Falklands: How far would Britain have gone?

Black Sept · Dec 17, 2012

There are some nice threads about how the Argentinians don't screw up or the British don't get lucky, and Argentina wins the war as a result.

My question is which is the point where the British say: ok, we're going to stop now, it's just not worth it. Is there such a point? How long do Argentinians have to hold out?

Assuming no international intervention and a localized war, would Britain pursue a victory at all costs policy(thus preventing a massive international humiliation) OR would it back down if faced with repeated failures?

amphibulous · Dec 17, 2012

The British can keep up a submarine blockade forever and there isn't really much the Argentines can do in response. If the taskforce fails then this seems to be the main option.

Black Sept · Dec 17, 2012

amphibulous said:
The British can keep up a submarine blockade forever and there isn't really much the Argentines can do in response. If the taskforce fails then this seems to be the main option.

Would there be a new taskforce though? I don't think a submarine blockade would be enough to force Argentina to admit defeat, I mean they could still have an air bridge.

sparky42 · Dec 17, 2012

Black Sept said:
Would there be a new taskforce though? I don't think a submarine blockade would be enough to force Argentina to admit defeat, I mean they could still have an air bridge.

I think the airstrip would have been limited even without continued Black Buck raids.

The other point is that both Illustrious and Ark Royal came on line after the the conflict so even if the first task force was forced to withdraw from damage, the UK could field a follow on force within a reasonable period, and these would have SeaKing AEW capability.

So I think that the British could continue to operate against the forces for as long as they would need.

Chris Triangle · Dec 17, 2012

Yes, even if the Argentinians got very lucky and the British completely screwed up there would certainly be a new task force. In fact, the worse the defeat, the more riled up I would expect the British public to become. Remember the famous newspaper headline, "The Empire WILL Strike Back"? I would expect that any politician who did not want to avenge the humiliation would see their popularity plummet. Besides, from what I've heard the British cause had considerably more international sympathy than did the Argentinian one. For example, didn't the French cooperate to give some important information on the Exocet missiles they were using?

sparky42 · Dec 17, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
Yes, even if the Argentinians got very lucky and the British completely screwed up there would certainly be a new task force. In fact, the worse the defeat, the more riled up I would expect the British public to become. Remember the famous newspaper headline, "The Empire WILL Strike Back"? I would expect that any politician who did not want to avenge the humiliation would see their popularity plummet. Besides, from what I've heard the British cause had considerably more international sympathy than did the Argentinian one. For example, didn't the French cooperate to give some important information on the Exocet missiles they were using?

I think the French did more than that, letting the UK train against the French fighters, giving the operational details of the missiles to the UK,refusing to export them to Argentina.

In the long run the UK can bring more forces to the battle and muster another attack if they had to given more time.

amphibulous · Dec 17, 2012

Black Sept said:
Would there be a new taskforce though? I don't think a submarine blockade would be enough to force Argentina to admit defeat, I mean they could still have an air bridge.

But it's a very narrow one and Argentina's airlift resources are very small. And the British do have about the world's best special forces - if the airlift looks like it's going to be a problem, then at some stage they'll start sabotaging aircraft and taking them out with anti-material rifles and Javelins.

Another taskforce would seem unlikely - what could they try that wasn't tried the first time?

amphibulous · Dec 17, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
Yes, even if the Argentinians got very lucky and the British completely screwed up there would certainly be a new task force.

It's hard to imagine the RN retreating unless a carrier had been lost. In which case, what could they do to protect a second taskforce more?

sparky42 · Dec 17, 2012

amphibulous said:
But it's a very narrow one and Argentina's airlift resources are very small. And the British do have about the world's best special forces - if the airlift looks like it's going to be a problem, then at some stage they'll start sabotaging aircraft and taking them out with anti-material rifles and Javelins.

Another taskforce would seem unlikely - what could they try that wasn't tried the first time?

Both Illustrious and Ark Royal Commissioned after the first taskforce sailed, admittedly Ark Royal took much longer to Commission but that might be accelerated if there's still combat operations on going.

It might need a crash build of new Sea Harriers to boost numbers, but would also bring the Sea King AEW, they came down on Illustrious in OTL. I'm presuming that the escorts of the first taskforce wouldn't have been completely lost (presuming that it's damage/loss of carrier that forces the end of the first taskforce).

sparky42 · Dec 17, 2012

amphibulous said:
It's hard to imagine the RN retreating unless a carrier had been lost. In which case, what could they do to protect a second taskforce more?

It seems that 3 more Type 42's came on line in 1982 after the War, perhaps 2 more Type 22's (including a batch 2) could have been brought on line.

There's also the question of what losses that the Argentinians would have suffered knocking out a carrier in the taskforce. They wouldn't be getting replacements, or new ordinance to replace used weapons.

Nor considering the RN SSN's might have felt the need to retaliate if the Argentinian navy sortied again if the taskforce was forced to withdraw

amphibulous · Dec 17, 2012

sparky42 said:
Nor considering the RN SSN's might have felt the need to retaliate if the Argentinian navy sortied again if the taskforce was forced to withdraw

The Argentine navy would been scrap metal. But they would never have done this.

sparky42 · Dec 17, 2012

amphibulous said:
The Argentine navy would been scrap metal. But they would never have done this.

You mean come out after the RN taskforce withdrew?

I agree it's unlikely however if the air head was collapsing, either through SF raids on both the Falklands and the Mainland, or through continued Black Buck raids would they risk being forced to sortie to try and resupply the Falklands?

They wouldn't want to at all but given the troop numbers that were committed, and the first British attempt to retake it, there might surely be calls to get more equipment,(radars, missile batteries, artillery construction equipment etc) on to the island.

BigWillyG · Dec 18, 2012

sparky42 said:
I think the French did more than that, letting the UK train against the French fighters, giving the operational details of the missiles to the UK,refusing to export them to Argentina.

In the long run the UK can bring more forces to the battle and muster another attack if they had to given more time.

Never heard about that. Was it wholly necessary? Wasn't the RN using Exocets at the time of the Falklands War?

tallthinkev · Dec 18, 2012

If it does good bad for the RN and Argentina bring more forces into the Falklands could Chile see an openning?

Riain · Dec 18, 2012

The only irreplaceable assets for the British were the Fearless and Intrepid LPDs, as long as they're not lost before the landing is complete then Britain basically can't lose. In all other aspects Britain became stronger as the war progressed.

Indeed the rushed response to the invasion for a mix of military-environmental (southern winter), political and happenstances of deployment reasons was probably a major reason for several of the ship losses. For example the reason that HMS Sheffield went was because it was part of exercise 'Springtrain 82' in the western Med and thus 2300km closer to the Falklands than ships that would have been better but that were in Britain. No air warfare destroyer fitted with the latest 1022 STIR radar able to track in the clutter of low level was with the task force until HMS Exeter arrived in late May.

ModernKiwi · Dec 18, 2012

BigWillyG said:
Never heard about that. Was it wholly necessary? Wasn't the RN using Exocets at the time of the Falklands War?

The RN was using the ship launched version of the Exocet on some of its frigates. The air launched version that they were worried about had very different parameters (height of launch to name the most important one...

).

The only area I could see the RN having trouble coming back with once the weather turned is the Sea Harriers. Lose enough of those and they'll struggle to replace them in time. The RAF Harriers don't have an air intercept radar which makes them a lot less useful.

(EDIT: and the LPD's Riain mentioned)

sparky42 · Dec 18, 2012

ModernKiwi said:
The RN was using the ship launched version of the Exocet on some of its frigates. The air launched version that they were worried about had very different parameters (height of launch to name the most important one... ).

The only area I could see the RN having trouble coming back with once the weather turned is the Sea Harriers. Lose enough of those and they'll struggle to replace them in time. The RAF Harriers don't have an air intercept radar which makes them a lot less useful.

(EDIT: and the LPD's Riain mentioned)

I think other nations helped as well like details on SAMs like the Rolland and such as well, though I admit it's been a while since I read anything on the area.

For the question of Harriers, I suppose it comes back to would both carriers be lost completely? Wasn't the order that if 1 was lost to halt operations, if so the RN would still have some aircraft. Did Illustrious sail with her full complement of Harriers to relieve the task force? If so you at least have some beck in the UK. Was there any play in the production line of the Harriers to get some more Sea Harriers operational in the time frame of Illustrious sailing?

Riain · Dec 18, 2012

There were exactly 22 completed Sea Harriers in the world on April Fools Day 1982, 20 were embarked with the initial Task Force, 1 was earmarked for the Indian Navy and weas not to be touched and another was a development aircraft which was retained in Britain for development trial associated with the war such a Blue Eric ECM Pod.

Another 8 were in the final stages of construction, it was these that were rushed to completion and sent south on the Atlantic Conveyer via Ascension, flying off the Atlatic Conveyer on about May 21. This bought the Sea Harrier strength up to 25 after 3 earlier losses. In contrast the RAF had 3 full sized sqns of GR3 Harriers, perhaps 70 odd aircraft, some 14 of which were modified to operate from carriers for the Falklands, 6 were with the Sea Harriers on the Atlantic Conveyer.

The point of this is that should the Sea Harrier fleet start to seriously be run down from losses more GR3s could be modified to relieve them from more and more tasks. Indeed all 6 Sea Harrier losses were from ground fire, so the GR3s could take up all the ground attack missions and absorb these losses. They could take up some of the air to air missions as well, in appropriate circumstances. So it would take the loss of quite a lot of Sea Harriers before the force would have to withdraw due to a lack of dedicated air to air capability.

amphibulous · Dec 18, 2012

sparky42 said:
You mean come out after the RN taskforce withdrew?

I agree it's unlikely however if the air head was collapsing, either through SF raids on both the Falklands and the Mainland, or through continued Black Buck raids would they risk being forced to sortie to try and resupply the Falklands?

Remember that the two frigate captains escorting the Belgrano were too terrified to attempt rescue operations, even though they weren't fired on. And that any Argentine force encountering RN submarines really wouldn't have a chance. Going out would be IJN level crazy-brave, and the Argentine navy was anything but that.

sparky42 · Dec 18, 2012

amphibulous said:
Remember that the two frigate captains escorting the Belgrano were too terrified to attempt rescue operations, even though they weren't fired on. And that any Argentine force encountering RN submarines really wouldn't have a chance. Going out would be IJN level crazy-brave, and the Argentine navy was anything but that.

A fair point, it will just leave the Falklands potentially in a worse combat condition for the follow on task force then.

However what if the cause of the withdrawal had been naval related. I severly doubt even if the Argentinian Carrier had gotten her strike off that it would have been successful, but wasn't one of the SSK's out but armed with defective torpedoes? I can't remember as I said it's been a while since I read anything on the subject, if it was an managed to score any kills that might, (a Very big might I admit) embolden the navy to try something.