Brilliantlight
Banned
Gedca said:
What if they were supported by UFOs instead?
The chances were ZERO that the US would back Argentina over GB.Argentine Victory in the Falklands
- Thread starter Mike Collins
- Start date
What if they were supported by UFOs instead?
The chances were ZERO that the US would back Argentina over GB.IF all the Argie bombs that didn't explode when they hit the Brits ships did explode, the whole campaing would have taken an unexpected twist, methinks.
Argentina couldn't beat Britain, even if the ASBs helped Argentina to destroy the British invasion force that would just get Britain angry and god knows what we'd try.
Britain may have been pretty bad in the 80s due to Thatcher trying to destroy the country though we were still one of the G7 and one of the top 5 militaries in the world.
Also the prestige of us being undefeated for so long wouldn't let us loose.
For the buying the islands- what is it with Americans thinking Britain will sell everything? Thats a thing I hate a lot. Anyway I don't think the islanders would agree to that, in fact I think they would probally go to newspapers aroudn the world and sell the story about the evil Argentinians trying to buy them to earn even more money.
Britain may have been pretty bad in the 80s due to Thatcher trying to destroy the country though we were still one of the G7 and one of the top 5 militaries in the world.
Also the prestige of us being undefeated for so long wouldn't let us loose.
For the buying the islands- what is it with Americans thinking Britain will sell everything? Thats a thing I hate a lot. Anyway I don't think the islanders would agree to that, in fact I think they would probally go to newspapers aroudn the world and sell the story about the evil Argentinians trying to buy them to earn even more money.
The Argentines would have to pull off a stunt like my AH Falkland War 1982
And just for the record - I don't believe they could pull off a stunt, akin to my AH, or any other for that matter...
And just for the record - I don't believe they could pull off a stunt, akin to my AH, or any other for that matter...
Bill Cameron
Banned
Mr. Collins,
Interesting topic. I dug out a few books; primarily the one by the two UK journalists, and an old Command/XTR magazine. They pretty much agree with your premise; once the British landed it was all over. The magazine article spent nearly three pages on a WI though.
For his WI, the author first discounts the real reason the Argies invaded; the junta was in desparate straits and was frantic for anything to distract the populace with. He does this because his WI depends on the Argies taking their time and actually planning the Operation Rosario instead of muddling through it. The author, Martin Stanton, does make some good points:
- Waiting another six months would have given the Argies more Exocets, a delivery of warplanes (14 more Super-Entendards), better trained conscripts (the troops with have been further along in Argentina's 1 year induction cycle), a better carrier (modifications were planned to allow it to handle the Super-Es), more submarines (repairs completed on at least two diesel boats), better weather (landing at the beginning of the Southern Hemisphere's summer thus giving the Argies more daylight and negating a bit of the UK's tech advantage), and fewer UK forces to face (the sale of the carriers, scheduled withdrawal of Endurance, planned reduction in local forces, etc.) Of course as one poster already pointed out, the junta could not wait six months.
- The Argies should have given first priority to upgrading the Stanley airfield and should have even built additional airstrips on the islands. He suggests basing high performance aircraft in the Falklands at Stanley and Goose Green with aux strips elsewhere capable of handling helos and Pucara ground-attack craft.
- Stanton believes a small Argie airlanding/airmobile force should have taken the islands first. Next engineers and logistic assets would be brought in to prepare defenses, upgrade airfields, etc. with the actual defending troops arriving last. The Argies had about two weeks to ship units and supplies to the islands; that's the RN submarines' deployment time, after which they'd either airlift stuff in or escort fast merchantmen commandeered for the job.
- The junta kept some of it's best troops; a pair of mountain brigades, and it's two newest naval vessels; a pair of German built fast attack craft, squared off against Chile. Both nations had been bickering over the Beagle Islands and a papal arbitration on the issue was still in the works. Stanton suggests using both the troops and fast attack craft in the Falklands.
- Once the RN task force was underway, Stanton suggests that the Argies use a picket line of trawlers along with Neptune sea patrol aircraft and 707s to scout for the task force's arrival. The Argies did use the latter two.
- The Argies submarines should have been put to better use. Santa Fe was lost at South Georgia when the Argies tried to use it as a landing craft. San Luis was seemingly never used, although there are persistent rumors that she operated near to the RN task force for some time and even attempted firing solutions on occasion. If true, this is pretty embarassing for the RN, NATO's #1 ASW team. Stanton suggests that the long ranged Santa Fe could have been used to lift a Spec Ops team to Ascension to disrupt air operations based there. The other, shorter ranged subs would have used to threaten the UK SLOC between Ascension and the Falklands in the classic manner.
- Finally, the author suggested that a coordinated naval/air strike be made on the RN task force, something Woodward feared greatly. The strike, which involved air and sea launched Exocets, would be pressed home regardless of losses.
All in all, Stanton's suggestions were something that the junta would not or could not do. They could not wait and they would not plan, so they lost. My guess is that a POD would have to handle both; give the junta time and convince them to plan the operation realistically.
BIll
Interesting topic. I dug out a few books; primarily the one by the two UK journalists, and an old Command/XTR magazine. They pretty much agree with your premise; once the British landed it was all over. The magazine article spent nearly three pages on a WI though.
For his WI, the author first discounts the real reason the Argies invaded; the junta was in desparate straits and was frantic for anything to distract the populace with. He does this because his WI depends on the Argies taking their time and actually planning the Operation Rosario instead of muddling through it. The author, Martin Stanton, does make some good points:
- Waiting another six months would have given the Argies more Exocets, a delivery of warplanes (14 more Super-Entendards), better trained conscripts (the troops with have been further along in Argentina's 1 year induction cycle), a better carrier (modifications were planned to allow it to handle the Super-Es), more submarines (repairs completed on at least two diesel boats), better weather (landing at the beginning of the Southern Hemisphere's summer thus giving the Argies more daylight and negating a bit of the UK's tech advantage), and fewer UK forces to face (the sale of the carriers, scheduled withdrawal of Endurance, planned reduction in local forces, etc.) Of course as one poster already pointed out, the junta could not wait six months.
- The Argies should have given first priority to upgrading the Stanley airfield and should have even built additional airstrips on the islands. He suggests basing high performance aircraft in the Falklands at Stanley and Goose Green with aux strips elsewhere capable of handling helos and Pucara ground-attack craft.
- Stanton believes a small Argie airlanding/airmobile force should have taken the islands first. Next engineers and logistic assets would be brought in to prepare defenses, upgrade airfields, etc. with the actual defending troops arriving last. The Argies had about two weeks to ship units and supplies to the islands; that's the RN submarines' deployment time, after which they'd either airlift stuff in or escort fast merchantmen commandeered for the job.
- The junta kept some of it's best troops; a pair of mountain brigades, and it's two newest naval vessels; a pair of German built fast attack craft, squared off against Chile. Both nations had been bickering over the Beagle Islands and a papal arbitration on the issue was still in the works. Stanton suggests using both the troops and fast attack craft in the Falklands.
- Once the RN task force was underway, Stanton suggests that the Argies use a picket line of trawlers along with Neptune sea patrol aircraft and 707s to scout for the task force's arrival. The Argies did use the latter two.
- The Argies submarines should have been put to better use. Santa Fe was lost at South Georgia when the Argies tried to use it as a landing craft. San Luis was seemingly never used, although there are persistent rumors that she operated near to the RN task force for some time and even attempted firing solutions on occasion. If true, this is pretty embarassing for the RN, NATO's #1 ASW team. Stanton suggests that the long ranged Santa Fe could have been used to lift a Spec Ops team to Ascension to disrupt air operations based there. The other, shorter ranged subs would have used to threaten the UK SLOC between Ascension and the Falklands in the classic manner.
- Finally, the author suggested that a coordinated naval/air strike be made on the RN task force, something Woodward feared greatly. The strike, which involved air and sea launched Exocets, would be pressed home regardless of losses.
All in all, Stanton's suggestions were something that the junta would not or could not do. They could not wait and they would not plan, so they lost. My guess is that a POD would have to handle both; give the junta time and convince them to plan the operation realistically.
BIll
The British wanted to keep the Falklands/Malvinas because it was thought there might be oil there. I think attempts to find it have been unsuccessful so far.
It is generally accepted that up to the war, the British had been giving hints that they might sell the island to Argentina or give joint sovereignty.
In the long run it would have been cheaper for the British government to give each Falkland Islander 10 million GBP and settle them on some other god-forsaken desolate island(s).
My bet, by 2050 the Argentines have joint sovereignty.
It is generally accepted that up to the war, the British had been giving hints that they might sell the island to Argentina or give joint sovereignty.
In the long run it would have been cheaper for the British government to give each Falkland Islander 10 million GBP and settle them on some other god-forsaken desolate island(s).
My bet, by 2050 the Argentines have joint sovereignty.
Grimm is right. Britain is very fortunate the invasion happened when it did. Even still, had the Argentinians managed to sink one of the carriers it would have been a realy dicey thing, as the UK may not have been able to maintain basic air superiority over the Islands. As it was, the British loss in naval assets has to be an embarrassment for a nation with Britain's naval tradition. If the Falklands campaign was just a battle within a larger war, I'm not sure it wouldnt have been considered a tactical Argentinian victory. But it was the whole war, and Maggie did damn good in my book. There are times when you don't even consider negotiations - you just go and save your countrymen and give the aggressor a black eye. I would certainly hope that if the British fleet WAS stymied by the loss of its carriers, Ms Thatcher would make good use out of those V-bombers and missile subs and let the people in Buenas Aires know the war was not yet over. Plus, one hopes the US would help our friend out.
If the british lost one carrier and had to give up the islands for, let's say, six months, and they retaliate by bombing argentinian main land, things change a lot. The junta might actually be benefited in such a situation, after a huge explosion of nationalism. Anti-british feelings would spread in the country and maybe other latinamerican countryies, specially if there are civilian casualties. And the argentinians would also have time to rebuild its air forces. In any case, defeat is just a matter ot time, but the fight can get nasty.
Somebody many posts ago mentioned the idea of both countries still having battleships. Moreno and Rivadavia for Argentina and Vanguard for UK.
Its a little unlikely these ships would survive to 1982 but not impossible, after all the Turks had a battlecruiser kicking around until the late seventies. Vanguard would probably like the American Battleships spend several periods decommissioned due as much to difficulty finding enough crew to man her. However the more countries that do retain battleships in any kind of working condition the more encouragement their will be for Britain to keep one particularly if any of those countries are regarded as possible enemies.
So if we assume that in 1982 these three still exist and a square off what would the result be?
Barring a lucky hit the post WW2 Vanguard is going to rip the pre WW1 Moreno and Rivadavia to pieces with very little difficulty. Vanguard is faster with larger guns. Moreno and Rivadavia have thin WW1 era deck armor which is going to make them horribly vulnerable to plunging shell fire from an opponent such as Vanguard who can choose the range of the engagement.
A more likely big gun engagement is General Belgrano Vs HMS Blake the last of Britains cruisers since Blake was only decommissioned in 1979. That match up would pit General Belgrano's fifteen 6" gun against Blake's two. Given that Blake's guns are fully automatic it wouldn't be as bad a match up as it sounds but I would think that the first ship to score a serious hit would win. I think the odds would favor Blake but General Belgrano would still stand a pretty good chance.
Its a little unlikely these ships would survive to 1982 but not impossible, after all the Turks had a battlecruiser kicking around until the late seventies. Vanguard would probably like the American Battleships spend several periods decommissioned due as much to difficulty finding enough crew to man her. However the more countries that do retain battleships in any kind of working condition the more encouragement their will be for Britain to keep one particularly if any of those countries are regarded as possible enemies.
So if we assume that in 1982 these three still exist and a square off what would the result be?
Barring a lucky hit the post WW2 Vanguard is going to rip the pre WW1 Moreno and Rivadavia to pieces with very little difficulty. Vanguard is faster with larger guns. Moreno and Rivadavia have thin WW1 era deck armor which is going to make them horribly vulnerable to plunging shell fire from an opponent such as Vanguard who can choose the range of the engagement.
A more likely big gun engagement is General Belgrano Vs HMS Blake the last of Britains cruisers since Blake was only decommissioned in 1979. That match up would pit General Belgrano's fifteen 6" gun against Blake's two. Given that Blake's guns are fully automatic it wouldn't be as bad a match up as it sounds but I would think that the first ship to score a serious hit would win. I think the odds would favor Blake but General Belgrano would still stand a pretty good chance.
These old big bore gunned ships have no place on a battlefield in 1982. I would have thought the example of HMS Conqueror's sinking of the General Belgrano was proof enough that the Moreno and Rivadavia would have ended up the at the bottom of the South Atlantic Ocean as well.
Hence, if these old battleships were also part of the Argentine naval force, the RN would have merely sent more of its SSNs to the South Atlantic & that would have been the end of the matter. The only result would be more Argentine ships sunk & more dead Argentine sailors.
Hence, if these old battleships were also part of the Argentine naval force, the RN would have merely sent more of its SSNs to the South Atlantic & that would have been the end of the matter. The only result would be more Argentine ships sunk & more dead Argentine sailors.
The best use of the Morenos, if they were still around, would be to sail them to Stanley, beach or bottom them, and use them as heavily armored big gun platforms. With the air force flying aggressive CAP overhead and possibly making British (mostly Harrier) attacks on them costly, they might survive as functioning batteries for quite a while, perhaps delaying British landings until enough British ships were lost to hurt the fleet's overall capability of supporting a ground campaign.
Regarding Vanguard, however, it would be quite useful. A modern late-W2 BB is infinitely better than the pre-WW1 Morenos as regards protection against air bombs, missiles, and torpedos - and also infinitely better than the tin can frigates and DD's the British had. Eight 15 in guns on station off the Falklands could be very useful.
Actually , if the Morenos still existed, this might be best way to engineer the world's last battleship-battleship engagement.
Regarding Vanguard, however, it would be quite useful. A modern late-W2 BB is infinitely better than the pre-WW1 Morenos as regards protection against air bombs, missiles, and torpedos - and also infinitely better than the tin can frigates and DD's the British had. Eight 15 in guns on station off the Falklands could be very useful.
Actually , if the Morenos still existed, this might be best way to engineer the world's last battleship-battleship engagement.
zoomar said:
And how, exactly, do the Argintine battleships survive the SSNs waiting for them in the 200mn exclusion zone? As I said, the lessons from the sinking of the General Belgrano are there for all to see. The only chance for the Argtintines is air power: or to be more exact, a lot more Exocets missiles & a full squadron of aircraft which can fire them.
Bill Cameron
Banned
DMA] wrote: [QUOTE}And how, exactly, do the Argintine battleships survive the SSNs waiting for them in the 200mn exclusion zone?[/QUOTE]
Mr. DMA,
Gee, I dunno. Maybe they could sail for the Falklands before the Royal Navy SSNs show up? Just like all those other Argie ships did in the OTL.
SSNs have many wonderous capabilities. Sadly, teleportation isn't among them. While the exact time period is still classified, the best guess for the first Royal Navy SSN arriving on station was twenty days after the invasion. That gives theMorenos three weeks to steam out.
Yup, I agree. Having those brand spanking new, German-built, missile boats in the San Carlos Channel might have helped too.
Bill
Mr. DMA,
Gee, I dunno. Maybe they could sail for the Falklands before the Royal Navy SSNs show up? Just like all those other Argie ships did in the OTL.
SSNs have many wonderous capabilities. Sadly, teleportation isn't among them. While the exact time period is still classified, the best guess for the first Royal Navy SSN arriving on station was twenty days after the invasion. That gives theMorenos three weeks to steam out.
Yup, I agree. Having those brand spanking new, German-built, missile boats in the San Carlos Channel might have helped too.
Bill
Bill Cameron said:
Mr Bill,
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the Argintines can't pull of a sudden invasion. Afterall they actually managed it. It's defending the Falklands from the RN taking them back which is the problem. As you've noted yourself, the Argentines have 20 days before the RN SSNs arrive. After that expect the two battleships, & whatever else that's Argentine, to be at the bottom of the South Atlantic.
Bill Cameron said:
What German-built missile boats?
Cheers,
David
I think your overstating the case for subs. True under the right conditions they can sink anything, but to put it crudely the ocean is a big place and for a sub to take a pop at something it has to first find it then be able to within a couple of miles of the target. A proper screening force will make this far more of a challenge.
Someone has suggested the idea of beaching an Argentine battleship. Assuming there is no Vanguard this might be the most useful way to use such an a elderly and slow battleship certainly it wouldn't be the first time a battleship had been beached off Stanley. It would make the ship immune to subs and it could support it's troops several miles inland. However if Vanguard also existed a beached battleship would be hopelessly vunerable. Vanguard would choose a range where her shells would have their best plunging performance and blast her stationary opponent to kingdom come.
If we go back to assuming all three battleship exist then I think the Argentine ships would have to get to sea. They aren't a match for Vanguard even together but they could "shadow box" and effectively neutalize this powerful RN unit.
Someone has suggested the idea of beaching an Argentine battleship. Assuming there is no Vanguard this might be the most useful way to use such an a elderly and slow battleship certainly it wouldn't be the first time a battleship had been beached off Stanley. It would make the ship immune to subs and it could support it's troops several miles inland. However if Vanguard also existed a beached battleship would be hopelessly vunerable. Vanguard would choose a range where her shells would have their best plunging performance and blast her stationary opponent to kingdom come.
If we go back to assuming all three battleship exist then I think the Argentine ships would have to get to sea. They aren't a match for Vanguard even together but they could "shadow box" and effectively neutalize this powerful RN unit.
Ebar said:
IMHO you are completely underestimating the RN SSNs. HMS Conqueror easily showed how vunerable old ships are to an SSN. Furthermore, Conqueror used old WWII vintage torpedos. No modern torpedos, but ones that had been around for forty years. Now if the General Belgrano went straight to the bottom using forty year old torpedos, how long do you think any Argentine vessel will last using modern torpedos? Furthermore, we're not talking about the entire South Atlantic, we're talking about the 200 mn exclusion zone around the Falklands. Now a proper Argentine screening force would be good, but where are these ships coming from? The Argentine navy had nothing which could compete with a RN SSN in 1982.
Ebar said:
This idea is about as ludicrous as when the Japanese tried to do something similar with the Yamato. Needless to say the result was an entire failure. The same would be the case for the Argentines.
Ebar said:
Battleships have no place in a torpedo & missile rich environment. This would be the exact situation that the Argentines would face if they sortied their OTL fleet let alone this AH one. The ONLY way that the Argentines would win the Falklands War is through aircraft & Exocet missiles. The RN had no answer to the Exocet. Have 20 or so Super Etendards conduct numerous sorties against the RN fleet with Exocets & it'd be the RN at the bottom of the ocean. As it was, the Argentine airforce had numerous successes in the OTL war, using Skyhawks & Mirages on bombing runs. Swap those bombs for Exocets & the RN would be defeated. But this calls for a lot of PODs.
Ebar said:
A beached cruiser (or BB) would be an excellent target for the the British planes and the counterbattery fire of similiar enemy ships (if any available).
DMA said:
Yamato was taken out before she got to beach herself. I'm not suggesting an Argentine battleship tries to smash it's way through. We've already covered that there is a window of opportunity to the get the battleship into position between invasion and the arrival of British Subs. HMS Canopus was used in this way in 1914. Pop in a few SAMs to support the battleship and you have a ready made strong point and going to a be a pain in the neck to get rid of because once beached she will have to be blown a part and since torpedoes are now out of the picture you'll have to use bombs and missiles designed to sink thin skinned floating computers not battleships.
Keep one battleship at sea with the best Anti sub ships you have she makes for one hell of distraction. Might loose her to a sub, might loose her to Vanguard but that's got to be better than hiding in port as the Argentine navy did in reality.
DMA said:
Actually the RN had lots of answers to Exocet just a lot of it was contradictory. Launching chaff and turning end on did offer some protection. HMS Shefield is the most famous victim of Exocet but from what I've heard mistakes were made and she basically didn't defend herself.
Yes more Super Etendards and more Exocets could only have helped the Argentine position there can no debate here. Of the Argentine armed forces their airforce put in by far the best performance.
What I haven't heard is how you think Vanguard is useless. She has protection of RN screening units. Sea skimmers like Exocet would strike her main belt meaning she could unquestionably absorb several hits and 8*15" guns would make for one hell of a nasty shore bombardment.