AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.

hipper

Banned
Context matters. HMS Brilliant was the bodyguard. It had to be evaded or removed. The San Luis tried to attack with SST-4s which went wild. The torpedoes failed. No failure and the next target would have been HMS Invincible. Abusus non tollit usum. Incorrect application does not omit correct use. (of the torpedoes.)

HMS Brilliant was about 100 miles from the Invincible that day
 
To both Hipper and Rianin. 100 nautical miles is about 10 hours combined closing speeds. By the way, the only chance a stalking nuke boat has against a listening SAG is by creeping speed closure. Besides we have WW II examples of how slow diesel electrics killed carriers. More than a dozen examples from Ark Royal to Wasp to Taiho.. , so a 100 nautical mile stalk is nothing when a carrier is pinned to an operational area by the range limit of its aircraft.

Just saying.
 
The USA backs the British, which would probably cause the USSR to back Argentina. The Argentinean Government suffers a coup that devolves into civil war with sides backed by either super power. The British already present at the Falklands get dragged in. The war for the Falklands doesn't really end as so much as be absorbed into the new Argentina Civil War.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The USA backs the British, which would probably cause the USSR to back Argentina. The Argentinean Government suffers a coup that devolves into civil war with sides backed by either super power. The British already present at the Falklands get dragged in. The war for the Falklands doesn't really end as so much as be absorbed into the new Argentina Civil War.

That would be a wholly different Argentina! The regime there was extremely anti-communist: Condor / Southern Cone comes to mind, so does helicopter murders for dissents. No way does Argentina want nor get Soviet support, not without a significant POD many years before and thus butterflying away the whole Falklands War as we know it.
 
That would be a wholly different Argentina! The regime there was extremely anti-communist: Condor / Southern Cone comes to mind, so does helicopter murders for dissents. No way does Argentina want nor get Soviet support, not without a significant POD many years before and thus butterflying away the whole Falklands War as we know it.

Very true. Remember that the US embassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, was a strong supporter of the regime, even at the expense of the UK. Imagine if Reagan had listened to her...

(yes, I know, hightly unlikely, but wth...)
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Very true. Remember that the US embassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, was a strong supporter of the regime, even at the expense of the UK. Imagine if Reagan had listened to her...

(yes, I know, hightly unlikely, but wth...)

That woman's name, not just for her anti-UK crap, has just given me a frown. A wholly terrible person whose views harmed so many.
I saw an Alt-Presidents list where she was president (as a Democrat) and that would have been a dystopia indeed.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
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.

Who for? Quite easy to boost the death toll for Argentines. There's only so much you can do to boost the death toll for the UK, without causing the abandonment of CORPORATE and the humiliating fall of the Thatcher government.
 
Now if I was the PM I’d not bother to send the fleet only the Vulcans along with a free fall nuclear weapon drop it some remote part of Argentina along with a cable to say 48 hours to pack up and go home or else.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Who for? Quite easy to boost the death toll for Argentines. There's only so much you can do to boost the death toll for the UK, without causing the abandonment of CORPORATE and the humiliating fall of the Thatcher government.

As I said how in that opening post.

Now if I was the PM I’d not bother to send the fleet only the Vulcans along with a free fall nuclear weapon drop it some remote part of Argentina along with a cable to say 48 hours to pack up and go home or else.

That would be fun... if you wanted to see one hell of a negative international reaction! Technically, Britain wouldn't have done anything wrong in reacting to an unprovoked military attack with a strike of their own but I don't see the whole world seeing it that way.
 
To do what? Install Gabriel missiles? This would also require new radar and guidance electronics. Not something you do in a rush.

I was thinking more along the lines of what the ship already has. 15 Soltam-upgraded 152mm guns would probably make things interesting.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
As I said how in that opening post.

A heavier death toll, even at the expense of the enemy, would alienate support for CORPORATE in the UK and the rest of the world. The disgust felt in Britain at the lives lost when the Belgrano was sunk was no small thing.
 
True how ever if no one is killed at all apart the the ones that died when the Islands were taken it’s a not a that bad yes the odd bit of radiation flying about

Thinking out of the box comes in to play. The Chinese take the long look ahead look what they have achieved so should we. It would send a message around the world not to mess with us in any way shape or form. We may have lost an Empire but this old Lion still has teeth.

A few years down the line the world would have gotten is knickers out of a twist then comes Hong Kong just think that at the beginning of negotiations on the new territory’s a hint was dropped some thing along the lines of remember the Falklands and how we reacted when we were pushed around.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of what the ship already has. 15 Soltam-upgraded 152mm guns would probably make things interesting.

This is 1982, and those are naval guns, not land-based. Afaik, no post-war army even uses that caliber. Yes, the soviets have 152mm guns, but I very much doubt they are compatible. And this is long before guided artillery rounds, anyway.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
A heavier death toll, even at the expense of the enemy, would alienate support for CORPORATE in the UK and the rest of the world. The disgust felt in Britain at the lives lost when the Belgrano was sunk was no small thing.

I don't know about that. I was a newborn at the time so I can't be certain but I believe that a lot of what we see now is revisionist when it comes to the Belgrano. I know it was opposed by politicians at the time but were the British people really that upset, especially with the Sheffield occurring a few days later? In my view, basis tribalism kicks in: they killed our guys so we'll kill theirs, Britain Rules etc.
As to the rest of the world, when does the death toll reach a level when the rest of the world says 'no more'?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
True how ever if no one is killed at all apart the the ones that died when the Islands were taken it’s a not a that bad yes the odd bit of radiation flying about

Thinking out of the box comes in to play. The Chinese take the long look ahead look what they have achieved so should we. It would send a message around the world not to mess with us in any way shape or form. We may have lost an Empire but this old Lion still has teeth.

A few years down the line the world would have gotten is knickers out of a twist then comes Hong Kong just think that at the beginning of negotiations on the new territory’s a hint was dropped some thing along the lines of remember the Falklands and how we reacted when we were pushed around.

Respectfully, Kaymay, I think you are going a bit too far with this.
I think you should reconsider how this might be interpreted by someone reading what you are saying.
I am not attacking you, I respect you, but it doesn't read well.
Please take on board what I am saying.
 
A heavier death toll, even at the expense of the enemy, would alienate support for CORPORATE in the UK and the rest of the world. The disgust felt in Britain at the lives lost when the Belgrano was sunk was no small thing.

I wasn't in Britain at the time, so I can't comment on what people in Britain thought of the action at the time. I would be surprised if there was that much concern that an enemy warship that had the potential to inflict damage on British troop carrying vessels was attacked and sunk. Tam Dalyell's later points about location and direction of sailing came significantly after the event.

Skimming back through UK newspaper headlines of the event, apart from the well-known Sun headline ("Gotcha"), we have "Death of the Belgrano" (Daily Mail), "Sunk" (Daily Express), and "Attacked cruiser sunk" (Mirror) were the main ones I located.

However, I freely admit to not being in a position to judge objectively.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top