AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unrealistic: Black Buck targets Buenos Aires?

Probably impossible - the refuelling plan for Black Buck was ridiculously complex and working to margins tighter than an Italian waiter's pants as it was. I'm not sure the UK has enough serviceable tankers to add another refuelling slot (and the refuelling slot may end up being so close to the Falklands/Argentina that it ends up being intercepted by Argentinian fighters).
 
The Argentines shell the Royal Marine barracks and the Governors house - this results in More casualties among the Defenders and Civilians

ARA Gurrera is hit harder and suffers a magazine explosion at South Georgia

HMS Superb sinks 21st De Mayo the same time as Conqueror sinks Belgrano?

One or more of the troop ships is bombed ie Canberra

The war escalates perhaps something flares up along the border with Chile or a neutral is sunk
 
Probably impossible - the refuelling plan for Black Buck was ridiculously complex and working to margins tighter than an Italian waiter's pants as it was. I'm not sure the UK has enough serviceable tankers to add another refuelling slot (and the refuelling slot may end up being so close to the Falklands/Argentina that it ends up being intercepted by Argentinian fighters).

Isnt Buenos Aires closer than Port Stanley - checked and its significantly closer!

Not saying its a good idea though!
 

Philip

Donor
Unrealistic: Black Buck targets Buenos Aires?

Dropping unguided 1000lb bombs from altitude on a large city? That gets very ugly very quickly. Keep in mind that this is only seven years removed from Vietnam and at the height of both the Cold War and the anti nuclear movement. Once the the pictures of dead children and crying mothers hit Fleet Street, public opinion could turn quickly.

Such an attack also changes the nature of the conflict. It is no longer a dispute over a colonial territory. Brazil and Peru almost certainly enter on the Argentine side. Soviet anti-imperialist propaganda runs wild.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Argentina takes hostages from British people who are in the country and packs them into the hold of the Belgrano and makes it public knowledge. So either the UK has to kill hundreds of British people by sinking it, or Argentina gets to bring in lots more soldiers which makes taking the islands harder.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Argentina takes hostages from British people who are in the country and packs them into the hold of the Belgrano and makes it public knowledge. So either the UK has to kill hundreds of British people by sinking it, or Argentina gets to bring in lots more soldiers which makes taking the islands harder.

There's been some outlandish ideas here but this takes the prize for utterly improbable.
Argentina taking British civilians as hostage when they went all out to win the propaganda/diplomatic war (and failed) and then putting them in their best WARship informing the British that they are there. Hundreds of civilians in the hold of the Belgrano - does it even have a hold? Even if it did, 100s of people mean Black Hole of Calcutta conditions.
Think about that for a few moments.
 
People are overthinking this a bit. There are several possible events that would ramp up the total loss of life badly with minimum changes.

Already mentioned:
Hermes or Invincible hit by Exocet.
Splendid sinking 25deMayo
Bombing Canberra. Fitzroy was horrific on its own, and the Great White Whale was carrying the best part of a brigade, not a single battalion.

Another possibility is if Belgrano suffers a magazine hit and goes down with 1000+ dead instead of 350ish.
 
No one remembered this?

The 25 de Mayo never managed to launch it's A-4s due to a combination of low speed (it's machinery always had problems) and unseasonably weak winds. What if it managed to launch 8-10 A-4s loaded with 2 bombs each? A surprise atack, from an unexpected angle...

Another possiblity: the RN misses the Belgrano, who then closes with the assault fleet, with it's 15 6" guns...
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
No one remembered this?

The 25 de Mayo never managed to launch it's A-4s due to a combination of low speed (it's machinery always had problems) and unseasonably weak winds. What if it managed to launch 8-10 A-4s loaded with 2 bombs each? A surprise atack, from an unexpected angle...

Another possiblity: the RN misses the Belgrano, who then closes with the assault fleet, with it's 15 6" guns...

An air attack by those A-4s would have been interesting. Carrier aircraft v carrier aircraft, a first since WW2.
If the Belgrano came forward on a gun-run, she'd certainly face attack by Exocets and Harpoons from RN warships. Maybe she gets lucky, maybe she burns though from multiple hits.
 
An air attack by those A-4s would have been interesting. Carrier aircraft v carrier aircraft, a first since WW2.
If the Belgrano came forward on a gun-run, she'd certainly face attack by Exocets and Harpoons from RN warships. Maybe she gets lucky, maybe she burns though from multiple hits.

There were no Harpoons in the RN's surface fleet in 1982. It would be left to the Exocets of whatever ships were not covering the carriers (I doubt those would be pulled out of escort duty). And the Belgrano wasn't alone; when it was sunk there were 2 old destroyers with it, so that's at least 3 targets. I just wish I knew how many 40mm these ships had, to put up a wall of lead vs the Exocets...
 
No one remembered this?

The 25 de Mayo never managed to launch it's A-4s due to a combination of low speed (it's machinery always had problems) and unseasonably weak winds. What if it managed to launch 8-10 A-4s loaded with 2 bombs each? A surprise atack, from an unexpected angle...

Another possiblity: the RN misses the Belgrano, who then closes with the assault fleet, with it's 15 6" guns...
But if HMS Invincible is mission killed, the British are one carrier loss away from being forced to retire. If HMS Hermes gets hit before the paras disembark, then there is no ground combat and we don't have a bloodbath, as OP asks.
 

Archibald

Banned
Have more Argentina bomb exploding, better prox fuse, twice as much British ships damaged or sunk.

More British nuclear subs sink more ennemy ships.

Drag Pinochet' Chile into the war. Considering how close from war these two countries got in 1978, and the nutjobs in command (Pinochet vs Galtieri, very much an arse vs a bastard) there should be blood all over the place.
 
But if HMS Invincible is mission killed, the British are one carrier loss away from being forced to retire. If HMS Hermes gets hit before the paras disembark, then there is no ground combat and we don't have a bloodbath, as OP asks.

I'm not certain the carriers would be the target. The assault ships would be a much easier target, both to find and hit.
 
The assault ships would be a much easier target, both to find and hit.

On the contrary, San Carlos water was a very tough place for fast jets to attack amphibious ships due to the high-ish, steep-ish hills. The amphibious ships were hidden by these hills which then made actually attacking the ships very difficult when they finally got into the 1982 equivalent of the attack on the Death Star.

6468481%20.jpg
 
More catch up to do.

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.

Massacre at Stanley. Either by the Argentinians, and with the "gentleman" Galtieri and the other "gentleman" Anaya, it could happen. Their miscalculations tended to run in those directions. Or something British initiated; like the Vienticinco de Mayo lost with all hands.

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 Canberras 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 Harriers 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.

Maybe the British can do these things, but the Argentinians cannot. They could not even solve the simple NT 32 problem or the bomb fuse dilemma they had.

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.

Demonstration. I'm not sure that was not a feint as postulated.

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.

No, I disagree. The minute the US enters the war, it becomes a US/Soviet thing and that is one thing the UK government does not want.

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

As I speculated.

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 Brooklyns have a myopic range for main battery. Doing a Yamato is NTB. Type 42 is similar.

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.

How is ground floatation? I thought the Argentinians tried it and they found the ground too spongey.

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.


It did.

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)

Since Anaya was trying a hammer and anvil carrier and SAG attack, I would say sink both. The British actually tried and were unsuccessful due to fog of war.

One of the British troop transports gets bombed at San Carlos. The bombs detonate.

Entirely too plausible. Spanish mercenary "volunteer" technicians were working with Argentine air force ground crews to solve the fusing problem on the British made bombs the Argentinians used aboard their A-4s.

Operation Mikado goes ahead.

Considering some of the bozo operations the SAS tried and failed to execute in the Falklands campaign (St Georges), I can see the Argentine air garrison (USAF trained) massacring the attempted raiders. Easily.

Operation Algeciras goes ahead too, sinking a British tanker at Gibraltar.

That would be a mirror image disaster.

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.

Atlantic Conveyor carried Chinooks. One survived the sinking. So it ain't gonna happen.

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:

But THEY DID. Their torpedoes went wild. Saved Invincible.

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.

He who wins the recon battle sets the ambush. Did Harriers present carry an IR search camera? I think they did.

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.

Not likely. The British do have a bomber force (Harriers) of their own and Argentine SAM and AA is worse than the RNs.

Dropping unguided 1000lb bombs from altitude on a large city? That gets very ugly very quickly. Keep in mind that this is only seven years removed from Vietnam and at the height of both the Cold War and the anti nuclear movement. Once the the pictures of dead children and crying mothers hit Fleet Street, public opinion could turn quickly.

Politically the prologue sets the world stage. See above for how Argentina can set the stage for "deserving it".

Such an attack also changes the nature of the conflict. It is no longer a dispute over a colonial territory. Brazil and Peru almost certainly enter on the Argentine side. Soviet anti-imperialist propaganda runs wild.

The US is arm twisting in the OAS like crazy. 50/50 at best.

No one remembered this?

The 25 de Mayo never managed to launch it's A-4s due to a combination of low speed (it's machinery always had problems) and unseasonably weak winds. What if it managed to launch 8-10 A-4s loaded with 2 bombs each? A surprise atack, from an unexpected angle...

Possible. The Argentine naval fliers were USN trained. They would have been deadly. Wind over deck (no working catapults) was the difference.

Another possiblity: the RN misses the Belgrano, who then closes with the assault fleet, with it's 15 6" guns...

More to fear from Exocet.

On the contrary, San Carlos water was a very tough place for fast jets to attack amphibious ships due to the high-ish, steep-ish hills. The amphibious ships were hidden by these hills which then made actually attacking the ships very difficult when they finally got into the 1982 equivalent of the attack on the Death Star.

The AAF found a way. They hit their targets. The bombs if they had worked could have devastated the RN fleet gathered there. Losses SHOULD have been double what was suffered. 14 ships instead of 7.

It was a close run, as in razor blade thin, thing for both sides.
 
They could not even solve the simple NT 32 problem or the bomb fuse dilemma they had.

If it could be solved it wouldn't be a dilemma, it'd just be a problem. Its all pretty easy really, just fly high enough for the fuses to spin long to arm, that they would have to eat a buffet of Sea Darts etc is neither here nor there.

The AAF found a way. They hit their targets. The bombs if they had worked could have devastated the RN fleet gathered there. Losses SHOULD have been double what was suffered. 14 ships instead of 7.

If! It wasn't a fluke that the bombs didn't go off, as you said earlier it was a dilemma; I'd love to see some actual analysis about if the AAF flew at heights where their bombs would go off how many more would be shot down and of the survivors how many bombs would hit to explode.

It was a close run, as in razor blade thin, thing for both sides.

It really wasn't, as the war progressed British forces became stronger and they bought new technologies online, as befits one of the world's great powers an a permanent member of the UNSC. The only reason that the war was a close run thing was because of the half-arsed way in which Britain undertook it, but of course they could afford to.
 
Watch that British admiral on the video and then thank your stars that the glitches in the Argentine tech existed. The Spaniards had imported different DAFs (KAPPAS) for the 1000 pounders.

By the way, it was the British made bombs that failed. The American made bombs seemed very effective.

Torpedoes:

The NT-32s should have worked. No-one has ever explained what happened aboard the San Luis and why they did not. One speculation I've read was that the San Luis fired an SST-4 at HMS Brilliant and that was the torpedo that actually failed. Shrug.
 
Last edited:
My, we are a blood thirsty lot here. Threads on making WWII last longer. A bloodier Falklands. OK, I'll pitch in.
1) As noted, a much stiffer fight by the Royal Marines.
2) Heavier civilian or local defense forces casualties
3) On going guerilla operations.
4) Argentina conducts "ethnic cleansing" operations consisting of killing civilians
5) One or more carriers sunk on either side.
6) The UK finds a way to strike at mainland Argentine bases
7) Other South American nations join in. Brazil attacks Ascension Island? Chile siezes the rest of TdF. Peru and Chile get into a border conflict. Or Peru and Ecuador. The UK calls on the Commonwealth for help.
8) The Reagan Administration sends a two carrier task force along with one or two MAU's to the South Atlantic to try and cool things down. Something stupid happens. Maybe a Brazilian ship gets too close and gets sunk.

The possibilities are endless in terms of mis-calculation by all parties. But in the end the Paras and Royal Marines will take Port Stanley. A bloodier Flaklands sees the Argentine Navy destroyed. The Air Force gutted and the junta ousted. But in my mind the one thing that would have caused the Falklands to get really nasty is #4. If that happens the Argentine government has painted itself into a corner with no way out.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top