The Falklands what if the Argentines had sunk HMS Invincible early in the conflict?

The reasons for British victory in this short, sharp and rather nasty little conflict in the South Atlantic are well documented.

Such as professionalism of elite British units - paras, marines, SAS, SBS, Gurkhas etc. The role of the harrier etc etc

There is no doubt that the lack of a couple of larger carriers and the huge distances involved made it a closer run thing than it need have been.

Now what if Argentinian (french built) Super Etendards had managed to sink the Invincible with one or two exocet missiles.

The Hermes though is still okay - how would this affect the outcome?

Cheers

Garth

Morale blow to the British- might take some of the shine off eventual victory assuming we do win.

Maybe the other Carrier HMS Illustrious will be rushed to the front, might take too long however.

Prehaps the USN and/or Aussies and Kiwis send naval units/carrier(s) to aid us, maybe France as well.

birdy said:

Morale blow to the British- might take some of the shine off eventual victory assuming we do win.

Maybe the other Carrier HMS Illustrious will be rushed to the front, might take too long however.

Prehaps the USN and/or Aussies and Kiwis send naval units/carrier(s) to aid us, maybe France as well.

Click to expand...

Illustrious, i can't see there being any real chance of her being got ready in time unless we delay the Task Force for a year; however Bulwark (which i think was a sister ship of Hermes) was laid up and was a plan to bring her back into service during the Falklands Ops-this might happen. Perhaps it the Atlantic Conveyor hasn't been hit yet, she could be used as an auxillary carrier as a stop gap (pulled back to join Hermes)

As to USN support, can't really see it, though in the end they did decide to back us, there were enough of their politicans who were pro-Agrentina (I think it was the US ambassador to the UN who actually declared support for Argentina) to mean it wasn't that likely that actual front-line military support would ever happen. Yes there were a few yank admirals in favour of sending a carrier group from the start to give us a hand but not enough of them to really effect policy.

I don't think the Aussies, Kiwis or Canada (for that matter) could have sent more aid than they did-both the RNZN and RAN sent ships to relieve RN ships on guard duty in the Pacific and a couple of other places so those ships could join the Task Force whilst Canada did sent a couple of extra ships to join NATO patrols, allowing RN vessels to go elsewhere (plus of course, there are the rumours that some of the SAS in the Falklands weren't British SAS)

Jason said:

Illustrious, i can't see there being any real chance of her being got ready in time unless we delay the Task Force for a year; however Bulwark (which i think was a sister ship of Hermes) was laid up and was a plan to bring her back into service during the Falklands Ops-this might happen. Perhaps it the Atlantic Conveyor hasn't been hit yet, she could be used as an auxillary carrier as a stop gap (pulled back to join Hermes)

As to USN support, can't really see it, though in the end they did decide to back us, there were enough of their politicans who were pro-Agrentina (I think it was the US ambassador to the UN who actually declared support for Argentina) to mean it wasn't that likely that actual front-line military support would ever happen. Yes there were a few yank admirals in favour of sending a carrier group from the start to give us a hand but not enough of them to really effect policy.

I don't think the Aussies, Kiwis or Canada (for that matter) could have sent more aid than they did-both the RNZN and RAN sent ships to relieve RN ships on guard duty in the Pacific and a couple of other places so those ships could join the Task Force whilst Canada did sent a couple of extra ships to join NATO patrols, allowing RN vessels to go elsewhere (plus of course, there are the rumours that some of the SAS in the Falklands weren't British SAS)

Click to expand...

Hmm, alright then.

Though what about France? dont know how likely it is, but worthwhile throwing it out there.

birdy said:

Hmm, alright then.

Though what about France? dont know how likely it is, but worthwhile throwing it out there.

Click to expand...

Not sure about France-someone with a better memory might be able to give a better view on their stance on the whole situation. I know they were supposed to have given us some hints on how to deal with Exocets but at the same time it took them a long time to recall their advisors who were supporting the Argentians with their Super Ents (mind you, I'm not sure Isreal ever recalled its who were helping them with their Skyhawks).

Politically I wonder if we would have discouraged active support from France in case it looked liked the old colonial powers were up to something; also French involvement might have increased the chances of the USSR giving the Argies more support (who knows, they might even accept the offer of Migs)

birdy said:

Morale blow to the British- might take some of the shine off eventual victory assuming we do win.

Maybe the other Carrier HMS Illustrious will be rushed to the front, might take too long however.

Prehaps the USN and/or Aussies and Kiwis send naval units/carrier(s) to aid us, maybe France as well.

Click to expand...

Illustrious was available & on station of the Falklands later in the year, to late for campiagning in the South Atlantic that year. Her completion was already rushed forward, I can't see this being advanced anymore.
Bulwark had a major fire (engine room/gear box?) that would have affected her reactivation.
I've seen it rumoured that the US would have been prepared to loan us the Guam or Eisenhower. Of course you've than got problems of manning especially in the case of the latter. I can't see tham being practical options.
Incidently I believe there's a quote from Sandy Woodward about the loss of the Invincible making the operation far more difficult but the loss of the Hermes (with its superior C3 capabilities & greater aircraft capacity) making it impossible. I'd like to see the scenario of the Invincibles loss spelled out, how many Sea Harriers survived would be very important.

Soren said:

how many Sea Harriers survived would be very important.

Click to expand...

It would have been more important how many pilots survived.

You don't need Super Etandarts. A simple weather pod will do the trick:

On May 1st, when the British Task Force started bombing the Falklands, the winds were calm. That afternoon the Argentinian Navy located the HMS Invincible task force but the carrier 25 de Mayo was too far away and, as there was very little wind to help the A4 fighters to take off with enough fuel and payload, the strike eventually had to be cancelled. IF there were strong winds instead, the Argentinian Navy could have succesfully striked the Invincible the first day of hostilities (with heavy losses, but the strike could have been sucessful).

The USA would have leased the USS Guam to Britain as Soren said. It would be a huge moral impact on both sides (I mean, war begins with the sinking of a RN carrier ), and it would surely had reduced Argentinian aircraft losses due the impact on Harriers and pilots. It wouldn't have decided the war by itself, as the RN still has the Hermes, Atlantic Conveyor and Atlantic Causeway. It would also butterfly away the sinking of HMS Sheffield as is unlikely that the Hermes would be sort of exposed (Sheffield was an escort for Hermes). Now if Argentina is even more lucky and that CBG is located and Hermes is targeted by both attacking aircraft instead of one...

(We would find out if Thachter indeed wanted to use nukes as a last resort or have a long lasting dictatorship in Argentina )

Jason said:

(who knows, they might even accept the offer of Migs)

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of this! Please elaborate!

We could hold with a carrier down but we would be partially crippled like a man with a crutch. Good day, we can hold ourself s in combat and we continue the war with less air power. Bad day, we have to pull back and give up because of political pressure and vital missing cover.

We could get our hands on another carrier from the USA for support, we would still win but for the Argies, it would still be remembered as a great miracle that one fighter destroyed a carrier. Thatcher still stays in the power box.

As to USN support, can't really see it, though in the end they did decide to back us, there were enough of their politicans who were pro-Agrentina (I think it was the US ambassador to the UN who actually declared support for Argentina) to mean it wasn't that likely that actual front-line military support would ever happen. Yes there were a few yank admirals in favour of sending a carrier group from the start to give us a hand but not enough of them to really effect policy.

Not trying to sound like an over proud Yank, but no US ambassador expressed any support for the Argentines. The initial US position was neutral ("helping two freinds through their differences"), fairly quickly turning to support for the British. I'm fairly sure that tanker support was offered for Canberra operations.

Losing a Carrier will certainly be a big morale changer - good for the Argentines, bad for the British. That said, losing a carrier and all the people on board could also have the effect of seriously ticking off the British people, and they decide to make a point that they can still play in the world arena and want to prove by kicking the shit out of the Argentines.

If the US did offer Guam and or Eisenhower after that, things really change. If its Eisenhower, the RN has to figure out how to get 3200 men trained to use the ship, but that may allow the Brits to use other planes in the battle. If it comes with the Tomcats, the Argentines are really in trouble......

It could go either way. Sheffield's loss was not something the Brits liked terribly much, losing Invincible would make that a LOT worse.

Interesting to consider what happens if Reagan decides Thatcher isn't going down and tells Argentina to get the hell off the Falklands before the carrier battle group he just ordered in arrives.

I'd say that Reagan would send a CBG off the Agentinian coast to "monitor" the situation and then announce a no-fly zone around it insuring the Argies can't attack the Hermes task force, at least not directly and being able provide early warning to the Brits.

This is much more likely to happen rather than the USN loaning the RN a carrier without a crew to operate it or its aircraft.

Falklands

Any idea that the US would lend a carrier in fantasy, no way could it be brought to operational standard for a British task force in time.
Politically unlikely too.
Time was of the essence, the operation had to be concluded before the South Atlantic winter, in real life this was done just in time.
That also mitigates against HMS Illustrious, the only real replacement.
After waiting this out, political support internationally, domestically too maybe, would have dried up for a military solution.

There was an attempt to launch A-4's from the carrier on 2nd May, but the winds were too low, then the southern part of this pincer attack was sunk, the Belgrano. We know the rest.
Since then, lots of claims that Argentine subs nearly sunk this ship or that, nonsense, they never got close, one thing the RN were not short of in 1982 was anti sub defence, that had been their main role for the previous 15 years, indeed the whole rationale for building the Invincibles at all, was to support this.

But, I suppose that the Argentine Navy, whose part of the Junta had pushed hardest for the invasion, then left the war, at least with major ships, after ONE loss, might want to re-write history where possible.
In truth, combat for them, from the mid 70's, was in the torture and murder of civillians, some of the most notorious of these criminals were Naval officers, where they performed their deeds, often naval establishments.

jmacatty said:

Not trying to sound like an over proud Yank, but no US ambassador expressed any support for the Argentines. The initial US position was neutral ("helping two freinds through their differences"), fairly quickly turning to support for the British. I'm fairly sure that tanker support was offered for Canberra operations.

Click to expand...

It may not have been the UN ambassador then but at least one did come out and say they supported the invasion, I remember the USA gov had to calm Maggie down and being old enough I clearly remember the article in the Telegraph about it.

Talks

The then US ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatric, was an anglophobe, keen to accuse the 'Brits' of al sorts in Northern Ireland, but happier it seems in the company of murderous types like the Argentine Junta, without it seems, any sense of irony.
She was the exception though, Cap Weinberger was always firmly on the UK side, (hence the later honourary knighthood).

Cap was no fool, he knew that a failure to win back the Islands, by whatever means, would sweep the Thatcher government out of office.
Then then opposition Labour Party, was in hock to the leftists and included unilateral nuclear disarmanment, the expulsion of US bases, withdrawl from the EEC, not directly stated but implied and perhaps inevitable if the former was acted out, leaving NATO too.

Al Haig wanted to be an honest broker, but his stance changed more each time he met the Argentine Junta, finding them an impossible, not very bright, swaggering, vain bunch too fond of booze.

The Junta in turn had been influenced by events 25 years before, the US cutting the UK and Frances feet from under them at Suez, they thought the same would happen this time, if the Brits tried a military solution, which they did think would happen anyway, the example of India taking Portguese Goa was another example for them.

France was very helpful, arranging air to air training for the Sea Harriers as the carriers steamed through the Bay Of Biscay, with their Mirages and Super Etendards.

Adm Woodward, commanding the Task Force, was careful with how he deployed his carriers, some would later say he should have been awarded the Burma Star, such was the Eastward deployment of these vessels!