Britain/Germany in WW2 vs. Britain/Argentina during the Falkland War: Which was more evenly matched?

More evenly matched conflict?

  • Britain/Germany in WW2

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Britain/Argentina in Falkland

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,559
Stockport Cheshire UK
#2
In WW2 the British and Germans were completely mismatched, the Germans had a massive army, while the British had a tiny army, and at sea the British were the ones with a massive fleet, while it was the Germans who had a tiny fleet
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,939
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#3
Considering that in occasion of the war of the Falkland it was a local conflict, not a total conflict [UK didn't declare war on Argentina], and well near to one of the contender, its development was particular. Sure the Royal Navy didn't show to be totally dominant. It's out of doubt that submarines and Harrier jets made the difference, while surface units showed all the limits of the Navies in the 80's ... groups of floating big targets for the Air Force ...

In any case Argentina wasn't in condition to keep those isles against UK [even if UK losses were heavier than expected].
 
Dec 2014
380
Wales
#4
Britain/Germany was a total war with both nations operating near their bases of power enabling them to bring all of that power to bear. As Redcoat says, one was almost certainly the premier army of it's day, the other the largest naval power, so sort of chalk and cheese.

Britain/Argentina wasn't a war at all - no declaration of war by either side, neither side made any sort of attack on the enemies home territory, instead only conducting limited operations in an area around the Falklands. Britain was quite literally operating on the other side of the world, with it's nearest base being almost 4,000 miles from the combat area, while the islands were within air cover range of the Argentine homeland.

You can't really compare the two wars as far as combat goes, since the two situations were completely different. As far as overall military power goes - nukes anyone?
 
Aug 2010
15,223
Welsh Marches
#5
I must disagree with the idea that Argentina could not have repelled the British task force, it is only with hindsight that the outcome looks inevitable; all it would have taken would have been the sinking of two or three more British ships, which was quite possible in the circumstances. I knew quite a few people who served as officers in the conflict and and they all regarded the expedition as a very difficult one involving high risk. If Theresa May had been PM at the time she would have assumed a more sensible attitude and negotiated a deal that effectively ceded the islands to Argentina with a few facesavers!
 
Nov 2010
7,325
Cornwall
#6
I must disagree with the idea that Argentina could not have repelled the British task force, it is only with hindsight that the outcome looks inevitable; all it would have taken would have been the sinking of two or three more British ships, which was quite possible in the circumstances. I knew quite a few people who served as officers in the conflict and and they all regarded the expedition as a very difficult one involving high risk. If Theresa May had been PM at the time she would have assumed a more sensible attitude and negotiated a deal that effectively ceded the islands to Argentina with a few facesavers!
I'm sure you are right :)

Mrs M seems to be trying to promote a Thatcher-esque attitude which, despite her best efforts, in never going to work!

But whilst the OP is fairly ridiculous, I do well remember the Falklands War. It wasn't Britain against Argentina, it was Argentina agaisnt 'what power Britain could project to the South Atlantic' and also living within bizarre rules. Such as the whole world throwing it's hands up in horror whilst the SAS destroyed Super Etendards on the ground in Argentina. with a little help from general Pinochet of course. Heaven forbid we should sink a warship - despite what was happening to British ones

The Losses of the Sheffield, the Atlantic Conveyor and the Coventry, then the landings at San Carlos water, made it hit home and it all seemed very touch and go. Once the British troops were on the islands - note it was paras, guards, gurkas, marines (funny that!) - then it was all very one-sided
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,876
Wirral
#7
I must disagree with the idea that Argentina could not have repelled the British task force, it is only with hindsight that the outcome looks inevitable; all it would have taken would have been the sinking of two or three more British ships, which was quite possible in the circumstances. I knew quite a few people who served as officers in the conflict and and they all regarded the expedition as a very difficult one involving high risk. If Theresa May had been PM at the time she would have assumed a more sensible attitude and negotiated a deal that effectively ceded the islands to Argentina with a few facesavers!
Yes, the public didn’t know at the time but reading about it now, it was a close run thing. Could have been different if the Argentinians had fused their bombs differently. We’d never have done it but I always think we’d be better off giving the Falklanders a million pounds each and resettling them in the Scottish Highlands.
 
Dec 2014
380
Wales
#8
It wasn't Britain against Argentina, it was Argentina agaisnt 'what power Britain could project to the South Atlantic' and also living within bizarre rules.
Which is my point - does anyone think for one second that if Britain had possessed Nuclear weapons in the Autumn of 1940 they would have hesitated for one second to use them against Germany? No, it was a war to the death and everything would be used.

In the Falklands it was what power could be projected half way around the world against an enemy with very respectable weapons systems and military power, but with very strict limits to the sort and amount of British military power that could be used. At no point did anyone suggest bombing civilian targets, invading mainland Argentina or using Nukes for instance. Under these circumstances it's impossible to compare the two conflicts.
 
Aug 2010
15,223
Welsh Marches
#10
Apart from anything else I think there diplomatic reasons for that, the UK was receiving vital if discreet support from the USA which didn't want to mess up its relations with Latin America.