Operation Soberanía 1978 and the attack towards Santiago

[James G]

Long before the Falklands, Argentina's junta almost took their country to war over some other tiny islands at the bottom of the world. There was a dispute with Chile over islands at the eastern end of the Beagle Channel. Operation Soberanía started but then stopped within hours as Argentina forces moved forward ahead of being recalled before shots were fired.

I've read before about Argentine war plans down near the Beagle Channel though have now discovered that it was to be bigger than that. Not only were they going to go after Punta Arenas in the Magallenes area but they also intended to go throw the Andes towards Santiago and onto the Pacific coastline. This big offensive towards the Chilean capital and then the sea was key to the plan. Major casualties were expected especially as the Chileans weren't about to be surprised by war, even if not expecting that move.

What would be the costs in terms of lives with this? Could Argentina succeed? How does the rest of the world react to what is sure to be a bloody, full-scale war?

[lordroel]

Jul 24, 2020 19:18:03 GMT James G said:

Long before the Falklands, Argentina's junta almost took their country to war over some other tiny islands at the bottom of the world. There was a dispute with Chile over islands at the eastern end of the Beagle Channel. Operation Soberanía started but then stopped within hours as Argentina forces moved forward ahead of being recalled before shots were fired.

I've read before about Argentine war plans down near the Beagle Channel though have now discovered that it was to be bigger than that. Not only were they going to go after Punta Arenas in the Magallenes area but they also intended to go throw the Andes towards Santiago and onto the Pacific coastline. This big offensive towards the Chilean capital and then the sea was key to the plan. Major casualties were expected especially as the Chileans weren't about to be surprised by war, even if not expecting that move.

What would be the costs in terms of lives with this? Could Argentina succeed? How does the rest of the world react to what is sure to be a bloody, full-scale war?

Going by a statement made in the Operation Soberanía Wikipedia page

These Chilean advantages do not imply that it could have won the war against Argentina, but that is not the relevant point. To deter their neighbors the Chileans do not have to demonstrate a capability to win. They need, instead, to make a credible case that a military adventure against Chile would not be cheap. In 1978, the Argentine Junta could not be very confident that war would produce a low-cost victory against Chile.

[stevep]

Jul 24, 2020 19:24:19 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 24, 2020 19:18:03 GMT James G said:

Long before the Falklands, Argentina's junta almost took their country to war over some other tiny islands at the bottom of the world. There was a dispute with Chile over islands at the eastern end of the Beagle Channel. Operation Soberanía started but then stopped within hours as Argentina forces moved forward ahead of being recalled before shots were fired.

I've read before about Argentine war plans down near the Beagle Channel though have now discovered that it was to be bigger than that. Not only were they going to go after Punta Arenas in the Magallenes area but they also intended to go throw the Andes towards Santiago and onto the Pacific coastline. This big offensive towards the Chilean capital and then the sea was key to the plan. Major casualties were expected especially as the Chileans weren't about to be surprised by war, even if not expecting that move.

What would be the costs in terms of lives with this? Could Argentina succeed? How does the rest of the world react to what is sure to be a bloody, full-scale war?

Going by a statement made in the Operation Soberanía Wikipedia page

These Chilean advantages do not imply that it could have won the war against Argentina, but that is not the relevant point. To deter their neighbors the Chileans do not have to demonstrate a capability to win. They need, instead, to make a credible case that a military adventure against Chile would not be cheap. In 1978, the Argentine Junta could not be very confident that war would produce a low-cost victory against Chile.

  I would agree with Lordroel.  Unless the Chileans get caught largely by surprise its going to be very difficult to see Santiago fall or probably getting that near to it at all given the Andes being in the way, which is likely to seriously constrict Argentinean lines of attack.  Although possibly they can use the shock from that diverting Chilean forces northwards to seize the disputed regions in the south.  A lot would depend on the relevant air and naval clashes in the region.  In which case could Chile get them back without outside support?

  In this case, since both are military dictatorships supported by Washington - and the Chilean one in large part put in place by the US - I think Reagan with dither a bit then come down on Chile's side.  Its too dangerous to support an attacker, especially when its so blatant.  Also with both sides being Latin American you wouldn't get the racial bias that meant a lot of the region supported Argentina as happened in the Falkland's conflict.  Plus I think several nations, especially probably Brazil and possibly more quietly Uruguay and Paraguay would want to see Argentina taken down a peg and definitely not see them succeed.

  The issue might be, especially if Argentina made gains in the south, is Reagan willing to threat use of force - and if necessary back it up - to make Argentina return any gains?

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jul 25, 2020 10:58:02 GMT stevep said:

Jul 24, 2020 19:24:19 GMT lordroel said:

Going by a statement made in the Operation Soberanía Wikipedia page

These Chilean advantages do not imply that it could have won the war against Argentina, but that is not the relevant point. To deter their neighbors the Chileans do not have to demonstrate a capability to win. They need, instead, to make a credible case that a military adventure against Chile would not be cheap. In 1978, the Argentine Junta could not be very confident that war would produce a low-cost victory against Chile.

  I would agree with Lordroel.  Unless the Chileans get caught largely by surprise its going to be very difficult to see Santiago fall or probably getting that near to it at all given the Andes being in the way, which is likely to seriously constrict Argentinean lines of attack.  Although possibly they can use the shock from that diverting Chilean forces northwards to seize the disputed regions in the south.  A lot would depend on the relevant air and naval clashes in the region.  In which case could Chile get them back without outside support?

  In this case, since both are military dictatorships supported by Washington - and the Chilean one in large part put in place by the US - I think Reagan with dither a bit then come down on Chile's side.  Its too dangerous to support an attacker, especially when its so blatant.  Also with both sides being Latin American you wouldn't get the racial bias that meant a lot of the region supported Argentina as happened in the Falkland's conflict.  Plus I think several nations, especially probably Brazil and possibly more quietly Uruguay and Paraguay would want to see Argentina taken down a peg and definitely not see them succeed.

  The issue might be, especially if Argentina made gains in the south, is Reagan willing to threat use of force - and if necessary back it up - to make Argentina return any gains?

  Steve

Did some digging, found these nice pictures of what both Chili and Argentina had in 1978 in air power and tanks.

Chile and Argentina air power 1978

The Argentine Air Force was the absolute air power in South America. +100 jet aircraft, state of the art French Mirages, a lot of US A-4’s and others. Meanwhile Chile had light jet trainers with marginal attack capability and prop fighters. Only 30 Hawker Hunters, grounded because the British embargo against the Pinochet dictatorship.



Tanks in service with Argentina in 1978



Tanks in service with Chile in 1978



And here is a CIA document about how they saw a conflict and who might win.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

   Ouch that is nasty for Chile.  Especially with those Hunters grounded by the embargo their outnumbered about 2-1 and many of their other a/c look more like trainers or converted civilian a/c. 

  Plus the comment about Bolivia reminds me about the outstanding dispute over Chile's northern provinces, taken from Bolivia and Peru in the late 19thC.  If Argentina was looking successful its possibly they might seek to gain a quick revenge and an easy victory.  At the least its something that Chile might have to think about which could tie down forces in the north to try and protect against such an action.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jul 25, 2020 11:19:11 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

   Ouch that is nasty for Chile.  Especially with those Hunters grounded by the embargo their outnumbered about 2-1 and many of their other a/c look more like trainers or converted civilian a/c. 

  Plus the comment about Bolivia reminds me about the outstanding dispute over Chile's northern provinces, taken from Bolivia and Peru in the late 19thC.  If Argentina was looking successful its possibly they might seek to gain a quick revenge and an easy victory.  At the least its something that Chile might have to think about which could tie down forces in the north to try and protect against such an action.

  Steve

True Any Argentina operation would weaken north Chilean defenses and leave them open for a Peruvian ore Bolivian attack, especially Bolivia who would want revenge for losing its coast line to Chile in the War of the Pacific.



It seems that Argentine military planners estimated that they would only have 7 days to attain their objectives. In light of the then-recent Arab-Israli wars, the UN Security Council was expected to intervene; however, Argentina could count on Soviet support as surprisingly enough, the Soviet Union was the main trade partner in cereals of the far-right Catholic Military Junta and they would delay any UN intervention for about 7 days.

The Chileans themselves were backed by China at the Security Council and the US would not have allowed the conflict to escalate into a continental one, with both sides bringing their South American allies to bear.

[ukron]

Thanks James G,
very interesting

[James G]

Jul 25, 2020 10:58:02 GMT stevep said:

Jul 24, 2020 19:24:19 GMT lordroel said:

Going by a statement made in the Operation Soberanía Wikipedia page

These Chilean advantages do not imply that it could have won the war against Argentina, but that is not the relevant point. To deter their neighbors the Chileans do not have to demonstrate a capability to win. They need, instead, to make a credible case that a military adventure against Chile would not be cheap. In 1978, the Argentine Junta could not be very confident that war would produce a low-cost victory against Chile.

  I would agree with Lordroel.  Unless the Chileans get caught largely by surprise its going to be very difficult to see Santiago fall or probably getting that near to it at all given the Andes being in the way, which is likely to seriously constrict Argentinean lines of attack.  Although possibly they can use the shock from that diverting Chilean forces northwards to seize the disputed regions in the south.  A lot would depend on the relevant air and naval clashes in the region.  In which case could Chile get them back without outside support?

  In this case, since both are military dictatorships supported by Washington - and the Chilean one in large part put in place by the US - I think Reagan with dither a bit then come down on Chile's side.  Its too dangerous to support an attacker, especially when its so blatant.  Also with both sides being Latin American you wouldn't get the racial bias that meant a lot of the region supported Argentina as happened in the Falkland's conflict.  Plus I think several nations, especially probably Brazil and possibly more quietly Uruguay and Paraguay would want to see Argentina taken down a peg and definitely not see them succeed.

  The issue might be, especially if Argentina made gains in the south, is Reagan willing to threat use of force - and if necessary back it up - to make Argentina return any gains?

  Steve

There are mountain passes which the Argentines planned to go through and Santiago is closer to the border than the sea... but, it would be very difficult to get there.
This is 1978 so it is Carter in the White House. Neither regime in Santiago nor BA was liked by Carter at all due to the human rights abuses. Lordroel's map below shows how fearful the Argentines were of Brazilian intervention against them especially.

[James G]

Jul 25, 2020 12:21:42 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 25, 2020 11:19:11 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

   Ouch that is nasty for Chile.  Especially with those Hunters grounded by the embargo their outnumbered about 2-1 and many of their other a/c look more like trainers or converted civilian a/c. 

  Plus the comment about Bolivia reminds me about the outstanding dispute over Chile's northern provinces, taken from Bolivia and Peru in the late 19thC.  If Argentina was looking successful its possibly they might seek to gain a quick revenge and an easy victory.  At the least its something that Chile might have to think about which could tie down forces in the north to try and protect against such an action.

  Steve

True Any Argentina operation would weaken north Chilean defenses and leave them open for a Peruvian ore Bolivian attack, especially Bolivia who would want revenge for losing its coast line to Chile in the War of the Pacific.



It seems that Argentine military planners estimated that they would only have 7 days to attain their objectives. In light of the then-recent Arab-Israli wars, the UN Security Council was expected to intervene; however, Argentina could count on Soviet support as surprisingly enough, the Soviet Union was the main trade partner in cereals of the far-right Catholic Military Junta and they would delay any UN intervention for about 7 days.

The Chileans themselves were backed by China at the Security Council and the US would not have allowed the conflict to escalate into a continental one, with both sides bringing their South American allies to bear.

Great map. Puts many things into perspective.

[lordroel]

Jul 25, 2020 12:36:34 GMT James G said:

Jul 25, 2020 12:21:42 GMT lordroel said:

True Any Argentina operation would weaken north Chilean defenses and leave them open for a Peruvian ore Bolivian attack, especially Bolivia who would want revenge for losing its coast line to Chile in the War of the Pacific.



It seems that Argentine military planners estimated that they would only have 7 days to attain their objectives. In light of the then-recent Arab-Israli wars, the UN Security Council was expected to intervene; however, Argentina could count on Soviet support as surprisingly enough, the Soviet Union was the main trade partner in cereals of the far-right Catholic Military Junta and they would delay any UN intervention for about 7 days.

The Chileans themselves were backed by China at the Security Council and the US would not have allowed the conflict to escalate into a continental one, with both sides bringing their South American allies to bear.

Great map. Puts many things into perspective.

[/a] you get a lot of detail on what Argentina plan where:

The Argentine Government planned to first occupy the islands around Cape Horn and then, in a second phase, either to stop or continue hostilities according to the Chilean reaction. Argentina had already drafted a declaration of war. An Argentine complaint in the UN Security Council over Chile's military occupation of the disputed islands was to precede the attack.

The Argentines planned amphibious landings to seize the islands southwards of the Beagle Channel, along with massive land-based attacks:

1. at 20:00 on 22 December 1978 a task force of the Argentine Navy and the Argentine Marines ( Batallón N° 5 ) under the command of Humberto José Barbuzzi would seize the islands Horn, Freycinet, Hershell, Deceit and Wollaston.

2. at 22:00 on 22 December 1978 the Argentine task force (with Batallones N° 3 und N° 4 of the Naval Infantry) would seize Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands and secure for the navy the east mouth of the Beagle Channel.

3. at 24:00 on 22 December 1978 the invasion of continental Chile would begin. The Fifth Army Corps under command of José Antonio Vaquero would seize Punta Arenas and Puerto Natales, the largest two cities of the Chilean Magallanes Region.

4. at daylight 23 December 1978 the Argentine Air Force would begin attacks against Chilean Air Force.

5. Later, Third Army Corps under the command of Luciano Benjamín Menéndez would start an offensive through the Andean passes of "Libertadores", "Maipo" and "Puyehue" (today Cardenal Samore Pass) to seize Santiago, Valparaíso and the Los Lagos Region.



The Second Army Corps under the command of Leopoldo Galtieri would protect the north of Argentina from a potential Brazilian attack and its II Brigada de Caballería blindada would protect the Argentine region of Río Mayo in Chubut Province from a possible Chilean attack.

The Argentine Armed Forces expected between 30,000 and 50,000 dead in the course of the war.

Argentina solicited a Peruvian attack in Chile's north, but Peru rejected this demand and ordered only a partial mobilization.
[/ul][/ul]

[ukron]

What do you think about a Soviet Response to Operation Soberan?

[lordroel]

Jul 30, 2020 14:16:40 GMT ukron said:

What do you think about a Soviet Response to Operation Soberan?

As mentioned here by me, the Soviet would do its best to keep any UN Security Council responds delayed for 7 days, also in the Falklands War the soviet Union offered Argentina military support but the Argentina's feared the United states responds so it never happened.

[James G]

I cannot see any meaningful Soviet reaction. Two anti communist powers on the far side of the world fighting where there are no Soviet interests.

[lordroel]

Jul 30, 2020 14:41:07 GMT James G said:

I cannot see any meaningful Soviet reaction. Two anti communist powers on the far side of the world fighting where there are no Soviet interests.

Would be the same in 1978: Moscow and Falklands' war: “ironically the Soviet Union came on the side of anti communist Argentina”