An alternate Falklands war- what is the fallout?

[usertron2020]

Show of hands for everyone who was politically aware in 1981, your age then, and have already posted in this thread? Because I'm seeing an awful lot of opinions that seem terribly skewed from the realities of the time back then.

usertron2020, age 20 in April-June, 1981

In my neck of the woods, of everyone I knew (New England, USA), I was the only one predicting that a real war was about to start. Everybody else changed their minds after the General Belgrano was sunk.

 

[jamsodonnell]

Show of hands for everyone who was politically aware in 1981, your age then, and have already posted in this thread? Because I'm seeing an awful lot of opinions that seem terribly skewed from the realities of the time back then.

usertron2020, age 20 in April-June, 1981

In my neck of the woods, of everyone I knew (New England, USA), I was the only one predicting that a real war was about to start. Everybody else changed their minds after the General Belgrano was sunk.

Was 19 at the time. I remember feeling that it could all go horrily wrong. eg if the Hermes had been hit instead of the Atlantic Conveyer. I shuddered to think what would have happened if one of the big liner transports like the QEII had been hit.

Let's run with the scenario as it stands and let's say that the task force been severely mauled - say with both carriers out of action if not sunk - and forced to retreat, the political consequences would have been dire for the Tories.

The Falkands were a watershed for the Tories in terms of popularity. A defeat would have been a catastrophe for its fortunes. Add defeat to serious discontent about economic problems and high unemployment and they would have faced a huge fall in support at the next election.

That would usully guaranteed a Labour victory but Labour was in severe disarrray in the early 80s (hence the SDP) and high levels of support for the SDP/Liberal Alliance would almost certainly have led to a hung parliament.

Now that would have been fun. If would be hard to have the tories as a coalition partner given what had transpired but a Labour/Alliance coalition would have been fraught with problems (not least the ill feeling over the schism that led to the SDPformation a couple of years before) and would almost certainly have collapsed within a couple of years if not before.

 

[jack o' lantern]

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 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).

That was the official version at the time but it neglects to mention the modern torpedo was the Tigerfish which was a piece of sh**.

From Wiki: In a test carried out by submarines returning to the UK after the war two of five Mod 1 Tigerfish fired at a target hulk failed to function at all and the remaining three failed to hit the target.

 

[Astrodragon]

Show of hands for everyone who was politically aware in 1981, your age then, and have already posted in this thread? Because I'm seeing an awful lot of opinions that seem terribly skewed from the realities of the time back then.

usertron2020, age 20 in April-June, 1981

In my neck of the woods, of everyone I knew (New England, USA), I was the only one predicting that a real war was about to start. Everybody else changed their minds after the General Belgrano was sunk.

Me. Who was working in the defence industry at the time and had a worms-eye view.

Most of the people posting seem to have been too young to know at the time, and believe the last 10 years left-wing rewriting of the Thatcher years. Or who dont realise how bloody-minded the British are.

 

[Jape]

Right I've gone through seat by seat to project a post-defeat General Election.

I decided arbitrarily to cut the Conservative vote by 10%, and divide the spoils between the Alliance and Labour, taking into account whether its an urban or rural seat and such (plus the Nationalists were necessary) but roughly equating to 5% each. The results are a mess. Where there's a single strong opponent Conservative safe seats fall en masse, while other apparently more vulnerable see Labour and the Alliance cancel each other out. In some close run 3-way contests, the Alliance are able to leap frog from third to take the seat. The SNP also makes something of a comeback, and Plaid get an extra seat - I'm not sure how the Falklands would effect Ulster so I've left it as normal. I was quite surprised how many seats the Alliance just missed out on IOTL.

The vote percentiles for the big three have Labour (just) winning the popular vote on 32%, Conservatives less than 0.5 behind and the Alliance hovering around 30%. The projected results -with swings from 1979- are:

Conservative – 279 (-58)

Labour – 278 (+9)

SDP-Liberal – 69 (+58*)

UUP - 11

SNP - 4 (+2)

DUP - 3

PC - 3 (+1)

SDLP - 1
SF - 1
UPU - 1

Basically the Alliance holds the balance. The Conservatives have the right to form a government as largest party, so I imagine a Wet-Alliance coalition. And for those wondering, the Liberals have the lion's share of Alliance seats, meaning David Steel would be Deputy PM. Lot's of fun for Spitting Image.

*Based on 1979 Liberal seats alone

 

[sharlin]

I was a year old and don't count and yes we was bloody minded, and we still can be.

 

[usertron2020]

That was the official version at the time but it neglects to mention the modern torpedo was the Tigerfish which was a piece of sh**.

From Wiki: In a test carried out by submarines returning to the UK after the war two of five Mod 1 Tigerfish fired at a target hulk failed to function at all and the remaining three failed to hit the target.

jack o' lantern
MUC
Gunnarnz

Except it was the Mark 8 WWII torpedo that sunk the Belgrano. IIRC, only the anti-submarine version of the Tigerfish had been deployed by 1981, not the antiship variant. It's not just the fish, but how close you can get without the enemy ever knowing you were there. For all of Anaya's political and military incompetence, the one wise decision he made was to get the hell out of Dodge once the Belgrano went down, as his mostly WWII era navy flat out didn't have a chance against a WWIII Royal Navy. And his diesel-electric West German made submarines revealed themselves (or at least their fish) to be lemons.

BTW? The Hermes and Invincible were kept well out of air range of the Argentine Air Force, and the Super Entendards lacked the AWACs to FIND the carriers, which were much better protected than the ships that were lost. The QE2 being lost? Impossible. She was never allowed closer than South Georgia Island. The juiciest target the Argentines had was the ocean liner Canberra, converted to being a hospital ship IIRC. She was actually in the invasion harbor itself in the first few days of the invasion.

Not that the British being forced to withdraw their task force was ASB, mind. The admiral of the British fleet specifically said he WOULD have withdrawn if all the bombs that hit exploded. But they didn't. This was the payoff for the British fighting a Fascist military dictatorship. The Navy was so politically debauched (1) that they wouldn't tell the Air Force of the tactic of "bomb lobbing", that allowed WWII era bombs the time in mid-flight to engage their detonators to explode properly. WWII bombs were not designed to be used at 600 MPH speeds. But Anaya, anxious to aggrandize his own service (2) over that of the much more successful Air Force, had his people keep their mouths shut. (3)

1) The Navy admirals were very much in control of the Falklands conflict from the very start, and it seems as though Galtieri wasn't in much of a position to moderate Anaya's influence at all. Particularly considering the popularity of the Falklands War domestically in Argentina.

2) After getting his country into this mess in the first place and then mostly leaving the Army in the lurch and having the Air Force doing the heavy lifting.

3) To paraphrase Herman Wouk: "As thieves tend to fall out, so authoritarians make poor allies."

 

[The Red]

Basically the Alliance holds the balance. The Conservatives have the right to form a government as largest party, so I imagine a Wet-Alliance coalition. And for those wondering, the Liberals have the lion's share of Alliance seats, meaning David Steel would be Deputy PM. Lot's of fun for Spitting Image.

*Based on 1979 Liberal seats alone

Jenkins was 'Prime Minister Designate' so DPM might be more likely to fall to him. A Conservative-Alliance coalition is probably most likely though, unless Foot was willing to make very large concessions, probably including his own resignation for someone more moderate.

 

[usertron2020]

Jenkins was 'Prime Minister Designate' so DPM might be more likely to fall to him. A Conservative-Alliance coalition is probably most likely though, unless Foot was willing to make very large concessions, probably including his own resignation for someone more moderate.

Nah. The whole problem with Labor at the time was that they were very much in a Left Wing version of a Barry Goldwater-style of electoral politics. Damn moderation, we are going balls to the wall and we are going to PROVE the country is REALLY with us and has been all along. All we have to do is stay pure, stay true to our goals, and just keep at it, trusting the Tories will fail. Eventually.

 

[The Red]

Nah. The whole problem with Labor at the time was that they were very much in a Left Wing version of a Barry Goldwater-style of electoral politics. Damn moderation, we are going balls to the wall and we are going to PROVE the country is REALLY with us and has been all along. All we have to do is stay pure, stay true to our goals, and just keep at it, trusting the Tories will fail. Eventually.

It was more complex than that, the 1983 election didn't look winnable, the mood on the right of the party was 'if we're going to lose this election, better to have it pegged on the hard left', hence why the so-called 'Longest Suicide Note in History' got through the NEC so easily. If the victory seems possible, or even likely, the manifesto is likely to be more moderate and better presented. If a hung parliament seems likely then preparations will likely be made for negotiations as well.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Show of hands for everyone who was politically aware in 1981, your age then, and have already posted in this thread? Because I'm seeing an awful lot of opinions that seem terribly skewed from the realities of the time back then.

usertron2020, age 20 in April-June, 1981

In my neck of the woods, of everyone I knew (New England, USA), I was the only one predicting that a real war was about to start. Everybody else changed their minds after the General Belgrano was sunk.

19 & working in Lloyd's of London. Remember that when the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk the rumour in the market was that it had been one of the carriers that had been struck by an Exocet. [Incidentally going to Gallipoli next week with an RAF veteran who was on board the Atlantic Conveyor when it was sunk, then on one of the frigates when it too was sunk. Call him Uncle Albert! Family thought he was dead when his salary wasn't paid.]

At the time I was (& still am to a lesser degree) a committed Socialist. IMHO a British defeat, whether temporary or permanent, would have seen Thatcher purged by the Tories, as she was not popular with a large number of the party's big beasts, although very popular with the rank & file. No need for an election until 1984 & no way the Tories would call one before that - their majority was workable in the circumstances. Unlikely to be enough by-elections to erode it within 2 years, although just possible there could be more Tory defections to the SDP. Best guess for the election of 84 would be a hung Parliament between a centre-right Conservative Party under Whitelaw or Heseltine, and a more left-wing Labour under Benn that managed to make the manifesto an even more successful suicide note than 83 Balance held by the SDP / Liberals who may have picked up more right-wing / moderate Labour MPs & voters. The Great Charm Rat would go downin British history as even more reviled & despised as a PM than Eden.

On the question of a coup... welll, it is just possible, but not in the way originally stated. Given the politics of senior military and the interests involved, a coup d'etat by Britain's armed forces could only come against a LEFT-wing government. And there would not have been one more rabidly left-wing than a victorious Bennite one. That is the only scenario that I could envisage preceding a military coup - and has already been done brilliantly as a previous poster recalled in A Very British Coup - but even that would involve stretching the boundaries of possibility.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Nah. The whole problem with Labor at the time was that they were very much in a Left Wing version of a Barry Goldwater-style of electoral politics. Damn moderation, we are going balls to the wall and we are going to PROVE the country is REALLY with us and has been all along. All we have to do is stay pure, stay true to our goals, and just keep at it, trusting the Tories will fail. Eventually.

Got it in one. It took me until well after the '87 election to come to my senses as a Labour supporter. It took strong leadership from - and don't laugh - Neil Kinnock to start the road back from Bennite / Scargillite delusions.

 

[usertron2020]

Yeah, "A Very British Coup" was all about the responses to an ultra-left government in the UK, not the likelihood of it or even how it could have ever come about. IIRC, the scenario was of an overwhelming Labor landslide with only a single token moderate in the government. Also, no mention of a split away by any SODEMALL party. Even as an American, I found the film entertaining. After all, it was a fantasy, where you were free to more or less pretend that the world outside of the west didn't even exist (i.e., the USSR at the time of the 1982 novel). And I did remember a hilarious BBC movie that went in the same vein, with hilarious results. (1)

1) I don't remember the name of the film, other than it had as the American President the British actor Barry Morse. The newly elected Prime Minister Pork of the UK had announced a near total abolition of military spending (98%!), and dropping out of NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, while adopting a strictly neutralist foreign policy. This was made possible because, as he told his Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, he would be taking over Britain's defense needs personally in his capacity as the Last Son of Krypton, Superman! Needless to say, he was NOT Superman.

This left the Foreign Secretary with no choice but to sign a treaty with the Soviets, having the United Kingdom enter the Warsaw Pact! As Britain's new treaty with Moscow stated: "You are free to leave the Warsaw Pact at any time, subject to the usual MILITARY FORMALITIES."

And leaving poor Barry Morse with authorizing the selection of nuclear strike targets in the United Kingdom!

So it was easy for me to put "Coup" in a proper perspective.

 

[usertron2020]

Got it in one. It took me until well after the '87 election to come to my senses as a Labour supporter. It took strong leadership from - and don't laugh - Neil Kinnock to start the road back from Bennite / Scargillite delusions.

You mean you weren't thrilled at the prospect of "The Peoples Democratic Republic of Britain"?

 

[jamsodonnell]

Yeah, "A Very British Coup" was all about the responses to an ultra-left government in the UK, not the likelihood of it or even how it could have ever come about. IIRC, the scenario was of an overwhelming Labor landslide with only a single token moderate in the government. Also, no mention of a split away by any SODEMALL party. Even as an American, I found the film entertaining. After all, it was a fantasy, where you were free to more or less pretend that the world outside of the west didn't even exist (i.e., the USSR at the time of the 1982 novel). And I did remember a hilarious BBC movie that went in the same vein, with hilarious results. (1)

1) I don't remember the name of the film, other than it had as the American President the British actor Barry Morse. The newly elected Prime Minister Pork of the UK had announced a near total abolition of military spending (98%!), and dropping out of NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, while adopting a strictly neutralist foreign policy. This was made possible because, as he told his Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, he would be taking over Britain's defense needs personally in his capacity as the Last Son of Krypton, Superman! Needless to say, he was NOT Superman.

This left the Foreign Secretary with no choice but to sign a treaty with the Soviets, having the United Kingdom enter the Warsaw Pact! As Britain's new treaty with Moscow stated: "You are free to leave the Warsaw Pact at any time, subject to the usual MILITARY FORMALITIES."

And leaving poor Barry Morse with authorizing the selection of nuclear strike targets in the United Kingdom!

So it was easy for me to put "Coup" in a proper perspective.

Whoops Apocalypse!

 

[Jape]

Whoops Apocalypse!

A highly underrated film - Peter Cook as a certainly insane cross between Macmillan and Reagan, Ian Richardson (PM Urquart) as a hypnotised Admiral, Rik Mayall leading the most incompetent SAS team of all time... actually apart from that pretty mediocre but the good parts were good! So when I say underrated, its popularly considered god awful when its really just disappointing.

Anyway, if you see a dangerously hung parliament per my calculations (roughly 280 seats for Labour and Conservative with 70 odd Alliance), regardless of whether its Benn or Healey is in charge I just can't see Labour going into coalition with the SDP, wounds are too fresh. So if we see a One Nation Tory/Alliance government, how do you think it will go? Will the Dries cause problems? After all it would only take 25-30 Dry MPs to derail legislation - if Labour were working in tandem, which given Benn being oddly close friends with Powell and the like isn't too insane, particularly if they both take the diehard view that "once we get rid of the compromising moderates then we can get back to the great ideological battle".

Could the government ferment a Centre Party movement?

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

You mean you weren't thrilled at the prospect of "The Peoples Democratic Republic of Britain"?

I was in the late 70s & early 80s

 

[StevoJH]

Usertron, what happened in 1981? You keep referencing that date so am I missing something?

Just feeling a little confused here, was there some sort of UK or Argentine government decision in 1981?

Because I thought the Falklands war was in 1982.

A delay in the Task Force sailing until say October/November 1982 probably would have made the Admirals very happy.

Hermes, Bulwark(?), Invincible & Illustrious heading south with full hangers of Sea Harriers. They also would have had AEW Sea Kings aboard. Bulwark would have been invaluble as a deck for operating Sea King's and Chinooks for the Commando's.

Additional Sea Wolf and Sea Dart platforms are available by that time aboard Leander class, T22 and T42's.

Depending on how far gone they were, the two Tiger class cruisers could also have been sent south for bombardment, ASW and the landing of Special Forces by Helicopter.

The downside is the possibility of Argentina getting an airfield capable of operating Mirage 3's though whether they could supply them with fuel would be arguable.

 

[oudi14]

I was 27 at the time of the war. I remember reading that Admiral Anaya [who must have been a real arrogant, egotistical AH] telling Al Haig to his face that he was a liar. Haig had been trying to convince the junta that the British were serious, and would not back down. But Anaya, because of what had happened in Vietnam, had convinced himself that 'democracies cannot sustain casualties', forgetting the lessons of World War 2; I remember remarking to my dad that a nation which had undergone the blitz and survived victorious was not going to be intimidated by a crew of tinpot dictators. And so it came to pass. As an earlier poster alluded to, the bloody-mindedness of the Anglo race was another thing that Galtieri, et al. didn't count on, or even understand. Our people can become viscous, when we perceive that a wrong has been done, and we go out to fix it.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Not that the British being forced to withdraw their task force was ASB, mind. The admiral of the British fleet specifically said he WOULD have withdrawn if all the bombs that hit exploded. But they didn't. This was the payoff for the British fighting a Fascist military dictatorship. The Navy was so politically debauched (1) that they wouldn't tell the Air Force of the tactic of "bomb lobbing", that allowed WWII era bombs the time in mid-flight to engage their detonators to explode properly. WWII bombs were not designed to be used at 600 MPH speeds. But Anaya, anxious to aggrandize his own service (2) over that of the much more successful Air Force, had his people keep their mouths shut. (3)

(bold mine)

Is that correct?

AFAIK their bombs weren't designed to be dropped from such low attitude as that made them lack the time to arm properly.
All it would have taken for those bombs to explode, was to be dropped from a higher altitude. However, that would have increased the - already significant - Argentinian losses further, this time especially from ship-born air defence.

Considering that the Allies did a lot of strategic bombing from high altitude in WWII; Those bombs probably reached speeds of up to a 1000 feet per second, if not more. A 1000 fps is 650+ MPH.