AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never understood one point: why did Argentina pull out it's elite troops, marines and such, and placed conscripts to defend the islands?!

Because Pinochet was conducting major demonstrations along the border to draw them off.

Imagine if the argentinian marines had been there; the fight would have been a lot harder...

The Argentine Marines were there, on Mount Tumbledown. They were no more able to stop the Scots Guards than their conscript colleagues were able to stop the Paras and RM.
 

Archibald

Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod 49
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Military_service 14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF) 9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet 21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Britannia#Military_operators 23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Shackleton (AEW) 12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor#Aerial_refuelling_conversion 44

If the VC-7 replace, first, the VC-10, Britannia, and Comet 4 for transport command, then that's 58 aircrafts.
Then if the VC-7 morphes into the Nimrod, add 49 aircrafts: 107 aircrafts. Then the next two logical steps are the tanker force (either the 23 VC-10 / Tristar, or the 44 Victors); and then the AEW (Shackletons).

Imagine that all these aircrafts become VC-7s. 128 aircrafts
plus 44 more if no Valiant or Victor tankers: 172 aircrafts !

58, 128 or 172 aircrafts: while no 800 KC-135s, still that's more than enough to kickstart the VC-7 career through the RAF.

so yes, it was a huge missed opportunity.
 
Last edited:
The Argentines are lucky. They sink the Canberra laden with troops and get the Ark Royal forcing the British to withdraw. Then the war spreads. Argentina, Peru and Bolivia jump Chile for backing Britain- ok that's the excuse. The real reason is that Chile took the Bolivian seacoast and land from Peru while Argentina wants the Beagel Islands. Brazil moves against Argentina to prevent her growth. Uruguay backs Argentina. After Chile is beaten, Bolivia then moves on Paraguay to regain the Chaco


Guatemala sees the beaten British and moves into Belize and Mexico then moves against the Guatemalans

They didn't need to sink the Ark Royal - the British were one step ahead of them

16948692710_c80144596c_b.jpg
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod 49
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Military_service 14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF) 9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet 21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Britannia#Military_operators 23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Shackleton (AEW) 12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor#Aerial_refuelling_conversion 44

If the VC-7 replace, first, the VC-10, Britannia, and Comet 4 for transport command, then that's 58 aircrafts.
Then if the VC-7 morphes into the Nimrod, add 49 aircrafts: 107 aircrafts. Then the next two logical steps are the tanker force (either the 23 VC-10 / Tristar, or the 44 Victors); and then the AEW (Shackletons).

Imagine that all these aircrafts become VC-7s. 128 aircrafts
plus 44 more if no Valiant or Victor tankers: 172 aircrafts !

58, 128 or 172 aircrafts: while no 800 KC-135s, still that's more than enough to kickstart the VC-7 career through the RAF.

so yes, it was a huge missed opportunity.
Would be cool but it hits the time problem that its a later aircraft to some of them, that at least initially would cost more due to its size?
44 Victors are rebuilds
12 Shackleton's are nearly a decade earlier
21 Comets 13 are Comet 2s that got rejected by BOAC,
23 Britannia order would be swapped as they are effectively compensation for the factory.
49 Nimrods would work
14 VC10 are second hand in late 70s
9 Tri stars are much later second hand post 1982

I think we are only talking about 72+ aircraft not 172 with hindsight the entire Comet/Nimrod program is the bigger main issue.

So not sure you can really afford it on the OTL budget.
 
Argosy? Kind of like a flying boxcar that one.
I made a mistake. It was one Andover squadron and not one Argossy squadron.

The last Argossy transport squadron (No. 70) had already converted to the Hercules. However, No. 115 Squadron operated Argossies in the calibration role until 1977. There was also a plan to convert 14 into T Mk 2 crew trainers, but that was abandoned. I don't know if that was part of the 1974 Defence Review or because of the 26 Scottish Aviation Jetstreams which were originally ordered to replace the Varsity as a multi-engine pilot training aircraft.
 
The Sandys, Healey and Knott defence reviews receive nearly all the attention on this board. The Mason Review of 1974-75 is hardly discussed. However, I think maintaining HM Forces at pre-Mason levels to the end of the Cold War is a lot more realistic than the "What If No Duncan Sandys and Denis Healey Reviews" threads and variations thereof that popup on the board regularly.

The Mason review can't bring back the British aviation industry or fixed wing aircraft carriers, that's why it doesn't get the attention of the earlier 2.

E.g. Fearless and Intrepid would have been in full commission as amphibious assault ships, instead of one as the cadet training ship at Dartmouth and the other in reserve. Bulwark would have been in continuous service since 1976 instead of being paid off in 1976, brought back into service in 1979 (for a projected 5 years) but paid off in 1981.

Ideally the RN would have its 3 big amphibs rotating through the full commission-fleet training ship-refit/reserve cycle. However I think that would require a change of defence policy in 1966 where Britain decides that its best contribution to NATO would be its carrier ands amphibious strike capabilities that other NATO nations don't posses at the expense of RAFG and BAOR.
 
Ideally the RN would have its 3 big amphibs rotating through the full commission-fleet training ship-refit/reserve cycle. However I think that would require a change of defence policy in 1966 where Britain decides that its best contribution to NATO would be its carrier ands amphibious strike capabilities that other NATO nations don't posses at the expense of RAFG and BAOR.
My ideal is that the UK would be rich enough to do 3 strike carriers, the amphibious force, RAFG and BAOR.

The British requirement was for 3 commando carriers. My guess is to ensure that one was "East of Suez" at all times. It's often quoted that it was planned to complete Leviathan as a commando carrier. Centaur could have been converted into a commando carrier after 1965 and Albion could have been run on after Hermes was converted into a commando carrier. My guess is that neither was done because of the usual lack of money and personnel shortages.

I've never come across it in a book, but I presume that the requirement was also for 3 Fearless class to ensure one was "East of Suez" at all times and that the third one wasn't built for the same reasons that there was never a third commando carrier.
 
The Mason review can't bring back the British aviation industry or fixed wing aircraft carriers, that's why it doesn't get the attention of the earlier 2.
Agreed, but I still believe that the Mason Review deserves more attention.
 
My ideal is that the UK would be rich enough to do 3 strike carriers, the amphibious force, RAFG and BAOR.

The British requirement was for 3 commando carriers. My guess is to ensure that one was "East of Suez" at all times. It's often quoted that it was planned to complete Leviathan as a commando carrier. Centaur could have been converted into a commando carrier after 1965 and Albion could have been run on after Hermes was converted into a commando carrier. My guess is that neither was done because of the usual lack of money and personnel shortages.

I've never come across it in a book, but I presume that the requirement was also for 3 Fearless class to ensure one was "East of Suez" at all times and that the third one wasn't built for the same reasons that there was never a third commando carrier.

I don't really have a problem with Britain withdrawing from East of Suez to focus on NATO, my problem is that when cuts are made they're made on the RN and its NATO tasks rather than the Army and RAF and their NATO tasks. If it were me I'd retain the strength of the RN to conduct the NATO task of Strike Group 2 and when cuts have to be made reduce BAOR by a battalion or two and RAFG by a squadron or two, by a mix of withdrawing to Britain as well as disbandment.

Agreed, but I still believe that the Mason Review deserves more attention.

With transport aircraft it shed a lot of orphan fleets, if the RAF had bought a bunch of Belfasts instead of Hercules then the Mason review could still shed a bunch of transport squadrons but retain a core strategic airlift fleet of 3 or 4 Belfast squadrons.
 
With transport aircraft it shed a lot of orphan fleets, if the RAF had bought a bunch of Belfasts instead of Hercules then the Mason review could still shed a bunch of transport squadrons but retain a core strategic airlift fleet of 3 or 4 Belfast squadrons.
Although it's not my preferred solution Shorts did expect an order for 30 Belfasts and tooled up its production line accordingly, but due to the East of Suez withdrawal it was cut back to 10 aircraft. In your TL the full order of 30 aircraft could have been built and the Britannias prematurely disposed of.

Then instead of the HS.681 and C-160K buy 66 BAC222s (licence built Hercules with Tyne engines) it might be more expensive than the C-130K but the money spent on the HS.681 to cancellation IOTL might be enough to make up the difference and the Treasury might like it because it saves Dollars. With hindsight it might also have been better to buy about 15 BAC222s instead of the 31 Andover C Mk 1 of OTL.

Then in 1974 No. 46 (Transport) Group, RAF Strike Command still has 12 squadrons, but there are 3 Belfast, one VC.10 and 8 BAC.222 squadrons instead of the one VC.10, one Belfast, 2 Britannia, 6 Hercules, one Andover and one Comet squadron of OTL.
 
I don't really have a problem with Britain withdrawing from East of Suez to focus on NATO, my problem is that when cuts are made they're made on the RN and its NATO tasks rather than the Army and RAF and their NATO tasks. If it were me I'd retain the strength of the RN to conduct the NATO task of Strike Group 2 and when cuts have to be made reduce BAOR by a battalion or two and RAFG by a squadron or two, by a mix of withdrawing to Britain as well as disbandment.
I agree that it was probably a better contribution to NATO, but cutting the forces in Germany probably wasn't possible on political grounds.

OTOH the first Phantom fighter squadron in RAF Strike Command was formed with the F-4Ks intended to replace the Sea Vixens in Eagle's fighter squadron so keep 899 Naval Air Squadron in commission instead of forming No. 43 Squadron RAF. When 892 NAS was disbanded when Ark Royal was retired IOTL the plan was to form a second F-4K squadron in No. 11 Group, Strike Command, but instead they were rotated among the existing fighter squadrons.

The RAF's Buccaneer maritime strike squadrons could have been swapped for more FAA Buccaneer squadrons. So in your TL 800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons could have been run on from the early 1970s to the end of the Cold War as Buccaneer squadrons instead of forming Nos. 12 and 208 Squadrons in RAF Strike Command. Also the short lived No. 216 Squadron replaced 809 Naval Air Squadron, Ark Royal's Buccaneer squadron.

Furthermore AFAIK the Shackleton AEW Mk 2 was to replace the Gannet AEW Mk 3s aboard the aircraft carriers. So instead of taking the radars off 12 Gannets and fitting them to surplus Shackletons simply maintain another 3 flights of 4 Gannets in 849 Naval Air Squadron from 1972 instead of reforming No. 8 Squadron RAF. The money spent on the Nimrod AEW IOTL was probably enough to pay for 15-20 E-2C Hawkeyes to replace the Gannets.

That gets you enough aircraft for 3 strike carriers to the end of the Cold War without having to cut RAF Germany at all. You still need the crews though. In the 1970s it might be possible to keep Eagle going to 1978 by sacrificing Tiger and Blake. But as the crew of one CVA.01 was about the size of one infantry brigade two or three infantry brigades will have to be cut from BAOR in the 1980s on the basis of two strike carriers in commission and the third in refit/reserve.
 
I agree that it was probably a better contribution to NATO, but cutting the forces in Germany probably wasn't possible on political grounds.

OTOH the first Phantom fighter squadron in RAF Strike Command was formed with the F-4Ks intended to replace the Sea Vixens in Eagle's fighter squadron so keep 899 Naval Air Squadron in commission instead of forming No. 43 Squadron RAF. When 892 NAS was disbanded when Ark Royal was retired IOTL the plan was to form a second F-4K squadron in No. 11 Group, Strike Command, but instead they were rotated among the existing fighter squadrons.

The RAF's Buccaneer maritime strike squadrons could have been swapped for more FAA Buccaneer squadrons. So in your TL 800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons could have been run on from the early 1970s to the end of the Cold War as Buccaneer squadrons instead of forming Nos. 12 and 208 Squadrons in RAF Strike Command. Also the short lived No. 216 Squadron replaced 809 Naval Air Squadron, Ark Royal's Buccaneer squadron.

Furthermore AFAIK the Shackleton AEW Mk 2 was to replace the Gannet AEW Mk 3s aboard the aircraft carriers. So instead of taking the radars off 12 Gannets and fitting them to surplus Shackletons simply maintain another 3 flights of 4 Gannets in 849 Naval Air Squadron from 1972 instead of reforming No. 8 Squadron RAF. The money spent on the Nimrod AEW IOTL was probably enough to pay for 15-20 E-2C Hawkeyes to replace the Gannets.

That gets you enough aircraft for 3 strike carriers to the end of the Cold War without having to cut RAF Germany at all. You still need the crews though. In the 1970s it might be possible to keep Eagle going to 1978 by sacrificing Tiger and Blake. But as the crew of one CVA.01 was about the size of one infantry brigade two or three infantry brigades will have to be cut from BAOR in the 1980s on the basis of two strike carriers in commission and the third in refit/reserve.

Easy - cut down on the Civil Service staff supporting BOAR - at one point in the early 90s it's strength in Germany alone was significantly larger than BOAR itself
 
Easy - cut down on the Civil Service staff supporting BOAR - at one point in the early 90s it's strength in Germany alone was significantly larger than BOAR itself

We had a similar thing happen here, a bunch of jobs like admin, publications management and other jobs that are not mobile and don't really require uniformed people to perform were civilianised en masse, which got these jobs done much cheaper.

I agree that it was probably a better contribution to NATO, but cutting the forces in Germany probably wasn't possible on political grounds.

A political justification would be required, which means expending political capital which is why I think it wasn't done, but I think if a strong argument was put forward then the Europeans would accept it, especially since they have no choice.

....snip......That gets you enough aircraft for 3 strike carriers to the end of the Cold War without having to cut RAF Germany at all. You still need the crews though. In the 1970s it might be possible to keep Eagle going to 1978 by sacrificing Tiger and Blake. But as the crew of one CVA.01 was about the size of one infantry brigade two or three infantry brigades will have to be cut from BAOR in the 1980s on the basis of two strike carriers in commission and the third in refit/reserve.

Some of the crew from CVA01&2 would come from the crews of the, Ark Royal, Hermes and the I class; a few thousand men right through 80s. BTW I think only 2 CVAs would do the trick, it would get 2 sqns at sea all the time and surge 4 or more when 2 CVAs happen to be in commission at once every few years.
 
The Brooklyns have a myopic range for main battery. Doing a Yamato is NTB. Type 42 is similar.
The guns have a range of about 18km, that's enough to cover Stanley and the ground between the hills and the town. As for the Type-42, I'm thinking about the Sea Dart battery, which would disrupt British air attacks on the area.

How is ground floatation? I thought the Argentinians tried it and they found the ground too spongey.
I honestly don't know, but if the airstrip was able to handle C-130s, shouldn't it be able to handle Mirages, had it been extended?
I know. I meant a larger toll.
Atlantic Conveyor carried Chinooks. One survived the sinking. So it ain't gonna happen.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. I was talking to the presence of a small detachment of Argentine soldiers covering the place were the British disembarked. IOTL, they've fired flares, which didn't work, to illuminate the disembarking troops, fired blindly with recoilless 105 guns until they were eventually forced to retreat. My scenario involves the flares working, so the gun crews can see their targets and aim properly. Two 105mm guns won't stop the disembark, but they can cause casualties.
But THEY DID. Their torpedoes went wild. Saved Invincible.
The SST-4 torpedoes the Argentine Navy was using weren't working. The navy knew that, but didn't manage to fix them until after the war.
Not likely. The British do have a bomber force (Harriers) of their own and Argentine SAM and AA is worse than the RNs.
The Sea Dart battery in either Type-42 destroyer would hamper the Harriers if they try to engage Argentine fighters within SAM range. Better trained troops should also mean the Air Force is putting the guys who pinpoint targets to attack aircraft were they should. The British would still be able to carry out more sorties, but it should also open up for more precise sorties by the Argentine Air Force, both by fighters deployed in the mainland and those surviving fighters deployed in the islands.
 

Kaze

Banned
For the British-

The easiest way is the Invasion of Argentina itself. British land in Argentina march towards the capital and force a peace on their terms.

For the Argentinians -

An alliance with the IRA to bomb certain locations in London proper.
 
But THEY DID. Their torpedoes went wild. Saved Invincible.

The ARA subs made no attacks on the Invincible.

Santa Fe was caught on the surface at Sth Georgia and run aground in sinking condition.

San Luis made an attack on a pair of frigates north of Stanley on 1 May and another attack on a pair of frigatea on 10 May and was back in port by 17 May.

Salta was not operational during the war.
 
The guns have a range of about 18km, that's enough to cover Stanley and the ground between the hills and the town. As for the Type-42, I'm thinking about the Sea Dart battery, which would disrupt British air attacks on the area.

1. Myopic means minimum range where the guns cannot engage.

I honestly don't know, but if the airstrip was able to handle C-130s, shouldn't it be able to handle Mirages, had it been extended?

Not quite equal I believe. The landing of a hot Mirage into a long rolling stop is a lot different from a C-130 which was designed for short landings and rough field operations.

I know. I meant a larger toll.

Based on Barry's commentary about the operations at St. Georges, the SAS were utterly insane, his ship was playing blind fools tag with a Balao Guppy and the whole affair smelt more of Gilbert and Sullivan than proper operations as any professional navy would understand it. It is a miracle weather did not wipe out those SAS fellows for example.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. I was talking to the presence of a small detachment of Argentine soldiers covering the place were the British disembarked. IOTL, they've fired flares, which didn't work, to illuminate the disembarking troops, fired blindly with recoilless 105 guns until they were eventually forced to retreat. My scenario involves the flares working, so the gun crews can see their targets and aim properly. Two 105mm guns won't stop the disembark, but they can cause casualties.

Atlantic Conveyor when she went down took down 5 of 6 Chinooks, some spare Harriers, and a host of spare parts and some kind of Royal Marines tracked vehicles that resemble a commercial snow cat crawler. The debacle meant British infantry walked to Stanley instead of flew or rolled thus prolonging the campaign by two weeks. However one Chinook was aloft doing something when Atlantic Conveyor was exocetted. So the British did have the means of moving a VERTEN platoon behind any Argentians who tried to set up the defense you described. So, the capability to wipe the defenders out by vertical envelopment existed. It was not used because it proved unnecessary. The Chinook therefore could be used for more vital logistics lifts at sea and was so used, which in itself probably saved the air campaign and again with supply dumping forward as the British infantry humped along helped the British ground effort at key moments. It, however, was only 1 Chinook and it was overworked to death. Boeing built a fine bird.

The SST-4 torpedoes the Argentine Navy was using weren't working. The navy knew that, but didn't manage to fix them until after the war.

To be honest, I think the Argentine submarine crews were not versed on the idiosyncrasies of the SST-4 and mis-wired the telemetry leads. They probably did not know what they did wrong. The torpedoes should have worked.

The Sea Dart battery in either Type-42 destroyer would hamper the Harriers if they try to engage Argentine fighters within SAM range. Better trained troops should also mean the Air Force is putting the guys who pinpoint targets to attack aircraft were they should. The British would still be able to carry out more sorties, but it should also open up for more precise sorties by the Argentine Air Force, both by fighters deployed in the mainland and those surviving fighters deployed in the islands.

Sea Dart is like an early STANDARD of the same era. SARH missile; Myopic illuminator range from ship radar illuminator to missile (Let's just say that the 6 Sea Darts the Invincible fired at the Etendard that exoceted the Atlantic Conveyor suffered lock off due to this condition.) limited it's effects at lows altitude. Estimated NEZ at medium to high altitude ~ 20,000 ===> 40,000 meters slant range 20 degree ascending slope. Lo=lo=lo pop up lob should kill any Type 42. It will take pilots with nerves of steel and courage of the type one associates with both the Argentine and British air forces. But the Type 42 dies.

Tactics can fox the SAM missile if the attacker knows the exploits. Viffing alone might suffice.
 
Last edited:
The ARA subs made no attacks on the Invincible.

Did not mention Santa Fe and Invincible. See below.

Santa Fe was caught on the surface at Sth Georgia and run aground in sinking condition.

Santa Fe's captain yakked on the radio and he was overheard. The British did not find him. He gave away his position and they stumbled across him..

San Luis made an attack on a pair of frigates north of Stanley on 1 May and another attack on a pair of frigatea on 10 May and was back in port by 17 May.

HMS Brilliant was the RN goalkeeper for HMS Invincible. In the USN parlance, she was the threat axis missile trap and ASW bodyguard on that same threat axis. San Luis was attempting to get past her to get Invincible.

Salta was not operational during the war.

Never mentioned Salta.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top