AHC: Make the Falklands War more lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have no imagination.
Rail guns! Drones with hellfire missiles! Laser anti-torpedo zapping system!

Nice if it was actually capable of taking some combat damage without flooding and turning turtle first.

The only thing on offer from Israel would have been Gabriel missiles which had much shorter ranges than the Exocet on board RN ships and maybe some EW enhancements.
 
Well if the Argentines decided to flat out exterminate the Islanders (it would hardly be a step too far for a Junta that murdered thousands of its own people, and which saw the Islanders as the main threat to their claim over the Falklands) then im guessing that there would be a far heavier Air/Naval bombardment campaign conducted against Argentine positions (since collateral damage would no longer be an issue), and a much bloodier battle once the UK forces got to Stanley since the Argentine garrison would be far less certain of any mercy (and frankly less likely to get any), and would have less issues regarding house-to-house fighting in now empty buildings, leading to near total Islander deaths and much higher Argentine casualties. Thats assuming however the war ends with the UK retaking the Islands, instead of carrying out some form of retaliatory strike against mainland military installations which could swell casualties even further.
 
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.

Well, apart from the accelerated supply of the most modern versions of the Sidewinders, satellite images, continuing information supply through the Mission, and so on.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.

There's a long answer to my point but the short answer is that it wasn't their war. There were many documented political issues and geo-political reasons too. But there is that too: it wasn't America's war to fight. The Falklands weren't covered by NATO and no formal request was made by the UK to have the Americans fight for Britain.
Britain got those super-duper Sidewinders and the US was kind enough to let Britain use their airbase at Ascension when it was British territory.
America didn't have to fight with Britain and it would have been easier if they had, but they didn't because it wasn't their war.
 
You have no imagination.
Rail guns! Drones with hellfire missiles! Laser anti-torpedo zapping system!

Yes, exactly! lmao

I guess if the Chileans get involved...

Well, It would certainly make things easier for the Brits, the Chilean cruiser force would scare the crap out of the Argentinian command.
 
Well, apart from the accelerated supply of the most modern versions of the Sidewinders, satellite images, continuing information supply through the Mission, and so on.

There's a long answer to my point but the short answer is that it wasn't their war. There were many documented political issues and geo-political reasons too. But there is that too: it wasn't America's war to fight. The Falklands weren't covered by NATO and no formal request was made by the UK to have the Americans fight for Britain.
Britain got those super-duper Sidewinders and the US was kind enough to let Britain use their airbase at Ascension when it was British territory.
America didn't have to fight with Britain and it would have been easier if they had, but they didn't because it wasn't their war.

You guys are just proving my point. The question was how to make it more lethal. I think its to get US troops on the ground.
 
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.

Your getting further and further away from the events of May 1st to justify this point.

May 1st was the day the TF entered the TEZ after its month long journey south, while it did come to within 70 miles of Port Stanley at one point it had not established a pattern of behaviour that could be exploited by a submarine. San Luis was pre-positioned north of Stanley, it hadn't stalked its way there because prior to May 1st there were no ships to stalk. Nor was anything other than the vaguest intelligence be available for the San Luis to act upon; 707 shadowing had ceased about a week ago, the Harriers had attacked Stanley and Goose green airfields and a Navy Tracker was semi-shadowing the TF. While this may have been enough for Wanklyn, Kretschmenr, Morton or even Christopher Wreford-Brown on Conqueror to begin a slow and patient stalk of a CBG, helped by an ever increasing intelligence picture this isn't what San Luis captain did; he half-arsed fired a torp at a pair of frigates and then proceeded to get depth charged for 20 hours.

As for closing speeds, why would the CBG close with a submarine that had been detected 100 miles away and was being attacked by frigates detached specifically for that task? I don't know the movements of the CBG as the San Luis contact was prosecuted, but I doubt it would have been towards the scene of action. The CBG wasn't 'pinned to the operational area' until the landing on May 21, buy then the San Luis had conducted another failed attack on a pair of frigates at the northern end of Falkland sound on May 10 and then arrived back in port on May 17.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
The US position on the war was very luke warm. They publicly supported the British, but there was little in actual military support.

Really? Nine Lima Sidewinders; Stinger missiles; M16A2 for the SAS; use of Ascension Island and Lajes; transfers of fuel, ammunition and Harrier spares; and the biggie: US National Technical Means (satellite surveillance of Argentina/Malvinas)

Ask calbear.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
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.

I lived in the north of England in 1982, near ports that supplied STUFT ships to the Task Force - I was ten years old. I could not find one adult (not even relatives who were WW2 veterans, RN veterans) who could explain, much less justify, why we drowned 320 sailors.

Maybe it was different in Westminster, Romford, Birmingham or Swindon.
 
Really? Nine Lima Sidewinders; Stinger missiles; M16A2 for the SAS; use of Ascension Island and Lajes; transfers of fuel, ammunition and Harrier spares; and the biggie: US National Technical Means (satellite surveillance of Argentina/Malvinas)

Ask calbear.
I posted some pictures earlier of USAF C-5s at Ascencion Island. I don’t think they were carrying diapers and baby formula.

All that early stuff was '2nd track' stuff that Reagan wasn't aware of because there wasn't a unilateral US position until 30 April; there were factions favouring unconditional support for Britain and other factions who feared such support would undermine the anti-communist efforts in Latin America within the Reagan administration.

That said the decision was between neutrality and support for Britain, there wasn't a 'lets load up the Argies' option.
 
I lived in the north of England in 1982, near ports that supplied STUFT ships to the Task Force - I was ten years old. I could not find one adult (not even relatives who were WW2 veterans, RN veterans) who could explain, much less justify, why we drowned 320 sailors.

Maybe it was different in Westminster, Romford, Birmingham or Swindon.

It was certainly different in San Carlos Bay. That much I can confirm.

I find it difficult to believe that not one adult could come up with the view that: it was a war; the Belgrano was an enemy warship; it posed a potential threat to British forces; therefore it was sunk when opportunity presented itself; when sunk, sailors died (just like they did on Sheffield and Antelope and Ardent and Coventry and others).
 

hipper

Banned
Really? Nine Lima Sidewinders; Stinger missiles; M16A2 for the SAS; use of Ascension Island and Lajes; transfers of fuel, ammunition and Harrier spares; and the biggie: US National Technical Means (satellite surveillance of Argentina/Malvinas)

Ask calbear.

The US did not grant permission for the use of Ascension Island, they just refilled the fuel tanks there. I don’t think that Harrier spares were provided from the US either.

I’ve never seen any of the Falkland admirals claim they saw anything from satellite surveillance.
 
Someone was asking what the British public thought about the Belgrano sinking? I was in secondary school at the time in 3rd year (current parlance that's Year 9). We (well ok the boys) were following it avidly. I can remember a sense of jubilation when she was sunk and then later on what was up with some adults debating the matter. At least two members of my form ended up in the forces, one a bandsman and the other (don't blame me) a redcap.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
I find it difficult to believe that not one adult could come up with the view that: it was a war; the Belgrano was an enemy warship

We were not at war with anyone when the Belgrano was sunk, and no British ships had been attacked.

People where I lived universally loathed Thatcher, and sinking the Belgrano did not endear her to them. It was an clear act of provocation to stymie a peaceful but embarrassing resolution.

That feeling fell away when HMS Sheffield was attacked in revenge, but not by much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipbuilding_(song)

With a higher death toll, fringe opinions like this will become mainstream in Britain.

https://genius.com/Crass-how-does-it-feel-lyrics
 
Last edited:
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top