AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.

James G

Gone Fishin'
I was writing about the Falklands earlier and considered afterwards some ways the fighting could have gone more different, especially making the war more destructive and costly.
Some ideas occurred to me.

HMS Splendid sinks the carrier 25 de Mayo.
An Exocet hits HMS Ark Royal or maybe HMS Invincible.
Operation Mikado goes ahead.
Better-trained Argentinean troops are deployed into the Falklands to fight there.
Canberra, laden with troops, gets bombed while in San Carlos Water.

Any other ideas? No, not nuclear weapons because that is just silly.
 
UK attacks airbases in Argentina that were used to fly combat missions against the British Task Force.
The USA "loans" the UK B52 bombers (the USA had plans to loan an Aircraft Carrier if one of the British ones was sunk).
Royal Marines from Naval Party 8901, and soldiers from FIDF, 'break out' from Stanly and carry on the fight as a Guerrilla War, or fight house to house in Stanly.
 
An Exocet hits HMS Ark Royal or maybe HMS Invincible.

Hermes, not Ark Royal :) .

Hermes being larger and designed in the era of Kamikaze attacks takes the hit better, but if this happens to either carrier the British campaign is at least halted, if not over.

Canberra, laden with troops, gets bombed while in San Carlos Water.

This possibility was considered, but in relatively shallow water it was thought even if Canberra sank, if upright much of the ship would still be above the water.

Easiest and most likely - Argentina figures out before the conflict that their fusing needs adjustment for the air dropped bombs they were using, and all the ones IOTL that didn't go off when they hit British ships.
explode. The Falklands was a lot closer battle than many think.

Also Argentina makes more use of the napalm they had stockpiled in Port Stanley, or:

-More effectively deploys and manages their troops.

-Doesn't surrender and forces the British to take Port Stanley by force and house to house.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Hermes, not Ark Royal :) .

Hermes being larger and designed in the era of Kamikaze attacks takes the hit better, but if this happens to either carrier the British campaign is at least halted, if not over.



This possibility was considered, but in relatively shallow water it was thought even if Canberra sank, if upright much of the ship would still be above the water.

Easiest and most likely - Argentina figures out before the conflict that their fusing needs adjustment for the air dropped bombs they were using, and all the ones IOTL that didn't go off when they hit British ships.
explode. The Falklands was a lot closer battle than many think.

Also Argentina makes more use of the napalm they had stockpiled in Port Stanley, or:

-More effectively deploys and manages their troops.

-Doesn't surrender and forces the British to take Port Stanley by force and house to house.

Yikes, what a mistake with the carrier name. Did the HERMES have deck-armour like WW2-era carriers did? Even if it did I was thinking of an Exocet strike along the side, but would she still better survive such a hit being a better-protected ship?
I didn't know about the napalm.
As to Argentinean troops, I know they sent conscripts from a nationwide unit as symbolism for the occupation. I did read that mountain-trained and better-equipped troops were kept during the war on the border with Chile. I'd assume, if the geo-political position changed, they would do better in the fighting, maybe as good as the marines used did.
House-2-house fighting? Stanley was kinda small though.
 
UK attacks airbases in Argentina that were used to fly combat missions against the British Task Force.
The USA "loans" the UK B52 bombers (the USA had plans to loan an Aircraft Carrier if one of the British ones was sunk).
Royal Marines from Naval Party 8901, and soldiers from FIDF, 'break out' from Stanly and carry on the fight as a Guerrilla War, or fight house to house in Stanly.

The US was not going to loan the RN a carrier, they were going to loan them a Iwo Jima class LPH, big difference. I also don't see the US loaning B-52s, those were strategic nuclear assets and this was the height of the Cold War.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The US was not going to loan the RN a carrier, they were going to loan them a Iwo Jima class LPH, big difference. I also don't see the US loaning B-52s, those were strategic nuclear assets and this was the height of the Cold War.

On the subject of the apparent offer of that amphibious ship, I have always foreseen so many problems with that. I am sure too that those at the time in the RN and the USN would have found more unresolvable issues.
Crew: American 'volunteers' just wouldn't work domestically in the US. The RN could hardly manage that if one of their carriers was lost.
Aircraft: British Harriers from the Hermes and Invincible used the ski-jumps to carry larger warloads, there was no ski-ramp on USN amphibious ships.
Comms: While the RN and USN had a lot of interoperability as they were both NATO partners, there were still big differences with gear.
Time: How long would it take to get that ship being lent?In the meantime, after the loss of a carrier, politics & diplomacy would surely come into play, plus the winter weather, and it would never come to pass eventually.
 
....I also don't see the US loaning B-52s, those were strategic nuclear assets and this was the height of the Cold War.
I could conceivably see some older D models being made available to the UK, but I don't see G or H models being offered.
 
Yikes, what a mistake with the carrier name. Did the HERMES have deck-armour like WW2-era carriers did? Even if it did I was thinking of an Exocet strike along the side, but would she still better survive such a hit being a better-protected ship?
I didn't know about the napalm.
As to Argentinean troops, I know they sent conscripts from a nationwide unit as symbolism for the occupation. I did read that mountain-trained and better-equipped troops were kept during the war on the border with Chile. I'd assume, if the geo-political position changed, they would do better in the fighting, maybe as good as the marines used did.
House-2-house fighting? Stanley was kinda small though.

The initial invasion force had highly trained Argentinian troops (Marines?) who got into a protracted and violent fight at Government House. They weren't able to force the issue until the follow on forces landed and the UK Marines were ordered to surrender by the Governor. If you want to make it bloodier then Conqueror should have sunk not only the Belgrano but the escorts too. More Seawolf armed warships might well have taken a heavier toll of Argentinian attack aircraft if they had been available in larger numbers than IOTL (assuming less bugs in the system). If the Argentinians had access to artillery scaterable mines it would have severely impacted British Infantry's ability to manoeuvre and would not have been easily sweeped by the Brits who didn't take Giant Viper to clear stuff like that, in fact if the Argentinians had sea mined San Carlos and other likely invasion areas then it would have taken a long time to clear the areas to allow a landing to take place.
 
On the subject of the apparent offer of that amphibious ship, I have always foreseen so many problems with that. I am sure too that those at the time in the RN and the USN would have found more unresolvable issues.
Crew: American 'volunteers' just wouldn't work domestically in the US. The RN could hardly manage that if one of their carriers was lost.
Aircraft: British Harriers from the Hermes and Invincible used the ski-jumps to carry larger warloads, there was no ski-ramp on USN amphibious ships.
Comms: While the RN and USN had a lot of interoperability as they were both NATO partners, there were still big differences with gear.
Time: How long would it take to get that ship being lent?In the meantime, after the loss of a carrier, politics & diplomacy would surely come into play, plus the winter weather, and it would never come to pass eventually.

All excellent points that often undermine the "good ideas" the people at the top have.
 
I believe the book "fleet tactics" by Wayne Hughes says that the Argentinians should have immediately extended the runway of the airfield. From there they could have stationed aircraft to provide a more effective air presence and used it to resupply and reinforce. Forgive me as I am at work and cant remember the specifics of his recommendation. But, point being, the RN would take greater casualties both in approaching the islands and upon landing. And it might have stalled the landing for some time as well.
 
Those D models all had NATO tasking and were getting very long in the tooth by then.
Ok but my understanding is that there was a phase out of older B52's in the 70's / 80's. Presumably something would have been available in the bone yards that could have been brought back if transferring active air craft wasn't feasible ? I'm thinking during the time it took to pull aircraft out of the bone yards the RAF crews would have had to have been trained.
 
The D's had the "Big Belly" mod and were only tasked for conventional strike missions. The older models including the C's, some D's E's and F's were beyond screwed and were out of hours and were being scrapped and/or were being mined for spares by that time to keep the remaining D, G and H aircraft flying.

There was an article on bringing a H model out of the boneyard as an attrition replacement a few years ago - it took some 6 months to get it fit to fly operationally.
 

Nick P

Donor
The US was not going to loan the RN a carrier, they were going to loan them a Iwo Jima class LPH, big difference. I also don't see the US loaning B-52s, those were strategic nuclear assets and this was the height of the Cold War.

I always thought that was offered as a post-war NATO support measure. The Royal Navy had a large anti-submarine role using aircraft carriers and the loss of one during the Falklands would have impacted that. Providing an Iwo Jima would keep the Fleet Air Arm out there in the constant fight against the Soviet Union while e built a replacement. There was no way they could have got one in place, fully trained the crew and supplied within a year.
 
They were expediting (iirc) Ark Royal for sea but even she wouldn't have been going South until May. The only air frames available would have been the Indian Navy Sea Harrier Mk51's and they literally had someone camped out in the factory to make sure no one decided to "speed up" delivery. The commander of RAFG and NATO's SACEUR would not be especially pleased if anymore of his prime CAS/BAI went South either though that is likely to cut no ice with the UK.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top