Larger Falklands War?
- Thread starter Conched
- Start date
The war was limited to the South Atlantic and the area in and around the Falklands Islands especially. A wider war (total war rather than the 'conflict') would involve worldwide engagement, focusing on the Argentine mainland and the British Isles in addition to islands in the Atlantic (Ascension, St.Helena) and English Channel (Scilly Isles, Channel Islands). The limit then becomes capability. Aside from guerilla attacks on UK populations abroad and low level attacks on UK trade and shipping most escalation of the conflict would be on the part of the UK. Having no shared land borders, the two countries could only clash where the UK brought forces to bear. Although theoretically possible to make invasion landings (by air and/or sea) in Argentina, it would be diplomatically difficult to prosecute a war of conquest. Even if the US could be persuaded to overlook their entrenched foreign policy (Munroe Doctrine) the logistic tail would be prohibitively long and the force requirement to fight on the mainland far more expensive than any possible long term gain.
Besides small scale actions by Argentine commandos or a British landing in Argentina itself there's two plausible routes of expansion for the Falklands conflict:
1. Conflict expands in South America.
2. Soviets step in: unlikely as they don't usually sympathise with right-wing dictatorships like Argentina's... but not impossible as the chance to humiliate and weaken one of NATos major powers may be tempting.
Some ideas:
1. Argentina attacks Gibraltar. Maybe the Argentine frogmen are there before the war, watching Gibraltar just in case the British respond to early Argentine moves against South Georgia.
or
2. Argentina seizes Ascension
or
3. There are lots of Brits in Argentina. Maybe the junta rounds them up as a threat to internal security.
or
4. Fighting breaks about between Argentina and Chile at the same time as the Falklands
or
5. Peru sends 10 jets to Argentina to replenish losses (June 10th). Maybe this happens earlier, but British sabotage them, (or Chile bombs them if 4 has happned), and Peru enters the war?
or
6. Some combination of the above
1. Argentina attacks Gibraltar. Maybe the Argentine frogmen are there before the war, watching Gibraltar just in case the British respond to early Argentine moves against South Georgia.
or
2. Argentina seizes Ascension
or
3. There are lots of Brits in Argentina. Maybe the junta rounds them up as a threat to internal security.
or
4. Fighting breaks about between Argentina and Chile at the same time as the Falklands
or
5. Peru sends 10 jets to Argentina to replenish losses (June 10th). Maybe this happens earlier, but British sabotage them, (or Chile bombs them if 4 has happned), and Peru enters the war?
or
6. Some combination of the above
First post, eh? Welcome to the madhouse!
Actually, I like some of SunnilTanna's ideas - getting Peru and Chile involved, say.
I don't see it expanding perceptibly outside of South America and the South Atlantic in any reasonable way, though.
Valdemar II
Banned
France isn't going to support the attempt by a tinpot dictartorship to drive a European country out of one of it last remaining colonies, especially not another member of EEC.
TelClaven
Banned
The greatest contribution towards Great Britain’s victory over Argentina lies in the tomes of U.S. Export Law.
There were a dozen British warships, mostly container ships and support/supply ships, struck by Mk 82 freefall bombs. These bombs did not detonate due to the minimum arming distance pre-set by the seller of these bombs - the United States. The arming distance of the Mk 82 bomb authorized for export to Argentina was 1000 feet. The Argi Air Force would come in under 200 feet to stay below the Brit Blowpipe AA missiles and radar. They would then have to make a sudden climb, hoping to reach 1000 feet, before releasing their bombs and diving back for the wave tops (usually unsuccessfully).
The manual on how to disable the 1000 foot arming distance is a restricted export item to Argentina, therefore it was unavailable. If the arming distance could have been reduced to 500 feet or less, another dozen Brit ships would litter the South Atlantic. The loss of supplies for the Brit Marines and Army could have necessitated a delay in the counter-invasion or ground offensive.
There were a dozen British warships, mostly container ships and support/supply ships, struck by Mk 82 freefall bombs. These bombs did not detonate due to the minimum arming distance pre-set by the seller of these bombs - the United States. The arming distance of the Mk 82 bomb authorized for export to Argentina was 1000 feet. The Argi Air Force would come in under 200 feet to stay below the Brit Blowpipe AA missiles and radar. They would then have to make a sudden climb, hoping to reach 1000 feet, before releasing their bombs and diving back for the wave tops (usually unsuccessfully).
The manual on how to disable the 1000 foot arming distance is a restricted export item to Argentina, therefore it was unavailable. If the arming distance could have been reduced to 500 feet or less, another dozen Brit ships would litter the South Atlantic. The loss of supplies for the Brit Marines and Army could have necessitated a delay in the counter-invasion or ground offensive.
Last edited:
I wonder if say things had gone badly for the British to the point that the Task Force had to retreat what would have happened? I don't think they would have given up. Perhaps they would have roped in their allies and had another go, maintaining a submarine blockade in the meantime.
Another possibility might be a submarine campaign against the Argentine coast. I wonder it would take and how many ships sunk before the pain of just about unstoppable submarine warfare was enough to force the Argentines back to the negotiating table?
Another possibility might be a submarine campaign against the Argentine coast. I wonder it would take and how many ships sunk before the pain of just about unstoppable submarine warfare was enough to force the Argentines back to the negotiating table?
IMO the chance of a nuclear attack on Argentina was zero (for one thing, it would be completely disproportionate, for another it's actually against British defence policy to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states). There are so many other things Britain could do if they were angry enough e.g. a submarine campaign, Vulcan raids on the mainland, SAS/Commando raids.
Requesting RCN and RAN involvement might be possible. Both governments would be reluctant, but in the end would find it hard to say no.
IIRC there was a faction in the US State Department that wanted the US to stay neutral but in the end the Thatcher-Reagan chemistry won and there was talk of 'lending' the British a US Marine assault ship. A British crew would have taken a long time to work up so it would have ended up being crewed by Americans (maybe 'volunteers'?). However, if it got to the stage that the US was lending the British ships, the Argentines would capitulate anyway IMO.
BTW IIRC Labour were as gung-ho as the Conservatives over the Falkands, so Labour getting in might not stop the war.
In the end it would depend on how serious Britain got. Britain was a much more powerful country than Argentina, if it really put its mind to it it would win.
If the Argentinians make less mistakes than OTL they can hold out a lot longer. Didn't they move most of their first rate forces out of the Falklands and replaced those with conscripts?
Any Argentine attack on Ascensión or Gibralter would seem doomed IMHO. I doubt the Argentines have the capability to project any kind of forces so far away from their bases.
If such an attack succeeded it would give Britain it's own Pearl Harbor with the consequences which come with that. At worst it would be an attack on NATO if it's on the European continent.
Any Argentine attack on Ascensión or Gibralter would seem doomed IMHO. I doubt the Argentines have the capability to project any kind of forces so far away from their bases.
If such an attack succeeded it would give Britain it's own Pearl Harbor with the consequences which come with that. At worst it would be an attack on NATO if it's on the European continent.
TelClaven
Banned
My thesis was the Falkland Islands War. Some other interesting notes - the Argi nuclear weapons program was on track to produce an Atomic Bomb sometime in mid-1983. Subsequent to the defeat of the Falklands invasion and the collapse of the Junta, the Argi's ended their atomic weapons program. Brazil followed that announcement with their own atomic program ending.
Postulate: What would the consequences be of holding off invading the Falklands until after the Argi's have a working atom bomb?
Ambassador Kirkpatrick was very pro-Argentinean. She led the State Department faction that felt keeping the South American area free of Soviet influence was far more important than keeping an American client-state, that had no real hope of going it alone, happy.
Postulate: What would the UK do in the face of American opposition to any attempt to re-take the islands?
A faction within the Reagan Administration wanted to 'loan' the British Navy a marine assault craft and an air craft carrier. Both would be reflagged and commanded (if not crewed) by British officers.
Postulate: What would the results be of American casualties being suffered in the service of the crown?
Postulate: What would the consequences be of holding off invading the Falklands until after the Argi's have a working atom bomb?
Ambassador Kirkpatrick was very pro-Argentinean. She led the State Department faction that felt keeping the South American area free of Soviet influence was far more important than keeping an American client-state, that had no real hope of going it alone, happy.
Postulate: What would the UK do in the face of American opposition to any attempt to re-take the islands?
A faction within the Reagan Administration wanted to 'loan' the British Navy a marine assault craft and an air craft carrier. Both would be reflagged and commanded (if not crewed) by British officers.
Postulate: What would the results be of American casualties being suffered in the service of the crown?
Collecting ideas together:
Successful first defense of the Falklands
The thing about the bomb fuses, better fortifications, non-conscript troops, a few ill-time helo crashes, and I'll throw in a nix on Conqueror's technically unauthorized sinking of General Belgrano, and we get the British leaving the Falklands bloodied and defeated. The carriers get damaged and/or sunk. A hundred prisoners get left behind. Thatcher's government falls.
Argentine special operation in Gibraltar
Probably no serious military effect, even if it succeeds (what were they trying to do?), but having it take place right after the initial defeat will fill a new Labour government with resolve.
British pinpricks on the mainland, naval war
Vulcan air attacks on the mainland, special forces raids on airports, maybe a botched attempted rescue of POWs for more bloodiness. Accidental (or intentional) British attacks on neutral South American aircraft or countries. Temper all of the bad news for Britain with successful submarine warfare on a high scale, enacting a complete blockade on the Argentines with multiple SSNs, V de Mayo , Belgrano, and a couple of submarines all sunk.
Take Two
With any additional VTOL carriers that have come online, any repairs to carriers which may have survived the first assault, as well as the addition of an American assault ship, the Brits head south to try again. As they do, the Argentines set off a low kiloton nuclear warhead in Patagonia. What happens next in this situation is anyone's guess!
Successful first defense of the Falklands
The thing about the bomb fuses, better fortifications, non-conscript troops, a few ill-time helo crashes, and I'll throw in a nix on Conqueror's technically unauthorized sinking of General Belgrano, and we get the British leaving the Falklands bloodied and defeated. The carriers get damaged and/or sunk. A hundred prisoners get left behind. Thatcher's government falls.
Argentine special operation in Gibraltar
Probably no serious military effect, even if it succeeds (what were they trying to do?), but having it take place right after the initial defeat will fill a new Labour government with resolve.
British pinpricks on the mainland, naval war
Vulcan air attacks on the mainland, special forces raids on airports, maybe a botched attempted rescue of POWs for more bloodiness. Accidental (or intentional) British attacks on neutral South American aircraft or countries. Temper all of the bad news for Britain with successful submarine warfare on a high scale, enacting a complete blockade on the Argentines with multiple SSNs, V de Mayo , Belgrano, and a couple of submarines all sunk.
Take Two
With any additional VTOL carriers that have come online, any repairs to carriers which may have survived the first assault, as well as the addition of an American assault ship, the Brits head south to try again. As they do, the Argentines set off a low kiloton nuclear warhead in Patagonia. What happens next in this situation is anyone's guess!
I would rather you made reference to the support from other nations, who perhaps made a greater contribution to the UK victory. During my Sandhurst days I was told that there were quite a few SAS in the Falklands who whilst were SAS were usually more likely to be found in places like Darwin and Wellington...
The US support can be over-rated and was not as significant to the victory as often suggested. My father, a leading electronics war expert in the UK at the time, recently told me the biggets problem with a lot of the 'aid' the yanks supplied was that it wasn't compatible to UK systems, byt he time they sorted the problems the war was almost over.
On the other hand, the Soviet support for Argentina is often overlooked, for example giving intelligence plus I dod remember a news item that came out after the collapse of the USSR that the Soviets offered the Argies 100 MIGS, an offer turned down as the Argies fear how the yanks would react.
There's no chance of a Vulcan raid on the mainland. The Vulcans would be super vulnerable, it would have lost Britain world & European support - or at least that was the assessment at the time. The threat of a Vulcan raid on the mainland was intended as a diversion to encourage the Argies not to commit their world airforce.
As far as a carrier is concerned, if Invincible or Hermes had been sunk or badly damaged, the plan was to withdraw from the vicinity of the islands, and come back later with Illustrious (which became available later in 1982) and/or Bulwark (which was in the UK, and apparently not in a great state).
Riain
Banned
Expanding the Falklands is easy enough, just give the Argies a few covert well-wishers for starters. Iraq for example could give the Argies a handful of Exocets just to poke the Brits in the eye, and there are plenty of examples of countries around the world who could do similar things for little to no cost to themselves. With odds and ends of help from around the world the Argies could easily have a jump in capability and sustainability.
Secondly, instead of some stupid covert bullshit in Gibraltar they could launch all sorts of practical attacks on Ascension. Perhaps a commando raid from a ship, maybe even including shelling, all the way up to a carrier airstrike could happen very early in the war, before security became too tight. Also a submarine could attack shipping during the buildup, again before security became too tight.
In response the US could possibly give combat support to the Brits; KC10 tankers would be a godsend, Galaxy para-dropping supplies to the ships would make the RAF Hercs look feeble and other non-shooting but still vital tasks. This could really focus the Brits on shooting harder and faster.
Secondly, instead of some stupid covert bullshit in Gibraltar they could launch all sorts of practical attacks on Ascension. Perhaps a commando raid from a ship, maybe even including shelling, all the way up to a carrier airstrike could happen very early in the war, before security became too tight. Also a submarine could attack shipping during the buildup, again before security became too tight.
In response the US could possibly give combat support to the Brits; KC10 tankers would be a godsend, Galaxy para-dropping supplies to the ships would make the RAF Hercs look feeble and other non-shooting but still vital tasks. This could really focus the Brits on shooting harder and faster.
Its really interesting.
A British defeat in the Falklands would have brought down Thatcher. An expansion could possibly make the government unpopular over time and/or distract from the governments domestic policies.
All this gives me an idea for yet another timeline. Dont know if I should though, with three on the go at the moment!
A British defeat in the Falklands would have brought down Thatcher. An expansion could possibly make the government unpopular over time and/or distract from the governments domestic policies.
All this gives me an idea for yet another timeline. Dont know if I should though, with three on the go at the moment!