AHC: Assault over Stanley Beaches?

True. Thatcher may have been many things but she was no fool. The only reason she might have ordered Woodward as the Task Force Commander to make a direct assault landing over the Port Stanley beaches (a plan that IOTL was considered as an option and dismissed because it was too high risk) would be if the international sitution was such that a quick attack was essential to retake the islands before a UN Ceasefire was imposed. The risk would have then been that Argentina would be left in de facto pssession and it might have proven impossible to ge them out by negotiation.

These are the only circumstances where such a high risk military option might have been attempted. As previously discussed the military objectives would likely have been achieved. However, Argenina would have been able o claim a moral victory having been perieved to have put up a good fight and yhe Junta would have been in a reasonable position to retain power at least for a while despite losing the war.

That assumes OTL force levels and therefore OTL risk levels.

Personally I think prerequisites are a proper fleet carrier such as Eagle or Ark Royal, a 6" cruiser like Blake or Tiger and the Hermes operating in the Commando role. These bring an array of capabilities that were not present IOTL and thus create an entirely different risk profile. For example a Buccaneer squadron could be tasked over a period of several days to destroy artillery batteries or Battalion HQs or some other vital target set. The 6" cruiser could also be given a particular tasking that would make an opposed landing easier. The Hermes could land a company or two deep into the rear, perhaps at a junction of two units while the main assault was conducted.

These capabilities would alter the decision making process for all concerned.
 

Nick P

Donor
Imagine HMS Belfast or even a modernised HMS Vanguard providing naval gunfire support to the Royal Marines as they storm ashore :D
That'd really mess up the Argentines defences...
 
Imagine HMS Belfast or even a modernised HMS Vanguard providing naval gunfire support to the Royal Marines as they storm ashore :D
That'd really mess up the Argentines defences...

Or one of those 2 meeting General Belgrano (Ex USS phoenix) on a dark and stormy night
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
In a previous thread I started sometime back, I asked the question of wether it would have been plausible for the UK Govt/RN to invest in the modernization of 3 Centaur/Colossus/Theseus carriers, with new Radars, engines etc instead of just HMS Hermes then building the trio of "Invincible" class V/STOL carriers.

At the height of the Falklands operations, Hermes was to carrying up to 12 SHAR's and 9 GR-3's.

How better would operations been with the 80% increase in air-defence fighters, and the 300% increase in GR-3s from having 3 of these vessels in the fleet, to support ground attack missions, especially at the Stanley beachhead in this timeline.

Regards filers
 
No-go on the Ascension / Paras / C-130 op. I don't think that there is enough runway / taxiway / fuel storage for 30 / 60 C-130 and associated tankers, and the rest of what's there. And we didn't have the tankers anyway. Getting enough for the Vulcan raids was hard enough.


Regards,
Gerard
 
In a previous thread I started sometime back, I asked the question of wether it would have been plausible for the UK Govt/RN to invest in the modernization of 3 Centaur/Colossus/Theseus carriers, with new Radars, engines etc instead of just HMS Hermes then building the trio of "Invincible" class V/STOL carriers.

At the height of the Falklands operations, Hermes was to carrying up to 12 SHAR's and 9 GR-3's.

How better would operations been with the 80% increase in air-defence fighters, and the 300% increase in GR-3s from having 3 of these vessels in the fleet, to support ground attack missions, especially at the Stanley beachhead in this timeline.

Regards filers

Anything's plausible if you have the money and industry, you just need that most fickle ingredient: political will. Britain had the money and industry to build CVA01 & 02 so certainly had the money and industry to modernise some WW2 light fleet carriers if the political will was available, although why it would want to go down that path is another question altogether.
 
Top