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.