AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

You say extended runway with basing for fighter bombers - I say juicy special forces target :p
 
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.
Yep.. I'm thinking the UK might have gotten older D models (or maybe even the last of the F models that I believe were taken out of service in the late 70's) and I suspect it would have taken months to sort out the aircraft (unless "in service" air craft were transfered) and train the crews (or maybe years to train the crews ?)
 

Md139115

Banned
Here's a better question, what is needed to turn this into a general war between Britain and Argentina? As in, one that can only be resolved by destroying the Royal Navy or invading the Argentine mainland.
 
The brazilian dictator at the time, João Figueiredo, said if one british soldier landed in Argenbtinian soil he would declare war on Britain. brazil at the time had two outdated aircraft carriers, you can cause a lot more damage by adding it to the war
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The brazilian dictator at the time, João Figueiredo, said if one british soldier landed in Argenbtinian soil he would declare war on Britain. brazil at the time had two outdated aircraft carriers, you can cause a lot more damage by adding it to the war

I've never heard that before.
Well... it looks like he was talking from his rear end. A Vulcan bomber touched down in Brazil, complete with crew, and there was no declaration of war.
 
The US was not going to loan the RN a carrier, they were going to loan them a Iwo Jima class LPH, big difference.
Would saying that the US was going to loan a LPH for the RN to use as an Aircraft Carrier. Because if it had happened the media would have been calling it an Aircraft Carrier, and the British would have probably been calling it one too (though they had just stopped calling their Carries Through Deck Cruisers).
 
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.

https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0
 
I've never heard that before.
Well... it looks like he was talking from his rear end. A Vulcan bomber touched down in Brazil, complete with crew, and there was no declaration of war.

The airplane wasn't on a agressive mission, and the brazilian dictatorship, as the Argentinian, was collapsing at the time and so both sides saw a "anti imperialist" war against the UK as a way to increase their popularity.
 
I would say one simple thing that could increase the intensity would be both sides having more fuel to play with.

The Argentines could make their canbrerras into buddy tankers and fit the mirages with probes so they can do escort and fighter sweeps in support of the attack aircraft.

The Sea Haariers could get the 190 gal drop tanks, converted from excess 220 gal Hunter tanks, before the war. This would give the Sea Harriers 40 instead of 15 minutes on station and lead to more interceptions.

The RAF VC10 K2 programme could have borne fruit before June 22 1982. Having such large tankers in service would transform the long range RAF missions and most likely allow more to be conducted.
 
You say extended runway with basing for fighter bombers - I say juicy special forces target :p

Given how well the actual SAS/SBS raid on Port Stanley went, I'd say that would definitely increase casualties - for the British. There is daring, then there is suicidal.
 
I would say one simple thing that could increase the intensity would be both sides having more fuel to play with.

The Argentines could make their canbrerras into buddy tankers and fit the mirages with probes so they can do escort and fighter sweeps in support of the attack aircraft.

The Sea Haariers could get the 190 gal drop tanks, converted from excess 220 gal Hunter tanks, before the war. This would give the Sea Harriers 40 instead of 15 minutes on station and lead to more interceptions.

The RAF VC10 K2 programme could have borne fruit before June 22 1982. Having such large tankers in service would transform the long range RAF missions and most likely allow more to be conducted.

Or have the USAF contribute some tankers to support RAF operations like they do in Fireflies of Port Stanley. In terms of the US providing more direct assistance to Great Britain, I think this is more practical and realistic than loaning at LPH or B-52s or whatever.
 
Or have the USAF contribute some tankers to support RAF operations like they do in Fireflies of Port Stanley. In terms of the US providing more direct assistance to Great Britain, I think this is more practical and realistic than loaning at LPH or B-52s or whatever.

I agree, the KC10 had a hdu unit in the taul and was available in early 1982. Changing the handful of ultra long range Hercules missions for 'leased' C5s would be another realistic form of assistance.
 
Given how well the actual SAS/SBS raid on Port Stanley went, I'd say that would definitely increase casualties - for the British. There is daring, then there is suicidal.

You are referring to the diversionary attack on the night June 13/14 - this was a diversionary attack - the last line of this quote sums it up

Port Stanley Harbour
The SAS, along with men from the SBS, attempt to carry out a diversionary amphibious raid on Port Stanley harbour on the night of June 13th. The plan was, as 2 PARA attacked Wireless Ridge, 4 rigid raiders, piloted by Royal Marines and carrying SAS soldiers (a troop from D Squadron) and 6 SBS men (3 section) would travel across the harbour and attack the oil storage facilities. The assault force was illuminated by a spotlight on an Argentine hospital ship before it could reach its objective. A massive volley of fire including AAA batteries arced down onto the SAS/SBS flotilla from positions along the shore, causing the raiding party to sensibly withdraw. The Rigid Raiders were badly shot up but miraculously none of the men had been seriously hurt.

The wisdom of this attack is later questioned as it was seen by some as a reckless operation with little strategic benefit.


However the SAS/others do have a long established reputation for nobbling aircraft on the ground and they did pull off 2 Air port raids on the islands - Darwin/Goose Green (a diversionary raid to cover the San Carlos landings on 21st May conducted by 60 men of D Squadron) and Pebble Island - a similar seaborne raid succesful or not would like result in the withdrawal of surviving A/C
 
The initial invasion force had highly trained Argentinian troops (Marines?) who got into a protracted and violent fight at Government House.
If we are willing to jump in the dark end.....

Why not simply have this early fight descend into a bloodbath leading the deaths of the Royal Marines and significant civilian deaths stemming from FIDF members being executed for being captured/firing not in uniform due to them accidental still trying to mobilize due to disorganisation etc?

Some of the Argentinian forces involved in the early invasion do not have very good records in the dirty war in Argentina, what if they then decide to dispose of the civilian witnesses to the accidental bloodbath, after all this serves the dual purpose of scaring off the British civilians making for a more Argentinian Malvinas?

How would GB then respond could ramp up the unpleasantness.....
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Unrealistic: Black Buck targets Buenos Aires?
Regime targets. Presidential Palace, Defence Ministry etc.
Civilian casualties would certainly happen. You'd probably see an earlier version of Libya '86 with accusations/lies that children had been killed too.
 
Well, for more bloodbath we can't have one side obtaining a decisive victory early on, so early attacks on British carriers would need to be averted. Let's see:

Argentina occupies the islands with mountain troops led by a competent commander. ARA General Belgrano and one of the Argentine Type 42 destroyers are intentionally run aground in port at Stanley, to cover the area with their artillery and missiles.
The runway at Stanley is prolonged, Mirage III fighter-bombers are deployed there and used to attack the British fleet and engage Harriers in air to air combat.
The Argentine garrison at Georgia is larger and resists. It's eventually beaten, but an amphibious attack in near Antarctic conditions would take a toll on the British.
British submarines sink the Argentine carrier ARA 25 de Mayo before the (rest) of the Argentine surface fleet pulls back to port (ARA General Belgrano is at Stanley in this scenario)
One of the British troop transports gets bombed at San Carlos. The bombs detonate.
Operation Mikado goes ahead. Operation Algeciras goes ahead too, sinking a British tanker at Gibraltar.
The small argentine force covering the site of the landings at San Carlos has working flares, manages to illuminate the disembarking British troops and fire on them accurately with recoilless 105mm guns. They are eventually defeated, but manage to inflict casualties on the British.
Argentina fixes the issues with the submarines torpedoes before the war. While Argentine diesel subs can't get in a position to attack the British carriers (if they both get mission killed, it either ends the war or postpones it to the next year, so we don't have that much of a bloodbath), they get to engage and sink British ships later on the war. Or:
This one is tricky because it requires several days of bad weather, ideally across most of the theater and for Argentina to know where to find British ships. The Battle of San Carlos would provide the best combination of the above, but prolonged bad weather may as well delay the landings instead. In any case, the Argentine missile corvettes sortie from port, taking advantage of cloud cover to delay the time satellite reconnaissance would show them away from port and the reduced sonar performance of the British subs due the storms above. Bad weather may also impede attacks by British Harriers or the Argentine task force may be given some degree of air cover from Stanley based Mirage IIIs. Bonus points if Argentine diesel subs are waiting for the corvettes near their target (any significant group of British ships). Argentine and British surface ships and submarines engage in a modern sea battle. None of the Argentine corvettes survive the encounter but they manage to take a toll on the British surface fleet.
British troops eventually reach the Argentine lines but facing better trained troops (and maybe with better air cover) have a harder time breaking through the Argentine defenses. Eventually the hills west of Stanley are taken by the British but the remaining Argentine garrison still resist in Stanley and house to house combat ensues. Bonus points if ARA General Belgrano and a Type 42 destroyers are still around (or least their batteries) to provide SAM cover and Belgrano's artillery remains operational and in range of Stanley.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top