AHC: Argentina wins Falklands War

Sharkey Ward are calling him out or worse calling him a liar! . . . he was there I or you wasn't!

I don't know if I'd call Ward a liar, but his accounts to tend toward self aggrandisement (and unjustified denigration of other participants) and at times are at odds with other people who were there and established fact.

YMMV
 
At the time the SDP/Liberal Alliance was running ahead in the polls with around 41% of the vote. There was near-unanimity in the Commons for a counter-invasion. And, even if the conflict had gone onto winter with a concomitant disadvantage for the UK, any sign of quarter from the three major parties would have meant electoral death in the next election. So no, no opportunity there for the Argentines, even if Buenos Aires ends up flying the Union Jack. It was an opportunistic move on Galtieri's part due to the regime's unpopularity. And it was stupid. The end.
 
The airfield was marginal for Mirage type fighters, they didn't have enough construction supplies or equipment to effectively expand the capacity of the airfield. They were also very nervous about the RN's SSN's which would have loved the opportunity to get up close and personal to the Argentinians antiquated diesel electric boats, that also doesn't take into account that the RN was one of the premier ASW forces in the world at the time.
Argentina had two modern diesel-electric German built attack submarines. The issue wasn't their age, or even training. The issue was that their guided torpedoes (the only weapon they carried) weren't working.

Of course, you'd assume an Admiral who conspires with a general to do a palace coup in order to start a naval war would have checked if the submarines had working torpedoes beforehand, but noooooo, that was too much to ask to the pair of bloodthirsty imbeciles.
 
Could Argentina also annex South Georgia?
Assuming Argentina defeats the British Task Force and the UK calls it quits, even if they are sitting on South Georgia, how would they keep it without the Falklands? IMVH and disinformed Opinion, South Georgia is too remote and desolated to keep it without also keeping the Falklands. But I may be wrong about that.
 
Argentina had two modern diesel-electric German built attack submarines. The issue wasn't their age, or even training. The issue was that their guided torpedoes (the only weapon they carried) weren't working.

Of course, you'd assume an Admiral who conspires with a general to do a palace coup in order to start a naval war would have checked if the submarines had working torpedoes beforehand, but noooooo, that was too much to ask to the pair of bloodthirsty imbeciles.

Even the British had issues - the Mk24 Tigerfish was not even considered for the attack on Belgrano its job was Anti Submarine and it sucked at surface targets - apparently early versions could not even hit a stationary barge and that was after modification - the WW2 Mk8 on the other hand despite being an unguided straight running fish was trusted to do the job.

Torpedoes are hard!
 
Even the British had issues - the Mk24 Tigerfish was not even considered for the attack on Belgrano its job was Anti Submarine and it sucked at surface targets - apparently early versions could not even hit a stationary barge and that was after modification - the WW2 Mk8 on the other hand despite being an unguided straight running fish was trusted to do the job.

Torpedoes are hard!
Yeah, but it wasn't the British who started the war
 
I don't know if I'd call Ward a liar, but his accounts to tend toward self aggrandisement (and unjustified denigration of other participants) and at times are at odds with other people who were there and established fact.

YMMV

Have you read Michael Clapps book, written in conjunction with Ewen Southby Taylor? He is critical of Woodward without being scathing like Ward, which in my mind swings the balance away from Woodwards account somewhat.
 
Have you read Michael Clapps book, written in conjunction with Ewen Southby Taylor? He is critical of Woodward without being scathing like Ward, which in my mind swings the balance away from Woodwards account somewhat.

Yeah, years ago to the point I probably need to re-read it. I think there is a copy I can dig up. I'm not saying Woodward's account is unquestionable, more that I was very unimpressed with Ward's :)
 
Have you read Michael Clapps book, written in conjunction with Ewen Southby Taylor? He is critical of Woodward without being scathing like Ward, which in my mind swings the balance away from Woodwards account somewhat.

Re-reading it now, and realising why I didn't recall much of it from the first time around (or even if I'd managed to finish it). It's dry, very dry.
 
Re-reading it now, and realising why I didn't recall much of it from the first time around (or even if I'd managed to finish it). It's dry, very dry.

Razors Edge by Hugh Bicheno is also very critical of Woodward IIRC (the writer does not hold back with criticism and did manage to upset a number of people with the book)
 

This video should provide some insight, but the gist of it is Argentina got really careless with a military campaign they could have won, with many endemic issues in the junta and services that contributed to its defeat. Their basic assumption was that Britain would not try to counter their invasion by force, and as a result, failed to plan for a possible counterattack. This led to a whole series of problems, such as planting ill-adapted northern conscripts in the cold islands as a garrison where better-acclimatized Patagonian troops could have been deployed (though, those would probably still be needed at the Chilean border at the time). Timing of the invasion was also ridiculous, failing to use the worsening climate and ongoing downsizing of the Royal Navy to their advantage by invading so early in the year, they've basically offered the British ample time and resources to mount a counteroffensive. Then, there's the interservice rivalry...

Yea, it's like a step by step guide on how to lose a very winnable war.
Yes it is a step-by-step guide on how do you lose a war but I really don't see the United States letting Britain lose that war Reagan in the government in people's opinions the civilians were not the same in this case I was rooting for Great Britain during all this. The whole idea what we stand for is supposed to be another land and make it your own and the Falklands don't count because nobody live there when the British got them
 
Re-reading it now, and realising why I didn't recall much of it from the first time around (or even if I'd managed to finish it). It's dry, very dry.

True, and has a bit of a sook about naming conventions of task groups and task forces which is a bit pedantic.

But that very dryness makes me believe the facts he puts forward, he doesn't appear to be spinning things for his own benefit.
 
That's incorrect. There were Argentine colonizers in the islands already
There were European colonies on there but no Argentine colonies. In fact since the end of the last ice age there's no evidence that any native race was on the islands they probably were during the Ice Age but still know for sure
 
The best way would be to wait for a year. The Royal Navy would have been stripped of several major ships. The Royal Air Force would also have retired their Vulcans. I think Hermes was due to be paid off (and I believe sold) and I think the Amphib ships were also supposed to be gone. Without those assets I don't think the British could have mounted the Task Force or the RAF attacks.
 
Top