 21) ().
[9] Villarino, pp. 64-65; Robacio and Hernández, Battalion 5, pp. 72, 118, 189.
[10] Ibid. 123; ibid. 19; Disembarkation from the Front, Separata No. 16 (1996), 20.
[11] The British first attacked Longdon, Two Sisters, and Harriet Mountains during the night of the 11th and 12th. On the night of the 13th and 14th they attacked Tumbledown, Williams, and Wireless Ridge Mountains.
[12] Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, The Battle for the Falklands (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983) pp. 301-303.
[13] Ibid. 303. According to Middlebrook, “the Argentinians lost Tumbledown after a determined and prolonged resistance that upset the English schedule (The Fight for the Malvinas, 262).
[14] Paul Eddy et al., The Falklands War, 253; Martin Middlebrook, Task Force. The Falklands War, 1982 (London: Penguin Books, Rev. ed. 1987) p. 366; Hastings and Jenkins, The Battle..., 303.
[15]Harry G. Summers Jr., “Yomping to Port Stantley,” Military Review LXIV (3) March 1984, p. 14.
[16] Stewart, Mates & Boys, p. 104.
[17] N. Vaux, March to the South Atlantic: 42 Commando Royal Marines in the Falklands War (London: Buchan and Enright, 1986) p. 206-07 cited in ibid. p. 105; Villarino, Battalion 5, p. 201. As a sign of recognition the British allowed the Infantrymen to keep their personal weapons for a short time.
[18] Middlebrook, The Fight for the Malvinas, pp. 254-55.
[19] Eugenio Dalton and Martin Balza, “The Battle of Puerto Argentino” in Land Operations in the Malvinas Islands (Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar), p. 203.
[20] Rattenbach Commission, Rattenbach Report. The Drama of Malvinas (Buenos Aires: Espartaco, 1988), p. 236.
[21] However, an IMARA officer present during the conflict told the author that the unit was not able to operate at one hundred percent of its capacity due to the extreme fatigue of his men due to lack of sleep due to the intense bombing. They were subdued for many days. This observation seems to be supported by the statement of a British intelligence officer: “The Marines coped well with the hostile conditions. However, rain, rest and recovery were rare” (Nicholas van der Bijl: Nine Battles to Stantley, Leo Cooper: 1999. p. 189). For an evaluation of the performance of the other IMARA units see Horacio A. Mayorga, No Expired. Accounts of naval operations in the South Atlantic conflict (Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1998), pp. 458-462, 463-471, 495, 501-02, and Desembarco Separatas Nos. 10 (sf), 14 (1995), 15 (1995), 16 (1996), 20 (1997).
[22] John G. Fowler, Jr.: “Combat Cohesion in Vietnam,” Military Review, December 1979, p. 26. On the topic specifically referring to the Malvinas conflict, see Stewart, Mates & Muchachos... op. cit.
[23] Martin van Creveld: Fighting Power. German and U.S. Army performance, 1939-1945 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1982) p. 4. See also Omer Bartov: Hitler's Army. Soldiers, Nazis and War in the Third Reich (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 1992) and Stephen Fritz: Frontsoldaten. The German Soldier in the World War II (Lexington, Ky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995).
[24] Allan Millett and Williamson Murray (eds.), Military Effectiveness Vol. I, Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989, p. 19. Another similar definition may be that of “combat power,” which according to military historian Martín van Creveld is “the sum of all the mental qualities that make an army fight.” (Fighting Power. German and U.S. Army performance, 1939-1945. p. 3)
[25] Jeremy Black: “Military Organization and Military Change in Historical Perspective.” Journal of Military History 62 (4) October 1998, p. 884.
[26] According to North American historian Elisabeth Kier, “military organizations develop strong cultures due to their long-term membership and powerful assimilation mechanisms.” (Imagining War. French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997, p. 28).
[27] Steven J. Ott, The Organizational Culture Perspective, (Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1989) p. fifty.
[28] Kier, Imagining War, p. 28.
[29] Henry Mintzberg: “The structuring of organizations” p. 372.
[30] According to Schein, organizational culture is, among other things, a pattern of basic assumptions that “have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be transmitted to new members as the correct way of perceive, think, and feel in relation to problems.” (Edgard H. Schein, 25 (2) 1984, p. 3). “Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture”, Sloan Management Review
[31] Kier, Imagining War, p. 31.
[32] See Harrison Trice and Janice Beyer: The Cultures of Work Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. pp. 8-10.
[33] Craig M. Cameron, American Samurai. Myth, Imagination, and the Conduct of Battle in the First Marine Division, 1941-1951 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994) p. 196.
[34] This ability is more notable given that the Marine Corps' primary mission is to attack positions and not the static defense of the front.
[35] Personal interview with Captain IM (ret.) Jorge Errecaborde (07-21-1999). Captain Errecaborde collaborated with the Commission for Analysis of Combat Actions in the Malvinas Conflict, and since 1987 he has been Head of the Malvinas Office of the Marine Corps Command.
[36] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999) and with a high-ranking officer who requested to remain anonymous (07-17-1999). Geographic isolation also helps to explain the traditional predisposition of BIM 5 to training and professional development (Jorge A. Errecaborde, Anecdotario de la Infantería de Marina de la Armada Argentina Buenos Aires: Instituto de Publicaciones Navales, 1997. p. 179).
[37] Argentine Navy, Marine Infantry. Three Centuries of History and One Hundred Years of Organic Life. 1879-November 19-1979, Buenos Aires, 1979. p. 122.
[38] Ibid. p. 134.
[39] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999). See also Errecaborde, “Reflections”, 32 (5); personal interviews with Bardi (08-10-1999) and Baffico (08-20-1999).
[40] Errecaborde, “Reflections”, 42-42. At the same time, the Army had a total of 125,000 troops (The International Institute for Strategic Studies, IISS, Military Balance, 1982-1983, London, 1983, p. 99)
[41] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999). See also Errecaborde, “Reflections”, pp. 37-38 (6. Logistics).
[42] Interview with Baffico (08-20-1999).
[43] Robacio and Hernández, From the Front, p. 14; Villarino, Battalion 5, p. twenty-one.
[44] Interview with Bardi (08-10-1999).
[45] See above commentary on the Rattenbach Report. In a recently published book, General Martín Balza, who commanded Artillery Group 3 deployed during the conflict on the islands, points out the following: “the English say that in Tumbledown they faced an elite Marine Infantry Battalion. I attest to his professionalism”, Buenos Aires: Editorial Atlántica, 2003, p. 175)(Malvinas. Deed and incompetence
[46] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[47] The contrast with the Army is stark. The Arms within it remained strongly separated and a very competitive spirit was created among its members, it can be described as “tribal”. In those years, Army cadets took classes in separate classrooms according to the Arm to which they belonged (infantry, cavalry, artillery, communications, engineers and quartermasters). Each one had its block separate from the others. Once graduated, the young second lieutenants were assigned to the units of their specialization and then to the Arms' own schools.
[48] According to Olmedo, “Brigade-wide exercises begin every October...This is a system operating as a whole. In this way, the Brigade is accustomed to operating together in long campaigns” (Interview 07-20-1999).
[49] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[50] To achieve such a degree of efficiency “you need to be highly trained” (ibid.. See also Jorge Errecaborde, “Reflections 15 years after the feat,” Desembarco XLI No. 160, 1997, p. 36). The account of the operations of the Marine Corps artillery is found in Desembarco, Separatas N° 16 (1996) 58-66 and N°, 124-25.
[51] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, 84-85; Mayorga, Not Expired, 463-471. 17 (1996), pp. 162-64; Villarino, Battalion 5
[52] Interviews with Olmedo (07-20-1999); Bardi (08-10-1999) and Baffico (08-20-1999). CF Baffico commented that “in the Navy we continually work with other arms, there was integration, especially with naval aviation.”
[53] Interview with a naval officer who asked to remain anonymous (Buenos Aires, 07-17-1999).
[54] Cameron, The American Samurai, pp. 222-23.
[55] Personal interview with Baffico (08-20-1999).
[56] idem. This statement contrasts with that of British journalists Hasting and Jenkins who maintain that when the war ended “many Argentine soldiers were bitterly critical of the lack of leadership shown by their officers on the battlefield...many officers withdrew from their positions. at the front as soon as the battle began" and cite the opinion of an Argentine stretcher-bearer conscript who stated that "when the soldiers found themselves alone, in the middle of the night, in total darkness, and sought the support of their superiors they did not “They were able to find them.” (The Battle for the Malvinas, pp. 296).
[57] Büsser in Villarino, Battalion 5, p. 16.
[58] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[59] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[60] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[61] Interview with Bardi (08-10-1999) and Olmedo (07-20-1999). This can be summarized in the phrase “short hair and a flat belly” (Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 168).
[62] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 168.
[63] Ibid. p. 127.
[64] Olmedo (07-20-1999). Some anecdotes about the inventiveness of the Infantes during their training are told in the Anecdotario, pp. 29-30, 38-.39 and, 40-41.
[65] CIFIM: Marine Corps Instruction and Training Center. The center was located in City Bell, Province of Buenos Aires.
[66] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[67] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, pp. 187-188. In the comments to this work, CN (ret.) Guillermo Montenegro confirmed that the Infantes are recognized as “fanatics” in terms of their attachment to planning in general (XIVth Naval History Symposium, Annapolis, United States, 09-14- 1999).
[68] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[69] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[70] Interview with Bardi (08-10-1999).
[71] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 41.
[72] Büsser in Villarino, Battalion 5, p. fifteen.
[73] Interviews with Olmedo (07-20-1999) and Bardi (08-10-1999).
[74] Interviews with Olmedo (07-20-1999) and Baffico (08-20-1999), and interview with Vice Admiral Máximo E. Rivero Kelly, Naval Center Bulletin N° 752/753, Buenos Aires, 1987, p. 100.
[75] Robert L. Scheina, Iberoamerica. A Naval History, 1810-1987 (Madrid: Ed. San Martin, s.f.) p. 200.
[76] Alejandro L. Corbacho: “Reassessing Fighting Performance of Conscripts Soldiers during the Malvinas/Falklands War (1982)” Paper presented at the Annual Congress for the Society for Military History 1998 Lisle Hilton, Lisle, IL. United States, April 24-26, 1998.
[77] Captain of the Frigate (IM) Jorge Saénz in Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 132.
[78] Letter to his parents from Second Lieutenant Richard C. Kennard (USMC), cited by Cameron, American Samurai, p. 156.
[79] Argentine Navy, Marine Infantry, pp. 133-134.