AH Challenge: Different Navy Composition

You think correctly, that is a myth.

If there were codes, and Thatcher did threaten to use nukes to get them, and Mitterand handed them over as a result of the threat why the hell did 3 of the 6 fired actually hit 3 ships and others were seen to be decoyed?
 
You think correctly, that is a myth.

If there were codes, and Thatcher did threaten to use nukes to get them, and Mitterand handed them over as a result of the threat why the hell did 3 of the 6 fired actually hit 3 ships and others were seen to be decoyed?

...because it wouldn't be a conspiracy, then? :D
 
Back to the topic,

Giving the topic more thought, all scenarios to kill aircraft carriers post-war require significant advantages (real or presumed) with missile armament programs of USN and RN during early 1950's. After that the die is cast, as RN commits itself to assisted suicide with paper projects and USN constructs extremely succesful Forrestal -class supercarriers.

The strategic nuclear strike role of carriers was really short lived and secondary, as USAF SAC and forthcoming ICBM's and SLBM's could deal with it more efficiently and flexibly. The justification of aircraft carrier during 1950's was due to it's usefulness in limited conflicts and conflict escalation phase.

What we need are really hard-headed surface admirals in RN and USN who have enough power to speed up missile development and even make joint projects (USN can fare perfectly well without joint projects, but RN can not). A surface force which can replace carrier in their role of limited conflict and conflict escalation is needed. I'm not sure whether it would be that impossible to contemplate such a force.

It could be driven through budgets by economical measures; CVBG's were and are massive forces perhaps seen vulnerable against atomic and conventional weapons, while independent small surface task groups or even individual ships might be cheaper to furnish. This would provide way for RN to meet it's overcommitments.
 
Official government documents were released to the British press last year. That, and senior Royal Navy officers were ordered to deploy nuclear weapons to the theatre by Thatcher herself. None of the officers who have testified actually believed the weapons would actually be used though.
Also, I doubt Mitterand handed over the codes as a sign of friendship, yet somehow Argie Exocets were falling straight into the sea.
 

MrP

Banned
Official government documents were released to the British press last year. That, and senior Royal Navy officers were ordered to deploy nuclear weapons to the theatre by Thatcher herself. None of the officers who have testified actually believed the weapons would actually be used though.
Also, I doubt Mitterand handed over the codes as a sign of friendship, yet somehow Argie Exocets were falling straight into the sea.

Well, not to get too dragged into this unusual sideshow, but I feel I should point out that if one's throwing together a taskforce asap to retake somewhere, there simply might well not be enough time to unload nukes.
 
I have a pathological aversion to conspiricy theories, hence my interest in this one. What Exocets dropped into the sea? 6 were fired; one hit the Sheffield, one hit the Atlantic Conveyer, one (the land based one) hit the Glamorgan and one was supposedely hit by a fluke 4.5" shot from the Avenger as it was decoyed away from it's target, and even if not it was tracked as it was decoyed away. That's 4 of the 6 not dropping into the sea. I don't know about the other 2, but I do know that great efforts were made to counter the exocet; rushing of Phalanx CIWS onto the Indominatble and Prince Andrew flying decoy missions in a helicopter trailing radar reflectors. How did a conspiricy theory get started about this?
 
William, Argentina only had a handful of Exocets. Six that were known. Three of those six destroyed RN vessels (Sheffield, Glamorgan, Atlantic Conveyor), and as pointed out a fourth was blasted by a fluke shot from Avenger. A fifth was aboard a Super Etendard that got shot down by a British Sea Harrier before it was fired.

Mitterand may have been under fire, but there is no way Thatcher would even consider deploying nukes against Argentina. Aside from the fact the Argentines were already losing, any nuclear attacks by Britain on Argentine ships or worse, an Argentinian city, would cause a huge ruckus. South America and Africa would forever call the Brits madmen. Besides that, Britain's 1982 nuclear force was all aboard their SSBNs. How do you use an SSBN to kill a fleet? So then you have to hit a city. Hitting Buenos Aires and killing circa ten million people in the process would make Britain a global pariah. Thatcher wanted the Falklands back, but nukes were out of the question.
 
Of course the nukes wouldn't have been used. Also, the Royal Navy's warheads were not confined to SSBNs at the time of the conflict. Nuclear depth charges were carried by frigates. But these were already on board when the task force sailed. They were not loaded prior to deployment.
 
Top