During 1976-77, there were strong diplomatic arguments between Britain and Argentina over the status of the Falkland islands, which were partially ended at the time with the Callaghan govt deploying the nuclear sub HMS SWIFTSURE (IIRC) to the Falklands as a deterrent to any potential Argentine military action. But WI hostilities had broken out between London and Buenos Aires over the Falklands in the late 70s ? Would Britain still have whupped the Argies, esp with the RN still possessing their larger aircraft carriers from which the FAA was able to operate F4 Phantoms (and which had been scrapped by 1982) ? Could an earlier Falklands War and defeat for Argentina have produced the positive result of the junta removed and the 'Dirty War' ended earlier ?
Earlier Falklands War- 1976/77
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Mifletz
Banned
Callaghan was no Maggie. I doubt he would have had the guts to actually order a fight or reconquest. He was a protege of his predecessor Wilson: the same who refused LBJ's desperate 1965 plea to him to send just one regiment of the Black Watch to Vietnam.; and the same who cancelled the TSR2 etc. Callaghan,Foot, Benn, Wilson, Williams, Healey etc were all suspected of being Moscow agents at one time.
Callaghan would have had politically no choice but to retake the Falklands. The British people, and Parliament in general, simply would not have stood for letting the Argentines take over, and had Callaghan done so he would have lost a Vote of No Confidence in the Commons, a general election would have been called which Thatcher and the Tories would probably have overwhelmingly won, and the Royal Navy would be ordered to retake the Falklands. But, had Callaghan decided to take on the Argentines, he'd have no trouble. We had our larger carriers on the go then, and I doubt with that any British warships would have been sunk. The Argentinian invading forces would have been humilitiated.
Blaine Hess
Banned
Here is another point. By the time of Operation Corporate in 1982, the UK was fixing to scrap the remainder of the Vulcan long range bombers. Vulcans bombed the Falklands in 1982. But imagine how many would be availble in the mid 70s.
Blaine Hess
Banned
Mifletz said:
REALLY?? Man, that would have been way cool if Charlie had to face a Scottish regiment!
as well as HMS Ark Royal, there just might have been its sister ship, HMS Eagle decommisoned in 1972, but kept on reserve as a source of spar parts for the Ark Royal. unless they've actually used too many of its parts on the Ark Royal, then prehaps if theres time they could quickly refit it.
might mean the government orders more large aircraft carriers like they've done recently.
might mean the government orders more large aircraft carriers like they've done recently.
Tielhard
Banned
"Callaghan was no Maggie."
Maggie was no Maggie! Don't you remeber the debate in parliment immediately after the invasion? She was in pieces along with Knott and most of the rest of the Conservative front bench. The only person who was not in shock and met the threat head on was Foote who came across a Great Statesman almost Churcillian. The British won because of the Forces and the Diplomatic Services being shit hot and professional, to borrow a phrase from joatsimeon it was an 'urban myth' Thatcher displayed any leadership at all. "Rejoice! Rejoice!" who can forget that wonderfully articulate and inspiring speech? Ha! Ha! Ha!
"I doubt he (Callaghan) would have had the guts to actually order a fight or reconquest."
Ah! but he didn't need to because he had a brian and acted before there was a serious possibility of war. Thatcher on the otherhand took the Falklands guardship away and screamed "Take me! Take me!"
"He (Callaghan) was a protege of his predecessor Wilson: the same who refused LBJ's desperate 1965 plea to him to send just one regiment of the Black Watch to Vietnam.; and the same who cancelled the TSR2 etc."
Wilson was for all his faults and TSR2 and the rockets were big ones, the last independent British Prime Minister. He had the balls to tell the Americans to F-off and fight thier own dirty little colonial war. That it was not in the British interest to be in Vietnam.
"Callaghan,Foot, Benn, Wilson, Williams, Healey etc were all suspected of being Moscow agents at one time."
By whom exactly? People of honour who were willing to accuse them in the open? No, they were snivveling little bugs without the courage to stand up behind thier lies. Traitors to Queen and country who plotted treason.
Maggie was no Maggie! Don't you remeber the debate in parliment immediately after the invasion? She was in pieces along with Knott and most of the rest of the Conservative front bench. The only person who was not in shock and met the threat head on was Foote who came across a Great Statesman almost Churcillian. The British won because of the Forces and the Diplomatic Services being shit hot and professional, to borrow a phrase from joatsimeon it was an 'urban myth' Thatcher displayed any leadership at all. "Rejoice! Rejoice!" who can forget that wonderfully articulate and inspiring speech? Ha! Ha! Ha!
"I doubt he (Callaghan) would have had the guts to actually order a fight or reconquest."
Ah! but he didn't need to because he had a brian and acted before there was a serious possibility of war. Thatcher on the otherhand took the Falklands guardship away and screamed "Take me! Take me!"
"He (Callaghan) was a protege of his predecessor Wilson: the same who refused LBJ's desperate 1965 plea to him to send just one regiment of the Black Watch to Vietnam.; and the same who cancelled the TSR2 etc."
Wilson was for all his faults and TSR2 and the rockets were big ones, the last independent British Prime Minister. He had the balls to tell the Americans to F-off and fight thier own dirty little colonial war. That it was not in the British interest to be in Vietnam.
"Callaghan,Foot, Benn, Wilson, Williams, Healey etc were all suspected of being Moscow agents at one time."
By whom exactly? People of honour who were willing to accuse them in the open? No, they were snivveling little bugs without the courage to stand up behind thier lies. Traitors to Queen and country who plotted treason.
Tielhard said:
I still remember listening to the debate in the House of Commons on the day after the attack. In was a saturday and the debate was braodcast on BBC Radio 4-it's the end bit I still remember. at the end the announcer came on and said "and that replaced our scheduled programme -'I'm sorry I haven't a clue' " summed it all up really (I'm sorry is a very funny radio panel game)
A small war at that time would have been a great boost to Callaghan, as a distraction from the Unions and the economy going down the pan and, as to an extent happened, the restoration of national prestige. (Even Harold Wilson later stated that had he had a "Falklands" of his own he would have been far happier.)
The Argies wouldn't have had the air-launched AM.39 Exocet, merely the older MM38s on their destroyers and the Belgrano. As was shown in OTL, in the face of British SSNs the Argentine surface fleet was a paper tiger, so without air-launched Exocets they might never had chance to use any ASMs - which sank Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - against the RN.
As its sole aircraft platform, Ark Royal would have been vulnerable.
Phantoms were old, less manoeuvrable in dogfights than the Sea Harrier and would not have benefit of AIM-9s; moreover, far fewer were carried aboard Ark than Sea Harriers aboard Inv. and Hermes, even if the Ark was deployed "top-heavy" with fighters in lieu of Buccanneers.
In their favour, however, they had Skyflash/Sparrow long-range AAMs, something the Argentinians did not, and still more than a match in aerial combat against Mirage IIIs and Skyhawks.
Aside from carrying dedicated fighters and maritime strike aircraft, the Ark Royal carried Gannet AEW aircraft, something lacking in 1982 and responsible for the loss of several ships.
Even though the majority of the warships in OTL 1982 were for the large part unsuited to dealing with air attacks - being designed as Blue Water ASW units - in the mid-70s there were an awful lot more 1950s/early 1960s frigates etc. in service, lacking modern sensors, and very few capable modern vessels entering service in any appreciable numbers.
Air Defence aboard the ships would have been far more limited, lacking Sea Dart and Seawolf and instead being reliant on 1950s Sea Slug and Sea Cat and - again as OTL - severely lacking any CIWS.
Obviously an important factor if a concentrated formation of Skyhawks etc. carrying iron bombs made to attack the Fleet whilst Mirage IIIs engaged with the Phantoms.
There were also fewer SSNs availabe to the RN in 76/77 than there were in 1982.
Moreover, one of the Argies' modern subs did make (approximate) contact with the Task Force in OTL, but a faulty fire control system let them down. Even so, the RN, arguably the most-experienced ASW force in NATO, could not find it. Had these subs been ship-shape, possibility is they could have loitered off the Falklands and sunk something.
The Argies wouldn't have had the air-launched AM.39 Exocet, merely the older MM38s on their destroyers and the Belgrano. As was shown in OTL, in the face of British SSNs the Argentine surface fleet was a paper tiger, so without air-launched Exocets they might never had chance to use any ASMs - which sank Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - against the RN.
As its sole aircraft platform, Ark Royal would have been vulnerable.
Phantoms were old, less manoeuvrable in dogfights than the Sea Harrier and would not have benefit of AIM-9s; moreover, far fewer were carried aboard Ark than Sea Harriers aboard Inv. and Hermes, even if the Ark was deployed "top-heavy" with fighters in lieu of Buccanneers.
In their favour, however, they had Skyflash/Sparrow long-range AAMs, something the Argentinians did not, and still more than a match in aerial combat against Mirage IIIs and Skyhawks.
Aside from carrying dedicated fighters and maritime strike aircraft, the Ark Royal carried Gannet AEW aircraft, something lacking in 1982 and responsible for the loss of several ships.
Even though the majority of the warships in OTL 1982 were for the large part unsuited to dealing with air attacks - being designed as Blue Water ASW units - in the mid-70s there were an awful lot more 1950s/early 1960s frigates etc. in service, lacking modern sensors, and very few capable modern vessels entering service in any appreciable numbers.
Air Defence aboard the ships would have been far more limited, lacking Sea Dart and Seawolf and instead being reliant on 1950s Sea Slug and Sea Cat and - again as OTL - severely lacking any CIWS.
Obviously an important factor if a concentrated formation of Skyhawks etc. carrying iron bombs made to attack the Fleet whilst Mirage IIIs engaged with the Phantoms.
There were also fewer SSNs availabe to the RN in 76/77 than there were in 1982.
Moreover, one of the Argies' modern subs did make (approximate) contact with the Task Force in OTL, but a faulty fire control system let them down. Even so, the RN, arguably the most-experienced ASW force in NATO, could not find it. Had these subs been ship-shape, possibility is they could have loitered off the Falklands and sunk something.
In 1982 the Argentine junta was on the fast track to removal from power followed by subsequent prosecution and punishment, hence their desperate need to do something to make themselves too popular for a successor regime to touch. How do we advance that state of mind several years? How do we convince Argentina to invade without it against a stronger RN and without any Exocet anti-ship missles?
Tielhard said:
Brian? Blessed or Mawhinney?
The Endurance was actually on its last scheduled patrol when the Invasion occurred. It's running costs were negligible - essentially an old unarmed merchant vessel carrying a few helos, MGs and a handful of Royal Machines for boarding and landing parties etc. - but its political significance in demonstrating a British commitment to a far-flung dependency was immense.
The decision to scrap it in order to save a few million a year (1982 prices) was crass, but, in mitigation, money was tight and the Defence Budget bloated, and it could have paid for the running costs of a frigate otherwise destined for scrapping.
Rasputin said:
We are a lot poorer for a lot longer.
And if Maggie stands down as leader of the Tories following election defeat in 1978, who knows.
We definatly would have retaken them and should have done things better due to the mentioned larger carriers.
If the tories never get into power in Britain...- happy days. Our recovery may start in the early 90s or perhaps even late 80s rather then the late 90s.
A lot of the problems we have today wouldn't exist- true something else would take their place but I personally could quite happily do without charvas...
If the tories never get into power in Britain...- happy days. Our recovery may start in the early 90s or perhaps even late 80s rather then the late 90s.
A lot of the problems we have today wouldn't exist- true something else would take their place but I personally could quite happily do without charvas...