AHC Argentina wins the Falklands War

Rockets was the way to go - modern warships of the day only had to be mission killed ie radar and/or main weapon systems and/or CnC center damaged to effectively remove them from the equation - and such weapons would not be impacted by altitude and probably be more accurate than 500 pound and 1000 pound iron bombs.

Also I think less training would be required for Air force pilots attempting hit a ship with rockets than with bombs - they still lose a similar number of aircraft and pilots its just that more RN ships are 'mission killed' and possibly as a result some of the landing and transport ships are hit by the bomb armed aircraft.

Rocket equipped aircraft go after the warships in the first couple of waves and then mix in bomb equipped aircraft to attempt to hit the transports and amphibious support ships

Could the Argentines beat the RN using this tactic? Not sure but probably inflict more damage.
I would have thought that pilots capable of riveting the ships with cannon fire would have been able to hit them with rockets.
 
But the trouble with all this is thats its ways to defeat the inital task force only. None would win the war , even if Thacter fell her sucessor would be on a holy crusade to retake the islands. Combination of economic, financial pressure and the threat of a second task force mean Argentina's ecomony craters ( cut off europe/USA and force spending ). Argentina then is forced to withdraw.

But would they? Given the heavy loss of life and shipping losses would the UK public say stop getting our boys killed for some unknown islands or would the blood be up and it be vengeance at any cost? Could Britain bring enough diplomatic pressure to bear to put the financial pressure on Argentina?
 
Given that the attitude of the man in the street was knock the Argies down, give them a good kicking then kick them a bit more just in case, just giving up and letting them keep the islands isn't really likely.
The Argentine economy was pretty ropey at the time. For comparison, Britain could have paid the entire cost of the operation (including replacing lost ships) out of her budget contingency fund. And Britain had a lot of financial leverage available if it got serious.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
How about the Junta spending money on equipping their A-4's for all weather attack?

With their inventory of A-4's limited to day attack only, would this change allow the FAA to increase the sortie rate against the RN and Amp, forces?

I wonder how many extra ships would have been sunk or forced to sail back home due to battle damage if this had happened and thus scupper the whole operation?

There again, would this increase in sorties allow for more A4's to be "splashed" due to interception by RN Shar's?

Regards filers
 
I doubt the lack of daylight was the reason why they flew 500 sorties, after all the British flew over 1300 on the same days with a fraction of the aircraft on strength. They needed to do more basic stuff like have enough spares to fly more sorties, maybe a few more pilots and make use of their Canberras as buddy tankers rather than ineffectual night bombers.
 
I would have thought that pilots capable of riveting the ships with cannon fire would have been able to hit them with rockets.

You have maybe 600 rounds of cannon ammo but only a handful of rockets. 2 or 3 quick bursts of cannon fire to get your eye in then a good long burst versus 1 or 2 salvos of rockets.
 
You have maybe 600 rounds of cannon ammo but only a handful of rockets. 2 or 3 quick bursts of cannon fire to get your eye in then a good long burst versus 1 or 2 salvos of rockets.
You have one pass, which means one burst of cannon fire or one rocket salvo. There isn't enough fuel in a Skyhawk to come around for a second pass and make it back to base, unless you turn slowly and close to the target ship. If you try that strategy, getting back to base quickly becomes irrelevant thanks to Messrs Bofors, Oerlikon and Vickers.
 
Rockets are an area weapon, a bit like a forward shooting cluster bomb. You just fill the windscreen with ship and ripple fire, you're bound to get hits.
 
Rockets are an area weapon, a bit like a forward shooting cluster bomb. You just fill the windscreen with ship and ripple fire, you're bound to get hits.

If its so easy why didnt the Argentinians do that or is that just the Hollywood method.
 
If its so easy why didnt the Argentinians do that or is that just the Hollywood method.

I don't know, it's one of those questions that lingers about the war. Maybe they didn't have stocks of rockets, or the fast jets weren't trained in their use, or it wasn't thought that they were ship killers compared to bombs which I imagine they thought would go off.

I'm not a fighter pilot but you should be able to you tube gun camera footage of rockets being fired, they do scatter although the pilot has to fly level or they will drop below him or rise up in front of him.
 

Cook

Banned
But the trouble with all this is thats its ways to defeat the inital task force only. None would win the war , even if Thacter fell her sucessor would be on a holy crusade to retake the islands. Combination of economic, financial pressure and the threat of a second task force mean Argentina's ecomony craters ( cut off europe/USA and force spending ). Argentina then is forced to withdraw.

Nope, not even remotely likely. If it failed, it would have involved considerably more casualties and enormous costs. The political fallout from a defeat would have required Thatcher's resignation and would have severally damaged the Tories political standing when people ask, aside from anything else, whether another thousand or more deaths is really necessary to 'rescue' 1,800 people who were free to stay or go anyway.
 
If its so easy why didnt the Argentinians do that or is that just the Hollywood method.
Perhaps because bombs were considered as being able to sink or at least catastrophically damage warships, where as rockets would likely only damage them. Their aircraft typically carried guns in addition to their bombs any way which were in fact able to do some damage IOTL.

I don't disagree with the premise that using rockets would likely have been effective in doing significant damage to RN warships but I can see why the the Argentian mission planners may have been reluctant to use them (assuming they were avaliable in the first place.)
 
Rockets are an area weapon, a bit like a forward shooting cluster bomb. You just fill the windscreen with ship and ripple fire, you're bound to get hits.

I suppose it depends on the rockets one is using but my understanding is that at least some un guided rockets such as the Canadian CRV7 have a dispersion in the same general league as some types of air craft cannon fire.

That being said I've seen Vietnam war era footage of unguided rocket fire that marches your description of a forward shooting cluster bomb.

It is also my understanding that specialized anti shipping warheads were produced for some un guided rockets that could penetrate deep into warships before exploding and producing fragments that could penetrate bulkheads. I suspect the results using typical impact fused HE and or HEAT warheads would be somewhat less impressive.
 
Top