An alternate Falklands war- what is the fallout?

[Simon]

Of coarse, thanks the Army 'Yompers', the special forces, the Navy, Air Force and Merchant Navy the UK did the impossible and recaptured Port Stanley- securing Thatcher's next term.

Navy - in the most case Royal Marine - yompers, the Army tabs.

...and people will lean towards a far-left party (As Miss Thatcher was a Conservative Party member which is a Right-Wing party), either that or there is a possibility of a Military Coup in London thus turning the UK into a Military Dictatorship.

The victory in the Falklands certainly helped Margaret Thatcher in the polls since the Conservatives were doing rather badly at the time, although as other have mentioned it might not of been as decisive as sometimes written up as, so it's a good possibility. The idea of a coup d'état though is just silly. This is pretty much getting into conspiracy theory territory like the supposed coup against Harold Wilson. The fact that as far as I'm aware apart from a couple of disaffected people there's been no real evidence to back up the stories makes me put little stock in them.

And finally sooner or later, war will erupt again between the UK and Argentina, with a potential invasion of Argentina itself.

Er, if the Argentinians have managed to destroy most of the British task force in 1982 what exactly are they going to invade with? And why on earth would they invade the Argentinian mainland? That puts what limited invasion force they can transport and land on the same landmass as the Argentinian army, and even if their quality isn't all that great they would still massively outnumber the British and can be just trucked in to the invasion area. If in the unlikely event that the British ever did try to launch a counter-invasion then they'd go for the Falkland Islands themselves since Argentina will have a harder time moving forces there to try and counter them and the islands are what it's all about in the first place.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Miss Thatcher...

That honorific would be a surprise to her husband Denis and her children Mark and Carol.

 

[Octospire]

I have previously read that the U.S was going to sell/loan the British one of the Kitty Hawk Class carriers.

I can imagine in this timeline they would of also bought some surplus U.S anti-air destroyers and frigates. Within a year the British would of had a trained crews capable of retaking the Falklands.

Also I cant imagine the entire invasion fleet being destroyed, heavy losses perhaps even 60%, but once shit hit the fan that badly the Royal Navy would of withdrawn from battle to fight another day.

I think a loss in the Falklands would of only galvanised British resolve, no matter how bleak a war looks the British fight on till the bitter end. From the Napoleonic wars, through WW1, the Blitz, Dunkirk and WW2 the British have always fought on until the bitter end, especially when they are defending their territory.

In my opinion the loss of a great portion of the fleet would of lead to an even more right winged government in Britain, a government that would swear that this would never happen again, that would pledge that Britain would again rule the waves. Basically the British would bide their time until they had the resources to crush their enemy and in the mean time torpedo every single Argentinian navy and merchant ship that came into their submarines crosshairs.

I can also imagine that this government would tell the Chinese government they can have the new territories but they would keep Hong Kong, but thats another story.

 

[Killer300]

I have previously read that the U.S was going to sell/loan the British one of the Kitty Hawk Class carriers.

I can imagine in this timeline they would of also bought some surplus U.S anti-air destroyers and frigates. Within a year the British would of had a trained crews capable of retaking the Falklands.

Also I cant imagine the entire invasion fleet being destroyed, heavy losses perhaps even 60%, but once shit hit the fan that badly the Royal Navy would of withdrawn from battle to fight another day.

I think a loss in the Falklands would of only galvanised British resolve, no matter how bleak a war looks the British fight on till the bitter end. From the Napoleonic wars, through WW1, the Blitz, Dunkirk and WW2 the British have always fought on until the bitter end, especially when they are defending their territory.

In my opinion the loss of a great portion of the fleet would of lead to an even more right winged government in Britain, a government that would swear that this would never happen again, that would pledge that Britain would again rule the waves. Basically the British would bide their time until they had the resources to crush their enemy and in the mean time torpedo every single Argentinian navy and merchant ship that came into their submarines crosshairs.

I can also imagine that this government would tell the Chinese government they can have the new territories but they would keep Hong Kong, but thats another story.

With the last, that would be unbelievably stupid, and would probably lead to immense problems for the United Kingdom down the road.

For the event itself, its an island. Neither faction should care about it all that much, but the UK spending even more resources to do what? That's right, get an ISLAND. Not a big one either, or one that has any real world strategic importance in the long run.

 

[Octospire]

With the last, that would be unbelievably stupid, and would probably lead to immense problems for the United Kingdom down the road.

For the event itself, its an island. Neither faction should care about it all that much, but the UK spending even more resources to do what? That's right, get an ISLAND. Not a big one either, or one that has any real world strategic importance in the long run.

Hong Kong and Kowloon were ceded to Britain in perpetuity, the new territories were part of the 99 year lease. If Britain chose to retain Hong Kong and Kowloon they were doing nothing wrong.

For both factions the Falklands are issues that give political traction, also once a conflict has began its no longer about the original issue its about honor, revenge and final victory. Britain didnt back down when Germany was raining bombs on London I cant imagine lossing a carrier or two and half a dozen destroyers would make them back down in the long term. Also loss of life tends to amplify public opinion in favour of revenge, with the thousands dead from the loss of part of the invasion fleet the British public would want blood and the government would give it to them.

I remember my father (who's British) telling me about watching the coverage of the Falklands on tv and how angry the British public were when the Argentinians sunk the Sheffield . The British public in Sheffield were literally in tears over the loss of their ship, they wanted revenge and they got it.

The British are far too proud to back down from a fight, they always have been and in the long run they would do anything to restore their place in the world as a force to be reckoned with. For example in reality despite defence cuts across the board the Royal Navy is getting 2 new super carriers, with these new warships any future Argentine agression towards the Falklands would be ill advised at best.

 

[Killer300]

The problem with your example is that was World War 2, which was against the Axis, and fighting for very different goals.

The Falklands is an island, which the loss of threatens the United Kingdom in no fashion. What's the point of wasting lives and materials to get it back if it can't be seized on the first try?

And before you talk about the emotional standpoint, I have a counter. Why the RN continue to the point of losing 60% of the navy sent? That'd be ludicrous, so they would withdraw earlier.

If they do so, Argentina can fortify that island so heavily that the RN can't seize it back without a ludicrous amount of resources spent on something that is pointless.

Of course, this entire debate is pointless. Argentina actually beating the RN is quite ludicrous, considering the technological gap, among other things. They should've just tried to seize stuff in Chile, as it would've had significantly less political costs.

 

[juanml82]

The Falklands is an island, which the loss of threatens the United Kingdom in no fashion. What's the point of wasting lives and materials to get it back if it can't be seized on the first try?

Not losing the next election.

If they do so, Argentina can fortify that island so heavily that the RN can't seize it back without a ludicrous amount of resources spent on something that is pointless.

I'm not sure. Even if the British surface fleet withdraws, the nuclear subs would remain, so the islands would be under a naval blockade. Stuff can be brought by airplane and, just maybe, the Argentine navy decides to risk sending some fast freighter under a storm. But in any case, they can't be fortified too much and there would be no resources to sustain enough soldiers to man fortifications anyway.

Of course, this entire debate is pointless. Argentina actually beating the RN is quite ludicrous, considering the technological gap, among other things. They should've just tried to seize stuff in Chile, as it would've had significantly less political costs.

There wasn't that much of a tech gap (compared, for instance, with the recent NATO-Lybia war). It's a matter of planning (which could butterfly away the war) or luck. Both British carriers were detected early in the war. However, in the case of HMS Invincible, there was nothing ready to strike her and, in the case of HMS Hermes, the Sheffield was hit instead. Change that and you have both carriers out of action. With little, if any, air cover, the British surface fleet would be vulnerable to airstrikes by Argentine fighters.
The thing is, that wins the battle, but not necessarily the war.

 

[Killer300]

Okay, there must be a severe technological gap. Why?

If there isn't, why can't Argentina destroys Britain's subs? People keep bringing up how they'll cause severe problems for the Argentinean Navy while Britain's recovers, which seems to be because Argentina's Navy apparently can't conduct ASW to get rid of them.

With the first, its an island. The populace wasn't exactly thrilled with entering the conflict to begin with, why would they want to go back to get it?

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Well, during the actual conflict, Argentina's ASW performance wasn't that great (see also General Belgrano). It's not like it would get that much better over the course of a year or so, especially considering that the British will be attriting their assets.

 

[Killer300]

Well, during the actual conflict, Argentina's ASW performance wasn't that great (see also General Belgrano). It's not like it would get that much better over the course of a year or so, especially considering that the British will be attriting their assets.

Which means, for this scenario to work, Argentina needs to get better ASW, as I'd argue that is partially what would be required for them to win even the initial parts of the Falklands War.

Perfect ASW? No, but British subs can't have impunity in sinking merchants and the like. I doubt this is possible though, hence, my earlier point with the technological gap still stands.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Okay, there must be a severe technological gap. Why?

If there isn't, why can't Argentina destroys Britain's subs? People keep bringing up how they'll cause severe problems for the Argentinean Navy while Britain's recovers, which seems to be because Argentina's Navy apparently can't conduct ASW to get rid of them.

A technology gap and a skill gap are not the same thing (although they often occur together, so it's easy to think they are, and one often leads to the other).
A technology gap occurs when there is a significant shortcoming in the type of technology available to one side. Obviously that wasn't the case in the Falklands: the Argentines Navy had a couple of Type 42 destroyers, the same ones the British were using, and their aircraft were comparable in most key respects (the important difference was the all-aspect Sidewinder the British had). But in general, Argentine and British forces had the same level of technology available to them.
The important difference lay in how well they could use them, and this is where the skillgap came in. The RN subs, for example, despite using WW2 torpedoes, were used to going up against top-line NATO navies in ASW exercises. As a result, their crews knew their jobs very well. Argentine ASW training was less rigorous, so they didn't have the same level of capability in that field (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they barely practiced it at all, let alone against top-line opponents).
The Argentine pilots seem to have been closer to being on an even footing against the British, but I strongly suspect the British pilots got more training of a more realistic nature. So despite relative technological parity, there still was something of a skill gap, and the British could use this to their advantage.

 

[Killer300]

Okay, that's an interesting point, however this doesn't really help us here.

My point is, unless Argentina can find a way to perform ASW on a level to force the UK out of the Falklands, and before can, beat the surface fleet, this discussion is pointless, because the initial requirements cause so many issues.

 

[MattII]

International embarrassment for the UK, the military Junta in Argentina gets a popularity boost, Maggie's out in '83, and the RN gets a financial boost.

 

[Jape]

If the Argentine Air Force does better and cripples the Task Force, leading to stalemate, you'll see Reagen running in to organise a settlement. Given the tiny population of the Falklands, this most likely consists of voluntary evacuation with compensations from Argentina (as was Britain's 'long grass' solution pre-1982). I imagine the majority would accept with a few hundred die hards remaining meaning the Islands will stay in the press for much longer.

Thatcher is gone, Foot might be gone too given his pro-war stance, and the Conservatives' polling numbers dive bomb even further than before. The next election will be a shambles - Labour will probably get the most votes but are unlikely to secure a majority, the Alliance will do better but given they got 25% of the vote and only 23 seats IOTL it won't be a world beater. However a stronger three-way contest will have more effect seat by seat, if the Conservative vote collapses the Alliance will have more to gain than Labour. I might crunch the numbers and try to see the true effects.

If Foot (or even Benn) ends up at Number 10, I dare say events could lead to fractures in the party system, as I imagine such a government would be a minority or thin majority. The Wets might regain control of the Conservatives, and attempt to join forces with the Alliance in a coalition of moderation. David Owen leading a National Government anyone? Maybe the Penhaligon's Centre Party idea is resurrected?

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

First, the UK military never told the government action was impossible, just difficult.

Second, just how are the Argentines going to 'destroy' the RN task force? They arent. Assuming that somehoe they miraculously improve their attack to seriously damage it, it just pulls back (the TF was comitted well before the troops got close).

The weather (at least at sea) was pretty bad (normal for the area and season) anyway, I'm not sure how its supposed to get much worse? In any case, poor weather hits the only way the Argentines have of attacking, their air force. Again, I'm unclear as to what magical method is used to sink the carriers (Hermes in particular was a WW2 design, and TOUGH). In the longer term, the USA was (unofficially) looking at selling the UK at least one older carrier. With planes. Amazing what makes it onto the govenment-surplus market...

But lets assume that somehow the TF is forced to withdraw. It isnt that humiliating in international terms, no-one except the US was considered to be able to project power that far. The most likely outcome is strenthening of the fleet by Britain, the ruining of Argentine trade and economy, and a new TF next year.
You dont seem to understand the British thinking, Thatcher was FAR more likely to have been pushed out if she hadn't attempted the TF, than in sending it and having it fail. Britain is used to losing the first battles and winning the last ones.

Of course, miss Thatcher was determined to get back the Falklands- not to mention salvage her career. The task force would still occur- but i really, really think you underestimate how much things were against a short term british success. If the Menendez had orderd a counter attack as we landed, we could have heavy casualties, advance temporarily stalled, so the task force would be exposed to more air attacks. The british fleet took appalling losses, and could have been forced to withdraw, if the weather deteriorated we could have struggled to maintain a presence, and if the advance was drawn out, the British public would have lost the will, the task force withdrawn, Thatcher forced to resign. SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE GONE WRONG! Even general Julian Thompson, who was a senior officer on the ground in the Falklands agrees with this!

What i'm interested in is the Political and diplomatic fallout- how would Britain be changed?

And no more talks of coups! Thats just ridiculous!

Britain could have certainly won in the long run- but only so lolng as there was the political, financal will to do so. There wouldnt be financial, and i think regain would intervene to force a sttle ment. Even is say, half of the task force is crippled, the SHORT TERM situation is very, very bleak.

 

[MUC]

Okay, there must be a severe technological gap. Why?

If there isn't, why can't Argentina destroys Britain's subs? People keep bringing up how they'll cause severe problems for the Argentinean Navy while Britain's recovers, which seems to be because Argentina's Navy apparently can't conduct ASW to get rid of them.

The important difference lay in how well they could use them, and this is where the skillgap came in. The RN subs, for example, despite using WW2 torpedoes, were used to going up against top-line NATO navies in ASW exercises. As a result, their crews knew their jobs very well. Argentine ASW training was less rigorous, so they didn't have the same level of capability in that field (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they barely practiced it at all, let alone against top-line.

The RB subs did have modern torpedoes on board too. The Belgrano was sunk with WWII torpedoes simply because the RN sub got close enough to be able to use them and its commander chose them because of their bigger warheads (the Belgrano was a WWII design with significant armor).

 

[lucaswillen05]

There were a number of ways Britain could have lost.

1 As Admiral Woodward admits in One hundred Days there was an incident in which aBrazillian airliner was almost shot down.Had this happened there may well have been an internationa outcry resultingin recallof the task force. Campaign regarded as a flop worse than Suez
2 Argentines luckier Bwith Exocets and eithersink orbadlydamage one orboth carriers
3 British land forces do worse eg stalemated outside Stanley and get involved in a siege of Port Stanley in a Falklands winter.

Depending on thecause of failure Thatcher government could well fall to a vote of no confidence. At the tometheThatcher government was highly unpopular and could well lose a general election underthese circumstances. A hard left governmentuder someone like Foot would slash defence spending even further.NATO weakened considerably increasing the chance of a Soviet victory in theColdWar. Either NATO collapses and Western Europe becomes incresinglyFinlandisedin1980s and 1990s. Or there is increased temptation for the Soviets to try a military invasion of Western Europe defended by a weak and divided NATO.

 

[GarethC]

My biggest difficulty with an alt-Falkands war is the use of the acronym FAA.

The Argentine air capability was not going to sink all or even most of the task force. However, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that it could have damaged (or maybe even sunk) one or both carriers, which would have ended that attempt and caused the task force to withdraw out of range of further air strikes.

On the other hand, the Argentine navy was not really capable of conducting effective ASW operations against the RN SSNs as everybody else has already noted. Supply of the islands (whose garrison was ten times as large as the local populace, when considering the demands on the infrastructure there) would be quickly restricted to C-130s only. Type 42 destroyers are AAW platforms; they are barely capable of self-defence against a modern submarine in blue water, lacking a towed array. The other Argentine vessels were equally not fit for ASW against a front-line power - there were a few French A69 corvettes which were the least-bad but still with very short-ranged sonar and weapons compared to a Churchill-class. The remainder of the escorts were WWII USN destroyers, with WWII-era sensors. In terms of maritime patrol aircraft, the S-2s were still fairly capable, and could provide some air cover for supply convoys, but I don't know what ANA stocks of sonobuoys were like - I would doubt that they would be able to maintain that sort of patrol schedule for long. At that point it's down to accidentally flying directly over the sub and getting a MAD contact. There just isn't that much ANA sealift capability - losing three or four transports (one of which was sunk by a Type 21 with gunfire, IIRC, though that would probably be butterflied away with an early Exocet success against the CVHs) would again jeopardize the ability to either supply or withdraw the garrison.

If the Black Buck raids might be tried with a bit more success, or heliborne commando raids attempted on Stanley airport or the desalinization plant (though that was rejected earlier by the RN as a bombing target), the supply situation for the occupation force might well become completely untenable.

As to ally operations - IIRC, the biggest threat to Argentina was Chile; Galtieri had not managed to keep secret that his next trick for keeping the junta in power was going to be a short, victorious war with Santiago, but I've got to admit that anything I would propose there would just be idle speculation on my part.

Thinking about it, Argentina would have had an absolutely terrible time with the RN's SSKs, which were really very quiet for the time - did the RN have the capability to forward-deploy the Oberon-class, with RFA support? South Georgia would be best; I think the travel time from and to Ascension would leave a very short patrol endurance. Worse would be the possibility of mining the Argentine ports, although that would be an escalation that the Thatcher government would be hesitant to embrace.

While the Marine Nationale with Foch and Clemenceau would probably have been a decisive factor, Thatcher would not have wanted to ask, and Mitterand would not have wanted to be asked, for that sort of help. Probably electorally fatal for the Tories, and I really don't see Labour at that time joining any national unity government for the duration of hostilities - even though Foot might well have put partisanship second, I don't see Benn letting that chance slip away.

I don't think the RN could man a Kitty Hawk in a sensible time frame, to be honest. Either a lot of USN personnel would put on new uniforms, bad Dick van Dyke mockney accents, and revel in a service that serves beer, or a solution will be reached via submarine blockade before that.

The worst case scenario for everyone, is that Galtieri and Anaya decide to have all of the Falkanders thrown out of the back of C-130s out over the South Atlantic. Then Thatcher can escalate with USN and MN support freely.

 

[usertron2020]

GarethC

If the Argentines "disappear" the Falklanders Galtieri and Anaya will be signing their own death warrants. Something like this happened in an ASB John Birmingham novel in which (in a post-apocalyptic world) the Venezuelans did this to hundreds of refugee American children (never mind how or why, it would take too long to explain). The end result was three USN SSBN launched nuclear missiles set to detonate as "near misses" over Caracas. Not saying Thatcher would do this to Buenos Aires, but the idea under these circumstances would not be 100% ASB either.

 

[MattII]

There just isn't that much ANA sealift capability - losing three or four transports (one of which was sunk by a Type 21 with gunfire, IIRC, though that would probably be butterflied away with an early Exocet success against the CVHs) would again jeopardize the ability to either supply or withdraw the garrison.

The problem with all that is that this isn't WW2, the international community were nice enough to stand back when the war was on, but once the RN surface forces retreat, there will be protests over a continued submarine presence, and if things get rough the Argentinians can either evacuate or just concentrate of supplying the occupation troops, leaving the submarines strangling just the population. And the blockade would be gone by '83 anyway.