Why did the British win the Falklands war? They had to sail 8,000 miles to make an opposed
amphibious assault when they were outnumbered and lacked air superiority. Their Navy and Air
Force played a vital role but it was the Army which had to assault the islands and then fight across
50 miles of inhospitable terrain on foot. What kept the British troops going and conversely, why
did the Argentinian defense crumble? I believe the answer lies in the history and basic
organization of the two armies. What follows is a brief comparison of the Regimental and
Continental systems.
The British Regimental System encourages its members to think of themselves as a family rather than a strictly functional organization. The officers are generally concerned about the welfare of the soldiers. There is an open organizational climate and more responsibility is placed on the Non commissioned officers (NCO's). Each member has shared the arduous training process and trusts and respects each other. The Argentinean organization, based on the Continental system, placed the majority of responsibility with the officers. The Senior NCO's were mainly concerned with administration of the men. The Argentineans culture does emphasises the concept of masculinity (machismo) but many feel that they should be lovers not fighters(Stewart, 1988:81). Many of their units fought well initially and their Air Force showed particular valour in their attacks at San Carlos. Their soldiers are especially patriotic. What they were lacking in was in military tradition. Argentina had not been involved in a war in over a hundred years.
Some researchers such as J.F. Guilmartin feel that the regimental system was one of, if not the most important factor in the British victory in the Falklands. He stated that:
"The Regimental system works....the British regimental system has....in modern times..produce(d)
troops who would stand and fight, generally with considerable competence and after with
uncommon valour. This is generally attributed the system's ability to develop and maintain unit
cohesion through effective socialization of the primary military group... The soldiers is bonded to
his regiment...because the regiment supports, nurtures and protects him in real and concrete
ways." (Stewart 1988:34)
The Argentineans have adopted a version of the continental (Industrial) system. They received a great deal of military aid and training from the United States and they also have exchange officers with the German Army.
The Continental system is most effective in countries that have a large Armed Forces with a large percentage of conscripts. It is based on an industrial model of specialization and fixed division of labours. Units have numbers rather than names such as the 3rd, 7th, 12th and 25th Infantry Regiments. The soldiers never belong to a particular regiment for extended periods. They can be moved from regiment to regiment as required. It appears to be efficient and cost effective. It worked well for the United States, French and U.S. forces in the World Wars I & II but have...been remarkably unsuccessful in lower intensity conflict such as in Indo China, Algeria and Vietnam...which requires a high degree of individual imitative and military unit entrepreneurship.
BGen D.G. Loomis compared the Regimental system to the Continental system and concluded that the Regimental System is the most beneficial in the long term while the Continental System in the most economical in the short term.
If the Regimental system works, why does the continental system seem to be less effective? The continental system is based on an industrial model that is based on efficient use of resources, specilization and economies of scale. This may seem to be logical but sometimes war is not logical. You cannot run a military unit the way you run a business. General Motors does not expect its workers to die for the company but the Regiment does. A division or Corp is too big of an organization to relate to compared to a Regiment. The Continental system emphasis the contract for service rather than the way the Regiment's way of life. It's members feel as though they are part of an "artificial family". The sense of belonging is strong in the Regiment.
The Continental System emphasises the use of massed firepower to destroy the enemy. This leads to a situation where the officers command from the seas and the troops are only used to find the enemy or protect the guns. The Regimental system promotes leadership by example. In the battle for Goose Green 2 Para lost its Commanding Officers, a Company 2nd in Command, the adjutant and a platoon commander. In all, 11 of the 17 dead were officers or NCO's.
The Argentinean seemed to be physiologically unprepared to fight. They never thought that the British were going to fight over a place as small as the Falklands. A soldier of the Argentinean 7th Regiment stated that "No one really told us where we were going...We weren't prepared psychologically...there were ones in the front line who didn't even know what the Marines were."
In summary, cohesion and morale have been identified as strongly affecting the individual's motivation to fight and suffer depravations. Units that are highly cohesive tend to be more combat effective provided that all other factors are equal. Cohesion can be described as a force multiplier in that a cohesive unit can overcome a less motivated enemy that is many times its size.
Some researchers feel that the Regimental system is clearly superior to the continental system in building cohesion. Members of the Regiment feel that they are part of a family rather then just cogs in a machine. They can serve their whole career in the Regiment rather than being moved from unit to unit as needed. Horizontal bonding is facilitated by the Regimental messes where the members can socialize together rather in centralized clubs. The "open" organizational climate of the British system promoted vertical bonding more so than the authoritarian climate of the Argentineans. The Argentineans appeared to be patriotic towards their country, loyal to the Army and devoutly religious. The British also displayed a high degree of organizational bonding to their country but they also clearly identified with the history and traditions of their Regiment.
The United States Army has apparently realized the value of building cohesion as they have begun to introduce some aspects of the Regimental system back into their force structure. The Canadian Army is slowly recovering from the setbacks of unification. It is some times difficult to justify the seemingly unnecessary expenses associated with the Regimental system such as separate Regimental Battle Schools, separate messes or Regimental accoutrements. It is a small price to pay if this system can save lives and win wars. BGen Loomis (1975) stated that:
"In low intensity conflict, when small elements of mass armies find themselves for some reason operating in isolation, without their fire support, and with nothing to fall back upon except their courage, the results are often less than happy."
Return to Frank's I/O Psych Homepage