What's new

Battle of Goose Green, Falklands Campaign 1982 AD

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
19,295
Reaction score
387
Country
China
Location
Australia
Today battle : Battle of Goose Green, fought in Falklands Campaign, 1982

Today battle is an important battle toward modern warfare, many lesson learn from Battle of Goose Green, which also see as the first major battle fought by two peer/near peer enemy. Although Argentine force enjoy the number and proximity advantage, yet it was the British who had the final victory, not just at Goose Green, but also the whole campaign

And it all started here, for the ground campaign.

History of the Battle : Battle fought as part of Falklands war, which had been the focal point of England and Argentine for the last centuries, after the British Colonisation of America fail, Falklands become one of the last British settlement in the Americas continent. However on 1820, Argentine, under the United Provinces of South America, control the Islands

On 1834, British return to claim the island, and expel the Argentine/Spanish/American Contingent and govern the Island as part of a Naval Station in South Atlantic Ocean, and have been governing the Islands until even, today.

On April 2, 1982, The argentine again invaded the Island, after nearly 150 years of absent. This time by a Militarist Government recently took procession of the Argentinian Government. With 2000 troops, the Argentine troop quickly dispatched the 70 odd defender of the British defence of Falklands and restore the island under Argentine rule.

Battle of Goose Green is the first major battle between Britain and Argentina, after the landing of San Carlos. It also put the jump start of the British Reclaiming the Island.

Deposition of Force

Goose_Green_mapa1.png


The British Start the battle with 4 Company (coy) of 2nd Parachute Regiment (2PARA) with 1 heavy weapon company and C&C company, a total of about 700 men to begin the battle, they are formed into a battleline on top (Northerly Position) from Goose Green and Darwin

Argentina start the battle with comparable forces with a task force of their own Battalion (12 Infantry Regiment) with 2 Company from 25 Infantry Regiment in support, totalling about 800 men, also with about 200 air force personnel manning AA site and artillery site, totalling about 1,100 with assorted troop from the Defending Task Force.

With a handful of troop set up along Burnside house ( for the delay battle) and Boca House, the main position of the force are set in both Darwin hill and the Settlement on Goose Green itself.

Tactical Consideration

Tactical objective for Britain is simple, ram the PARA in and secure the airfield and settle of Goose Green. This battle, tactically does not coincides with the overall objective of the British plan, which is the liberation of Stanley, apart of both have a consideration of defeating Argentine Troop.

The use of 2PARA to attack goose green was believe to be either an diversionary engagement or a morale booster that have to carry on with latter battle.

Tactical objective for Argentine is even simpler, stay in Goose green and expel all invasion force, seeing goose green is a major settlement of the Western side of East Falklands, the argentine contingent have the common goal with the whole contingent in the Falklands AO, that is, to expel a British attack.

Tempo of the battle is on British side and the Time and all other consideration is stack against the British side, British initiate the first move.

Start of Battle : Battle start with A/2PARA attack Burnside hill with A/12IR fighting a delay action to consolidate the defence of the Darwin Hill.

Goose_Green_mapa1.png


While the Burnside hill is being taken by the men in A/2PARA, B, C and D Coy of 2 PARA move south with B on the left flank and C on the right flank toward Darwin hill, there, their advance were broken off by the combine defence of 8/12/25 Infantry Regiment. the 4 company put up a fighting line on top of the hill and overlooking the invading British Force.

Battle_of_Goose_Green.png


After approximately 7-8 hours of fighting, after the CAP called by B coy soften up the Boca house. Both B and D coy of 2PARA engage the Argentine on their extreme left flank and broke through.
While B Coy continue down and by pass the Airfield and D Coy took the airfield from the FAA (Argentine Air Force) A and C coy broke thru the Darwin hill because of the Argentine flank had been overrun. And move on to position and capture Darwin.

The dramatic end of the battle happened after B, C and D Coy of 2 Para converge on Goose green. Upon taking the school house and airfield. While A coy take Darwin. With the attack converge. The British send the argentine commander a cleverly worded Surrender notice in persuasion of Argentine surrender, with a show of force with airlifting 2 company from 42 Commando over to reinforce the 2PARA, the argentine surrendered on May 29. Thus ending the battle.

Tactical Error : While both side committed some tactical error, but in the end the "pre-mature" surrender of Argentine troop trump all the mistake made by both side and ending up a fatal clause of Argentina defeat.

British committed too little troop to capture goose green in the term get go. Starting the battle with 1 to 2 ratio against them. Which could be contributed to the error of info/intel gathering.
before the battle even fought, the British inserted some SAS element for early warning process, it is there they estimate the defence of Goose Green and airfield to be less than a battalion strength, from their OP across the Carcass bay. They could not technically see there are 2 reserve company deployed just further down of the airfield and they will come into play when the battle started.

British also underestimate their argentine counterpart fighting ability and their use of terrain. Indeed British have more familiar ground with the terrain than the Argentinian due to the fact they governed the island for 150 years before the invasion. But the fact that the 2 crest of Darwin hill are in the mutually supported cross fire section(Also know as killzone) overlook the whole incoming of the featureless land in both south and north of the hill. A frontal attack devised by Colonel H jones took little effect as hidden MG emplacement in these two crest reverse cover both side of the path and can constantly raking fire on either side of the Hill. It is not until Colonel jones was KIA they did try to divide and conquer the landscape, first by taking Boca house.

When one flank is fallen, then the line ceased to exist as an effective combat line and british troop can attack Argentinian force in any direction.

Argentina also committed a serious of tactical error before the big one. one obviously being unable to gain local air superiority due to the fact there are no naval superiority of the surrounding area. This allow the Royal navy flew sortie to provide CAP for their Troop while naval gun fire reduce the Boca House flank and eventually the let in of British B and C coy. If air superiority was establish as they should have, it will push the British Naval ship outward and put a halt on any CAP sortie. As well as Naval bombardment.

Another tactical error committed by Argentine force is that, at all time, the Argentine are out numbering the Brits 2 to 1. Yet they let the British lead them away. Should the Argentine force be a bit more proactive and engage the enemy before they come instead of fighting a generally defensive battle. They would have been able to break through either 1 side or both side of the British Attack. They should seize the chance when they bogged down the initial 2PARA frontal assault and roll down the hill and eliminate their enemy. This inactiveness also contribute the final decision of surrendering to a minor force.

In all, Argentine think they will be defeated before even the battle commence and their job is to just hold on as long as they could. With this in mind, argentine always will only countering the British move. If you think like you are going to be defeated, you will be defeated.
 
Much appreciated,this is one battle i have very little knowledge of.
 
Argentine response was very passive,ur observation is spot on.They allowed british to neutralize their killzones[especially the ones between boca house and darwin]without any attempt at counterattack with reserves.The south american militaries[the dicatatorial ones] are a lot similar to arabs in that they mostly support on suppressing internal dissent and keeping their dictators in power rather than plan for conventional battle.The argentine air force performed much better than the hapless navy and army.

I'll be eagerly waiting when u start any battles on the napoleonic wars.my favourite era.:)
 
Argentine response was very passive,ur observation is spot on.They allowed british to neutralize their killzones[especially the ones between boca house and darwin]without any attempt at counterattack with reserves.The south american militaries[the dicatatorial ones] are a lot similar to arabs in that they mostly support on suppressing internal dissent and keeping their dictators in power rather than plan for conventional battle.The argentine air force performed much better than the hapless navy and army.

I'll be eagerly waiting when u start any battles on the napoleonic wars.my favourite era.:)

Yeah, which I consider the argentine is pretty much "Strange".

Their force were almost always static and from the moment the Brits land at San Carlos, there are virtually no Argentine interdiction on British Force up to Stanley. Another things I think it's strange is there seems like the FAA are more interesting in sinking British Ship than protect the ground troop. When I read the action report, I think I find maybe about 8 or 10 sortie of CAP flown by FAA, even with only 2 carriers and 34 Harriers (Some were eventually lost) the Brits managed to launch above 50 sorties.....

You are talking about a far away force vs HOME FORCE situation here, which mean the 34 harrier were up against 128 FAA fighter in 18 airbase, yet the argentine only focus on the RN Ship.

I don't really think argentine were thinking of winning from the get go, but that would be another strange things as if you don't want to win, why you invade the Falklands??

Dictator or not, conscript or not, the Argie fight as if they weren't even attended infantry school before......Which I think is one of the major problem.

I will try to find some map of some napoleonic wars, then we can discuss the hack out of it :)
 
Yeah, which I consider the argentine is pretty much "Strange".

Their force were almost always static and from the moment the Brits land at San Carlos, there are virtually no Argentine interdiction on British Force up to Stanley. Another things I think it's strange is there seems like the FAA are more interesting in sinking British Ship than protect the ground troop. When I read the action report, I think I find maybe about 8 or 10 sortie of CAP flown by FAA, even with only 2 carriers and 34 Harriers (Some were eventually lost) the Brits managed to launch above 50 sorties.....

You are talking about a far away force vs HOME FORCE situation here, which mean the 34 harrier were up against 128 FAA fighter in 18 airbase, yet the argentine only focus on the RN Ship.

I don't really think argentine were thinking of winning from the get go, but that would be another strange things as if you don't want to win, why you invade the Falklands??

Dictator or not, conscript or not, the Argie fight as if they weren't even attended infantry school before......Which I think is one of the major problem.

I will try to find some map of some napoleonic wars, then we can discuss the hack out of it :)

I found enormous help on military history from this site.
Osprey Publishing - Military History Books - Campaign
Superb books,check out the campaign series .Most are available for download online or torrent.
Osprey campaign - free search & download - 1833 files
Especially ************ link.
Another epic site.
http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-animations
And another i found.
http://iactaaleaest.wordpress.com/
 
Yeah, which I consider the argentine is pretty much "Strange".

Their force were almost always static and from the moment the Brits land at San Carlos, there are virtually no Argentine interdiction on British Force up to Stanley. Another things I think it's strange is there seems like the FAA are more interesting in sinking British Ship than protect the ground troop. When I read the action report, I think I find maybe about 8 or 10 sortie of CAP flown by FAA, even with only 2 carriers and 34 Harriers (Some were eventually lost) the Brits managed to launch above 50 sorties.....

You are talking about a far away force vs HOME FORCE situation here, which mean the 34 harrier were up against 128 FAA fighter in 18 airbase, yet the argentine only focus on the RN Ship.

I don't really think argentine were thinking of winning from the get go, but that would be another strange things as if you don't want to win, why you invade the Falklands??

Dictator or not, conscript or not, the Argie fight as if they weren't even attended infantry school before......Which I think is one of the major problem.

I will try to find some map of some napoleonic wars, then we can discuss the hack out of it :)

Without firm belief in the cause, motivation, indoctrination and morale, no army or no man will fight on. Another factor here is the esprit de corpse which was totally absent in the Argentine units. On the other hand the Gurkhas and SAS have developed this over years. 
Argentine response was very passive,ur observation is spot on.They allowed british to neutralize their killzones[especially the ones between boca house and darwin]without any attempt at counterattack with reserves.The south american militaries[the dicatatorial ones] are a lot similar to arabs in that they mostly support on suppressing internal dissent and keeping their dictators in power rather than plan for conventional battle.The argentine air force performed much better than the hapless navy and army.

I'll be eagerly waiting when u start any battles on the napoleonic wars.my favourite era.:)


Perhaps the Napoleonic wars and our 1857 Revolt were the last in the middle-ages warfare. The American Civil War truly ushered in the advent of modern warfare.
 
Last edited:
Without firm belief in the cause, motivation, indoctrination and morale, no army or no man will fight on. Another factor here is the esprit de corpse which was totally absent in the Argentine units. On the other hand the Gurkhas and SAS have developed this over years. 



Perhaps the Napoleonic wars and our 1857 Revolt were the last in the middle-ages warfare. The American Civil War truly ushered in the advent of modern warfare.

Middle ages traditional end is taken 1453 fall of constantinople to gunpowder,but in a true sense the french revolution and beginning of the 'nation in arms' concept-birth of the nation state and collpase of monarchies,coinciding with infantry and artillery eclipsing cavalry.
 
Without firm belief in the cause, motivation, indoctrination and morale, no army or no man will fight on. Another factor here is the esprit de corpse which was totally absent in the Argentine units. On the other hand the Gurkhas and SAS have developed this over years. 



Perhaps the Napoleonic wars and our 1857 Revolt were the last in the middle-ages warfare. The American Civil War truly ushered in the advent of modern warfare.

Indeed, and you know what is worse?? When You get a Draftee officer.

Over the course of history, there are numerous personal detail of glory coming out from a draftee, however, when you have a directionaless and non-motivated commander, this is what ends your day.

The extensive use of Draftee including junior officer is a dead spot for the Argentine, junior officer should be serve as an motivation to the troop, while the senior NCO serve as the brain, without a competent officer, you lose 8 out of your 9 writs.

Middle ages traditional end is taken 1453 fall of constantinople to gunpowder,but in a true sense the french revolution and beginning of the 'nation in arms' concept-birth of the nation state and collpase of monarchies,coinciding with infantry and artillery eclipsing cavalry.

I am probably one of those old fashioned Infantry officer (I know of the irony) i think the face of warfare have never really changed. What changed is the speed and felocity of war.

the problem with time is, we get better killing each other. But we learn nothing in the process. In prehistoric war where people fight in one dimension - Pure Infantry engagement, then you have a 2 dimension warfare where you started to learn the meaning of combine warfare where you use your ship to support your infantry. And finally you get to a point when war was fought in 3 dimension, you got your air support and you got your naval support, joint operation. But all those are only a tool to help you along, war never change, in order to win a war, small unit tactic is still reign supreme, it is never how many battleship you got supporting you that count but in the end of the day, it no matter if you fought in 12th century or 21st century, it's boots on the ground that count..
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom