Plausability check: Falklands War consequences

[Blue cat]

The Argentines would have to get extraordinary lucky to sink both Hermes & Invincible, because they only had 5 exocets, it's doubtful a single exocet would be enough to sink these large ships, and if one ship was sunk the other is not going to hang around. Furthermore Hermes was kept a very long way back from the Falklands - I believe out of Argentine range AFAIK.

Bulwark was definitely surveyed in 1982, and the government even went so far as to announce it would be reactivated. It wasn't however because of the poor condition of the ship. I don't know how poor - it's worth remembering that it did actually do some service even after both fires, as recently as 1980 - so it seems doubtful that there was anything that couldn't be overcome if the need was desperate enough.

Apart from Illustrious, the British also had Ark Royal, which was launched in 1981. Of course, launch is a long way from commissioning, and in OTL, Ark Royal wasn't commissioned until 1985. Maybe this could be significantly sped up, although I think commissioning anytime in 82 is probably pushing it (?)

As far as American carriers, yes it was mentioned in the press, but it's unlikely unless the crew comes too - no RN crew would be trained on the ship, and converting would take a lot of time. Also AV-8As never served on an Essex, and the US carriers weren't fitted out for harriers (no ski jumps - don't know what else might be required).

Incidentally if the Argentines are significantly more successful with Exocets, and get some more of them, I think the most likely consequence is the British attempt Operation Mikado - the plan for the SAS attack on the Super Etendard base in Rio Grande. Assuming the attack isn't a total disaster, the plan was for the SAS troops to escape to Chile - but what they didn't know is the Argentines had several Marine battalions nearby who had orders to pursue any attackers into Chile. So either the SAS suffer a disaster, or maybe the war expands to include Chile.

Interesting thanks. I tend to agree that with only 5 air launched excoets the Argentines would have to have been very lucky to sink even one carrier in war time. Then again if the torpedoes on their modern sub had actually worked taking down a RN carrier in war time becomes a little more plausible.
I'm still curious about what the RN would have done with Bulwark if they had come to the conclusion she was worth reactivating. (ie would they have sent her south with the task force or kept her in reserve or maybe used her as an assault ship.) I doubt we will ever know what the answer is.

 

[SunilTanna]

FWIW, I believe the number of aircraft in the Falklands was something like:

Hermes: 30 Harriers (26 Sea Harriers, 4 RAF Harriers), 4 Helicopters

Invincible: 18 Harriers, 4 Helicopters


Illustrious would presumably have had the same capacity as Invincible, but it might have been possible to add a bit by removing Sea Dart (this was actually done some years later, although the listed capacity was still 18 harriers + 4 helicopters - there was more deckspace and room for GR7 magazines storage).

 

[SunilTanna]

Interesting thanks. I tend to agree that with only 5 air launched excoets the Argentines would have to have been very lucky to sink even one carrier in war time. Then again if the torpedoes on their modern sub had actually worked taking down a RN carrier in war time becomes a little more plausible.
I'm still curious about what the RN would have done with Bulwark if they had come to the conclusion she was worth reactivating. (ie would they have sent her south with the task force or kept her in reserve or maybe used her as an assault ship.) I doubt we will ever know what the answer is.

She didn't have a ski jump, so was unlikely to be used as a proper carrier. Also not an angled flight deck so less deck space than Hermes.

Maybe they use her instead of Atlantic Conveyor?

Incidentally Bulwark had carrier 45 RM Commando in 1979 and 1980, so I think they use her as a LPH Commando Carrier.

I made a mistake about the fires though - the second fire was in November 1980 (mess decks and forward hangar), and I don't think she did much after that other than go home (final return to Portsmouth was in March 1981).

Also the damage from earlier first fire (boiler room) was never repaired.

So maybe the condition really was bad.

 

[abc123]

Well, actually it wasn't in 1982. Military strategy was to sit and pray the Junta wouldn't invade. The only reason that the task force was sent to retake the islands was to save what little prestige we had left internationally, as well as save Mrs Thatcher from an electoral crushing. Prior to 1982, Britain couldn't have given less of a shit about an island of 2000 farmers and their half-a-million sheep. Hell, at time many in government were actively hoping to just give them away. But it's a political standpoint now and all that's changed.



Because time have changed. The threat of soviet submarines cutting off Britain’s supply lines has more or less vanished and since the fall of communism Britain has moved to a more interventionist military policy. Small ASW carriers are okay if you want to go chasing subs, but they're not in a major expeditionary war. In 1982 were were lucky - the advantages of the largely superior Argentine fighters were robbed by the distances that they had to cover (fuel) and the Sea Harrier, along with superior training won the day. Larger fleet carriers are far better for an expeditionary role as Britain has increasingly undertaken over the past two decade.

Quite frankly the idea that we will ever have "retake" the Falklands again is mad. The Argentines are not longer a military dictatorship and so less reactionary. They lack the military to do (it has seen little in money and upgrades since 1982) and on top of all that, they're completely broke. The argument of the South American invader sailing up the channel... er I mean the Falkland Sound holds about as much bearing as those who argued back in 1990 that a united Germany would try and take over Europe again.

Russell

I know that military of Argentina is hillarious today. But, as we see constant shrinking of UK armed forces ( weather they will survive next 2 goverments is a big question ) UK today also isn't in excellent state.
I see yesterday that UK will scrap Tornados, Harriers too probably, what will be with EF purchase is to be seen, F-35 will cost 200+ millions of USD ( and on future carriers, if they are built after all, will be 12 F-35 ), Army is smallest since Napoleon wars...
So, all of that, and still in largest financial trouble since 1929, and maybe even worse than that.
So UK is hardly in position to laugh on Argentinians.
In the same moment, defence in UK is allways first in order to cut budget, while social security never.
I wonder could in 1982 UK defeat Argentineans by telling them: "We have better social security system!"
Or Hitler in 1940?

 

[abc123]

In 1982 the British had a single company of Marines with no fire support of heavy weapons. Now they have a Battalion with attachments; the Argentines would want an assault force of at least Brigade strength, that isn’t something you can throw together at a moments notice.

IIRC, UK today has in Falklands 1 infantry company and some signals, logistics and engineers elements.
But only infantry is battle-worthy part of that.

So, how many Argentinians is nescesarry to defeat one company of British soldiers?
One battalion? Two?

You all work under assumption that Argentinians will be dumb again like they were in 1982.
Military have to count on worst conditions, not on the best.

 

[galveston bay]

IIRC, UK today has in Falklands 1 infantry company and some signals, logistics and engineers elements.
But only infantry is battle-worthy part of that.

So, how many Argentinians is nescesarry to defeat one company of British soldiers?
One battalion? Two?

You all work under assumption that Argentinians will be dumb again like they were in 1982.
Military have to count on worst conditions, not on the best.

if anything Argentina has suffered worse finances than the UK in the last 38 years (facing financial collapse on one occasion) so its level of training is probably at best shoddy. On the other hand the RAF just laid off flight students this week (about half of those in training) due to budget cuts.

Still, the Argentine fleet is even older now comparitively than it was then, the level of training is lower and in spite of the small size of the UK defense forces, they are still among the best in the world in training and equipment.

 

[Cook]

IIRC, UK today has in Falklands 1 infantry company and some signals, logistics and engineers elements.
But only infantry is battle-worthy part of that.

Sorry, I didn’t check. You mentioned a battalion strength garrison so took that to be the case.

Rest assured that would be structured for rapid build up of further forces from ready reaction forces in the UK during any period of tension with Argentina.

 

[loughery111]

Sorry, I didn’t check. You mentioned a battalion strength garrison so took that to be the case.

Rest assured that would be structured for rapid build up of further forces from ready reaction forces in the UK during any period of tension with Argentina.

Not to mention that this time the US is pretty firmly wielded to Britain and has no meaningful ties with the Argentines. It would probably be enough to at least get us to leave a CBG in the South Atlantic during a period of high tensions.

 

[abc123]

Sorry, I didn’t check. You mentioned a battalion strength garrison so took that to be the case.

Rest assured that would be structured for rapid build up of further forces from ready reaction forces in the UK during any period of tension with Argentina.

Well, all in all is a battalion, but infantry is just one company of that battalion.

Yes, but how quickly can UK really send reinforcements down there?

After all, flight from UK till Falklands would last at least 20 hours.
And if Argentinians destroy Mt. Pleasant in the meantime and take Stanley airport, where will they land?
20 cruise missiles can wreck the runway and make Mt. Pleasant unoperable long enough for agrentine parachute attack to take place.
I know that Argentina today has no cruise missiles to do that, but they can relativly easily buy squadron of Su-30 and arm them with Kh-59.
And if they add Brahoms there, without REAL carriers UK can say: Good bye Falklands...

Yes, I'm aware of the that UK will in that case reinforce it's forces in Falklands, but, UK has to have at least 2 squadrons of EF there and 2 SSNs in patrol and a whole brigade there to be pretty SURE that they can defend the Islands in case of all out Argentinean attack.
That isn't sustainable for UK.
Because UK is streched all over the world.
Especcially with constantly shrinking numbers of RAF, BA and RN.

 

[SunilTanna]

An all out military attack is not possible as a bolt from the blue in a democracy.

Even if they go back to being a fascist dictatorship, it's the remotest possibility - since it would lose them any international support if they went from peace to all-out-war in a matter of hours without any intermediate steps. So I don't think it's releastic case that the British have to be prepared 365X24X7 for bolt-from-the-blue all out attack.

Especially since the Argentine economy probably couldn't sustain the kind of forces required to be ready to launch an all-out-attack at a moment's notice.