AHC: costliest possible British victory at Falklands

What would be the worst case scenario where British still win but take more casualties?

With a reasonable and plausible POD(s). So no "Argentinians obtain a fleet of long range bombers" but "more Exocets" is OK. Say more agressive pilots and military on the ground, better use of existing equipment (again no "Argentinians obtain shitload of most modern MBTs") and troops etc.
 
Have Argentina garrison way more troops in the Falklands so the fight is simply larger and bloodier? Britain isn't going to invade the Argentinean mainland, so the Argies can spare the men. Set the number at the highest level at which Britain both still attempts a counter-invasion of the Falklands and wins.
 
Didn't the Argentinians not use their Aircraft Carrier at all during the British counteroffensive? You could have them use that and the war suddenly gets a lot costlier for the British, although Argentina still can't stop the Royal Navy which was still a formidable thing back then.

That and stationing more men on the islands would do pretty well.
 
D You could have them use that and the war suddenly gets a lot costlier for the British, although Argentina still can't stop the Royal Navy which was still a formidable thing back then.

I don't know about that. If I was in command of the British task force, the Argentine carrier would be my primary target. I'd probably have the submarines hunt down and destroy it instead of the ex-Phoenix. Take out the enemy carrier first then go after the rest.
 
Have Argentina garrison way more troops in the Falklands so the fight is simply larger and bloodier? Britain isn't going to invade the Argentinean mainland, so the Argies can spare the men. Set the number at the highest level at which Britain both still attempts a counter-invasion of the Falklands and wins.

Would that work logistics wise?

From what I gathered Argentinians could have inflicted more casualties with existing troops and equipment had they been used more agressively.
 
If I was Argentinian the first thing I would have done was to lengthen the runway and start developing the infrastructure to allow it to station Skyhawks and those local built things whose name escapes me. Skyhawks with a full tank of juice would have made a big difference on the anti shipping runs. And get all those unwilling conscripts out off the way leaving the more motivated volunteers to defend the place.
 
I don't know about that. If I was in command of the British task force, the Argentine carrier would be my primary target. I'd probably have the submarines hunt down and destroy it instead of the ex-Phoenix. Take out the enemy carrier first then go after the rest.

Then why did the British just let the Argentine Carrier just sit there in a cove for the whole war and not go after it?
 

Bill Door

Banned
Argie's fix the Mk 82 free fall bombs so they arm at 200 feet instead of 1000.

A dozen more Brit ships on the bottom.
 

sharlin

Banned
Then why did the British just let the Argentine Carrier just sit there in a cove for the whole war and not go after it?

Umm it didn't. It sat in harbour in Argentina (which the RN/RAF was not allowed to strike at) and came out only once when the Belgrano was sunk, she was meant to launch a strike from her flight deck but could not due to a complete lack of wind where she was and she was futiley steaming around trying to find a strong breeze.

Also there is a rumour/legend that a RN sub was also shadowing the carrier and only needed permission to attack.
 
Umm it didn't. It sat in harbour in Argentina (which the RN/RAF was not allowed to strike at) and came out only once when the Belgrano was sunk, she was meant to launch a strike from her flight deck but could not due to a complete lack of wind where she was and she was futiley steaming around trying to find a strong breeze.

Also there is a rumour/legend that a RN sub was also shadowing the carrier and only needed permission to attack.

Oh wow, I had thought that the Carrier was sitting in the Falklands somewhere. Okay then.
 
Then why did the British just let the Argentine Carrier just sit there in a cove for the whole war and not go after it?

No point, reportedly a British SSN was preparing for a torpedo attack on the Argentine carrier at the very moment the 25th of May heard about the torpedoing of the General Belgrano and turned away from the Falklands for good.
 

Riain

Banned
I'd have the Argies delay until May 24, and present the invasion to the people on their national holiday. This would push any invasion attempt to the next southern summer and allow both sides to organise better and would generally ramp up the level of violence on both sides.
 
I'd have the Argies delay until May 24, and present the invasion to the people on their national holiday. This would push any invasion attempt to the next southern summer and allow both sides to organise better and would generally ramp up the level of violence on both sides.

The problem with that is that OTL tensions had begun to wrap up weeks before the initial Argentine invasion thanks to the exploits of the scrap metal merchants on South Georgia. IIRC the initial landings in South Georgia were less a part of the plan than an opportunity exploited by it, so might still go ahead. This is important because the initial British moves were in response to the South Georgia operations, not the actual invasion - in particular, two nuclear submarines were ordered south on the 29th of March. Any delay of more than a fortnight means these boats are on station and the invasion simply doesn't happen. Even if south Georgia is still delayed, an extra two months of tension may also provoke the British government to at least reinforce the garrison of the Falkands and even as little as a properly equipped battalion of paras would probably be enough to make the invasion unacceptably costly.

I think if you want to make the war bloodier the only change you need is a much easier one - take away from the Argentine leadership the delusion that a democracy led by a woman will be too weak and indecisive to respond forcefully and give them the understanding that they are going to have to fight to keep the islands - put professionals in as the garrison, not raw conscripts, make sure they have plenty of artillery, anti-aircraft weaponry and as much armour as you can get to the islands - IIRC the British got more tanks onto the Falklands OTL than the Argentinians, which is ridiculous - and most importantly appoint a general with fire in his belly to command the garrison, not a military bureaucrat.

It probably won't change the outcome, but a garrison willing and ready to fight will make life much more difficult for the British.
 
The problem with that is that OTL tensions had begun to wrap up weeks before the initial Argentine invasion thanks to the exploits of the scrap metal merchants on South Georgia. IIRC the initial landings in South Georgia were less a part of the plan than an opportunity exploited by it, so might still go ahead. This is important because the initial British moves were in response to the South Georgia operations, not the actual invasion - in particular, two nuclear submarines were ordered south on the 29th of March. Any delay of more than a fortnight means these boats are on station and the invasion simply doesn't happen. Even if south Georgia is still delayed, an extra two months of tension may also provoke the British government to at least reinforce the garrison of the Falkands and even as little as a properly equipped battalion of paras would probably be enough to make the invasion unacceptably costly.

I've seen this thrown around, i.e. invasion delayed and going of as planned so it happens before winter making immediate recapture problematic.

I think if you want to make the war bloodier the only change you need is a much easier one - take away from the Argentine leadership the delusion that a democracy led by a woman will be too weak and indecisive to respond forcefully and give them the understanding that they are going to have to fight to keep the islands - put professionals in as the garrison, not raw conscripts, make sure they have plenty of artillery, anti-aircraft weaponry and as much armour as you can get to the islands - IIRC the British got more tanks onto the Falklands OTL than the Argentinians, which is ridiculous - and most importantly appoint a general with fire in his belly to command the garrison, not a military bureaucrat.

also any heavy stuff and supplies for it would have to be shipped right away, before RN can start thinking about blockade. After that you can establish air bridge (of sorts) to fly in lighter stuff.

It probably won't change the outcome, but a garrison willing and ready to fight will make life much more difficult for the British.

I'm not interested in "Argentinians win", just "British win but pay heavier price"
 
I'm not interested in "Argentinians win", just "British win but pay heavier price"
Realistically once the British are ashore even the best Argentine troops aren't going to stop them, just bleed them rather more than OTL.

Another possiblity is the Argentinians using their submarines rather better - OTL they caused no British casualties, but the British never really found them and were worried by them throughout the war. That to me is the biggest single thing they could have done and didn't really try.
 

Tube alloys

Banned
Also there is a rumour/legend that a RN sub was also shadowing the carrier and only needed permission to attack.

which is true we did have one shadowing it but the weather was so shite we lost sight of it and it escaped before we could find it again.
 
- put professionals in as the garrison, not raw conscripts, .

Weren't most of the professionals back home to help keep the junta in Argentina in power.

IIRC, the Argentine general in command of the Air Force was the most aggressive and competent and it showed in the fact that his forces actually managed to hurt the British the most despite antiquated equipment and poor training.
 
Realistically once the British are ashore even the best Argentine troops aren't going to stop them, just bleed them rather more than OTL.

Another possiblity is the Argentinians using their submarines rather better - OTL they caused no British casualties, but the British never really found them and were worried by them throughout the war. That to me is the biggest single thing they could have done and didn't really try.

I though Goose Green was a close thing......
 
I though Goose Green was a close thing......

Goose Green consisted of a head on attack against a prepared position on a narrow front by a force that was outnumbered by the defenders by about 2:1 and it was still wrapped up in about half a day. There was never another battle in the war when the defence had such a big advantage, and it still wasn't really close.
 
Top